3 ms·

> it's an attempt to reduce the number of cars in London Not sure if that's true. I think it's mainly to reduce the polution in central London. Otherwise, elec

by tomp 9y ago

> it's an attempt to reduce the number of cars in London Not sure if that's true. I think it's mainly to reduce the polution in central London. Otherwise, electric/hybrid cars wouldn't be exempt but charged the same amount!

vertex-four 9y ago
Ah, true. I do think we'll see a congestion charge on electric cars as they become more popular, though - London plain and simple doesn't have enough space for personal road traffic. Edit: Hmm. London's own stuff claims that it was originally largely intended to reduce use of personal vehicles, and then in 2008 the Mayor implemented the current system of charging based on pollution. Again, I suspect it'll go back to charging for electric vehicles once people actually own electric vehicles.
- misnome 9y ago
  I'm not sure the two aims are in conflict. I'm pretty sure that consumer electric cars were pretty much nonexistent when the congestion charge was first implemented.
Nursie 9y ago
>> I think it's mainly to reduce the polution in central London. I lived in London when it was launched, it was also to do with making the city centre flow again, so that those who actually needed to be there could travel in a reasonable amount of time.
- konschubert 9y ago
  You mean, the ones who have money to pay the congestion charge. :)
  - Nursie 9y ago
    Well yeah, but as with all things in life, taxes and capitalism - money and motivation get used interchangeably because government has no imagination!
  - _h_o_d_ 9y ago
    Correct. Until we have a better economic system, this is how authorities often make incentives.
barrkel 9y ago
That's not a contradiction. There's also a separate scheme to reduce London pollution (LEZ), and there's an extension of it currently starting up (ULEZ). They have overlapping aims. For example, bus lanes were made for busses, despite cyclists and motorcycles (on most red routes) being able to enter them.
Brakenshire 9y ago
> Otherwise, electric/hybrid cars wouldn't be exempt but charged the same amount! That's an anomaly I'd say. The congestion charge was introduced in 2003, at that point electric cars were a curiosity, a fraction of a fraction of the market. I'd expect within 10-15 years the exemption will be removed. The purpose was partly to reduce pollution, but as a secondary effect of the primary aim to reduce traffic: https://londontransportdata.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/inner-and-outer-london-traffic-trend.png https://londontransportdata.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/inne...
_h_o_d_ 9y ago
It is reasonable to believe that these goals are both in mind! Edit: there's a new Diesel charge coming in soon, to reduce the extra pollution from these vehicles entering central london, for cars as well as lorries. In all the communications emanating from politicians and TFL it seems that numbers and pollution are both problems to be solved. Note also the new 'Boris' buses were designed as hybrids to improve air quality, even though in practice they don't work well and run on diesel mostly.

by tomp 9y ago

vertex-four 9y ago

Ah, true. I do think we'll see a congestion charge on electric cars as they become more popular, though - London plain and simple doesn't have enough space for personal road traffic. Edit: Hmm. London's own stuff claims that it was originally largely intended to reduce use of personal vehicles, and then in 2008 the Mayor implemented the current system of charging based on pollution. Again, I suspect it'll go back to charging for electric vehicles once people actually own electric vehicles.

misnome 9y ago
I'm not sure the two aims are in conflict. I'm pretty sure that consumer electric cars were pretty much nonexistent when the congestion charge was first implemented.

Nursie 9y ago

>> I think it's mainly to reduce the polution in central London. I lived in London when it was launched, it was also to do with making the city centre flow again, so that those who actually needed to be there could travel in a reasonable amount of time.

konschubert 9y ago
You mean, the ones who have money to pay the congestion charge. :)
- Nursie 9y ago
  Well yeah, but as with all things in life, taxes and capitalism - money and motivation get used interchangeably because government has no imagination!
- _h_o_d_ 9y ago
  Correct. Until we have a better economic system, this is how authorities often make incentives.

barrkel 9y ago

That's not a contradiction. There's also a separate scheme to reduce London pollution (LEZ), and there's an extension of it currently starting up (ULEZ). They have overlapping aims. For example, bus lanes were made for busses, despite cyclists and motorcycles (on most red routes) being able to enter them.

Brakenshire 9y ago

> Otherwise, electric/hybrid cars wouldn't be exempt but charged the same amount! That's an anomaly I'd say. The congestion charge was introduced in 2003, at that point electric cars were a curiosity, a fraction of a fraction of the market. I'd expect within 10-15 years the exemption will be removed. The purpose was partly to reduce pollution, but as a secondary effect of the primary aim to reduce traffic: https://londontransportdata.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/inner-and-outer-london-traffic-trend.png https://londontransportdata.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/inne...

_h_o_d_ 9y ago

It is reasonable to believe that these goals are both in mind! Edit: there's a new Diesel charge coming in soon, to reduce the extra pollution from these vehicles entering central london, for cars as well as lorries. In all the communications emanating from politicians and TFL it seems that numbers and pollution are both problems to be solved. Note also the new 'Boris' buses were designed as hybrids to improve air quality, even though in practice they don't work well and run on diesel mostly.