I'll buttume that's a "yes, I agree with all that, however.." then.
The point? Is that point that "It's forced people not to drive into the zone"? Well, certainly it has, no arguement from me on that. Is the point that, as long as you can afford to pay Ken, you can do as you please?1
I've still not desputed the idea behind trying to reduce congestion, even though I don't necessarily agree with it and certainly don't agree with this implementation of the method. What I've been saying all along is that it hits the poorest people disproportionately harder. It's a regressive tax.
£8 to you might be a sandwich and a coffee; to some people it's almost a quarter of the day's take-home pay or more than their disposable income for the day.
Italy have tried a system where only cars with odd number registration plates can enter designated areas, alternating with even number registered cars on alternate days. Far from ideal, granted - but at least it doesn't hurt the poorest as badly (although as a person with more than one car, I'd simply buy one with an even plate and one with an odd plate). That aside, there have got to be smarter ways to acheive the goals.
1 Yes, yes, the whole "the money is ringfenced" arguement that falls down on closer inspection: All this ringfenced money - is it used *only* on projects that would otherwise not receive a single penny from other sources? If not, then simply they reduce their contributions from, say, council tax and use the money saved (an identical amount to the money raised through con charging) on their pet projects which may fall a long way outside that ring fence.
