Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Charge to use Blackwall Tunnel
Comments
-
Not everyone moaned about ULEZ. A significant number welcomed it.Valianterith said:
Depends if Khan jacks it in or he has reached the limit of terms he can do had a chance to get rid of him last time when everyone was moaning about ulaz but he still got invalleynick66 said:Not too long for a new mayor I suppose.I doubt however we will see the tariffs change much.6 -
There were a lot of people in Kent and Essex that really moaned loadsiainment said:
Not everyone moaned about ULEZ. A significant number welcomed it.Valianterith said:
Depends if Khan jacks it in or he has reached the limit of terms he can do had a chance to get rid of him last time when everyone was moaning about ulaz but he still got invalleynick66 said:Not too long for a new mayor I suppose.I doubt however we will see the tariffs change much.0 -
And it's been a pretty big success. I know off topic but indulge me (or ignore!)iainment said:
Not everyone moaned about ULEZ. A significant number welcomed it.Valianterith said:
Depends if Khan jacks it in or he has reached the limit of terms he can do had a chance to get rid of him last time when everyone was moaning about ulaz but he still got invalleynick66 said:Not too long for a new mayor I suppose.I doubt however we will see the tariffs change much.
The evaluations of it have shown massive air quality improvements and huge public health benefits. Equalities assessments have shown that the majority of the costs are paid by upper middle class people whilst the people with the largest health benefits have been more deprived and lower socio-economic groups.
This study released in the last couple of months has majored on the positive health impacts.
https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-and-climate-change/environment-and-climate-change-publications/london-wide-ultra-low-emission-zone-one-year-report
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/articles/2026/londons-ulez-and-t-charge-linked-to-reductions-in-emergency-hospital-admissions/
https://www.adph.org.uk/networks/london/2025/03/07/london-wide-ultra-low-emission-zone-ulez-one-year-report/5 -
And what about the cost to the motorist who maybe had to buy a new compliant UPEZ car eh?cantersaddick said:
And it's been a pretty big success. I know off topic but indulge me (or ignore!)iainment said:
Not everyone moaned about ULEZ. A significant number welcomed it.Valianterith said:
Depends if Khan jacks it in or he has reached the limit of terms he can do had a chance to get rid of him last time when everyone was moaning about ulaz but he still got invalleynick66 said:Not too long for a new mayor I suppose.I doubt however we will see the tariffs change much.
The evaluations of it have shown massive air quality improvements and huge public health benefits. Equalities assessments have shown that the majority of the costs are paid by upper middle class people whilst the people with the largest health benefits have been more deprived and lower socio-economic groups.
This study released in the last couple of months has majored on the positive health impacts.
https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-and-climate-change/environment-and-climate-change-publications/london-wide-ultra-low-emission-zone-one-year-report
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/articles/2026/londons-ulez-and-t-charge-linked-to-reductions-in-emergency-hospital-admissions/
https://www.adph.org.uk/networks/london/2025/03/07/london-wide-ultra-low-emission-zone-ulez-one-year-report/
What does the report say about that ?0 -
But we will never know what improvements natural churn of vehicles may have got us to and by when.Of course it has benefits that is undeniable. As I’ve said before it’s how it got rushed in for the extended zone was my issue.Any metrics on the cost consequence and associated living cost impacts for those that had to change their vehicles (when they didn’t plan to) or now are forced on to public transport?
My point is the health benefits were never seriously denied.0 -
Yes those impacts are assessed in the various studies. The people who do this are world leaders in post implementation evaluation. They arent going to miss impacts like that. Again majority of costs carried by upper middle class households. That's not to say it doesn't matter but it does affect the affordability argument.
And it's clear that this is the most economically and socially efficient way to achieve a reduction in pollutants as it leaves people to make an economic choice. Change behaviour to find alternatives where possible and reduce driving into the zone whilst those who can afford to can upgrade vehicle. Of course it doesn't always need to be an upgrade. My 18 year old car is still running perfectly and compliant. Plenty of second hand petrol cars out there that are perfectly fine.
As for the "we would have got there anyway with natural churn" argument. Actually it's found we achieved the air quality target 185 years earlier than previously expected.
https://www.london.gov.uk/london-meets-legal-limits-toxic-no2-pollution-first-time-almost-200-years-earlier-predicted
BBC News - Ulez: Cleaner air for Londoners after expansion, study finds - BBC News1 -
Still can't believe there is a charge, bit of a scandal really considering the long history of the tunnel.0
-
For outer London expansion. Which is my issue we did not get there 185 years sooner.cantersaddick said:Yes those impacts are assessed in the various studies. The people who do this are world leaders in post implementation evaluation. They arent going to miss impacts like that. Again majority of costs carried by upper middle class households. That's not to say it doesn't matter but it does affect the affordability argument.
And it's clear that this is the most economically and socially efficient way to achieve a reduction in pollutants as it leaves people to make an economic choice. Change behaviour to find alternatives where possible and reduce driving into the zone whilst those who can afford to can upgrade vehicle. Of course it doesn't always need to be an upgrade. My 18 year old car is still running perfectly and compliant. Plenty of second hand petrol cars out there that are perfectly fine.
As for the "we would have got there anyway with natural churn" argument. Actually it's found we achieved the air quality target 185 years earlier than previously expected.
https://www.london.gov.uk/london-meets-legal-limits-toxic-no2-pollution-first-time-almost-200-years-earlier-predicted
BBC News - Ulez: Cleaner air for Londoners after expansion, study finds - BBC NewsHow much quicker has the expanded UlEz got there than it was already on track for thanks to the prior boundary?I doubt we have that quantified.0 -
I don't mind paying a fee......we've been paying one on the Dartford crossing ever since it was built.fenlandaddick said:Still can't believe there is a charge, bit of a scandal really considering the long history of the tunnel.
What I do mind is paying more for my journey than someone going in the opposite direction. In some parts of the world that is called secreterianlism and people have fought wars over it.4 -
He reached his limit about 2 terms ago.Valianterith said:
Depends if Khan jacks it in or he has reached the limit of terms he can do had a chance to get rid of him last time when everyone was moaning about ulaz but he still got invalleynick66 said:Not too long for a new mayor I suppose.I doubt however we will see the tariffs change much.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Erm read the 2nd link in the post you quoted. It's specifically about expansion to outer London.valleynick66 said:
For outer London expansion. Which is my issue we did not get there 185 years sooner.cantersaddick said:Yes those impacts are assessed in the various studies. The people who do this are world leaders in post implementation evaluation. They arent going to miss impacts like that. Again majority of costs carried by upper middle class households. That's not to say it doesn't matter but it does affect the affordability argument.
And it's clear that this is the most economically and socially efficient way to achieve a reduction in pollutants as it leaves people to make an economic choice. Change behaviour to find alternatives where possible and reduce driving into the zone whilst those who can afford to can upgrade vehicle. Of course it doesn't always need to be an upgrade. My 18 year old car is still running perfectly and compliant. Plenty of second hand petrol cars out there that are perfectly fine.
As for the "we would have got there anyway with natural churn" argument. Actually it's found we achieved the air quality target 185 years earlier than previously expected.
https://www.london.gov.uk/london-meets-legal-limits-toxic-no2-pollution-first-time-almost-200-years-earlier-predicted
BBC News - Ulez: Cleaner air for Londoners after expansion, study finds - BBC NewsHow much quicker has the expanded UlEz got there than it was already on track for thanks to the prior boundary?I doubt we have that quantified.
"Reacting to the report, Sir Sadiq said: "With boroughs in outer London seeing some of the biggest reductions in harmful emissions and London's deprived communities also seeing greater benefits, this report shows why expanding Ulez London-wide was so important.""Indeed, the air in outer London is now as good as the air in the rest of England," he said."When I first became mayor, King's College said it would take 193 years to bring our air within lawful limits."We have done it this year, 185 years early."2 -
Seriously this / you are saying (as an example) the air quality in Bexley improved to the target level 185 years sooner than it would have done if the ULEZ boundary had stayed where it was? That was my question.cantersaddick said:
Erm read the 2nd link in the post you quoted. It's specifically about expansion to outer London.valleynick66 said:
For outer London expansion. Which is my issue we did not get there 185 years sooner.cantersaddick said:Yes those impacts are assessed in the various studies. The people who do this are world leaders in post implementation evaluation. They arent going to miss impacts like that. Again majority of costs carried by upper middle class households. That's not to say it doesn't matter but it does affect the affordability argument.
And it's clear that this is the most economically and socially efficient way to achieve a reduction in pollutants as it leaves people to make an economic choice. Change behaviour to find alternatives where possible and reduce driving into the zone whilst those who can afford to can upgrade vehicle. Of course it doesn't always need to be an upgrade. My 18 year old car is still running perfectly and compliant. Plenty of second hand petrol cars out there that are perfectly fine.
As for the "we would have got there anyway with natural churn" argument. Actually it's found we achieved the air quality target 185 years earlier than previously expected.
https://www.london.gov.uk/london-meets-legal-limits-toxic-no2-pollution-first-time-almost-200-years-earlier-predicted
BBC News - Ulez: Cleaner air for Londoners after expansion, study finds - BBC NewsHow much quicker has the expanded UlEz got there than it was already on track for thanks to the prior boundary?I doubt we have that quantified.
"Reacting to the report, Sir Sadiq said: "With boroughs in outer London seeing some of the biggest reductions in harmful emissions and London's deprived communities also seeing greater benefits, this report shows why expanding Ulez London-wide was so important.""Indeed, the air in outer London is now as good as the air in the rest of England," he said."When I first became mayor, King's College said it would take 193 years to bring our air within lawful limits."We have done it this year, 185 years early."
But the expansion aside the natural churn towards EVs and less pollutant ICE vehicles would have taken 185 years longer without ULEZ? That is nonsense surely. The original report presumably did not recognise the pace of change in vehicle emissions without ULEZ influencing the point of adoption of Londoners.Yes it’s positive but it’s not all down to ULEZ.0 -
You can call it nonsense but thats what the analysis from King's, imperial and the National Institute for Health Research among others say.valleynick66 said:
Seriously this / you are saying (as an example) the air quality in Bexley improved to the target level 185 years sooner than it would have done if the ULEZ boundary had stayed where it was? That was my question.cantersaddick said:
Erm read the 2nd link in the post you quoted. It's specifically about expansion to outer London.valleynick66 said:
For outer London expansion. Which is my issue we did not get there 185 years sooner.cantersaddick said:Yes those impacts are assessed in the various studies. The people who do this are world leaders in post implementation evaluation. They arent going to miss impacts like that. Again majority of costs carried by upper middle class households. That's not to say it doesn't matter but it does affect the affordability argument.
And it's clear that this is the most economically and socially efficient way to achieve a reduction in pollutants as it leaves people to make an economic choice. Change behaviour to find alternatives where possible and reduce driving into the zone whilst those who can afford to can upgrade vehicle. Of course it doesn't always need to be an upgrade. My 18 year old car is still running perfectly and compliant. Plenty of second hand petrol cars out there that are perfectly fine.
As for the "we would have got there anyway with natural churn" argument. Actually it's found we achieved the air quality target 185 years earlier than previously expected.
https://www.london.gov.uk/london-meets-legal-limits-toxic-no2-pollution-first-time-almost-200-years-earlier-predicted
BBC News - Ulez: Cleaner air for Londoners after expansion, study finds - BBC NewsHow much quicker has the expanded UlEz got there than it was already on track for thanks to the prior boundary?I doubt we have that quantified.
"Reacting to the report, Sir Sadiq said: "With boroughs in outer London seeing some of the biggest reductions in harmful emissions and London's deprived communities also seeing greater benefits, this report shows why expanding Ulez London-wide was so important.""Indeed, the air in outer London is now as good as the air in the rest of England," he said."When I first became mayor, King's College said it would take 193 years to bring our air within lawful limits."We have done it this year, 185 years early."
