PeteBrant

Well banning cars altogether is a bit draconian, and I am sure you would be up in arms about it.


As it is, if you want to drive in London, you have to pay a charge - You have a choice because the transport infrastructure is so good.

bugeyeandy

Interesting arguments on this thread.
Time will tell if this charge is a good thing or a bad thing in the longer term and if it's used in many other cities to raise revenue.

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

If it's really about congestion / pollution then why charge £25 rather than ban the offending beasts? Some people choose to go in by car as they have to others as they want to others because they actually live in the zone & dare to own a car! I can see the charge putting off people in the 2nd camp, the first & third will remain unnaffected albeit with less small change in their pockets. This is a money spinner pure & simple. The really annoying aspect for me though as a car owner & petrol head is that all these "innitiatives" are hurting car owners badly both as "in yer face" taxes + stealth ones ie the residuals of any performance car will of course follow demand downwards. It's all costing me/us very real £'s & it's not something that I asked for - it's coming in against my will. Where's my compensation?

Don't start me on the low CO2 zone or whatever it's called How long before this is costing people £25 a time &/or gets wider than it is today

TX.

stilover

Doesn't London have an Olympics to pay for?

Just a thought.

gallois

as usual, we are told that cars are polluting more than anything, and people accept it blindly yet they really really pale into insignificance compared to the main culprits. the total (including aircraft, powerstations, trucks, boats etc etc) combined co2 emitted by man is approx 3.2% of the total amount of co2 in the atmosphere. The Kyoto protocol calls for manditory 30% reduction in man made co2 emmisions, even if every country in the world did this, the total reduction in the total so called greenhouse gasses would be 0.035% which is less than the earths natural variation. for the environment my ****...

OllyK

Try coming down from the Midlands. I used to do it daily. If you were lucky it would get in on time once a week.

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

Where does the other 97% come from Gallois? Sorry if it's a dense question ...

TX.

The Chief

That is so true.

Devildog

Pete (Brant)

Can you answer a couple of questions for me on this.

1) What's the current financial state of play as regards the congestion charge, ie does it make a profit?

2) If so, what's the funding used for - I presume public transport, but please confirm

3) What are the emission levels of the average london bus and taxi?

4) What's the so called carbon footprint prer passenger of the average tube train?

Now, I can see the point of a congestion charge to deter people from driving. To, lets see, reduce congestion. But to base that charge oin emissions (when the drivers are already taxed on that basis) is, if you are calling this a congestion charge, ludicrous.

If its "pollution" based to improve air quality then you have to ban diesel engines first, and older petrol cars next. Ironically, the more expensive newer cars are probably quite good in this respect. Bear in mind, that CO2 is not a "pollutant".

Oh Bugger, thats the buses and the cabs out then. Not to mention essential deliveries by van/truck. So if its pollution based, then the public transport system is screwed without investing millions in, for example electric trams.

Which brings us back to the fact that generating electriciity without massive Co2 emissions and use of fossil fuels requires, realistically, nuclear energy.

If this is truly about forcing people onto public transport to reduce congestion, then the charge should be the same for all vehciles of similar size, with rebates available for vehicles which have multiple occupancy.

If its about pollution, then the public transport system is screwed.

If its about Co2 emissions (the effect by cars in the uk of which is negligable) then its just another revenue generator, like road tax.

Taking into account it is the brainchild of a pathalogical liar, I'm guessing that the answer is pretty clear.

As an aside, last week I forked out £300 to tax our Shogun (based on Co2) Next year it will be £400. Where does it stop?

ps - you try getting to the post office to pay your road tax in a Prius in these conditions:



Yes, those are icicles hanging off the front.

Dream Weaver

When I am there I stay in Bromley, and often have to get the bus through Lewisham etc, depending where we are going obviously.

But what you're really saying is that the public transport in London is excellent, providing you live North of the river and within a certain catchment area?

SJ_Skyline

Nobody in their right mind would live south of the river

gallois

surprisingly it is mainly water vapour (95%), which is 99.999%etc etc naturally occuring. the other 2% are methane, nitrous oxide, and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.)

Flatcapdriver

Notwithstanding the fact that however these charges are dressed up, congestion or pollution the sheer hypocrisy of the man's policies defies belief as evidenced by the replacement of the old Routemaster buses (initially he promised this would never happen) by the Bendy buses. Not only are they clogging up junctions due to their length, they also ripe for fare dodging as well as dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists.

