Tonight:
5°c
Reduce C-charge to four hours a day, say traders
David Williams, Motoring Editor30 Sep 2008
The operating hours of the western extension zone congestion charge should be slashed from 11 hours a day to just four in order to rescue trade, business leaders have demanded.
London First says the charge should still begin at 7am but end at 11am to encourage shoppers back into west London.
It is also calling for the congestion zone to be divided in two, with separate charges for the original central London zone and the western extension.
This would prevent residents of either zone driving at a hugely reduced rate throughout the entire congestion charging area,to reduce the number of car trips made into central London.
Under London First's plans, non-resident drivers entering the central zone would pay the usual charge. They would then pay the charge again, discounted by 50 per cent, for entering the western zone. It means non-residents would pay £8 to enter central London plus £4 to travel on into Chelsea, Kensington and parts of Westminster. Drivers from outside the zone would pay £8 to enter the western extension zone only.
The influential business group has also called for some profits from the charge to be put back into new measures to reduce congestion in London.
It wants all holes in the road on major routes to be covered over with metal plates when work is not ongoing and to introduce inspectors who would check roadworks are finished on time. The group also says motorists should be able to pay the charge on account.
Today's statement from London First is a U-turn after it vociferously opposed the launch of the western zone. But it says that with £120 million already spent on setting up the zone it would now prove too expensive to scrap it.
The business group also warns that congestion in west London is likely to increase due to the construction of Crossrail and the imminent opening of the White City shopping centre with 4,500 free spaces.
In contrast, Hammersmith and Fulham Council today insisted that the "failed" extension should be scrapped. It said there was no evidence the scheme had cut congestion in west London and claimed business was being stifled. "Hammersmith and Fulham is totally outside the zone and we get all the disbenefits with none of the benefits," said a borough spokesman. "Residents don't get the residents' discount but the borough gets all the traffic running around and through it to avoid the charge.
"Businesses like florists, estate agents and dry cleaners have complained about being cut off from customers as they cannot afford the £8 levy every day.
A public consultation into the future of the extension zone closes on Sunday.
Hammersmith and Fulham says motorists heading into London - and dumping their cars in the borough to continue on public transport - are clogging up parking bays. Nicholas Botterill, deputy leader, said: "West Londoners cannot afford for this decision to go wrong."
• Hammersmith and Fulham Council is holding a public meeting on the future of the congestion charge at its Town Hall tomorrow at 7pm.
Reader views (9)
London First's brave u-turn on its policy towards thecongestion charge clearly demonstrates that once initially contentious measures to reduce congestion are introduced and become familiar they are for the most part supported. This is not surprising - the congestion charge has led to better air quality, less noise pollution, safer and more pleasant streets to walk and shop in, not to mention reduced congestion on our roads. At the same time, this 'inefficent tax on travel' as it is referred to earlier generates net annual revenues for investment in travel of 70 million pounds that will be lost if it is scrapped. This is according to TfL's consultation document itself. Scrapping the charge will harm ALL travel in London, and cost the capital dearly as travel times increase whether we drive, catch the bus or even walk. It would be wholly irresponsible to scrap part of a scheme that has won London plaudits around the world and shown that we can still lead the way when it comes to innovation.
- Alasdair Jones, London, UK, 01/10/2008 11:30
Report abuse
The simplest solution to the problem of traders suffering is simply to scrap the western extension of the congestion charge altogether. It hasn't reduced congestion and neither has air quality improved so it's clearly a total waste of time. As for splitting the charge into two areas, that simply adds even more complexity to a system that costs almost as much to operate as it generates in taxes. Better to scrap the congestion charge altogether as a "bad" and inefficient tax on travel.
- Roger Lawson, London, UK, 30/09/2008 21:33
Report abuse
livingstone has gone now, so scrap his unfair tax now!
- Malcolm, chingford, 30/09/2008 18:32
Report abuse
Just cut the hours and it more or less becomes a tax on going to work. Nobody does this unless unless it's the least-worst option - note that the congestion charge has tended to cut traffic after the rush hour, and by TFL's admission has not been reduced congestion or pollution.
London First is a self-appointed voice of big business. Everyone I know would like to see the charge scrapped.
- Jools, London, 30/09/2008 17:22
Report abuse
Boris has already acted to increase transport fares and with his pledge not to increase his precept where will the monoy come from to change the c-charge zone?
If traders want more business they should demand more buses and bus stops outside their shops given a car normally only has 1 occupant and there is a limit to the number of meals that person can eat in a parade of shops.
Wake up to the fact your business is dying because people dont enjoy eating food flavoured with diesel whether cooked outside cafes or raw from shops.
- Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex, 30/09/2008 15:15
Report abuse
London First more like London Last. Stupid idea from a useless organisation, business leaders are they!
The Con Zone is a tax, we dont like to be taxed.
There are ways to fix the cities transport problems,and this isnt one of them.
- Mr S.Port, London, 30/09/2008 12:47
Report abuse
Once you start to view the C-charge as a means of improving living and working and trading conditions in London and NOT as a cash-cow, all sorts of possibilities arise. This proposal is a breath of fresh air.
- Bloke, London, 30/09/2008 12:45
Report abuse
That sounds like sanity to me. In this crazy financial scene, when business needs a massive boost, economic recovery is surely more important than a dubiously successful C-charge, especially in the Western Extension where it is nothing more than a revenue-earner charged for reasons other than combatting congestion.
- Alex, London, 30/09/2008 10:30
Report abuse
What would solve both the commuter parking problems outside the zone and the difficulties of visitor parking inside the zone is the dedication of free on-street visitor parking to shops, at a minimum of two per shop, which would override any claims by local residents to "exclusive parking", often right outside the shops to the detriment of customers, shops and suppliers.
Tough times require tough choices. The minority of residents who drive cars in the inner city should yield their spurious claims to public space in favour of the small businesses that can regenerate our economy in this crisis.
Re Utility companies carrying out works: they should have to pay a daily rate of £5 to each business affected, as determined by an independent arbiter. It might hurt sales of PG Tips, but will do wonders to get contractors' rears in gear.
- Reg, London, 30/09/2008 10:11
Report abuse
