Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


City opts to think again on gas-guzzler parking charges

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 30 July 2008
TRANSPORT officials have been ordered back to the drawing board over plans to introduce higher parking charges in the Capital for the most polluting models of car.
Councillors have asked for the proposed new charging criteria to be re-examined and for reassurances the scheme would be "revenue neutral".

They also want to know the impact of what they describe as "massive increases" in road tax for so-called "gas guzzlers" before making a decision.

The council will still press ahead with a public consultation on the principles of the proposed scheme, which would see the cost of parking permits double for the most polluting cars. This will get underway in October with councillors then expected to make a decision in February next year. Opposition politicians today claimed the consultation was a way of kicking the scheme "into the long grass".

But city transport leader Phil Wheeler said the wider consultation was a sensible first step in order to allow everyone in the city have their say.

Councillor Steve Burgess, the city's Green Party environment spokesman, said: "I'm dismayed that this scheme has been blocked by the other parties.

"We're in trouble when the council's non-Green parties couldn't even agree to a relatively conservative scheme that would have benefited 80 per cent of vehicle owners.

"At the beginning of the week the council leader Jenny Dawe was arguing in favour of the scheme but now her group have accepted an SNP tactic that kicks the scheme into the long grass.

"The time for dilly-dallying over action to reduce climate pollution should be over."

The council's plans would mean owners of the biggest "gas-guzzlers" would see the cost of an inner zone permit double from the current £160-a-year to £320.

But drivers of the least polluting vehicles in the outer zones could see their charge fall from £80 to just £15.

Residents would also face higher charges for second vehicles.

City centre Conservative Councillor Joanna Mowatt said: "This seems to be another way of taxing people who live in the centre of town who may own large cars, but do not use them in the same way as a commuter in the suburb."

Council officials estimate that more than 11,000 people will pay less under the scheme, with just 3348 residents paying more.

The council expects this to result in a drop in income of nearly £44,000 but councillors have asked them to reassess these figures.

Last week the council's calculations for the scheme were questioned after it emerged that its data is based on DVLA national statistics and figures from the London borough of Camden – which has already adopted a similar scheme – rather than tailored to Edinburgh.

Bruce Young, the Lothian and Borders co-ordinator of the Association of British Drivers, said:

"All of the consultation in the world will not getaway from the fact that people should be able to buy a car on what they need."


Page 1 of 1

 
1

allknowing,

30/07/2008 12:05:48
And i always though that the charge was to cover admin costs. Looks like they can do it for £10!!!

Anyway, since when does a parked car create pollution?
2

alex paterson,

edinburgh 30/07/2008 12:08:01
For goodness sake leave us alone with our 4x4s,we are paying your wages.
3

Sarcasm,

30/07/2008 12:25:44
But city transport leader Phil (two) Wheeler said ...
4

aleex,

Edinburgh 30/07/2008 12:30:04
I've got a larger car but only use it a couple of times a week and can't afford to replace it. But I don't use it as much as some people with smaller cars. So technically they are more polluting than me, but I'll have to pay for a more expensive permit!!!
5

Voice of reason,

EDINBURGH 30/07/2008 12:30:47
There is no-one , repeat no-one living in Edinburgh who has to drive one of these great , big , ugly 4*4s .
6

Boswall,

30/07/2008 12:32:25
Good riddance to a shabby policy.
7

I love to eat Sellotape,

30/07/2008 12:35:06
5.

Which is precisely why they drive them.
8

ADP,

Edinburgh 30/07/2008 12:45:00
If they can afford to spend £30k upwards on a gas guzzler, neither the higher road tax or a higher parking charge is going to make much of a dent in their income. So there is no environmental improvement likely to be seen from such charges.
9

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 30/07/2008 12:45:35
I echo your sentiments Boswell. This has been another rediculous episode that clearly came from the same stable as the proposal to require everyone in a pub to sit down at a table.

