Posted on 10/25/2006 7:30:01 PM PDT by blam
4x4 drivers face £300 bill to park outside home
By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor
Last Updated: 1:38am BST 26/10/2006
Millions of drivers of sports cars and 4x4s face hefty charges to park outside their own homes under a scheme being pioneered by a local council.
Town hall chiefs across the country were said last night to be closely watching a move by Liberal Democrats in Richmond upon Thames, south-west London, to target the owners of so-called "gas-guzzlers".
Owners of these 4x4s parked in Richmond could face hefty charges
The borough wants to introduce a sliding scale of charges for residents' parking linked to the emissions of the vehicle. Owners of electric cars would pay nothing, but someone driving a people carrier or high-performance vehicle would have to hand over £300.
Less powerful cars would also be hit by increases if they were midway between band A, which would be free, and band G, where the charge would be three times the current £100 permit cost.
Households would also face an extra 50 per cent for second and subsequent cars on top of the additional charge. The owners of two high-emission cars could pay £750 a year for residents' parking —£300 for the first vehicle and £450 for the second — compared to the current £200.
The move was condemned by motoring organisations and local Tories but praised by environmentalists, who want similar schemes introduced throughout the country.
A spokesman for the Local Government Association, representing all councils in England, said: "We all have a responsibility to reduce emissions and protect our environment for future generations, and variable charging may be one way of achieving this.
"Local authorities up and down the country will be watching these proposals with great interest."
The London mayor, Ken Livingstone, who introduced a congestion charge for the capital several years ago, welcomed the idea. "I congratulate Richmond on this decision," he said.
"Climate change is the biggest threat that we are facing and transport in London contributes 21 per cent of our carbon emissions."
But Conservatives sitting on the London Assembly called it "a stealth tax" designed to raise money rather than make a contribution to reducing carbon emissions. The borough said the plan could bring in £1 million.
Tony Arbour, the Tory assembly member for the area, said: "If this council's leaders are serious about curbing car use, they should withdraw subsidies and remove the car parking spaces they make available to council staff. As it stands, this is just another revenue-raising exercise."
Motoring groups were equally sceptical. Sheila Rainger, of the RAC Foundation, said: "We are in favour of encouraging people to choose greener, more efficient cars but we'd much rather see incentives than penalties."
Paul Watters, of the AA Motoring Trust, said the scheme was designed to penalise people for the vehicles they owned rather than how they used them.
He added: "It is stretching too far what residents' parking is about. When it began, it was designed to help people who had parking problems near their homes, with the money raised used to cover the cost of permits. But now some local authorities are using it to raise revenue."
Serge Lourie, the council leader, said: "Climate change is the single greatest challenge facing the world today. We can no longer bury our heads in the sand and pretend that it is not happening.
"For too long it has been seen as a problem that only central governments or international organisations could address. The truth is that we must all start acting now at local level."
A Richmond council spokesman said: "As people switch to cars in the lower bands, as we expect, it is going to take less revenue. This is not being done as a revenue-raising exercise, it is being done as an exercise in cutting down on carbon emissions."
Environmental campaigners were keen to see the idea spread. Tony Bosworth, transport campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said: "Encouraging people to use fuel-efficient cars is a key way of tackling climate change, so the Richmond scheme is an important step in the right direction."
The proposals are due to be considered by the council's cabinet on Nov 6. If implemented, it would be the first such scheme in the country.
"Climate change is the single greatest challenge facing the world today."
Islamofacism is not a problem, I guess.
Looks like they are trying to increase the incidence of poverty.
These people are surely patient.
They drop out of sight for awhile, then kick it up to the next level.
if California takes its "mini kyoto" law into full implementation - a person who wants to buy an SUV or V8 sedan in CA, will have to buy pollution credits (through a broker) from the purchaser of small 4 cylinder cars who will be able to sell the ones they have "earned" with their purchase.
this is no joke.
About as stealthy as an M1 Abrams.
Stupidity masquerading as conventional wisdom. Where the f*ck are we going like this?
Just get in on the ground floor and start riding a bicycle that's all. ;)
F**king Stalinist tools.
I imagine the people using mass transit, will also have pollution credits to sell to those who want cars.
What is so stupid is that most "SUVs" are small anyway, but a real human being can actually fit in them. Time for a nice revolution Brits, didya learn anything from us??
I am not agreeing with this policy, I am just making an observation. If taken to full implementation, that's the way it will play out regarding auto purchases.
England is doomed, and we're not far behind.
After taking away their right to own firearms, knives, swords, scissors, toy guns, and the right to defend themselves from violent criminals, male subjects of M.B. (mediocre britain) have been ordered by their government to cut off their "meat & two veg", as these have sometimes been used as "weapons" of sorts against the women of this fine socialist nanny state.
When they succeed in reducing envious cars, only the super-envied will still have them. What will that do for their evil demon? People would enjoy their SUVs even more if fewer people had them as it would scream SPECIAL! Or bureaucrat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.