Pay to ride into central London

[fergus]

ORD said:

Fleegle said:

Pothole said:

ot what you said in the post I quoted, was it? "But no, with the Government striving for environmental utopia..."

So you reckon the air pollution aspect is merely a smokescreen?

Is that a pun?

My view is that if they had wanted to quickly reduce the pollution in London, they should have taken a harder line on cabs and buses from the outset. They have been given too much time. This move, bearing in mind the low percentage it will affect in 2020, will have little effect in the scheme of things other than generate a paltry sum

Taxis have been left alone (pretty much) because they are heavily unionised, nasty and very well able to cause huge disruption.

The fact that taxis are pootling around all day with engines that produce about 10 times as much harmful pollution as a modern petrol engine is pretty disgraceful.

I would not assume, however, that motorbikes are not heavily polluting. A lot are. And, in many instances, they are more polluting (for local air quality, rather than CO2) than petrol engine cars.

+1. The fact that taxis have been left alone for so long is outrageous, likewise some of the older generation of buses. Shows that Boris is more afraid of the unions, etc. than in increasing air quality.

[LoonR1]

I can't see the bus driver's Union having a problem with newer buses. The companies providing the service might.

[Pothole]

Fleegle said:

Pothole said:

ot what you said in the post I quoted, was it? "But no, with the Government striving for environmental utopia..."

So you reckon the air pollution aspect is merely a smokescreen?

Is that a pun?

My view is that if they had wanted to quickly reduce the pollution in London, they should have taken a harder line on cabs and buses from the outset. They have been given too much time. This move, bearing in mind the low percentage it will affect in 2020, will have little effect in the scheme of things other than generate a paltry sum

earlier you said:

it's no more than a revenue stream

so it's a paltry revenue stream then, that's hardly going to affect anyone? Tell me again why you're upset about it...

[Fleegle]

Pothole said:

Fleegle said:

Pothole said:

ot what you said in the post I quoted, was it? "But no, with the Government striving for environmental utopia..."

So you reckon the air pollution aspect is merely a smokescreen?

Is that a pun?

My view is that if they had wanted to quickly reduce the pollution in London, they should have taken a harder line on cabs and buses from the outset. They have been given too much time. This move, bearing in mind the low percentage it will affect in 2020, will have little effect in the scheme of things other than generate a paltry sum

earlier you said:

it's no more than a revenue stream

so it's a paltry revenue stream then, that's hardly going to affect anyone? Tell me again why you're upset about it...

Because my old yet well maintained bike will have to be replaced. I either sink £12.50 a day into the scheme or spend X thousand getting a 2007+ bike and say goodbye to my old yet well maintained bike. Are you getting the jist about my old but well maintained bike yet? I kind of like it and can't see enough justification in this poorly thought out hair brained scheme to bin my bike.

[LoonR1]

You'll be retired in 5 years anyway

[Fleegle]

LoonR1 said:

You'll be retired in 5 years anyway

The pollution might kill me first

[Pothole]

It was a pun, by the way.

Just get a more recent bike...5 years...you know you want to.

[Fleegle]

Pothole said:

It was a pun, by the way.

Just get a more recent bike...5 years...you know you want to.

All these modern bikes are very light though. I want something heavy and made out of pig iron that the thieving scumbags find too heavy to nick


The TRX fits the bill

[black-k1]

Pothole said:

Fleegle said:

Pothole said:

ot what you said in the post I quoted, was it? "But no, with the Government striving for environmental utopia..."

So you reckon the air pollution aspect is merely a smokescreen?

Is that a pun?

My view is that if they had wanted to quickly reduce the pollution in London, they should have taken a harder line on cabs and buses from the outset. They have been given too much time. This move, bearing in mind the low percentage it will affect in 2020, will have little effect in the scheme of things other than generate a paltry sum

earlier you said:

it's no more than a revenue stream

so it's a paltry revenue stream then, that's hardly going to affect anyone? Tell me again why you're upset about it...

For me, , I object to this as it's simply tokenism. It's a tiny revenue stream but may have a big impact on individuals. The impact on air quality will be insignificant, especially while the bus and taxi issues are not addressed, and pushing the possible scrapping ahead of "natural life end" is counter productive on the wider green agenda. Juat letting time take care of the removal of older bikes would be a much better approach.

[LoonR1]

black-k1 said:

For me, , I object to this as it's simply tokenism. It's a tiny revenue stream but may have a big impact on individuals. The impact on air quality will be insignificant, especially while the bus and taxi issues are not addressed, and pushing the possible scrapping ahead of "natural life end" is counter productive on the wider green agenda. Juat letting time take care of the removal of older bikes would be a much better approach.

Good point, they aren't dealing withy he taxi or bus side of things at all. Oh hang on .......

[Fleegle]

LoonR1 said:

black-k1 said:

For me, , I object to this as it's simply tokenism. It's a tiny revenue stream but may have a big impact on individuals. The impact on air quality will be insignificant, especially while the bus and taxi issues are not addressed, and pushing the possible scrapping ahead of "natural life end" is counter productive on the wider green agenda. Juat letting time take care of the removal of older bikes would be a much better approach.

Good point, they aren't dealing withy he taxi or bus side of things at all. Oh hang on .......

They are being addressed, but it's been a very 'treading on eggshells' approach. These are the biggest polluters and should have been dealt with as a matter of priority. I agree with K1, it's nothing more than tokenism.

And before anyone jumps on the ratio of how many bus/taxi users to pollutants in the air against bike riders, the ratio is irrelevant....so there

[Fleegle]

LoonR1 said:

Good point, they aren't dealing withy he taxi or bus side of things at all. Oh hang on .......

Anyway clog wearer, butt out. You don't even like London

[black-k1]

LoonR1 said:

black-k1 said:

For me, , I object to this as it's simply tokenism. It's a tiny revenue stream but may have a big impact on individuals. The impact on air quality will be insignificant, especially while the bus and taxi issues are not addressed, and pushing the possible scrapping ahead of "natural life end" is counter productive on the wider green agenda. Juat letting time take care of the removal of older bikes would be a much better approach.

Good point, they aren't dealing withy he taxi or bus side of things at all. Oh hang on .......

Looking at the air pollution caused by older bikes compared to busses and taxis, they are not addressing the issue but are merely implementing a token gesture. Of course, if you know otherwise then feel free to enlighten us!

[LoonR1]

black-k1 said:

Looking at the air pollution caused by older bikes compared to busses and taxis, they are not addressing the issue but are merely implementing a token gesture. Of course, if you know otherwise then feel free to enlighten us!

They're replacing the buses with hybrids or fully electric ones. I reckon that's dealing with it

Tight rules on new taxis too.

[Pothole]

black-k1 said:

LoonR1 said:

black-k1 said:

For me, , I object to this as it's simply tokenism. It's a tiny revenue stream but may have a big impact on individuals. The impact on air quality will be insignificant, especially while the bus and taxi issues are not addressed, and pushing the possible scrapping ahead of "natural life end" is counter productive on the wider green agenda. Juat letting time take care of the removal of older bikes would be a much better approach.

Good point, they aren't dealing withy he taxi or bus side of things at all. Oh hang on .......

Looking at the air pollution caused by older bikes compared to busses and taxis, they are not addressing the issue but are merely implementing a token gesture. Of course, if you know otherwise then feel free to enlighten us!

TfL Buses

As part of the ULEZ, we are taking extra steps to reduce emissions from our buses and to increase the number of zero emission capable vehicles.

[b]By 2020, all double deck TfL buses operating in central London will be hybrid and all single deck buses will be zero emission (at point of use). This means a substantial number of double deck buses operating in inner London will be hybrid, as will many in outer London
We will progressively increase the number of these buses. From 2020 only buses of this type will be allowed to operate on routes in the ULEZ[/b]

Tokenism at its most rampant, I agree!

[Fleegle]

LoonR1 said:

They're replacing the buses with hybrids or fully electric ones. I reckon that's dealing with it

And how long has it taken, how long before the cut off point for zero diesels?

LoonR1 said:

Tight rules on new taxis too.

What about old taxis?

[LoonR1]

Thank you.

£65m made available to upgrade taxis

Oh and if you think it's bad for bikes. Look at diesel cars. These have to be Euro 6 compliant. That doesn't even kick in until September 1st this year. So anyone with a diesel now will have to swap it.

[Fleegle]

Pothole said:

black-k1 said:

LoonR1 said:

black-k1 said:

For me, , I object to this as it's simply tokenism. It's a tiny revenue stream but may have a big impact on individuals. The impact on air quality will be insignificant, especially while the bus and taxi issues are not addressed, and pushing the possible scrapping ahead of "natural life end" is counter productive on the wider green agenda. Juat letting time take care of the removal of older bikes would be a much better approach.

Good point, they aren't dealing withy he taxi or bus side of things at all. Oh hang on .......

Looking at the air pollution caused by older bikes compared to busses and taxis, they are not addressing the issue but are merely implementing a token gesture. Of course, if you know otherwise then feel free to enlighten us!

TfL Buses

As part of the ULEZ, we are taking extra steps to reduce emissions from our buses and to increase the number of zero emission capable vehicles.

[b]By 2020, all double deck TfL buses operating in central London will be hybrid and all single deck buses will be zero emission (at point of use). This means a substantial number of double deck buses operating in inner London will be hybrid, as will many in outer London
We will progressively increase the number of these buses. From 2020 only buses of this type will be allowed to operate on routes in the ULEZ[/b]

Tokenism at its most rampant, I agree!

Tokenism refers to bikes older than 2007

[Pothole]

Fleegle said:

Pothole said:

black-k1 said:

LoonR1 said:

black-k1 said:

For me, , I object to this as it's simply tokenism. It's a tiny revenue stream but may have a big impact on individuals. The impact on air quality will be insignificant, especially while the bus and taxi issues are not addressed, and pushing the possible scrapping ahead of "natural life end" is counter productive on the wider green agenda. Juat letting time take care of the removal of older bikes would be a much better approach.

Good point, they aren't dealing withy he taxi or bus side of things at all. Oh hang on .......

Looking at the air pollution caused by older bikes compared to busses and taxis, they are not addressing the issue but are merely implementing a token gesture. Of course, if you know otherwise then feel free to enlighten us!

TfL Buses

As part of the ULEZ, we are taking extra steps to reduce emissions from our buses and to increase the number of zero emission capable vehicles.

[b]By 2020, all double deck TfL buses operating in central London will be hybrid and all single deck buses will be zero emission (at point of use). This means a substantial number of double deck buses operating in inner London will be hybrid, as will many in outer London
We will progressively increase the number of these buses. From 2020 only buses of this type will be allowed to operate on routes in the ULEZ[/b]

Tokenism at its most rampant, I agree!

Tokenism refers to bikes older than 2007

Not in the post I quoted it doesn't.

I give up, campaign to scrap the whole idea because you stand to be affected negatively if it floats your boat, you grumpy old git! I'll happily waltz into the zone on my post 07, fuel injected, super efficient, British built bolide smiling at you as I see you fumbling for phone and credit card...

[Willy Nilly]

Fleegle said:

Because my old yet well maintained bike will have to be replaced. I either sink £12.50 a day into the scheme or spend X thousand getting a 2007+ bike and say goodbye to my old yet well maintained bike. Are you getting the jist about my old but well maintained bike yet? I kind of like it and can't see enough justification in this poorly thought out hair brained scheme to bin my bike.

You can maintain it 3 times a day for the rest of your life, but it still won't meet the same emissions regs as a 2007 bike, never mind a new one and that is the issue. There are another 5 year for you to save up for one that is LEZ compliant.