Congestion Charge To Cut Co2 By Less Than 1%

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

hawk20

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
4,344
Location
Lymington, Hampshire
Car
ML250 BlueTEC Sport Jan 2013
CONGESTION CHARGE TO CUT EMISSIONS BY LESS THAN 1%
London mayor's plans will neither cut congestion nor drive down CO2, says SMMT

SMMT has called for an extension to the mayor's consultation on proposed changes to the congestion charge. In an initial response to Transport for London (TfL), the motor industry body has made clear that current proposals will neither significantly cut CO2 nor reduce congestion in the capital and that, given the complexity of the scheme, more time is needed for discussion.

TfL's own figures claim a CO2 saving of up to 8,100 tonnes under the plan to base central London charges on car CO2 emissions. That compares to total ground-based transport emissions in London of 9.7 million tonnes. In other words, the maximum benefit for the capital would be a CO2 reduction of just 0.084 per cent.

To put this in context, improvements at UK car and commercial vehicle manufacturing sites have cut CO2 from 2.14 to 1.36 million tonnes in just four years, a saving of 36.5 per cent. Average new car CO2 emissions have also come down by 12 per cent in a decade, saving an estimated one million tonnes of CO2 each year in the UK.1

Concerns about environmental improvements come after an independent report suggested that changes could encourage between 4-10,000 additional cars onto central London roads. That means more congestion and delays for drivers within the zone, as well as minimal benefit for the environment, if the plans proceed.

'The motor industry has asked the mayor for an extension to the consultation period to work with Transport for London,' said SMMT chief executive Christopher Macgowan. 'The issues are complex and TfL must be absolutely clear about the scheme's aims. Its execution must also deliver the greatest benefit both in terms of congestion and CO2 reduction and the charges to drivers must be proportionate.'

Notes:
1. At €20 bn, the automotive sector is Europe's largest investor in R&D, driving industry forward and helping deliver more sustainable motoring for the 21st century. Technological innovation has helped car and CV manufacturers slash CO2 and air quality emissions from vehicles. New diesel cars for example emit 95 per cent less soot from the tailpipe than those made 15 years ago and average new car CO2 has been cut by 12 per cent since 1997.

Each vehicle made in Britain requires half the energy to produce than it did just five years ago, saving an estimated 700,000 tonnes of CO2 a year. Total combined waste to landfill down by more than half, from 80,399 tonnes in 2000 to 39,862 tonnes in 2006. For more details, download SMMT's eighth annual Sustainability Report from the SMMT web site www.smmt.co.uk/publications.
 
Don't be surprised to see this proposed exemption being phased out in a few years ... or rather, just after the next election.

Cynical? Moi?
 
Ahhh, the tide begins to turn....I shall rev my V6 extra hard this evening to celebrate
 
Which exemption?

The exemption you started your thread with:confused:

From Feb 08 the proposal is that cars producing 120g CO2 or less will be exempt from the charge, and those producing 225g CO2 or more will have to pay £25 per day (including residents who currently get a 90% discount).
 
The exemption you started your thread with:confused:

From Feb 08 the proposal is that cars producing 120g CO2 or less will be exempt from the charge, and those producing 225g CO2 or more will have to pay £25 per day (including residents who currently get a 90% discount).
I don't see an exemption mentioned at the start of the thread. But it is clear that the exemption from the charge altogether for some cars will increase numbers coming into London. Seems Livingstone must decide is he trying to cut congestion, or save the planet by cutting emissions, or does he just want to spite better off people in larger cars.
 
But it is clear that the exemption from the charge altogether for some cars will increase numbers coming into London.

Are you suggesting that everyone will suddenly buy a diesel mini to avoid the charge, increasing road users?

It would be interesting to see some statistics to see the breakdown of London traffic between groups ie. residents, school runs, commercial vehicles etc.

Driving a car into central London during business hours is currently a complete waste of time and money and then you have to find somewhere to park... my only beef with Ken is there is not enough bike parking spaces, oh and expensive public transport.

Ade
 
I live and work inside the CC zone. I go to work by tube - would be silly to do otherwise.

Driving in Central London is a disaster - average speed is well under 10mph, you're usually stuck in endless delays, there are silly queues everywhere and little alternative routes possible that would lead you around some of the bottlenecks.

So, if the CC would have actually made a significant difference, I would not mind it, because on the odd occasion that I actually need to take the car through London, it could have made my life a lot better. Despite the claims of the politicians, the usual problems of congestion are still very much there, so in that respect the scheme has utterly failed IMHO.

As for reducing emissions, that is not what the scheme was set up for (it was a congestion reducing measure) and, as pointed out, it will not make any real difference in that respect either.

So, what is left? Just another money making scheme. It would not be that bad, after all public money is needed, but I do resent the fact that this is dressed up as some more "worthy" cause as opposed to just another way of extorting money out of us - with actually bugger all in return. We do not get less congestion, emissions (a red herring in the climate debate anyway) will not be reduced significantly and the money it raises is not improving the public transport either.

And for that I should give up driving my V8? Stuff that.
 
I don't see an exemption mentioned at the start of the thread. QUOTE]


Your thread started with quotes from an SMMT (Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders) press-release refering to proposed changes in the Congestion Charge. The changes are the proposed exemptions for low CO2 cars and higher charges for higher CO2 cars! :confused:

The SMMT are saying that the proposed changes will make bugger all difference to CO2 but will excessively penalise many car owners. It also points out how important the car industry is to the UK economy, etc.
 
Your thread started with quotes from an SMMT (Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders) press-release refering to proposed changes in the Congestion Charge. The changes are the proposed exemptions for low CO2 cars and higher charges for higher CO2 cars! :confused:

You're pushing it a bit, to be honest, a bit too much indirection and implied knowledge in your reasoning! :rolleyes:

Firstly, the current scheme has different charges and excemptions as well. The proposals are really proposals for changes to the current scheme, including but not limited to, aspects of the exemptions. As the word exemption wasn't even used in the article Hawk20 posted, his confusion was quite justified IMHO.
 
I just wish everyone stopped calling it "the congestion charge". Its got NOTHING to do with congestion and EVERYTHING to do with revenue raising.
If Livingstone was geniunely concerned with congestion, then why did he buy hundreds of buses that are 18 metres long to replace the old ones that were only 9 metres long?
Congestion charge my ar5e.
 
Hi,

By definition reducing congestion should reduce pollution. There's nothing worse than sitting in an idling car anywhere (trying to work out if it's worth switching off or not). So he (Ken et al) should have stuck with congestion reducing measures. Get these 'bendy' buses :eek: of the road (vote Boris) as these hold up the traffic (at least where I travel) no end and I never really understood why hybrid (RX400h) owners didn't have to pay. They occupy space just like other vehicles.

The concensus appears to be that this is yet another money making scheme, (just like SOME but not all, speed cameras ;) )

I hasten to add that like others I use public transport but congestion has got so bad again that I've had to forgo my evening bus ride (tolerable) for the tube :eek:

Cheers,
 
Are you suggesting that everyone will suddenly buy a diesel mini to avoid the charge, increasing road users?

Ade


No, of course not. Tax changes rarely cause all or nothing effects. But if you exempt some small cars, you should expect there to be more of them. Clearly this could lead to an increase in the number of cars as SMMT point out.
 
There was no need for the charge, other than to raise revenue. The vast majority of cars are under 10 years old, cars around 5 years old comply. So in 5 years time the target would have been achieved anyhow.

He won't even exempt motorhomes like mine, which are soon to have to pay a 3 figure sum, even though I drive it into London once a month and then park it for a week, staying it it saves considerable transport pollution. Someone with a 2nd car used rarely who lives there is in the same boat.

There is already a fair and direct tax on how much we drive, it's called fuel tax at around 70% of the value of the pump price. This is fair, as it takes into account how much fuel you use (proportional to emissions) and how far you drive. Road tax, 2nd vehicles being taxed, being taxed for parking the wrong side of the road et al, are not fair taxes.

But it raised a lot of money, and will do so even more.

Those with money will still drive and don't care.

Those without money who have to drive will still drive, but be even poorer.

Those who are poor who drive into London for no reason to drive around, will be stopped. I don't think this is many people.

Greg.
 
You got me there...replying to a three year old thread as if it started yesterday.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom