What do you reckon?
Good idea
Bad idea
Don’t care either way
Other (please comment)0 voters
Political comments welcome, but if you make one, please use a new topic in the Politicos category (join Politicos to see this)
I chose bad idea. Perhaps surprising from a non-driver who advocates for public transport. But I’m not convinced this is the right solution. It seems to me that the existing low-emission zones and congestion charge haven’t solved any pollution crisis so I just don’t understand what another ‘tax’ will do.
If indeed diesel or petrol vehicles registered before 2006 are the key problem, then move to ban them all together. But in a phased manner and with proper incentives as some other mega cities are doing.
I went for Other as I still don’t know enough about the detail of the proposal to make a truly informed comment.If really pressed right now I’d come down on the side of “bad idea” as well.
I must confess to a vested interest here: I presently drive a diesel car, since when I bought it back in 2011 the official Government line was that diesel was the less polluting option. If the Government now wants to take the opposing view, and to actively punish those who took its advice only 6 years ago, then I think it’s reasonable that I and others like me should feel aggrieved. I’m going to be out of pocket right now, and the resale value of the car haa totally tanked when I come to replace it with a less polluting option.
Furthermore, there’s no commitment that I can currently see to use monies collected from this levy on measures designed to combat pollution, so right now this seems like just another money making scheme for the general fund pot.
IMHO, if Saddiq Khan is genuinely concerned about mitigating the effects of diesel usage in London he should instigate a 3 part strategy:
1 - set up a scrappage scheme for existing private diesel car users, along with incentives to replace their diesel with hybrid or electric vehicles
2 - make a commitment that all monies raised by the “toxicity charge” will be used exclusively on improving air quality
3 - look at ways of limiting commercial diesel vehicle usage in London during normal working hours at least.
I’d be happy to vote Yes for a package like that.
I think it is pretty much waste of time. I mean who drives through central London unless they have to and if the congestion charge doesn’t put you off then another £10 wont make any difference. I can’t see this changing people’ s behavior much. I haven’t driven in the Congestion Zone for years and I never will as I just don’t need to and for those that need to go there this will just increase the cost.
Also I gave up trying to see if my car qualifies or not - several pages in and I have to submit a form to then just to check if would have to pay - maybe that’s the plan - make everyone so confused they just give up driving in the congestion zone.
I have to agree with @starman - time for more drastic measures.
The first £10 per day is the cost of driving and therefore doing business in Central London for a lot of people; however, the second £10 is the cost of using a diesel rather than a petrol vehicle. The new charge is hardly likely to reduce congestion, but I think that it push a number of delivery vehicles to switch to petrol from diesel.
The most dramatic action is the Ultra Low Emissions Zone planned for September 2020. The ULEZ appears to merely involve extending the Congestions Charge to 24 hours per day (from the current 7 am to 6 pm).
I expect that the Mayor of London alone lacks the authority to take any dramatic actions, and this is a matter for the Government requiring legislation. It’s a hugely important issue that needs to be addressed before September 2020 as, in the meantime, there will be stillborn babies, premature and underweight babies, children growing up but developing a reduced lung capacity, and premature elderly deaths all from air pollution.
The new charge starts today.
Seems all the diesel black cabs are exempt from the charge, but other private hire vehicles will have to pay…
Licensed and insured private hire vehicles have always been exempt from the congestion charge
Any vehicle with a Private Vehicle Hire license is exempt so mini cabs, Uber (for now) and Addison Lee as well.
ETA
What a shame that this doesn’t apply to mini cabs and black cabs. All appear to have been given a licence to pollute.
Back in Jan 2016 Addison Lee did a nice bit of anti-Uber publicity that states that the increase in mini cabs have increased journey times by 10%. So not just more cars on the road, but slower journey times.
Uber stepped in to say “Londoners would be “astounded” that the Mayor had excluded black taxis from his ultra low emission zone as they are responsible for almost a fifth of nitrogen oxide fumes in central London.”
That line of thinking allowed all the private hire companies to get exempted too. Londoners are no doubt double-astounded that so many journeys are exempt. And we have probably now reached the point where it could be cheaper for me to get an Uber car into work than to take my own car. Something is just weird in that situation, but I’m sure the private hire companies will be most satisfied.
I think it would be nice for all polluters to pay the same, even if they have a taxi licence from TfL.
Pollution is killing us (literally) and anything that can be done to reduce this needs to be done. Carrot, stick, anything
I really cannot understand why do they need to create all that charges for drivers, including the con.charge in C. London in order to tackle the pollution when they could demand car manufacturers to develope some sort of filter or collector that can be fitted on the exhaust or inside the exhaust to collect all polluting particles. Or may be smth else. Why drivers and businesses have to be punished for smth they dont have control over?
I think this will help:
2040 is a long way off, but the effect of this policy will begin today, with car manufacturers forced to accelerate their electric vehicle R&D, and consumers more likely to demand EVs.
The government could have acted sooner, but it’s only recently that viable fully-electric cars have become affordable. Also the secondhand market lacks EVs. Things will change radically in the next few years. I have a Tesla on order and am very excited about it.
Great! If that works to bring new technologies into car business, I will support the ban. It is only needed for scientists backed up by car industries to come together and create a solution. The same applies for polluting factories. Great news!
Just imagine how amazing London will be once everything is electric. I’ll probably be dead by the time that happens though 
So, 23 years to develop the tech, infrastructure and the ability to charge a huge range of vehicles (37.5 million in 2017 so add one or two more to that by 2040). Smother me in sceptic!
Electric cars will not solve particular pollution from PM10 which is largely due to brake and tire wear. We need fewer car journeys.
Interesting - although I do think the anti-car lobby are potentially being ideological here.
