ULEZ charge in 2021
Discussion
it seems really harsh on one hand, especially for owners who are running classics. On the other, you have 3 years to plan for the change and it said ULEZ compliant petrols were made from 2005. You wouldn’t have to save up a lot of money to get something compliant. I fully appreciate that this scenario won’t apply to everyone.
t comes from that isn’t lorries or vans. I am frequently behind modern buses that chuck out tonnes of crap. A neighbour was a driver for a while and said his bus had done more than a million miles in total.Jag_NE said:
it seems really harsh on one hand, especially for owners who are running classics. On the other, you have 3 years to plan for the change and it said ULEZ compliant petrols were made from 2005. You wouldn’t have to save up a lot of money to get something compliant. I fully appreciate that this scenario won’t apply to everyone.
Some petrols from 2001 onwards are compliant - they presumably satisfied the emission figures that Euro 4 introduced. I think a decent eg is an E46 330i - I could be mistaken though.On the tv news last night the mayor is upset that Westminster Council will not close Oxford Street to vehicles. He said the pollution exceeds an acceptable level. The majority of vehicles in that street are buses and taxis.
The mayor should stop persecuting the ordinary motorist. Hopefully he won't be re-elected.
The mayor should stop persecuting the ordinary motorist. Hopefully he won't be re-elected.
bristolracer said:
So the £12.50 pays for what exactly?
Do they buy a carbon credit?
Or does it just go into general tfl coffers?
Potentially, the takings will only cover the set up and ongoing operational costs. Obviously depends on how many choose to use the ULEZ with non-compliant vehicles though.Do they buy a carbon credit?
Or does it just go into general tfl coffers?
I think they've said the current T-charge makes a loss. (That's what they say they want as it means fewer non-compliant vehicles are being uses).
MaxSo said:
Obviously depends on how many choose to use the ULEZ with non-compliant vehicles though.
I've just spent the afternoon driving around the ULEZ zone, looking at how many vehicles would be non-compliant. The answer is, now, a lot. 50% as a reasonable estimate. The ULEZ itself starts next April (for non-ULEZ residents driving into the ULEZ zone). I just can't see how this can be implemented.
This does mean that I can no longer visit my dentist or take my cat to the vet. Neither journey is remotely practical via public transport. Sorry, but I'll have to take my business elsewhere.
Mr Dripping said:
This does mean that I can no longer visit my dentist or take my cat to the vet. Neither journey is remotely practical via public transport. Sorry, but I'll have to take my business elsewhere.
I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here, but for what are typically fairly infrequent journeys like this, there is the option to pay the charge or to use taxis, Uber or perhaps use car clubs like ZipCar. All of these are less convenient than jumping in your own car, but less dissimilar to using public transport.
There's clearly an increased financial cost related to each of these alternatives compared to using your own car now, before operation of the ULEZ commences. But, I guess (ignoring for a moment all the arguments surrounding where most pollution actually comes from) this is adhering to the "polluter pays" principle. The devil's advocate might say, why should my kids have to breathe in all the crap being spewed out of a 13 year old Euro3(?) diesel Volvo? If the owner insists on using it still he should cough up so the money raised can at least go towards the operation of a scheme that will help to reduce the number of the most polluting cars being used, or to help pay for public transport so that people who are willing to give up some convenience for the sake of cleaner air can have a better bus/train/tube service.
MaxSo said:
I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here, but for what are typically fairly infrequent journeys like this, there is the option to pay the charge or to use taxis, Uber or perhaps use car clubs like ZipCar. All of these are less convenient than jumping in your own car, but less dissimilar to using public transport.
There's clearly an increased financial cost related to each of these alternatives compared to using your own car now, before operation of the ULEZ commences. But, I guess (ignoring for a moment all the arguments surrounding where most pollution actually comes from) this is adhering to the "polluter pays" principle. The devil's advocate might say, why should my kids have to breathe in all the crap being spewed out of a 13 year old Euro3(?) diesel Volvo? If the owner insists on using it still he should cough up so the money raised can at least go towards the operation of a scheme that will help to reduce the number of the most polluting cars being used, or to help pay for public transport so that people who are willing to give up some convenience for the sake of cleaner air can have a better bus/train/tube service.
In reality, like hell am I faffing around with Ubers/Zipcars (and I'm buggered if I'm coughing up £12.50 to the TFL slush fund) to get to the dentist once every six months. I'll just find one outside the ULEZ.
The same set of circumstances will apply to thousands of people - and businesses will suffer.
I'd be interested to know how the CO2/NOx/etc chucked out of the exhaust pipe of a well-maintained 13 year old Euro3 Volvo which does about 8,000 miles a year (almost all long distance) compares to the CO2/airborne nasties generated by the manufacture of a brand new Ford Focus 1.0 Ecoboost or something similarly soul-crushing while the Volvo lies forlornly in a scrapyard.
