SUV Owners Must Pay $50 Per Day to Drive in London
Thu, Jan 31, 2008
Environmental Graffiti Will be Changing Dramatically Soon. Get a Sneak Preview By Signing Up Here.
London Mayor Ken Livingstone has partially built his career on making London more environmentally friendly.
Piccadilly Circus in central London
He’s made a few missteps in tackling environmental problems, such as the recent law he was promoting that would have hurt on bike use in the city. But today, in the thick of his mayoral re-election campaign, he announced what is in effect a massive tax hike on gas guzzling vehicles in the city of London.
London already charges a tax, known as a congestion charge, on almost all vehicles that enter central and parts of west London. Certain vehicles, such as those hybrids or eco-friendly fuel cars are exempt. Livingstone’s most recent announcement, however, vastly increases the charge for the highest polluting vehicles.
Vehicles in band G, those that emit more than 225 grams of CO2 per kilometre, will pay a whopping £25($50) every day to enter the congestion zone. This will mostly affect heavy 4×4 vehicles. Most other vehicles will continue to pay the daily charge of £8($16).
Livingstone had previously discussed the congestion charge hike, but likely chose to formally announce it now in an effort to strengthen his campaign. He has frequently highlighted his “green” credentials throughout the campaign.
Livingstone said in a written statement: “A key issue at the election is my proposal for a £25-a-day charge for the most CO2-emitting vehicles entering the congestion-charging zone and, after consultation, I will be able to take a decision on this in the coming month. On the environment, the choice is even starker. [Mayoral opponent Boris Johnson] is one of the few politicians who supported George W Bush in opposing the Kyoto treaty.”
The move has come under some criticism from the Automobile Association. They argue the charge will penalize small business owners who use vans to conduct business in the city, as well as large families who must use bigger vehicles to travel.
*Update* The car manufacturer Porsche is going to sue London over these new regulations
Info from Guardian Unlimited
If you want to find out all the latest interesting environmental news, why not subcribe to our RSS feed? We’ll even throw in a free album.
You Might Also Like Our Friends' Posts From the Intertubes
“The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else.”
1 Trackbacks For This Post
-
ryansomma.com » Blog Archive » Science Etcetera 20080202 Says:
March 30th, 2008 at 4:23 am[...] an SUV in London will now cost $50 Per Day, Hybrids drive [...]
January 31st, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Fascinating. And while good for the environment, it will inevitably effect small and local business owners. Ironically, these folks are often more eco-conscious than the corporations who will be able to get around this.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:18 am
Typical left wing lunacy from ‘Red Ken’, a hate tax on SUVs from a man with no sense of proportion.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:07 am
Go Ken! Fantastic piece of legislation, I can’t wait until he wins the election and implements it. A truely great politician and leader, if only there were more like him.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:16 am
Nice idea, but it’s not just SUVs he’s catching, but drivers of modest family cars such as the 2 litre auto Ford Mondeo, the Ciroen C8 and the Renault Espace 2 litre petrol. Now that’s worrying. Personally I have no idea why on earth you’d ever drive a car into the centre of London having lived there for a couple of years, but what do I know…?
February 1st, 2008 at 3:27 am
David of Sydney, you really let down Australians. There are so few parts of NSW Australia that you actually need a 4×4 yet the number of suburban commandos I see in Canberra is disgusting. Too many high and mighty public servants in there little mobile castles. For people who genuinely do 4×4 driving, I salute you, but there laws are targeted at the growing trend for people to buy these monsters as a form of protection/safety (which they’re not). In Australia I would argue to make 4×4 vehicles exempt from Novated Lease Agreements (unless the business actually does work in the bush) and get rid of the tax loophole which allows people to buy these cars fringe benefit tax exempt. A lexus 4×4… how ridiculous.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:13 am
Great idea! I live in America and over here it’s absurd the size of the vehicles people drive! Some of these “cars” barely squeeze into our oversized parking lanes. Plus, to add insult to injury, large car purchases actually get a tax break! Our politicians are in the hands of the oil industry over here though and we’re fighting to get control back. But they are some slick evil bastards. Hope you guys over in europe keep up the good fight! :)
February 1st, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Stupid idea… First off, if you believe CO2 causes global warming you need to double check your information ( and question the sources of these claims carefully), second off this doesn’t make any sense because it will require people to pay money to drive their cars: they will have to make more money to do this, and to make more money they will need to use more energy. Higher inflation costs will result in more energy use.
February 1st, 2008 at 5:27 pm
I guess hybrid SUV’s and work trucks are not available to Londoners. Until modern-day technology is readily available to those working in the city, I suggest this is way too harsh of a tax.
First some education about which autos are good for the environment, then maybe tax-exempt or rebate status on the purchase of hybrid vehicles, then even perhaps getting the said vehicles in the area for purchase.
February 1st, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Get a lesson in critical thinking and logical argument before embarrassing yourself again.
February 1st, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Is this cause – effect relationship really STILL in question by some people? Or have you just arrived in 2008 from about 10 years ago?
It would be nice if Americans did this as well…instead of allowing the EPA to tell states (like California) not to regulate emissions standards and mileage laws.
February 1st, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Ken Livingstone is not an environmentalist.
I believe in supporting environmental issues, but Red Ken’s environmental policies, in reality, thinly veil his Socialist / Marxist idealisms.
This is war against the middle classes, not on environmental destruction.
The average 4×4 (or automatic Mondeo) owner will, over three years, spend around £19,000 in congestion charges (assuming that they enter the congestion zone nearly every weekday, but not weekends), which is more than the cost of running the 4×4 if depreciation, fuel, roadtax and loan payments are taken into account.
Indeed, this is more that the brand new price of entry level 4×4, or the used price of a mid-range pre-owned 4×4!
February 1st, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Actually they did this already – hybrids and zero-emission vehicles are totally exempt from the charge.
February 1st, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Being a Londoner who has actually had the (dis)pleasure of “driving” in London I can say the congestion tax, er sorry charge, has had no effect on congestion! The recent extension into a largely residential area has only made matters worse as suddenly a lot more people now qualify for the 90% discount. The idea of the congestion charge originally was to reduce the traffic in London. If you are going to start tying this into emissions then it is no longer about reducing the volume of traffic, but instead about the environment and is a tax. Ken seems determined to piss everyone off and is doing a mighty fine job of it. Interestingly I don’t just think this will just hit 4×4 owners (who as a cyclist in the city I hate) but also those richer people who choose to drive the high performance cars as I’m sure most Ferrari’s, Lambo’s, Aston Martins, Bentleys and Rolls Royces with their 4l + engines are fairly high up the emissions chart too!
The only saving grace here is that my Prius (a company car, chosen as it was the cheapest to run on a private basis and the least tax burden) is exempt, not that I use it much as I prefer my bike, which in the city is about the fastest means of transport you can get!
February 1st, 2008 at 6:02 pm
And with that we kiss goodbye to freedom of expression and the right to choice. Lets not forget these cars (their drivers) by definition pay more road tax & fuel duty already, therefore penalising the drivers and contributing more to the state than other car owners.
We may as well go the whole hog and tax fat people, entering London, I mean they eat more, therefore contributing to more pollution. Have higher transport costs (more weight to carry), bigger waste emissions with all that extra food packaging they throw away.
Then there’s the burden on the health service, with the increased costs and impact on the environment as they use more resources to treat weight related disorders….come on, we’d be better taxing farmers for their globally polluting farting cows!
February 1st, 2008 at 6:17 pm
I sure hope this Marxist based class warfare does not land on US shores. However with liberal Republicans (Arnold, McCain) and the hard leftists (Hillary, Obama) claiming power here I’m afraid it’s just a matter of time before such insane liberty stealing policies are happening here.
No wonder Marx chose to live in England, he’d be proud these days.
February 1st, 2008 at 6:23 pm
This is stupidity. Global warming is directly caused by Earth’s orbit around the sun and the activity of the sun. There will eventually be no more crude oil to burn in about three decades. Stop worrying about carbon emissions and worry about something that matters.
February 1st, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Daniel – even if this were the case, which it is not! Wouldn’t it be better if we were free from a barrage of half empty tanks grabbing their kids from school. Surely you also agree with the pollution aspect as well
February 1st, 2008 at 7:06 pm
FTA: “They argue the charge will penalize small business owners who use vans to conduct business in the city, as well as large families who must use bigger vehicles to travel.”
Apparently the Automobile Association has brought to light that these vehicles indeed are not available to large families or small business owners.
Correct?
February 1st, 2008 at 7:48 pm
@John,
this doesn’t look like class warfare from a US perspective, although things might be different in the UK. People of average means drive behemoth vehicles in the US… Environmental taxes will discourage them from driving inefficient vehicles, but won’t be effectice on rich people who can afford to pay them.
Also, class in the Marxist sense is about being an investor or a worker, it’s not about what you consume.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:29 pm
This is the stupidest law I’ve ever seen because you drive an SUV you have to pay 50 bucks a day, woa ever stupid!
February 1st, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Im here in the United States and this proposed tax is preposterous. The fact that people are going to be charged more to drive on a road that their tax money already bought and paid for because they choose to purchase any kind of vehicle is absurd. A vehicle choice is exactly that a choice, people make the decision based on their own personal means, and what they like or are influenced by. Plus the people that drive these vehicles already pay for more gasoline because of reduced gas mileage. And yes these vehicles are technically speaking safer, they have larger surface areas to deflect force in a collision therfore providing more saftey for the occupants. How can you in your right mind tax someone because they can afford a certain car and choose to drive that car. I thought England was a free country? Apparently freedoms here in the United States aren’t the only ones being forced to the wayside by ridiculous policies.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:11 am
Absolute moron. If you want to cut pollution from vehicles, BUILD MORE ROADS. London is the most congested city in the world. There are too many cars trying to use too little space. Ken Livingstone thinks that taxing these people again will make them go away – PEOPLE ARE NOT DRIVING AROUND LONDON FOR FUN! They are driving to work. They are taking their kids to school. They are driving home from work. They are attempting to go shopping with the little money they have left after being taxed to s**t.
Why would building more roads cut pollution? A vehicle consumes far less fuel, and produces far less emissions when it is doing a constant speed. If you force that vehicle to be constantly stopping, starting, stopping, starting, say as it would…. I don’t know, IN A TRAFFIC JAM… then it is going to be pumping out fumes.
And once you have built these roads, for the love of all that is holy, STOP DIGGING THEM UP AND PUTTING F**KING BUSLANES AND BICYCLE LANES EVERYWHERE. Just leave them. Don’t dig. Tell all the utility companies that you are building a road, and to put all their stuff underneath it before it is built, for if anybody decides to dig it up in the next 10 years for anything other than routine maintenance, then they will be shot in the feet.
If you must put this ridiculous tax into practice, to cut emissions and save the planet, then where are the proceeds from it going? Will they go into further developing London to be more environmentally friendly? No, it will go into the pockets of civil servants, politicians, pen-pushers and other no-name suits who add nothing.
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:00 am
How can you in your right mind tax someone because they can afford a certain car and choose to drive that car. I thought England was a free country? Apparently freedoms here in the United States aren’t the only ones being forced to the wayside by ridiculous policies.
Sure its a choice – noones banning you from driving one, but you have to recognise that by driving something that takes up three as much space and pumps out three times as much pollution as a normal car you will be penalised three times as much money. pretty simple.
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Improve public transport and ban all cars from entering any city. Most of the time you are faster if you use public transport, so why use a car at all?
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Shit,and i thought we payed lots of taxes in Belgium. I’m all for the environment as the next guy .. but you brits have to put up with way too much taxes, especially taxes related to driving.. it’s insane .. ow, and please be more careful when driving abroad .. the lane is on the RIGHT EVERYWHERE else ;)
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:07 pm
No easy answers here but the message must be delivered in all its unpleasantness. I’m a tradesman and have to use a truck, I’d just add on the cost to the job. Our utility trucks are of terrible design and we need to get the message to the auto makers that we need more function and less Penis extension. Maybe this will make an impression.
February 3rd, 2008 at 8:46 pm
No it is not pretty simple, it is not that cut and dry. Why should someone be penalized by purchasing a larger vehicle? That makes no rational sense. Larger families for example, you need to get all of them to one place? should they take two vehicles and add to more congestion and pollution? Why should someone be taxed for having a larger family?
February 4th, 2008 at 3:43 am
My question is – why would anyone want to use a SUV /
4×4 to drive in London?
February 10th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Gee… so many people just love telling others what to do while stealing their money.
February 12th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
(sorry for my english) BUT…
I cant afford a SUV but if i had the money I would recommend this to my wife or to my son! These car are very safe car, they will protect you in case of accident, you can have a better visual of the street etc. However there could be someone that bought this car and maybe is not so rich but he needed it! in this case Livingstone will penalize normal people and rich people will be continuing going around for the city! Moreover he is telling people to doing this to reduce co2 or to create a “clean” London, this is not the case! With the congestion charge the traffic in the city is the same, but the people now have to pay more money to enter in the city. Why penalize the SUV owners when in a city as London there are a lot of huge cars that have a engine average around 3000 cc, I told AVERAGE! This will be only a tax and only invidious people that can afford or they don’t like a SUV will appreciate this law! I don’t really think that the suv are the biggest problem in london and are the cause of a large emission of co2! Real problem are others.
February 13th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
The harder it is for people to drive coupe-killer SUVs the better. These vehicles are absurdly dangerous to OTHER drivers on the road, regardless of how safe they are (they actually aren’t really) for the occupants. SUV and large truck owners are selfish to assume they have the liberty to put other people in more danger to keep themselves safe. How about the liberty to have a chance of surviving an accident, aren’t you coupe-killing SUV drivers taking that away from the car drivers? Isn’t the right to life more important than the right to buy a large vehicle?
February 14th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
It is selfish to assume that the socialist/commies should make everyone drive small cars. Who the fuck do you people think you are? What blows my mind is many think it is okay for this type of control. This controlling and taxation that you nutters love so much is why you lost the Revolutionary War — Americans value their freedom and do not want the government to infringe socialistic ideologies and tax people to death. Why do you nutters think that it is a good idea for the government to protect people from themselves?
March 26th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Nice attempt to save the environment from pollution.
Kudos to Livingstone!
But this will affect the middle class category to a greater extend.
November 6th, 2008 at 4:41 am
This was really interesting to learn about and it added fuel to my fire. There should be a fee to drive SUV’s!
November 18th, 2008 at 11:11 am
First, they make the clean technology suppressed, then they force you with ‘technology’ that blows smoke into the air, & then blame YOU for it…
Check out my website!
February 6th, 2009 at 8:56 am
This was interesting to read but don’t think it would work where I live.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:16 am
14 months on from this original post, things have changed. But they haven’t changed because off the price effects. Its just not trendy to have an SUV in Notting Hill anymore! Swop the Cayene now for a smart car before you get ridiculed at The Portobello Dangler!