Porsche challenges C-charge rise

The Lunch

See news item: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7252092.stm - its says:
"Luxury carmaker Porsche is to challenge plans to increase London's congestion charge to £25-a-day for some vehicles. The firm said it intended to ask for a judicial review into the price changes, which come into force in October."

Can we challenge it too, please? Do I hear £100 a day? Am I bid £120 a day from the gentleman at the back?

I'm in tears for their plight, poor things!

BentMikey

LOL! Up not only the CC, but also treble all parking charges in the zone.

mailmannz

You may want to get off your high horse Lunch...as the real problem here is that a "normal" family car will get taxed the £25 while some of those large 4x4 chalsea tractors will still get charged the normal £8.

So those upper classes that you clearly hate wont in fact be impacted by this as much as normal "families" who drive "normal" cars will be impacted.

Unless of course you are one of those tree huggin pinko lesbo feminist commie jihadi buggers who hates all car owners and their vehicles? :roll:

Mailman

BentMikey

I don't see anything wrong with "normal" massive polluting family cars getting taxed, whilst a smaller and cleaner 4x4 doesn't. The rich won't be affected anyway since they can easily afford to drive whatever they want to.

mailmannz

These arent massive v12's that ma smith uses to get her 12 kids off to school.

Anyway, you have to be a special kind of person to believe this is all about saving the earth and not in fact all about revenue generation :roll:

And besides, who decides what is green and what isnt?

Mailman

giant_man

This doesn't surprise me at all, means people will question shelling out an extortionate amount of money for their polluting road engulfing leviathan that is the Cayenne.

They obviously think it will affect sales of their vehicles, otherwise why would they object, or indeed care?

BentMikey

mailmannz wrote:

These arent massive v12's that ma smith uses to get her 12 kids off to school.

It doesn't have to be a V12 to produce more CO2 than the limit, and at least for new cars, that's a very fair way to draw the line. Why would an ordinary family need such a big and polluting car?

I don't care if it's about revenue raising since that will only get plowed back into the city. I'm quite happy with the situation, because the result will almost certainly be to reduce the number of cars being used, and their size and pollution.

TheFoolio888

BentMikey wrote:

It doesn't have to be a V12 to produce more CO2 than the limit, and at least for new cars, that's a very fair way to draw the line. Why would an ordinary family need such a big and polluting car?

The main problem I find with society is that somewhere in the 90s wants somehow became the same thing as needs.


Personally I think there needs to be some form of sliding scale on car tax which takes into account polutions, fuel economy and vehicle size/weight. It would prob be a nightmare to administer though.

Regarding the congestion charge...fair play to him. The sooner they bring the same in Birmingham the better.


Oh and cars like the Cayenne should be banned just for being plainly rediculous in every way. :evil:

Matteeboy

Isn't it just cars over a certain CO2 emission level?

It's about 225g/km so includes all sorts of cars - Even some seemingly "good" cars.

Thats actually quite a low limit anyway.

Oh and the Cayenne Turbo (top end model) is a V8 turbo not a V12.
Only 4x4 with a V12 is the old Lambo LM200 - long out of production.

andrewc3142

Just turn the whole of the current congestion zone into a pedestrian precinct with free buses* having a defined network, enough to give access, and free cycle taxis (for the elderly, disabled and those with small kids), paid for and operated by politicians caught fiddling their expenses being made to do their community service.

Problem solved.


*(apart from the bendy variety which work fine on wide, straight Continental streets but not in Central London)

Parkey

Well it's simple free market economics. When there's a high demand for something in short supply (ie road space) the commodity becomes more expensive. Either that or there's a long queue.

I find it interesting that it's main proponet is a left wing mayor.

hamboman

Yes it's strange isn't it - he's a believer in market forces concerning the congestion charge, but he also believes in protectionism and price fixing (the gas thing in South America)

ruby644

It's a useless envy tax implemented by someone who known hatred of cars is well documented.
The challenge is more about his abuse of powers than anything else.
Livingstone has run London like his own personal fiefdom with little regard to his fellow elected London Assembly members and by placing his own cronies in every job possible.
His spin machine is out of control and his twisting of data for spin is out of control.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... article.do

With regards to pollution - we need to put that into perspective
"carbon dioxide in the atmosphere = 0.039% by volume
carbon cycle proportion of carbon dixoide contributed by mankind 3.4% (IPCC)
UK contribution to global emissions 2% (DEFRA)
Proportion of this due to cars = 16% (DEFRA again)
So cars in the UK are responsible for 16% of 2% of 3.4% of 0.039% which is precisely bugger all. Globally - just take out the 2% and it increases from bugger all to naff all.
If you go further, and consider the devil's chariot (the 4x4) then as these make up 8% of UK car sales (SMMT) then they are responsible for 8% of 16% of 2% of 3.4% of 0.039% which is the square root of bugger all !
That's the whole of the UK so London is an even smaller percentage.

Whilst motor vehicles share the road and are legal to buy and own they will be part of our transport system. Trying to eradicate them in London is like King Canute trying to hold back the waves.

I'd like to be safer on the road but bad drivers and idiots will be a danger whether they drive a 4x4, a G-Wiz or a bike.

With regards to an efficient tax system on vehicles and pollution we have duty on fuel, the heavier your vehicle, the more you drive it, the less efficient it is the more tax you pay (and VAT on he duty!). It's a blindingly simple, efficient and fair(?) system.

But of course Ken doesn't get a slice of it, and he is also not allowed to directly raise taxes, which is why he has never legally challenged the US Embassy who have refused to pay the C-Charge on the assumption that it is a tax.

squired

They did the public consultation about whether people thought the congestion charge should be tied to pollution. Of course I always felt it was obvious that the results would be ignored (which I think they have).

I strongly believe that the congestion charge should be about that and only that. Supposedly linking it to pollution is just a case of jumping on the environmental bandwagon, as happened with the ridiculous waste of money on solar panels (assuming that happened in the end).

I've always believe in what andrewc3142 suggested. I would have London's current congestion charge zone closed to all transport other than cycles, motorbikes, buses and taxis during the current charging periods. More people would walk or cycle because it would be so much more pleasant. The buses would be even more popular as the current congestion would be non-existent, and taxis would do very well financially. More people would ride motorbikes, which wouldn't be a bad thing. Of course this will never happen.

andrewc3142

Of course this will never happen.

Well ....

They've gone quite a long way in this direction in Portland, Oregon, in the most car-dependent country in the world. At the start, few people there thought it could be done either.

It's not a question of whether it's possible, just whether people want their cities dominated by cars or not.

I'm not anti-car. I have one and use it, often in preference to the train for longer trips because it's quicker, cheaper and more convenient. And in the South of the US, where I often work, I enjoy just driving around. Cars have their place, but I think it is questionable whether that place is Central London.

Parkey

I certainly agree about how inapporopriate cars are in a major city.

I think the best congestion policy for any city is to make sure that there's a good ring road, and then close the centre to through traffic - at least by private cars - by pedestrianisation and bus plugs. A situation where everywhere is reachable by car, but you can't cross the centre, you have to go around instead. Unfortunately this approach doesn't generate revenue that can be used to subsidise pubic transport.

mailmannz

squired wrote:

More people would walk or cycle because it would be so much more pleasant.

Im digressing here BUT the nicest day Ive ever had walking in central london was the afternoon of the 7/7 bombings when the streets were empty and there was just massess and massess of people walking home after work!

Pity about the bombing BUT if the streets were closed, how much nicer would London really be?

Mailman

Parkey

Central London would certainly be a lot nicer with pedestrianised streets. Pave them and line them with trees.

It would certainly stop people complaining about the congestion charge.

cupofteacp

Whilst I don't have a real problem taxing car that produce more than 225.

Do we think Ken will stop there?

What will happen to the Taxi's will they have to pay £25 a day?

The Lunch

I've never been accused of being a "tree huggin pinko lesbo feminist commie jihadi bugger" before. On the contrary but ... "polluter pays" has to be a sensible approach.

A yob saw me carrying my bike up Waterloo Steps the other day; I was in a chalkstripe suit. "I bet your other one's a Porsche!" he said. "No, it's a Saab" a replied. The point is that I don't use it to go into London.

gtvlusso

Glad I sold my Porsche! Glad I also "downsized" and now live in Bristol too!

I cycle everywhere and my £700 Audi (although it is 2.8 litre) rarely gets used - when you pay £700 for a car, you don't look too closely at the engine size....or ask about the funny smell.

I really admire you London lot - it was hairy when I commuted in London, but I took the easy option and relocated! I can see where Ken is going with his charging system - he is seeing how far he can push it - as long as that money gets back into sorting London transport out, I have no problems with it. I use my motorbike if my backpack is getting a bit full or I have other long errands to run.....too many toys.

I hope Bristol brings in a congestion charge for certain areas - may preserve the beautiful buildings a bit.

Anonymouslemming

Parkey wrote:

I certainly agree about how inapporopriate cars are in a major city.

I think the best congestion policy for any city is to make sure that there's a good ring road, and then close the centre to through traffic - at least by private cars - by pedestrianisation and bus plugs. A situation where everywhere is reachable by car, but you can't cross the centre, you have to go around instead. Unfortunately this approach doesn't generate revenue that can be used to subsidise pubic transport.

How much of this actually goes to subsidise public transport though? Last time I looked, if it wasn't for the fines, the scheme would not be making any money at all (hence the massive resistance against allowing you to pay within 24 hours instead of by midnight on the day).

I'd really like to see exactly how much the c-charge scheme has put into public transport after all costs... Time for a FOI request methinks...

Matteeboy

gtvlusso wrote:

Glad I sold my Porsche! Glad I also "downsized" and now live in Bristol too!

I cycle everywhere and my £700 Audi (although it is 2.8 litre) rarely gets used - when you pay £700 for a car, you don't look too closely at the engine size....or ask about the funny smell.

I really admire you London lot - it was hairy when I commuted in London, but I took the easy option and relocated! I can see where Ken is going with his charging system - he is seeing how far he can push it - as long as that money gets back into sorting London transport out, I have no problems with it. I use my motorbike if my backpack is getting a bit full or I have other long errands to run.....too many toys.

I hope Bristol brings in a congestion charge for certain areas - may preserve the beautiful buildings a bit.

Having also lived in both cities I agree with Bristol comments - it has a long way to go for cyclists. I didn't even try cycling in London!
And I downsized from a Golf R32 to an Astra (albeit a fastish diesel one) - but due to vandalism to the Golf the second we moved to Bristol!

Now it's Cornwall and those worries are 160 miles away - bliss!

chronyx

gtvlusso wrote:

Glad I sold my (Car) ! ...I cycle everywhere... I use my motorbike if my backpack is getting a bit full or I have other long errands to run.....too many toys..

Snap

andrewc3142

My beloved R12GS unfortunately morphed into some new windows about a year back, but I feel may well be shortly replaced with similar ...

nwallace

gtvlusso wrote:

When you pay £700 for a car, you don't look too closely at the engine size....or ask about the funny smell.

In my £100 car I currently get the lovely smell of fuel pissing out of the Carburettors overflow, The lovely match like smell of leaves in the heater and the need to get round to writing to the insurance company about the possibility of fitting the manufacturers 5 speed gear box to replace the 4 and fitting Bosch LH-Jetronic fuel injection.

It is hopeless for commuting (200ish miles to 50L) and only being used for a combination of a) needing to practice elements of the IAM system, me falling out with the local bus company who have gone down hill since Uncle Brian bought them. and C) failing to wake up early enough to cycle in.

However take it to Skye or somewhere far away and it will easily have gone 300 miles with loads left in the tank.

According to the pollution rating system it will always chuck out the same amount of CO2/km regardless of what Fuel Mileage it does.

Is that technically possible?

Random Vince

Parkey wrote:

I certainly agree about how inapporopriate cars are in a major city.

I think the best congestion policy for any city is to make sure that there's a good ring road, and then close the centre to through traffic - at least by private cars - by pedestrianisation and bus plugs. A situation where everywhere is reachable by car, but you can't cross the centre, you have to go around instead. Unfortunately this approach doesn't generate revenue that can be used to subsidise pubic transport.

coventry tried it

it blocks half the city up at rush hour, causes a lot of distress (i know someone who, despite living in coventry for 10 years will not go on the ring road, she will plan her journey to avoid it)

admittedly, it's not the best ring road

prj45

ruby644 wrote:

Trying to eradicate them in London is like King Canute trying to hold back the waves.

Oi, leave King Canute alone. He didn't try to hold back the waves, he wanted to demonstrate that he couldn't hold back the waves, i.e. that he was a normal person, and didn't have godly powers.

Parkey

Anonymouslemming wrote:

I'd really like to see exactly how much the c-charge scheme has put into public transport after all costs... Time for a FOI request methinks...

I do know that about 40% of the revenue for the congestion charge goes into administering the congestion charge.

ruby644

[url=ttp://conservativehome.blogs.com/londonmayor/2008/02/phil-taylor-the.html]ttp://conservativehome.blogs.com/london ... r-the.html[/url]

Here is a breakdown of the way the c-charge stacks up.
It's not exactly value for money for the taxpayer.

With regard to the notion that the polluter pays that is already covered by the duty on fuel prices, but ken has decided to impose his own local charge on top of that which the ABD highlights below

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

ABD Welcomes Porsche Challenge to "Vastly Disproportionate" London Emissions Tax
Drivers will have to pay 3500 times over for their "pollution"(1)

Today, Porsche GB announced it will seek a judicial review of Ken Livingstone's £25 "Congestion" charge on the grounds that it is unfair, disproportionate and will not cut either congestion or emissions.

The ABD is delighted that a motor manufacturer has at last found the guts to stand up for itself against bully boy tactics from the green lobby - but neither Porsche nor Ken Livingstone seem to be aware of just how unfair and disproportionate the new tax is. Our calculation shows that band G residents will be paying £161,000 per tonne for their extra emissions in central London(2).

The London mayor's advisor on climate change, Mark Watts has no clue at all - he said on BBC Radio 4 this morning: "It's the 'polluter pays' principle - you will be allowed to carry on driving a big polluting car in central London, but what the new charge will mean is you have to pay for the cost of the pollution (1) that you inflict upon everyone else."

The Stern report, commissioned by the Government, suggested that £44 per tonne is an appropriate level of taxation for CO2 emissions.

Motorists already pay for their carbon at FIVE TIMES the level of the Stern recommendations - in fuel duty.

Ken Livingstone is going to charge those who live within the zone ANOTHER THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TIMES the amount of tax that experts suggest is reasonable if they choose to own a car that creeps over the thresholds for emissions.

Have we found the most unfair, unreasonable and disproportionate tax ever proposed in Britain?

The ABD thinks so - and insult is added to injury when you realize that buyers of some brand new £40,000+ 4x4s won't have to pay the £25 whilst some (3) VW Beetle owners will.

It is enough to drive us all to take a taxi. Until you realise that London Taxis tend to be automatics, which all emit well over 225g/km (4)- and they don't have to pay the charge at all!

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1. CO2 emissions are not "pollution" and cars that emit more of it are not "dirty". CO2 is like water - a harmless substance essential to plant growth which is part of the natural atmosphere. Both are greenhouse gases, and whatever the alleged effect on climate it is unscientific and misleading to describe either of these substances as "pollution".

2. £25 less 80p is £24.20 extra a day for a resident of the central zone for driving a car with "Band G" emissions (over 225 g/km).

The new BMW X5 3.0D will emit 213 g/km (Autocar report), whereas a 2003 VW Beetle Auto produces 228g/km (SMMT website) 15 g/km more.

Based on 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year, the brand new BMW X5 owning resident will pay £208 per year to drive in London. The owner of a £4000 secondhand VW Beetle Auto will have to pay £6500 - over THIRTY times as much.

If they both do 10km a day inside the zone, the VW Beetle owner will have to pay £161,333 for every extra tonne of CO2 he emits over and above the X5 driver. 228-213 = 15g/km = 150g for 10km = 0.00015 tonnes. £24.20/0.00015 equals £161,333

The Stern report suggested that £44 per tonne was the justifiable level of taxation to cover the alleged "damage" from carbon dioxide. The VW Beetle owner is therefore paying 3666 times this amount for his extra emissions over and above a BMW X5.

3. The ABD would like to point out that newer versions of the VW Beetle all emit under 225 g/km

4. LTI TXII Auto taxi - emission rated at 243 g/km on www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk

Sorry it's a rant but this really is a disproportionate tax that affects my family car which we cannot afford to change.

cupofteacp

Ruby could I also add that the VW Beetle driver will not use their car all day unlike the Taxi driver.

How much does it cost to register your car as a taxi and therefore exempt yourself from the congestion charge?