in favor<\/strong> (from environmental groups, TfL, etc.)<\/span><\/h2>\nEnvironmental \/ public health \/ city planning supporters of the changes make the following arguments:<\/p>\n
\n- Congestion control needs updating<\/strong>
\nThe existing fee and discount structure have become less effective: as more electric vehicles enter the zone and more people drive, the deterrent effect of the original charge is eroding. To keep central London moving and avoid gridlock, the charge needs to be strengthened. (tfl-newsroom.prgloo.com<\/a>)<\/li>\n- Air pollution & climate goals<\/strong>
\nCleaner air, lower emissions: reducing internal combustion engine traffic and encouraging EVs, public transport, walking & cycling helps address health impacts (e.g. asthma, respiratory problems) and London\u2019s broader climate targets. (tfl-newsroom.prgloo.com<\/a>)<\/li>\n- Incentives to transition<\/strong>
\nBy adjusting discounts (making them less generous over time), the policy nudges individuals and businesses towards cleaner vehicles \/ fleets. This helps accelerate the transition. (tfl-newsroom.prgloo.com<\/a>)<\/li>\n- Financial necessity<\/strong>
\nTfL has sustained losses \/ financial pressure\u2014revenue from fares dropped during COVID-19, and ongoing operating \/ maintenance costs remain high. The changes are positioned as part of ensuring the Congestion Charge continues to contribute to TfL\u2019s revenue base in a fair way. (tfl-newsroom.prgloo.com<\/a>)<\/li>\n- Fairness relative to other transport costs<\/strong>
\nSome argue it is unfair for public transport fares to rise annually but the cost of driving into central London to remain static. Updating charges keeps a balance. (London City Hall<\/a>)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
\n