London's new 'ultra-low emission zone' that will force a million motorists to pay £12.50 a day or get off the road 'is expected to raise up to SIX times as much as the congestion charge'

A new London pollution charge covering large swathes of London is expected to hit one million drivers and raise six times as much as the congestion charge.

Mayor Sadiq Khan confirmed that ULEZ - being introduced in Central London next year - will stretch to cover an area surrounded by the North and South Circular roads from October 2021.

The £12.50 per day fee means cash-strapped Transport for London will collect between £700 million and £1.5 billion every year- a significantly higher amount than the £230 million collected from the congestion charge.

Gareth Bacon, leader of the Conservative group on the London Assembly, told The Times: 'This could be Sadiq's poll tax.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6476639/Londons-new-ultra-low-emission-zone-force-million-motorists-pay-12-50-day.html

Businesses will lose Thousands, and close down.

Khan the kunt!

Avoid london.....in fact sink it......York would make a much nicer capital. Then treat finance like any other industry an make it live on industrial sites out side the city limits.

Labour never learn...

WTF would have a car in London? That's as stupid as driving in Manhattan.

London is a lot bigger than just that bit in the middle of it...

Tommy Monk wrote:London is a lot bigger than just that bit in the middle of it...

And New York is a lot bigger than just Manhattan. But we are talking about that "bit in the middle".

No... the north and South circular roads go quite a way outside that bit in the middle...


But you would know that if you knew London as well as you claim...

That's because Manhattan is a real island, so the roads have a cut-off. But still, the issue is the same. You reach a point where bringing your own car into the congested part is not wise.

And why would you want to? London is a street-life city, with good transit.

The centre of London is not congested.

We are talking about a zone that goes out far into greater London... where majority of people live and where transport links are not that great in many parts... And where streets can be dangerous to walk about in at night...

I would be interested in knowing whether Khan and his staff in the Mayoralty and the members and staff of the Greater London Authority will also be required to get out of their cars and use public transport like the rest of the hoi poloi.

My take on this is that something has to be done about inner city pollution. And if this means charging people so be it. Or...only electric vehicles allowed in the city centre, and that includes bloody buses who the biggest pollution offenders.

Tommy Monk wrote:

The centre of London is not congested.

We are talking about a zone that goes out far into greater London... where majority of people live and where transport links are not that great in many parts... And where streets can be dangerous to walk about in at night...

Nonsense. 1) The city of London is so congested...highly congested. 2) Transit in the City of London, and major environs is great. One of the best cities in the world for transit. I land at Heathrow and just step on the Piccadilly Line, like I'm going home.

Quill... trust me... I live in London... city is not congested...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Quill... trust me... I live in London... city is not congested...

I've lived there too. London is not Ashton in Makerfield. It's congested.

As I said before... London is a lot bigger than just that little bit in the middle...


And that little bit in the middle is not congested... trust me on this... there are loads of busses and taxis, all kicking out the worst type of exhaust smoke, ie diesel fumes/PM10's/PM5's etc... And others who live in the bit in the middle are free to drive around as much as they want... but the vast majority of Londoners don't drive inside that bit any more unless they really have to, because of the £11.50 a day charge incurred, as well as the additional £10 a day "T charge" that can also be incurred on top of that...!


https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/emissions-surcharge/t-charge-costs-discounts-and-payments


If you ard rich enough to afford to live in the centre, you are exempt from the congestion charge, and can drive around freely as much as you like, without any poor drivers in your way clogging up the roads and getting in your way...


Maybe a fairer way of reducing pollution and congestion in the rest of London would be to start off putting a charge onto anyone from the centre bit, who are congestion charge exempt, when they want to drive into the outer bit...?

Just like those in the outer bit have to pay a charge to drive into the inner bit...?


That would be fair, wouldn't it...?

Do the math, tommy.  If you live in the inner circle you are not contributing to the problem. Moreover, buses and trains carry multiple passengers, all of whom would be driving their own cars if it weren't for transit.

Any way you cut it, the City of London is doing the right thing.

If those from the inner bit want to drive in the outer bit, then they are definitely contributing to the problem in the outer bit... so fairs fair... start charging them to do so, just like others from the outer bit are charged for driving in the inner bit...!!!


Also... there's no reason why those from the inner bit can't use the lovely public transport system to venture out into the outer bit... just like those from the outer bit are told they have to use the lovely public transport system to go into the inner bit...!!!


Unless you think that the richer lot from the inner bit are too important to have the poorer lot drive around in "their" area and clog up "their" bit of London, but it is ok for them to drive around in other poorer people's parts of London without any care for the extra congestion and pollution that they might cause to these poorer people's areas...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:If those from the inner bit want to drive in the outer bit, then they are definitely contributing to the problem in the outer bit... so fairs fair... start charging them to do so, just like others from the outer bit are charged for driving in the inner bit...!!!

Meh...for the most part, people are where they want to be.  How many want to go where there are lots of people, versus those who want to get to rural areas?  The answer is obvious: where are the people?  For the weekend traveler, rent a car (preferably in the suburbs so you don't pay the tax) and enjoy.

Tommy Monk wrote:Also... there's no reason why those from the inner bit can't use the lovely public transport system to venture out into the outer bit... just like those from the outer bit are told they have to use the lovely public transport system to go into the inner bit...!!!

Absolutely.  Now you are thinking.

Tommy Monk wrote:Unless you think that the richer lot from the inner bit are too important to have the poorer lot drive around in "their" area and clog up "their" bit of London, but it is ok for them to drive around in other poorer people's parts of London without any care for the extra congestion and pollution that they might cause to these poorer people's areas...!?

