ULEZ charge in 2021
Discussion
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-12-how-ma...
"2.6m cars registered in London"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London
Between 8.7m and 9.7m depedning on what you call "London"
So more people don't own a car in London then do.
Public transport is the most common way to get around.
"2.6m cars registered in London"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London
Between 8.7m and 9.7m depedning on what you call "London"
So more people don't own a car in London then do.
Public transport is the most common way to get around.
seem quite a few own cars, especially in outer London.
TFL report
also, Westminster, obviously central and more aligned with the CCZ
Car Ownership
1.23 Car ownership in Westminster has been rising for a number of years and is expected to continue to do so. In 1991 42% of households had a car or van available, by 2001 this had increased to 44%. In absolute terms, the number of households with cars has risen from 83,069 households in 1991 to 91,172 in 2001.
TFL report
also, Westminster, obviously central and more aligned with the CCZ
Car Ownership
1.23 Car ownership in Westminster has been rising for a number of years and is expected to continue to do so. In 1991 42% of households had a car or van available, by 2001 this had increased to 44%. In absolute terms, the number of households with cars has risen from 83,069 households in 1991 to 91,172 in 2001.
Edited by CABC on Wednesday 10th January 11:25
The challenge for me is the shift from the current CCZ to the "everything within the North and South circular".
Today, the CCZ isn't an issue. If you're driving into the middle of London, you're either mad, or going to a very well paying job that requires you to carry something heavy. If you're a plumber fixing taps in Chelsea, then you can add £10 to the bill to cover the cost of your new van.
Extending area of the zone catches a huge number of far less affluent people, who aren't going to well paid jobs and don't have the ability to increase their rates. Some people make the argument "hardly anyone will drive an old car by then, so the effect is minimal". If this is true, then why do it? Rather than spending sacks of cash on enforcement and cameras for very little benefit, attack the other problems like buses and taxis. The other side of the argument is "loads of people drive old cars, we must do this" - in which case the impact on people will be huge, and this will end up being a case of social cleansing that effectively prices people out of living and working in London.
No one has explained yet why the population of London lives longer and has less lung disease than pretty much anywhere else in the country, but that's a different issue.
Today, the CCZ isn't an issue. If you're driving into the middle of London, you're either mad, or going to a very well paying job that requires you to carry something heavy. If you're a plumber fixing taps in Chelsea, then you can add £10 to the bill to cover the cost of your new van.
Extending area of the zone catches a huge number of far less affluent people, who aren't going to well paid jobs and don't have the ability to increase their rates. Some people make the argument "hardly anyone will drive an old car by then, so the effect is minimal". If this is true, then why do it? Rather than spending sacks of cash on enforcement and cameras for very little benefit, attack the other problems like buses and taxis. The other side of the argument is "loads of people drive old cars, we must do this" - in which case the impact on people will be huge, and this will end up being a case of social cleansing that effectively prices people out of living and working in London.
No one has explained yet why the population of London lives longer and has less lung disease than pretty much anywhere else in the country, but that's a different issue.
City of London is within the CCZ. it's an unusual 'borough', but here's the report
Car Ownership 2011
Graph 4 shows the comparative levels of car ownership per household across the City of London, Greater London and England and Wales. Detailed statistics are set out in the Appendix: Table 3.
Almost 70% of all households in the City of London have no cars or vans in the household; this is considerably higher profile than Greater London (42%) or England and Wales (26%).
Car Ownership 2011
Graph 4 shows the comparative levels of car ownership per household across the City of London, Greater London and England and Wales. Detailed statistics are set out in the Appendix: Table 3.
Almost 70% of all households in the City of London have no cars or vans in the household; this is considerably higher profile than Greater London (42%) or England and Wales (26%).
Edited by CABC on Wednesday 10th January 11:26
mgv8 said:
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-12-how-ma...
"2.6m cars registered in London"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London
Between 8.7m and 9.7m depedning on what you call "London"
So more people don't own a car in London then do.
Public transport is the most common way to get around.
but then the CoL report says greater London 58% of households have 1 or more cars. 18% have 2 or more"2.6m cars registered in London"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London
Between 8.7m and 9.7m depedning on what you call "London"
So more people don't own a car in London then do.
Public transport is the most common way to get around.
gavsdavs said:
C70R said:
Still sounds like sour grapes to me. The CCZ was well-intentioned, but poorly executed. In spite of that, a blanket ban with discount scheme is not remotely comparable with a widely-accessible scheme (remember the several hundred thousand eligible cars I found on Autotrader?).
The question of discounts and time banding is always going to come up because it's proven to be effective for CCZ.The ULEZ is about exhaust emissions, which - all else being equal - are the same whether it's 1am or 4.30pm, and it is not natural to apply time limitations to that as it is with a congestion charge.
wst said:
Congestion charge is in place to minimise congestion (taking it as read, anyway). This is a time-variable condition - I full expect it would be moved to a different time slot if people started clogging the roads around CC times.
The ULEZ is about exhaust emissions, which - all else being equal - are the same whether it's 1am or 4.30pm, and it is not natural to apply time limitations to that as it is with a congestion charge.
I know we have to use a base metric to judge these things, but the emissions standards and their measurement is a joke for what is a serious issue. The ULEZ is about exhaust emissions, which - all else being equal - are the same whether it's 1am or 4.30pm, and it is not natural to apply time limitations to that as it is with a congestion charge.
I'm just teasing, but what's the pollution created by a Caterham on carbs driving across London at 3am compared to an 15yr old Euro 4 engine?
Some people have tested new Euro 6 diesels and found more pollution than 10 yr old cars. The testing will never be perfect but it's currently not fit for purpose.
it's just one limited test, but it makes me question.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/how_tox...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/how_tox...
wst said:
Congestion charge is in place to minimise congestion (taking it as read, anyway). This is a time-variable condition - I full expect it would be moved to a different time slot if people started clogging the roads around CC times.
The ULEZ is about exhaust emissions, which - all else being equal - are the same whether it's 1am or 4.30pm, and it is not natural to apply time limitations to that as it is with a congestion charge.
Why is not natural? The reasoning behind all this is to meet EU pollution targets at the street level, which are currently being exceeded at certain times of the day..The ULEZ is about exhaust emissions, which - all else being equal - are the same whether it's 1am or 4.30pm, and it is not natural to apply time limitations to that as it is with a congestion charge.
So when roads are known to be quiet, and especially on a Sunday, if measured pollution levels are well below the limit then why should there be a charge?
Also I notice the carrier bag charge which was introduced only for larger retailers is now being extended to all retailers, which is a good thing, but a timely reminder of how this ULEZ zone may grow in a few years.
Edited by hyphen on Wednesday 10th January 12:19
CABC said:
but then the CoL report says greater London 58% of households have 1 or more cars. 18% have 2 or more
Households is not the correct measure. If only one person lived in each household, we'd be laughing.However, given the large volumes of children (ergo, families) and multiple occupancy (i.e. renters/sharers) in the ULEZ, personal car ownership is incredibly low in the context of the UK and well under half.
Given that poor quality air affects people rather than houses, it felt like a more relevant measure.
hyphen said:
So when roads are known to be quiet, and especially on a Sunday, if measured pollution levels are well below the limit then why should there be a charge?
Because it will simply result in people using the same vehicles at different times, and the net impact will be zero. We'd reduce levels at certain times of the week (potentially not even below the safe threshold) and massively increase it at different times (to potentially over the threshold).Who wins there? Nobody, except the disgruntled pre-2005 car owner.
Edited by C70R on Wednesday 10th January 15:24
C70R said:
CABC said:
but then the CoL report says greater London 58% of households have 1 or more cars. 18% have 2 or more
Households is not the correct measure. If only one person lived in each household, we'd be laughing.However, given the large volumes of children (ergo, families) and multiple occupancy (i.e. renters/sharers) in the ULEZ, personal car ownership is incredibly low in the context of the UK and well under half.
Given that poor quality air affects people rather than houses, it felt like a more relevant measure.
What you really need to do is reduce the number of miles driven in cars altogether, with emphasis towards the most polluting ones.
Toltec said:
Neither is a perfect measure, a car may be owned and used by one person in the household, used by more than one person or indeed many of the journeys may be on behalf of the passengers, e.g. children.
What you really need to do is reduce the number of miles driven in cars altogether, with emphasis towards the most polluting ones.
no perfect measure at all, we can go round in circles on this. Oh wait, we're on PH What you really need to do is reduce the number of miles driven in cars altogether, with emphasis towards the most polluting ones.
