London Emmisions Surcharge - 'The Banger Tax'

London Emmisions Surcharge - 'The Banger Tax'

Author
Discussion

croyde

22,700 posts

229 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
Alex_225 said:
Being a car nerd I do keep my eyes open for what's on the roads round central London and I can't see a lot of old chuggers or high polluting. Back cabs and buses seem to be the real offenders if I'm honest.
Had to laugh at that as I've only just realised that when commuting to the outskirts of London up the A3, I seem to be the only person being 'Green' in my owned since new 1997 BMW hehe

bracken78

983 posts

205 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
Harry Flashman said:
2) public transport infrastructure. It creaks during rush hour, and often doesn't work at all (I live in Streatham, on a Southern Trains line, and frankly it is a nightmare). London's spending on transport (and other services) seems to be stalling. It would be nice if this tax went towards improving public transportt, but I suspect it won't.
Just touching on this point from HF, Public transport. I drive from Fleet to Surbiton every day so class myself as 'part of the problem'. I have looked into taking the train many times but it is very expensive, close to 1.5x's the costs of running the car. If the train has a direct link (stopping train is fine) between Fleet and Surbiton without changing and having to waiting 20 mins in Woking, I would be using it.

Alex_225

6,233 posts

200 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
croyde said:
Had to laugh at that as I've only just realised that when commuting to the outskirts of London up the A3, I seem to be the only person being 'Green' in my owned since new 1997 BMW hehe
There probably is something quite green about it mate, considering it's 20 years old and still going strong. Offsetting the environmental effects of lots of brand new cars. smile

croyde

22,700 posts

229 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
bracken78 said:
Just touching on this point from HF, Public transport. I drive from Fleet to Surbiton every day so class myself as 'part of the problem'. I have looked into taking the train many times but it is very expensive, close to 1.5x's the costs of running the car. If the train has a direct link (stopping train is fine) between Fleet and Surbiton without changing and having to waiting 20 mins in Woking, I would be using it.
I'm the same. The cost of the train is always more than driving either of my gas guzzlers in, as long as I park for free. It would be nice to rely on the train, which is fine in the morning but as I tend to finish late ie after 8pm, there is only one direct train an hour and they finish early.

So if I miss a train that's an hour spent waiting then an hour on the train followed by a 10 minute walk and a 10 minute drive.

jamespink

1,218 posts

203 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
The key finding from the mass of research carried out: 4. Conclusions: The main finding from this work is that there is little evidence of NOx emissions reduction from all types of diesel vehicles over the past 15–20 years. It is only petrol passenger cars (including hybrids) where strong evidence exists for effective NOx control. We have been so off target for the last 20 years we are about to be fined by the EU for non compliance! Great job Boris...

NomduJour

18,973 posts

258 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
Modern diesel NOx emissions are fine in the test cycles, but many times higher (think I read up to 700%) when they're driven hard.

JD

2,769 posts

227 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
NomduJour said:
My focus would be on rapidly limiting bus and taxi emissions (entirely within TfL's remit - they spend enough on buses to commission whatever they need), looking into putting trams/trolleybuses on Oxford Street and other clogged routes, being ruthless about punishing roadworks delays and inconvenience, having an objective and reasoned rethink of cycle route layouts and doing something to limit local online delivery traffic (move to electric/CNG/whatever vans, incentivise drop-off and collection points at stations, local shops etc.).

If car traffic is shown to be decreasing and cars are becoming less polluting, the problem is elsewhere (i.e. dirty diesel buses, taxis, delivery vehicles and pollution caused by unnecessary delays like idiot roadworks schemes).
They are already, you can no logner register a diesel taxi after 2018.

They will also agressivley introduce hybrid taxis starting at the same time.

DonkeyApple

54,919 posts

168 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
JD said:
NomduJour said:
My focus would be on rapidly limiting bus and taxi emissions (entirely within TfL's remit - they spend enough on buses to commission whatever they need), looking into putting trams/trolleybuses on Oxford Street and other clogged routes, being ruthless about punishing roadworks delays and inconvenience, having an objective and reasoned rethink of cycle route layouts and doing something to limit local online delivery traffic (move to electric/CNG/whatever vans, incentivise drop-off and collection points at stations, local shops etc.).

If car traffic is shown to be decreasing and cars are becoming less polluting, the problem is elsewhere (i.e. dirty diesel buses, taxis, delivery vehicles and pollution caused by unnecessary delays like idiot roadworks schemes).
They are already, you can no logner register a diesel taxi after 2018.

They will also agressivley introduce hybrid taxis starting at the same time.
Which is still pointless as by the time the minicab has driven into London to start work the batteries are flat and they run their ICE all day long. The hybrid thing for cars that spend their whole time operating in inner cities is just a tax wheeze. Their emissions are no lower than a normal car.