One thing missing from that article is a like-for-like comparison of brake / tire wear air pollution compare to exhaust pollution. If the harm from both is equivalent then perhaps EVs aren’t worth bothering with after all.
If, on the other hand, brake / tire pollution is fractional compared to exhaust pollution, then articles like this are dangerous because they will put environmentalists off EVs despite real-world benefits
Regenerative breaking, already used in hybrid and fully-electric vehicles, severely reduces break dust pollution, but the author of the article likely imagined that adding such a fact wold dissuade from his point, so left it out.
Not according to this study (the higher vehicle weights seem to counteract the benefits from regenerative breaking).
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135223101630187X
From 2020 all newly registered private hire vehicles will have to be zero emissions in order to get a license as well.
May I suggest that in a highly congested city, such as London, the emissions from stationary vehicles is likely to form a larger percentage of pollutants. For non-congested areas, with less time spent stationary, the pollutants from engines may form a proportionately smaller part of the pollution (but still high).
Professor David Begg said:
“Congestion dramatically increases carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles.
“Under heavily congested conditions tailpipe emissions can be increased by a factor of three or four times.”
Based on this hypothesis it is useful for major cities to switch to Electric vehicles which can sit in traffic jams producing zero pollution. Even when they go slowly (and it is rare in London to get up to 30 mph), most of the pollution is likely to be eliminated by Electric vehicles. Even switching from diesel to petrol will produce some small benefits.
Good point @Michael.
On an unrelated note I just read that this new tax on polluting cars is so costly to implement that it won’t actually make a profit.
Bit of a pity eh?
Seems they should have just tweaked the existing congestion charge. But that wouldn’t have won such prominent PR for Khan…
Where does it indicate that they could have tweaked the existing CC?
Also it actually does say
Mr Khan has launched the T-charge to tackle London’s air pollution and prepare the city for the introduction of the ultra-low emission zone, which he plans to introduce in April 2019.
He said the ultra-low emissions zone would “bring in revenues and that revenue will be ring-fenced to improve the quality of air”.
So they will eventually make a “profit” which will be used to help air quality.
I’m sure there would be just as much criticism if the scheme was making a profit.
I wonder how much money was wasted extending the C-zone and then reducing it back down? Possible much more than £7m
I wonder how much higher the charge would need to be to make a profit? No doubt it will be increased to reach this level, or possibly extended to the additional 100,000 taxis polluting central London. You could probably argue that London taxpayers and subsidising the exemption for mini-cabs.
I think London and the Mayor’s office should be commended for their efforts. They have taken a lead in the UK where other cities were meant to follow. Back in December 2015 the Government announced plans to create Clean Air Zones in a number of major urban centres like Birmingham and Leeds. London was excluded from these plans because London was already ahead of the curve.
In London the Mayor has a well-developed strategy for improving air quality by 2025, including the implementation of an ultra-low emission zone by 2020, retro-fitting of buses and licensing new taxis to be zero emission capable from 2018. We will continue to support and monitor the delivery of the Mayor’s plans.
Unfortunately the Government didn’t follow through so it’ll be likely down to individual urban authorities to create policy and lead the way. They can look to London for innovation.
I’m sure I read in another article (may find it later) that the number of affected vehicles dropped from 10,000 on the announcement of the t-charge to around 6,500 now. A success before it even started? In the same article I’m sure I read that the Mayor intends the t-zone or low emission zone to be bordered by the north and south circulars, so possibly more than the congestion zone?
Changes the dynamics of the right and wrong side of the tracks for Forest Hill
If you live inside the S Circular, own a vehicle that is considered sub-par, and have to drive into central London, I assume that you will get a resident’s discount. The worst affected [financially] could be those that live just outside the S Circular and have to venture inside every day, e.g. to drop their kids off at school.
We will have the Forest Hill Sainsbury’s car park inside the ULEZ, so I’m unsure how business will be affected - will people drop into the Forest Hill co-op instead?
Finally, will the 2019 ULEZ render the Devonshire Road access thread redundant?
Actually good point.
I recall William Rose Butchers used to be on Kennington Lane in Vauxhall. When the congestion charge was introduced they were right on the border… the charge side for them. Which meant their many customers who drove and parked in the streets around them were paying the charge. So they moved.
Though I would think the move to ED was good business sense too.
The solution is lighter vehicles, specifically motorcycles.
There. I said it.
With four wheels, covered, a mini bar and a driver.
Just make sure you buy a Christmas miniature selection box before getting on the bus and you’re more than halfway there.
I think this is an interesting insight as to why the ‘stick’ approach of penalising car journeys is favoured:
Hopefully the ‘carrot’ side of this, i.e. improved public transport infrastructure will happen too (Bakerloo, CrossRail 2 & 3 etc).
Charge me what you like - I won’t swap my petrol car for a diesel bus anytime soon, sorry 
Not even if bus routes were altered to suit me, or if they became more regular. Or even if they became free.
I drive for the convenience, because I often carry lots of stuff, and because I loathe public transport with a burning passion.
I reluctantly caught a bus the other night when trains were screwed and I travelled back to Crofton Park instead of Honor Oak. After a couple of stops, the bus driver suddenly announced he was changing route, everyone groaned and half the bus emptied out. Similar things have happened before, the few occasions I’ve used busses. Really cannot be bothered with experiences like this - especially not on journeys to Landmann Way or Bell Green, carrying heavy loads.
Fleecing drivers with higher charges will not change minds like mine - it will only hurt low income residents and small businesses, who will feel the effect of the charges acutely.
Strawman argument.
The point here is what has been found to work re cutting pollution. And occasional journeys to the tip are not really relevant either. I suspect you don’t drive to work so your behaviour is already being shaped.
