BBC has just started reporting that Boris is going to scrap the extension.

What a w***er.

Please explain why he is a w***er for scrapping the extension?

My thinking is thus:

For the UK's transport sector to effectively de-carbonise we need to move away from petrol / diesel and onto fuel cells / electric vehicles.

Fuel cells have a set a problems and are not ready to be rolled out accross the UK. Electric vehicles are a well understood technology and have been around for years. Many firms are rolling them out at the moment, including BMW, Chrysler and Smith.

Electric vehicles are CC exempt - you've seen how many G-wiz things have been on the streets recently.

Boris has just destroyed - realistically - the largest UK nieche where electric vehicles could be pioneered.

Also be honest - do you think the people who choose to drive into west london, rather than get the superb public transport, can't afford this charge? Honestly? It's a lousy ?8.

That is why he's a sponge.

But now it's been in place a year, are there any figures as to whether the extension has actually reduced car traffic overall, or just allowed people who live in K&C to drive to the city at a 90% discount?

And let's try getting 'decarbonised' electricity even for a decent fraction of domestic use before suggesting there's enough capacity to run cars renewably as well. When that's possible, road and fuel tax can be used as incentives.

TFL reports that:

? Traffic entering the extension area is down by about 13%

? Extension boundary route traffic is up by about 4%

? Traffic in the original zone is up slightly

? No adverse traffic impacts beyond the zone

? Extra bus services coping well with increased passengers

Decarbonised electricity seems to account for around 25% of UK electrical generation. That's plenty to be getting on with. Electric cars can (and must) be developed simultaneously as electrical decarbonisation takes place (which is happening at full tilt at the moment).

Generally I believe that this decision is purely to help out the rich of West London, and is a kick in the teeth for those of us who can't afford to live there, but still need to use the zone.

People living in Kensington and Chelsea who travel to original zone - bad for them.

People outside K and C who travel into K and C - good for them.

I see it as good as the rich folk in K and C have to pay more to drive into Central london proper, rather than getting the residents discount.

"Traffic in the original zone is up slightly" - suggesting few DROVE (not travelled) from the extension in.

"People outside K and C who travel into K and C - good for them". I disagree. I believe your analysis only assumes people would DRIVE into the extension zone, rather than get the bus, tube or cycle. How does this change affect them?

Who bears the extra cost of the buses now there is no extra revenue?

Who bears the capital cost of the infrastructure (which needs to be paid off like it or not) now that it has no revenue stream.

I'm going to guess the general tax payer.

So, my back-of-the-envelope stream of conciousness suggests everyone now funds "rich folk in K and C" who choose to drive into central london.

Where's the social justice there?

Oh, wait, we've a Tory in charge.

It should be pointed out that K&C residents and others living in the CC zone get ~ 90% discount on the Charge, essentially paying only a fraction of the full price of ?8 per day. It is not so much money and not nearly as big a revenue stream as TfL daily income.

So in fact the K&C residents will end up having to pay more to drive in to central London now, going against Flower's argument and backing up Andy Holland's.

Removing the charge gives an incentive for people living in the extension zone not to drive into the original zone, hence reducing congestion in the original zone where the major congestion problems are. How on earth does making rich K&C residents pay to enter central London proper mean that everybody else funds them?