Prepare to pay more on October 27 2008
12 February 2008

The Mayor of London’s office has just confirmed changes to the city’s congestion charge that will sting owners of cars emitting more than 225g/km of carbon dioxide to the tune of £25-a-day.The new congestion charge will come into force on October 27 2008. It is described by the London authority as “the world’s most ambitious scheme to reduce the contribution of urban traffic to greenhouse gasses”, and “a key part of the Mayor’s Climate Change Action Plan which aims to reduce London’s CO2 emissions by 60 per cent by 2025.”Although suggestions had been made to the contrary, Mayor Ken Livingstone has been true to his word and will provide a 100 per cent discount to the charge for cars than emit less than 120g/km of CO2, and are EuroIV-emissions compliant. That means owners of the likes of the Mini Cooper D, VW Polo Bluemotion and Ford Fiesta TDCi, as well, as those of the Toyota Prius and Smart Fortwo, will be able to drive through London for free.According to TfL statistics, 17 per cent of the cars that currently enter the charging zone are in VED tax band G, and will qualify for the £25 charge. Just 2 per cent using the zone are in tax bands A and B, and will therefore go free – but that figure is sure to rise once the changes come into effect.If you drive a car registered before September 2001 with an engine bigger than 3000cc, you’ll also be subject to £25-a-day. Rather arbitrarily, that means if you drive a W-reg BMW M Coupe (which is a low, four-meter car, and therefore not a big contributor to congestion) you’ll have to pay £25-a-day, but a diesel-engined Range Rover of the same age would get in for just £8.In justifying the change, Livingstone said: “nobody needs to damage the environment by driving a gas guzzling Chelsea Tractor in central London. The CO2 charge will encourage people to switch to cleaner vehicles, or public transport.”“Those who choose to carry on driving the most polluting vehicles will help to pay for the environmental damage they cause. This is the “polluter pays” principal.”

Join the debate

Comments
80

12 February 2008

And there i was thinking that the extra revenue generated from the extra fuel used / bought was paying extra to Gordon / Alistair already.

12 February 2008

Voltaire said “If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities.” Congestion Charging, Red Ken believes, is for the 'enviroment' but the CO2 debate is fundamentally unproven science.
Firstly you really have to search through the smoke-and-mirrors of the latest Transport for Londons report to find anything approaching an honest statement on Ken achieving his aims. Shrouded in layers of gobbledegook and spin there's barely a clear statement anywhere to be found. Talk about honesty or accountability!
Kens' objectives for Congesion Charging was to reduce pollution... firstly CO2 isn't 'pollution'. We breath it out and plants need it and breth it in. All road transport contributes just 0.6% of atmospheric carbon dioxide. If all the cars in the world were removed tomorow there'd be no impact whatsoever on world CO2 levels. And pollution levels are identical inside the zone to the day it was introduced. If Ken thinks removing cars from London helps the planet then he's frankly insane! Failed on 1.
“It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair, American Author (1878–1968)
Secondly Ken targeted 'congestion' to 'encourage' people out of comfy, efficient, covenient, all-mod-con cars onto inflexible, tatty, fume spitting public transport. Public transport is a sign of poverty in a country, the car a sign of affluence and progress. And public transport is subsidised massivey by the wealth and indeed efficiency of the motorist in order to run. How preverse!
And congestion is no better despite £250M a year on congestion charging of motorists. In fact the buses and taxis are running slower average speeds. Failed on 2.
Ken and TFL are fundamentally misguided in their aims and in the process are destroying the quality of life in London at a cost of £250M a year. How much longer do Londoners have to subsidise such blatant, abject failure?

12 February 2008

Hear Hear! JJBoxter, Agree with every word.

12 February 2008

[quote scummyplum]

Ban cows.

[/quote]

You can't do that - they just taste so good and make for really nice car seat covers

12 February 2008

[quote JJBoxster]

Public transport is a sign of poverty in a country, the car a sign of affluence and progress.

[/quote]

What's your source for this observation?

The countries that have the reputation for having great public transport systems tend to be very affluent and have a higher standard of living than the UK - Switzerland, Denmark, Netherlands etc.

[quote JJBoxster]

And public transport is subsidised massivey by the wealth and indeed efficiency of the motorist in order to run. How preverse!

[/quote]

Yes that's right and smokers pay for the entire NHS in tobacco taxes too! LOL

Talk about believing absurdities - Voltaire would probably give you a slap if he was alive and could get a fast enough car to catch you on your beloved Autobahns! LOL

I need to go now - my bus is due and Mr Livingstone hates it when I'm late in...

12 February 2008

DocB - Isn't it obvious? People can't afford personal transport in poorer nations so you may have noticed trains in India full to overflowing (inc. the roofs). The Tata Nano is helping improve that and you will notice people there (everywhere) jump at the chance of changing from public transport to private transportsoon as they can choose. Similarly communism was marked by use of public transport and 10yr waiting lists for cars.

Switzerland and Germany (don't know about Denmark) may have highly modern efficient trains but like the UK they're subsidised to the tune of billions like the UK to keep them running. Buses too.

Nobody wants to use public transport. It's expensive, inflexible, tatty. You only use it if you can't afford a car. You can see the pattern in all developing countries once wealth spreads through the population. At the moment we all holiday on mass-cattle class jumbos. One day we'll all have private Lear Jets. This is progress DocB.

12 February 2008

[quote JJBoxster]

DocB - Isn't it obvious? People can't afford personal transport in poorer nations so you may have noticed trains in India full to overflowing (inc. the roofs). The Tata Nano is helping improve that and you will notice people there (everywhere) jump at the chance of changing from public transport to private transportsoon as they can choose. Similarly communism was marked by use of public transport and 10yr waiting lists for cars.

Switzerland and Germany (don't know about Denmark) may have highly modern efficient trains but like the UK they're subsidised to the tune of billions like the UK to keep them running. Buses too.

Nobody wants to use public transport. It's expensive, inflexible, tatty. You only use it if you can't afford a car. You can see the pattern in all developing countries once wealth spreads through the population. At the moment we all holiday on mass-cattle class jumbos. One day we'll all have private Lear Jets. This is progress DocB.

[/quote]

Utterly bemused - this is someone who says the first thing that comes into his head. It's fantastic.

Funniest thing I've read in ages.

I'll put my order in now for a Lear Jet.

12 February 2008

'Urban areas are hot spots that drive environmental change at multiple scales. Material demands of production and human consumption alter land use and cover, biodiversity, and hydrosystems locally to regionally, and urban waste discharge affects local to global biogeochemical cycles and climate.' Published in Science, the world renowned scientific journal this last week.

JJB, there is a huge weight of scientific evidence in support of the climate change argument and urban centres such as London make a significant contribution to that. Even moving away from the climate change argument London is full. I visited it last week and observed as much. For this reason I think some form of system to remove people from their cars and into another form of transport is required. I think the £25 congestion charge on high fuel consumption cars is typical of Kens left leaning attitude and I dont agree with it but might support charging £25 for all cars. However I do like the idea that gas guzzlers will go down in price when all those daft enough to live in London have to sell them! I must also admit that as my visits to London are rare and always reluctant I genuinely could not care less.

12 February 2008

McMikey - Can I say with respect your 'evidence' from the Science publication is a crystal clear example of the inane, meaningless crap from climate scaremongers. That entire sentance is utterly meaningless garbage both in its component and in its entirety. It has no facts, no meaning and is total dribble designed to confuse and bamboozle and is utterly dishonest in its intent (most 'spinners' take the public for fools) and is very offensive. Who authored this crud?

Firstly the fact is climate models based on CO2 are flawed. You cannot actually build a climate model as it would be too complex for even todays super-computers and it is folly to pretend otherwise. The UK weather forecasters have new Cray super-computers and they can't predict the weather for the UK tomorrow with any accuracy let alone in 20yrs!

Secondly as I've posted vehicle omissions represent less than 1% of climate CO2. It's a fact. And it is also a fact taking all the vehicles off the road tomorrow would make no difference to CO2 and have no effect on climate whatsoever. CO2 tax on vehicle omissions is a fraud.

Finally the only known effect on climate change (with the exceptions of volcanic eruptions and asteroid impacts) is the sun. Earth is 'at the mercy' of the suns fusion reactions. And its warming/cooling effects have been happening for centuries. During the Roman occupation the UK was warm enough to grow and harvest wines whilst later centuries London regulalrly endured freezing solid winters.

"Just because an acorn falls on your head, doesn't mean the Oak tree will follow". Chinese proverb.

That sums up the scaremongers what they're claiming about global warming. The climate debate has no science behind it...just scientists wanting funding!

Pages

Add your comment

Log in or register to post comments

Find an Autocar car review

Driven this week

  • Lexus LC500
    Car review
    20 October 2017
    Futuristic Lexus LC coupé mixes the latest technology with an old-school atmospheric V8
  • Maserati Levante S GranSport
    First Drive
    20 October 2017
    Get ready to trade in your diesels: Maserati’s luxury SUV finally gets the engine it’s always needed
  • Jaguar XF Sportbrake TDV6
    First Drive
    19 October 2017
    The handsome Jaguar XF Sportbrake exhibits all the hallmarks that makes the saloon great, and with the silky smooth diesel V6 makes it a compelling choice
  • Volkswagen T-Roc TDI
    First Drive
    19 October 2017
    Volkswagen's new compact crossover has the looks, the engineering and the build quality to be a resounding success, but not with this diesel engine
  • BMW M550i
    First Drive
    19 October 2017
    The all-paw M550i is a fast, effortless mile-muncher, but there's a reason why it won't be sold in the UK