RE: 'Toxin tax' tactics, PH style

[DonkeyApple]

Gman77 said:

From what I've read in the media about the proposal for 2019+, there are a couple of points that are a big concern.
1. Unlike the congestion charge, the emission based charges to be 24/7.
2. The coverage will be expanded to cover the area within the north and south circular.

So as a car enthusiast that lives in London zone 2, I will be charged every time my 996 rolls out of the garage for a weekend blast.

It's a blunt bit of policy that will impact all, regardless of whether you rack up 20k miles pa commuting, or just have a weekend toy.

Yes. That's my understanding also. Any time that I move any of my cars to exit central London I will have to pay £12.50, so add about £100 to my monthly commute. Nowhere near enough of a charge to warrant the enormous cost of changing my car in order to comply.

[alexpa]

seefarr said:

As someone who lives and works in London and a petrolhead, I'm all for bringing this in sooner. I don't drive during the week and I do care about all the soot and crap I breathe in every day.

Here's the percentages of NOx polution in Greater London, with diesel cars responsible for 24% of the road transport emissions so it makes sense to target them:

666 SVT said:

Just another case of fleecing the motorist. If it was really about pollution black cabs wouldn't be exempt.

From the 1st of Jan next year, they are not going to allow any more diesel taxis to be licensed - they all have to be either zero emissions or petrol-hybrid - and they will pay for older taxis to be decommissioned:

https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emissio...

I hate the use of Diesel engines in road cars; always have.

Your interpretation of the pie chart is wrong; the right hand chart represents the final detail of the 51% of the left hand chart, therefore private diesel cars contribute circa 12% of the total.

[alexpa]

Jackspistonheadsaccount said:

What is funny is that my TwinAir MiTo is supposedly so good on petrol its tax exempt yet I get 30mpg average.
Granted the roads to and from work are decent B roads but still

That'll be due to the test, as referred to in the original post, which does not match real world driving conditions in any way.

[Plug Life]

seefarr said:

diesel cars responsible for 24% of the road transport emissions

alexpa said:

Your interpretation of the pie chart is wrong; the right hand chart represents the final detail of the 51% of the left hand chart, therefore private diesel cars contribute circa 12% of the total.

Your interpretation of what he wrote is wrong.

[alexpa]

Venturist said:

Kenny Powers said:

Whilst I don't disagree that the situation is, shall we say, unfortunate, can we please refrain from complaints about "real world conditions"? There are no real world conditions. It's a scientific test. It cannot, and should not, be able to represent your heel & toe antics on the way to the paper shop. The only thing that matters is that every vehicle is subject to the same test. With the exception of hybrid cars that are clearly able to skew the results massively. I don't doubt that in 2017 the world requires a new system, but whether or not it represents your own personal fuel consumption is moot.

Which leads me onto the wider topic of "mpg" - it's not the same as pollution.

Thanks

While I agree with your sentiment, if we're going to base government policies and financial incentives off the scores from certain tests, then those tests should be representative of how the cars are actually used by average users. If they aren't, then you end up with ridiculous situations we have now where incentives are given to buy products with the aim of having wider reaching effects on society, but that are simply not performing as the tests said they would because they are so non-representative.
We should absolutely make them more closely aligned to how the average driver will use the car in its working life, because then the results will more closely align with the actual performance, and the governmental steering of public purchasing decisions will in turn have results in line with what they set out to achieve.

It is like having the General Election only be open to votes from people who live in one particular village! Yes it's still democracy, but entirely unrepresentative and disproportionate.

Edited by Venturist on Thursday 6th April 08:51

Completely agree with your response. Current tests (and sliding CO2 legislation) are also why we have the current situation of downsized turbo engines (which equal over complication and costs to maintain going forward); simplistically, the tests are at low rpm before the turbo spools up, hence lower fuel use and therefore emissions. However physics is physics; if you want the same power out in a given time, all being equal, you need to put the same amount of fuel in, hence why real world turbo Boxster does roughly the same mpg/range as non turbo, likewise F458 v's MCL650s.

Edited by alexpa on Friday 7th April 16:28

[alexpa]

Plug Life said:

seefarr said:

diesel cars responsible for 24% of the road transport emissions

alexpa said:

Your interpretation of the pie chart is wrong; the right hand chart represents the final detail of the 51% of the left hand chart, therefore private diesel cars contribute circa 12% of the total.

Your interpretation of what he wrote is wrong.

Thanks. I now see he's only referring to the 51% and therefore he is correct.

[b0rk]

seefarr said:

As someone who lives and works in London and a petrolhead, I'm all for bringing this in sooner. I don't drive during the week and I do care about all the soot and crap I breathe in every day.

Here's the percentages of NOx polution in Greater London, with diesel cars responsible for 24% of the road transport emissions so it makes sense to target them:

The elephant in the room is of course TFL buses, whilst by 2019 all "central" zone buses will be Euro VI hybrid outside outside the central zone only 50% will be the same by 2021.

Even still being a regular bus user it's quite noticeable how little real world time the buses actually spend on emode before the diesel power pack restarts. I do wonder what the tailpipe emissions would be vs a conventional Euro VI diesel bus I suspect there is actually very little difference.

[DonkeyApple]

b0rk said:

The elephant in the room is of course TFL buses, whilst by 2019 all "central" zone buses will be Euro VI hybrid outside outside the central zone only 50% will be the same by 2021.

Even still being a regular bus user it's quite noticeable how little real world time the buses actually spend on emode before the diesel power pack restarts. I do wonder what the tailpipe emissions would be vs a conventional Euro VI diesel bus I suspect there is actually very little difference.

The idea of the ones in London is just to use EV to get under way from stationary. Once moving they switch to diesel. It does seem to have made an absolutely enormous difference to the amount of muck being chucked out as they are no longer doing that massive belch as they power away from a stop not are they chucking out muck when sitting in jams or at lights.

Coaches need to adopt a similar system so that they switch to full EV when they enter London. All minivans should be EV. Hybrid tech designed for suburban private car usage doesn't work for minicabbing. Black cabs should certainly all have diesels phased out.

Frankly I don't think we should have any private cars in the centre. They are too non essential to justify the congestion, noise and air pollution that they trigger.

[HardtopManual]

DonkeyApple said:

Yes. That's my understanding also. Any time that I move any of my cars to exit central London I will have to pay £12.50, so add about £100 to my monthly commute. Nowhere near enough of a charge to warrant the enormous cost of changing my car in order to comply.

It's almost as if they'd rather you just handed over the cash than start driving a Leaf...

[VGTICE]

They should ban school runs and force parents to use the mostly empty buses or have them walk the distance instead.

seefarr said:

Here's the percentages of NOx polution in Greater London, with diesel cars responsible for 24% of the road transport emissions so it makes sense to target them:

Will the additional levy not include vans and minibusses, only cars?

[big_rob_sydney]

b0rk said:

The elephant in the room is of course TFL buses, whilst by 2019 all "central" zone buses will be Euro VI hybrid outside outside the central zone only 50% will be the same by 2021.

Even still being a regular bus user it's quite noticeable how little real world time the buses actually spend on emode before the diesel power pack restarts. I do wonder what the tailpipe emissions would be vs a conventional Euro VI diesel bus I suspect there is actually very little difference.

For me, the elephant in the room is the government.

Pretty much everything they touch, they fk it up.

Look at the the congestion charge, just for starters. The revenues generated didn't even cover the cost of upkeep of the system. The whole thing only served to make the IT consultancies rich (er). And who do you think had to pick up the shortfall for this biblically stupid outcome? The taxpayers.

Not that it makes much of a difference, but the level of traffic has returned and exceeded the pre-congestion charge level anyway. So all its done is pissed a bunch of people off, and raised the cost of living and doing business in London. The counter argument is "well it would have been even higher if they didn't". Fine. But there's a limit to how much traffic you can have, and I'd say plenty of people have given up travelling into London either way. Its a self managing problem at some point.

The simple answer for me is just don't drive into London full stop. I have better ways to spend my time than stuck in traffic jams, breathing in lung-fulls of crap, and paying for the experience.

As for the poor sods who don't have a choice? Well you're st outta luck.

[rtz62]

Just wondering, do Governmental vehicles (e.g., all those used by cabinet ministers, and also shadow cabinet) have to pay the Congestion Charge?
And if not, why not; surely the relevant person using it on that day should be charged rather than it be at (yet more) expense to the taxpayer.
After all, you can't have a rule for one and not the other.
Out of interest, can anyone guess how much the Americans Embassy owes in unpaid CJ fees, and which, by the way, it refuses to pay????

[JD2329]

DonkeyApple said:

Yes. That's my understanding also. Any time that I move any of my cars to exit central London I will have to pay £12.50, so add about £100 to my monthly commute. Nowhere near enough of a charge to warrant the enormous cost of changing my car in order to comply.

With proposals for several further, similarly powerful regional mayors, expect more of this kind of sweeping legislation elsewhere. Well meaning on the face of it, but problems can't be addressed overnight with retrospective taxation, which just affects those who can least afford it.

[rtz62]

What about 'road space rationing, where cars with certain numbers at the end of their eg plates are allowed in on certain days.
Road space rationing based on license numbers has been implemented in cities such as Athens, Santiago, Chile, México City, Metro Manila, São Paulo, Bogotá, Colombia, La Paz, Bolivia San José, Costa Rica, countrywide in Honduras and Quito, Ecuador.
If two or more numbers are used to limit entry a claimed 20% reduction in pollutants is achievable (claimed...)
Personally, I think that this is a quick and easily achievable target and could be perceived as a lot less draconian than increased levies. Of course, banning cars on certain days doesn't put £££££ into Mr Khans coffers.....

[Plug Life]

rtz62 said:

What about 'road space rationing, where cars with certain numbers at the end of their eg plates are allowed in on certain days.
Road space rationing based on license numbers has been implemented in cities such as Athens, Santiago, Chile, México City, Metro Manila, São Paulo, Bogotá, Colombia, La Paz, Bolivia San José, Costa Rica, countrywide in Honduras and Quito, Ecuador.

Happens occasionally in Paris too when the smog is really bad.

[DonkeyApple]

JD2329 said:

With proposals for several further, similarly powerful regional mayors, expect more of this kind of sweeping legislation elsewhere. Well meaning on the face of it, but problems can't be addressed overnight with retrospective taxation, which just affects those who can least afford it.

I imagine there are people who want to act like their city is as big as London but the economics just don't stack up for a PFI deal and they don't have the money themselves to implement it. It really is a lot of hot air from a few people who want their names in the press and the press whipping up outrage as can be seen from the bandying about of terms such as 'ban' when no such ban is happening.

[RM]

rtz62 said:

What about 'road space rationing, where cars with certain numbers at the end of their eg plates are allowed in on certain days..

They introduced this in the 70s in Lagos. Very soon there were many roadside stalls that would sell you a second set of plates, with the "correct" number for the day and fit them for you while you waited

[swisstoni]

London seems to have buses trundling around empty for a large part of the day.
In the short term, a reduction of this oversupply should increase road space and reduce emissions.

I would have thought that they are only happening because the operators are required to provide a regular service. Maybe they should supply demand instead.

[DonkeyApple]

swisstoni said:

London seems to have buses trundling around empty for a large part of the day.
In the short term, a reduction of this oversupply should increase road space and reduce emissions.

I would have thought that they are only happening because the operators are required to provide a regular service. Maybe they should supply demand instead.

The way bus networks operate is something that could be reveiwed in light of massive tech and communication advantages in recent years.

But all buses are steadily having their drive trains replaced with hybrid systems which will curb their emissions considerably over the coming years.

The true reality is that the bus network needs to be massively expanded with the addition of some form of 'intelligent' sub network maybe if smaller vehicles creating more interconnections because if vehicles really are a serious issue then the only sane solution is to stop allowing private vehicles into the area and replace their road space with more efficient and cleaner public transports that can flow more efficiently.

[foibles]

Mr2Mike said:

dzernski said:

RE jdm - imports are taxed at a flat rate of 230 quid. Hence my 6.2 ltr v8 camaro (with emissions quite literally off the scale) costs less to tax than my 2000 1.8 mx5 (as that is in the two tier system).

1549cc or under = £150
Over 1549cc = £245

Seems to be some confusion here.

In looking at the Gov.UK website (which I presume to be as much authority as one needs) - it states that that two tier system only applies to tax for cars between 1977 (earlier than this and there is no tax) and 2001.

Post 2001 to 2017 it is actually a sliding scale based on emissions (there is a lower max cap for cars between 2001 - 2006). Which means if your JDM is - say - a 2002 R34 GTR V, or a 2001 RX7, or 2002 Supra..EVO (etc etc you get the 'drift') n- then surely this is not the 2-tiered system, but in fact the sliding scale system - which caps to up 305 for a 2006, and 535 for 2006 - 2017 models.

I hate to say it - but Gov.UK is so poorly worded.

One could be forgiven for thinking that an import which is a NEW registration (because it is the first rego in the UK) attracts the new 2000 quid fee...but who knows.

How they can make something so simple...into something so complex....is baffling.