London may abandon plan for CO2 based congestion charge
A year ago, London Mayor Ken Livingstone announced plans to revamp the congestion charge system for the central part of the city. The heart of the changes was to go from a single £8 per day flat rate for all vehicles to a system where drivers would be charged an amount based on the CO2 emissions of their vehicles. Vehicle registration taxes in England are in part based on the emissions band of a vehicle. Starting in 2008, the congestion charge was to have gone up to £25 for the highest emitting vehicles while those that emit less than 120g/km would be exempt from the charge. However, as ever, the best laid plans have gone awry. In anticipation of the new rules Britons began snapping up low CO2 vehicles in hopes of avoiding the charges. Sales reportedly jumped by over one-third through the first three quarters of 2007. Now Transport for London is considering abandoning the changes over concerns it may lead to increased congestion and lower revenues. If they do this a lot of people who bought these vehicles solely for this reason would be awfully upset. The Mayor needs to decide what his real goal is. If it's reducing congestion than keeping a flat rate on all vehicles is the way to go. Congestion has nothing to do with how much CO2 is emitted, it's about how many vehicles are on a given stretch of roadway. If they want pollution reductions but don't care about congestion the previously proposed plan is the way to go. If they want both, then no vehicles should get an exemption but a sliding scale would still provide an incentive to get a cleaner vehicle if you must drive into the city.
Related:
[Source: AutoCar, thanks to Danny for the tip]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
susan.kraemer 11:31AM (12/20/2007)
"However, as ever, the best laid plans have gone awry. In anticipation of the new rules Britons began snapping up low CO2 vehicles in hopes of avoiding the charges. Sales reportedly jumped by over one-third through the first three quarters of 2007."
Its NOT the congestion, its the CO2! Damn, they should have called it the carbon fee!
Reply
Karl-Uwe Strunzen 11:32AM (12/20/2007)
"If it's reducing congestion than keeping a flat rate on all vehicles is the way to go."
I think this is a little simplistic. CO2 and congestion don't seem to me as being completely independent. The heavy CO2 emitters - above the 250 g threshold - are cars such as the really heavy SUVs. Really heavy SUVs don't have the same effect on congestion as the cars below the 120 g threshold.
For example a Citroen C1 (109 g CO2) has a footprint of 5.6 m2 compared with 9.2 m2 for the Porsche Cayenne turbo, with 358 g CO2. Obviously a street full of Cayennes has a lot fewer cars than a street full of C1s. Or, if the number of drivers is the same, the street is obviously not sufficient if everyone is driving Cayennes.
I'm not sure that the 33% can be definitely attributed to the LCC. Even if it were, given the enormous difference in size and CO2 and other emissions, in my opinion sales would have to go up by a lot more than 33% to justify withdrawing the CO2-based system.
Congestion I would say is not just an issue for cars. There are also pedestrians in London, and the non-CO2 emissions (the ones with the worst direct repercussions) in the case of SUVs are drastically higher (2-4 times higher).
Reply
scatter 11:47AM (12/20/2007)
I'll be very disappointed if he changes his mind on this. This was such a strong policy instrument proposal and would have been a very powerful influence on car purchasing habits.
At least exempt Band A cars to provide a clear incentive to manufacturers to get their butts in gear and start properly producing and marketing sub-100g cars. Or start the exemption at 110g/km and reduce it by 2g/km per year. Anything!
Reply
Auto IT 11:51AM (12/20/2007)
The Mayor's Office denied that this story was true pretty quickly yesterday, after Autocar ran with it. That doesn't mean it isn't true, of course, being that this is politics...
http://www.london.gov.uk/news/2007/emissions-charging.jsp
Reply
scatter 12:05PM (12/20/2007)
K-U I don't think the 33% can be attributed just to it at all. Reports have not been very detailed but my suspicion is that the 33% increase is nationwide, not just for the south east.
Also band B new car registrations jumped 40% from 78,000 in 2005 to 110,000 in 2006 and the LCC changes weren't announced until right at the end of 2006.
Reply
Simon 12:57PM (12/20/2007)
I support dropping this proposal. Currently electric cars are exempt from the congestion charge. If you include small internal combustion engine cars as exempt as well then it would completely get rid of any incentive for electric cars.
The fact that the Reva is exempt is pushed hard and I think thats why it has had the success it has. I don't have any figures to back this up with though.
Reply
Karl-Uwe Strunzen 5:48PM (12/20/2007)
As to the 33%, just as an example which comes to mind, there is the "shaky" year in UK car sales this year compared with other countries in Western Europe. I am referring to car sales which have gone at times from quite negative one month to rather positive the next according to ACEA. If this 33% is part of one of these positive monthly tides (which includes a kind of recovery from a previous month) I'd say it's rather unfair to start pointing the finger at environmentally-friendly cars. If anything, one could start working on the number of passengers in cars (car pooling etc)
Again, because of the difference between highly-efficient cars and SUVs in footprint, CO2 and other emissions, I wouldn't start changing the CO2-based system unless we were talking about a 200% change (not a speculated change).
Reply
Dad 6:39PM (12/20/2007)
" and lower revenues"
Ahh, the truth!
Reply
adrian 1:50PM (12/21/2007)
Congestion Charge?, Road tolling by stealth and nothing else. TFL and the current British goverment which supports TFL hates drivers and will do anything rob them.
Reply
Karl-Uwe Strunzen 6:34PM (12/21/2007)
Yes, they should probably just spank all drivers instead. A lot simpler.
Reply