How can people who's mind works in such a stupid way ever get to positions of power?

#5:

On the whole you are of course right, unless you are towing a heavy trailer, in which case a 4x4 performs a lot better than an ordinary car.

However, freedom of choice MUST be taken into account.
10

Padraig,

30/07/2008 12:50:30
Voice of reason (has there ever been a less apt name?)(5) said "There is no-one , repeat no-one living in Edinburgh who has to drive one of these great , big , ugly 4*4s."

Don't you dare tell me what I need from my car, Voice. You know nothing about my needs and care less - your bigoted approach is based on YOUR needs, which are totally irrelevant.

Only Trots seek to impose their will on everyone else - it's why they are unacceptable in a democracy and ALWAYS deny that name.
11

NYC Hibee,

edinburgh 30/07/2008 12:50:53
no.5
My car is not a big 'ugly' 4x4 but it does use a lot of fuel. I like it and I'm keeping it. Do you really think doubling my permit is going to make me sell it?
I only do 5k miles a year in it - commuters will do 4 times this and pay nothing!
12

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 30/07/2008 12:52:47
I wish they would stop using the term "gas guzzler". It shows a lack of intellect and encourages the tarring of several groups of vehicles with the same brush.

Not everyone wants to drive around in a soul-less Euro-box that does 0-60 in six weeks but averages 60mpg. If you want a decent car, then it will have a proper sized engine which produces the correct amount of power for the mass of the vehicle and suits its character. This will inevitably mean that it burns more fuel, for which the driver pays more duty and more VAT. They also cost more to insure than the average tin box.

However, the benefits of owning one are considerable. They look good, handle well, are comfortable and go like stink. After a 10 hour drive you feel refreshed and alert, not worn out and in pain.

There is a lot to be said in favour of owning a large, powerful car.
13

,

30/07/2008 12:59:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
14

HRon,

Edinburgh 30/07/2008 13:00:19
it shouldn't matter whether it's a mini or a jcb if it fills the same space. the greens live on planet coocoo land
15

Liz,

Edinburgh 30/07/2008 13:05:01
#13
But there is also the arguement that it makes sense to drive a vehicle which is apropriate for the task.

I dont need to go very far or very fast (last time I heard the 70mph speed limit applied to all vehicles) so a small car suits my purpose. If I were a farmer with a dog and a trailer I may require a large powerful vehicle, but for driving around any city large vehicles are just stupid, they are just too big for the roads and parking spaces, add that to the fact that most of the people I encounter driving them are incapable of manovering them whether that is to park or driving in narrow streets then they become even more idiotic.

Having said that I do think this permit thing was a very silly idea.

16

Salvatori,

30/07/2008 13:29:01
9 - my gas guzzler cost nowhere near 30k thanks very much. Ever bought anything second hand before?

To celebrate the Bejing Olympics I plan on leaving my car running for 24 hours a day whilst parked outside my flat - just to create a bit of atmosphere.
17

Ron D,

Enybru 30/07/2008 13:53:01
Maybe the car vandals will be able to discourage these vehicles.
18

Foresight,

By the Water of Leith 30/07/2008 13:57:50

When will it dawn on councillors that parked cars take up space, they do not burn petrol. This proposal was no more than a revenue earning exercise and hopefully will not be given any further credence.
19

The Judge,

30/07/2008 13:58:55
I told you it would never happen. I can't believe so many of you fell for it.
20

Hibernia,

30/07/2008 14:15:18
You can feasibly own a 4x4 and drive it sensibly and produce the same amount of pollution as driving a smaller car and thrashing the *rse out of it.

Also part of the pollution problem in Edinburgh is the fact for years they have widened pavements, reduced 2 lane roads into 1 lane roads therefore the queues of traffic are twice as long due to the fact there is half the amount of roadspace. Its not rocket science. The coonsul have created a lot of this problem themselves.
21

Hmm ...,

30/07/2008 14:31:19
... Liz (16) said "But there is also the arguement that it makes sense to drive a vehicle which is apropriate for the task.