Was Sadiq perchance lobbied by the automotive manufacturing industry?
Mr Dripping said:
I'd be interested to know how the CO2/NOx/etc chucked out of the exhaust pipe of a well-maintained 13 year old Euro3 Volvo which does about 8,000 miles a year (almost all long distance) compares to the CO2/airborne nasties generated by the manufacture of a brand new Ford Focus 1.0 Ecoboost or something similarly soul-crushing while the Volvo lies forlornly in a scrapyard.
But this is the problem with many of these policies.Im sure the Mayor would love all Londoners to be driving around in EVs using power which wont be generated in London,solves his problem by moving the pollution elsewhere.
The same argument with the environmental manufacturing costs of a new vehicle being made to replace an older one.He gets clean cars in his city and others pick up the waste.
As other have pointed out,there are many other sources of pollution,air conditioners,aircraft and those wood burners so beloved by well heeled Londoners.
Mr Dripping said:
Yes I appreciate there are alternatives for those two limited sets of circumstances I cited.
In reality, like hell am I faffing around with Ubers/Zipcars (and I'm buggered if I'm coughing up £12.50 to the TFL slush fund) to get to the dentist once every six months. I'll just find one outside the ULEZ.
The same set of circumstances will apply to thousands of people - and businesses will suffer.
I'd be interested to know how the CO2/NOx/etc chucked out of the exhaust pipe of a well-maintained 13 year old Euro3 Volvo which does about 8,000 miles a year (almost all long distance) compares to the CO2/airborne nasties generated by the manufacture of a brand new Ford Focus 1.0 Ecoboost or something similarly soul-crushing while the Volvo lies forlornly in a scrapyard.
Was Sadiq perchance lobbied by the automotive manufacturing industry?
Devil's advocate...In reality, like hell am I faffing around with Ubers/Zipcars (and I'm buggered if I'm coughing up £12.50 to the TFL slush fund) to get to the dentist once every six months. I'll just find one outside the ULEZ.
The same set of circumstances will apply to thousands of people - and businesses will suffer.
I'd be interested to know how the CO2/NOx/etc chucked out of the exhaust pipe of a well-maintained 13 year old Euro3 Volvo which does about 8,000 miles a year (almost all long distance) compares to the CO2/airborne nasties generated by the manufacture of a brand new Ford Focus 1.0 Ecoboost or something similarly soul-crushing while the Volvo lies forlornly in a scrapyard.
Was Sadiq perchance lobbied by the automotive manufacturing industry?
1. Who's to say the Volvo or other old diesels would need to be scrapped? It might be that it is sold to someone who will use it solely for long distance trips where it is better suited and where the emissions are able to disperse more readily, rather than directly affecting urban populations.
2. The business of the dentist and the vet inside the ULEZ will suffer by losing your custom, but the dentist and vet outside the ULEZ that you now use will benefit.
MaxSo said:
Mr Dripping said:
Yes I appreciate there are alternatives for those two limited sets of circumstances I cited.
In reality, like hell am I faffing around with Ubers/Zipcars (and I'm buggered if I'm coughing up £12.50 to the TFL slush fund) to get to the dentist once every six months. I'll just find one outside the ULEZ.
The same set of circumstances will apply to thousands of people - and businesses will suffer.
I'd be interested to know how the CO2/NOx/etc chucked out of the exhaust pipe of a well-maintained 13 year old Euro3 Volvo which does about 8,000 miles a year (almost all long distance) compares to the CO2/airborne nasties generated by the manufacture of a brand new Ford Focus 1.0 Ecoboost or something similarly soul-crushing while the Volvo lies forlornly in a scrapyard.
Was Sadiq perchance lobbied by the automotive manufacturing industry?
Devil's advocate...In reality, like hell am I faffing around with Ubers/Zipcars (and I'm buggered if I'm coughing up £12.50 to the TFL slush fund) to get to the dentist once every six months. I'll just find one outside the ULEZ.
The same set of circumstances will apply to thousands of people - and businesses will suffer.
I'd be interested to know how the CO2/NOx/etc chucked out of the exhaust pipe of a well-maintained 13 year old Euro3 Volvo which does about 8,000 miles a year (almost all long distance) compares to the CO2/airborne nasties generated by the manufacture of a brand new Ford Focus 1.0 Ecoboost or something similarly soul-crushing while the Volvo lies forlornly in a scrapyard.
Was Sadiq perchance lobbied by the automotive manufacturing industry?
1. Who's to say the Volvo or other old diesels would need to be scrapped? It might be that it is sold to someone who will use it solely for long distance trips where it is better suited and where the emissions are able to disperse more readily, rather than directly affecting urban populations.
2. The business of the dentist and the vet inside the ULEZ will suffer by losing your custom, but the dentist and vet outside the ULEZ that you now use will benefit.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff