View Full Version : Emissions-based parking permits
goldengraham
16-11-2007, 14:53
To anyone who owns a car built before March 2001 and feels they are getting a raw deal from Lambeth on their parking permit because they are being assessed by engine size, not emissions -
There's a story in the Islington Tribune today that people are successfully challenging Islington council over this, on the grounds that if they can prove their vehicle emissions are low enough, they shouldn't be discriminated against just because they own an older car. The guy in the story (a 2L diesel estate owner) got his permit price reduced from £160 to £55, backed up with some numbers from the Society for Car Manufacturers.
Because Lambeth's charging system is basically designed to fleece everyone anyway, no one living here would get a reduction quite as big as that, but a 2L diesel estate car owner might still expect to get the price of an annual permit lowered from £160 to £115 (a band 3 CO2 emissions rating).
I'm still on the old (pre-emissions) system with my permit, but I'd be interested to know if anyone with a car that fitted the criteria felt like writing a test letter to see what Lambeth's response is!
Not a Vet
16-11-2007, 15:19
I'm dead against this policy anyway, it's just another way to fleece local residents under a 'green' banner. I don't have a particularly expensive car or a 4x4 yet my parking charges ae going up from £60 to £160 a year. I mean I may be missing the point but when its parked then its emitting zero particles. Instead of leaving it parked all day, my missus now drives to work to park free which obviously adds to the emissions.:mad:
I mean I may be missing the point but when its parked then its emitting zero particles. Instead of leaving it parked all day, my missus now drives to work to park free which obviously adds to the emissions.:mad:
Why not just get rid of the thing instead? Seriously - it always amazes me the lengths people will go to hang on to them. You are paying an extra £100 a year - £2 per week. 40p a day. If that's enough to tip you into driving well - tbh I don't quite buy the story. Is it really worth the drive? You have got to be paying more than that in petrol?
It's not the maddest car story I know though. I knew someone who used to run out of the Ritzy when his timer went off - in the middle of a film ffs!! - to go and move his car or put more money in the meter or something.
Weird.
Get rid of your car = get a life.
Not a Vet
16-11-2007, 16:01
In an ideal world, especially living in London, you shouldn't need a car, i.e. just use public transport but factor in dependents, work requirements, family far away where links aren't as good etc and a car becomes a necessity.
In an ideal world, especially living in London, you shouldn't need a car, i.e. just use public transport but factor in dependents, work requirements, family far away where links aren't as good etc and a car becomes a necessity.
Factor in planetary destruction due to CO2 emissions and getting rid of it becomes a necessity. :cool:
Gixxer1000
18-11-2007, 18:43
Factor in planetary destruction due to CO2 emissions
:confused:
Went to get my parking permit yesterday from the Lambeth so called 'Customer Service Centre', since the much maligned 'parking shop' with its cheerful and industrious employees, has now shut.
You have to wait an hour, and when you've paid your money - if their machines will take your credit or debit cards (mine were refused on three occasions) - their printer doesn't work. They gave me a receipt instead, and I await the arrival of the disc in the post. Based on Lambeth's reputation for efficient admin, I'm not massively hopeful.
The price had doubled; clearly the CPZ's and their attendant team of ticketers and towers amount to a money making scheme for Lambeth now.
The office closed yesterday, a Tuesday, at half past three.
Best of luck to anyone trying to get a parking permit - at the moment the system doesn't work.
happyshopper
21-11-2007, 16:39
... the Lambeth so called 'Customer Service Centre', .
I'm in favour of the parking permit system - life in Brixton would be hell without it, whether or not you've got a car. And one where the cost is based on carbon emissions seems a good idea. However, after renewing my permit today at the "Customer Service Centre", I thought I would share my experience in the hope that it will prepare others for the challenge. But the real lesson is to do it by post - I shall try next time.
It took me over an hour, most of which was just waiting around. At least, unlike the parking shop, there is the chance of sitting down. Unfortunately the system is not properly explained and, when encountered for the first time, is very confusing.
On entering you have to get a numbered ticket from one of a number of machines. This gets you in a queue for reception. It's not a physical queue, you just wait to hear your number called out, and after what is an uncertain period of time, you go to speak to someone at the desk at the front Centre. When you have explained what you want, you are put one of a number of queues - e.g. in my case the parking queue. You are also given an estimate of how long it will take. My forecast was an hour (sufficiently imprecise to be unconvincing) but I was determined to be relaxed and, in any case, I had taken something to read.
So you sit there waiting for your number. The problem with this, unlike most numbered queueing systems, is that there are several queues going at the same time, so the numbers are called out in what seems like a totally random order. As a result I found it very difficult to read, because you have to concentrate on each and every number as it is called.
In the event the forecast wait was reasonably accurate - it's easy to check as your numbered ticket has your time of entry. I had all the correct documents - years of experience - and there were no problems until I was about to leave. I then noticed that they had issued the permit for today's date rather than, as requested, from the expiry of the old one. It was a bit of a dilemma, two weeks less parking or having to spend even longer at the Centre. Sorting out the mistake then took another 10 minutes, as no one seemed to know how to cope.
The downside is an hour wasted; the upside is a chance to do some great people watching.
If you don't need a car every day, then join www.streetcar.com and only pay for it when you need it. There's several parked in Brixton.
And one where the cost is based on carbon emissions seems a good idea.
I'm quite happy to admit to being pretty anti-car (in cities at least), and I also think we are being unbelieveably complacent about CO2 and climate change. But I got to admit that the simplest easiest way to target CO2 emissions has to be; tax the fuel. A fuck off great 4x4 parked produces less CO2 than a smart car does driving. The efficiency of the car is the drivers choice - if they want to burn it on a range rover fine, they will pay more tax. Efficiency 'savings' are, in practise, almost never saved in environmental terms - drivers absorb the saving in driving further.
So I think the emission surcharge is a bit silly really. But since it's not as silly as urban car ownership I'm not going to complain that hard :)
ovaltina
21-11-2007, 17:22
the simplest easiest way to target CO2 emissions has to be; tax the fuel.
Well yes but why not have other taxes too? I work in the C Charge zone and see loads of C-charge exempt Toyota Prius hybrid cars and Smart Cars every day. To be fair I see lots of expensive 4x4s too, but I'm not losing any sleep over their drivers paying extra tax. :)
But the real lesson is to do it by post - I shall try next time.
.
It took me about three minutes to renew my tax disc on the net last week. The real lesson is for Lambeth to pull their finger out and deliver the online system they promised us last year.
To be fair I see lots of expensive 4x4s too, but I'm not losing any sleep over their drivers paying extra tax. :)
How many of them pay the charge? Many will have been converted to dual fuel gas/petrol and are thus exempt :( A lot more will be registered as one of the two exempt vehicles which can be registered by each Blue Badge holding disabled person. Or as private hire taxis.
Well yes but why not have other taxes too? I work in the C Charge zone and see loads of C-charge exempt Toyota Prius hybrid cars and Smart Cars every day. To be fair I see lots of expensive 4x4s too, but I'm not losing any sleep over their drivers paying extra tax. :)
At the moment a smart car isn't exempt. Unless its had an official LPG conversion (although i've no idea where the extra tank would go!) or is a rare trial electric one.
TFL did a so called "consultation" on whether to vary the con(gestion) charge according to CO2 output per mile to come in some time next year. AFAIK there has been no firm word on this but I'll bet the £25/ day charge will happen. Even then not all smart cars would be exempt, they've made a pretty fast brabus version for example.
supercity
22-11-2007, 00:29
It seems to me there are several connected things going on, but that the connection is being made in a very peculiar way in the search for consensus. Also, let's face it, once you establish a Green(er) consensus, the government/council's next move is invariably "how can we make some money out of it" rather than addressing the problem intelligently.
Here are some things I would like to clear up, once and for all.
1. What is Green?
Is the man who drives a 40-year-old Morris Minor Greener than the one who buys a new car every three years, given the energy and materials involved in manufacture - especially for Toyota Priuses?
2. What is the purpose of charging for parking on residential streets when the owners already pay road tax?
Is it to stop congestion on those streets? If so, emissions have nothing to do with it. The charging should be length-based. The shorter the car, the less the congestion and the more vehicles can park on the street.
Is it to get the polluters? If so, surely bigger cars need encouraging -- not deterring -- to park, since all cars emit the same when not in use.
Is it to raise cash? If so, what's the most profitable way of doing so? Why, saddle up that Green consensus and drive it to the bank. Tax old cars regardless of "true" Green status. Coming soon - the bicycle parking charge.
3. When will we have a proper public transport policy in this country that isn't constantly crapping itself about breaking even or making profits? If you live in Brixton and earn 25 grand a year before tax, you're taking home about 20 of that. Then, if you work in town, you're paying a grand to go to work a year. It's insane. Unless of course you take to two wheels, in which case you're merely risking your life every day for the sake of your job. You want to make people use public transport? Make it cheap, then make travel to work tax-exempt at the very least, or preferably payable by your employer, and scrap company car perks.
Right, more beer I think.
