So when can I buy a ZEV from Range Rover?

Reply

↓↑report

The title for this post is misleading, perhaps the way range rover intended.

Reply

↓↑report

The congestion charge is encouraging people to purchase smaller cars that are less bad for the environment than the cars they might have otherwise bought?

Oh dear, what a nightmare.

Reply

↓↑report

It would never be 10,000 MORE cars... in other words, before the congestion charge, EVERYONE entered the city. Now less cars enter the city, but because of increased small car sales, it's growing, but still not where it used to be. The net effect is that the same or LESS cars enter the city, not 10,000 more than before.

Reply

↓↑report

Now this is worth a good chuckle! This is even better than the German CO2/kg hoax! So all the governments of Europe have been so blind to target the wrong types of cars with their new tax systems? ts ts ts... the governments we have these days....Aren't there any laws against misleading the public? I read that in Switzerland and Norway simply trying to give an ecological tinge to any petrol-related product ad is now prohibited and will set you back a hefty fine....surely Land Rover should be doing their best to keep their mouths shut at this point in time

Perhaps it would have been wiser for the three bidders for Land Rover+Jaguar to let these makes rot into bankruptcy (the outcome to be announced this week?). I think it's pretty obvious they have no intention of making any efforts towards serious emissions reductions

I think this is rather misleading - you don't need to commission a study to realize that public transport would be better than small efficient cars with lower emissions. The title may thus lead people to jump to the conclusion that for congestion it would be better if everyone were running around in Land Rovers :)

Reply

↓↑report

>>>The title may thus lead people to jump to the conclusion that for congestion it would be better if everyone were running around in Land Rovers.

Well no, that's not quite it. I think the conclusion is that the environment would be better of if only people who could afford Land Rovers were allowed to drive. ;)

Reply

↓↑report

if that's the case. for sure a lot of people will be driving small cars.

http://cars.ozfreeonline.com

Reply

↓↑report

Wow! Is this a paid review? Next time I'll read an Exxon paid study here that solar energy is bad for your health? Don't make me unsubscribe.

Reply

↓↑report

I hate it when companies commission "studies" from commercial consultancies (especially ones which sound like academic institutions) which are only ever released by press release - I suspect we'll never see the contents of this report.

But let's put this in perspective. The congestion charging zone reduced the number of cars entering central London from around 200,000 per day in 2002 to about 120,000 per day in 2005.

Naturally if people can buy a low carbon car and get in free, more will enter the zone. But a smaller than 10% increase after a 40% reduction is surely acceptable when you consider the wider benefits.

Yes this will increase emissions within central London but does this report consider the reduction in emissions over the lifetime of the vehicles and not just when they're driving in London? I doubt it.

Reply

↓↑report

the LR is better for the environment if you carry 4 adults into London!

Reply

↓↑report

Land Rover is right to point out that completely exempting cars that emit less CO2/km than some arbitrary number in an idealized certification test will prompt some of those who currently use public transport to enter London to switch back to qualifying cars. In that sense, the total number of cars will rise, not fall. More congestion means more aggregate CO2 emissions because very few cars feature start-stop systems.

However, Chelsea tractors such as those produced by Land Rover will still be emitting a lot more than small cars when stuck in the same traffic. Whether they should face a punitive charge of GBP 25/day is a matter of opinion, but the policy will likely succeed in discouraging the use - and hence ownership - of SUVs in central London.

It might have been smarter to reduce the charge for low emitters to e.g. GBP 4/day rather than eliminate it altogether.

The additional revenue would be used to invest in solutions that allow drivers to more easily avoid the congested central zone altogether if they are merely on their way through. One option would be a new section of expressway along the left bank of the Thames between West of Battersea bridge and East of Tower Bridge (roughly 5 miles). In terms of construction, this would essentially be equivalent to a long curved bridge deck supported by a series of pylons anchored in the river bed. The road surface would be located a few feet above the highest anticipated water level. The on-and-off ramps would connect to Battersea Bridge Road (downstream)/Cremome Road (upstream) in the West and St. Catherine's Way in the East. This road-in-the-river should be designed such that it can be extended in either direction at a later date if required.

A segregated two-way bicycle path on the embankment side would double as an access route for emergency vehicles. Emergency access towers featuring stairwells and elevators would be located at each of the 11 bridges the new road would pass underneath.

Reply

↓↑report

By left bank do you mean north or south?

A road beside the north bank would spoil a lot of important views - Houses of Parliament, Somerset House, St Paul's Cathedral, Tower of London.

The south bank is now a very popular, fully pedestrianised area and having traffic zipping along beside it could kill that. It's not the same as Paris where you are elevated well above the roads that run along the Seine. In London, high tide can come up to within half a metre of the Thameside paths.

Anyway they already have a means of transport that cuts along the route of the river and avoids the congestion charge - it's called the District and Jubilee lines on the underground :)

I expect the numbers switching back from public transport will be relatively low because it is difficult, expensive and inconvenient to park in London. More likely would be existing c-charge users in high emission cars switching to band B cars - job done! But only time will tell what happens.

Reply

↓↑report

The title is correct. Small cars are bad for the environment. Big cars are worse for the environment, though, so I don't see how Land Rover of all companies would like to point that out.

There hasn't been a car invented yet that was good for the environment.

Reply

↓↑report

hey Kballs:

Congestion is worse in London then before the extra charge. It only worked for a short while...now traffic is worse they are just making extra $$$

Reply

↓↑report

I suspect few people who are used to using public transport out of convenience or out of principle are likely to switch because of such a measure. Economically there is a whole host of other things to deal with, besides the LCC.

I suspect the reason they've done this is to widen the gap between the serious polluters and the very efficient, but real-world cars. Should electric cars (as an example) become very real-world soon (eg Think and the like) then perhaps the lower bracket will be taken back up again. To have the widest gap for a heavy SUV and cars which simply aren't seen on the roads made no sense.

Reply

↓↑report

may I be so bold as to suggest that 4 adults in a Yaris may be even better for the environment...

Reply

↓↑report

@ Scatter -

left refers to the North bank, as the Thames flows from West to East. Views should not be spoiled as the road I'm proposing would be just a few feet above the water, low enough to allow even commercial vehicles to safely pass underneath all of the existing bridges across the river along the route. traffic noise might be a different issue, even if you use quiet asphalt. However, I doubt it would carry all the way to the South Bank.

Reply

↓↑report

If the only vehicles in the world were Land Rovers, auto mechanics would be the most wealthy segment of society.

Reply

↓↑report