I am not sure if this has been posted - if it has please do delete or move etc...
As this does not directly affect me, or rather I do not have to pay the charge directly to TFL, is this really a good idea? With the discussion over the 35mpg car going on at the moment, and those that say a Ferrari driven for a short while on w/ends is less polluting than a Focus driven every day, can't the same argument be used when dealing with the LEZ. What proportion of lorries make up traffic in Greater London? Presumably somewhat less than private vehicles, so is targeting HGVs really going to improve the air quality?
I doubt that it will make any difference except making everything delivered inside London EVEN more expensive as the prices will be passed on to the customer. This is tottally opposite private vehicles driving inside the congestion area where the majority of vehicles are private and charges not passed on - with the LEZ I suspect that (at least!!) 100% of charges will be passed on and therefore there is no real disincentive.
|
|
ken has to find a way to fund the bloated mess that is the 2012 olympics!
|
|
|
I am a budget holder for my employer. We usually pay congestion charge as a disbursement if it's demanded. £8 is only significant on small items, maybe a sandwich lunch for a meeting, but then it's usually split with others.
Two hundred quid where not all pay is much more of a heads up item. I'd certainly look for an exempt contractor if LEZ was a significant proportion of overall cost. Just another item to consider in judging the overall value of competing offers.
|
ken has to find a way to fund the bloated mess that is the 2012 olympics!
I would love to see the end account compared to the gestimates oh and don't forget Kens whisky.
|
|
Its just another worrying example of how these half baked ideas can be pushed through. Global warming etc are too often an absolute answer for any new tax.
|
|
|
|
One interesting point is that vehicles that don't comply are simply not allowed into London. The ARE allowed to carry as normal, 1 foot outside the Zone.
Another point, when the bus companies have to comply, what will they do with their non-compliant vehicles? Just move them elsewhere. Whats the point, unless they're scrapped? It's just passing the buck.
|
Yet another example of a lack of joined up thinking and, as has been said, using global warming as a justification for exhorbitant taxation.
Just think how much embedded carbon there is a new tractor unit or bus.
|
|
From coverage I heard yesterday one thing they weren't spouting on about was global warming. The initiative is to reduce pollution in the London area to prevent some of the 1,000 annual deaths from asthma and other respiratory related diseases.
|
|
When London became a smokeless zone, coal fires were banned not taxed. Good job Red Ken wasnt in charge then. Pity that banning doesnt raise revenue, its far more effective.
Edited by Old Navy on 05/02/2008 at 09:02
|
|
|
I agree re respiratory diseases, we moved away from the London area in part to help one of the kids who suffers from asthma and eczema and I suffer from an unrelated lung condition myself though the net effect of this sort of policy is a taxation hike, there has to be a better way to incentivise change.
Also the global net effect needs to be considered which could be negative if in creates demand for the manufacture of new vehicles and current ones become obsolete well before the end of their useful life.
|
|
1000 deaths caused by respitory failure due to traffic fumes out of a population of 6 million, i reckon most of them were made worse due to smoking , if ken is so worried about the population of londoners health why doesnt he ban tobacco ?
|
"The initiative is to reduce pollution in the London area to prevent some of the 1,000 annual deaths from asthma and other respiratory related diseases. "
According to a very reputable broadsheet (although it is no longer broadsheet!) this morning, the LEZ will have virtually no effect, quote
"Transport for London, the mayor?s transport authority, admitted yesterday that very few lives would be saved. It said that existing European regulations on reducing engine emissions would contribute 65 per cent of the health benefits listed by Mr Livingstone. Another 15 per cent would be the product of existing plans to introduce cleaner buses and taxis. Only a fifth of the improvement in air pollution by 2012 will be attributable to the low emission zone. Air pollution in general will reduce only by about 5 per cent, meaning the zone will improve overall air quality by only 1 per cent.
Brian Paddick, the Liberal Democrat candidate in May?s mayoral election, said
He said: ?To suggest the LEZ will do something about the 1,000 deaths a year caused by pollution is grossly misleading. The most effective way to deal with pollution in London is to get the traffic moving again and reduce the number of lorries on our roads through retail consolidation schemes. This is about improving the mayor?s image, not improving air quality.?
It will also do little "fund the Olympics" quote again
"Although it will raise an estimated £3-4 million a year in fees and fines, the scheme will make a huge overall loss. Mr Livingstone has spent £49 million establishing the scheme and it will cost £10 million a year to operate for the next eight years"
|
|
|
|
|
|
