TfL ‘lies’ skew the vote on C-charge extension vote

Dear Mr Underscoreman,

Please don't change the subject titles to post your "Don't feed the Troll"
requests. You can put your messages in normal replies.

I was filtering "Don't feed the Troll", but you've gone and mis-typed it
this time, and probably you'll do it again or use different phrases. What
you're doing is messing up the newsgroup quite badly anyway. I don't
always want to filter threads when I'm looking back at old read messages,
for example.

~PB

Once again, the trolls will show how anti-motorist they are by
welcoming, rather than condemning, TfL's behaviour. Who do they think
they're kidding? Seriously, who? No-one is fooled. It's sad that
they're so deluded about that.

(By the way, I know the regulars on this group don't like reading true
facts which may in some way expose or hinder their anti-motorist
crusade; I apologise for posting some. Not. If you don't like the
truth then YOU are the one with the problem, and no amount of
hypocritical nonsense about "trolls" will change that one bit. You
need to stop blaming other people for your deficiencies, and accept
things for the way that they are. Motorists aren't *that* bad,
surely...why not take this opportunity to make your peace with them
and find some other, less spiteful way of making a difference?)

Now then, onto TfL's lies. (An anti-motorist organisation lying?
Fancy that. It's as if being anti-motorist and being a liar go hand
in hand.) Why are they trying to go against Boris when they're not
allowed to have a political viewpoint? They should be doing exactly
what Boris tells them, without

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...ote/article.do

TfL ‘lies’ skew the vote on C-charge extension vote

TFL is making a string of false claims and using figures it should
know to
be untrue to boost its chances of keeping the controversial western
extension of the congestion charge, a Standard investigation can
reveal.

As a consultation on the extension's future enters its closing stages,
the
Standard has established that much of the key information given to
those
taking part is misleading or wrong.

TfL has also ignored or misrepresented damning evidence from its own
research about the effects of the extension on business, emissions,
local
bus services, and congestion. It has overlooked a finding by its own
researchers that "the rapidity of the deterioration in [traffic]
conditions
inside the western extension has been striking".
In its main leaflet for the consultation it claims that the impact of
the
charge on the area's businesses has been "mixed" or "broadly neutral."

In fact, its own separate research, quietly published six weeks ago,
found
"deteriorating business performance" inside the extension zone,
compared
with improving performance in a control group of businesses just
outside it.
The same research found a "more *pronounced" trend of falling retail
sales
in the extension zone than outside. It found that the number of people
who
shopped in the western zone during the week had fallen by two per cent
but
that there was a rise of one per cent at the weekend, when the charge
does
not apply.

TfL's leaflet claims that the charge has "helped to reduce vehicle
emissions". In fact, its research found that "it has not been
possible to
identify a clear congestion charging effect' on measured air quality"
and
that "no clear scheme impact [on air quality] from either the original
central or western extension zones can be discerned". TfL claims that
the
charge has "encouraged people travelling in the area to use public
transport". In fact, its research shows that "frequency of residents'
travel by car was largely unchanged".

The research - contained in TfL's sixth Congestion Charging Impacts
Monitoring Report, published in August - also finds that average bus
speeds
and bus waiting time in the extension have either not improved or have
"deteriorated slightly" since the charge came in. Although there has
been a
small rise in bus use since the extension came in, the number of
people
entering the extension zone by bus remains fewer than it was in 2004.

TfL claims in its consultation leaflet that the net revenue loss to
transport in London from scrapping the extension would be £70 million.
In
fact, its own documents show that extending the charge to the west
gained
only £14 million of extra net revenue in its first year - a fifth of
the
amount claimed.

Even the then Mayor, Ken Livingstone, in an Assembly answer in
February,
claimed only that the net revenue loss from scrapping the extension
would be
"£45-55 million" - and that was on a basis including revenues from the
so-called "gas-guzzler" charge of £25, with no residents' discount.
Many
residents in the western extension zone own such vehicles. Since this
scheme
has now been scrapped, the expected revenue loss would now be much
less.

On the central question of congestion, TfL says that congestion in the
extension zone is broadly the same as it was before the charge. In
fact, its
own research shows that congestion is significantly worse in each
month than
in the corresponding month before the charge was introduced.

Congestion in January and February 2007, for example, the last months
before
the introduction of the charge, was 3.1 minutes per kilometre.
Congestion in
January and February 2008 was 3.35 minutes per kilometre. The TfL
researchers admit: "The rapidity of the deterioration in conditions
inside
the western extension is striking."

TfL has claimed that the extension's failure to tackle congestion is
due in
large part to roadworks at a single *junction, the so-called "Scotch
House
Corner" at the intersection of *Knightsbridge and Kensington Road.
However,
its own research admits that there is "a general deterioration across
the
[road] network [in the extension], rather than an exaggerated impact
[at
this *location]".

TfL says the other single most important factor in the rising
congestion is
the adjustment of a traffic signal timing at Grosvenor Place in
Victoria.
However, this traffic signal is not even within the zone, but is on
the
"free" road running through it.

TfL's leaflet also claims that there has been a reduction in traffic,
with
30,000 fewer cars entering the extension each day. This is true.
However,
the research shows that approximately a third of those cars now divert
round
the edges of the zone. There are a further extra 3,000 daily car
movements
in the original central zone as residents in the western extension use
their
discount privileges to drive into the West End.
The total number of car journeys cut by the western extension is thus
only
17,000, little more than half that claimed.

A TfL spokeswoman said the organisation's claim of a £70 million net
revenue
loss was based on "detailed modelling". She said it was "too early to
fully
evaluate" whether the "mixed" impacts on business were due to the
congestion
charge or to wider economic conditions. The spokeswoman said the fact
that
the Grosvenor Place traffic signal was outside the western extension
was
"irrelevant" because the traffic delays it caused had a wider knock-on
effect. TfL failed to respond to the Standard's other findings.

The extension, covering most of the borough of Kensington and Chelsea
plus
most of north Westminster, was introduced by Mr Livingstone in
February 2007
despite opposition from 71 per cent of local residents and 80 per cent
of
businesses.
The new consultation, by the Mayor, Boris Johnson, offers three
options: to
keep the extension, scrap it, or modify it, perhaps with a three-hour
charge-free "window" in the middle of the day.

On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 08:17:54 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar wrote:

On Oct 1, 4:20*pm, _
wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 08:17:54 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar wrote:

Ah yes, the hallmark of a truly obstinate person: even when a
behaviour of his has been demonstrated to be detrimental to everyone,
as well as himself, he *will not* stop, because he's that arrogant.
(I should point out that each incidence of your garbage replies will
multiply your punishment. So you just keep doing it: the pleasure's
all mine.)