Legal Challenge Over Scrapping Of Western Extension

By · December 7, 2010 at 11:00 am · 9 Comments · Latest News · Report an error ·

A legal threat has been issued to Boris Johnson by environmental group Clean Air in London (CAL) over his plans to scrap the western extension of the congestion charge in London.

The mayor announced earlier this year that the western extension (WEZ) would be abolished on Christmas eve but has faced criticism over the quality of air in the capital and fears that scrapping the WEZ would make things worse. TfL have admitted in their report on the impact of its removal of that congestion could increase while also admitting that, ‘it has not been possible to identify a clear congestion charging effect on measured air quality’ and that ‘no clear scheme impact [on air quality] from either the original central or western extension zones can be discerned,’ but it’s worth bearing in mind that the congestion charge was introduced as a way of reducing the numbers of vehicles in central London thereby reducing pollution caused when those vehicles aren’t running at their most efficient, namely when they’re stuck in traffic jams. In 2008, TfL said that although the volume of traffic had fallen, the levels of congestion were actually the same as when the c-charge was introduced. They also acknowledge that roadworks and traffic calming measures had led to the increase in pollution by, yep, you guessed it, impeding the traffic flow.

Now, no-one wants to see every street in London turned into a motorway, but if the aim is to reduce congestion rather than impose a tax on pollution, then perhaps a smarter way of managing traffic is needed. Boris Johnson has already taken some steps towards this by promising to rephrase or remove unnecessary traffic lights and introduce a lane rental scheme for utility companies wishing to dig up the roads.

All this would suggest that the problem of air pollution in London can’t be addressed solely by keeping the WEZ in place and even CAL doesn’t try to claim this, instead asking for a steering committee to be formed and mitigation measures to be put in place to combat pollution caused (or not, depending on which report you read) by the WEZ. But Boris, already in a high profile Mexican standoff with the transport unions, is probably unlikely to cave in to pressure and go back on his decision to remove the WEZ so the question is whether CAL will make good on their threat come the new year.

Photo by Simon Wicks

Tagged: , , , , , , , , ,

Report an error

  • http://twitter.com/ianvisits IanVisits

    The irony of the situation is that Boris didn’t want to scrap the extension, just to reform it. However, he also promised a vote to those affected – and they decided they didn’t want it, so it has to go.

    What is troubling is whether a court should then overrule that public vote “in favour of higher pollution” and tell the residents they aren’t allowed to make that determination for themselves.

    • Beth Torr

      I think that’s been the problem all along and what has got people’s goat the most – the fact that they were consulted over it and then effectively ignored.

  • Kingpin

    “but it’s worth bearing in mind that the congestion charge was introduced as a way of reducing the numbers of vehicles in central London”

    [i]…and a way for the Government to implement yet another tax.[/i]

  • Joe

    We live just outside the congestion charging zone and our pollution has doubled as has the traffic since the introduction of the western extension of the congestion charging zone and this is not fair. It seems clean airLondon just want clean air for themselves and sod everyone else in London. If they sue The Mayor then I will sue clean air London because my air is dirtier because of the congestion charge. Cleanairlondon are selfish, What REAL Londoners should do is, stick together and campaign for a congestion charge around the M25 to try to stop or reduce the ten of thousands of vehicles that enter OUR city everyday, this is also a Green Party campaign. Keeping the western extension will not and does not reduce pollution in London (it goes elsewhere and becomes doubly bad). I think cleanairlondon should look at themselves in the mirror and decide whether they want to live in harmony with their neighbours in London and stop being selfish. In the next few years we will also see a huge increase in the number of electric vehicles on London roads – so a little patience id required!

  • David

    Legal challenge to dismantling the WEZ deserves to fail for at least three reasons, as follows:

    First, flowing traffic is less polluting than traffic crawling in queues. I believe that after the introduction of the central zone, the levels of pollutants increased to unacceptable levels along the boundary, particularly the Marylebone Road as it became more congested. The comment above bears this out anecdotally. So suing to keep the WEZ does look either selfish or misconceived or both.

    Second, the will of the people is clear: the CCZ must go. Evidently, the obnoxiousness of the congestion zone is far worse than the obnoxiousness of any as-yet-unproven reduction in air quality.

    Third, everyone wants clean air but the best way to get it is not by cordoning-off parts of the city and charging drivers to enter it. Other strategies have more efficacy, more promise and less social injustice, such as technological improvements to engines, alternative fuel sources, tax breaks for low emission vehicles, etc

  • Citydreams

    Perhaps if TfL had modelled the effect on air quality of removing WEZ then there would be no need for a judicial review. As it is, the mayor has repeatedly shown that he would rather pass the buck when it comes to environmental issues.

    I hope that this doesn’t decend into an xmas pantomine, though at last it seems that the days of Boris laying golden eggs is well and truly over.

  • Marion

    Clean Air London (CAL) is a worthy aim; but the benefits of the congestion charge are scientifically unproven. The zone creates massively polluting, crawling traffic in surrounding areas. The western extension (WEZ) is illogical. It juts out from the central area. It was imposed by Ken Livingston as an expression of his dislike of Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea – against the wishes of the public. The Royal Borough – particularly in the north – is overwhelmingly residential; with little traffic. WEZ devastates the midweek markets in Portobello & Golbourne – for no purpose. Mayor Johnson made an election promise to remove it. After 2 more public consultations (total 6) he has kept his word. CAL should seek other avenues.TfL & RBKC wish to retain WEZ for financial & political purposes. There is no legitimate justification for its retention.

  • http://twitter.com/alaricadair Alaric Adair

    There is of course the fallacy that the congestion charge reduces CO2 emissions from motor vehicles. Firstly the charge takes no account of the actual mileage (hence actual CO2 generated) by the vehicles concerned and secondly it takes no account of the extra mileage (and congestion) created by people travelling outside of the zone to avoid the Charge. Levels of congestion dip for a short while when the Charge is introduced, but soon climb back.
    The Congestion Charge is purely an instrument designed to raise revenue and is largely ineffective at curtailing either congestion or CO2. The other concept of increasing the charge on the basis of engine size is nothing more than an envy tax rather than dealing with actual pollution generated by motor mileage.

  • http://twitter.com/alaricadair Alaric Adair

    There is of course the fallacy that the congestion charge reduces CO2 emissions from motor vehicles. Firstly the charge takes no account of the actual mileage (hence actual CO2 generated) by the vehicles concerned and secondly it takes no account of the extra mileage (and congestion) created by people travelling outside of the zone to avoid the Charge. Levels of congestion dip for a short while when the Charge is introduced, but soon climb back.
    The Congestion Charge is purely an instrument designed to raise revenue and is largely ineffective at curtailing either congestion or CO2. The other concept of increasing the charge on the basis of engine size is nothing more than an envy tax rather than dealing with actual pollution generated by motor mileage.

←
→