Morning:
19°c
Teenager becomes the first person to die of swine flu in London and the fourth in the country
More...
Boom in green cars could 'damage' C-charge
David Williams, Motoring Editor11.12.07
A boom in sales of "green" cars signals disaster for the congestion charge, environmental experts warned.
Ken Livingstone plans to let drivers of popular small cars, such as the Fiat Panda, Ford Fiesta and Renault Clio, avoid the toll from February.
Until now the only total C-charge exemption was for electric, biofuel and hybrid cars such as the Toyota Prius and G-Wiz.
Under the same plan drivers of gas-guzzlers will have to pay £25 a day to enter the congestion zone from next autumn.
The Green Party said today figures showed sales of low-emission cars that will qualify for the 100 per cent discount were soaring.
Sales of band A and B vehicles - emitting 120g of carbon dioxide per kilometre or less - jumped by nearly a third in the first nine months of this year.
The sales boom means London's roads could become swamped with drivers switching to lower-polluting cars to save around £2,000 a year on congestion charges.
The Greens claimed this would worsen congestion and pollution, as well as increase accident rates, because Transport for London had based its plan on out-of-date data. Jenny Jones, Green Party member on the London Assembly, said she supported the £25 gas-guzzler charge but added: "Londoners are switching to greener cars far faster than the Mayor realises.
"By late 2009, when the leastpolluting cars are due to be exempted from the charge, Londoners are more likely to be buying a band A and B car than a gas-guzzler.
"This is good news for the environment but cars are still a second best alternative to public transport, cycling and walking for most London journeys. Even greener cars should be made to pay more than the cost of a Tube journey as they can still cause congestion and road injuries.
"I think that giving band A and B cars free entry is an unnecessary change, which could undermine the success of the congestion charge."
A study by the Centre for Economics and Business Research found the Mayor's plans could result in central London being swamped with an extra 10,000 cars and contribute to global warming.
The study, commissioned by Land Rover, said the scheme would have economic and environmental costs that "far outweigh" possible benefits in terms of greenhouse gas reductions.
It said the scheme would cost £6.5 million to set up and between £1.5 million and £2.5 million a year to run - enough to offset up to 20 times the amount of carbon emissions it would prevent.
A TfL spokesman said: "One of the main aims behind the proposals is to encourage people to consider the effect of their car on the environment and to choose less-polluting vehicles.
"At present, only around two per cent of cars using the congestion charging zone are in vehicle excise duty band A or B and less than one per cent also meet the Euro IV standard of air quality that would make them eligible for the 100 per cent discount."
Reader views (15)
Here's a sample of the latest views published.
Getting ready for next year's election, Ken? Chuck the drones a few tit-bits.
- Terry Hudson, Herne Bay, Kent
Just goes to show that the "Congestion" charge was never about congestion - it was always about screwing the motorist for more money.
- Charlie Chick, Greenford Middx
I would rather wrestle alligators than believe or accept anything issued from Livingstone or the Mayor's office.
I was going to add they are both financially and morally corrupt, what the hell so sue me!
- John Bailey, Putney, London, England
Ken needs to make his mind up as to whether it's a congestion charge or an emission charge - no doubt it will change to and fro to suit the potential income. If it is an environment thing then he should be charging MORE for hybrids as, with two-drive trains and battery technology that is very destructive to the environment, they have a bigger negative impact on resources and the environment than more traditional vehicles over a complete life cycle.
- Paul, London
Let's be honest now Mr Livingston, is this a congestion charge, a green tax or a money-spinner? Also let us not forget that the average speed of the traffic only a year or two prior to the charge was higher than it currently is. Also the alternative options such as the tube are quite extortionate.
- Bradleyb, London, UK
Why doesn't the CONgestion man just ban everything from London? First they tried to stop cars in pursuit of their utopian dream, now they are facing the prospect of more cars which emit less CO2 (not less larger engined cars that emit more) thereby negating any saving they might have predicted, maybe even increasing it.
To me it is just a big money making ploy, I mean I have visited London several times (before and after C charge) and never ever ever have I noticed ONE iota of difference in congestion. If people leave their car then we will need more buses and trains so the congestion will just move onto the buses and trains.
- Andrew, Strathclyde, Scotland
""I think that giving band A and B cars free entry is an unnecessary change, which could undermine the success of the congestion charge."
Don't those hippies in the Green Party realise that there is an election next year, and that the Mayor wants to be re-elected? It's the politics, stupid!
- Sarah N., London
Those who buy Band A and B vehicles should be very careful - mainstream discounts for those that drive so called eco friendly LPG (dual-fuel) vehicles are now planned to disappear, so it might happen to other types. Especially after Ken has been re-elected as Mayor.
- Brian, London
What planet are the Greens on?
Cyclists and pedestrians also contribute towards CO2 emissions and accidents - sadly even fatalities - by their lack of care. Perhaps they will recommend a road user charge for both based on either having to display a number plate or show an electronic ID card when they use the street, then have their movements tracked.
After all, that is what is being considered for motorists.
- Jools, London SE11
Oh dear! In their 2006 annual monitoring report, Transport for London were embarrassed that road speeds were falling to pre-charge levels and suggested that the measurement for mobility might be changed to a kludge based on bus capacity!
A suspicious member of the public might just ask if the latest proposals have been deliberately been based on leaky logic so as to create a new set of measures. Thanks to Cllr Phil Taylor, the glowing claims of 'hundreds of millions in operating profit' have been debunked as nearer to £14 million, as at the last audited accounts.
It is a joke to see attempts to rebrand the Kengestion Charge as primarily an environmental measure.
Londoners have been ripped off for the pleasure of still driving in congestion, and I hope they remember this when electing a new Mayor next year.
- Battered Motorist, London
Nobby,
I can answer your question. The Mayor spent £1.137 million on the consultation. Most of the cash was spent on adverts for the consultation because the Mayor thinks that it makes him look green in the run to next May's London mayoral elections. The consultation ended 19th October and the Mayor has promised to publish the results in December.
The Mayor has already achieved his objectives by using the exercise as an excuse to do £1 million of advertising. It doesn't really matter what the result is although it will become clear that it was a lot of money to pay for a few hits on a webpage which is basically all the consultation was. No printed leaflets were sent out to the general public.
- Phil Taylor, Ealing
Red Ken had to enlarge the zone or it would have been making too much of a loss for Capita to take it on.
And no there was no debate, just Ken doing what he fancies when he fancies.
If we want rid of the C charge we will have to stand together and not pay it. Capita will lose money and Livingstone will lose face. We will win.
- Jimbob, Kensington
I thought the idea of the congestion charge was to stop traffic congestion in London.
But for the last couple of years we have seen "green" cars being exempted from paying. Surely then this should be called a greenhouse or pollution charge. Just because a car is environmentally friendly doesn't mean that it isn't causing congestion.
- David Kitemaker-Hall, London, UK
They won't be exempt for much longer,if sales carry on like this.
- Bob, London
I still don't remember this so-called extension to the charge being approved. What happened to the consultation that took place? Or was it conveniently ignored, as is usual with the Mayor's "consultations"?
- Nobby Clark, Perth, Scotland