All this coming to a city near you. Leeds, Manchester, Bristol etc. And then congestion charging will hit the main arterial routes dressed up as toll charging by another name...

And all because the electorate were blinkered enough to think that it was only Porsche drivers who were going to be persecuted?

Snazy

There was something a while back that the CC took £96m in fines last year for missed and late payments. £92m of that went on admin costs ! lol

As for the South of the river thing, Snazy Transport is fine by me My car, when I want, how warm I want, the route I want, and the enviroment I want. Sod that public stuff lol.

Oh one more thing.....

VOTE BORIS !!

Snazy

Cant wait for the changes of attitudes of people not from London when schemes like this roll out....
BBC NEWS | England | Manchester | City congestion fee plan unveiled

Sooner or later we are all gonna get stung, just a shame London's one is such a farce!

PeteBrant

Ill do what I can...


The last result, I believe had the congestion charge making a £90 million profit - However, this was entirely made up of fines for late payment. If everyone paid on time, the scheme would have acutally made a loss.

Of course this may change with the new raised amount - However obviously you are going to have less people paying, simply by putting off people with the raised amount - which is the whole point

(However, I do not beleive Livingstone did himself any favours by pledging not to raise it for a decade, and then promptly doing the exact opposite)
By law all surpluses must be invested in Public transport
London emits 10m tonnes of carbon per year- split like this:


Car and motorcycle: 5m tones (49%)
Road freight: 2.3m tonnes (23%)
Ground-based aviation: 1.1m tones (11%)
Bus: 500,000 tonnes (5%)
Taxis and minicabs: 400,000 tonnes (4%)
National rail: 400,000 tonnes (4%)
Underground: 400,000 tonnes (4%)


Your carbon footprint per person per kilometer is:

Average Car 180g
Bus 60g
Train 40g



THis would suggest there is some merit in having concessions for car sharing - however - does this fall in to "congestion" charging?




THis seems to be a bug bear, calling it "congestion" charge and not "emmisions" charge - But I don;t see why it makes a difference?

Also, CO2 might not a pollutant but it sure nasty stuff.
But cabs account for 4% total emissions, busses 5% - Cars amount for 49%.

So it is clear which one needs to be cut back. And as I said, by law, all profits have to go into public transport.
I have no problem agreeing with that.
Why?


It is - In as much as it will pay for transport investment - I can't really see a problem with that though.

GC8WRX

At the end of the day its a **** take, and if we all complain amongst ourselves and do nothing significant about it, it will get worse!

scoobynutta555

Nice reply Pete. I'm getting a bit tired of hearing I've been brainwashed, by people who don't really know what they are talking about. I don't purport to know much about the environment, greenhouse gasses, congestion and the myraid of connecting subjects. But purely looking at things in their simple form, there is a case for congestion/emission charging, and in fact there's a very strong argument in raising more charges if the latest measures prove ineffective.

Janspeed

iTrader: (1)

It is actually bad for the economy ffs!! THe public transport system will not improve, so who are we kidding here?

You guys (UK) better doing something to put those politicians in their place otherwise you=fecked BIG time!

Janspeed

iTrader: (1)

TO: PETEBRANT:

"Car and motorcycle: 5m tones (49%)
Road freight: 2.3m tonnes (23%)
Ground-based aviation: 1.1m tones (11%)
Bus: 500,000 tonnes (5%)
Taxis and minicabs: 400,000 tonnes (4%)
National rail: 400,000 tonnes (4%)
Underground: 400,000 tonnes (4%)"


The actual amount of C02 used to build the trains, the railways and to power the system is absolutely off the scale, so they are as bad if not WORSE than cars.

Dream Weaver

I'm not from London and I don't agree with upping the CG to silly levels.

scoobynutta555

So no energy (not c02 I assume you mean) is used to build roads, cars and their upkeep?

PeteBrant

Surely the "amount to power the system" is covered by the emmisions? I mean seeing at the underground is electric, then any emmisions are going to via "powering the system"


As for the CO2 from building the trains, then I don't have that data - I'll bet you a million quid its nowhere near the total CO2 emmsions from building cars - person for person.

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

1) CO2 figures for "London" are meaningless, and at best are deliberately distorted. Masses of power is consumed by London that is generated by power stations that are situated outside of the capital. These emit huge quantities of CO2.