I dont need to go very far or very fast (last time I heard the 70mph speed limit applied to all vehicles) so a small car suits my purpose. If I were a farmer with a dog and a trailer I may require a large powerful vehicle, but for driving around any city large vehicles are just stupid, they are just too big for the roads and parking spaces,..."

Bsolutely but people living in the centre of Edinburgh can probably walk to work - they don't need a small city car because they can walk in town - they need a larger one for journeys out of town to visit family to purtsue their hobbies and sports - for which they have decided on a type of car that meets their need - which is not buzzing around town!

I have a friend who lives in the New Town and has a huge 4x4 which she drives to work (a daily round trip of 8 miles)- but she and her husband use it at weekends to tow their dive boat about 200 miles to skin dive. Her lifestyle requires a car that can do that job, not that the loony lefties care. It is her right in a democracy and she shouldn't have to pay an "envy" tax because some daft Green thinks "We're in trouble when the council's non-Green parties couldn't even agree to a relatively conservative scheme that would have benefited 80 per cent of vehicle owners.

"At the beginning of the week the council leader Jenny Dawe was arguing in favour of the scheme but now her group have accepted an SNP tactic that kicks the scheme into the long grass.

"The time for dilly-dallying over action to reduce climate pollution should be over."

This scheme would not even help "climate pollution" - parked cars produce no emissions at all. It would, however, encourage the loony left who want to regulate our lives and dstroy the economy.
22

,

30/07/2008 14:43:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
23

Jenny MacArthur,

30/07/2008 14:44:54
Gas-guzzler drivers are selfish twits and deserve to be taxed through the nose. That's all there is to it. The idiots above trying to claim they 'need' to drive these stupid ugly machines, when in fact what they're really saying is "Look at Me, look at ME, look at ME.. and I don't care a jot if I put YOUR children's lives at far more risk, as long as my fat little cherubs don't have to walk anywhere". Pathetic. Tax them to hell.
24

Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia,

30/07/2008 14:46:44
24

You've not read them all, then. Honestly, I'm amazed some people manage to figure out where the letters are on the keyboard.
25

Incandescent,

30/07/2008 14:50:28
#26 Ahhhhhh. I thought for a minute there we weren't going to get our daily fix of bile from Ms (I'd put money on that title) MacArthur.
26

Calum Crubag,

30/07/2008 15:19:47
Tax the 4x4s. Why should our roads be taken up with these monster child killers because of other people's neuroses? If they have wee manhoods or mental problems then let them seek medical help.
27

Boswall,

30/07/2008 15:53:58
#26

I'll pay a gas guzzler tax if you pay an Ignorance Tax.

In the mean time please continue to put your petty, jealous, bitter ravings in writing.....they make the working day pass a little faster :)
28

Euan,

Edinburgh 30/07/2008 16:05:04
This ridiculous, money-gathering scheme needs put to sleep for good.

Almost all the people who own a vehicle which falls into the Council's 'gas guzzler' category and who reside in the City centre use their cars very infrequently, ie below 5000 miles per year.

I know this to be a fact as I know several people with such vehicles(Porsches, Range Rovers, Jaguars etc)


As Petrol Head says, these drivers already pay more in road tax, insurance and VAT on their fuel so it is quite simply preposterous that these vehicle owners would be charged more to park their own cars outside their own homes just because the Council thinks it will improve air quality and reduce pollution.

What a complete load of green-washed nonsense.

#31, I don't think Jenny could afford the Ignorance Tax, I mean, she'd be in the highest band wouldn't she?

29

,

30/07/2008 16:22:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
30

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 30/07/2008 16:30:31
Mario:

"Thats about the stupidest comment I've heard regarding car use in cities"

Why is that?

The council (starting with the disasterous Lazarowicz/Begg experiment) have done all they can to decrease road space and therefore increase congestion.

A vehicle sitting with it's engine idling in a traffic queue is doing 0mpg whichever engine it has. It's probably only doing 1 or 2 mpg if it has to inch forward at a walking pace. At a steady 30mph, the same vehicle will be doing at least 20mpg and probably more.

Therefore, seeing as pollution is created in proportion to fuel burned (and at tickover an engine is NOT operating at anywhere near it's optimium efficiency), creating congestion creates pollution.

There has been a policy over the last 10 years of creating artificial pinch points and restrictions to traffic flow. These consist mainly of:-

1. Oversize pavements and traffic islands
2. Cross hatching
3. Traffic lights instead of free-flowing roundabouts
4. Bus lanes (Do you really think bus lanes are there to aid the flow of buses? Of course not. They exist primarily in order to halve the road space available to cars, and don't let anyone tell you any different).

31

I love to eat Sellotape,

30/07/2008 16:33:23
There's little point in arguing with anyone who can't spell "ridiculous".
32

,

30/07/2008 16:34:25
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
33

,

30/07/2008 16:37:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
34

I love to eat Sellotape,

30/07/2008 16:45:12
Hamster lanes, too. Rodents have rights, you know.
35

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 30/07/2008 16:53:41
#37:

I don't sit in traffic if I can avoid it. If I have to go into town, I generally take the motorbike or if I am going to be drinking, the bus.

Are they going to open bus lanes up to motorbikes then? In that case I will no longer be breaking the law when I use the bus lane for safety reasons. Pity they don't open them up to cars as well and get rid of the thick white line and green paint.

#35:

I'm using the American spelling.
36

,

30/07/2008 16:57:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
37

SPG,

edinburgh 30/07/2008 17:00:16
More garbage from the clowncil garbage.
38

Bored,

30/07/2008 17:02:16
#33 Vincent-W
"76 kids got killed in 2007 by 4x4's reversing over them because they were below the window height at the back"

May I ask where you got this information from?
39

NYC Hibee,

edinburgh 30/07/2008 17:25:53
no. 43
I don't know this for sure but I'd reckon most human beings have access to or use a car on a regular basis. Maybe it's you that's in the minority?

Jenny mcarthur - ,,- oh, I just can't be bothered with knobs like you.
40

Euan,

Edinburgh 30/07/2008 17:36:11
#43 Mario

You are almost certainly not a 'properly brained' person.

Don't know why you're telling other to 'shut their stupid mouths' either, you ABSOLUTELY LOVE responding to people who do open their mouths on these pages.

Once again you appear completely torn between one entity and another..
41

Friar Tuck,

30/07/2008 18:42:54
Small cars are not worth it. My wife bought a smart car and although it is good on fuel, all the savings (and more) are used up paying exhorbitant Mercedes-Benz prices for maintainance and repairs.
42

Exiled Leither,

30/07/2008 18:46:22
#26 jenny,
You certainly seem to have issue with the motor vehicle.
Are you aware that "dust to dust," the jeep cherokee is far more enviromentally friendly than say a toyota prius. this is due to the huge amount of emmisions that producing and safely dismantling the prius causes which is not offset by the emmisions saved during its lifetime. Also I am sure that you probably don't realise that most bicycles produced in places like China (which is most of them) are produced at huge environmental expence and ofcourse the virtual slave labour needed to produce them don't really make them as righteous as you would like.
I drove through Edinburgh the other day in my small engined honda and, without word of a lie, ripped some under body plastic trim off due to the potholes. So I would have to say that there is indeed a very good and strong argument for driving a reliable diesel 4x4 or pick up as the roads are worse than country roads I may even get one myself.
Ps given choice would rather get hit by 4x4 than tram!
43

Exiled Leither,

30/07/2008 18:48:14
46, buy a old fiesta and a haynes manual that should stop Mercedes overcharging you.
44

Friar Tuck,

30/07/2008 19:10:26
#48 - I would, but nobody wants to buy the smart!
45

Papa? Nicole! Papa?,

30/07/2008 19:14:17
#33
"Heavier vehicles wear roads out more quickly and cause more damage when they hit other vehicles."

Not necessarily 4x4s then, since they are designed to spread the load evenly, and in some cases will have a lower mass per unit area of contact with the ground than a "normal" car with wee thin tyres.

"Larger vehicles use more road and parking space and also obstruct the vision for other road users and pedestrians. (76 kids got killed in 2007 by 4x4's reversing over them because they were below the window height at the back)."

And how many kids are simply run over by people in cars? A sight more than 76, I'd wager.

With your logic, we should ban all vehicles, and go back to walking everywhere.
46

,

30/07/2008 20:43:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
47

,

30/07/2008 20:45:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
48

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

30/07/2008 22:44:45
Voice of Reason reckons:

"There is no-one , repeat no-one living in Edinburgh who has to drive one of these great , big , ugly 4*4s"

OK, you try driving a Mazda up tenement stairs.
49

Julian.,

edinburgh 30/07/2008 23:22:13
Padraig #11,

So tell us then. Why do you need to drive a 4x4?
50

Julian.,

edinburgh 30/07/2008 23:25:11
Friar tuck,

Have youn tried selling it? These cars are like gold dust in the current climate.

51

Richard Lionheart,

31/07/2008 00:01:08
What does Climate change do now that climate change 2million years ago didn’t?

Answer: - Give every elected official, at all levels of Government, who have the power to raise revenue an excuse to do so.

Nigel Lawson’s book on the subject is out now. It makes an excellent read and exposes the reasons why our current politicians are so keen to keep up the Panic/Global doom message.

Well done to those making billions out of carbon trading.
52

Padraig,

31/07/2008 06:04:23
Julian (54) said "Padraig #11, So tell us then. Why do you need to drive a 4x4?"

I don't need to drive one and don't. But that wouldn't stop the Trots complaining about the car I do drive (which was bought to meet my actual needs) - they just can't resist showing us all the chip on their collective shoulders. Like Jenny McArthur - when did 4x4s being ugly have anything to do with being Green? It shows only her bigotry and demonstrates that her hatred has nothing to do with function and everything to do with the chip on her shoulder.

And no, I won't tell you why I need the car I drive - it is none of your business.
53

Julian.,

edinburgh 31/07/2008 13:24:21
#57,

Well, if you won't tell us then we'll never know if you do need one or not.

Although I would have thought your counter argument to the statement made that no one needs a 4x4 in Edinburgh would be slightly improved by coming up with a concrete example.

Your silence on the matter merely bolsters their argument.

My personal view is a bit more specific. Unless you are regularly carrying very large items in your car or have at least 4 children, no one in Edinburgh needs some of these vulgar monstrosities we see driving around, eg. Range Rover, Toyota Land Cruiser.
54

Findlay Thompson,

31/07/2008 14:12:52
22

Very good point...

The Liebour district council have over the years literally destroyed the Edinburgh transport infra structure. In their incompetence they have not taken into account future projections on usage etc. etc.

As one poster commented on how do these people of limited intellect manage to get into power. They continually pass rules that benefit the minority of the Edinburgh Populace. The Liebour Party will disappear hopefully sooner than later.
55

Padraig,

31/07/2008 23:17:15
Julian (58) said "Well, if you won't tell us then we'll never know if you do need one or not."

That pretty well sums it up - it is none of your business what I drive and I am better able than you to decide on what I need from my car.
I don't see why you should feel you have some kind of right to judge my choice. (I very nearly became abusive there - bigots get up my nose and nosy bigots are worse).

Get a life and stop envying others theirs.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Should wardens be given the power to fine drivers who double park?
Yes, there has to be some kind of deterrent.
Yes, but only if they are causing a serious obstruction.
No, it would be just another money-making exercise.

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.