• Ken Livingstone: Why I am declaring war on London's gas guzzlers
• 'Traffic jams have fallen by a quarter'
• For most Londoners, this won't make a difference
• Comment: C-charge change doesn't add up
• Changes put clear water between Mayor and Boris
• Don't hold your breath for Ken's cycling revolution to begin

Reader views (34)

 Add your view

I am sick and tired of being taken to the cleaners by the councils, Livingstone and the government.
It seems that a day doesn't pass before some bright person thinks up some new charge or just increases a new and existing one.
How much do we pay for petrol, parking, road tax, congestion charge, parking fines? and what do we get in return - nothing.
I don't use public transport as my job requires a lot of travel, something I have to do not what I want to do, I have a mortgage and family to support.
But from what I hear the bus, tube and rail system is expensive, crowded and in short a bad experience (what a way to start and end our day).
What really sickens me is that we are being bled dry by a bunch of morons who clearly have no grasp of the real world i.e being a civil servant, clearly they would fail the demands of working in a commercial environment where the pressures of costs is building up stress and anxiety for most people everyday.
We are now, I'm sure, looked upon as the biggest bunch of losers in the world, I do not know of any group of people (Londoners) who put up with this degree of humiliation and cost. Surely the time has come for us all to make our voices and thoughts heard. Everything should close in London for just 1 day a strike like no other. No one should be allowed to treat us in this way especially when we consider how much we are paying in all forms of taxes including cc. Lets do something NOW.

- Shyboy, london uk

This is an unfair tax, designed to catch people out. Most of those owning the cars that will attract the huge charge do not have other cars, especially those whose only home is within the Congestion Zone, where it is impossible to have a Resident's Parking Permit for more than one car. I know a lot of people who would like to keep an electric car for driving within London and a big comfortable car for longer journeys, but because there are no charging points on the streets. How can Livingstone be forcing people to abandon their cars without providing a viable "green" alternative first?

- Alexandre Nikititch, Westminster

This has clearly become a 'pollution charge' not congestion charge, it has nothing to do with congestion anymore, if it is a pollution charge you are after Ken then it should be operating 24/7 - otherwise it doesn't make sense... I drive my 4X4 in the evenings and weekends so the congestion/pollution charge doesn't affect me, whether it is £8 or £25. Moreover a person who can afford one or various expensive cars probably doesn't care about paying £25 to drive them in Central London. Ken make up your mind and commit to either sorting out the congestion or the pollution or both - however this tax will always be regressive and only those who really can't afford it will suffer, those who can will continue driving whatever wherever they want.

- Maria, London

How am I suppose to get three car seats in the back of any of those small exempt cars? How am I suppose to get 3 kids under 10 to school (of of which is disabled) without a car? No bus route either? Also single mum. Get Ken out NOW! Stop this madness! This is not the solution. Think again please.

- Christina, Paddington

Nobody quite understands the wide net this charge will cover ... forget 4x4's ... it covers ALL normal passenger cars such as BMW's , Mercs, Audi's with larger engines ... it will cover 1000's of cars. The 4x4 headline is just an easy media hook to hang this on. Ken hates the rich in K&C and will do anything to them as they don't vote for him. WAKE UP LONDON.

- Michael B, London : SW5

CO2 is not poisonous nor does it cause health problems in London. It is however linked with causing global warming.

Congestion, local air pollution and noise as a result of road traffic are problems well worth trying to solve in London, but are the global impacts from CO2 emissions really a good enough reason to justify the punishment of the capital’s car users?

Combating pollution in London is a laudable aim of the mayor, the health problems caused by particulates, CO, NOx and benzene are well documented and study after study has shown the link between pollution and health outcomes.

But modern cars, almost irrespective of their size produce relatively small quantities of these pollutants compared with older cars, buses and taxis. Modern petrol 4x4s, for example, are not as polluting as say a 2 litre turbo or saloon car made in 1995 or a standard London taxi, neither of which will be charged the additional “congestion charge” rate.

The Government is committed to making net timetabled percentage cuts in CO2 outputs under international agreements they have signed. Ironically reductions in CO2 resulting from Ken’s scheme will be counted towards the Government’s target, thereby meaning that the Government has to find fewer reductions elsewhere. Ken’s scheme will have precisely no impact on the net CO2 reductions achieved in years to come.

The environmental arguments are extremely flimsy justification for Ken’s scheme. This is about a class war.

