Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Arse: according to Ken LIvingstone my car is so unGreen I'll have to pay £25 congestion charge

241 replies

TheDullWitch · 13/02/2008 21:12

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6146442.stm

It's only a blardy Volvo estate, not a 4X4 and actually I'm Mrs Public Transport and must have only driven it into the congestion zone 3 times since charges started.(And we re getting rid of it anyway in two months.)

But that ruling will just lead to lots of richer families buying a second, runabout car which doesn t have to pay the charge. Which is hardly Green. Whilst lots of poorer families will never be able to use the one big family car they need.

OP posts:
redadmiral · 14/02/2008 17:24

Would that be one of the London papers produced by the Standard by any chance? That's really going to be reliable on that subject .

I don't give a toss about Ken either way, but I live in London and have seen it work, so I am quite sceptical about the naysayers.

hunkermunker · 14/02/2008 17:28

RA, yes, probably. It had quotes from him in it about what he'd said about the charge - things like he saw no reason to increase it for ten years, it wouldn't go up past £6, etc, etc.

All confirmable one way or the other, I guess, if I had the paper still. Or the inclination to search for them!

Coolmama · 14/02/2008 17:30

Redadmiral - I live in the extended zone and it's not made that much difference to the congestion at all - the only thing that happened was that more people drive around in the zone now - also -
Plus,lennygrll - even if you pay the new £25 charge to come into london for NHS etc - you will still only be refunded £8.
There is a very good study by the RAC - if I can find it, I will link.

redadmiral · 14/02/2008 17:36

I can't subjectively tell, but I have seen reports of studies which say congestionwise it's working. (Like Hunker, don't know if I can be bothered to find them!)
In terms of improved public transport it's been fantastically good.

Surelt the RAC are going to be very pro driving?

MicrowaveOnly · 14/02/2008 17:47

agree nmc. people always want 'something done' as long as it doesn't affect them!

hunker "because we're all about the being green these days, aren't we?! "

umm..yes. Get your head out of the sand..time is running out, like it or not.

hunkermunker · 14/02/2008 17:49

Um, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of calling it a congestion charge when it was an environmental tax. Head not in sand, thanks. Don't drive in town, use the tube, yadayada.

TheBlonde · 14/02/2008 17:54

I think it is mad to make it free for any cars just on emissions

Anything that means less cars on the road in London is good imho

redadmiral · 14/02/2008 17:54

Not sure what point you are making - surely it still has the same effect whatever it's called?

Heres a link to FoE article www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/congestion_charge_should_b_16022004.html

Obviously they are biased in their perceptions, but would rather go with them than a motorist organisation, TBH.

hunkermunker · 14/02/2008 17:59

What effect? Making more people buy smaller cars?

My point was that it's called a congestion charge, but it lets cars in that produce lower emissions.

However, they still take up room on the roads.

Therefore it's not a congestion charge.

Coolmama · 14/02/2008 18:08

If it's an emission tax, then call it that. But it is no longer a congestion charge as it will not reduce the number of cars on the road.

redadmiral · 14/02/2008 18:10

Right I see your point there. But I still don't get what you are arguing for.

Do you want it to be called an environment tax and then you'd be happy?

Do you want it highter and more inclusive of all cars so that the roads are less congested?

What?

Coolmama · 14/02/2008 18:31

IF he is serious about congestion, then do things like setting up carshare lanes and reduce the cost of public transport. I'm perfectly happy for him to introduce an emissions tax, but I think the way it is positioned at the moment penalises all the wrong people. IF you have an older car or are trying to get your children around London, then you will suffer. I would think, that for the most part, if you can afford to drive a true "chelsea tractor", then you will just pay the tax and be done - no reduction to the congestion at all.

needmorecoffee · 14/02/2008 18:35

he's probably going slow because of the amount of outcry you get if you even suggest maybe poeple drive less.
You'd think they were having their legs cut off!
We're getting 2+ lanes here and the whining from drivers is unbelievable.

needmorecoffee · 14/02/2008 18:37

and buses in London are very very cheap. You get kids travelling for free for starters. I pay £3.50 to go 5 miles into town for each of my children and £4.70 for me.

redadmiral · 14/02/2008 18:40

I'll shut up now as I'm losing my sense of humour, AND I've just been putting the recycling out and I've been pretty bad this week - there's always ways to improve one's own impact without looking at other people's

Would just like to say though that it is perfectly possible to get children around London without using a car - aforesaid buses work well for me and most of my friends. Using Oyster the bus fares are pretty cheap, and I don't think they've actually gone up much beyond what they were when Ken got in, which is pretty impressive.

hifi · 14/02/2008 19:03

its discrimination, everyone is on the global warming band wagon, another tax.

needmorecoffee · 14/02/2008 19:08

why is it discrimination? Do you enjoy breathing in car fumes?

idlingabout · 15/02/2008 11:22

When I used to live in London I didn't need a car and don't understand why people have to drive their children around in London - out in the provinces, I would love the choice of public transport which Londoners enjoy.

totalmisfit · 15/02/2008 12:04

woohoo! god gave you legs people. use 'em. i've never had a bloody car. my parents never had a blooming car and managed to raise 4 kids, get them up and down to school, go on as many holidays as poss and generally live a good life, all without one. people who live in London have no excuse for having a car, except those with disabilities or people who absolutely have to have a car for work eg doctors, district nurses...

clam · 15/02/2008 12:15

Last time I was in London, taking DD to GOSH for a checkup, I felt unforgivably lazy and waved down a taxi to get back to the station. After 10 minutes sitting in a jam, with the meter ticking onwards and upwards, we got out and walked. I reckon that cab might still be there now. Serves me right, I know, for being a lazy cow, but surely it's quicker not to use a car in Central London? Not to mention the emissions etc..

foxinsocks · 15/02/2008 12:17

oh I'm always driving in central London. It's great. You just need to know which roads to avoid.

And I doubt this is anything to do with congestion or greeness or anything. It's just another bloody money making scheme. Never seems to make any difference to our public bloody transport, I have to say.

alfiesbabe · 15/02/2008 12:21

idling - I agree. Why the f*ck does anyone need to drive into central London? I live out in the sticks, and I'm hugely jealous of how cheap London public transport is compared to here.

foxinsocks · 15/02/2008 12:25

well why not?

You can drive where you please.

And it's not that cheap in London and it's often inconvenient and crowded and horribly unpleasant (now that I have the pleasure of commuting).

edam · 15/02/2008 12:25

Ken has changed his tune a dozen times about what the congestion charge is actually for. The evidence on congestion is very mixed - there was an initial effect inside the zone (but places around the edge suffered) - now seems has not made much difference at all.

I'm just very glad we moved out of town. Bloody Ken and his bloody multi-million pound handouts to mysterious friends of his key advisers who disappear without anything to show for the money.

I lived in London for 17 years - most of them didn't even own a car, once we did only used it when we actually needed to but would still be wound up by Ken 'I think I'm God' Livingstone. Where we used to live is now just outside the zone, surrounded on three sides by the extension. You can't leave your house without paying unless you drive in a straight line out of London.

AND I had to pay the sodding charge just to give birth in my local hospital. Gits.

redadmiral · 15/02/2008 12:34

at Halgerda's post from yesterday. The carbon footprint of hell idea has been amusing me all day.

All the people who keep saying the C Charge has made no difference seem to have selective hearing when a lot of other posters keep saying that the extra funding has made huge improvements to public transport. (Mainly buses - I think the tube is harder to tackle, although disabled and buggy access to the new stations is fab.)

What really surprises me is that people seem to have no shame about putting down what is obviously a green initiative. Whther or not it cuts congestion, it has made public transport an easier and affordable alternative. (And I think it does make people think twice about driving in the congestion zone.)