When you compare the CO2 emitted just from transport to the wider picture it is substantially lower than the scaremongering figure they choose to show you.

2) There is very little scope for improving the existing public transport infrastructure. The more people who leave their cars at home, the more pressure the current public system suffers.

3) Doing nothing is a lot better than lying to people. Its not a congestion charge, its an emissions charge. The way it was sold to the public was on the grounds of congestion, and that is where the focus of the "debate" was. If they wanted to bring in a different type of charge, an emissions charge, then it should have been debated.

4) Don't be deluded for one second that there are not a lot of fat fingers in a very fat pie. £100m of revenue means there will be lots of high "costs" and "worthy" salaries. Even if the profit that is left is actually appropriately spent, its all the pocket lining that goes on due to "costs" that bugs me.

PeteBrant

Surface traffic accounts for 22% of total CO2 emmisions in London - 49% of which comes from cars
I would say that 22% of all CO2 emissions coming fromt ransport is pretty high.
Which is why the profits get put into transport.
I am not sure there was a "Lie" as such, but I can see the sense in this point - Perhaps when Boris gets in it will be up for debate?
Well this is conjecture, and as such completely unquantifiable, although I am sure there is someone getting rich from it.

serega

Its not too bad really, just normal business. What would you do if you had a monopoly on something ?
Its all about the point of dimishing returns - If the demand kept relatively the same or kept growing, its just a matter of upping the price some more to get a bigger return.

As long as upping the price on CC will bring them bigger returns, they'll keep upping the price, and in the meantime it can all be done under the cover of saving the planet - how ingenius is that. Its a perfect business if you ask me.
Saying that CC does not bring them money well... just simple accounting magic, write down the revenue as admin costs, depreciation and voila! As long as they line some pockets in the government as well, who's going to investigate them? FSA ? I dont think so

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

You cannot say that though, that is my point. The "all" emissions does not take into account ALL emissions. In fact, the figure they use for ALL emissions neglects the VAST amount of emissions that the capital causes by drawing in power from other areas.

The best way to look at it is to look at the UK as a whole. That way its harder for the data to be skewed for political mileage. As a whole there is no way that surface transportation accounts for 22% of UK CO2.

PeteBrant

Well, London CO2 emissions are around 40million tonnes per year in total - Around 10million of that is from Surface transport. In that repsect its 22%

Agreed, But the UK as a whole isn't subject to the london congestion charge.

r32

If they were serious and it wasnt a money making thing cars or other vehicles with high CO2 out puts would be banned, not just taxed. California seems to be doing the right thing, not just making money from it.

Snazy

Which is it then?
Lets get this straight 49% of 22 is about 11, so 11% of all CO2 in London is down to CARS which are what we are talking about here isnt it?
Whats the other 51%? Public transport and commercial vehicles?

The emissions zone was set up for emissions, and the congestion zone for congestion. Its not appropriate to just conviniently merge the 2 because you can charge more.

Given the volume of commuters vs commercial and transport vehicles in London, I dont think 11% is that bad.
At the end of the day, less cars - more public transport..... all that will result in is the gridlock of London. Especially considering lots of traffic being caused by buses blocking junctions, not being able to judge gaps and being too up their own ***** to give way to people..... Not to mention a rise in the percentage rise that public transport would have in the responsibility for emissions.

At the end of the day I have no gripes about a charge. Well I do, but I can accept it But as has been said, the disproportionate amount is just off the scale of acceptance.

London is a city, there are many more like it in the country. Plenty of areas suffer from horrendus traffic daily. However there is a lot of money in London, a need to travel from place to place, and a whole load of trade due to tourism. So it immediatly becomes a target for such schemes.

At the end of the day it was about congestion.... So it was brought in, and over the time lowered traffic by............6% (wooo)
Since its not having an impact anymore they raised the charge to £8, thats about a 60% rise in one hit. Made NO difference, other than putting a few more businesses under, and raising delivery costs for other businesses even more.
Now its primed, its time to really take the **** with it. So instead of VED Band A = * B = * etc... they thought they would just slap the £25 on the F's and discuss a sloping scale to be introduced some other time...... Why not just introduce it all in one go. And why not admit that its NOT a congestion zone, but infact an emissions zone now. While the introduced the emissions zone for commercials.

R23, my point exactly. Its almost like animal rights activists walking about in fur coats!