ULEZ charge in 2021

[321boost]

2gins said:

I dip in and out of this thread now and again but I missed your reply 6 weeks ago.

The strategy can be read here: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/mayo...

As for a specific reference, the whole document is laced with it but some specific remarks:

p29 ".. continuing restricting traffic where appropriate " - i.e. leading to congestion

p49. I wonder what the outcome of this approach will be : " This will build upon the best of the programmes already underway in, for example, Waltham Forest, Kingston and Enfield, aiming to reduce the volume of traffic through appropriate street closures, to develop streets as public spaces … "

p51, Proposal 1 (a): " … using public transport and to increase opportunities to use streets as public spaces and for play … "

p53, Proposal 3 (b): " Encourage additional local and neighbourhood improvements, such as using physical restrictions to prevent motorised vehicles from using certain streets …"

p57, this figure appears: Item 13 and 15 in particular is designed to force traffic onto major roads, thereby increasing congestion on the major roads.


p61, Proposal 8: " The Mayor, through TfL and the boroughs, will work with local communities and cultural organisations to promote one-off, regular and trial closures of streets to some or all motorised traffic … "

Here it is again on p99: " … introducing ‘filtered permeability’ (using physical restrictions to prevent motorised vehicles from using certain streets) …"

I could go on but that gives a flavour. Two local schemes to me are (1) Isleworth, closure of Church St to through traffic so now everything north/southbound has to go via the A310, which is a car park from Worton Rd to the A4 pretty much all day from 7 AM to 7 PM and beyond; and (2) the proposed Kew Bridge / S Circular changes which will happen next year, where they'll close Wellesley Rd and Stile Hall Gardens to through traffic at the A205 so now all the traffic coming out of Chiswick will be funnelled onto the A315 and into the Chiswick roundabout, which is already a car park almost 24/7.

Our friend will no doubt complain that the intention is not to deliberate create congestion to drive people off the road but create conditions for mode switch, but the problem is the strategy pre-supposes mode switch away from cars: we're well down the track already and the evidence is that isn't happening. The inevitable result: More congestion.

Oh no! You just gave evidence of the sh8t people have been experiencing. I’m sure the *only/true* Londoner here will be back with some other BS to counter it.

Edited by 321boost on Friday 16th August 21:41

Edited by 321boost on Friday 16th August 21:42

[red_slr]

Lets say we do push people off the roads, who covers the £30Bn fuel duty short fall? I guess the tax payer. All I keep hearing is "our childrens air needs to be cleaner" which is cool but in 20 years your kid is going to be paying for that clean air. You makes your choices I guess.

[2gins]

red_slr said:

Lets say we do push people off the roads, who covers the £30Bn fuel duty short fall? I guess the tax payer. All I keep hearing is "our childrens air needs to be cleaner" which is cool but in 20 years your kid is going to be paying for that clean air. You makes your choices I guess.

You'll find the answer on page 90!

[DonkeyApple]

NomduJour said:

I think you're missing the point - private cars are a small minority of vehicles in Central London anyway - for example, hardly anyone commutes via private car. Getting rid of them all tomorrow probably wouldn't make an enormous difference. Are you going to ban taxis, private hire cars, buses, delivery vehicles too? Should we look forward to the local Waitrose being restocked by a man on a rickshaw? Expect bicycle ambulances and fire engines?

Just stupid to pretend road traffic can suddenly disappear.

Ultimately, the annoying thing is that road congestion in central London is not the fault of the residents of central London but they are being penalised for it.

Excess consumption is the real issue. More people able to afford to drive, more people making online purchases, more people able to afford to use minicabs, more people travelling into London for liesure and even cycling.

If you actually wanted to lower emissions then you would be wanting to make more sensible changes such as recognising that many Londoners do need a car but punishing them for any kind of use of it is not intelligent, heavily taxing short minicab journeys to push those consumers back onto Shank’s Pony or public transport, massive park and ride systems at the end of every major road in, heavily taxing next day deliveries to incentivise consumers to opt for a single delivery slot once a week and not to tax residents for using cars in the evening or at weekends etc.

[red_slr]

Commercial vehicle sales released..... they are down 31%!!!

Given we are 2-3 years away at the soonest from emissions controls in Leeds, Birmingham and Manchester I suspect some of the dealers in these regions are possibly going to go bust before it comes in if that was to continue!

[2gins]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/most-pollut...

2 ways you could spin this

1) ULEZ massively effective and we need more of it

2) TFL massively underestimated the financial impact on the public and the only true beneficiaries are TfLs coffers, the car manufacturers and leasing firms

Air quality figures due in November.

[C70R]

2gins said:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/most-pollut...

2 ways you could spin this

1) ULEZ massively effective and we need more of it

2) TFL massively underestimated the financial impact on the public and the only true beneficiaries are TfLs coffers, the car manufacturers and leasing firms

Air quality figures due in November.

I'll wait until November for the AQ data, but only a mega cynic could lean towards #2 at this stage.

If the number of highly polluting vehicles in an area that suffers with air quality from pollution is reduced by the scheme, surely that feels like a step in the right direction?

[NomduJour]

C70R said:

If the number of highly polluting vehicles in an area that suffers with air quality from pollution is reduced by the scheme, surely that feels like a step in the right direction?

Absolutely - the more filthy buses and black cabs off the road, the better.

I wonder how Khan will spin the pollution figures? Is the bus fleet really improving quickly enough to show a difference?

[kev1974]

C70R said:

If the number of highly polluting vehicles in an area that suffers with air quality from pollution is reduced by the scheme, surely that feels like a step in the right direction?

Depends which battle you're trying to fight

Sure air pollution might be down, but the environmental cost of fabricating a whole new vehicle is still absolutely massive, especially electric vehicles due to the sourcing of the raw materials necessary for the batteries.

If all ULEZ has done is displaced the very slightly dirtier vehicles to continued use in outer London (or to another city, or another country) then it's just selfishly moved the problem to someone else's back yard, and if it's caused any vehicles to be retired earlier than they really needed to be and new vehicles fabricated in their place, that's a massive own goal for the environment.

So sure, air pollution down in a few square miles of central London, potentially bad news for more general environmental concerns elsewhere. You can't just ignore the ripple effect / consequences. It most likely would have been better for the planet overall, for those vehicles to stay in use until they naturally died of something else.

It might also have been better to ignore private cars for now, and instead focus heavily on specific areas. Pollution from buses and taxis is one, but what about thinking outside the box and looking at something like rubbish collection. Why are umpteen independent rubbish collection companies allowed to hoon around the West End picking up a few bags/boxes here, a few bags/boxes there, depending on the many contracts they've each negotiated with different shops. Why isn't there a single rubbish collection company for each West End street (e.g. the council's!) that just goes along once in the early hours and picks everything up? And deliveroo/uber eats scooters etc, why the hell are we entertaining that sort of polluting nonsense just so someone can get £10 worth of McDonalds or sushi brought to them? There are plenty of other polluting activities in the West End when you start to think about it properly.

[NomduJour]

There are many, many things Khan could have focused on (debated at length on here and elsewhere), but private cars are a fully on-message target right now, and a lucrative one to tax.

[Dave Hedgehog]

C70R said:

2gins said:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/most-pollut...

2 ways you could spin this

1) ULEZ massively effective and we need more of it

2) TFL massively underestimated the financial impact on the public and the only true beneficiaries are TfLs coffers, the car manufacturers and leasing firms

Air quality figures due in November.

I'll wait until November for the AQ data, but only a mega cynic could lean towards #2 at this stage.

If the number of highly polluting vehicles in an area that suffers with air quality from pollution is reduced by the scheme, surely that feels like a step in the right direction?

i would say it does both

The policy reduces pollution (a good thing), raises money and supports TFL and mayors alt left anti personal car ownership agenda

[Dave Hedgehog]

NomduJour said:

There are many, many things Khan could have focused on (debated at length on here and elsewhere), but private cars are a fully on-message target right now, and a lucrative one to tax.

whilst he ignores how he's overseen the epidemic of knife murders

[NomduJour]

I wonder if the impact has been bigger on commercial vehicle use rather than private car journeys.

[EW109]

Graveworm said:

It is slightly more nuanced and definitely not confined to pistonheads. It's one of the defined logical fallacies rather than just a personal attack.

An argument ad hominem does not mean -- as many people now take it to mean -- being rude about someone.

In the sense originally given by Locke it means "to press a man with Consequences drawn from his own Principles and Concessions". This remains its correct meaning.

Example: if someone writes "X is always true" and also writes "in some circumstances, X is not true", then to "press" this by demonstrating the inconsistency is an argument ad hominem.

The point (and the reason for the name) is that this merely demonstrates that the argument advanced by a particular person is logically unsound and nothing more. It does not, in my example, demonstrate that either the proposition "X is always true" or the proposition that "in some circumstances, X is not true" is correct: merely that someone cannot simultaneously advance both propositions while maintaining logical credibility.

[NomduJour]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

When private car usage isn’t the problem, how much heavy lifting should their owners be expected to do?

[red_slr]

NomduJour said:

I wonder if the impact has been bigger on commercial vehicle use rather than private car journeys.

This is what I am most interested to know. The govt assumes all operators will magic up the £40k-£150k+ for a new goods vehicle but I suspect the numbers might show otherwise.

[DonkeyApple]

NomduJour said:

There are many, many things Khan could have focused on (debated at length on here and elsewhere), but private cars are a fully on-message target right now, and a lucrative one to tax.

Subsidising the VAT on stab vests and increasing the tax on knives?

[A1ps]

Hi guys, mega thread revival. Sorry.

I'm totally baffled right now about this blighted ULEZ lark.

I have is an Audi RS4 B5 which bar my family is my absolute pride and joy. The date of registration is 01/02/2001 and is on a private plate that came with the car.

I have entered my registration details on the TFL website and that states I'd have to pay the charge. However, 2 friends have exactly the same vehicle make and model and when they enter their details on the same site, the TFL website states they don’t have to pay the charge. One friend has an X reg and the other has a Y reg.

My car has a private plate and I'm wondering if this is the reason why the website states I have to pay the daily charge, as it may think I have an R registration vehicle, whereas my car was registered on 01/02/2001.

I've emailed TFL asking what's going on.

[MikeyC]

A1ps said:

Hi guys, mega thread revival. Sorry.
<snip>

Do you know what the original number plate was ?
Maybe try that ?
There again, maybe TfL only get to see current active plates ?
Try a plate from Autotrader for same year as yours ?

[TwyRob]

There is a process to go through to get the compliance issue sorted manually. I did it with my 2004 B207 engined Saab 9-3ss last year and it applies to all of them. That was a bit more complicated without the manufacturer to give a supporting document but my letter from the Owner's Club and V5c details showing emissions were enough.

You will get this done I imagine with about a 1 week wait while it goes through.

https://www.uksaabs.co.uk/UKS/viewtopic.php?f=1&am...

Edited by TwyRob on Saturday 23 November 13:19

Edited by TwyRob on Saturday 23 November 13:23