ࡱ> @B?7 4bjbjUU G(7|7|4l$     &   N N N N N a a a $ "(a ] a a a ( N N = a N N  a   V2@N B (e^  r  S0~x# #    West London TfL Congestion charge consultation 6 Boston Gardens Freepost RLUA-CUHG-JGKL Hanwell Chiswick Gate London W7 2AN 598- 608 Chiswick High Road Tel/fax 020 8357 8426 London W4 5RT E-mail nic@wlfoet5.demon.co.uk 15 July 2005 Extension Of Congestion Charging Zone - Consultation Submission by West London Friends of the Earth Introduction 1.1 West London Friends of the Earth (FOE) is a network of local groups covering the borough of Hounslow, Hillingdon, Harrow, Ealing, Brent, Kingston, Hammersmith & Fulham, Kensington & Chelsea and Westminster. 1.2 This response covers issues which are common to significant parts if not all of the area covered by the network. It is therefore confined to the broader issues and does not comment on the details of the scheme. 1.3 Although our immediate airport is for the boroughs of West London, it is a key and consistent feature of our policies that we are not nimby. Our views on congestion charging and transport in general are guided by the need to protect and enhance the environment at local, national and global level. 1.4 The questionnaire is not entirely suitable for our response. To facilitate your analysis, however, we give the markings and cross-refer our comments (where applicable) to the questions. General comments (Q2, etc) The congestion zone has been spectacularly successful in central London. Traffic levels have been cut - the proportion of trips by car dropped from 46% to 42%. Congestion has been reduced, with delays reduced by around 30%. Buses have benefited greatly, with better services and more passengers. Reducing traffic has benefits other than reducing congestion and speeding up flows. It: reduces air pollution - nitrogen oxides down 12% reduces emissions of greenhouse gases - emissions down 20% makes travel easier for pedestrians and cyclists encourages a shift towards to walking, cycling and public transport improves safety for all road users It seems eminently sensible to extend the scheme and thereby capture benefits over a wider area. Charging for the use of congested road space is also consistent with the 'Polluter Pays Principle'. As well as applying to things such as air pollution, the principle extends any adverse impacts on other people, such as danger or congestion. Too much traffic is one of the biggest problems in London today and it is mentioned by more Londoners in surveys than virtually any other issue. As if it is not bad enough now, the forecasts are that traffic levels will rise considerably over the next 10 years and congestion will increase much more. Unless, that is, drastic measures such as congestion charging are introduced. There are very few methods proven to work. Apart from restricting road space for cars, charging for all parking spaces or imposing massive increases in taxes on motoring, congestion charging is the only way to effect change. Providing better bus and train services, while important and necessary, are not enough to effect major change. A 'stick and carrot' approach is necessary. The sticks are congestion charges and other means of restraining car use. The carrots are providing better facilities for pedestrians and cyclists and better public transport. For all these reasons, we believe the congestion charge should be extended. While we have some concerns about the precise coverage of the extension (see Q3 below) we accept that the general area is an expedient solution. Friends of the Earths view is that this should be just the start of more widespread congestion charging. In particular, charging around Heathrow should be considered. Ken Livingstone said (Breakfast with Frost, BBC1, 13 March 05) that while he wants to expand the congestion charge from its present area, because it cuts pollution by 20%, he doesn't want to extend it further than the current proposal. This is because he thinks by the time he would be considering it the government should have a national road pricing system in place. We will accept this until the new zone is introduced, but unless, by then, there is a firm commitment to take action at a national level within a sensible to timescale, we would look for the Mayor to seek further extensions. Area covered by scheme (Q3) We feel that the proposal is perhaps not radical enough in terms of its extent. However, we accept that the proposed area is an expedient solution, which we support as long as is conditional on consideration being given to further extensions when this one is complete. Concessions to residents (Q4) We do not wish to see residents being given too many concessions. Their cars, after all, cause much of the congestion, air pollution and greenhouse gases. They ought to be discouraged from excessive driving and they ought to subject to Polluter Pays, as are visitors. 90% seems rather a large concession. However, we accept discounts as a pragmatic component of the scheme. Excluded roads (Q5) We do not agree with these exclusions. Each exclusion tends to reduce the overall effectiveness of the scheme in reducing traffic levels. Traffic on the excluded roads will contribute to air pollution, greenhouse gases and accidents. By virtue of encouraging more traffic instead of less, they will also tend increase overall levels of traffic and congestion. Period of charge (Q6) We consider that charging should be for longer, possibly 24 hours a day. Air pollution, emission of greenhouse gases, accidents and congestion do not stop at 6pm. We do not accept the claim that the congestion charge would appreciably affect Londons economy. This type of unsubstantiated assertion is what is being used to justify many other environmentally and socially undesirable plans, for example, Heathrow Runway 3 and night flights. Other comments (Q7) We are concerned that the extension could, to an extent, dilute the original scheme. Because the area is now larger, motorists may actually be encouraged to drive because the congestion charge is now seen as better value. We hope that this issue has been fully considered in the design and that if it proves to be a problem, early modifications will be made. Summary of markings (Q1-6) Q1 Very important Q2 Strongly support Q3 Neither agree nor disagree Q4 Neither agree nor disagree Q5 Strongly disagree Q6 Disagree =CUlz%/<uvW X h ,4D 45\aJmH sH  aJmH sH  5CJ\mH sH CJCJCJ OJQJ^J OJQJ^J jUCJ +Uz$%<=>?uvcd0`0$a$$a$4W X s t * h l _ ` ,-  2334JK  "34 5$7$8$9DH$ &P . A!n"#n$n%# 0&P . A!n"#n$n%DdX&v  C RA:C:\My Documents\FoE\Logo.bmpbK $w'cOK=DnK $w'cOK=PNG  IHDR(A<sRGB0PLTExxxTTҏss00BBB^\#IDATHǭ?hwOAMr5蠸PLK1:,I7h [h3ިoL\aQlK(QC8)ѣaH)Ñ<%*OLjV+@HzKN⸒D[|]8eRjkvAj.)E{59ssmQ|É=2^fKӽyo\W֣2F1NlYى,LvdX䏓4&ʮЎ "QҨg w1$OAidVxVpÔR[ǫg!Hq6I>ݎӬSuBvQ`c?nfMy)"DB.F9\Nn1*uSH #fѠ\ေA r &Օ#,Y) N^o2}L6^ 26ֽ$ڌWڔԫ qȧ[ Ùdg@NqȆz%l:]Ī!#Zϋ{a6 _.kʠ1=)"F1TA 09bK^&G\ ml w2'b\Y߯9q/AɹJk5XdxgוtC "0 --IENDB` i@@@ Normal5$7$8$9DH$_HmH sH tH R@R Heading 1$5$7$8$9D@&H$5CJ\aJmH sH 0@0 Heading 2$@&CJNN Heading 3$<@&5CJOJQJ\^JaJxBx Heading 4#dd5$7$8$9D@&H$[$\$/5B* CJOJPJQJ\^JaJmH ph3sH <A@< Default Paragraph Fontl^l Normal (Web) dd5$7$8$9DH$[$\$!B*OJPJQJ^JmH phsH *B@* Body TextCJR"@R Caption" 5$7$8$9DH$^ `CJ aJmH sH >4("(Uz$%<=>?uvcdWXst*h  l_ ` , - 2334JK  "36000000000000`0000?000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000444l,R$%6e7b[K/@0(  B S  ?4^lryz *4:[a6ETdq,3jo  ".63333333333333333333333 Mr N FerridayjC:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Cong charge extension - WLFOE response.asd Mr N FerridayjC:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Cong charge extension - WLFOE response.asd Mr N FerridayjC:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Cong charge extension - WLFOE response.asd Mr N FerridayjC:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Cong charge extension - WLFOE response.asd Mr N FerridayjC:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Cong charge extension - WLFOE response.asd Mr N FerridayjC:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Cong charge extension - WLFOE response.asd Mr N FerridayjC:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Cong charge extension - WLFOE response.asd Mr N FerridayJC:\My Documents\Transpot\London\Cong charge extension - WLFOE response.doc Mr N FerridayJC:\My Documents\Transpot\London\Cong charge extension - WLFOE response.doc Mr N FerridayFC:\My Documents\WebSite\Rel 3\transport\traffic\congchargeresponse.docF_l-_R}ff2Vc~, ^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(opp^p`CJOJQJo(@ @ ^@ `CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(PP^P`CJOJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh pp^p`OJQJo(h @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh PP^P`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh pp^p`OJQJo(h @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh PP^P`OJQJo(F_R}fVc~0N6=(ZxY.R^Gj(q                  6@Dfd4@UnknownG:Times New Roman5Symbol3& :Arial?& Arial BlackA& Trebuchet MSW& ??Arial Unicode MSTahoma?5 :Courier New;Wingdings"qh ,$xx20 2Q;C:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Microsoft\Templates\Nicdoc2.dot Mr N Ferriday Mr N Ferriday Oh+'0  8 D P \hpx ssMr N Ferridayor Nr NNicdoc2Mr N Ferridayo2 NMicrosoft Word 9.0@F#@(G@>@> ՜.+,D՜.+,\ px  !West London Friends of the Eartho,,   Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSAtzC:\My Documents\FoE\Logo.bmp  !"#$%&'()*+,-.012345689:;<=>ARoot Entry Fl^CData 1Table#WordDocumentG(SummaryInformation(/DocumentSummaryInformation87CompObjjObjectPooll^l^  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q