Porsche challenges C-charge rise

[Markleshark]

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.


Good on Porsche, the charges for owning a car in this country are becoming stupid.

Full Story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7252092.stm)

[edesignuk]

They'll never win.

And though I love fast cars, there's hardly much point in driving one around London other than to show off.

[arkitect]

They'll never win.

And though I love fast cars, there's hardly much point in driving one around London other than to show off.

Probably Porsche is trying to protect their Cayenne market more than the 911s etc…

[RedTomato]

Yes, chelsea tractors are clearly an endangered species, and must be protected.

I'm finding it hard to work up much sympathy.

[dogtanian]

Yes, chelsea tractors are clearly an endangered species, and must be protected.

I'm finding it hard to work up much sympathy.

I certainly agree!

Markleshark - you sound like your avatar! :p

I am quite happy for the charge to go ahead, I rekons people that drive these things should be able to afford a few extra quid.

[AoWolf]

So they get to punish the evil rich, promote a political agenda, and screw over some german car companies...sounds like something the UK might do.

[gnasher729]

They'll never win.

And though I love fast cars, there's hardly much point in driving one around London other than to show off.

I tried twice driving through the "congestion charge" zone at about 10 pm when it is free. Unfortunately on both occasions it turned into a "congestion zone" so I won't do that again :eek:

Where Porsche certainly has a point is that the amount of the charge is quite irrational. If your car is classed as producing 224 gram/km of CO2, which is quite a lot, it costs £8 if you are not a resident, and a fraction if you are a resident. One percent more (226 gram/km) and it costs £25 per day, whether you are a resident or not. That is completely unreasonable. And here a nice quote: "By comparison the latest diesel-powered BMW X5s emit less CO2 than the Mayor of London’s preferred means of transport, the black cab. While the X5 3.0d and X5 3.0sd emit 214g/km and 216g/km respectively, the very latest LTI Vehicles TX4 2.5 produces 233g/km. "

So you can have a car that costs 25£ a day because of its CO2 emissions while producing less CO2 than a black cab that is free. It doesn't make sense. Not that driving a Porsche if you live in London isn't stupid, but I can't see a justification for a £9000 a year tax on stupidity.

I am quite happy for the charge to go ahead, I rekons people that drive these things should be able to afford a few extra quid.

I know someone who bought a B registration Porsche (that would make it about 1987 or so) for £600 and drove if for several years. I don't think he could have afforded to pay £25 a day congestion charge. That charge for a month was more than the purchase price of the car.

[sananda]

Where Porsche certainly has a point is that the amount of the charge is quite irrational. If your car is classed as producing 224 gram/km of CO2, which is quite a lot, it costs £8 if you are not a resident, and a fraction if you are a resident. One percent more (226 gram/km) and it costs £25 per day, whether you are a resident or not.

that tends to be way with limits; they are set at one point.

[dogtanian]

I know someone who bought a B registration Porsche (that would make it about 1987 or so) for £600 and drove if for several years. I don't think he could have afforded to pay £25 a day congestion charge. That charge for a month was more than the purchase price of the car.

I understand what you are saying but the point is, the world's getting a little hotter, it's a small change to make and makes you look a little bit less of a to$$er... ;) He's doing people a favour! lol

[Abstract]

Is Porsche only challenging this charge because it makes them look good? Even they know they won't succeed, so why not just say it, put it out there for all to see, and look good in the process?

</cynical>

[Loge]

So is it a congestion charge or an emissions charge? Making it free for some cars (OK, a small number) makes no sense, since they still take up space on the road.

[AoWolf]

So is it a congestion charge or an emissions charge? Making it free for some cars (OK, a small number) makes no sense, since they still take up space on the road.

It seems to be a political statement more then anything. I own a Porsche (88 924s) and will be doing my part to put out some extra Co2 this weekend for my london brethren :)

[geese]

It seems to be a political statement more then anything. I own a Porsche (88 924s) and will be doing my part to put out some extra Co2 this weekend for my london brethren :)

Well thats a very responsible attitude. Well done for being so grown up.

[Killyp]

Well thats a very responsible attitude. Well done for being so grown up.

