Residents Protest Extended Congestion Charge
by Sami Grover, Carrboro, NC, USA on 02.18.07
Having just called the BBC out for their poor environmental performance, we’ll now have to thank them for the following story. It turns out that an extension to the London Congestion Charge which comes into force on Monday is meeting with some fierce opposition from the residents of Kensington and Chelsea. The fact that the original congestion charge has cut traffic by up to 20% in central London is not enough to convince many of those living in the extended charging area. They say that extending the charge is unnecessary, that it will divide communities in two, and that it will simply shift the traffic elsewhere.
A group of residents took to the streets to voice their opposition on Saturday, organizing a ‘go slow’. The areas of Chelsea and Kensington are generally considered to be wealthy, up-market parts of the capital, but protesters were adamant that this was not about protecting the rich:
"It is the politics of envy. It is totally wrong. This borough is very, very mixed, there are a lot of people on low incomes in north Kensington. They will all be hit by this. My husband is connected to a handful of restaurants in the West End financially. They are going to be hit badly."
Whether this opposition will endanger the viability of the extended charging zone will remain to be seen. Certainly it shows that not all of the solutions to traffic, congestion and transport emissions are going to be universally popular. ::BBC
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
Duck Hunters & Tree Huggers Have A Common Interest
|
Osisu Design's Beautiful Reclaimed Teak Furniture
|
NYC needs to implement this. It would be easy, too, since all entrances to the city are controlled. Everyone else has to pay for metro-north or LIRR or NJT or even PATH tickets, why should the most environmentally wasteful get away.
While the Congestion Charge has reduced congestion, it should be remembered that most of the area that falls within the current zone is non-residential or barely residential. Extending the charge into the residential areas will make the congestion charge less effective, as if people are going to be charged anyway, they might as well use their cars. Both transport for London (the people who look after London's roads and other modes of transport, such as the underground) and the mayor admit it - http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23382209-details/C-charge+West+will+make+congestion+worse,+admits+TFL/article.do
The real problem with the new Congestion Charge Zone is the Residential Discount of 90% given to those that live within the Zone. So, with the Zone being extended, the real issue is that those people can travel freely thru the Zone by paying less than £1 ... this may increase congestion throughout the entire Congestion Zone.
I support this and many other congestion taxes ... including the pay-as-you-go road pricing plan that has raised such opposition here in the UK. Maybe the Government will have some balls and stick to there position ... charging everyone for the distance and time at which they travel is a great idea. Not only will it reduce the amount driven but will also spread traffic out throughout the day.
Living within the CCzone and having to pay a 1/10th fee
will definately have its detractors among those who don't
reap the most benifit. This is, unfortunately, going to add another rung to the socio-economic ladder of adjacent neighborhoods and their "percieved" and actual zone boundries.
Given time and flexibility, this social experiment will transform neighborhoods while they are undergoing reshaping in form and function. I hope those residents, who are disenfranchised by this regulation, are not adversly impacted in the near term. This experiment in social engineering, will be watched closely by congested mixed use urban centers here in the USA. Lets implement this U.K. format carefully as to benifit dense metro communities and their economic interests as a whole. A community divided is no longer a viable community.
"charging everyone for the distance and time at which they travel is a great idea. Not only will it reduce the amount driven but will also spread traffic out throughout the day."
It will also make mobility something only the rich can do. The problem with consumption taxes is that they ALWAYS hit the poor the hardest. Do you think someone who drives a BMW is going to give it up because a pittance of a tax has been levied (in comparison to their overall income)? But guess what it does to those who live outside of the city (which is increasingly the working poor as they get gentrified out of the city cores)? It makes their travel that much harder, especially if there is no comprehensive mass-transit expansion as well.
The overwhelming focus in environmental circles on levying consumption taxes is wrong and betrays the kind of ignorance of class that supposedly has re-entered the environmentalism discussion.