slightly off thread, but near enough (hopefully)... i read in your column yesterday a letter from a Land Rover 90 driving chap in N. London worried about the Greater London Pollution Zone (or whatever it is) due to come in 2010...
do you know what vehicles this will affect? I've seen signs that relate to Goods Vehicles etc, but a Land Rover 90 is getting horribly nearer a normal car in my mind... and as I drive an 8 yr old 3 litre petrol car that i'm planning on keeping, i'm getting a tad worried...is Red Ken after me?
Edited by Westpig on 30/12/2007 at 06:55
|
Hurrah,
Back to a basic congestion charge simply aimed at deterring car use in the Central area?
|
|
|
i found the following on wikipedia which answers my own question:
The London Low Emission Zone (LEZ) is a scheme to reduce the pollution emissions of diesel powered motor vehicles in the Greater London area, but private cars will not be covered. Vehicles will be defined by their emissions and those that exceed pre determined levels will be charged to enter the designated area. The zone is expected to start operation on February 4, 2008, with an increasingly stricter regime up to 2012 when it will be fully operational.
|
So what about the diesel buses?
Doh. Never thought of LPG....
|
|
|
|
|
Given the congestion in London, I accept that the charge is for reducing congestion, and will probably be used for pollution and even revenue raising in some form or other. Regardless of your Livingston views no other city (in the world?) can really cope with everyone's desire to drive in clean comfort while no one else does. Like everyone, I want to drive, but I want you to stay at home. Better to tax cars than income, as employment is a good thing.
However, one aspect of this business is crucial. A car is major capital decision for any family. Individuals who are trading down, or trading up in size and pollution, have to be able to do so in a stable tax environment. Nothing in life is fixed, BUT one has to have some degree of stability and a fixed environment in which capital purchases are made. Using the tax system to change behaviour is sensible and works. Look how it worked with lead-free petrol. But consumers must know where they stand over say the next 5 years. To chop and change is very unfair and discredits the whole point of fiscal regimes.
If high pollution, or big cars, or urban car usage is to be taxed, fair enough. But the authorities must treat consumers like adults who can then make an informed choice, within a long-term tax plan.
|
Good post MW. I agree with everything you say.
But as a London resident and driver, I find about £100 to park in my own borough, plus lots of shrapnel to park anywhere else, and another £200+ to be able to drive when I want without being a clairvoyant and without tedious mental gymnastics, all liable to go up of course, on top of car, petrol and insurance, knocks a bit of a hole in my bangernomics calculations.
However, I still agree with what you say. The congestion zone thing has made it easy for me to drive into the West End in the week again too. :o}
|
|
People rich enough to afford an accountant pay no CC as they register their cars and their Au-pair's cars as private hire cabs. The whole thing is rubbish.
|
|
|
|
I don't dispute your analysis MW; but just taxing cars out of London benefits the well off and punishes the poor unless there is adequate, joined up and affordable public transport. I'll know that "they" are serious about this when they stop charging £££££ for parking at stations (shortly after hell freezes over).
Granted, big cities do pose special additional problems, but the same principles apply to the country generally. I'll know that "they" are serious about this when they stop charging £££££ for parking at stations (shortly after hell freezes over).
|
Ken really has got his knickers in a twist over his congestion charge - he can't seem to decide if it is to deter all cars, or be a pollution tax. As MW rightly say, we all need consistent, clear policy so that we can all make informed choices - look how many manufacturers have rushed and tweaked cars to emit 120g CO2 or less, such is the competitiveness of the car market today. I suspect the reason behind Ken's muddled thinking is the necessity to preserve a nice income stream!!
What really makes no sense at all is for Lexus hybrids to be exempt when they are both bigger AND more polluting than many smaller cars. One can only assume that Toyota/Lexus see that Ken is 'alright', because the exemption gives them a massive commercial advantage.
|
|
|
|
|
![2022 Volvo XC40 1.5 T3 [163] R DESIGN 5dr](http://images.honestjohn.co.uk/imagecache/url/crop/90x60/https/cdn.uk.prod.group-mobility-trader.com/images/cas/fee3233d64e3e82193591a31e7d14834/5f6e9e88b0513e924533286f77023387.jpg)
