Drivers of cars over a decade old £10 toxicity charge to drive through central London

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I suppose somebody has to pay for immigrants.
 
£250 million revenue & congestion is the same as ever

It's worth noting that congestion is just the same as it was in 2003, with the same low average speeds across the capital as 14 years ago.

Of that £250 million, 40% goes into the administration costs, and the other £150 million subsidises the bus network, with about £7 million ( 3%) going into bike paths.

Air is cleaner than it was, but that may just be due to 14 years worth of improvement in engine specifications - as older (pre-1990) cars have been scrapped, and cleaner emission vehicles introduced.

Some roads continue to be emission nightmares: Putney High Street, and Marylebone Road - simply because too much traffic crawls slowly through those roads - both black spots could be fixed by the inconveniently routing traffic elsewhere - but no-one has the guts to do it.
 
Last edited:
Cars are not really the real problem here, there was an experiment recently where a guy who lives in the suburbs was fitted with some kind of air quality monitor on his daily journey to work in London.

From the minute he woke up and cycled to the train station the air quality was fine but the journey on the train to London showed the exhaust from a diesel train actually lowers the air quality inside the carraiges a great deal, which was a big surprise.

Similiary, from the station to his office air was very poor in any street that had a lot of buses & taxis present. Not sure how another tax on cars is going to change anything.

That is the same as Glasgow city centre's Hope Street, the most polluted air in the city and the street is always full of buses & taxis, most cars avoid it.

Russ
 
probably not that many as most delivery and courier vans are quite new.

Delivery vans perhaps , but vans belonging to individual self employed tradesmen like painters , plumbers , joiners , shopkeepers etc are often older .

Of the overall population of vans one sees daily on the roads , a good proportion are older .
 
Cars are not really the real problem here, there was an experiment recently where a guy who lives in the suburbs was fitted with some kind of air quality monitor on his daily journey to work in London.

From the minute he woke up and cycled to the train station the air quality was fine but the journey on the train to London showed the exhaust from a diesel train actually lowers the air quality inside the carraiges a great deal, which was a big surprise.

Similiary, from the station to his office air was very poor in any street that had a lot of buses & taxis present. Not sure how another tax on cars is going to change anything.

That is the same as Glasgow city centre's Hope Street, the most polluted air in the city and the street is always full of buses & taxis, most cars avoid it.

Russ

Friends of the Earth published a list on their website showing Hope Street to be the most polluted street in EUROPE , and of course , part of it is restricted to buses and taxis only . It is also one way , steeply uphill in places , with traffic lights at every junction , so these things will be factors .
 
It is also one way , steeply uphill in places , with traffic lights at every junction , so these things will be factors .

And we all know the roads authorities favourite way to control the flow of traffic is to time the traffic light sequence to make sure cars have to stop at each set. The roads authorities are part of the problem too, maybe they should pay a special tax?

Russ
 
And we all know the roads authorities favourite way to control the flow of traffic is to time the traffic light sequence to make sure cars have to stop at each set. The roads authorities are part of the problem too, maybe they should pay a special tax?

Russ

Can't say I've experienced a 'green wave' driving there , yet surely with the grid system it would be easy to implement ?
 
This is not unreasonable. The current Congestion Charge is based on greenhouse gas emissions, and not on emissions affecting air quality. The new charge should tackle that.

But the real issue (yet again) lack of 'Brunelism'.... i.e. no vision, foresight or investment. We all know that the only answer to poor air quality (and poor health for residents) in our busy cities is use of EVs. This won't happen until someone finds the billions required to invest in charging infrastructure (i.e. a charging point at every parking place, not just a couple at the street corner), and more nuclear power plants.

But when the cost is mentioned ministers (and Mayors) cough and look at the ceiling... then go back to their offices to draft yet another tax bill that is supposed to resolve the issue (it won't) but in reality will only generate more income to allow them to implement those unrelated short-term policies that will get them reelected.... and so it goes.
 
Bringing back trams and reducing or getting rid of diesel buses would also help .

Some cities have already done this and more will surely follow .

Electric trolley buses may be a cheaper option .
 
Last edited:
While nobody likes taxation if the government [ local or national] wishes to alter people's behaviour in a democratic capitalist society then despite all the protests to the contrary this appears to the method most politically acceptable to the majority. In the event even these measures often appear half hearted because full effective implementation is simply a step too far politically or too economically disruptive to existing business practice or lacks the required infrastructure. So the end result is a series of economic "nudges " to try to get folks to alter their behaviour patterns in this case in the light of increasing medical evidence to abandon the use of diesel engines in urban environments. The final result probably as someone has said is eventually a total ban on internal combustion engines in urban environments but that's likely to be some way down the line for the reasons given above. :dk:
 
Ok, so everybody carries on driving into London and pays the Tenner,
Air quality remains exactly the same, but thats ok because we paid!

which proves its yet another money making farce
 
So this new charge they will get of drivers that choose to go in to London, will the council make bus, and train fare all free. They should . Or is it another little cash spining scam .
 
Cars are not really the real problem here, there was an experiment recently where a guy who lives in the suburbs was fitted with some kind of air quality monitor on his daily journey to work in London.

From the minute he woke up and cycled to the train station the air quality was fine but the journey on the train to London showed the exhaust from a diesel train actually lowers the air quality inside the carraiges a great deal, which was a big surprise.

Similiary, from the station to his office air was very poor in any street that had a lot of buses & taxis present. Not sure how another tax on cars is going to change anything.

That is the same as Glasgow city centre's Hope Street, the most polluted air in the city and the street is always full of buses & taxis, most cars avoid it.

Russ
Its a big ruse to disguise another motoring tax, as you have pointed out if they wanted to get serious they would go after the real polluters.

I'm a disabled driver, I have no choice but to drive, public transport is terrible for my health condition
 
This is not unreasonable. The current Congestion Charge is based on greenhouse gas emissions, and not on emissions affecting air quality. The new charge should tackle that.

But the real issue (yet again) lack of 'Brunelism'.... i.e. no vision, foresight or investment. We all know that the only answer to poor air quality (and poor health for residents) in our busy cities is use of EVs. This won't happen until someone finds the billions required to invest in charging infrastructure (i.e. a charging point at every parking place, not just a couple at the street corner), and more nuclear power plants.

But when the cost is mentioned ministers (and Mayors) cough and look at the ceiling... then go back to their offices to draft yet another tax bill that is supposed to resolve the issue (it won't) but in reality will only generate more income to allow them to implement those unrelated short-term policies that will get them reelected.... and so it goes.
When EVs are popular and tax intake goes down, new taxes will come in for EVs don't you worry about it.
 
Thanks.

The link shows that diesel cars registered after September 1st 2015 are exempt from the tax.

My EU6 car is compliant but registered before September 2015. The whole thing is the usual amateur hour one has come to expect from government.

Having said which, I'm glad I only lease it. I'd hate to have to sell it when all the other non-compliant cars are up for sale!
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom