ULEZ Checker

AddicksAddict

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

cantersaddick said:

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

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...

I'm not saying it wont. It clearly will impact on the less well off. I'm not saying that this shouldn't have been combined with a means tested scrappage scheme for those people. The point is that overall this will do a huge amount of good and something needed doing as always with policy making its a balance.

As for the bit in bold I absolutely do understand - my parents left their jobs and run a local charity for people who fall through the gaps of the system and I've volunteered for that since I was 14. I'm vary aware of the challenges these people face. But those challenges should be resolved through the welfare system, the tax system and pay legislation and should not be a reason to not proceed with other objectively good policies.

A lot of things should happen but they don't and this has been poorly planned and will hit those who can least afford it - their concerns as usual will be ignored. 

If you're not affected economically you can see the benefits a lot more clearly. Most politicians and planners are ultimately pretty clueless as to how much some people are struggling financially. Faux concern doesn't really help.

Those who are comfortably off will invariably be least affected. 

And water is wet.

AddicksAddict

Fortune 82nd Minute said:

O-Randy-Hunt said:

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.

You are absolutely right.

I worked in the transport world all my "proper" working life and I can assure you that TfL is one of the most profligate organisations that exists today. Jobs in it were always highly prized because of the pay and conditions and perks. For example, did you know that TfL is the only public sector organisation that still offers its staff a final salary pension?

As you say, it is broke. We can argue about why that is - and I do have some sympathy that the reduction in tube usage because of the pandemic is a cause of it to an extent - but Khan has done little to curb the excesses of the organisation and reduce its costs. Hence he needs to raise money anyway he can and the simplist way for him to do it is hit the motorist. So we have the extension of the congestion charge and propasals to increase penalty charge notices to £160. Say that again - ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY POUNDS (reduced by 50% if paid in 30 days). You get a lesser penalty for hitting someone!

And now this. Yes I'm sure Khan does want to improve air quality but have no doubt this is really about raising money for its empty coffers. If it wasn't, polluting vehicles should just be banned from the area. 

Forced on London by the Government as a condition of the bailout of TfL which was needed because of the collapse in fare revenue caused by the lockdown, which was also imposed by the Government.  I'm not saying either of those decisions by the Government were wrong, indeed I was fully in favour of the lockdown, I'm just pointing out that things are a tad more nuanced.

AddicksAddict

Wheresmeticket? said:

Cut and paste from gumtree ad for a battered 11 year old Renault van offered at £2,200

"Reason for the relatively high price given the dent is that the van market is high at the moment."

Gotta love the cheek.

I think the poster was high.  Or Matt Southall.

AddicksAddict

killerandflash said:

AddicksAddict said:

killerandflash said:

AddicksAddict said:

thickandthin63 said:

I got a lot of stick on here some time ago when I moaned about Khan putting up the congestion charge,well surprise surprise,he is now using his power to fleece even more from the motorist.How did this dictatorial pipsqueak get re-elected,presumably no one else wanted the job.

He's using his power to try to save lives, and with the backing of the Government.  Indeed, the Government wants (mainly Labour) city officials doing their dirty air work for them so people like you get annoyed at them.  Good on Khan.  I'd be happy if everything but electric or hydrogen was banned from London (except my Bonneville, of course, special exemption for British motorbikes).

It's only big cities which NEED clean air zones, and that's a local issue. It would be daft making rural areas follow the same rules as inner London or Birmingham, when air quality isn't a problem there

@killerandflash, agreed, but then why not make countrywide rules? Air quality falls below level 'x', 'y' ULEZ charge applies?  Because then people will moan at the Government, not the local authorities. Instead, the Government have passed the back to the local area.  I'm not saying Governments of other parties wouldn't do the same but it's pretty clear that's what's happened.

If you read the article I posted (from roads.org) that's exactly how it works. If air quality falls below a certain level, the local authority in England has to introduce an ULEZ or find other ways of improving air quality

And there you've made my argument for me.  The Government has imposed a duty on the local authority to sort it out, so when the local authority does something about it, people, if they are going to moan, moan at the them instead of the Government.

killerandflash

AddicksAddict said:

killerandflash said:

AddicksAddict said:

killerandflash said:

AddicksAddict said:

thickandthin63 said:

I got a lot of stick on here some time ago when I moaned about Khan putting up the congestion charge,well surprise surprise,he is now using his power to fleece even more from the motorist.How did this dictatorial pipsqueak get re-elected,presumably no one else wanted the job.

He's using his power to try to save lives, and with the backing of the Government.  Indeed, the Government wants (mainly Labour) city officials doing their dirty air work for them so people like you get annoyed at them.  Good on Khan.  I'd be happy if everything but electric or hydrogen was banned from London (except my Bonneville, of course, special exemption for British motorbikes).

It's only big cities which NEED clean air zones, and that's a local issue. It would be daft making rural areas follow the same rules as inner London or Birmingham, when air quality isn't a problem there

@killerandflash, agreed, but then why not make countrywide rules? Air quality falls below level 'x', 'y' ULEZ charge applies?  Because then people will moan at the Government, not the local authorities. Instead, the Government have passed the back to the local area.  I'm not saying Governments of other parties wouldn't do the same but it's pretty clear that's what's happened.

If you read the article I posted (from roads.org) that's exactly how it works. If air quality falls below a certain level, the local authority in England has to introduce an ULEZ or find other ways of improving air quality

And there you've made my argument for me.  The Government has imposed a duty on the local authority to sort it out, so when the local authority does something about it, people, if they are going to moan, moan at the them instead of the Government.

On the other hand lots of people will be very happy with bringing in an ULEZ, and will praise the local authority for doing something to clean their air up

LenGlover

Wheresmeticket? said:

LenGlover 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.

It's all about money. Years ago we were advised that diesel cars were better for the environment. Now they've changed their minds as Khan can see 'a quick buck.'

Yeh. It was Khan's idea that diesels are bad for the environment. Not the science.

It was 'the science' that originally said diesels were better for the environment. Now, surprise surprise, a large number of people have diesels 'the science' has miraculously changed enabling the likes of Khan to cash in.

It is no surprise to me that many people are sceptical of 'man made' climate change as opposed to climate change in general. Diesels are just one example of why.

killerandflash

LenGlover said:

Wheresmeticket? said:

LenGlover 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.

It's all about money. Years ago we were advised that diesel cars were better for the environment. Now they've changed their minds as Khan can see 'a quick buck.'

Yeh. It was Khan's idea that diesels are bad for the environment. Not the science.

It was 'the science' that originally said diesels were better for the environment. Now, surprise surprise, a large number of people have diesels 'the science' has miraculously changed enabling the likes of Khan to cash in.

It is no surprise to me that many people are sceptical of 'man made' climate change as opposed to climate change in general. Diesels are just one example of why.

Diesels are more efficient than petrol engines, so better in terms of CO2 (i.e. climate change)

Unfortunately they are far worse when it comes to air pollution (particulates, NOx) and are a major contributor to poor air quality in many cities.

The London ULEZ scheme has been planned for years, it started when Boris was mayor

cantersaddick

cafcfan said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

paulbaconsarnie said:

Are any other major uk cities having similar schemes?
there must surely be air quality issues in and around Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow etc.
Why couldn’t an equation using a vehicles mot emmisions test and mileage travelled be used nationwide to put annual charges on the most polluting vehicles?

But it’s not about the money really. The idea is to get these vehicles off the road. A daily toll on a polluting vehicle will both discourage its use and encourage the owner to replace it. I really do realise it’s tough but a start has to be made somewhere. The poorest are always going to suffer disproportionately to the well off. All the time our society is based on rich and poor that’s the way it’s going to be. 

But it is about the money.

Otherwise we would find ourselves with a scheme similar to the one in Berlin. Just before COVID hit, I drove to Berlin. In order to get into their LEZ you need to have a green sticker in your windscreen with your number plate written in it. You apply to the City web site to get one. It costs 6 Euros, which might just about cover their costs and postage I suppose. It pitched up amazingly quickly and lasts for as long as you have the car. It is also good for any other German City that has a similar scheme.

So, what happens if you drive (or park) in Berlin in a car without a green sticker?  You get fined 80 Euros. 

In short, you are just not allowed in the City centre with a non-compliant vehicle.  Berlin is getting towards having cleaner air. Rather than the dumb system London has introduced where the polluter pays but is allowed to carry on polluting. Bonkers.  

Except the London system works while being much more equitable and a more economically efficient outcome.

The ULEZ in its previous boundaries reduced levels of dangerous NOx gasses in the area by 44%. The extension of the boundaries is expected to do the same by at least 30%. The ULEZ works thats not in doubt.

Where its better than the straight ban on polluting vehicles such as suggested in this berlin system is that it gives the user a choice. If you live outside the ULEZ and only travel into that zone occasionally is it worth you upgrading a non-compliant car. No its not and the impact you would have on localised air quality across a year would be negligible. So you pay the cost a few times a year when you travel in the zone and dont need to upgrade. All the while those who travel in the zone regularly are incentivised to upgrade to a compliant car. The element of choice makes it fairer to those who can't afford to upgrade a car and results in a much more efficient outcome whilst still having a significant impact on air quality and health.

Your system would ban anyone who couldnt afford to upgrade their car from ever driving in London. Ridiculous idea.

hoof_it_up_to_benty

killerandflash said:

AddicksAddict said:

killerandflash said:

AddicksAddict said:

killerandflash said:

AddicksAddict said:

thickandthin63 said:

I got a lot of stick on here some time ago when I moaned about Khan putting up the congestion charge,well surprise surprise,he is now using his power to fleece even more from the motorist.How did this dictatorial pipsqueak get re-elected,presumably no one else wanted the job.

He's using his power to try to save lives, and with the backing of the Government.  Indeed, the Government wants (mainly Labour) city officials doing their dirty air work for them so people like you get annoyed at them.  Good on Khan.  I'd be happy if everything but electric or hydrogen was banned from London (except my Bonneville, of course, special exemption for British motorbikes).

It's only big cities which NEED clean air zones, and that's a local issue. It would be daft making rural areas follow the same rules as inner London or Birmingham, when air quality isn't a problem there

@killerandflash, agreed, but then why not make countrywide rules? Air quality falls below level 'x', 'y' ULEZ charge applies?  Because then people will moan at the Government, not the local authorities. Instead, the Government have passed the back to the local area.  I'm not saying Governments of other parties wouldn't do the same but it's pretty clear that's what's happened.

If you read the article I posted (from roads.org) that's exactly how it works. If air quality falls below a certain level, the local authority in England has to introduce an ULEZ or find other ways of improving air quality

And there you've made my argument for me.  The Government has imposed a duty on the local authority to sort it out, so when the local authority does something about it, people, if they are going to moan, moan at the them instead of the Government.

On the other hand lots of people will be very happy with bringing in an ULEZ, and will praise the local authority for doing something to clean their air up

Khan is backing the Silvertown Tunnel scheme as part of his pollution masterplan - not sure how this cleans the air up. So many flaws in the planning...

Stu_of_Kunming

LenGlover said:

Wheresmeticket? said:

LenGlover 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.

It's all about money. Years ago we were advised that diesel cars were better for the environment. Now they've changed their minds as Khan can see 'a quick buck.'

Yeh. It was Khan's idea that diesels are bad for the environment. Not the science.

It was 'the science' that originally said diesels were better for the environment. Now, surprise surprise, a large number of people have diesels 'the science' has miraculously changed enabling the likes of Khan to cash in.

It is no surprise to me that many people are sceptical of 'man made' climate change as opposed to climate change in general. Diesels are just one example of why.

Khan isn’t cashing in, he’s not going to be getting a penny of this money.

Many people are total idiots, so I’m also not surprised many are sceptical.

hoof_it_up_to_benty

Stu_of_Kunming said:

LenGlover said:

Wheresmeticket? said:

LenGlover 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.

It's all about money. Years ago we were advised that diesel cars were better for the environment. Now they've changed their minds as Khan can see 'a quick buck.'

Yeh. It was Khan's idea that diesels are bad for the environment. Not the science.

It was 'the science' that originally said diesels were better for the environment. Now, surprise surprise, a large number of people have diesels 'the science' has miraculously changed enabling the likes of Khan to cash in.

It is no surprise to me that many people are sceptical of 'man made' climate change as opposed to climate change in general. Diesels are just one example of why.

Khan isn’t cashing in, he’s not going to be getting a penny of this money.

Many people are total idiots, so I’m also not surprised many are sceptical.

Just curious why the scheme has been so poorly planned and why if Khan is so concerned about pollution he is backing the Silvertown Tunnel scheme which will lead to more traffic around Greenwich and presumably a toll on the Blackwall Tunnel

Those driven off the road will invariably be the poorest.

hoof_it_up_to_benty

https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/19673238.silvertown-tunnel-will-undo-benefits-ulez---campaigners/

Stu_of_Kunming

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

LenGlover said:

Wheresmeticket? said:

LenGlover 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.

It's all about money. Years ago we were advised that diesel cars were better for the environment. Now they've changed their minds as Khan can see 'a quick buck.'

Yeh. It was Khan's idea that diesels are bad for the environment. Not the science.

It was 'the science' that originally said diesels were better for the environment. Now, surprise surprise, a large number of people have diesels 'the science' has miraculously changed enabling the likes of Khan to cash in.

It is no surprise to me that many people are sceptical of 'man made' climate change as opposed to climate change in general. Diesels are just one example of why.

Khan isn’t cashing in, he’s not going to be getting a penny of this money.

Many people are total idiots, so I’m also not surprised many are sceptical.

Just curious why the scheme has been so poorly planned and why if Khan is so concerned about pollution he is backing the Silvertown Tunnel scheme which will lead to more traffic around Greenwich and presumably a toll on the Blackwall Tunnel

Those driven off the road will invariably be the poorest.

In what sense has it been poorly planned? Unless someone has been living in a hole, they must have known this was happening years ago.

The silvertown tunnel will be less than ideal right now but congestion needs reducing, that means more roads and crossings, as emissions from cars improve (which they must) then the impact will lessen. 

cantersaddick

Stu_of_Kunming said:

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

LenGlover said:

Wheresmeticket? said:

LenGlover 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.

It's all about money. Years ago we were advised that diesel cars were better for the environment. Now they've changed their minds as Khan can see 'a quick buck.'

Yeh. It was Khan's idea that diesels are bad for the environment. Not the science.

It was 'the science' that originally said diesels were better for the environment. Now, surprise surprise, a large number of people have diesels 'the science' has miraculously changed enabling the likes of Khan to cash in.

It is no surprise to me that many people are sceptical of 'man made' climate change as opposed to climate change in general. Diesels are just one example of why.

Khan isn’t cashing in, he’s not going to be getting a penny of this money.

Many people are total idiots, so I’m also not surprised many are sceptical.

Just curious why the scheme has been so poorly planned and why if Khan is so concerned about pollution he is backing the Silvertown Tunnel scheme which will lead to more traffic around Greenwich and presumably a toll on the Blackwall Tunnel

Those driven off the road will invariably be the poorest.

In what sense has it been poorly planned? Unless someone has been living in a hole, they must have known this was happening years ago.

The silvertown tunnel will be less than ideal right now but congestion needs reducing, that means more roads and crossings, as emissions from cars improve (which they must) then the impact will lessen. 

TBH as long as the silvertown tunnel happens after the Lower Thames Crossing I think it'll be a good thing as it wont bring any additional traffic but will split the traffic from the blackwall tunnel which is badly needed. This is from someone who currently lives on the peninsula and would be affected by it but I see the queues for the blackwall tunnel every day at all hours its a nightmare and having all those vehicles stopped waiting to get to the tunnel is worse for pollution than 2 tunnels flowing smoothly. 

Bromley Graham

Does the Rotherhithe Tunnel get as rammed as the Blackwall Tunnel?. As London has got bigger the East End and Inner London boroughs have really suffered from the lack of Crossings resulting in massive traffic  holdups and increased pollution

cafcfan

cantersaddick said:

cafcfan said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

paulbaconsarnie said:

Are any other major uk cities having similar schemes?
there must surely be air quality issues in and around Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow etc.
Why couldn’t an equation using a vehicles mot emmisions test and mileage travelled be used nationwide to put annual charges on the most polluting vehicles?

But it’s not about the money really. The idea is to get these vehicles off the road. A daily toll on a polluting vehicle will both discourage its use and encourage the owner to replace it. I really do realise it’s tough but a start has to be made somewhere. The poorest are always going to suffer disproportionately to the well off. All the time our society is based on rich and poor that’s the way it’s going to be. 

But it is about the money.

Otherwise we would find ourselves with a scheme similar to the one in Berlin. Just before COVID hit, I drove to Berlin. In order to get into their LEZ you need to have a green sticker in your windscreen with your number plate written in it. You apply to the City web site to get one. It costs 6 Euros, which might just about cover their costs and postage I suppose. It pitched up amazingly quickly and lasts for as long as you have the car. It is also good for any other German City that has a similar scheme.

So, what happens if you drive (or park) in Berlin in a car without a green sticker?  You get fined 80 Euros. 

In short, you are just not allowed in the City centre with a non-compliant vehicle.  Berlin is getting towards having cleaner air. Rather than the dumb system London has introduced where the polluter pays but is allowed to carry on polluting. Bonkers.  

Except the London system works while being much more equitable and a more economically efficient outcome.

The ULEZ in its previous boundaries reduced levels of dangerous NOx gasses in the area by 44%. The extension of the boundaries is expected to do the same by at least 30%. The ULEZ works thats not in doubt.

Where its better than the straight ban on polluting vehicles such as suggested in this berlin system is that it gives the user a choice. If you live outside the ULEZ and only travel into that zone occasionally is it worth you upgrading a non-compliant car. No its not and the impact you would have on localised air quality across a year would be negligible. So you pay the cost a few times a year when you travel in the zone and dont need to upgrade. All the while those who travel in the zone regularly are incentivised to upgrade to a compliant car. The element of choice makes it fairer to those who can't afford to upgrade a car and results in a much more efficient outcome whilst still having a significant impact on air quality and health.

Your system would ban anyone who couldnt afford to upgrade their car from ever driving in London. Ridiculous idea.

Well, no it doesn't.

As I said the aim of the German scheme was to remove polluting vehicles from the cities, not to profit from having them drive around. I think the subsidy has now ended but when the German scheme was introduced, there was a (Federal, I think) programme to pay for older diesel vehicles to be retrofitted with an ULEZ particulate filter. So those old vehicles qualified for a green sticker. (As do the decrepit Trabants you still see pootling around Berlin which have all been retrofitted with cats.) 

The London scheme could have adopted a similar policy but the regs have made it very difficult if not impossible to retrofit the appropriate equipment. So, it really is just about the money.

Crusty54

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

killerandflash said:

AddicksAddict said:

killerandflash said:

AddicksAddict said:

killerandflash said:

AddicksAddict said:

thickandthin63 said:

I got a lot of stick on here some time ago when I moaned about Khan putting up the congestion charge,well surprise surprise,he is now using his power to fleece even more from the motorist.How did this dictatorial pipsqueak get re-elected,presumably no one else wanted the job.

He's using his power to try to save lives, and with the backing of the Government.  Indeed, the Government wants (mainly Labour) city officials doing their dirty air work for them so people like you get annoyed at them.  Good on Khan.  I'd be happy if everything but electric or hydrogen was banned from London (except my Bonneville, of course, special exemption for British motorbikes).

It's only big cities which NEED clean air zones, and that's a local issue. It would be daft making rural areas follow the same rules as inner London or Birmingham, when air quality isn't a problem there

@killerandflash, agreed, but then why not make countrywide rules? Air quality falls below level 'x', 'y' ULEZ charge applies?  Because then people will moan at the Government, not the local authorities. Instead, the Government have passed the back to the local area.  I'm not saying Governments of other parties wouldn't do the same but it's pretty clear that's what's happened.

If you read the article I posted (from roads.org) that's exactly how it works. If air quality falls below a certain level, the local authority in England has to introduce an ULEZ or find other ways of improving air quality

And there you've made my argument for me.  The Government has imposed a duty on the local authority to sort it out, so when the local authority does something about it, people, if they are going to moan, moan at the them instead of the Government.

On the other hand lots of people will be very happy with bringing in an ULEZ, and will praise the local authority for doing something to clean their air up

Khan is backing the Silvertown Tunnel scheme as part of his pollution masterplan - not sure how this cleans the air up. So many flaws in the planning...

The long queues for the Blackwall Tunnel don't improve air quality. Tolls on the old and new tunnels to come.

Crusty54

Bromley Graham said:

Does the Rotherhithe Tunnel get as rammed as the Blackwall Tunnel?. As London has got bigger the East End and Inner London boroughs have really suffered from the lack of Crossings resulting in massive traffic  holdups and increased pollution

The Rotherhithe tunnel has a width limit so only usable by cars and small vans and it does get queues.

killerandflash

Crusty54 said:

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

killerandflash said:

AddicksAddict said:

killerandflash said:

AddicksAddict said:

killerandflash said:

AddicksAddict said:

thickandthin63 said:

I got a lot of stick on here some time ago when I moaned about Khan putting up the congestion charge,well surprise surprise,he is now using his power to fleece even more from the motorist.How did this dictatorial pipsqueak get re-elected,presumably no one else wanted the job.

He's using his power to try to save lives, and with the backing of the Government.  Indeed, the Government wants (mainly Labour) city officials doing their dirty air work for them so people like you get annoyed at them.  Good on Khan.  I'd be happy if everything but electric or hydrogen was banned from London (except my Bonneville, of course, special exemption for British motorbikes).

It's only big cities which NEED clean air zones, and that's a local issue. It would be daft making rural areas follow the same rules as inner London or Birmingham, when air quality isn't a problem there

@killerandflash, agreed, but then why not make countrywide rules? Air quality falls below level 'x', 'y' ULEZ charge applies?  Because then people will moan at the Government, not the local authorities. Instead, the Government have passed the back to the local area.  I'm not saying Governments of other parties wouldn't do the same but it's pretty clear that's what's happened.

If you read the article I posted (from roads.org) that's exactly how it works. If air quality falls below a certain level, the local authority in England has to introduce an ULEZ or find other ways of improving air quality

And there you've made my argument for me.  The Government has imposed a duty on the local authority to sort it out, so when the local authority does something about it, people, if they are going to moan, moan at the them instead of the Government.

On the other hand lots of people will be very happy with bringing in an ULEZ, and will praise the local authority for doing something to clean their air up

Khan is backing the Silvertown Tunnel scheme as part of his pollution masterplan - not sure how this cleans the air up. So many flaws in the planning...

The long queues for the Blackwall Tunnel don't improve air quality. Tolls on the old and new tunnels to come.

And the Silvertown tunnel will enable much improved cross river bus links

Elthamaddick

can't see how that Silvertown tunnel is gonna help at all, especially if looking at that map it basically uses the same approach roads (A2 /A102m) - they will just be even busier unless they are planning on widening them. 

Better crossing facilities are needed further out of London, the Thamesmead/Barking one proposed ages ago would be much better - or enhancing the Dartford one

killerandflash

Elthamaddick said:

can't see how that Silvertown tunnel is gonna help at all, especially if looking at that map it basically uses the same approach roads (A2 /A102m) - they will just be even busier unless they are planning on widening them. 

Better crossing facilities are needed further out of London, the Thamesmead/Barking one proposed ages ago would be much better - or enhancing the Dartford one

The A102 south of the river is fine though, the congestion is caused by the 2 lane Victorian tunnel it leads to

EastTerrace

Loads of people in various WhatsApp groups haven’t a clue if their car is compliant or not.

To say people are living in a hole and they must know it’s happening I think is a bit condescending. People have busy lives, working, raising children, worrying about Covid - maybe even trying to relax. Not listening out for what the latest tax is. I’m not sure if it’s been advertised blatantly over the past few years also?

Plus, whilst I checked mine a while ago, does anyone know when the checker website went live (I have no idea… 6 months? 4 years?). 

I have no issue with the concept but they should have been shoving the details down peoples throat years ago…. to me, who generally tries to keep abreast of things…..  the compliance details (not the zone itself) passed me by.

NM18

Anyone know where the cameras are inside the zone or just at the boundaries?

killerandflash

NM18 said:

Anyone know where the cameras are inside the zone or just at the boundaries?

All over the place, as the cameras have to record the cars travelling around inside the zone

Wheresmeticket

LenGlover said:

Wheresmeticket? said:

LenGlover 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.

It's all about money. Years ago we were advised that diesel cars were better for the environment. Now they've changed their minds as Khan can see 'a quick buck.'

Yeh. It was Khan's idea that diesels are bad for the environment. Not the science.

It was 'the science' that originally said diesels were better for the environment. Now, surprise surprise, a large number of people have diesels 'the science' has miraculously changed enabling the likes of Khan to cash in.

It is no surprise to me that many people are sceptical of 'man made' climate change as opposed to climate change in general. Diesels are just one example of why.

The science hasn't miraculously changed. It has developed better metrics.

Covered End

ULEZ was headline news & publicised at great length about 3 years ago.
The website checker was available.
I checked and realised straight away that I'd need to change my car.
I left it a year and then changed the diesel for a petrol 2 years ago.

carly burn

swords_alive said:

Scrappage scheme details here, for anyone interested;

https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/car-and-motorcycle-scrappage-scheme

Pmfff.

£2k. And no doubt most will be looking to go electric. Have you seen the cost of an electric vehicle?!

EastTerrace

Covered End said:

ULEZ was headline news & publicised at great length about 3 years ago.
The website checker was available.
I checked and realised straight away that I'd need to change my car.
I left it a year and then changed the diesel for a petrol 2 years ago.

And I didn’t pay an attention at all…. We may have different amounts of free time? 😉

carly burn

I noticed Khan, about two three months ago,stated that he was looking to bring the main congestion charge back to its pre-covid hours of implementation.

Khant quite bring himself to do it yet still though?
I wonder why?

TelMc32

Some interesting detail here https://www.wri.org/insights/london-road-fees-address-pollution-and-inequality on the ULEZ scheme, including 

*the original zone has meant that 3.2 million residents have benefited from cleaner air
*higher-quality vehicle fleets (as buses and taxis are electrified)
*the number of schools facing unsafe pollution levels has dropped from 455 in 2016 to 14 in 2019
*49% fewer polluting vehicles driven in every day - 44,100 vehicles
*CO2 emissions down 6% NO2 down 44%
 *huge reductions in hospital admissions and therefore savings to NHS
*revenue has been put into new and retrofitted buses to make them compliant -London has Europe’s largest electric bus fleet.

The poorest have always been the most affected by these toxic fumes and it is their lives which will be improved by these measures, especially the young, old and vulnerable, 

With regard to diesel vehicles, they have been have been well reported on for over 6 years now. The cost of diesel, previously cheaper than petrol, is now more expensive. The benefits have been known for some time and whilst electric cars are still prohibitively expensive for some, there are plenty of options available for relatively low prices (I have a 19 year old Focus which is compliant and still runs brilliantly with little fuss in terms of servicing each year). Who knows, you may even be able to make a claim against the diesel car manufacturer if you have one as well as use the scrappage scheme to replace the car.

As others have mentioned, any change is always met with resistance just because.  But the benefits to doing this really should be a no brainer to nearly all of us.