ULEZ charge in 2021
Discussion
C70R said:
cjt7777 said:
C70R said:
cjt7777 said:
I don't usually post much but I this is something that has really irritated me. I now have to change my route to get to my gf which is absolutely ridiculous. In 2021 I won't even be able to drive where I currently live. The ULEZ is the last straw for me in terms of living in London - I already can't park where I live and of course everywhere is full of speed cameras. So, I've decided to move down south to a place with parking right outside the house!
Nobody is stopping you from driving. You're not reading it correctly, and being a bit hysterical.They are just asking you to make the choice between driving a low-polluting car, or paying for the privilege of not doing so.
Moving house seems hilariously melodramatic.
I was looking to move anyway so this tied in nicely - plus those country roads - damn!!!
If you like cars, especially older cars; if you're relatively free of geographical ties; moving out is a no-brainer.
I'm in the same boat, I'd move beyond the M25 before 2021 rather than stay in this borough because of the ULEZ as my family need more space and will move on that timescale anyway. But for me, I have a child well settled in a good school so I'm stuck with it for the next 15 years.
You can't help yourself can you, there was no need for that reply or the tone of it.
fatboy18 said:
I think the term London is the problem, it needs to be defined better. When you have trains coming in from outside london and busses in the suburbs, it still ends up being wrapped up in London Public transport.
I live inside the M25 but in Surrey (not a London Borough).
Nights out in London are pretty much a no go because if you want to stay out late trains back to the local station don't run. then If you choose the underground the nearest station is still some 20 miles from my home so then its either a Black cab or mini cab. So that's another £30 quid
How is one supposed to do shopping? I would normally take a car to a large supermarket and do a weekly shop. How do people that actually live in London do this, does everyone have there shopping delivered? If so that's a whole bunch more of delivery vans traveling around isn't it?
I live in SW1, within the CC area, and current ULEZ. I don't see what the fuss is- I drive to the gym and to do my groceries. I do this in a 05 plate jag x-type estate (3.0L petrol AWD). I bought the car 1.5 years ago for £1600. There plenty of cheap euro 4 petrol cars around for those who can't afford a "new" car. I did sell my 1999 Alfa 156 as it incurred the t-charge (costing £2.05 to drive around the cc zone rather than £1.05 for the jag, but in 2021 even residents of the cc area have to meet the ULEZ.. which is why I sold the Alfa and kept the the jag x-type).I live inside the M25 but in Surrey (not a London Borough).
Nights out in London are pretty much a no go because if you want to stay out late trains back to the local station don't run. then If you choose the underground the nearest station is still some 20 miles from my home so then its either a Black cab or mini cab. So that's another £30 quid
How is one supposed to do shopping? I would normally take a car to a large supermarket and do a weekly shop. How do people that actually live in London do this, does everyone have there shopping delivered? If so that's a whole bunch more of delivery vans traveling around isn't it?
As a PH'er I'm disappointed that I had to sell 2 of my old Alfas as it not worth paying £12+ to drive them on any occasion (can't leave my house without paying cc or ULEZ). I've consoled myself with a 06 plate alfa Brera much to the wife's disappointment.
To make things really funny with the ULEZ, my 04 plate Murcielago is Euro 4 compliant.. despite getting less than 8mpg around town.
At any rate, plenty of cheap euro 4 petrol cars for those who can't afford a new car.... so as far as I can make out, this is really only an issue. for diesel drivers?
SydneySE said:
I live in SW1, within the CC area, and current ULEZ. I don't see what the fuss is- I drive to the gym and to do my groceries. I do this in a 05 plate jag x-type estate (3.0L petrol AWD). I bought the car 1.5 years ago for £1600. There plenty of cheap euro 4 petrol cars around for those who can't afford a "new" car. I did sell my 1999 Alfa 156 as it incurred the t-charge (costing £2.05 to drive around the cc zone rather than £1.05 for the jag, but in 2021 even residents of the cc area have to meet the ULEZ.. which is why I sold the Alfa and kept the the jag x-type).
As a PH'er I'm disappointed that I had to sell 2 of my old Alfas as it not worth paying £12+ to drive them on any occasion (can't leave my house without paying cc or ULEZ). I've consoled myself with a 06 plate alfa Brera much to the wife's disappointment.
To make things really funny with the ULEZ, my 04 plate Murcielago is Euro 4 compliant.. despite getting less than 8mpg around town.
At any rate, plenty of cheap euro 4 petrol cars for those who can't afford a new car.... so as far as I can make out, this is really only an issue. for diesel drivers?
Definitely a shame about having to sell your old Alfas. As a PH'er I'm disappointed that I had to sell 2 of my old Alfas as it not worth paying £12+ to drive them on any occasion (can't leave my house without paying cc or ULEZ). I've consoled myself with a 06 plate alfa Brera much to the wife's disappointment.
To make things really funny with the ULEZ, my 04 plate Murcielago is Euro 4 compliant.. despite getting less than 8mpg around town.
At any rate, plenty of cheap euro 4 petrol cars for those who can't afford a new car.... so as far as I can make out, this is really only an issue. for diesel drivers?
But quite ironic that your Murcielago is compliant - I doubt they intended that!
As you say though, it's only an issue with older diesels. According to the TFL site even the 52 plate BMW E46 325ti I sold last year for less than £1,500 would be compliant.
And as I've stuck with Euro IV petrols I can still go there now and again without incurring the charge.
But it's quite a problem for small businesses that have to go there and need a van, like builders, plumbers, decorators, etc.
SydneySE said:
I live in SW1, within the CC area, and current ULEZ. I don't see what the fuss is- I drive to the gym and to do my groceries. I do this in a 05 plate jag x-type estate (3.0L petrol AWD). I bought the car 1.5 years ago for £1600. There plenty of cheap euro 4 petrol cars around for those who can't afford a "new" car. I did sell my 1999 Alfa 156 as it incurred the t-charge (costing £2.05 to drive around the cc zone rather than £1.05 for the jag, but in 2021 even residents of the cc area have to meet the ULEZ.. which is why I sold the Alfa and kept the the jag x-type).
As a PH'er I'm disappointed that I had to sell 2 of my old Alfas as it not worth paying £12+ to drive them on any occasion (can't leave my house without paying cc or ULEZ). I've consoled myself with a 06 plate alfa Brera much to the wife's disappointment.
To make things really funny with the ULEZ, my 04 plate Murcielago is Euro 4 compliant.. despite getting less than 8mpg around town.
At any rate, plenty of cheap euro 4 petrol cars for those who can't afford a new car.... so as far as I can make out, this is really only an issue. for diesel drivers?
Yes I think the big shame of the ULEZ is that it impacts people who own older appreciating classics. The ULEZ are obviously going after knackered old petrol audis and the like as well as diesels but inadvertently sweeping up people who maintain cars 20-40 years old which are much rarer and cared for. As a PH'er I'm disappointed that I had to sell 2 of my old Alfas as it not worth paying £12+ to drive them on any occasion (can't leave my house without paying cc or ULEZ). I've consoled myself with a 06 plate alfa Brera much to the wife's disappointment.
To make things really funny with the ULEZ, my 04 plate Murcielago is Euro 4 compliant.. despite getting less than 8mpg around town.
At any rate, plenty of cheap euro 4 petrol cars for those who can't afford a new car.... so as far as I can make out, this is really only an issue. for diesel drivers?
coldel said:
Yes I think the big shame of the ULEZ is that it impacts people who own older appreciating classics. The ULEZ are obviously going after knackered old petrol audis and the like as well as diesels but inadvertently sweeping up people who maintain cars 20-40 years old which are much rarer and cared for.
I agree and those well maintained classics won’t be doing big mileages so the pollution is minimal.I would guess those with none compliant cars are more worried about this spreading everywhere if it just stops at the city centres that makes sense. My 15 plate diesel with a DPF Euro 5 is none compliant which is frustrating. Some of our vans are none compliant we tend to keep those for about 5-7 years so if it spreads it will affect business.
Mr Tidy said:
Definitely a shame about having to sell your old Alfas.
But quite ironic that your Murcielago is compliant - I doubt they intended that!
As you say though, it's only an issue with older diesels. According to the TFL site even the 52 plate BMW E46 325ti I sold last year for less than £1,500 would be compliant.
And as I've stuck with Euro IV petrols I can still go there now and again without incurring the charge.
But it's quite a problem for small businesses that have to go there and need a van, like builders, plumbers, decorators, etc.
most legislation has unintended consequences :-)But quite ironic that your Murcielago is compliant - I doubt they intended that!
As you say though, it's only an issue with older diesels. According to the TFL site even the 52 plate BMW E46 325ti I sold last year for less than £1,500 would be compliant.
And as I've stuck with Euro IV petrols I can still go there now and again without incurring the charge.
But it's quite a problem for small businesses that have to go there and need a van, like builders, plumbers, decorators, etc.
I get the small business issue- but ultimately there is a pretty decent scrapage scheme introduced, and actual costs can just be added as a surcharge for central London delivery (e.g if a plumber or painter comes to my place they charge their hourly rate, plus the cost of on-street parking, plus congestions charge. I'm sure in the future they will add a ULEZ charge or surcharge to cover the cost of a new van sooner).
bad company said:
coldel said:
Yes I think the big shame of the ULEZ is that it impacts people who own older appreciating classics. The ULEZ are obviously going after knackered old petrol audis and the like as well as diesels but inadvertently sweeping up people who maintain cars 20-40 years old which are much rarer and cared for.
I agree and those well maintained classics won’t be doing big mileages so the pollution is minimal.Completely irrelevant in terms of targeting the actual cause of the “problem” though:
“A detailed analysis of the vehicles using the road [Putney High Street] has now been completed which shows that more than two thirds of nitrogen dioxide exhaust emissions come from buses”
“Data from a council’s air monitoring station on the façade of a building in in Putney High Street show that in 2017 levels of nitrogen dioxide in the air were breached eight times. This means a target of not breaching them more than 18 times in a year has easily been beaten.
In comparison, in 2016 they were breached 403 times. In 2012 there were 1726 breaches – meaning that since then there has been a 99 per cent reduction in breaches. Mean levels of nitrogen dioxide recorded at a kerbside monitoring station show a reduction from 98 in 2016 to 60 in 2017
The fall in pollution coincides with the introduction of cleaner buses along the street and the introduction last year of a Low Emission Bus Zone. More than 100 buses an hour use Putney High Street, but in 2012 a unique research project by Wandsworth Council exposed the bus fleet as responsible for over 80 per cent of nitrogen dioxide build ups”.
But let’s ban those evil cars, yeah?
“A detailed analysis of the vehicles using the road [Putney High Street] has now been completed which shows that more than two thirds of nitrogen dioxide exhaust emissions come from buses”
“Data from a council’s air monitoring station on the façade of a building in in Putney High Street show that in 2017 levels of nitrogen dioxide in the air were breached eight times. This means a target of not breaching them more than 18 times in a year has easily been beaten.
In comparison, in 2016 they were breached 403 times. In 2012 there were 1726 breaches – meaning that since then there has been a 99 per cent reduction in breaches. Mean levels of nitrogen dioxide recorded at a kerbside monitoring station show a reduction from 98 in 2016 to 60 in 2017
The fall in pollution coincides with the introduction of cleaner buses along the street and the introduction last year of a Low Emission Bus Zone. More than 100 buses an hour use Putney High Street, but in 2012 a unique research project by Wandsworth Council exposed the bus fleet as responsible for over 80 per cent of nitrogen dioxide build ups”.
But let’s ban those evil cars, yeah?
NomduJour said:
Completely irrelevant in terms of targeting the actual cause of the “problem” though:
“A detailed analysis of the vehicles using the road [Putney High Street] has now been completed which shows that more than two thirds of nitrogen dioxide exhaust emissions come from buses”
“Data from a council’s air monitoring station on the façade of a building in in Putney High Street show that in 2017 levels of nitrogen dioxide in the air were breached eight times. This means a target of not breaching them more than 18 times in a year has easily been beaten.
In comparison, in 2016 they were breached 403 times. In 2012 there were 1726 breaches – meaning that since then there has been a 99 per cent reduction in breaches. Mean levels of nitrogen dioxide recorded at a kerbside monitoring station show a reduction from 98 in 2016 to 60 in 2017
The fall in pollution coincides with the introduction of cleaner buses along the street and the introduction last year of a Low Emission Bus Zone. More than 100 buses an hour use Putney High Street, but in 2012 a unique research project by Wandsworth Council exposed the bus fleet as responsible for over 80 per cent of nitrogen dioxide build ups”.
But let’s ban those evil cars, yeah?
From my (anecdotal) observations in the City, there are sod all private cars around, of any age. All the "cars" are working for Uber, loads of vans, loads of cabs and buses. “A detailed analysis of the vehicles using the road [Putney High Street] has now been completed which shows that more than two thirds of nitrogen dioxide exhaust emissions come from buses”
“Data from a council’s air monitoring station on the façade of a building in in Putney High Street show that in 2017 levels of nitrogen dioxide in the air were breached eight times. This means a target of not breaching them more than 18 times in a year has easily been beaten.
In comparison, in 2016 they were breached 403 times. In 2012 there were 1726 breaches – meaning that since then there has been a 99 per cent reduction in breaches. Mean levels of nitrogen dioxide recorded at a kerbside monitoring station show a reduction from 98 in 2016 to 60 in 2017
The fall in pollution coincides with the introduction of cleaner buses along the street and the introduction last year of a Low Emission Bus Zone. More than 100 buses an hour use Putney High Street, but in 2012 a unique research project by Wandsworth Council exposed the bus fleet as responsible for over 80 per cent of nitrogen dioxide build ups”.
But let’s ban those evil cars, yeah?
Banning a few old cars is going to make bugger all difference.
NomduJour said:
Completely irrelevant in terms of targeting the actual cause of the “problem” though:
“A detailed analysis of the vehicles using the road [Putney High Street] has now been completed which shows that more than two thirds of nitrogen dioxide exhaust emissions come from buses”
“Data from a council’s air monitoring station on the façade of a building in in Putney High Street show that in 2017 levels of nitrogen dioxide in the air were breached eight times. This means a target of not breaching them more than 18 times in a year has easily been beaten.
In comparison, in 2016 they were breached 403 times. In 2012 there were 1726 breaches – meaning that since then there has been a 99 per cent reduction in breaches. Mean levels of nitrogen dioxide recorded at a kerbside monitoring station show a reduction from 98 in 2016 to 60 in 2017
The fall in pollution coincides with the introduction of cleaner buses along the street and the introduction last year of a Low Emission Bus Zone. More than 100 buses an hour use Putney High Street, but in 2012 a unique research project by Wandsworth Council exposed the bus fleet as responsible for over 80 per cent of nitrogen dioxide build ups”.
But let’s ban those evil cars, yeah?
I do agree but of the 9000 London buses about it 3000 have been converted to hybrid and there is a steady program to shift all to hybrid and then all to pure EV. It’s a solid program to address one of the biggest contributors. “A detailed analysis of the vehicles using the road [Putney High Street] has now been completed which shows that more than two thirds of nitrogen dioxide exhaust emissions come from buses”
“Data from a council’s air monitoring station on the façade of a building in in Putney High Street show that in 2017 levels of nitrogen dioxide in the air were breached eight times. This means a target of not breaching them more than 18 times in a year has easily been beaten.
In comparison, in 2016 they were breached 403 times. In 2012 there were 1726 breaches – meaning that since then there has been a 99 per cent reduction in breaches. Mean levels of nitrogen dioxide recorded at a kerbside monitoring station show a reduction from 98 in 2016 to 60 in 2017
The fall in pollution coincides with the introduction of cleaner buses along the street and the introduction last year of a Low Emission Bus Zone. More than 100 buses an hour use Putney High Street, but in 2012 a unique research project by Wandsworth Council exposed the bus fleet as responsible for over 80 per cent of nitrogen dioxide build ups”.
But let’s ban those evil cars, yeah?
At the same time there is the same type of solid program to target black cabs.
HGVs are also already being targeted.
That does highlight that vans and cars have been left to last and that program is starting soon.
just passing by said:
can't come soon enough. the air on many streets in central London is toxic as a result of stationary/slow-moving elderly oil-burner black cabs.
Agreed. They have a union to slow down the change but it’s still happening. They’ve had monumentally crappy engines for far too long. Arguably, competition from Uber has been the strongest driver for them to up their game but you’re seeing fewer and fewer of the crappiest old wagons about and the momentum is in. Personally, I shun the old taxis as the drivers and the passenger space is usually as filthy as the smoke from the back of them. More people should have a bit of self respect and not leap into the first cab but wave them on and wait 30 seconds for a newer one. Consumers actively shunning the old wagons will further speed up the transition.
DonkeyApple said:
I do agree but of the 9000 London buses about it 3000 have been converted to hybrid and there is a steady program to shift all to hybrid and then all to pure EV. It’s a solid program to address one of the biggest contributors.
At the same time there is the same type of solid program to target black cabs.
HGVs are also already being targeted.
That does highlight that vans and cars have been left to last and that program is starting soon.
Nonono! You don't understand.At the same time there is the same type of solid program to target black cabs.
HGVs are also already being targeted.
That does highlight that vans and cars have been left to last and that program is starting soon.
This is a stealth tax on the private motorist and car enthusiast, plain and simple.
C70R said:
Nonono! You don't understand.
This is a stealth tax on the private motorist and car enthusiast, plain and simple.
If you want to target most effectively the sources of NO2 emissions in London, which contributors would be the least equitable and least effective to penalise, on the basis of this government research?This is a stealth tax on the private motorist and car enthusiast, plain and simple.
Killboy said:
cb1965 said:
Killboy said:
Try answer this honestly. Did you live in these places? And if so, can you tell us how they are better than London?
I know for certain 3 of them are not, so would be good to see,or is this must more hot air from you again?
How can you know for certain, it's opinion not fact! What is fact is that London's transport infrastructure is crap in absolute terms. Yes there are mitigating circumstances, but it's still crap!I know for certain 3 of them are not, so would be good to see,or is this must more hot air from you again?
And yes of course I lived there, it is possible to live somewhere other than London you dolt!
cb1965 said:
Killboy said:
cb1965 said:
Killboy said:
Try answer this honestly. Did you live in these places? And if so, can you tell us how they are better than London?
I know for certain 3 of them are not, so would be good to see,or is this must more hot air from you again?
How can you know for certain, it's opinion not fact! What is fact is that London's transport infrastructure is crap in absolute terms. Yes there are mitigating circumstances, but it's still crap!I know for certain 3 of them are not, so would be good to see,or is this must more hot air from you again?
And yes of course I lived there, it is possible to live somewhere other than London you dolt!
This is shaping up to be one of your classic contributions.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff