ULEZ Checker

MrOneLung

So what happens if everyone just pays the charge ?  

EastTerrace

So every-time go to The Valley, it’s £12.50 less to spend in the pub, great.

Car is only bloody ten years old and I didn’t even want a diesel, but at the time there were so few Petrol S-Max’s about.

cantersaddick

MrOneLung said:

So what happens if everyone just pays the charge ?  

MrOneLung said:

So what happens if everyone just pays the charge ?  

Money is raised to spend on green initiatives.

DaveMehmet

Saga Lout said:

I find it interesting that all these apparently "green" schemes miraculously increase revenue for the government... There was even someone saying that when everyone (or the majority, at least) has moved to ULEZ compliant vehicles, they'll have to start taxing them as well to keep their revenue up. Government, national and local seem to have no end of things to spend our money on.

Exactly, if they were that bothered about the emissions, they should just ban the vehicles, not rake it in off those who use them.

EastTerrace

Should have been announced ten years ago, giving people enough time to make their next purchase compliant.

hoof_it_up_to_benty

cantersaddick said:

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

cantersaddick said:

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

killerandflash said:

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

killerandflash said:

swords_alive said:

The negative impacts of the extended ULEZ are undoubtedly being overblown in some quarters. This is likely because it could have been implemented more sympathetically (with a scrappage scheme or vouchers as done in Coventry), and weak communications from TFL haven't helped.
 
The whole point is to remove the more polluting vehicles which surely everyone would agree is better for human health but this point seems to be commonly forgotten. Also there aren't that many vehicles affected (c.100,000 i think i heard recently).

I hear reports on the radio that fail to highlight that only specific older cars/vans  are covered by the ULEZ charge- I.e. those that do not meet the euro4 and euro6 standards respectively.

There are probably thousands of people now avoiding the inner London roads on the false belief that there is a blanket charge.

From the RAC website;

"Which vehicles will be affected by the London ULEZ?

Cars: Any diesel not conforming to Euro 6 emission standards and any petrol not conforming to Euro 4 emission standards

Petrol cars that meet the ULEZ standards are generally those registered with the DVLA after 2005, although cars that meet the standards have been available since 2001.

Diesel cars that meet the standards are generally those registered with the DVLA after September 2015.

Vans: Minimum standards - Petrol: Euro 4; Diesel: Euro 6.

The ULEZ will be enforced based on the declared emissions of the vehicle rather than the age, however:

• All new diesel vans sold from September 2016 should meet the Euro 6 standard
• All petrol vans registered with the DVLA from January 2006 meet the Euro 4 standard
• HGVs: All vehicles in this category will need to meet Euro VI standards

Motorcycles and mopeds: All vehicles will need to meet Euro 3 emissions standards.

The ULEZ will be enforced based on the declared emissions of the vehicle rather than the age - but generally speaking Euro 3 engines as those registered with the DVLA after July 2007."

Van drivers are the ones most affected, as until recently the vast majority of vans were diesel powered. I imagine the cost of second hand Euro 6 vans has sky rocketed

I know loads of tradespeople who have been hammered by it - quite a cost involved. As for cars a lot of people will have to sell relatively new diesels and not get any help with replacing them.

It's all fine unless it affects you.

The difference for car owners is that there are loads of compliant secondhand petrol cars out there, whereas the stock of secondhand compliant vans will be tiny

But you won't get a decent price for your second hand diesel car - a lot of people bought them in good faith. You can replace it but be out of pocket.

A better compensation scheme would have helped.

This has been planned for years I dont get the shock that everyone is experiencing its been everywhere for more than 4 years. I know someone who commutes from Medway to Poplar by car and previously had a diesel. He sold it around a year ago and switched to a petrol he got a great price for it. Waiting until now where the market was obviously going to be flooded, particularly locally is the issue. Still travel down to the kent coast and you'll have no issues selling for a decent price even with the additional supply on the market. 

I still think there is a lot of ignorance re ULEZ and not everyone is well informed. It also depends on personal circumstances how easy it is to sell a car. Diesels were once sold as the futute in terms of pollution and you also have to trust planning won't change at the last minute.

If the scheme were completly green then why allow polluting diesels to continue access to the zone if they pay a fee - that's a nonsense.

Khan is also backing the Silvertown Tunnel which is an utterly ludicrous scheme.

People may be ignorant about it but I dont see how more could have been done to advertise it. There have been signs on the roads that it was coming for more than a year, there have been all sorts of advertising campaigns, my parents and partners parents who both live in Medway (as did my brother who lives in Abbey Wood outside the boundary) received letters through the door a while back explaining the change of boundaries. If anyone needs to go in there regularly they would have had to have passed up 10's or even 100's of messages about it.

The bit in bold is pretty ignorant. Its about gradual changes. In the short term it provides a disincentive to the use of the worst polluting cars in areas of high pollution so that they reduce journeys through that area, take alternative routes or they pay a cost for that pollution (money which is then spent on green schemes). In the medium term you get a shift away from the worse polluting vehicles as people choose better alternatives when you upgrade.

Dont really see what Khan or Silvertown have to do with this tbh.

Please don't accuse me of being ignorant because I don't have the same opinion as you - bit of an arrogant stance. The idea that this has all been clearly planned and thought through is disingenous. People were still buying diesels in 2015 so it obviously wasn't flagged what the regulations were going to be. 

Khan presents himself as focused on green issues yet is happy to support the polluting Silvertown scheme - that's why I highlighted it. I'd rather have a mayor in charge who was a bit more consistent in his thinking.

If such a large number of people are still unaware it hardly suggests the publicity has been a resounding success.

cantersaddick

DaveMehmet said:

Saga Lout said:

I find it interesting that all these apparently "green" schemes miraculously increase revenue for the government... There was even someone saying that when everyone (or the majority, at least) has moved to ULEZ compliant vehicles, they'll have to start taxing them as well to keep their revenue up. Government, national and local seem to have no end of things to spend our money on.

Exactly, if they were that bothered about the emissions, they should just ban the vehicles, not rake it in off those who use them.

Except thats much worse for the people who have those vehicles. Everyone has to replace their vehicles all at once, when some simply wont be able to do that. This way you have 2 choices, either upgrade to a compliant vehicle or pay for pollution you produce. I explain it further up the thread but there is plenty of sound economic theory and research behind this sort of scheme that shows it not only has an environmental impact but is also the most economically efficient way to reach the outcome. They are a good idea. 

Also the target for this is localised air quality so a blanket ban would be incredibly wasteful if it forced people into changing vehicles when they never travelled to these localised areas. This targets the emissions in the problem areas, improves the air quality, offers a choice and is economically efficient. Bar being an inconvenience to those who have apparently been driving the south circular every day but not noticed any of signs (or letters or advertising campaigns) that tell them its happening and so got a shock, I can't see a downside of it.

cantersaddick

EastTerrace said:

Should have been announced ten years ago, giving people enough time to make their next purchase compliant.

The idea was first mooted a long time ago and this has been in the planning for over 4 years - plenty of time to plan ahead. I know lots of people who have.

MrOneLung

TBH I didn’t know there was already a ULEZ within the congestion charge zone until mentioned on another thread a while back. 

hoof_it_up_to_benty

cantersaddick said:

DaveMehmet said:

Saga Lout said:

I find it interesting that all these apparently "green" schemes miraculously increase revenue for the government... There was even someone saying that when everyone (or the majority, at least) has moved to ULEZ compliant vehicles, they'll have to start taxing them as well to keep their revenue up. Government, national and local seem to have no end of things to spend our money on.

Exactly, if they were that bothered about the emissions, they should just ban the vehicles, not rake it in off those who use them.

Except thats much worse for the people who have those vehicles. Everyone has to replace their vehicles all at once, when some simply wont be able to do that. This way you have 2 choices, either upgrade to a compliant vehicle or pay for pollution you produce. I explain it further up the thread but there is plenty of sound economic theory and research behind this sort of scheme that shows it not only has an environmental impact but is also the most economically efficient way to reach the outcome. They are a good idea. 

Also the target for this is localised air quality so a blanket ban would be incredibly wasteful if it forced people into changing vehicles when they never travelled to these localised areas. This targets the emissions in the problem areas, improves the air quality, offers a choice and is economically efficient. Bar being an inconvenience to those who have apparently been driving the south circular every day but not noticed any of signs (or letters or advertising campaigns) that tell them its happening and so got a shock, I can't see a downside of it.

People are paying a blanket £12.50 fee regardless of how many miles they drive within the zone so it's not a mesure of the amount of pollution produced. If you live half a mile within the zone you get hammered even if you barely do any mileage within the zone and produce little pollution.