But the expansion aside the natural churn towards EVs and less pollutant ICE vehicles would have taken 185 years longer without ULEZ? That is nonsense surely. The original report presumably did not recognise the pace of change in vehicle emissions without ULEZ influencing the point of adoption of Londoners.Yes it’s positive but it’s not all down to ULEZ.
Interesting that you mention Bexley, it's actually an area drawn out in some of the analysis (and I looked out for as I grew up there) because of its natural geography - it sits in a dip and the prevailing winds take the polluted air from central london and dumps it in that dip - as a result the area has a really high incidence of Asthma and other breathing related health issues amongst children who grew up there and higher than average incidence of heart and lung disease amongst adults. It was one of the worst affected by poor air quality and is now an area that has shown one of the largest improvements.4 -
I just find it hard to grasp that the air quality improved as much as 185 years sooner than it would have done just because of ULEZ.cantersaddick said:
You can call it nonsense but thats what the analysis from King's, imperial and the National Institute for Health Research among others say.valleynick66 said:
Seriously this / you are saying (as an example) the air quality in Bexley improved to the target level 185 years sooner than it would have done if the ULEZ boundary had stayed where it was? That was my question.cantersaddick said:
Erm read the 2nd link in the post you quoted. It's specifically about expansion to outer London.valleynick66 said:
For outer London expansion. Which is my issue we did not get there 185 years sooner.cantersaddick said:Yes those impacts are assessed in the various studies. The people who do this are world leaders in post implementation evaluation. They arent going to miss impacts like that. Again majority of costs carried by upper middle class households. That's not to say it doesn't matter but it does affect the affordability argument.
And it's clear that this is the most economically and socially efficient way to achieve a reduction in pollutants as it leaves people to make an economic choice. Change behaviour to find alternatives where possible and reduce driving into the zone whilst those who can afford to can upgrade vehicle. Of course it doesn't always need to be an upgrade. My 18 year old car is still running perfectly and compliant. Plenty of second hand petrol cars out there that are perfectly fine.
As for the "we would have got there anyway with natural churn" argument. Actually it's found we achieved the air quality target 185 years earlier than previously expected.
https://www.london.gov.uk/london-meets-legal-limits-toxic-no2-pollution-first-time-almost-200-years-earlier-predicted
BBC News - Ulez: Cleaner air for Londoners after expansion, study finds - BBC NewsHow much quicker has the expanded UlEz got there than it was already on track for thanks to the prior boundary?I doubt we have that quantified.
"Reacting to the report, Sir Sadiq said: "With boroughs in outer London seeing some of the biggest reductions in harmful emissions and London's deprived communities also seeing greater benefits, this report shows why expanding Ulez London-wide was so important.""Indeed, the air in outer London is now as good as the air in the rest of England," he said."When I first became mayor, King's College said it would take 193 years to bring our air within lawful limits."We have done it this year, 185 years early."
But the expansion aside the natural churn towards EVs and less pollutant ICE vehicles would have taken 185 years longer without ULEZ? That is nonsense surely. The original report presumably did not recognise the pace of change in vehicle emissions without ULEZ influencing the point of adoption of Londoners.Yes it’s positive but it’s not all down to ULEZ.
Interesting that you mention Bexley, it's actually an area drawn out in some of the analysis (and I looked out for as I grew up there) because of its natural geography - it sits in a dip and the prevailing winds take the polluted air from central london and dumps it in that dip - as a result the area has a really high incidence of Asthma and other breathing related health issues amongst children who grew up there and higher than average incidence of heart and lung disease amongst adults. It was one of the worst affected by poor air quality and is now an area that has shown one of the largest improvements.
All ULEZ did was bring forward by when motorists drove cleaner cars. It wouldn't have taken 185 years of natural / normal churn to achieve that. It is surely including other elements to claim that figure and perhaps was based on a start point that did not forsee EVs and Greener ICE engines?
The 185 years just sounds flawed. Again I don't dispute the health benefits / need of cleaner air only how it was adopted in the most recent expansion.
0 -
Sectarianism!! 🤣golfaddick said:
I don't mind paying a fee......we've been paying one on the Dartford crossing ever since it was built.fenlandaddick said:Still can't believe there is a charge, bit of a scandal really considering the long history of the tunnel.
What I do mind is paying more for my journey than someone going in the opposite direction. In some parts of the world that is called secreterianlism and people have fought wars over it.
0 -
Well what do you call it when one section of the community are charged more for something just because of where they live.WSS said:
Sectarianism!! 🤣golfaddick said:
I don't mind paying a fee......we've been paying one on the Dartford crossing ever since it was built.fenlandaddick said:Still can't believe there is a charge, bit of a scandal really considering the long history of the tunnel.
What I do mind is paying more for my journey than someone going in the opposite direction. In some parts of the world that is called secreterianlism and people have fought wars over it.
0 -
Supply and demand? Behavioural science? Incentives?golfaddick said:
Well what do you call it when one section of the community are charged more for something just because of where they live.WSS said:
Sectarianism!! 🤣golfaddick said:
I don't mind paying a fee......we've been paying one on the Dartford crossing ever since it was built.fenlandaddick said:Still can't believe there is a charge, bit of a scandal really considering the long history of the tunnel.
What I do mind is paying more for my journey than someone going in the opposite direction. In some parts of the world that is called secreterianlism and people have fought wars over it.
I'm actually more bothered about the toll itself than the differential. National government should have funded the scheme rather than leaving the GLA to scrape around to find any possible way to fund it.0 -
Because you clearly do not understand the word and terminology of legal and prejudice.golfaddick said:
More prejudice at rush hour. 5p increase if you live in Essex & work in Kent. But 20p increase if you live in Kent & work in Essex.clive said:Drivers face 20p increase in rush-hour tolls at Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels
https://greenwichwire.co.uk/2026/06/15/blackwall-silvertown-tunnel-toll-increase-2026/
How this is legal is beyond belief. But I keep being told to pipe down & get on with it.0 -
Talking of tolls I wouldn't be too surprised to see many of our river crossings tolled in the near future.
Many of our bridges are slowly crumbling away. Who knows if Hammersmith bridge will ever reopen at a cost of £250,000,000. Albert bridge closed from the start of the year with structural damage and not opening until 2027 & Vauxhall bridge will have a weight restriction on it from July after signs of deteriorating.
0 -
People might not be so blase if tfl started charging you double if you used the Northern Line going South to North than those going North to South.Radostanradical said:
Because you clearly do not understand the word and terminology of legal and prejudice.golfaddick said:
More prejudice at rush hour. 5p increase if you live in Essex & work in Kent. But 20p increase if you live in Kent & work in Essex.clive said:Drivers face 20p increase in rush-hour tolls at Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels
https://greenwichwire.co.uk/2026/06/15/blackwall-silvertown-tunnel-toll-increase-2026/
How this is legal is beyond belief. But I keep being told to pipe down & get on with it.
But I've said my piece now.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
does rather feel like its the only way infrastructure projects will get built in the current system. Toll roads are much more common on the continentO-Randy-Hunt said:Talking of tolls I wouldn't be too surprised to see many of our river crossings tolled in the near future.
Many of our bridges are slowly crumbling away. Who knows if Hammersmith bridge will ever reopen at a cost of £250,000,000. Albert bridge closed from the start of the year with structural damage and not opening until 2027 & Vauxhall bridge will have a weight restriction on it from July after signs of deteriorating.0 -
With every post, I become ever more convinced you are an Alan Partridge parody accountgolfaddick said:
I don't mind paying a fee......we've been paying one on the Dartford crossing ever since it was built.fenlandaddick said:Still can't believe there is a charge, bit of a scandal really considering the long history of the tunnel.
What I do mind is paying more for my journey than someone going in the opposite direction. In some parts of the world that is called secreterianlism and people have fought wars over it.3 -
Just sell them to the French, so we can pay a fiver to cross them.O-Randy-Hunt said:Talking of tolls I wouldn't be too surprised to see many of our river crossings tolled in the near future.
Many of our bridges are slowly crumbling away. Who knows if Hammersmith bridge will ever reopen at a cost of £250,000,000. Albert bridge closed from the start of the year with structural damage and not opening until 2027 & Vauxhall bridge will have a weight restriction on it from July after signs of deteriorating.0 -
Basic economics? Why does London have a congestion charge and Devon doesn't?golfaddick said:
Well what do you call it when one section of the community are charged more for something just because of where they live.WSS said:
Sectarianism!! 🤣golfaddick said:
I don't mind paying a fee......we've been paying one on the Dartford crossing ever since it was built.fenlandaddick said:Still can't believe there is a charge, bit of a scandal really considering the long history of the tunnel.
What I do mind is paying more for my journey than someone going in the opposite direction. In some parts of the world that is called secreterianlism and people have fought wars over it.1 -
You’ve peaked at complete nonsense here.golfaddick said:
I don't mind paying a fee......we've been paying one on the Dartford crossing ever since it was built.fenlandaddick said:Still can't believe there is a charge, bit of a scandal really considering the long history of the tunnel.
What I do mind is paying more for my journey than someone going in the opposite direction. In some parts of the world that is called secreterianlism and people have fought wars over it.Way over the top reaction comparing a difference in tunnel journey charges to sectarianism and war. You try too hard to get attention sometimes (and yes it’s worked as people have had to reply to your ridiculous analogy).1 -
Let’s have this right. It’s not the Silvertown Tunnel that’s reduced the queues it’s the fact that the tunnel is now a toll one.1
-
Anyone got any info on the usage of the Rotherithe Tunnel after the tolls started?buckshee said:Let’s have this right. It’s not the Silvertown Tunnel that’s reduced the queues it’s the fact that the tunnel is now a toll one.0 -
Please. Secreterianlismstoneroses19 said:
You’ve peaked at complete nonsense here.golfaddick said:
I don't mind paying a fee......we've been paying one on the Dartford crossing ever since it was built.fenlandaddick said:Still can't believe there is a charge, bit of a scandal really considering the long history of the tunnel.
What I do mind is paying more for my journey than someone going in the opposite direction. In some parts of the world that is called secreterianlism and people have fought wars over it.Way over the top reaction comparing a difference in tunnel journey charges to sectarianism and war. You try too hard to get attention sometimes (and yes it’s worked as people have had to reply to your ridiculous analogy).2 -
Point being, in other parts of the country/ world it wouldn't be stood for and people would be up in arms.stoneroses19 said:
You’ve peaked at complete nonsense here.golfaddick said:
I don't mind paying a fee......we've been paying one on the Dartford crossing ever since it was built.fenlandaddick said:Still can't believe there is a charge, bit of a scandal really considering the long history of the tunnel.
What I do mind is paying more for my journey than someone going in the opposite direction. In some parts of the world that is called secreterianlism and people have fought wars over it.Way over the top reaction comparing a difference in tunnel journey charges to sectarianism and war. You try too hard to get attention sometimes (and yes it’s worked as people have had to reply to your ridiculous analogy).
But in cosy SE London / Kent we just sigh & let the politicians get away with it.0 -
So what is it then ? What makes it right that I have to pay more at 9am to travel from Bromley to East Ham than a person in East Ham does to travel to Bromley ?stoneroses19 said:
You’ve peaked at complete nonsense here.golfaddick said:
I don't mind paying a fee......we've been paying one on the Dartford crossing ever since it was built.fenlandaddick said:Still can't believe there is a charge, bit of a scandal really considering the long history of the tunnel.
What I do mind is paying more for my journey than someone going in the opposite direction. In some parts of the world that is called secreterianlism and people have fought wars over it.Way over the top reaction comparing a difference in tunnel journey charges to sectarianism and war. You try too hard to get attention sometimes (and yes it’s worked as people have had to reply to your ridiculous analogy).
And it has nothing to do with "peak fares that commuters have always paid" as I'm not travelling into Central London.....merely travelling from South London to East London.2
