You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
If my diesel were just a few months older it would have been ULEZ compliant, it must be one of the last models to come without SCR. However, apparently someone's made an aftermarket upgrade in Germany, which has been approved, and Mercedes are allegedly offering a grant to cover the cost - but only in Germany.
Could be a pain if I want to drive to Heathrow...
the kids of working class families growing up with the pollution in outer London.
What about the kids of working class families growing up in Hemel Hempstead? My previous car is now being driven around their manor. Don't their health matter?
Also not sure how many poverty trap victims are swanning around in 14 plate BMWs.
Are you suggesting that no one driving around in a second hand BMW is struggling financially?? If so Croydon must be one of the most affluent areas of London!
My car wasn't registered in 2014 btw, I have no idea why you mention "14 plate BMWs"
Edit: Ah, having re-read my post I see that you mistook the milage for the year that the car was registered.
I sold my car to him for £1.5k, it was easily worth £3k before ulez.
Now we get to the real reason...
Now we get to the real reason…
What do you mean "real reason"? I have always pointed out that ulez has significantly reduced the value of peoples cars, which often represents a big investment.
Did you assume that I was only speaking on behalf of other people and not myself?
Perhaps it will come as a shock to you to discover that I am also actually working class?
What about the kids of working class families growing up in Hemel Hempstead? My previous car is now being driven around their manor. Don’t their health matter?
A good argument for extending ULEZ to the whole of the Greater London Urban Area. It would have been much better for that car to have been moved on far away from the urban sprawl of London... and you'd probably have got a better price for it as well.
we shouldn’t be doing ULEZ… as it has nothing to do with climate change
Climate change is not the only problem we have to solve.
encouraging people to scrap perfectly good cars
They're not perfectly good. They're among the dirtiest cars on the road.
Someone like WBAC or Motorway should setup a specific programme where they take your non compliant car and an optional payment and give you a compliant one. The non compliant ones get shifted elsewhere in the country, and the payment or the difference in car value covers any losses. People and dealers in the rest of the country get stock of decent cars, people in London may end up down a grand or two but someone does the legwork of finding a suitable car.
What about the kids of working class families growing up in Hemel Hempstead? My previous car is now being driven around their manor. Don’t their health matter?
A good argument for extending ULEZ to the whole of the Greater London Urban Area.
Ulez has been extended to the whole of the Greater London area. That has nothing to do with Hemel Hempstead which is actually north of Watford, so therefore in the North of England as far as I am concerned.
It might be a good argument for extending it to the whole country though. No one has come up with a convincing argument why it shouldn't be imo.
Obviously it would mean that there would be no possibility of collecting revenue if it was extended to the whole country, so I can see why it might not be attractive to some politicians.
That's just a "trade in", isn't it? Any dealer would do that for you.
That has nothing to do with Hemel Hempstead which is actually north of Watford, so therefore in the North of England as far as I am concerned.
It's in the Greater London Urban Area, but outside the administration of the London Mayor.
It might be a good argument for extending it to the whole country though.
No, air quality in the Yorkshire Dales (for example) is not the same problem as it is in Hemel Hempstead, or the GLA.
And you'd also have had nowhere to sell your old car to, as it happens.
What do you mean “real reason”? I have always pointed out that ulez has significantly reduced the value of peoples cars, which often represents a big investment.
Did you assume that I was only speaking on behalf of other people and not myself?
Perhaps it will come as a shock to you to discover that I am also actually working class?
Give over. You got less for your BMW than you wanted, and have spent hours dissembling.
It might be a good argument for extending it to the whole country though. No one has come up with a convincing argument why it shouldn’t be imo.
- London has the best transport infrastructure in the UK. 90% of everywhere else is rather rubbish.
- London has the highest population density of anywhere in the UK
- London has (by far) the worst air quality in the UK on an annual basis despite the wind from the channel flow and the Thames.
- London has some of the worst congestion of anywhere in the UK despite the available infrastructure.
- London has the highest per capita income of anywhere in the UK
The effect of ULEZ in other cities will cause more problems to more people with fewer results on air pollution. As more cars become electric, air pollution in other places will improve naturally - there's less need to speed it along.
Give over. You got less for your BMW than you wanted, and have spent hours dissembling.
You also saved a ton of money on tax and fuel despite knowing that Diesel was a dirty choice. You made an economic decision at the expense of others, as did many other people. Christ, Maggie Thatcher knew in the early 90s that focusing on just CO2 was the wrong thing to do and said so. I knew, others knew.
People bought Diesels to save money - end of.
I sold my car to him for £1.5k, it was easily worth £3k before ulez.
I’m not a car dealer but even if you’d put it on eBay you’d have got 4-5 times that, which would have let you do a straight swap for a petrol version. Whoever you sold that car to ripped you off.
Then you went ahead and bought another diesel, even though a diesel in the ULEZ carries a premium. You even admit to paying over the odds because the guy needed the cash.
Not only that, but if you were driving it every day as you suggest and it only has 14k miles on it, you are exactly the person the scheme is targeting - you do short journeys with a cold engine that could easily be walked or cycled.
And then you have the temerity to complain about ULEZ.
London has (by far) the worst air quality in the UK on an annual basis despite the wind from the channel flow and the Thames.
Not according to the WHO figures, not even in the top 10
Plenty of other UK cities need something akin to ULEZ (the clean air zones are a start)... that doesn't mean the whole of the UK needs the same measures, at the same time. Or that they have the same alternatives to car travel available. Greater Manchester dragging its heels is a bad sign... next to nothing being done in Cardiff & Swansea an even worse one. London is leading the way, as it so often does.
London has (by far) the worst air quality in the UK on an annual basis despite the wind from the channel flow and the Thames.
Not according to the WHO figures, not even in the top 10
Where are the WHO figures ranking towns in the UK? everywhere else I could see seems to have London in the top 10 UK cities for air pollution
The WHO database is all over the place - if you filter by year and normalise by population, London is ALWAYS in the top 10 for every possible type of emission and it's gotten worse, year on year since records were kept, despite the VAST investment in infrastructure.
IQAIR gives a much more precise example of what's happening and shows in real time what's going on and allows for weather vs. quality measures.
Maybe you would of got £2k of the GLA!
People bought Diesels to save money – end of.
Actually no, I bought my first diesel in 2004 to reduce my CO2 emissions from my driving. I didn't know about NOx emissions at the time, and no-one was talking about how bad they were. It didn't save me money as the diesel ended up costing twice the petrol I nearly bought.
Could be a pain if I want to drive to Heathrow…
How much would the drive to Heathrow cost? Wouldn't you just pay the extra £12.50? It's basically the cost of a sandwich and coffee in the airport Pret.
I've got a friend who's been helping a relative find a new car. Acting like he's got no choice but to spend £15k on a new car because his non-compliant one leaves the drive once a week. He could just keep it and use the saved money to pay for 20 years worth of ULEZ charges.
How much would the drive to Heathrow cost? Wouldn’t you just pay the extra £12.50?
Yeah. I'm either on expenses or spending so much on a family trip that £25 won't make a dent!
Greater Manchester dragging its heels is a bad sign… next to nothing being done in Cardiff & Swansea an even worse one
As I say I'm all in favour of ULEZ as long as it comes with good alternatives, but in Cardiff some big changes need doing before we can push people out of cars. Possible though, because Cardiff's really not very big.
Anyway, I wondered how bad the air actually is here. I found a WG page that says NOx in city centre is 34 microgrammes per litre outside the castle and only 7 on Newport Road which is a big wide shitty busy slow moving road out to the East. Also 34 in Manchester and similar numbers in London too.
Not according to the WHO figures, not even in the top 10
Ok great let's do them as well (once we've invested appropriately into some joined up public transport etc.).
Then you went ahead and bought another diesel, even though a diesel in the ULEZ carries a premium. You even admit to paying over the odds because the guy needed the cash.
I have no idea what you are talking about. The diesel I bought is compliant, what "premium" are you talking about?
I didn't admit to paying "over the odds" at all, wtf are you talking about? I thought £6.1 was actually a very fair price, I certainly didn't pay more than it was worth because some complete stranger that I have never met before needed the cash!
And then you have the temerity to complain about ULEZ.
And you have the temerity to comment on posts which you haven't bothered reading properly! Still, I guess when people are worked up about something they quickly skim read and only see what they want to see.
You also saved a ton of money on tax and fuel despite knowing that Diesel was a dirty choice.
I have no idea what this means either. What ton of money? I think there is about 60 quid difference in tax between the current and previous vehicle. I'm currently getting about 38 mpg in town from the compliant Peugeot and I was getting 34 mpg from the BMW (presumably that reflects the difference between a 2L engine and a 1.6L engine).
And why should I have thought that diesel was a "dirty choice"? I had no reason to assume that. The BMW had a low emissions euro 5 engine.
You made an economic decision at the expense of others, as did many other people. Christ, Maggie Thatcher knew .....
Jeezus...... I'm worse than Maggie Thatcher!!!
I bought the BMW estate off my guvnor because firstly, my Honda Accord estate was on its last legs and wasn't going to pass the MOT and I was desperate for a replacement, secondly the BMW estate was a similar size to the Honda estate so I knew that I could just about get 3 metre lengths of timber in it and doors/worktops on the roof rack, and thirdly he was selling it a very good price and I knew it was sound because I paid a mechanic to go through it with a fine tooth combe.
I didn't buy it because it was a diesel car, it just happened to be a diesel car, estate cars generally are. And yes of course I consider costs, why on earth do you think that I should have a limitless supply of money available to cover motoring costs?
What I hadn't factored in was the possibility that I would be accused of being worse than Thatcher 4 years later and be expected to justify myself before a self-righteous stw jury for whom motoring costs is no issue.
And you have the temerity
Oh stop. If it's got to point where people say 'you have the temerity to..' and they aren't joking, then the thread's completely ****ed up. Walk away, for all our sakes.
You are entitled to your opinion molgrips but I will continue to challenge nonsense like this:
Then you went ahead and bought another diesel, even though a diesel in the ULEZ carries a premium.
There is no ulez charge on compliant vehicles. I very obviously didn't buy another non compliant diesel vehicle. ffs
Edit: I have just realised how long my previous post was, why were you even reading it mol..... just so that you can complain how you don't like reading what I post?
what “premium” are you talking about?
That in general a diesel variant is more expensive than the equivalent petrol model (due to added cost of turbocharger, DPF, SCR etc). It’s also a poor choice for short trips as it’ll be at its most polluting, has a DPF which will never be able to regenerate, and will never get warm.
I think I would have more sympathy if you hadn’t admitted that you use the car to go a tiny distance (on the basis that the BMW was at least 12 years old, was “driven every day”, and was sold with 14,000 miles on the clock.)
That’s an average journey length of 1.5 miles.
I’ve got a friend who’s been helping a relative find a new car. Acting like he’s got no choice but to spend £15k on a new car because his non-compliant one leaves the drive once a week. He could just keep it and use the saved money to pay for 20 years worth of ULEZ charges.
Yep, neighbours have a euro5 motorhome. For the half a dozen trips a year they do it makes far more sense to pay £150pa to cover it than a 5-figure sum to get something similar that's euro6.
I didn’t buy it because it was a diesel car, it just happened to be a diesel car, estate cars generally are. And yes of course I consider costs, why on earth do you think that I should have a limitless supply of money available to cover motoring costs?
My point was that all you considered was what it cost and what it carried, you didn't consider other costs or effects and the reason for that was because those effects cost YOU nothing. Now, with the ULEZ, people will have to consider those effects because they will cost YOU money.
All the information on diesels and their emissions was available for anyone that wanted to look and has been for decades. Some people continued to make informed decisions, despite the additional cost to them in Tax and Fuel.
My estate car is petrol. I've never bought a diesel for this very reason and when I wanted to save money on fuel, I drove less. The reason for the ubiquity of diesel estate cars is not that estates are better as diesels, it's that many people made the same economic/CCtax/size decision as you and there are more of them available for that reason.
There is no ulez charge on compliant vehicles. I very obviously didn’t buy another non compliant diesel vehicle. ffs
No, but the price of a complaint euro 6 diesel will be higher as a result of the ULEZ, so one way or another - you're still paying a price.
it’s gotten worse, year on year since records were kept, despite the VAST investment in infrastructure.
Every graph I have seen, excluding the lockdown periods, shows a consistent trend of improving air quality in London, one which was marginally accelerated when the first extension took place, as EL has pointed out a number of times we are getting there naturally through the effluxion of time and the ULEZ hardly moves the dial.
The unfairness of penalizing vehicles that the government incentivized people to buy just adds insult to injury.
I think I would have more sympathy if you hadn’t admitted that you use the car to go a tiny distance (on the basis that the BMW was at least 12 years old, was “driven every day”, and was sold with 14,000 miles on the clock.)
That’s an average journey length of 1.5 miles.
LOL! Sorry for the confusion....my average car journey are of course more than 1.5 miles! (Last year I drove as far as Birmingham to do a days work on a couple of occasions) Yes the BMW was indeed registered in 2011, it had 114k on the clock, apologies if there was a typo.
No, but the price of a complaint euro 6 diesel will be higher as a result of the ULEZ, so one way or another – you’re still paying a price.
Well yes, I made the point concerning ulez pushing up prices. But I am not sure that isn't also the case for compliant petrol Peugeot 308 estates, and you try finding a petrol Peugeot estate in auto trader. It was either a Peugeot, Astra, or Focus estate. I got the impression that the Peugeot would be the most suitable for the role of both a van and a car, the days when I could both are long gone.
I have no reason to believe that a euro 6 diesel engine is any worse for the environment than a petrol engine. I assume that they would be banned if they were. Are you telling me that they are?
it had 114k on the clock, apologies if there was a typo.
D'oh! So much for that line of argument... 🤣
penalizing vehicles that the government incentivized people to buy just adds insult to injury.
gOrDoN bRoWn ToLd Me tO bUy a DiEseL
You are entitled to your opinion molgrips but I will continue to challenge nonsense like this:
Try to challenge it nicely without dragging the thread through the mud. Consider a) if it's worth it and b) if we all want to read pages of it.
That’s just a “trade in”, isn’t it? Any dealer would do that for you.
Dealers are generally local and have small numbers of cars. A national network would have access to more inventory from elsewhere where presumably supply of ULEZ compliant cars is greater. I'm sure local dealers in London are trying to source them as well but they'd be competing for stock and that's being distributed across London. And there's probably an extra cost for them buying them to trade.
The difference between this and normal car buying is that this is likely to be forced purchase for a lot of people rather than a discretionary or opportunity purchase.
Think of the wider society, the kids of working class families growing up with the pollution in outer London. Policy should be set to help them, not everything should be about protecting the wealth of retired folk.
No, air quality in the Yorkshire Dales (for example) is not the same problem as it is in Hemel Hempstead, or the GLA.
Neither is air quality an issue in many of the outlying areas of Greater London it's been extended to or many of the completely rural roads over moors administratively inside Greater Manchester.
I have no reason to believe that a euro 6 diesel engine is any worse for the environment than a petrol engine. I assume that they would be banned if they were. Are you telling me that they are?
If you continue using meaningless marketing terms in a question how do you expect a meaningful answer?
A diesel produces more NoX and less CO2 so the former might kill a few local people vs the latter killing hundreds of millions of non local people...
The limits are here... ULEZ is Euro 4 petrol and Euro 6 diesel non of these address the CO2 (CO is carbon monoxide)
So a Euro 6 diesel produces the same max NoX but 1/2 the carbon monoxide of the petrol and produces considerably less CO2 on a longer journey. CO2 is measured across a whole manufacturer and they can trade between them.
EV's in urban environments produce around 1/2 the particulate matter (PM) of either ICE but it's not necessarily the better 1/2 (brakes and tyres) for people.
Had they brought in ULEZ with Euro 5 it has less NoX (but euro 5 is already low) and lots of older diesels would have been exempt. (January 2011 on vs September 2015) but ALL the diesels produce less CO2/unit of power than the latest petrol...
but the CO2 is not immediately killing people on our Island... rather people in areas more affected by climate change.
Source AA
Euro 4 emission limits (petrol)
CO – 1.0 g/km
HC – 0.10 g/km
NOx – 0.08
PM – no limit
Euro 4 emission limits (diesel)
CO – 0.50 g/km
HC+ NOx – 0.30 g/km
NOx – 0.25 g/km
PM – 0.025 g/km
Euro 5 emission limits (petrol)
CO – 1.0 g/km
HC - 0.10 g/km
NOx – 0.06 g/km
PM – 0.005 g/km (direct injection only)
Euro 5 emission limits (diesel)
CO – 0.50 g/km
HC+ NOx – 0.23 g/km
NOx – 0.18 g/km
PM – 0.005 g/km
PM – 6.0x10 ^11/km
Euro 6 emission limits (petrol)
CO – 1.0 g/km
HC – 0.10 g/km
NOx – 0.06 g/km
PM – 0.005 g/km (direct injection only)
PM – 6.0x10 ^11/km (direct injection only)
Euro 6 emission limits (diesel)
CO – 0.50 g/km
HC+ NOx – 0.17 g/km
NOx – 0.08 g/km
PM – 0.005 g/km
PM – 6.0x10 ^11/km
I have no reason to believe that a euro 6 diesel engine is any worse for the environment than a petrol engine. I assume that they would be banned if they were. Are you telling me that they are?
If you continue using meaningless marketing terms in a question how do you expect a meaningful answer?
I use meaningless marketing terms because I am not chemist/internal combustion engine designer. Haven't you also used the same term, ie, "euro 6 diesel engine"?
The AA figures are interesting though - thanks for that 👍
EV’s in urban environments produce around 1/2 the particulate matter
Id like to know how true that is, a well driven EV shouldnt use the brakes much as regenerative braking should take care of it. I suppose the flip side is a badly driven EV probably produces as much brake dust and even more tyre wear due to enhanced acceleration. EV acceleration should probably be capped to be honest.
There are some absolute f****** jokes.
It’s like Reading (Lab) and Wokingham (Con for the last few centuries, now a Lib lead coalition as of this year) are having a competition to see who can spaff the most money on the worst cycle path
It’d be better if they got rid of most of the cycle paths then I won’t get ‘there’s a cycle path next to you’ screamed out of an SUV window by some tubby bint.
Oh and the cyclists dismount sign on the A4 Railway bridge towards Woodley can **** off.
Sorry for the drift.
Return from Hols yesterday and shortly from home at a crossroads holy ****! I counted 6 ULEZ signs and 4 cameras together with traffic lights, lighting, road signs, bollards and pedestrian barriers. You can hardly see the signs from certain directions but blimey they are determined to catch people or cause an accident while people try to work out what’s going on.
what a mess.
The unfairness of penalizing vehicles that the government incentivized people to buy
@mefty what vehicles were those? The last vehicle specific incentive I remember was charge point grants and before that LPG conversion grants on petrol back in about 2005.
Dealers are generally local and have small numbers of cars. A national network would have access to more inventory from elsewhere where presumably supply of ULEZ compliant cars is greater. I’m sure local dealers in London are trying to source them as well but they’d be competing for stock and that’s being distributed across London.
40% of all UK used car sales are through franchised dealers. That number is probably higher in London. There aren't many Arthur Daleys around any more!
There's no problem with getting ULEZ compliant inventory: it's only a tiny number of cars on the street that aren't compliant already, and dealers all have access to the same massive auctions across the UK.
I just don't get what problem you're trying to solve by coming up with some new scheme to help people sell and buy cars...
London has the best transport infrastructure in the UK. 90% of everywhere else is rather rubbish.
Inner London does, it's absolutely pants out at the edges (unless you want to go into inner London)
Try working out how to get between 2 of the London hospitals now inside ULEZ by public transport...
Try Google.....
All these petty, selfish problems are insignificant compared to the health of children. And I don't even have kids.
Inner London does, it’s absolutely pants out at the edges (unless you want to go into inner London)
That’s a fair point, actually. You’d have to go in and then out again to make best use of the network. Perhaps that’s something to submit to the mayor?
Try working out how to get between 2 of the London hospitals now inside ULEZ by public transport…
Ok, Tooting St Georges to St Heliers Hospital; 24 minutes by tube and bus according to tfl journey planner.
Epsom hospital (which is out in the sticks ) to St George’s (which is in urban Tooting and a a major hospital) 54 minutes, again tfl.
Ernielynch
I use meaningless marketing terms because I am not chemist/internal combustion engine designer.
I know you aren't and neither are most people.. yet they keep getting told "better for the environment"
Haven’t you also used the same term, ie, “euro 6 diesel engine”?
Well that's a "standard" ... but fair point.
The point really is "better in what way" and that better in one way can be worse in another way.
Typically the issue is a matter of where/when and what/who and there is no simple formula and "environmentalists" and especially those selling products will try and use this to deceive you....
A simple example is say global climate change vs local air quality vs pollution in a far away place
Climate change will mainly or at least the worse affects will be in other countries where people have different passports or whatever) and the added CO2 from ULEZ will only have a small DIRECT affect but more likely a huge indirect affect as if a rich nation like the UK demonstrates it cares more about it's local population than tens or hundreds of millions of people dying elsewhere
We can reduce our local pollution in some ways by increasing pollution elsewhere (usually a developing nation) such as mining for EV batteries.. not to mention general pollution mining to make new cars then transporting raw and intermediate materials around the world.
Not really specific to ULEZ but more generally there are also those who really don't care about humans either at all or are just more worried about their pet (ironic) term of Pandas or Lesser Crested Grebe's.
Ultimately the biggest and most pressing global issue for human life by far is climate change.
I'll assume you are more worried about people than lesser crested grebe's and you don't value a UK passport life above others.
The simplest way to modify your question is to ask something like "what short term effect will this have on climate change directly or indirectly" rather than get given broad answers about "the environment".
such as mining for EV batteries
Just FYI but far more cobalt is used in the refining of petrol and diesel than ever went into EV batteries, which are trending towards cobalt-free anyway.
Epsom hospital (which is out in the sticks ) to St George’s (which is in urban Tooting and a a major hospital) 54 minutes, again tfl.
google maps is telling me 1hr but in the ballpark vs 30 mins by car though you also did the in/out of London thing as well.
One of the reasons for asking that is if you were a hospital porter or nurse that originally worked at Epsom and ended up working at St George's (as they are part of the same trust) starting or finishing a shift at some unholy hour you are pretty screwed... or simply a patient turns up at one and gets sent to the other - it doesn't seem beyond the realms of some sort of planning to actually have a shuttle bus between them ...
Just FYI but far more cobalt is used in the refining of petrol and diesel than ever went into EV batteries, which are trending towards cobalt-free anyway.
It's not only cobalt though is it.. and REE are to use the environmentalists favourite term non-renewable. Last time I looked the EV's like Teslas have plastics from hydrocarbons for example.
I'm not saying that's good or bad, I'm pointing out there is no meaningful equivalence scale.
However the real point is "better for the environment" is just a "marketing term" that is often misused to mislead people who don't know the correct questions to ask because it can be simultaneously good locally and bad globally or good for greater crested grebe's and bad for people.
Comparing the transport links and services between one part of the GLA and another isn’t really the point … try comparing that to anywhere in the rest of England …
if you were a hospital porter or nurse that originally worked at Epsom and ended up working at St George’s (as they are part of the same trust) starting or finishing a shift at some unholy hour you are pretty screwed
Yes, and what if they were hemiplegic? And needed to carry a slab of granite to work? And carpooled with nuns coming back from an orphanage? And it was 2am on a snowy Christmas morning? What are they supposed to do about the ULEZ then, eh? EH???
How does the money raised get used to treat people with breathing issues or is it simply a tax deterrent?
If after a year this is raising significant amounts of cash then in my opinion it will have failed. The measure of success is less air pollution not ULEZ revenue.
I use meaningless marketing terms because I am not chemist/internal combustion engine designer.
I know you aren’t and neither are most people.. yet they keep getting told “better for the environment”
My comment was in relation to pollution levels, I am aware that nitrogen dioxide is not a greenhouse gas, a point which I have previously made a few times.
It has been suggested to me that it is an indirect greenhouse gas, although I am sure what exactly that signifies.
Btw I think it is probably important not to dismiss people's opinions of pollution and climate change on the basis that they lack expertise on the issues.
Otherwise we are in serious trouble - pollution and anthropogenic climate change are very big political issues, in fact anthropogenic climate change is imo is the single most important issue humans are currently facing.
As a consequence it is hugely important that come elections people vote with that in mind, however much expertise they might lack on the subject.
If after a year this is raising significant amounts of cash then in my opinion it will have failed. The measure of success is less air pollution not ULEZ revenue.
I guess it depends what you call a 'significant amount'. Would this qualify?
I would expect the revenue from the expanded zone to be very significantly more than that. And so doubt will Sadiq Khan. That after all was what Khan insisted to central government would make TfL financially sustainable in the future.
Any net revenue raised through the ULEZ will be reinvested back into public transport, including on the expansion of bus services in outer London. The ULEZ is expected not to raise any net revenue by the 2026/2027 financial year as the percentage of compliant vehicles continues to rise.
So as per the London mayor site: https://www.london.gov.uk/Ultra%20Low%20Emission%20Zone%20expands%20London-wide%20in%20a%20landmark%20moment%20for%20the%20capital
Yup, the “it’s just a money making scheme” line is one used by dinosaurs parroting conspiracy theory nonsense. This is all about local air quality… which previously the EU, and in recent years central government, have mandated must be improved in the GLA using means such as ULEZ and public transport. The Mayor is fulfilling his duties, and has to crack on and ignore his detractors in all parties and none… including those who helped set all this in motion and yet now want to make political capital and get the dinosaurs on their side with elections on the way.
The irony of course is that the newest non compliant vehicles are at least 8 years old. In 5 years time most of these will be off the road. A huge amount of money and infrastructure has been built to slightly speed up something thats going to happen anyway. The money would have been better spent on grants to allow people tk replace non complient vehicles, grants to hell people buy EVsand grants to increase the charging and electrical infrastructure.
I suppose at some point they may tighten the definition of polluting so maybe all diesels, possibly all ICE vehicles become non compliant.
All those things are happening Jon. The ULEZ charging is just an extra bit of the whole equation. It all goes together, it’s not one or the other.
There's lots of information on the gov.uk site about registered vehicles, their type and age, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/vehicle-licensing-statistics-data-tables
There's also the 2022 report that does some analysis of this data https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/vehicle-licensing-statistics-2022/vehicle-licensing-statistics-2022
Comparing the transport links and services between one part of the GLA and another isn’t really the point … try comparing that to anywhere in the rest of England …
This. Where I live the nearest hospital is 8 minutes by car and 48 by public transport once it actually turns up
Mine is 25 minutes by car or 2 hours by public transport. Mind, that does include the 5 mile walk to the nearest bus stop. If I had regular hospital appointments, I'd probably get fit enough not to need regular hospital appointments. Which is nice 🙂
It has been suggested to me that it is an indirect greenhouse gas, although I am sure what exactly that signifies.
I provided a link which explained it, https://naei.beis.gov.uk/overview/ghg-overview#:~:text=Also%20reported%20are%20four%20indirect,methane%20volatile%20organic%20compounds%20(NMVOC)
@kelvin I dont think they are, I'm directly involved with the installation of public EV chargers, theres no support for the private sector who are delivering, theres some money sloshing around councils but its being spent on studies and seminars rather than putting stuff in, the chargers they are installing are silly expensive. Subsidies for EVs seem to have disappeared and I'm not aware of any scrappage schemes?
The real kicker is the National grid, in no way is it ready for EVs, theres no where near enough local distribution capacity and the delays in getting renewables connected due to the DNOs is criminal.
@stevextc At our place there’s a shuttle bus between the sites, but even then if a nurse comes in and gets moved to another site (which I’ve not known happen for a long time) then a hospital taxi is offered, and if memory serves they have to be back at their base for the end of their shift.
@stumpyjon IIRC ULEZ = Euro6; you might say they’ll ultimately make it Euro7 but that’s not in force yet so it’s going to be a while, and in any case by that stage they’ll be more likely just to say ‘no private cars in this zone’. The French Crit’Air system is different in that there are more bands than ‘compliant’ and ‘non-compliant’ and they can vary what’s banned depending on air quality.
I’m not aware of any scrappage schemes?
In London?
The real kicker is the National grid, in no way is it ready for EVs
Agreed about the grid generally, but EV charging could actually help us here. Charge when the grid can cope… and use car battery storage to reduce peak demand on the grid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid
https://www.press.renault.co.uk/en-gb/releases/3057
I provided a link which explained it,
Yeah the link suggested a theoretical indirect link but I am not sure that it actually signifies anything. According to the Imperial College study the inner London ulez has had, quote, "insignificant effects on ozone".
So whilst in the theory nitrogen dioxide might well have an effect on tropospheric ozone concentrations this doesn't appear to be backed up by actual nonpartisan studies. Presumably this possibly reflects the fact that at surface level ozone is deeply unstable and doesn't hang around long enough to be measurable?
What the link makes clear is that nitrogen dioxide is not considered to be a greenhouse gas.
The ULEZ charging is just an extra bit of the whole equation.
What isn't clear is why when the Inner London ulez was created it didn't at the time also include the Greater London area. The vehicle technology available in Greater London was exactly the same as the vehicle technology available in Inner London.
It seems to me that Sadiq Khan is the sole arbitrator of when measures should be implemented and the correct timetable. In October 2021 he felt it was too soon to worry about nitrogen dioxide pollution in Greater London.
And yet it was absolutely imperative that the measures, which he didn't feel were necessary to implement in 2021, should be implemented in 2023, despite it actually being less of a problem now than it was a couple of years ago.
I reckon when most people stop and think about it they realise that the main driver must be financial considerations. With less non-compliant vehicles in Greater London than there were 2 years ago the significant difference between now and then is that due to the pandemic TfL is now in even greater debt than it was 2 years ago.
It seems to me that Sadiq Khan is the sole arbitrator of when measures should be implemented and the correct timetable.
That ignores… well, the whole history of introducing low emission zones in the UK, and not least London. You’re always pretty up on the politics of this stuff… just selective on what you chose to remember in order to make your point. Kahn has not been a lone politician plotting ULEZ introduction and expansion… politicians of all parties have been involved, including key players in a Tory run central government that now wants to use it to attack a Labour Mayor ahead of both Mayoral elections (that they’ve changed the rules for to try and help them win) and what will be a quite desperate General Election for them.
Sadiq Khan is mayor of all of London. He could have chosen to make all of London a ulez in 2021, not just Inner London.
Why didn't he feel that it was necessary? And why is absolutely imperative now?
He should be honest and say that he needs the money. In 2021 the financial situation wasn't that desperate so nitrogen dioxide levels in Greater London weren't quite as important as they apparently are today.