- James D, Pimlico, London

This is just a tax on wealth. If Livingstone is serious about CO2 emissions, why doesn't he extend his zone into his heartlands to the North and East of London?

- Nobby Clark, Perth, the Scottish one

I totally agree with the increase in the congestion charge for the "Chelsea Tractors". The wear and tear they are causing the roads on London in amazing. But what I don't agree with is that all these small full petrol engine cars are going to become exempt! Surely that beats the whole object of the congestion charge? The name should be changed to an environmental charge as it is clearly hitting the people who's emissions are higher. I do agree with this as well but lets make it clear that it is an environmental tax NOT a congestion charge. Do you not think that some people who can afford a Porsche/ Range Rover etc. can now afford a basic small Fiesta thus making them CC free. To only drive their tractors at the weekend and in the evenings. Confusing don't you agree?

- Hybrid Lover, London, UK

I live inside the zone. I do not drive my car in the zone (I walk or take the bus), but do sometimes want to get to or from my own house. So now I will have to pay £25 to drive ANYWHERE outside the zone. Meanwhile thousands more cars will be entering central London for free, increasing both congestion and pollution. Commuters didn't all rush out to get an electric car to be exempt because of range/recharging concerns, but I bet there will be a colossal number of small cars being bought come October. So the charge will cease to prevent congestion or pollution, and simply be to try and stuff the 'rich'. Is that what all Londoners want? Or just Ken Livingstone?

- Resident, London

I'm glad that Mr. Livingstone has finally decided to finish his career on a low note, he is now universally hated by every driver in and around London.

I am meant to pay £8 for the privilege of pulling out of my driveway to drive out of town. How am I contributing to congestion when I am heading the opposite way to everyone else in the morning?

As soon as everyone realises that the C charge will be bankrupt if nobody pays (like me) and resists the threats of legal action from fascist Ken the quicker this "green" tyrant will disappear under a cloud of shame.

Don't ever forget that governments should be afraid of their people, not the other way round.

If we all stick together they can never win! Blitz spirit everyone!

- Jimbob, Kensington

Well done Ken action not talk is needed on climate change he's got my vote again!

- C May, Biggin Hill England

The congestion charge has been a success until now, largely due to its simplicity and clear rationale. But the bureaucrats can't stop fixing what ain't broke, and the net effect of this nannying will be more multi-car households in central London, and more congestion. Think for one moment and it is obvious.

- Jamie, Marylebone

The mayor is helping to speed the flight of educated, intelligent Britons abroad. He will soon be mayor of a poor, third world city.

The saving grace may be that the Americans are about to elect a president who is equally clueless to Ken.

- Patrick Henry, Bristol, UK

This is just penalizing people with large families. Livingstone really is the most odious little man. London will be so much better off without him.

- Jenny, London

This is just ludicrous hogwash from this greedy draconian mayor, nothing but a veiled attack on the rich. The UK contributes 2% of global CO2 emissions, the 30 million cars in the whole of the UK contribute 15-20% of that 2%, which means the few thousand Band G cars in C. London, that that do very few miles a year, make up 0.000001% of global emissions. This will not make a blind bit of difference to global warming, when there are tens of thousands of new cars being bought every week in China and India, not to mention in the States. These facts make the mayor’s claim that he is fighting global warming a total joke.

Also when I've spoken to tourists that come to London, a lot of them are impressed by the fact there are fantastic Ferraris, Astons, Bentleys, etc. in C. London, (and these sort of cars already huge amounts of emission tax through fuel and road tax) and these cars show to the world we are a very successful capital city with wealth creation. These sorts of cars are beautiful works of engineering, built in small numbers by master craftsmen and admired the world over. I don't care about ugly 4x4's, but are we are going to be the only major city in the world where you are not able to drive a beautiful sports car; that reminds me off Moscow in the 80s, well that is just left wing communism.

- Dan Smith, London, UK

Bring it on Ken and hit the rich where it hurts.

- Dhanraj, Basildon, Essex

I'm sick of the "4x4, gas guzzling, large sports car" headlines. This £25 a day includes many normal cars such as a 1.8L Skoda Superb (not a 4x4, not a sportscar and not a people carrier).

I live inside the zone, so my charge changes from £4 a week to £125 a week for driving the same, normal car. That's just plain robbery!

- Phil Todd, London, UK

This is just ludicrous hogwash from this greedy draconian mayor, nothing but a veiled attack on the rich. The UK contributes 2% of global CO2 emissions, the 30 million cars in the whole of the UK contribute 15-20% of that 2%, which means the few thousand Band G cars in C. London, that that do very few miles a year, make up 0.000001% of global emissions. This will not make a blind bit of difference to global warming, when there are tens of thousands of new cars being bought every week in China and India and Russia, not to mention in the States. These facts make the mayor’s claim that he is fighting global warming a total joke.

Also when I've spoken to tourists that come to London, a lot of them are impressed by the fact there are fantastic Ferraris, Astons, Bentleys, etc. in C. London, (and these sort of cars already huge amounts of emission tax through fuel and road tax) and these cars show to the world we are a very successful capital city with wealth creation. These sorts of cars are beautiful works of engineering, built in small numbers by master craftsmen and admired the world over. I don't care about ugly 4x4's, but are we are going to be the only major city in the world where you are not able to drive a beautiful sports car and everyone has to drive a boring box car; well that is a picture of Moscow in the 80's and is just left wing communism.

- Dan Smith, Islington, London

£625 a week is going to cost a lot of people their jobs. Especially small freelance traders on whom a lot of people rely.
I phoned TFL tonight and they couldn't even tell me if my 10 year old estate car is affected. I don't know what "band G" means and neither do they.
On the plus side I was thinking of moving to France anyway as I have recently developed a Thyroid condition and you can't get treatment sufficient to keep you at work for that in the UK. (I've been Euro-starring it to Belgium to be able to stay well enough to work at all) and all that I have to pay for so this additional tax is the end of the line. If I ever find out whether or not it affects my car which I'm betting it does. It's always about screwing the hardworking folk on tight margins.

- Thalia, London

£625 a week is going to cost a lot of people their jobs. Especially small freelance traders on whom a lot of people rely.
I phoned TFL tonight and they couldn't even tell me if my 10 year old estate car is affected. I don't know what "band G" means and neither do they.
On the plus side I was thinking of moving to France anyway as I have recently developed a Thyroid condition and you can't get treatment sufficient to keep you at work for that in the UK. (I've been Euro-starring it to Belgium to be able to stay well enough to work at all) and all that I have to pay for so this additional tax is the end of the line. If I ever find out whether or not it affects my car which I'm betting it does. It's always about screwing the hardworking folk.

- Thalia, London

Livingston is simply playing mind games with the public, this is not about congestion or pollution, its about politics, getting less well off people with smaller cars to vote against the better off with bigger cars, which they, sadly are bound to do.

He will then spend the extra money on his, pet, corrupt enterprises, no worry though, the people that tend to vote for him, do not work, or worry about business.

Its a bad day for both London and the small business man!

- George, Hempstead

Johno wrote "This is more nonsense from Ken, a small car doing lots of miles is more damaging to the environment than a large car doing fewer miles"

Im sorry but what has that got to do with the planned charges? Are you actually suggesting to ES readers that small cars by default do more miles than larger cars?! Very odd, I always thought that people used their car to get somewhere.

Anyway this scheme is about London leading the way forward so that other less proactive places may follow rather for everyone to sit around waiting for national governments and industry to do something even vaguely constructive.

Im guessing the political wise-guys on here havent heard about the scientific communities concerns over climate change, there are plenty of easy to read books on the subject. In the mean time hard choices have to be made by visionaries while the apathetic masses moan and drag their feet. I`ll leave you with a quote from the former chairman of Shell...

"We need very tough regulation saying that you can't drive or build something less than a certain standard. You would be allowed to drive an Aston Martin - but only if it did 50-60mpg."

- B Hope, London UK

If you afford a Carrera Coupe, you can afford £25 a day. If you were hard-pressed to really afford a Carrera Coupe, but bought one anyway, then you deserve a £25 charge.

- Dave, Muswell Hill

The mayor has just signed his career's own death warrant, and not before time.

- The Gene Genie, Croydon

This is more nonsense from Ken, a small car doing lots of miles is more damaging to the environment than a large car doing fewer miles. The only fair environmental tax is one which falls on the price of petrol. And Ken, there should be a heavy tax on mayors who take taxis from Blackpool to London, don't you agree?
London wake up now and evict the crony loving Ken.

- Johno, London

I love the way Londoners are so submissive - this man is really taking you all to the cleaners and you let him. Wake up! Who knows when the new £4 tax comes in he may decide the next year that it should be an £8 tax and the 4x4s which include family estates should pay £100. Your city; your submission!

- Gazza, London, UK

Which causes more damage to the environment?

A car which emits 120g/km of CO2 and does 20,000 miles a year?

A car which emits 225g/km of CO2 and does 12,000 miles per year?

A car which emits 300g/km of CO2 and does 7,000 miles per year?

Well, in Ken Livingstone's eyes it's the latter. And unsurprisingly he's wrong. In fact, it's the car exempt from the charge which produces the most CO2, followed by the one eligible for the discount, with the "gas guzzler" actually the best for the environment as it produces the least CO2 out of all of the above scenarios.

If, as many contend, these "gas guzzlers" are only used for short trips to drop kids off at school and go shopping, their annual mileage will be low and their "carbon footprint" lower than the cars which are exempt from the charge entirely or which still continue to get the discount.

The only fair way to do it would be to charge people a higher rate per mile actually driven for cars which produce more CO2. The system Livingstone proposes is imbecilic, illogical and based on blatant discrimination. Much like the original Congestion Charge (which apparently is now a pollution charge, except that doesn't work logically either).

- Tom Birkert, London

The quicker Ken is gone the better. Islington, Hackney have very high levels of traffic but he will not touch those areas given boroughs like them give him most of his votes.

- Mike, Harrow

How can Ken and the greenies condemn vehicle pollution while condoning and encouraging it. Each 20 mph zone increases pollution by 20 - 30 percent or even more as vehicles have to drop down one or 2 gears. Whilst the associated speed humps often cause people to drive further to avoid them, I know I do when my wife is with me as she has a bad back which also means she avoids the buses as they do not give the smoothest of journeys.
Tax should be on the carbon footprint of travel not the vehicle, so applied at the pumps - but this is no good to Ken as he wouldn't get his hands on any of the money.
Ken and his followers also go wondering off around the world to other countries for supposed good reasons! Are so many journeys needed by so many - have they never heard of video conferences. This would show that they actually practice what they preach, but then they would lose some of their holidays.

- Frank Clayden, London

Cunningly touted as a tax on gas guzzlers, chelsea tractors etc, this tax will also hit many other perfectly reasonable town vehicles. And, as so often these days, the media are mostly too busy/lazy to drill down behind Ken's press release headline and see the real meaning.

- Bryan Armstrong, London

I find it amusing that the motoring groups label this as an environmental tax. Of course it is - it's about time they woke up and realised that even car drivers have concerns about the environment and make choices about their cars that take that into account.
I m also pleased that it looks likely that low-emission car drivers will get a discount as there are many drivers of small cars who are not classified as essential users (teachers, nurses, night-workers) who have to use a car, perhaps to carry larger loads.
The blanket charge was better than no charge, but this package sounds much better.

- Harold Ray, London, UK

This should be so much better...
- Taxis should be phased out to hybrids to double fuel efficiency
- 500+cc Motorbikes that manage a paltry 40mpg should pay a charge just like cars.
- two-stroke mopeds that create 30 times more pollution than cars should be banned
- buses should be replaced with gas-powered vehicles
- the annual £50m cycle budget should be increased each year rather than being held at £50m as announced yesterday

All this announcement means is that a few people will buy a new small petrol car to travel into London. No point even buying an electric one now.

- Marc, Hammersmith

Good move. £25 per day is perfectly acceptable for these huge 4x4s. No family, no matter how many children, needs one of these in Central London - they're for off-road driving. Large families should get a standard estate car with plenty room and settle for the £8 per day.

- John, London

I preface this comment by saying that I don't own or drive a car, but really this new proposal is ludicrous. The c-charge was brought in to reduce congestion. I distinctly remember all the publicity saying that the roads would be empty and we would all be able to roam about freely in peace and quiet. A 4x4 takes up little or no more room than other cars. Most sports cars (which could also be subject to the increase) would take up *less* room. If the charge is an emissions charge, then surely people's *actual* emissions should be taken into account. A 4x4 crossing into the zone on a quick trip and then leaving again would pay £25 for virtually no pollution, while a smaller car driving around in the zone all day would create far more pollution and yet pay less. How can that be right? Thirdly, the plans for no charge at all for "clean" cars will presumably apply to the new electric cars that everyone is so keen on. And yet where does their energy come from? A coal-fired power station, in most cases. Is the Mayor saying it's OK to pollute in order to drive as long as you don't do it in London? No wonder the rest of the country hates us.

- Freya, London

Add your comment