Congestion Charging

[CarlMetro]

I know this has been discussed before but I believe there are several new issues to be discussed.

Firstly. Despite the initial reduction of traffic in the original zone in London by approximately 30% it has now been recognised that the actual reduction is less than 8%. The main reason for this is that, despite the area expanding further West, many are choosing to go back to their own cars because reliable and viable alternatives have not been forthcoming.

Secondly and perhaps more importantly, especially with many other major cities (Manchester, Durham, Edinburgh) about to introduce their own congestion charging zones, is the intention of the government to enforce higher levies for the those vehicles which produce the most greenhouse gases. The proposal, which could be in effect by February next year, is for vehicles which produce more than 225kg/Km to pay £25 per day, with no exemption for those who live within the zones. That would mean a bill of £5300 per year.

Now I know there will be those who will say that it is good to get all those 4x4s and big Mercs, BMWs and other gas guzzlers of the road but bear in mind it will also hit Mr Average too. Cars like the VW Sharan, Skoda Superb, VXR Astra and Honda Civic Type R all produce more than 225kg/Km.

There are also those that will say that it serves people right for living/working in London. Well before you say that, just bare in mind that there are plenty of other local authorities about to either introduce their own Congestion Charge zones or implement feasibility studies on whether to introduce them.

Last but by no means least, even hybrid cars, which have been exempt from any charges are about to have a nasty shock too if this change happens because any vehicle which produces more than 120kg/Km will be required to pay the Congestion Charge, so with the exception of the Toyota Prius (104kg/Km) and the Honda Civic Hybrid (109kg/Km) all other vehicles will be required to pay the £8 per day charge.

[Dave B]

Congestion charging is a great idea but its implimentation is flawed.

Choosing to make more polluting vehicles pay more is noble in theory; but there's a difference between a family with three kids who need a people carrier, and a single person who chooses to drive a 4x4.

You could possibly extend the use of technology already used for checking abuse of car-sharing lanes to charge more for single-occupancy vehicles, if it was proven reliable.

There's also a flaw with letting hybrids escape the charge. A Prius is a terrible car for emissions when driven with its engine, which I'll wager is the case the vast majority of the time.

It works - to an extent - in London because public transport is pretty good overall. But god help us if they introduced it in my town, the busses are next to useless and the railway is by its nature only linear.

[J4MIE]

I believe that Edinburgh Council (or whoever) voted against a congestion charge a few years back.

Think it's rediculous that if you live in the zone then you can't get an exemption :confused: :\

[LotusElise]

Just hearing the word "congestion" makes me feel irritable now. That and "carbon footprint".

[Hazell B]

Bring on the charges I say.

But then again, I never go in to town centres unless I'm having a day out :p :

Seriously, I'd like to see some towns and cities able to charge, so long as the cash is spent correctly after collection. If somebody lives in the city or works there and absolutley has to pay, I have little sympathy. Those of us who work or live out of the city have to pay to get all the way there and we don't expect cheaper petrol, do we? It's just another of life's problems to sort a way around as far as I'm concerned.

However, the charges do have to be fairly applied and fairly priced. Alternatives do have to be in place and safe above all else.
I think if they're fair, the cash a few people are down will be far outweighed by the advantages we should all feel when using city centres. It's just a matter of how you sort out what's fair and what's not ... and which council members live within and without the areas to be charged :mark:

[Drew]

I disagree with congestion charges. Is car tax and the nearly 70% tax on petrol and diesel not enough to fund public transport and the roads? :confused:

Although I understand its aims, I don't agree with it.

[Mark]

Yes, the fuel tax is more than enough but the government choose to spend that on other things hence needing to come up with more car taxes.

[Hazell B]

To be fair, if we knew how much car use cost the whole UK we'd have a fairer idea of how much the taxes raised are worth in real terms.

I'm thinking about how much car accidents cost the police forces (it's a million quid per fatal accident average, here), the hospitals, the street lights and all the rest. They claim York Minster's damage from cars and lorries trundling past has cost about ten million to sort out - but who really knows? Either way, if some car use taxes went that way to help pay for damaged stones to be fixed, would we moan or not?

[Mark]

Like most things in society it's pretty much impossible to quantify. However even if you ignore motoring taxes completely, I believe motorised road vehicle transportation would be a net gain for the economy as opposed to not having it at all.

[LotusElise]

I can see the point of pedestrian zones in a lot of British towns, especially the older ones that weren't really designed for cars in the first place. It just annoys me that instead of taking the simple action of creating or expanding car-free areas, councils want to make money instead. Congestion charging isn't really about improving the urban environment.

[Flat.tyres]

how much fuel is being used on our roads and then we can see how much is being collected in Tax.

I have a car that does over 30 to the gallon yet the Govt charge me £300 a year to tax it. this tax should be enough for the roads shouldnt it?