Well done for respecting someone else's opinion.


Personally, I think the congestion charge is a criminal offense. I'm not old enough to do so yet, but don't we pay road tax etc... so we can use the roads?

[Queso]

Unfortunately the saved carbon from London getting rid of large engined cars is immediately lost every time a bendybus goes up in smoke :rolleyes:

I'm all for getting rid of 4x4s in urban areas BTW. They're designed for the country, not Chiswick.

[juanm]

They're designed for the country, not Chiswick.

Yeah, sure! :p
http://www.zcars.com.au/images/techart-magnum12.jpg

A guy who lives a couple of streets away from here drives one. It's funny to see how often he's refilling at the gas station :p

[geese]

Unfortunately the saved carbon from London getting rid of large engined cars is immediately lost every time a bendybus goes up in smoke :rolleyes:

I'm all for getting rid of 4x4s in urban areas BTW. They're designed for the country, not Chiswick.

With you there both times. Everything about bendy buses annoy me. I swear I'm going to die by being crushed by a 453 on my Marin. Its worse that most drivers of these buses race off the lights and brake sharply. An unpleasant experience.

Well done for respecting someone else's opinion.


Personally, I think the congestion charge is a criminal offense. I'm not old enough to do so yet, but don't we pay road tax etc... so we can use the roads?

I'm sorry? Didnt realise criticism of other peoples irresponsible actions was not allowed on these boards.

Why do you think its a criminal offence? You might not agree with it, but its totally legal. Its not uncommon to limit traffic in city centres. In Athens (i think) they alternate between letting in odd-plated and even-plated vehicles only.

Having lived in London for a few years (and as a car driver, cyclist and public transport user), I personally think cars should be discouraged from busy London roads at busy times. Whilst the C Charge is a very crude way of doing this, there doesnt seem to be a better way to ease congestion in London.

[geese]

Yeah, sure! :p
http://www.zcars.com.au/images/techart-magnum12.jpg

A guy who lives a couple of streets away from here drives one. It's funny to see how often he's refilling at the gas station :p

I think my old Nissan Micra is better off road than a Cayenne.

[rhsgolfer33]

I think my old Nissan Micra is better off road than a Cayenne.

Thats funny, because Cayenne's aren't that bad off road, and they're pretty fun in the sand with the right tires and such. Nothing like 500hp and some dunes.

[tjcampbell]

If you can afford a Porsche, you can afford £25 a day.

[Spievy]

If you can afford a Porsche, you can afford £25 a day.

I own 2 Porsches (albeit older- 944 & 914). I could not afford that, I am just a poor American.:eek:

[juanm]

Thats funny, because Cayenne's aren't that bad off road, and they're pretty fun in the sand with the right tires and such. Nothing like 500hp and some dunes.

I wonder what percentage of Cayennes has ever been off-road... maybe 0.5%? (snow doesn't count). It's 100% percent show off (in the case of the white Tech Art pictured, 140% show off). Hence the tax

[iGav]

I'm all for getting rid of 4x4s in urban areas BTW.

As a pedestrian I believe it's often preferable to be hit by an SUV rather than a car, but I digress, the Congestion Charge is about neither reducing congestion nor carbon emissions and this new increase won't make any significant change to either.

[jimN]

It seems to be wonderfully trendy to poke fun at the bendy buses but they make a lot of sense - multiple access points mean that you can get people on and off easily without the stupid scenario where people refuse to move down or go looking for seats upstairs so everyone is stuck standing by the driver. And because they are all on one floor they are far more accessible to disabled passengers and those with restricted mobility. As a cyclist I know to steer clear of them, just as I would lorries (especially left hand drive lorries which are a far greater problem both within london and on motorways because their drivers are often inexperienced, unfamiliar with driving on the left and often don't recognise our legislation on when to take rest breaks).

I'm all in favour of changes to the congestion charge. People who whine that they have a large family and therefore need this much space are neglecting to mention that they somehow can afford to live/school their children in a part of london where you can't buy a flat for less than a quarter of a million and a house is at least four times that. People who have picked up second (third or fourth) hand porsches are not driving them through central london everyday. The fact is this will reduce congestion and increase revenue from a group of people who can afford to pay it - those who can't can easily find alternatives. In addition the new system will actually reduce the charge for smaller vehicles so before people start complaining about little old people needing to be driven to hospital appointments (etc), remember that this can now be cheaper.

I live in London and I like what Ken is trying to do with the place, it is very refreshing to have a politician who isn't afraid to make unpopular decisions (especially when the complaining is generally led by a vocal minority).

[Queso]

It seems to be wonderfully trendy to poke fun at the bendy buses but they make a lot of sense
I totally disagree on this point. In London they make no sense at all. They make perfect sense in cities with nice grid pattern street layouts or with nice wide avenues such as Paris or Barcelona. However, in London's overgrown medieval track layout they make no sense at all. They are also frequently driven as a weapon, don't pull into bus stops since the the bus stops are often not long enough to accommodate them, cannot easily navigate through the city's abundance of roadworks and due to their length block junctions at pretty much every set of traffic lights. They therefore cause a ridiculous amount of congestion in the centre of London and undo any good gained from the congestion charge.

Double decker busses make sense for London. I know the Routemasters were no good for those with physical handicaps, but bendybusses are not a good choice for replacement.

[SpookTheHamster]

I'm surprised that nobody here has brought up how badly this affects families.

A large family is going to need a large car to get around, something like a Ford Galaxy MPV. These quite often emit as much CO2 as a 4x4 or sports car, but they're necessary. The extortion charge would make it cheaper for a family to run two cars under the 224g limit, which creates more congestion AND more pollution.

The two main polluting vehicles in London are everywhere, huge, usually seen empty, often driven dangerously and extremely inefficient. We know what we need to cut down on: Buses and taxis.

A serious study needs to be carried out into bus usage, because running an empty bus every 10 minutes during off-peak times is a huge waste.

[geese]

I'm surprised that nobody here has brought up how badly this affects families.

A large family is going to need a large car to get around, something like a Ford Galaxy MPV. These quite often emit as much CO2 as a 4x4 or sports car, but they're necessary. The extortion charge would make it cheaper for a family to run two cars under the 224g limit, which creates more congestion AND more pollution.

The two main polluting vehicles in London are everywhere, huge, usually seen empty, often driven dangerously and extremely inefficient. We know what we need to cut down on: Buses and taxis.

A serious study needs to be carried out into bus usage, because running an empty bus every 10 minutes during off-peak times is a huge waste.


Dont know about your neck of the woods, but in south London, buses are never empty.

You need frequent, and good quality public transport as an incentive to get people away from cars. Bus use has rises in London in the past 6 years because, well, its much better it used to be. Having frequent services off-peak is important, and I'd argue that they are not running empty.

A better way forward would be to upgrade the engines of buses so they run on cleaner fuel. In due course this will happen, assuming the political will is there.

As fot the congestion charge, i agree with it on principle, but I think it should be a scaled charge, rather then a £17 jump.

[jimN]

I'm surprised that nobody here has brought up how badly this affects families.


I did, evidently you aren't reading the other posts. Large families living inside the congestion zone can clearly afford this. Yes, there's council housing within the zone but these families are more likely to have children that our schooled locally and travel on public transport. In my experience the majority of people within the zone have no/few children and IF they really need to use a car could cope with a small one. The cost of a house/flat for a large family in and around the CC zone is prohibitive to any but those who could afford this higher charge.

Back on the bendy buses. Yes, they sometimes have inconsiderate drivers but there are plenty of idiot cyclists out there and they seem to be on the increase to the extent that people seem to be gunning for us in the media. I don't want to be vilified on my bike because some other chooses to cycle stupidly. It's a safe rule that if an accident is more likely to kill you than the other party then you need to be careful.

[gnasher729]

If you can afford a Porsche, you can afford £25 a day.

A ten second google search comes up with two Porsche 944 for sale under £5,000. I think that proves your argument wrong.

Apart from that, £25 a day = £9,000 a year = £90,000 or more over the lifetime of a car. But maybe Porsche shouldn't try to argue about this, but instead hire some private investigators to find out about tax payers' money flowing from Ken's cronies to Ken's cronies' friends; quite possible that they could get things changed that way :rolleyes:

[Queso]

Apart from that, £25 a day = £9,000 a year = £90,000 or more over the lifetime of a car.
The congestion charge isn't 7 days a week, so the figure is more like £6500. Residents living within the zone also get a 90% discount, so £650 is the actual amount they pay.

[edesignuk]

Residents living within the zone also get a 90% discount, so £650 is the actual amount they pay.I thought I read somewhere that residents won't get any discount with the new rules?*


*could be totally wrong!

[skunk]

Residents living within the zone also get a 90% discount, so £650 is the actual amount they pay.Actually, they won't get a discount from the £25 charge, as The Moderator says.

[jimN]

The point people seem to be missing is that you don't NEED to drive into the congestion zone on a daily basis and that someone who can afford to RUN a porsche for their daily usage, regardless of the theoretical purchase cost of a second hand one, can afford to pay more for the congestion charge. The car is expensive to insure and guzzles fuel, not the kind of car a poor person buys for daily use. The proposed changes to the congestion effectively amount to a luxury tax and I have no problem with that because the trickle down from these payments will help all Londoners.

[Queso]

I thought I read somewhere that residents won't get any discount with the new rules?*

Actually, they won't get a discount from the £25 charge, as The Moderator says.
Thank you both for the correction :)

[skunk]

In addition, you may be interested to hear just how much of the income from the C-Charge is available to improve life for those not driving Richmond Chelsea tractors: out of a total cumulative income of £930 million over the last four years, the net gain after operating expenses has been a total of £14 million. Quite apart from any question of environmental benefit, this kind of ludicrous mismanagement brings the whole scheme into disrepute.

[vixapphire]

I certainly agree!

Markleshark - you sound like your avatar! :p

I am quite happy for the charge to go ahead, I rekons people that drive these things should be able to afford a few extra quid.

people with your attitude shouldn't expect any sympathy, much less assistance, when time comes for your oxen to be gored.

[vixapphire]

Well done for respecting someone else's opinion.


Personally, I think the congestion charge is a criminal offense. I'm not old enough to do so yet, but don't we pay road tax etc... so we can use the roads?

get a horse, use the roads; no automobiles need apply. the government is way out of hand with its freedom-constriction agenda. car-owners are the new smokers.

[vixapphire]

If you can afford a Porsche, you can afford £25 a day.

does that include the overpriced parking garages too, or is that another 30 pounds charge on top of the fee?

[nplima]

out of a total cumulative income of £930 million over the last four years, the net gain after operating expenses has been a total of £14 million.

That is interesting. Got a source?

According to Wikipedia, the congestion charge started working in 2003. so these 4 years would be most of the time the scheme has been in place.
Is this £14M balance the result of sales - (setup cost + running costs), or is it sales - running costs?
thanks

[jimN]

does that include the overpriced parking garages too, or is that another 30 pounds charge on top of the fee?

The car parks aren't government run so why should their fees be included. You might decide that this is worthwhile on a one off basis, but would be cheaper to park outside the zone and get public transport into London. Plus it is far easier to get around in this fashion once you are in there.

[skunk]

That is interesting. Got a source?

According to Wikipedia, the congestion charge started working in 2003. so these 4 years would be most of the time the scheme has been in place.
Is this £14M balance the result of sales - (setup cost + running costs), or is it sales - running costs?
thanksIt is indeed the entire time the scheme has been in place.

Few people paying their £8 a day realise that practically none of this cash is serving any good purpose. I have just updated the cummulative cash flow that I did for ConservativeHome to mark the fourth anniversary of the Congestion Charge. Previously I had used estimates for 2006/7. Now I can use TfL’s actual numbers. Income: £930 million. Cumulative surplus after over 4 years of operation: £14 million.
http://philtaylor.org.uk/?p=726

[RedTomato]

I live in north London and use the buses almost every day, and I've never seen an empty bus. (at least while they are on duty)

I often can't get on and have to wait for the next bus because the bus is full up, which is a pain when you have a 3 year old daughter with you.

I also often cycle, and with the bendy buses, you just have to learn how to share a road with them. Don't ride along the side of a moving bendy bus, and especially not around a corner.

Same with lorries and coaches, never ride side by side with them, especially with articulated lorries. Bendy buses are just giant artic lorries, treat them with the same respect.

There aren't many bendy buses in north london, but when I've used them, it's been nice to be able to get on and off so easily, especially with a big pram.

Most buses only take one pram, people often squash two or more prams on, but the driver can legally refuse to carry more than one pram. Getting home with a baby in an big pram (that's difficult to fold) can be a nightmare, especially at nursery closing times.

The bendy buses take a far higher number of prams, I don't know the limits, but at a guess you could fit in 10 or so on an half full bendy bus.

Ken has his faults, but he has really really improved london transport, not just in frequency of service, but also in access.

I work with wheelchair users, who have said that 10 years ago, they felt like exiles in London as none of the transport was accessible to them, they weren't allowed on the tube etc.

One bloke (wheelchair user) told me 10 years ago, he tried to get on the tube, and he was shouted at and told to go away by the staff. Last month, for the first time in 10 years, he tried to get on the tube again, and saw some staff approaching him. 'Oh ****' he's thinking. But what they said to him was 'Can we help? Do you want to know where the lift is or do you want a hand going down the escalator? '

He said that was the first time in his life he felt like a true Londoner. Ahhh sweet. And thanks to Ken.

[thecritix]

If you can afford a Porsche, you can afford £25 a day.

what an ignorrant statement to make.

besides, people seem to be forgetting its not just porsches that are being affected here...

this is a pathetic attempt at cutting emissions, they should be spending their time developing systems like green flow on as many roads as possible where you can drive through a highstreet at 30mph smoothly, without accelerating and braking, wasting energy...

Just seems ridiculous that they are claiming this to be cutting emissions, when expanding Heathrow is good for London...

How many porsches could run for a year on the emissions of transatlantic flight?

Sickening.

[edesignuk]

How many porsches could run for a year on the emissions of transatlantic flight?I don't see how that is even slightly relevant.

Other than a plane how else are you supposed to get around the world in any reasonable time frame?

Same can't be said for getting around London, there are many options.

[gnasher729]

The congestion charge isn't 7 days a week, so the figure is more like £6500. Residents living within the zone also get a 90% discount, so £650 is the actual amount they pay.

Residents do _not_ get any discount on the £25 charge. That is the killer combination that I assume will cause lawsuits: If you are a resident, then obviously you cannot avoid driving through the congestion charge zone, _and_ you have to pay £25 a day. And knowing Ken, if he reads your post then he will increase the charge to £50 on Saturday and Sunday for residents.

(What I really expect to happen is that people will buy a second car, park it somewhere outside, and swap license plates :D)

[jimN]

Residents do _not_ get any discount on the £25 charge. That is the killer combination that I assume will cause lawsuits: If you are a resident, then obviously you cannot avoid driving through the congestion charge zone, _and_ you have to pay £25 a day. And knowing Ken, if he reads your post then he will increase the charge to £50 on Saturday and Sunday for residents.

If you live within the zone AND drive one of these cars you can definitely afford the charge.

[AoWolf]

A ten second google search comes up with two Porsche 944 for sale under £5,000. I think that proves your argument wrong.


A 944's 2.5L may not even pollute enough. Its all Politics. Hurting the economy over disputed science is a great thing...:rolleyes:

[iGav]

Porsche vs. Livingstone: round 2 (http://www.autocarmag.com/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/231471/)

Go Porsche.

[hulugu]

Thats funny, because Cayenne's aren't that bad off road, and they're pretty fun in the sand with the right tires and such. Nothing like 500hp and some dunes.

I wonder what percentage of Cayennes has ever been off-road... maybe 0.5%? (snow doesn't count). It's 100% percent show off (in the case of the white Tech Art pictured, 140% show off). Hence the tax

I'd say less than .5% even. I don't expect to see one anywhere near dunes, rocks, or even a muddy trail. Maybe snow, but not in any significant amount. I may be wrong, but I rarely see anything beyond the same vehicles. For example, while I have watched Hummers crawl up rock, their brethren the H2 and H3 never get beyond the trailhead.

[Schtumple]

Good, I hate show offs, the people who can

A. afford a porsche
B. afford to insure that porsche
C. afford the fuel for that porsche
D. afford to live in london

can afford this charge, simple.

[SpookTheHamster]

Dont know about your neck of the woods, but in south London, buses are never empty.

You need frequent, and good quality public transport as an incentive to get people away from cars. Bus use has rises in London in the past 6 years because, well, its much better it used to be. Having frequent services off-peak is important, and I'd argue that they are not running empty.

I rarely catch a bus with more than 5 people on. A study needs to be carried out into the average load of every bus on every route. So many buses take similar routes, often passing through stops at very similar times.

It's probably a little busier further in London, but at the edges it's too much.

[Loge]

I rarely catch a bus with more than 5 people on. A study needs to be carried out into the average load of every bus on every route. So many buses take similar routes, often passing through stops at very similar times.

It's probably a little busier further in London, but at the edges it's too much.

In Zone 6, and I find the buses are nearly always full or very busy.

[geese]

I rarely catch a bus with more than 5 people on. A study needs to be carried out into the average load of every bus on every route. So many buses take similar routes, often passing through stops at very similar times.

It's probably a little busier further in London, but at the edges it's too much.

Maybe those empty buses get more full as they get further in London?

If those routes arent viable then surely they wouldnt run them?

[Evangelion]

Well done for respecting someone else's opinion.

Should we respect those opinions if those opinions are ruining the planet for the rest of us?

[Evangelion]

I'm surprised that nobody here has brought up how badly this affects families.

A large family is going to need a large car to get around, something like a Ford Galaxy MPV.

Most familes these days are two adults plus two kids at most. And you could fit those in a VW Golf just fine. Sure, there are families with lots of kids, but you can't design systems like these with fringe-groups in mind. And families with 4+ kids are a fringe.

Is it just me or is it so that every time we get discussion about the intelligence of driving a SUV, a large car or a car with big engine, we get people who drag out the half a dozen people or so who might genuinely have a NEED for such a car and say "well, these people have five kids and they need a car like that!", when fact of the matter is that for 97% of the population, a car with 2+ liter engine, a SUV etc. is complete and utter waste.

[Rodimus Prime]

If you live within the zone AND drive one of these cars you can definitely afford the charge.

I am going to say that is not aways the case. That 25 a day if only charged 5 days a week added up to be 6500 a year per.

You forget a lot of people live pay check to pay check. Yes even the rich. Really that 6500 a year per car is even a huge hit to them to have that all of a sudden just start paying. Heck a lot of them could easily be slammed with 13000 a year. That is going to hurt any one a lot. Even if you can afford to live in the zone and drive one of those cars before this tax after words a lot of them will not be able to any more.

[Rodimus Prime]

Most familes these days are two adults plus two kids at most. And you could fit those in a VW Golf just fine. Sure, there are families with lots of kids, but you can't design systems like these with fringe-groups in mind. And families with 4+ kids are a fringe.

Is it just me or is it so that every time we get discussion about the intelligence of driving a SUV, a large car or a car with big engine, we get people who drag out the half a dozen people or so who might genuinely have a NEED for such a car and say "well, these people have five kids and they need a car like that!", when fact of the matter is that for 97% of the population, a car with 2+ liter engine, a SUV etc. is complete and utter waste.
define kid. Get 2 teenagers the back seat (Hell even one) of a golf starts getting pretty small.

Also might like to point out that if you are a6ft+ those smaller cars really start getting uncomfortable on longer drivers.

[geese]

define kid. Get 2 teenagers the back seat (Hell even one) of a golf starts getting pretty small.

Also might like to point out that if you are a6ft+ those smaller cars really start getting uncomfortable on longer drivers.

They can get a VW Passat then, or a Ford Mondeo. They can cope with 5 adults comfortably, and use tyhe same engines as the Golf or the Focus.

Or you can get a more fuel efficient MPV, like a Renault Espace, or a Ford Galaxy.

Although no matter where you drive you'd still have hardly anywhere to park them.