Congestion charges? Good or bad?

Hmm well reading about Porsche's claims of the Kings College report's findings, now I'm not so sure.  The theory is that because of the congestion tax, people will drive around London, which means driving further and thus increasing their emissions, which the study seems to think will more than offset any emissions decrease within London.

I'm a little skeptical of this result, but not knowing the details or having seen the study itself, I can't really say much about it.  Apparently King's College is revising it.

"Sean Beevers, who heads the research group at King's, said that, after further discussions with TfL, "we now understand that the results contained in our draft reports in relation to traffic pollutants and carbon dioxide need to be refined. This problem arose due to ambiguity in the assumptions used."

He added that a revised report showing that carbon dioxide emission figures would be broadly in line with the TfL figures would be released shortly."

I think the answer to this question also depends on what's done with the congestion tax money.  If it's used to improve public transportation, for example, that can also help to reduce emissions further.  But it appears not to be as cut and dry as I initially thought.

Wow - I definitely didn't see the emissions INCREASE happening in this scenario, but I'm not sure that's the most import factor (to me at least) in weighing this as an option anyway.

I know in going to San Francisco regularly I've second guessed my transportation options several times because of what a pain in the neck it is to find parking and get around. These types of fees could be the right thing to getting people to ride their bikes or take public transit.

Also, as always, Dana is spot on with putting the increased revenue towards better public transit...the fact that I have to transfer from Caltrain, to BART, to Muni to get around is just silly and none of them are particularly great....alas, that's a conversation for another day...