|
A reader's letter on London's Low Emissions Zone, and Honest John's reply, prompted a response from Ken Livingstone this week. Here we print the correspondence, and Austin Williams responds to the debate A reader writes: New proposals for congestion charge rates in London highlight Ken Livingstone's incoherent approach. By changing the title to the London Low Emissions Zone, he has moved the goalposts. With traffic starting to approach pre-charge levels, much of the pollution and noise are caused by the policies of Livingstone and his anti-car junta at TfL.
This hypocrisy is exposed by the increasing number of traffic lights, often phased to give more time to side roads, pedestrian crossing lights that turn red even when no one has pressed the button, more bus lanes, illogical no-entry/left/right turns and hundreds of bendy buses that form rolling roadblocks. All create jams and congestion. It was Livingstone/TfL's bus bonanza that put an additional 500 large diesel While this is a typical and unsurprising act of political vindictiveness, it disguises the fact that his plans also include all vehicles of more than 3,000cc registered before 2001. Many more people of modest means, who for practical or financial reasons drive older, large estates or MPVs, will also be liable for this extortionate charge. So will builders. Many London residents are unaware of the full impact. |
Many will agree with you - and I'm sure this information will come as news to some. Livingstone can't simply call the charges a "pollution tax", which they are, because his diesel buses create the most pollution. I can't understand why incentives were not put in place to make all taxis and buses use LPG, CNG or hybrid technology. HJ
Ken Livingstone responds:
Sir - A letter to Honest John (November 3) and his response were riddled with inaccuracies. The name of the congestion charge is not being changed to the Low Emission Zone. This is the name of a separate scheme, which aims to cut emissions from the most polluting lorries, coaches and buses (not cars), and which will cover the whole of Greater London rather than the relatively small central London congestion charging scheme. The claim that traffic levels in London are returning to pre-charging levels is false. The number of cars entering central London has remained at about 20 per cent below levels before the congestion charge was introduced in 2003, meaning 70,000 fewer vehicles enter the zone each day.
London's bus fleet is the cleanest in the country and includes hybrid buses that reduce C02 emissions by almost 40 per cent. I have said that by 2012 every new bus entering the fleet must be a hybrid. Far from "forming rolling roadblocks", bendy buses make up just five per cent of the fleet and carry out an essential role. They operate on the busiest bus routes anywhere in Britain and carry more passengers than many tram and rail services around the country.
This is not an "anti-car junta", but an administration that reflects a London increasingly aware of the need to tackle global warming. Transport, excluding aviation, is responsible for 22 per cent of London's C02 emissions, with cars responsible for about half of this. That is why it is essential we encourage people to take into account the impact their choice of car has on the environment.
Austin Williams replies:
The LEZ is not the same thing as the congestion charge but there are significant similarities in their function. Both are designed to ensure that fewer vehicles will pass through London; both are intended to raise money from those who have to, and both state that if your engine is small or efficient enough, you might be exempt. Removing polluting vehicles from built-up areas is nothing to be sneezed at, but it is symptomatic of a collapse of the Government's national transport strategy that such local sweeping powers are pushed through on the nod.
The LEZ will apply to buses, but presumably not to Ken's own fleet; there have been only three Mercedes-Benz Citaro fuel-cell buses running in London since 2003 at about £175,000 each; the rest are hardly environmentally friendly. Last week's £1.5million contract with ISE Corp to develop five more fuel-cell London buses - at about £300,000 per bus - is a slow step in Ken's plan that by 2012 all new buses will be hybrid. Currently, TfL believes that 600 vehicles will come on stream in 2010, representing 7.5 per cent of the fleet.
There may be 70,000 fewer vehicles entering the congestion-charging zone than before the charge was introduced, but the figure is taken over the full day. During peak hours (between 7am and 9am) there is no significant difference in traffic entering the zone - perhaps just four per cent fewer - than in every year over the last five years, including 2002. Bendy buses are causing havoc in certain areas. To pretend that there are no operational flaws is given the lie by Ken's annual London Report for 2006/07. TfL is having to deliver "a range of measures to help London's buses keep cool".
Ken says that hybrid buses reduce C02 emissions by 40 per cent. That's not 40 per cent of London's total emissions, but the projected reduction in the fleet's emissions. The Environmental Audit Committee in March 2006 stated that "hybrids offer a 30 per cent reduction in C02 per km". Whatever the figure, much of it is manipulated to suit the desired result. For example, C02 emissions tend to be calculated per average passenger mile, so the more packed the bus, the better the C02 emissions results. This is how Ken audits his transport achievements, by reducing choices and cramming more ex-motorists onto sweaty buses. Whether he can substantiate his C02 figures is beside the point: there is little doubt that his statistical games are deeply corrosive to the desire for a more convenient, accessible, cost-effective transport system. A better starting point would be a transport plan that put personal choice, rather than environmental grandstanding, as the priority.
Source: Telegraph.co.uk