USEFUL CONGESTION CHARGE INFORMATION AND LINKS The main Greater London Authority (GLA) is London’s elected body. Transport for London (TfL) is the body which manages of all transport in the capital (the Tube will become part of TfL after it is part-privatised). There is a special website managed by TfL for the charge that has a lot of useful information and links to register for exemptions. Look here to see if you’re vehicle is environmentally friendly enough to escape the fee . Look here for an alternative view of the congestion charge.

This is your opportunity to comment on the London congestion charge scheme that comes into effect on 17 February

All charged up - the responses

 

Jim Jordan, a branch steward from Newham, writes:

I have now heard that the scheme may be rolled out to the outer London boroughs if the inner London scheme is a success. I for one fully expect to get clobbered when this happens. I am an essential user who needs a vehicle to carry some rather weighty equipment about. Doesn't Ken realise that it is us - the employees - working in the authorities and health service who are providing care and services to our fellow residents? Most of us, Ken, are the ones who can least afford it.

The scheme should be scrapped until more efficient, viable solutions are found with better public transport and alternatives provided to employees allowing for the provision of services.

Vinay Dudakia from London writes:

The fact that Ken Livingstone wants to reduce the congestion in the designated area will only force people to drive up to and around the boundary causing congestion there. The proposed congestion scheme is limited to a specific area at the moment. When congestion overspills in adjoining areas will the scheme be extended to those areas as well?

Those who have money, £5 is neither here nor there for them. Those who are self-employed will probably claim it back as expenses. Most company car users will claim it back from their employers. That leaves the majority of ordinary people who will end up paying the charge for trying to earn a decent living and going about their own business. This seems to me yet another form of taxation on people going to work.

Mike Griffin from north London writes:

85% of London commuters use public transport. Public sector workers who use cars as an essential part of their job should be able to claim back the money from their employer. I just don't see any evidence that large numbers of public sector workers will be hard hit by the congestion charge, but it must be good news that the money raised will be ring-fenced for transport improvements.

There are far too many cars on the road generating pollution, congestion and danger for pedestrians and cyclists and a serious attempt to reduce the numbers and decrease the attractiveness of car use must surely be a benefit for the majority of us.

Member Richard Boon, who works for the Environment Agency in the Midlands region writes:

Of the 130,000 members that work in Greater London how many are actually going to be inconvenienced by a scheme that affects 1% of this area? How many more non-car commuting members would benefit from the congestion reduction and £130m that will be injected into improving public transport?

The area to be affected by the scheme is served by 15 mainline railway stations. If UNISON derails the scheme here it will derail all schemes which are badly needed in all our congested innner city areas to address major economic, health, and environmental concerns.

The Clean Act of 1956, despite 4,000 smog induced deaths, was criticsed at the time for fear that the ban on coal fires would unfairly penalise the poor. It didn't. Surely the quality of our reasoning has moved on over the last half centuary?

Mike Jeram, head of UNISON's business and environment service group adds:

The fact that UNISON has raised some concerns about the detailed implementation of congestion charges in London - specifically their impact on low paid public service workers - does not mean that we are against the principle of congestion pricing.

Many other organisations and trade unions are also raising questions about the implementation of the scheme. This is not really unexpected. Congestion charging is a new concept which, with the exception of a very small scheme in the City of Durham, is totally untried in this country.

UNISON wants the scheme to work but we want it to work fairly and in a way that does not further damage our vital public services in London which are already threatened by staff shortages because of exorbitant property prices which public service workers, especially new recruits, can't afford.

However, congestion pricing is only one small part of the answer to this country's woeful public transport system - it would do nothing for example to improve the situation in rural areas.

UNISON, in common with organisations like Transport 2000 which we have sponsored for many years, has long argued for more investment in buses and railways, more powers and resources for local authorities, improved road safety measures including rigorous enforcement of traffic and parking laws improved facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, more park and ride schemes, rigorous health and safety standards, more help for the socially excluded etc.

Full details of our ideas on public transport are in the Positively Public Transport campaign pack, copies of which can be obtained from the national office.

 

If you would like to add your comments about the London congestion charging scheme - and UNISON's stance on it - please email us on u.magazine@unison.co.uk. UNISON reserves the right to edit and publish any responses.

LOTS MORE FEATURES Including stress in the workplace, getting out of debt and the pensions crisis more...