ULEZ charge in 2021

[2Btoo]

C70R said:

The majority of Londoners (non-car owners) are completely unaffected.

I'll pick you up on that one. This will affect every single Londoner, either directly or indirectly.

ULEZ will cause price rises for everyone. Every single tradesman, delivery vehicle or non-TFL cab will pay this charge (or have to buy a compliant vehicle). Uber already apply a surcharge to cover this. I run a property management company and have seen all but one of my tradesmen buy a new van in the last 12 months due to this. Who pays for those new vans? I do, in their bills. And then the landlords do, when I bill them. And then the tenants do, when their rent goes up.

Please don't try and fool yourself that the majority of Londoners will be unaffected - it simply isn't true. It will make London a yet more expensive city to live in.

[C70R]

321boost said:

C70R said:

I've complained about all of those, and I'm thrilled about the ULEZ.

I can tell you have.

And this is the kind of thing that gives you the thrills?

I've cycle commuted in London for a long time. I once did it using one of those facemask/filter things.

The colour when I removed it (after 7 miles) was an eye-opener - it was grey from particulate crap.

A reduced chance of me (or a young child, or an ailing elderly person) being exposed to that daily does "give me thrills".

Hope that's OK.

[Killboy]

2Btoo said:

I'll pick you up on that one. This will affect every single Londoner, either directly or indirectly.

ULEZ will cause price rises for everyone. Every single tradesman, delivery vehicle or non-TFL cab will pay this charge (or have to buy a compliant vehicle). Uber already apply a surcharge to cover this. I run a property management company and have seen all but one of my tradesmen buy a new van in the last 12 months due to this. Who pays for those new vans? I do, in their bills. And then the landlords do, when I bill them. And then the tenants do, when their rent goes up.

Please don't try and fool yourself that the majority of Londoners will be unaffected - it simply isn't true. It will make London a yet more expensive city to live in.

Business have costs? That is preposterous!

[Graveworm]

2Btoo said:

I'll pick you up on that one. This will affect every single Londoner, either directly or indirectly.

ULEZ will cause price rises for everyone. Every single tradesman, delivery vehicle or non-TFL cab will pay this charge (or have to buy a compliant vehicle). Uber already apply a surcharge to cover this. I run a property management company and have seen all but one of my tradesmen buy a new van in the last 12 months due to this. Who pays for those new vans? I do, in their bills. And then the landlords do, when I bill them. And then the tenants do, when their rent goes up.

Please don't try and fool yourself that the majority of Londoners will be unaffected - it simply isn't true. It will make London a yet more expensive city to live in.

This - Especially given that if all car emissions in London stopped tomorrow it's a tiny reduction, the indirect harm that arises from the economic hit may do more damage than the environmental issues they are seeking to address.

[Graveworm]

C70R said:

I've cycle commuted in London for a long time. I once did it using one of those facemask/filter things.

The colour when I removed it (after 7 miles) was an eye-opener - it was grey from particulate crap.

A reduced chance of me (or a young child, or an ailing elderly person) being exposed to that daily does "give me thrills".

Hope that's OK.

But economic cots mean less doctors etc to treat you and all of the above and of course cars are a tiny fraction of the problem but very expensive to fix.

[C70R]

Graveworm said:

C70R said:

I've cycle commuted in London for a long time. I once did it using one of those facemask/filter things.

The colour when I removed it (after 7 miles) was an eye-opener - it was grey from particulate crap.

A reduced chance of me (or a young child, or an ailing elderly person) being exposed to that daily does "give me thrills".

Hope that's OK.

But economic cots mean less doctors to treat you and all of the above.

I'm sure you've got reams of robust analysis to back that up.

It's definitely not alarmist.

And it's definitely not the latest 'the ULEZ is bad because ...' line.

Definitely.

[C70R]

j_4m said:

The consultation represented a tiny portion of Londoners, it is not unequivocal proof that the ULEZ is popular.

It was a group of Londoners who were aware and cared about it.

I took part, because I care. Did you?

[CABC]

2Btoo said:

I'll pick you up on that one. This will affect every single Londoner, either directly or indirectly.

ULEZ will cause price rises for everyone. Every single tradesman, delivery vehicle or non-TFL cab will pay this charge (or have to buy a compliant vehicle). Uber already apply a surcharge to cover this. I run a property management company and have seen all but one of my tradesmen buy a new van in the last 12 months due to this. Who pays for those new vans? I do, in their bills. And then the landlords do, when I bill them. And then the tenants do, when their rent goes up.

Please don't try and fool yourself that the majority of Londoners will be unaffected - it simply isn't true. It will make London a yet more expensive city to live in.

you live in a different London than i do if all but one of the tradesmen you know didn't already own a compliant van.
delivery vehicles are obviously used continuously, very few of those would be very old.
you'll be telling next that the congestion charge raises the hourly rate of plumbers by £15/hr.

[Graveworm]

C70R said:

Graveworm said:

C70R said:

I've cycle commuted in London for a long time. I once did it using one of those facemask/filter things.

The colour when I removed it (after 7 miles) was an eye-opener - it was grey from particulate crap.

A reduced chance of me (or a young child, or an ailing elderly person) being exposed to that daily does "give me thrills".

Hope that's OK.

But economic cots mean less doctors to treat you and all of the above.

I'm sure you've got reams of robust analysis to back that up.

It's definitely not alarmist.

And it's definitely not the latest 'the ULEZ is bad because ...' line.

Definitely.

What you need convincing that economic costs - impact the economy - which impacts public spending - which impacts doctors police ambulances??

Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 16th May 17:34

[j_4m]

C70R said:

It was a group of Londoners who were aware and cared about it.

I took part, because I care. Did you?

I wasn't even aware there was one, I don't read/listen/subscribe to any of the media that publicised it and I don't pay CC so wouldn't have received the invitation. 59% of respondents were contacted directly by TFL and invited to take part, only 4% responded because of adverts in newspapers or on radio. So basically unless you were already in contact with TFL for one reason or another your chances of knowing about the consultation were pretty low.

[Graveworm]

In an unusual but related move Kingston upon Thames have abandoned their emissions based scheme. They have also ordered a load of no cycling signs for roads where there are now cycling lanes that will have the Kingston Wheelers apoplectic.

[C70R]

j_4m said:

C70R said:

It was a group of Londoners who were aware and cared about it.

I took part, because I care. Did you?

I wasn't even aware there was one, I don't read/listen/subscribe to any of the media that publicised it and I don't pay CC so wouldn't have received the invitation. 59% of respondents were contacted directly by TFL and invited to take part, only 4% responded because of adverts in newspapers or on radio. So basically unless you were already in contact with TFL for one reason or another your chances of knowing about the consultation were pretty low.

I saw an advert in the Evening Standard (or was it the Metro?), and heard an advert on the radio while in the back of an Uber.

I'd say that the potential audience for those two was quite significant.

It's the same old story - people don't involve themselves in the process, and then complain about the outcome.

[j_4m]

C70R said:

I saw an advert in the Evening Standard (or was it the Metro?), and heard an advert on the radio while in the back of an Uber.

I'd say that the potential audience for those two was quite significant.

It's the same old story - people don't involve themselves in the process, and then complain about the outcome.

I'd rather spend my commutes reading something other than the Evening Metro, and I don't listen to the radio (or use Uber/taxis/minicabs).

The Mayor's office aren't shy of spending money leafletting every house in London when it comes to election time, I'm sure they could have found some funds to do the same for everyone living within the 406. I only found out about the consultation after it closed, indeed the expanded ULEZ. I was under the impression that the ULEZ would only cover the CC area, which I agreed with, so didn't look into it further.

[321boost]

C70R said:

I've cycle commuted in London for a long time. I once did it using one of those facemask/filter things.

The colour when I removed it (after 7 miles) was an eye-opener - it was grey from particulate crap.

A reduced chance of me (or a young child, or an ailing elderly person) being exposed to that daily does "give me thrills".

Hope that's OK.

You forgot to mention kittens.

Shame.

[Laurel Green]

ULEZ generates £220,000 per day in first month.

[j_4m]

Laurel Green said:

ULEZ generates £220,000 per day in first month.

Article states that the amount of non-compliant cars dropped by ~50% between 2017-2019, so usage of higher polluting cars was already dropping without the ULEZ being in place, presumably as people naturally replace their cars with newer models.

[mgv8]

j_4m said:

The article states that the amount of non-compliant cars dropped by ~50% between 2017-2019, so usage of higher polluting cars was already dropping without the ULEZ being in place, presumably as people naturally replace their cars with newer models.

In my case, I could see what was on its way so dumped the car before its value dropped to much.

[kev1974]

j_4m said:

Laurel Green said:

ULEZ generates £220,000 per day in first month.

Article states that the amount of non-compliant cars dropped by ~50% between 2017-2019, so usage of higher polluting cars was already dropping without the ULEZ being in place, presumably as people naturally replace their cars with newer models.

Why is the data they're using from Feb 17 and not March 18, i.e. a conventional year on year comparison? It's just Congestion Charge camera data they're using, so can't really argue that they didn't have a means to collect the data in March 18?

Something stinks. (and not just black taxi and bus exhausts)

[j_4m]

C70R said:

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you don't even live in London.

Would I be right?

Couldn't be more wrong. I live in zone 2.

[Killboy]

Laurel Green said:

ULEZ generates £220,000 per day in first month.

So does anyone know how long until it breaks even?