In CoL it's 1.7 persons per household, in greater London it's 2.5. (ONS)
Toltec said:
C70R said:
CABC said:
but then the CoL report says greater London 58% of households have 1 or more cars. 18% have 2 or more
Households is not the correct measure. If only one person lived in each household, we'd be laughing.However, given the large volumes of children (ergo, families) and multiple occupancy (i.e. renters/sharers) in the ULEZ, personal car ownership is incredibly low in the context of the UK and well under half.
Given that poor quality air affects people rather than houses, it felt like a more relevant measure.
What you really need to do is reduce the number of miles driven in cars altogether, with emphasis towards the most polluting ones.
Toltec said:
What you really need to do is reduce the number of miles driven in cars altogether, with emphasis towards the most polluting ones.
INRIX London Congestion Trends March 2016 said:
Congestion in London has risen noticeably between the years of 2012 and 2015 with journey times in Central London increasing by 12% annually.
Roadway travel demand, as seen in vehicle counts, is flat or decreasing in Central London and increasing only slightly in Outer London; increased use of alternate modes of transit may explain why roadway traffic volumes remain flat.
Car traffic, including taxis and private hire vehicles (PHVs), is decreasing in Central London and the Congestion Charge Zone (CCZ); thus, as a category, cars are not causing an increase in congestion in these area.
Truck (LGV) traffic is increasing in Central London, possibly related to the rise in ecommerce. This is the only vehicle type to show more roadway volume in all three zones of London.
One of the most significant drivers of increased congestion in London is roadworks, increasing 362% during the study period
Roadway travel demand, as seen in vehicle counts, is flat or decreasing in Central London and increasing only slightly in Outer London; increased use of alternate modes of transit may explain why roadway traffic volumes remain flat.
Car traffic, including taxis and private hire vehicles (PHVs), is decreasing in Central London and the Congestion Charge Zone (CCZ); thus, as a category, cars are not causing an increase in congestion in these area.
Truck (LGV) traffic is increasing in Central London, possibly related to the rise in ecommerce. This is the only vehicle type to show more roadway volume in all three zones of London.
One of the most significant drivers of increased congestion in London is roadworks, increasing 362% during the study period
C70R said:
Toltec said:
C70R said:
CABC said:
but then the CoL report says greater London 58% of households have 1 or more cars. 18% have 2 or more
Households is not the correct measure. If only one person lived in each household, we'd be laughing.However, given the large volumes of children (ergo, families) and multiple occupancy (i.e. renters/sharers) in the ULEZ, personal car ownership is incredibly low in the context of the UK and well under half.
Given that poor quality air affects people rather than houses, it felt like a more relevant measure.
What you really need to do is reduce the number of miles driven in cars altogether, with emphasis towards the most polluting ones.
thole entirely.If it were up to me, the most efficient & effective way to reduce emissions would be to scrap the VED on private cars and say add 10p a litre (for eg) fuel duty.
That way the more you drive, the more emissions, the more you pay. There are no infrastructure and running costs in setting up what I would imagine hundreds and hundreds of cameras!
Will they really install cameras at every point entering in side the N/S circular?
Then they also will have to have camera's everywhere within the area you are charged for driving inside the area not just entering as I understand?
That way the more you drive, the more emissions, the more you pay. There are no infrastructure and running costs in setting up what I would imagine hundreds and hundreds of cameras!
Will they really install cameras at every point entering in side the N/S circular?
Then they also will have to have camera's everywhere within the area you are charged for driving inside the area not just entering as I understand?
Edited by KH904 on Wednesday 10th January 23:26
Toltec said:
C70R said:
Toltec said:
C70R said:
CABC said:
but then the CoL report says greater London 58% of households have 1 or more cars. 18% have 2 or more
Households is not the correct measure. If only one person lived in each household, we'd be laughing.However, given the large volumes of children (ergo, families) and multiple occupancy (i.e. renters/sharers) in the ULEZ, personal car ownership is incredibly low in the context of the UK and well under half.
Given that poor quality air affects people rather than houses, it felt like a more relevant measure.
What you really need to do is reduce the number of miles driven in cars altogether, with emphasis towards the most polluting ones.
thole entirely.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff