Living in ULEZ with a non compliant car

Goudy

The point I am making is that TFL aren't spending millions just to motivate owners into cleaner cars especially when, as already pointed out the level of uncompliant cars is already relatively low to begin with.
It just doesn't make sense.

The life of these polluting vehicles is getting shorter and shorter, in fact the youngest car that would be uncompliant (last Euro 5 diesel) would be pre Sept 2015, that's 7 years old now.

What does make sense is for TFL to expand the cameras to complete cover their area of influence, then switch them on to record and charge for whatever they see fit in the future.

When one stream of revenue drops they rearrange it to include another.
As an example, cars under 100g/km could originally apply for a 100% discount from the CC, though they did charge you for the discount!
People forked out for vehciles under 100g which were generally far more expensive.
Then revenue dropped because of them so TFL removed this discount without much warning.

It's not like they don't have a track record of doing these things, latest one is the tube is far from profitable (understatement of the year), so they plan on moving the buses away from inner London and some tube routes to force people off the cheaper buses onto the more expensive tubes.

Herzlos

I think it's safe to assume that the criteria for the ULEZ will get gradually stricter over time (presumably rolling the cut off forward so all cars are always under about 15 years old), so the charge will eventually apply to anything non BEV or potentially certain classes of vehicle.

I'm not sure what the problem is though?

biscan25

I don't see the expansion as a problem per se, I just struggle to see what the overall strategy is aiming to acheive. 
Is it to reduce congestion, or emissions, or both? Or perhaps a budget balancing scheme?

It clear that London needs both fewer emissions and fewer cars. For the former, why has Khan not reduced speed limits on TfL controlled roads? They are the only roads in Lewisham where I reside where you can go in excess of 20mph. Lewisham has intriduced many Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs), but these are the councils responsibility not TfLs.

Why have buses to central London been cut? Both in number and curtailing routes earlier, meaning people have to change more.
Why have the number of trains per hour been cut?
Why is there not more segregated cycling infrastructure, and protected pavements for pedestrians?

I'm fortunate, living just outside the ULEZ, to have a compliant 2003 car. I don't see that remaining compliant much longer, and I only really use my car to leave London, so will probably get rid of it when this happens.

Goudy

The problem is TFL are trying to usher in a new road pricing scheme for the whole of greater London under the guise of cleaning the air by expanding the ULEZ.

The ULEZ expansion consulation is more than that, it's also involves the future of road pricing in London.

If as TFL state themselves 4 out or 5 cars comply with the ULEZ already, why spend millions trying to catch the 5th one that will no doubt end up in the scrap yard sooner rather than later?

In the words of Adam Tyndall, programme director for Transport at London First.
“When EVs become the norm, there won’t be any emissions-based restrictions preventing them from entering cities. There’s the possibility that this will lead to an increase in inner-city congestion, even if it generates zero-tailpipe emissions. If that becomes the case, we can expect to introduce more stringent congestion charges".

They aren't planning on it being stricter, they are planning on it being complete no matter what you drive.

What they are basically saying is even when you've gone zero emissions we still plan to charge you, so we'll make everyone pay for all the vehicle capturing infastructure under the flag of clean air now but once it's in place, we'll hammer anything with wheels that moves within our boundry.

So now more poor sods over a bigger area will fork out for expensive BEV's thinking they are safe and just like they did with Hybrids, they'll pull the rug.

Herzlos

There are apparently about 100,000 cars crossing into the ULEZ on a daily basis, so that 1 in 5 is still about 20,000 non-compliant cars. Reducing or replacing them would make a big difference to the air quality in London.

Will it turn into a pricing model for everyone eventually? Sure. Is that a bad thing? I'm not convinced; by the time that happens we might have our elusive fleet of self driving taxis and be ready change our car usage model anyway, and then having the city centre being private car free would be amazing.

mrsluigi6

f.castle said:

Hello,

Sadiq Khan plans to expand the ULEZ. I have a diesel from 2014 which is non compliant.
I live in the expansion zone.
will I be charged daily for simply having my car on the driveway?
or will I only be charged on the days I drive the car?

Where does he think people will get the money from, to buy another?

thanks,

We live inside the recently extended zone and have had to replace our car. There is no charge for being parked it so fine to keep your car on the drive -it  only applies if you move your vehicle and yes there are cameras inside the zone as well as on entry. If you drive into the congestion charge zone with a non compliant vehicle then you are liable for 2 charges. There was a scrappage scheme for private vehicles and for business vehicles but we opted to sell our car privately . Hope this helps

Grumpy_chap

I think expanding the ULEZ at the current time is absurd - especially given the Mayor's concern on TV at the pressure of the cost of living crisis.  Forcing those with older cars to scrap the aged model and pay the costs for a replacement at a time when supply is simply not there is really not understanding the impact of this type of change on the cost of living.

Emmia

Grumpy_chap said:

I think expanding the ULEZ at the current time is absurd - especially given the Mayor's concern on TV at the pressure of the cost of living crisis.  Forcing those with older cars to scrap the aged model and pay the costs for a replacement at a time when supply is simply not there is really not understanding the impact of this type of change on the cost of living.

Alternatively people could just not have a car...

Grumpy_chap

Emmia said:

Grumpy_chap said:

I think expanding the ULEZ at the current time is absurd - especially given the Mayor's concern on TV at the pressure of the cost of living crisis.  Forcing those with older cars to scrap the aged model and pay the costs for a replacement at a time when supply is simply not there is really not understanding the impact of this type of change on the cost of living.

Alternatively people could just not have a car...

Great idea - all our essential service providers like nurses could rely on public transport and walking poorly lit paths to ensure that we have the care we need at the hours we need it.  I'm sure they'll be delighted at the prospect of a cold and wet walk home after a long shift with antisocial hours.

Emmia

Grumpy_chap said:

Emmia said:

Grumpy_chap said:

I think expanding the ULEZ at the current time is absurd - especially given the Mayor's concern on TV at the pressure of the cost of living crisis.  Forcing those with older cars to scrap the aged model and pay the costs for a replacement at a time when supply is simply not there is really not understanding the impact of this type of change on the cost of living.

Alternatively people could just not have a car...

Great idea - all our essential service providers like nurses could rely on public transport and walking poorly lit paths to ensure that we have the care we need at the hours we need it.  I'm sure they'll be delighted at the prospect of a cold and wet walk home after a long shift with antisocial hours.

We're talking about London, a city with plentiful public transport - and more can be provided if there is demand. 

Street lighting can be made better, but the majority of car owner/drivers in London are not essential workers.