On the flip side, the new electric motors on buses are a massive improvement as they are used to accelerate the bus up to the speed where the ICE is far more efficient.

But these aren't the vehicles that are causing the congestion and the reality is that we need a massively expanded bus/minivan network below the traditional bus network and the halting of private cars entering inner London from outside. It's all these cars that are causing all vehicles to sit in slow moving queues hurling out fumes and doing bugger all mpg.

vz-r_dave

3,469 posts

217 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
DonkeyApple said:
JD said:
NomduJour said:
My focus would be on rapidly limiting bus and taxi emissions (entirely within TfL's remit - they spend enough on buses to commission whatever they need), looking into putting trams/trolleybuses on Oxford Street and other clogged routes, being ruthless about punishing roadworks delays and inconvenience, having an objective and reasoned rethink of cycle route layouts and doing something to limit local online delivery traffic (move to electric/CNG/whatever vans, incentivise drop-off and collection points at stations, local shops etc.).

If car traffic is shown to be decreasing and cars are becoming less polluting, the problem is elsewhere (i.e. dirty diesel buses, taxis, delivery vehicles and pollution caused by unnecessary delays like idiot roadworks schemes).
They are already, you can no logner register a diesel taxi after 2018.

They will also agressivley introduce hybrid taxis starting at the same time.
Which is still pointless as by the time the minicab has driven into London to start work the batteries are flat and they run their ICE all day long. The hybrid thing for cars that spend their whole time operating in inner cities is just a tax wheeze. Their emissions are no lower than a normal car.

On the flip side, the new electric motors on buses are a massive improvement as they are used to accelerate the bus up to the speed where the ICE is far more efficient.

But these aren't the vehicles that are causing the congestion and the reality is that we need a massively expanded bus/minivan network below the traditional bus network and the halting of private cars entering inner London from outside. It's all these cars that are causing all vehicles to sit in slow moving queues hurling out fumes and doing bugger all mpg.
All well and good for those who don't live in London...... however not so for those of us who do so until they bring in a fair policy for those of us who live here I am in complete disagreement with the Surcharge.

Dave Hedgehog

14,541 posts

203 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
akirk said:
yet my car is not a diesel...
so, how it is tackling the dirtiest diesel I do not know!
diesel, petrol it matters not, your a car user ergo tax them all off the road

that is the TFL way

otolith

55,899 posts

203 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
Toltec said:
How polluting is a car that gets readings in an MOT of-

CO = 0.01, HC = 1, lambda = 1.003

The car is a 2002 so should meet

Euro 3 emission limits (petrol)

CO – 2.3 g/km
HC – 0.20 g/km
NOx - 0.15
PM – no limit

Euro 4 halved the limits

Euro 4 emission limits (petrol)

CO – 1.0 g/km
HC – 0.10 g/km
NOx – 0.08
PM – no limit

Given the car has a CO twenty times better and an HC two hundred times better than required it would easily pass Euro 4 and even 6 limits. How is this car toxic exactly?
You are comparing apples and oranges. The MOT figures are based on the % of exhaust gas at idle / fast idle. The type approval figures are based on absolute grams of pollutant emitted per kilometre driven under the EU test cycle. They aren't measured under the same conditions and they're not even the same units.

DonkeyApple

54,919 posts

168 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
vz-r_dave said:
All well and good for those who don't live in London...... however not so for those of us who do so until they bring in a fair policy for those of us who live here I am in complete disagreement with the Surcharge.
It's not the cars that are registered in central London that are the problem so in an ideal world they would be left alone.

JD

2,769 posts

227 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
DonkeyApple said:
Which is still pointless as by the time the minicab has driven into London to start work the batteries are flat and they run their ICE all day long. The hybrid thing for cars that spend their whole time operating in inner cities is just a tax wheeze. Their emissions are no lower than a normal car.
I'm really not sure that is the case, I would in fact think their operation is the complete opposite.

Use the range extender on the drive into town, and then batteries in the stop start.

I don't see how you can say the technology works well for the buses, but dismiss the exact same concept for a taxi!


Dr mojo

187 posts

178 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
I disagree that this has much to do with private vehicles. The figures suggest it is commercial traffic in particular Uber and delivery vans with boom in online shopping. Allied to reduced road space due to cycle and bus lanes it is the perfect storm.
Putting a tax on the less well off will not resolve the problem. TFL need to be honest around is it congestion or emissions they are trying to solve? Emissions means making everyone switch to alternative vehicles from ICE but may allow congestion to continue.Congestion means banning significant numbers of vehicles from central London regardless of their emissions or ability of someone to pay. If you are doing the latter then make sure you have upgraded the public transport infrastructure. Personally I would prefer a ban of vehicles from central london except emergency and public transport (not Uber). This would encourage more use of buses etc and perhaps cycling as roads would be safer. it would also be fair as it would be irrespective of your buying power

DonkeyApple

54,919 posts

168 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
JD said:
DonkeyApple said:
Which is still pointless as by the time the minicab has driven into London to start work the batteries are flat and they run their ICE all day long. The hybrid thing for cars that spend their whole time operating in inner cities is just a tax wheeze. Their emissions are no lower than a normal car.
I'm really not sure that is the case, I would in fact think their operation is the complete opposite.

Use the range extender on the drive into town, and then batteries in the stop start.

I don't see how you can say the technology works well for the buses, but dismiss the exact same concept for a taxi!
Two different designs for different applications. The bus system is designed for the purpose of getting the bus moving away from a stop as that was a high torque point that the diesels pumped out vast amounts of fumes. The system then he generates to the next stop. It seems to work very well. The car hybrid system was designed for suburban use where it works well but in crawling city traffic it doesn't. The style of driving isn't right for recharging the batteries so the end result is that the car just runs on its engine. My neighbour has the Lexus SUV and jokes that it only uses its batteries when parking. Living in town it just doesn't get enough of a charge to not be burning fuel when he uses it.

DonkeyApple

54,919 posts

168 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
Dr mojo said:
I disagree that this has much to do with private vehicles. The figures suggest it is commercial traffic in particular Uber and delivery vans with boom in online shopping. Allied to reduced road space due to cycle and bus lanes it is the perfect storm.
Putting a tax on the less well off will not resolve the problem. TFL need to be honest around is it congestion or emissions they are trying to solve? Emissions means making everyone switch to alternative vehicles from ICE but may allow congestion to continue.Congestion means banning significant numbers of vehicles from central London regardless of their emissions or ability of someone to pay. If you are doing the latter then make sure you have upgraded the public transport infrastructure. Personally I would prefer a ban of vehicles from central london except emergency and public transport (not Uber). This would encourage more use of buses etc and perhaps cycling as roads would be safer. it would also be fair as it would be irrespective of your buying power
But out of private cars, taxis and delivery vans which group is the one that could be removed? It's also the largest group.

hyphen

26,262 posts

89 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
Dr mojo said:
Personally I would prefer a ban of vehicles from central london except emergency and public transport (not Uber). This would encourage more use of buses etc and perhaps cycling as roads would be safer. it would also be fair as it would be irrespective of your buying power
It isn't realistic though, not for the foreseeable future.

You would have to have 'vehicles banned except....' and a long list. And it would not be irrespective of buying power at the extreme ends- as the number of helicopters flying in would increase and the poor will pay more as they can't afford the cheaper annual season ticket.

I think more innovative solutions are needed, for example the Barcelona one where are trying one where for each street block, one route through is left open and the rest are pedestrianised and turned into public squares.

New well thought up ideas are needed, otherwise it won't work: Car ban fails to curb air pollution in Mexico City

gavsdavs

1,203 posts

125 months

Tuesday 21st February 2017
quotequote all
s p a c e m a n said:
There are all ready enough cameras in place to catch vehicles travelling across the border of the zone because they're there to catch commercial traffic for the LEZ. From Heathrow to Purfleet, Croydon to Enfield it effectively covers the inside of the M25. They've already got cameras for the CCZ so they just need to dot a few about to catch vehicles that don't cross either border. Could probably do it just by hooking up to already existing ANPR cameras.
I'm not sure. There's a lot of nooks and crannies on and off the circular roads. North circular less so as it's got lots of bypass and large junctions, but the south circular is a snaking little road comparatively. There's loads of roads on and off it which I doubt are well covered by cameras (compared to the CCZ). I think it's going to be hard to monitor.

JD

2,769 posts

227 months

Wednesday 22nd February 2017
quotequote all
DonkeyApple said:
Two different designs for different applications. The bus system is designed for the purpose of getting the bus moving away from a stop as that was a high torque point that the diesels pumped out vast amounts of fumes. The system then he generates to the next stop. It seems to work very well. The car hybrid system was designed for suburban use where it works well but in crawling city traffic it doesn't. The style of driving isn't right for recharging the batteries so the end result is that the car just runs on its engine. My neighbour has the Lexus SUV and jokes that it only uses its batteries when parking. Living in town it just doesn't get enough of a charge to not be burning fuel when he uses it.
Sorry I thought we were talking about hybrid taxis designed exactly for this purpose, not hybrid cars in general, wires crossed.

The new taxis are exactly that, range extended battery vehicles.

Terminator X

14,920 posts

203 months

Wednesday 22nd February 2017
quotequote all
Soov535 said:
So £22 a day to drive my old 996 Carrera into London.

Idiots.
Ah but the public transport in is fantastic. No chance of a fking seat though in the rush "hour" mad

TX.