So you’re in favour of a wider ULEZ area now? And it should have been done sooner? Righto… I’m sure phasing it in makes sense to others that have been preparing for this latest stage for while. Not least because of the legal hassle gone through to get it to happen. Timing has been as much about both legal obligations set by Tory central government and legal obstructions and delays put in place by Tory councils. Khan has never had a free rein on timing.
If it solely down to pollution then yes of course Greater London should have been included 2 years ago at the same time as Inner London. It was obviously more of a problem then than it is now.
It probably would have made it must simpler....try driving along the South Circular for a couple of miles without accidently straying it what was ulez - one side of the road was ulez, the other side wasn't.
People could easily accidentally stray into it without even realising it. Then bingo! instead of coughing up £12.50 the driver has a £180 fixed plenty fine.
The fixed plenty fines were a significant contribution to the £220 million that was made from ulez last year.
Ernie - ever heard the quote 'politics is the art of the possible'.
I have no idea what you want , apart from an extra £1500 for your dirty old car. What do you want?
According to the Imperial College study the inner London ulez has had, quote, “insignificant effects on ozone”.
Please refer P4 for my theory on this.
I have no idea what you want , apart from an extra £1500 for your dirty old car. What do you want?
Really? Is it really that difficult to figure out that I agree with the Labour Leader and the Mayor of Manchester that now, in the middle of a cost of living crises, isn't the right time to hit struggling families?
Why is that so difficult to understand?
The money would have been better spent on grants to allow people tk replace non complient vehicles, grants to hell people buy EVsand grants to increase the charging and electrical infrastructure.
@stumpyjohn no, the money absolutely should not be spent on maintaining the status quo. It's being put back into TFL to invest in improving transport links in the new expanded area as it should.
Public transport should receive public money, private motoring is the individuals concern. Seems fair.
You can have an argument over whether that should have come first if you like but either way it's happening and is the right thing to do.
As for National Grid being ready, maybe that's a good reason not to plough money into charger subsidies.
It’s being put back into TFL to invest in improving transport links in the new expanded area as it should.
It is far more likely to be used to help plug TfL's gaping financial hole than for investment in improved transport links.
Liberal Democrat AM and transport spokesperson Caroline Pidgeon claimed the data shows “that behind all the rhetoric, the mayor is not prioritising public transport in London”.
Ms Pidgeon continued: “This isn’t just about the physical number of buses, data uncovered by the Liberal Democrats earlier this year showed that under Sadiq Khan, bus services in London now cover 12 million fewer miles across the capital than they did in 2016.
Really? Is it really that difficult to figure out that I agree with the Labour Leader and the Mayor of Manchester that now, in the middle of a cost of living crises, isn’t the right time to hit struggling families?
Why is that so difficult to understand?
Umm because from this angle it looks like you just came into this thread to stir shit since your usual haunt was a bit quiet?
It is staggering that Labour is no longer bothered by inequality. What is it for?
I think this sums it up well…
https://capx.co/keir-starmers-only-policy-is-getting-elected
https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/sir-kier-starmer/page/479/
So SKS is absolutely fine and dandy when it suits you, namely when you're just looking to shit on another thread.
Umm because from this angle it looks like you just came into this thread to stir shit since your usual haunt was a bit quiet?
So you think I do actually support the ulez expansion and my comments are purely to "stir the shit", as you call it?
There might not be many expressing opposition to ulez expansion on stw (I wonder why?) But there is indeed widespread opposition. Which is of course precisely why ulez has been put on hold in Manchester.
As far as Starmer is concerned I am clearly opposed to his lack of offering a radical alternative to the Tories, but that doesn't lead me into a weird situation where I oppose everything he says simply because he has said it.
Politics might be an entertaining game for you where you pick a side and whether right or wrong you always without exception back that side, but it isn't for me.
I very happy indeed to fully back Keir Starmer when he takes positions which I consider benefit ordinary working people. No one, just no one, on here is a bigger fan than Keir Starmer's "10 Pledges" than me. And no one has provided a link to Starmer's website more than me. Here it is again:
https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/
Btw I find myself generally capable of making my points without having to resort to personal attacks. I assume that comments such as accusing me of "shit stirring" are based on your lack of confidence in your own argument and is being used both as a distraction and an attempt to bully me into not commenting any further.
It appears to be a reoccurring pattern, I express an opinion which doesn't necessarily fit in with the otherwise near universal consensus, people get angry and throw personal insults, and it is then apparently my fault for messing up the thread and not agreeing with everyone else who dares to express an opinion.
If don't agree with any opinion of mine try to do it without resorting to personal attacks. Apart from the fact that it is pointless it makes for a more pleasant environment 💡