Is it to get the polluters? If so, surely bigger cars need encouraging -- not deterring -- to park, since all cars emit the same when not in use.
I guess the idea is to influence people when they are choosing which car to buy - if they buy a polluting one it will cost them more even if parked so they're more likely to buy a greener one.
ovaltina
22-11-2007, 10:59
Interesting post Supercity.
I heard somewhere (can't remember where so I might be wrong) that it takes more resources to make a car than the car can consume before being scrapped.
But unless society changes dramatically, and we stop putting huge amounts of resources into replacing things before they are even worn out, people will always want new cars.
It's going to take something dramatic for the West to break its addiction to consumerism and unfettered capitalism. In the meantime 'green' taxes are one way of discouraging people from driving. They're poorly implemented at the moment, but maybe they can be improved over time.
2. What is the purpose of charging for parking on residential streets when the owners already pay road tax?
.
Not disagreeing with your post supercity, but just have a bit of a reflex about the use of this phrase "road tax".
Let's be clear - there is no such thing as "road tax". There is "Vehicule Excise Duty" which goes straight into govt coffers to be used for whatever the govt sees fit. The roads are paid for by council tax and (as a non-car owner) I pay every bit as much as a car-owners taxes. To say that car-owners "pay road tax" is no more sensible than saying that smokers "pay hospital tax". They don't. (<all this excludes major national roads which I believe are paid for by the Highways Agency out of a seperate budget, but these are for the most part banned to cyclists anyway, even though the HA is funded by my income tax as well as a car drivers)
In terms of the damage done to roads and repair needs the weight ratio is 10 to the power 4; that means that a 1000kg car does not cause 10 times as much damage as a bike + rider weighing 100kg; it causes 10x10x10x10 as much - 10,000 times more. But we all pay the same council tax.
In terms of the general on-going winge that one always hears from car owners about all their various taxes and fees and costs etc etc blah blah ad infinitum it's worth remembering that if all costs are included - including those that are born by all of us - eg personal injury costs, pollution costs, congestion costs etc etc, Leeds University recently calculated that car drivers are subsidised at between 20p and £1 PER MILE! - a subsidy that I ( a non-car driver) am expected to contribute towards.
Moreover the Leeds report did not include (as far as I could see) any factor allowing for the extraordinary costs of climate change (hundreds of billions of pounds according to the Stern report), for which cars bear a significant percentage of responsibility.
Your points about parking are all good but the overall point about costs on this subject is that car-drivers are up to the neck in subsidy - and like most such groups (think farmers) they wail and howl about their situation and how snot fair. Bah. Even if they weren't so socially destructive they would be hard to justify ecologically given what we now know about climate change. Even if they didn't kill and maim tens of thousands of people every year they would still destroy our communities with their noise, smell, bulk and nasty aggressive attitude. But that we are all paying for them to do this? Sheesh. Unbelieveable.
goldengraham
23-11-2007, 16:03
Interesting post Supercity.
I heard somewhere (can't remember where so I might be wrong) that it takes more resources to make a car than the car can consume before being scrapped.
Which kind of brings us back to my original point at the start of this thread, which was that it's not fair to overcharge people just because they are running older cars that have well-maintained engines.
Oswaldtwistle
23-11-2007, 17:25
Well yes but why not have other taxes too? I work in the C Charge zone and see loads of C-charge exempt Toyota Prius hybrid cars
There are *serious* question marks about how 'green' the Prius is, in real world driving as opposed to a test cycle.
There is also the fact that they take up more space on the road than a Fiesta or Polo or even a Focus- and this was supposed to be a *congestion* charge.
IMHO the Prius exemption is a tax break for the wealthy (given the cost of them!), it would be better to spend the money knocking a couple of quid off for all sub 1400 cc cars and only allow a total exemption for cyclists and possibly motorcyclists.
I think the real point though is that CC is a tax on car *use*, whereas this is a tax on car *ownership*.
I think the real point though is that CC is a tax on car *use*, whereas this is a tax on car *ownership*.
CC is a tax on car use in a geographical location. I'd prefer it if people did cease owning cars and driving them through London. But that's not for Green reasons, just because they're a social disaster. If you want to reduce CO2 emissions you have to tax fuel (hard enough to be noticeable) - the less fuel burned, the less greenhouse gases emitted. It would at the very least put an onus onto improving efficiency instead of building ridiculously over-sized automatic gas guzzlers that can do 0-60 in 8 seconds.
Agree with your point about the Prius btw. I don't know the stats but I really doubt its green credentials - the extra weight of a part-electric engine has got to seriously reduce its efficiency. And what's so green about electricity? There would be some reduction in the output of immediate local particulate pollution (ie crap in the air out of the exhaust pipe) - but electricity is one of the least efficient forms of energy generated, which means a hell of a lot more crap in the air from whichever power station is generating that electricity. In CO2 terms that is a net gain in emissions, almost certainly.
There is a lot of wishful thinking going on - hey we can drive our way to a low carbon future! Er, no. You want to be green? Easy, stop driving.
Oswaldtwistle
23-11-2007, 18:39
CC is a tax on car use in a geographical location. I'd prefer it if people did cease owning cars and driving them through London. But that's not for Green reasons, just because they're a social disaster. If you want to reduce CO2 emissions you have to tax fuel (hard enough to be noticeable) -
There is of course an awful lot of tax already on fuel. The problem is it is a fairly regressive tax. If you take someone on 12,000 a year and someone on 120,000, the latter guy might well use more fuel. He might even use twice the ammount . He will not use ten times as much. Indeed in the extreme case the city fat cat who commutes by train gets subsided, the bloke who works shifts in a warehouse on the North Circular gets taxed.
Agree with your point about the Prius btw. I don't know the stats but I really doubt its green credentials -
To some extent the problem *is* the stats. It does very well on particular test cycles. In real life reports suggest around 40mpg. That's not a gas guzzler, but a Fiesta or Golf can match that easily.
And (trying to drag this back on topic!) of course it still takes up as much space in a CPZ as anyother large saloon car.
subversplat
23-11-2007, 18:52
Interesting post Supercity.
I heard somewhere (can't remember where so I might be wrong) that it takes more resources to make a car than the car can consume before being scrapped.
But unless society changes dramatically, and we stop putting huge amounts of resources into replacing things before they are even worn out, people will always want new cars.
It's going to take something dramatic for the West to break its addiction to consumerism and unfettered capitalism. In the meantime 'green' taxes are one way of discouraging people from driving. They're poorly implemented at the moment, but maybe they can be improved over time.
http://www.ilea.org/lcas/macleanlave1998.html
e2a: read the whole thing - it doesn't seem as clear cut as first thought.
There is of course an awful lot of tax already on fuel. The problem is it is a fairly regressive tax. If you take someone on 12,000 a year and someone on 120,000, the latter guy might well use more fuel. He might even use twice the ammount . He will not use ten times as much. Indeed in the extreme case the city fat cat who commutes by train gets subsided, the bloke who works shifts in a warehouse on the North Circular gets taxed.
A nasty consequence of putting up any or all of the taxes on motoring (fuel, VED, parking permits, etc) is the regressive problem.
Take it far enough and quite a lot of people are "taxed off the road".
Leaving said road a much easier drive for the city whizzkids and the international plutocrats, while the rest of us ordinary people squeeze onto ever more crowded trains and buses.
Popular with the voters? I dunno.....
Giles..
Oswaldtwistle
23-11-2007, 20:02
Anyone know why they have made permits a tenner cheaper inside the C-charge zone, where public transport is excellent and road space at a premium?
If anything it's families in the south of the borough who are more likely to need a car.
I2. What is the purpose of charging for parking on residential streets when the owners already pay road tax?
there's a variety of purposes, the exact mix will depend on each individual street. Amongst them-
rationing a scarce resource- in many streets there is a greater demand for parking than there is kerb space;
pleasing local voters- the CPZ east of Brixton Hill was voted for by residents, with those living closer to the tube/council offices showing greater enthusiasm;
council revenue raising via targetted taxation- this (one hopes) reduces the council tax paid by those who are not car owners but who nonetheless pay to maintain roads;
social policy- disincentivise car ownership in crowded urban areas.
And what's so green about electricity? There would be some reduction in the output of immediate local particulate pollution (ie crap in the air out of the exhaust pipe) - but electricity is one of the least efficient forms of energy generated, which means a hell of a lot more crap in the air from whichever power station is generating that electricity.
I thought the principle was that the petrol engine runs at a constant rate, designed to be it's most efficient, in order to generate the electricity that drives the car. The idea being to avoid the power bursts and acceleration that makes normal car engines inefficient. Have I misunderstood?
Gixxer1000
24-11-2007, 15:36
http://www.ilea.org/lcas/macleanlave1998.html
e2a: read the whole thing - it doesn't seem as clear cut as first thought.
Ford Taurus, manufactured in the US for use in the US. Be interesting to see it applied to a Japanese model for export.
I thought the principle was that the petrol engine runs at a constant rate, designed to be it's most efficient, in order to generate the electricity that drives the car. The idea being to avoid the power bursts and acceleration that makes normal car engines inefficient. Have I misunderstood?
It's more that the electric motor kicks in when accelerating so the petrol engine doesn't need to burn as much fuel.
[STANDS UP] "My name is Winot and I'm a Prius owner" [SITS DOWN IN SHAME].
billythefish
25-11-2007, 13:05
Alas, the Toyota Prius has a relatively high Carbon Footprint, despite its alleged low emissions. There is a wealth of hi-tech lightweight materials, technology and batteries that take masses of energy to build, it is imported from Japan, has an expected life span of ten years max, and is a pig to dispose of when it's dead.
The vehicle with the lowest carbon footprint by far is the Land Rover Defender... built in Solihull largely by hand, most components are sourced from 150 mile radius, uses simple materials, 75% of all ever made (since 1948) are still running, easy to re-cycle when they do die as they're built of aluminium (and most components just get reused on other vehicles)... and its emissions are no-where near as bad as some may think anyway.
4x4 bias is just inverted snobbery.
Oswaldtwistle
25-11-2007, 15:10
[STANDS UP] "My name is Winot and I'm a Prius owner" [SITS DOWN IN SHAME].
:D No need to be ashamed, they are considerably better than most Jags/Beamers/Mercs or even Mondeos in terms of CO2. My point was they are no better than a lot of run of the mill Fiestas and Clios and the likes- and should be treated similarly tax wise (perhaps in the £115 band)
citydreams
25-11-2007, 15:39
4x4 bias is just inverted snobbery.
Agree with you about Land Rover's exemplary track record. But they're few and far between on the mean streets of London.
The vast majorty of 4x4 vehicles are high polluting, over sized and ostentatious.
Gixxer1000
25-11-2007, 17:09
The vehicle with the lowest carbon footprint by far is the Land Rover Defender... built in Solihull largely by hand, most components are sourced from 150 mile radius, uses simple materials, 75% of all ever made (since 1948) are still running, easy to re-cycle when they do die as they're built of aluminium (and most components just get reused on other vehicles)... and its emissions are no-where near as bad as some may think anyway.
4x4 bias is just inverted snobbery.
Interesting link here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7052340.stm
Could also say the same about longevity for the Range Rover, Merc G wagon, Nissan Patrol, Pathfinder, Landcruiser et al though.
If well maintained theres no reason why a car cant be used for 20+ years, unless of course its unnecessarily complicated, reliant on batteries with a finite life that is:rolleyes:
The sensible solution is maintain your vehicle to get optimum economy,
ensure tyre pressures are correct and keep the car for as long as possible rather than change every year with the current fad.
Im amazed that there is no political will to research the practicalities of retrofit scrubbers.
pleasing local voters- the CPZ east of Brixton Hill was voted for by residents, with those living closer to the tube/council offices showing greater enthusiasm;
I'm not so sure they'd have been so enthusiastic if they'd known that parking permits were going to double/triple in price.
Oswaldtwistle
25-11-2007, 22:07
I'm not so sure they'd have been so enthusiastic if they'd known that parking permits were going to double/triple in price.
I didn't think LAs were allowed to make a profit on parking permits......
Long term readers of this thread will recall I went to get my permit last week, but they couldn't print it because of 'the computer'.
They did take my money though, and promised to put it in the post.
No prizes for guessing that so far the disc hasn't turned up.
I rang them up today, to be told by Lambeth's call centre that the parking unit 'doesn't do phone contact' with the general public. It's 'only been open a couple of months'.
Of course there are phones, but the Lambeth's call centre won't put you through to them.
I asked to speak to a supervisor to complain and to do her credit she's chased it up. I've been promised a call back, but worryingly I was asked for a description of the worker who processed the application!
Lambeth, you couldn't make them up.
I'm going to go and wait another hour clutching the little paper ticket to get this disc.
It's like Soviet Russia, etc etc.
:rolleyes:
Well, I had my hour wait this afternoon at the super new service centre. That said, the person behind the desk was so pleasant, helpful and couteous - in marked contrast to the studied surliness of the old Parking Shop - that I left the place in reasonable humour instead of grinding my teeth as in previous years.
But what are those seats about? I guess the designers imagined folk parking their butts just fleetingly as they speed through their customer experience. But backless seating when waiting times are averaging an hour or more just produces a huddled mass of dejected slumpling figures...and are not at all comfortable.
As regards CO2 emmssion based permits - yes, it's a nonsense. Charging for CO2 should be on (1) fuel and (2) the congestion charge. But parking charging is a now a cash cow for councils, so that's the way it goes.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.