The new t-charge is assessed on older (pre-2006) cars driving in central London. These cars have to pay an additional 10 pounds per day (about $13 USD) to drive in central London. This is on top of the congestion charge of 11.50 pounds (about $15 USD) that all vehicles have to pay.
I think it is a great idea. First of all, London has a world class public transit system. Secondly, although I’m certainly not an expert, I do know that technology has improved by leaps and bounds since 2006, helping to drastically reduce auto emissions.
The congestion charge reduced driving in central London. The T-charge will help even more to reduce air pollution from the most polluting cars. I"m glad to see London aggressively implementing policies to tackle air pollution. I’m sure there are sob stories from people who have older cars and ‘have’ to drive in central London. But, there are always alternatives when it becomes too costly and I’m sure 50 pounds per week is a nice incentive to either take public transport or else get rid of the older car.
There are complaints that it is a tax that penalises poorer motorists. There are also concerns that there are not enough charging points. The T-charge also uses the existing ring of number plate cameras around central London. There are lots of polluted roads outside this central zone, so it is only a partial solution.
On the other hand, there is a plan to migrate all the taxis and buses that operate in central London to EV or hybrids and meanwhile try to clean up the older buses by retrofitting filters.
The mayor and national politicians know full well that there are votes to be won by championing clean air and the power of the big motor industry lobby has been seriously weakened by the VW emission fixing scandal.
I’d need to see the math comparing these two scenarios to show which has the larger carbon footprint:
Abandoning your 2006 vehicle for a new one (there’s a carbon impact to building new cars)
Keeping your 2006 vehicle for 5-10 more years, driving it into the ground, and then upgrading once that car no longer functions.
Or really: are you polluting less by buying a new car every 10 years or by buying a new car ever 20 years? It’s not obvious to me which strategy pollutes the most.
As I understand it, this new tax is only for London. Because of London’s air quality. So they’re less concerned with which option pollutes the world, continent or country more, and more concerned with which pollutes London more.
I mean, if the goal it’s about air quality there, then they might be okay off-loading the pollution (if there is more air pollution from producing new vehicles, even accounting for those that switch to public transit instead) to outside the city to lessen the air pollution inside the city. Or trading air pollution for a different type of pollution? How everyone else feels might be a different story.
CO2 emissions and the carbon footprint was supposed to be addressed by a tax policy the favoured diesel vehicles on the basis that they were more fuel efficient. The government believed what they were told by the car lobby and they were seriously misled.
The government is anxious not to make the same mistake with the big health concern associated with NO2 and particulate pollution, old diesels are the worst offenders so they are being targetted. On calm days the air quality is awful and there is a lot of worry that it effects the health of the very young and old.
The congestion zone only operates 6am to 7pm on weekdays, so motorists still have the right to pollute for free at the weekend. There is diesel scrappage scheme and discounts on EVs that soften the blow. This charge is very easy to collect, because of the ring of car numberplate recognition cameras around central London. If you don’t pay in advance, you get an automatic fine.
Something has to be done about pollution and this is an easy win. There is poltical consensus to take steps like this to nudge vehicle owners towards low emission alternatives. It is not just London, many cities are moving in the same direction.
I would be more impressed if the government did more to ensure there are fast EV chargers in London and nationally and allay some of the fears motorist have about range. This is just one element of a raft of public policies and regulatory changes that are neccessary to shift transport towards low emissions.
Are pre-2006 cars really significantly more polluting than post-2006 cars?
If so, then this is a reasonable step to limit local pollution. If not, then it seems like an unfair burden on people who don’t replace their cars often.
It is the Euro4 standard, the latest is the Euro6 standard, Each Euro standards sets limits on the CO2, NO2 and particulates. The higer the standard, the less polluting the car.
This is the first time there has been any restriction based on car emissions. It cuts out a lot of older, more polluting cars. It tends to be a small number of older and badly maintained cars the do most of the polluting.
Ideally they should have some gadget the accurately measures real world emissions, but this age simple rule is easier to enforce, it is known to the authorities by the date of first registration. However, there are some heavily polluted roads outside the central congestion zone on the major routes leading to central London.
So it is a step towards cleaner air, but not a giant leap.
This is the a first step and something of a blunt instrument, but it sends a clear message of what is coming. There are some more radical proposal planned. They usually test the water like this, see if there are any serious objections. Everyone wants cleaner air, drivers included and it is an avoidable charge, so I can’t see that there will be too many howls of anguish. A lot of the traffic will be commercial, so businesses will pick up the tab. Other cities around the UK will almost certainly follow this lead. Local government in London and the rest of the UK are always looking for new ways to charge motorists.
Euro4 was in place from Jan 2005 to Sept 2009, so if anything, the cutoff should be at end of 2004 or Sept 2009. A car released in 2005 is as clean as one released in Jan 2009.
Even with the difference in standards, between 4 and 5 there’s a modest reduction in the allowable NOx emitted, and no change or minimal change in other emissions. There’s a fairly large change in NOx for diesel vehicles between 5 and 6 (more than 50%), but that suggests that the charge should be for pre-2014 diesels.
So a vehicle is likely to be Euro1,2 or 3 if it is registered, as you say, before the end of 2004 and will have to pay the T-charge.
I don’t doubt that the rules will be tightened in time, this seems an easy, clear rule to implement to start. Most drivers are aware when their car was registered, as indeed are the authorities. It is on the registration document for the vehicle and it also easy to lookup on the vehicle licensing website.
There are a lot of exceptions. Taxis don’t have to pay, but there are new rules coming along for them quite soon. Also, you don’t have to pay if you have an address within the congestion zone, which in any case doesn’t apply in the evenings or at weekends.
Most car drivers in London are well aware that driving into London and finding a parking space is a difficult and expensive business, this is just one more rule to contend with that will discourage car use. In this case, those that are thought to contribute most to pollution.
Londoners will be much happier when they see all the taxis and buses stop belching out diesel fumes. Cars are only responsible for about 20% of the pollution, apparently.
How local can the pollution be? I’d assume that if the issue is smog that the air from the outer ring would drift over and pollute central London anyway. I’m genuinely curious because I don’t know the range of regional pollutants.
It is difficult to tell. I went to a meeting on air pollution and learnt that the measurement of pollutants is actually very expensive. They use quite large bits of equipment strategically placed at various locations around the city. This, apparently, measures pollutants according to an agreed international standard. Then they take a map of London and classify location types: park, major roadside, minor roadside, residential…and use the pollution readings located at one of these types and create a heat map of London to show the pollution level.
It creates nice looking heat map, but the number of monitoring stations is limited and I did wonder how representative this was. But the general idea is to get very long term statistics in a consistent manner to inform public decision making.
Apparently, gadgets attached to smartphones are not very accurate and the location is very important, they need sufficient airflow to get a consistent reading. It all costs a lot of money to do the monitoring properly. Maybe the funds from the T-charge will pay for it.
However, if you live near a major road, you do not need any science to tell you how filthy the air is and the health service points to increases in respiratory problems with the young and very old. It is a public health issue.
London used to be famous for its air pollution. In the days of coal-fired domestic heating, it was so bad the nickname for London was ‘The Smoke’. The pollution is not so visible now, but the fiasco over diesel emissions has brought it up the political agenda and the London mayor is certainly on the case.
