Filed under: Government/Legal, Earnings/Financials, First Drive, UK
Mayor Livingstone quintuples London "congestion charge"
We report this unfortunate development in solidarity with our British comrades. As if it weren't hard enough living in London – already one of the most expensive cities in the world – Mayor Ken Livingstone has drastically increased the congestion charge for cars entering the city. The fine, originally instituted in 2003 at ?5, will jump exponentially to ?25 per day for every vehicle entering downtown London. The news follows last week's announcement that the charge for commercial vehicles increased to a whopping ?200. City officials claim the ?30-50 million it will raise from the added tax revenues each year will be invested into public transportation. Conservative MP (and noted car nut) Boris Johnson calls the charge a "stealth tax" on families requiring larger cars.
As before, low-emissions cars are exempt from paying the fee. Not to worry, though: for drivers who have yet to trade in their secure Range Rovers for an unsafe G-Wiz, the now even-further reviled "Red Ken" Livingstone has a plan: 6,000 rental bicycles to be made available around London by 2010, which should pose no problem for commuters in rain-swept England.
[Source: Bloomberg Europe via Winding Road]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
purecoda 7:04PM (2/12/2008)
How soon before they ban cars altogether?
Reply
iSpec 7:06PM (2/12/2008)
One day we'll all wake up and realize we were scammed. Maybe not though because we could die and never know the difference. The greatest of all scams tend to be argued to death with each party unable to prove the others legitimacy.
Reply
AJW 7:09PM (2/12/2008)
I don't know that I'd call this a "fine". It's a usage charge. Not fun, not necessarily fair to some folks that need to access the city for deliveries (small business especially), but not a fine. Also, this increase only applies to the most polluting cars, with the highest CO2 output. You can actually get the details here:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/congestioncharging/7394.aspx
Additionally, the charge is actually ₤8, or ₤10 if you pay the day afterwards. Any more than that and you risk the penalty fees.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/congestioncharging/6741.aspx
While none of this makes for an exciting or "screaming" story, it's at least accurate....
Reply
Matt 7:10PM (2/12/2008)
GB may have better American cars than America...but this is just stupid. Between this and the speed cameras...the English might as well give up "motoring" all together.
Reply
Seoultrain 7:11PM (2/12/2008)
WOW, that is ridiculous. Would this be the only legitimate reason to buy the LS600h? Saving 750 pounds per month would likely be worth it.
Reply
Udayan Tripathi 7:16PM (2/12/2008)
Tripled + £1.
It's £8 today, not £5.
-- He started it, claimed he'd never raise the price, and now HGVs pay £200 PER DAY! BMW 335i = £25 per day.
Madness.
Reply
SilverAero 7:21PM (2/12/2008)
For those of you who do not know which is probably most of you. The congestion charge area is actually only the center of London. Its as if a portion of down town Manhattan has the charge and not the greater New York area besides the people who live there and use a car can defiantly afford it. Most Londoners either walk and take the tube or never go down there. However the commercial vehicle usage fee is absurd.
Reply
Seoultrain 7:22PM (2/12/2008)
Love your poignant thoughts on the London congestion charge.
Reply
Richard 7:25PM (2/12/2008)
As for the bicycle comment - I have to say, the Paris program, while initially met with skepticism IIRC, has proven to be immensely successful. Lots of bikes, actively being rented and used, and less cars because of it.
Reply
TwinTurbo3000GT 7:27PM (2/12/2008)
dude what the hell are you talking about? how does this have anything to do with manufacturers?
All this is is a further restriction of freedom. They cant MAKE people drive hybrids, so they do this so they cant afford to drive the car's they really want to. It wont last, thank god. The canidate for mayor that vows to get rid of this will be elected.
Reply
PJ 7:41PM (2/12/2008)
SilverAero, thanks for the Voice of Reason post.
The only people who drive in the affected area (*downtown* London, remember) are either a) commercial drivers or b) nuts. There are very few of the latter, as these roads are an absolute zoo. The former are the ones I feel badly for.
Lest American readers forget, London has a relatively superb public transportation system, and most residents take the tube or the bus for their commute. There's very little reason to drive in the city. It certainly wouldn't be faster.
If you really wanted to, though, most GB-market subcompacts and compacts squeeze under the CO2 cap and will continue to pay the current £8 charge (the other part of this story AB couldn't resist sensationalizing).
Reply
vdk 7:45PM (2/12/2008)
at least someone's doing something about congestions... when you can take the subway and get to work in 15 min instead of driving for 60... why not take the train? everyday I see ppl in my building driving to their workplace downtown when they live literally 1 minute from a subway station...
Reply
Dazza 7:47PM (2/12/2008)
The article is incorrect. The increased charges do not apply to all cars. Here's the official verbiage:
"From 27 October, cars that emit more than 225 g/km CO2 will pay £25 to enter the central London charging zone. Band A and B cars, those that emit less than 120 g/km, will be eligible for a 100 per cent discount."
This will effectively encompass SUVs and larger-engined cars. Cars are already graded into C02 bands for road tax/registration purposes, and the congestion charge will now be linked to it. The vast majority of C- and D- segment cars with 4 cylinder engines (which most people here drive) will not be eligible for the higher congestion charge rate since their C02 rating is less than 225g/km.
Originally the congestion charge was a huge success and kept a great deal of traffic from central London. The problem has occurred since the congestion charge zone was expanded: suddenly it encompasses areas closer to residential suburbia affecting more family-oriented destinations such as schools, etc.
The latest measure to increase the cost for high polluting vehicles was always on the cards and for the original zone, was definitely a good idea. To increase the charge for the entire congestion zone for these types of vehicle however I think may be too much, too soon.
All in all though, central London is a far better place to be without the horrific congestion which used to take place. I remember once about ten years ago spending almost four hours to drive from central London to the M25 - a distance of 30 miles. It's a good deal easier these days.
Reply
Derek Jones 7:52PM (2/12/2008)
With the price for commercial users at 200 quid it's no surprising the cost of a pint in London is so high. Talk about killing the competition - a small company won't even be able to do business in that area. Ridiculous.
Get on your bike Ken....
Reply
clevershark 7:54PM (2/12/2008)
For those of you wondering where the congestion charge area is, 8 Pounds has a handy map.
Reply
clevershark 7:55PM (2/12/2008)
map here:
http://www.eightpounds.com/about_congestion_charge.asp
Reply
Omer 7:56PM (2/12/2008)
i have lived in London and after living there and talking to other people it seems nobody argues the congestion charge as it has helped traffic in central London but the problem is that trains are ridiculously expensive to use. A common gripe among all Britons is that train service is good but it is very expensive with no other alternative.
Reply
Derek Jones 8:05PM (2/12/2008)
To put it into perspective for those in the US, £200 pounds is roughly $400. Imagine having to pay that every day just for your delivery truck to drop your products off in an area that would cover most of the City of Boston. Imagine owning a restaurant and having to cover the upcharges.
Reply
psarhjinian 9:27PM (2/12/2008)
Imagine having a public transit system that didn't suck, accompanied by a lack of urban sprawl.
Doesn't seem so bad now, does it?
gsolman6 8:09PM (2/12/2008)
I went to London in '99 and took the tube to get around. Then I went to Paris on a TGV via the chunnel. I never felt the need to have a car.
European cities were not built around the motor vehicle like Pheonix, LA, and Houston but rather were built around pedestrian and non-motorized transport so it does make some sense though I don't know the correct charge.
Reply