R2OK!

gfloyd

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7260602.stm

Do people think it right that the London congestion charge should be used against cars that allegedly are "gas guzzlers". The Mayor is proposing a charge of £25 per day to drive one of these cars into central London, whereas there will be a 100% discount for cars he likes.
_________________
His name was ernie ........ and he drove the fastest milk cart in the west.....

RockitRon · Joined: 07 Dec 2006 Posts: 7646

I don't know who coined the phrase "gas guzzler" - it smacks of American TV and/or tabloid journalism at its worst and it's ghastly - but in the case of the London so-called Congestion Charge it's inaccurate, since it is cars with high emissions, not necessarily those with high fuel consumption, that are to be penalised.

As well as Porsches, the new higher charge will catch somewhat more workaday cars as the Vauxhall Zafira and Volvo V70, while some models you might have thought would have qualified, such as the BMW X5 and Porsche's baby Boxster, don't - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7242445.stm#table

Very few cars have emissions low enough (120gm/km) to qualify for the 100% discount - the official estimate is 2%, against 17% for those they expect to be charged the punitive rate.

If there was any realistic chance that the quality of the air that Londoners and their visitors have to breathe would be improved by discouraging such traffic and by putting the proceeds of the scheme into energy-efficient public transport (by which I do not mean flooding the roads with double-deck (or even worse, "bendy") buses, most of which run almost empty, as they have already done) then it might be a laudable idea. However, the cost of implementing and administering the scheme exceeds the expected revenue and, although it is to be extended to cover HGVs and everything else apart from Ken's red buses in the future, I do not believe that any traffic runs through central London by choice, only by necessity, so that the effect on traffic volume, and emissions, and hence fresh air, will be minimal.

The whole excercise could therefore be viewed as the ego trip of a mayor who loves to control and interfere with personal freedom.

It shouldn't bother me, as I can safely say I am never remotely likely to drive within a hundred miles of his blasted scheme. As a taxpayer who picks up the tab for it and its consequences, by way of the subsidy London gets from UK Government, it makes me Evil or Very Mad

_________________
Ron

gfloyd · Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:35 am Post subject:

The_migster · Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:22 pm Post subject:

Just for my own ignorance, what is the ultimate goal of these charges?
Is it to try to reduce the amount of traffic in the city, or is it to try to persuade people to look more closely at the emissions of the car they are about to buy?

If it’s the former, then surely it can only work if there is already a good alternative in place. If it’s the latter, then I confess, it would make me look more closely.
Again, I also would never contemplate driving through London anyway so it won’t impact me, but it’s just round the corner for all those who drive through big cities I’m sure.
_________________
Mig Smile

RockitRon · Joined: 07 Dec 2006 Posts: 7646

Well, the current spiel from the offices of the mayor and tfL is that the aim is to improve the environment, to encourage the reduction of harmful emissions by punitively charging those vehicles that churn out the most.

However, I'm sure that the original intention of the "Congestion Charge" was to relieve London's traffic problems by charging private motor vehicles, encouraging drivers to use public transport instead. Since the Underground was already working at almost full capacity this meant paying the various large, publicly quoted bus operating companies huge subsidies to increase their fleets of diesel-guzzling, black-smoke-emitting 11 tonne red double deck buses to the point where the traffic is just as bad, but it's now mostly half-empty buses that you see lining up Oxford Street instead of BMWs and Mercs. (They're so frequent, in theory at least, that most parts of Greater London enjoy a service that's almost better through the night than anywhere else in the UK enjoys during the rush hour)

Other cities are looking to follow suit in one way or another, but they have to be mindful that London is unique in its wealth of shopping and other attractions for visitors and tourists and in the way it is funded. Some cities can ill afford to discourage people from getting easily into their centres, and can likewise ill afford to subsidise public transport when it comes out of their own council tax revenue.
_________________
Ron