SporadicAddick

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

cantersaddick said:

DaveMehmet said:

Saga Lout said:

I find it interesting that all these apparently "green" schemes miraculously increase revenue for the government... There was even someone saying that when everyone (or the majority, at least) has moved to ULEZ compliant vehicles, they'll have to start taxing them as well to keep their revenue up. Government, national and local seem to have no end of things to spend our money on.

Exactly, if they were that bothered about the emissions, they should just ban the vehicles, not rake it in off those who use them.

Except thats much worse for the people who have those vehicles. Everyone has to replace their vehicles all at once, when some simply wont be able to do that. This way you have 2 choices, either upgrade to a compliant vehicle or pay for pollution you produce. I explain it further up the thread but there is plenty of sound economic theory and research behind this sort of scheme that shows it not only has an environmental impact but is also the most economically efficient way to reach the outcome. They are a good idea. 

Also the target for this is localised air quality so a blanket ban would be incredibly wasteful if it forced people into changing vehicles when they never travelled to these localised areas. This targets the emissions in the problem areas, improves the air quality, offers a choice and is economically efficient. Bar being an inconvenience to those who have apparently been driving the south circular every day but not noticed any of signs (or letters or advertising campaigns) that tell them its happening and so got a shock, I can't see a downside of it.

People are paying a blanket £12.50 fee regardless of how many miles they drive within the zone so it's not a mesure of the amount of pollution produced. If you live half a mile within the zone you get hammered even if you barely do any mileage within the zone and produce little pollution.

Or if you get to the Yorkshire Grey and turn towards Eltham rather than Lee...

Covered End

EastTerrace said:

Should have been announced ten years ago, giving people enough time to make their next purchase compliant.

I changed my diesel car for a petrol one over 2 years ago, which was something like a year after it was announced for definite IIRC. (I only bought a diesel in the first place because some twat recommended it as the green option). 

hoof_it_up_to_benty

cantersaddick said:

EastTerrace said:

Should have been announced ten years ago, giving people enough time to make their next purchase compliant.

The idea was first mooted a long time ago and this has been in the planning for over 4 years - plenty of time to plan ahead. I know lots of people who have.

It's not easy for everyone to replace diesel vehicles but those running the scheme are not concerned about those who might struggle. It's okay if you have the money.

Wheresmeticket

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

cantersaddick said:

EastTerrace said:

Should have been announced ten years ago, giving people enough time to make their next purchase compliant.

The idea was first mooted a long time ago and this has been in the planning for over 4 years - plenty of time to plan ahead. I know lots of people who have.

It's not easy for everyone to replace diesel vehicles but those running the scheme are not concerned about those who might struggle. It's okay if you have the money.

ULEZ will have a negative financial impact on the lot of people in London.

On the other hand apparently people are dying or suffering significant health problems as a result of poor air quality. I don't know what else could be done to manage air pollution or should we just put up with it as one of the costs of living in a densly populated urban area? 

What does seem odd to me is that the area immediately along the south circular has some of the worst pollution, but you can still drive any old piece of crap along it.

EastTerrace

It’s just going to effect those less well off the most, those that can’t afford just to buy a new car.

I’m fairly comfortable but I can’t afford to shell out for a like for like replacement of the car we have, outright, finance or leasing.

Some won’t even notice it or just buy a few car, for others it’s a pain and for those who find it hard financially, it hits the most. Fantastic.

EastTerrace

And cantersaddick said:

EastTerrace said:

Should have been announced ten years ago, giving people enough time to make their next purchase compliant.

The idea was first mooted a long time ago and this has been in the planning for over 4 years - plenty of time to plan ahead. I know lots of people who have.

Plenty of time to plan ahead if you have the budget yes.

killerandflash

cantersaddick said:

EastTerrace said:

Should have been announced ten years ago, giving people enough time to make their next purchase compliant.

The idea was first mooted a long time ago and this has been in the planning for over 4 years - plenty of time to plan ahead. I know lots of people who have.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/29/diesel-drivers-may-face-higher-costs-pollution-battle

Indeed the idea was first suggested when Boris was mayor

valleynick66

cantersaddick said:

MrOneLung said:

So what happens if everyone just pays the charge ?  

MrOneLung said:

So what happens if everyone just pays the charge ?  

Money is raised to spend on green initiatives.

I think the concept is sound and the ambition for improved air quality is worthy.

What feels tough about this is the timing post Covid when household budgets are stretched for many. There is an argument it could have been delayed or perhaps the cost more gradually introduced. 

However, that is a similar argument for not implementing any tax changes in the economy more generally, not cutting the temporary universal credit uplift, free school meals in holiday time etc. Not easy financial choices and never the right time. 

So on balance if not now then when. 

But where I do take issue is believing the sums raised will be diverted to worthy green initiatives and not swallowed into the overall budgets in London or TFL. I have little faith too that if invested in green things they will be well planned or thought through - look at the ridiculous bus lanes/cycle lanes on the lower road near the Valley to see how bad traffic is or the cycle Lane bollards that were installed and then removed (as they needed to be) on Shooters Hill Road. 

This will be a revenue stream albeit with the right reasons at its heart. 

ShootersHillGuru

Mixed feelings on this and I do feel for those worst affected but the fact is that this was announced a long time ago. Enough time in my view for the vast majority of people to have planned ahead. Some people will never make plans no matter how long they have to do it. That’s just a fact of life. Bottom line is that something had to be done. It is done now and those hardest hit will now find a way to make the changes they should have been looking to do before midnight on 24th October. Change of any type is always brutal. 

cantersaddick

EastTerrace said:

It’s just going to effect those less well off the most, those that can’t afford just to buy a new car.

I’m fairly comfortable but I can’t afford to shell out for a like for like replacement of the car we have, outright, finance or leasing.

Some won’t even notice it or just buy a few car, for others it’s a pain and for those who find it hard financially, it hits the most. Fantastic.

The worst off are also hit hardest by the impacts of poor air quality. The most deprived decile have a significantly higher incidence of illnesses linked to it and a higher death rate too as well as a significantly lower life expectancy overall. Within the borough of Greenwich there is something like a 15 year difference in life expectancy between those well off and those not. There is no perfect way to do it but you have to do something.

seth plum

I am hoping it will get extended to inside the M25 at a suitable time.
Certainly within the next decade.

hoof_it_up_to_benty

cantersaddick said:

EastTerrace said:

It’s just going to effect those less well off the most, those that can’t afford just to buy a new car.

I’m fairly comfortable but I can’t afford to shell out for a like for like replacement of the car we have, outright, finance or leasing.

Some won’t even notice it or just buy a few car, for others it’s a pain and for those who find it hard financially, it hits the most. Fantastic.

The worst off are also hit hardest by the impacts of poor air quality. The most deprived decile have a significantly higher incidence of illnesses linked to it and a higher death rate too as well as a significantly lower life expectancy overall. Within the borough of Greenwich there is something like a 15 year difference in life expectancy between those well off and those not. There is no perfect way to do it but you have to do something.

The ULEZ scheme will hit a lot of the less well off. Nobody wants poor air quality but the planning has been far from perfect.

I don't think you understand the struggle some people have. 

Lower life expectancy has many more factors than air quality as you well know.

In the long term a lot of poorer people will be driven off the road...

iainment

Most London journeys can better be done by public transport, walking or cycling.

Wheresmeticket

"Decile".  I'm out.

hoof_it_up_to_benty

iainment said:

Most London journeys can better be done by public transport, walking or cycling.

But not all obviously.

valleynick66

iainment said:

Most London journeys can better be done by public transport, walking or cycling.

Unless you are carrying a weekly food shop ! But otherwise yes I agree public transport can be better.

hoof_it_up_to_benty

valleynick66 said:

iainment said:

Most London journeys can better be done by public transport, walking or cycling.

Unless you are carrying a weekly food shop ! But otherwise yes I agree public transport can be better.

Or you're a carer making multiple short journeys, elderly, disabled, delivery driver etc etc

O-Randy-Hunt

The income spent on green initiatives my arse. Tfl are broke and have been for many years. They have nearly 600 staff on the gravy train earning 6 figure salaries. If the air was so deadly they wouldnt allow the well off to pay the 12.50 per day to drive the deadly vehicles. Force them into paying £100 per day and see them switch then.

'Your vehicle is too deadly to drive within the south/north circular unless you can afford to pay the £12.50 then it's all good'

Then let's not forget tfl licensed another 470 vehicles in one week to drive on their roads, 300+ the week before and I'd guess another 3 to 400 this week all because they make £300 per vehicle.

Crusty54

EastTerrace said:

Should have been announced ten years ago, giving people enough time to make their next purchase compliant.

It was.

hoof_it_up_to_benty

Crusty54 said:

EastTerrace said:

Should have been announced ten years ago, giving people enough time to make their next purchase compliant.

It was.

By who exactly and with what level of detail?