Richer or poorer, the idea is to thin out the traffic congestion. If you drop the class warfare, the solution is quite simple.

No... the aim is to reduce higher polluting vehicles... but the alternative is more high polluting busses on the roads...!


So totally counter productive... just another money grab on the motorist, who are already being fleeced...


And this will hit goods delivery vehicles too, pushing up prices in shops, again paid for by the general public with the poorest being hit the hardest by the price increases...


I thought you cared about the poor...?


Obviously not as much as me... And to think that I am called "far right" here...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

No... the aim is to reduce higher polluting vehicles... but the alternative is more high polluting busses on the roads...!

But, more and more persons per vehicle.  How wonderful.

Tommy Monk wrote:So totally counter productive... just another money grab on the motorist, who are already being fleeced...

Think of it as a disincentive.  You'll feel better knowing you are doing your part to make the world a better place.

Tommy Monk wrote:And this will hit goods delivery vehicles too, pushing up prices in shops, again paid for by the general public with the poorest being hit the hardest by the price increases...

But negligible...at least commercial vehicles have a purpose. And they pay for themselves.

Tommy Monk wrote:I thought you cared about the poor...?

Obviously not as much as me... And to think that I am called "far right" here...!?

We all have to sacrifice for the common good.  It is a program that is regressive, but at least it's not depriving someone of essentials of life.  There might be exceptions for the disabled and elderly.

Perhaps there should be a higher charge for those with higher incomes--it is true, I preach proportional equality over distributive equality--but we must first see if it is worth the extra effort at record-keeping.  It might end up being much ado about very little.

The rich will carry on driving about without a care... the poorer will be denied...


A simple way of dealing with the pollution issue is to just ban all diesel cars from the area in question...


As it is diesels that are the biggest polluters...

Tommy Monk wrote:The rich will carry on driving about without a care... the poorer will be denied...

A simple way of dealing with the pollution issue is to just ban all diesel cars from the area in question...

As it is diesels that are the biggest polluters...

Although with diesels the fuel is injected into the cylinder at exactly the correct moment for complete ignition and burning of the fuel, it still is nonetheless ugly.

I would be in favor of LPG or alternative fuel buses. LPG requires infrastructure, as the average petrol station doesn't have the pumps. With the transit company on which I'm a board-member, we just bought a fleet of hybrid, diesel/electric buses. We're keeping records to see.

Many retired and less well off people will live in that area zone and rely on their car in order to get out. They wont be able to afford to pay £12.50 every time they want to drive their car.

Syl wrote:Many retired and less well off people will live in that area zone and rely on their car in order to get out. They wont be able to afford to pay £12.50 every time they want to drive their car.

No doubt it will be a factor to consider when choosing where to live, or what mode of transportation to use. But that's the point.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Many retired and less well off people will live in that area zone and rely on their car in order to get out. They wont be able to afford to pay £12.50 every time they want to drive their car.

No doubt it will be a factor to consider when choosing where to live, or what mode of transportation to use.  But that's the point.

Thats disregarding the welfare of the people who were born and brought up in this area. Many have lived all their lives there, it seems harsh to me that everyone (if this comes in) will be forced to pay.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No doubt it will be a factor to consider when choosing where to live, or what mode of transportation to use.  But that's the point.

Thats disregarding the welfare of the people who were born and brought up in this area. Many have lived all their lives there, it seems harsh to me that everyone (if this comes in) will be forced to pay.

On the other hand: "The £12.50 per day fee means cash-strapped Transport for London will collect between £700 million and £1.5 billion every year- a significantly higher amount than the £230 million collected from the congestion charge."

It will just shift practices, from cars to taxis, trains and buses.  It will be cheaper and more efficient in the long run.

Quill... you are wrong on diesels and emissions...

Tommy Monk wrote:Quill... you are wrong on diesels and emissions...

In what way? I believe I answered by suggesting alternate fuel buses...LPG or hybrid. I still think that's a good idea.

Syl wrote:Many retired and less well off people will live in that area zone and rely on their car in order to get out. They wont be able to afford to pay £12.50 every time they want to drive their car.

The London transport system is the best in the country.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:Many retired and less well off people will live in that area zone and rely on their car in order to get out. They wont be able to afford to pay £12.50 every time they want to drive their car.

The London transport system is the best in the country.  

I'll second that. It's actually fun to take the bus.

Original Quill wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:Many retired and less well off people will live in that area zone and rely on their car in order to get out. They wont be able to afford to pay £12.50 every time they want to drive their car.

The London transport system is the best in the country.  

I'll second that.  

It's actually fun to take the bus.

Not when it’s bloody raining it’s not! And it rains a lot.

A lot.

A lot.

Quill... diesels are high polluters of PMs and NO2...


Plus... trains at peak times are already running as many services as the network can carry, and are already jam packed!


Much the same can be said for busses too... as well as the fact that they are a much too slow and unreliable a method for most people to use for anything more than just a short 'few stops' journey... for example, where I live, a ten minute journey by car can take an hour by bus... so imagine how long a 40 min car journey to work would take if I had to do it by bus, especially with all the changes onto different busses needed to get to my destination?


And another point... around 50-90% of the PMs produced by a vehicle are not coming from the engine exhausts (so doesn't matter if LPG/hybrid or even electric vehicles)... but from the rest of the moving parts of the vehicle, like the brakes and tyres etc...


A large fraction (50-85% and up to 90%) of traffic generated PM10 and PM2,5 is not due to the exhaust emissions by the motor, but rather to non-exhaust emissions (brake wear, road wear, tyre wear and road dust resuspension) 

Non-exhaust emissions are found to be proportional to the mass of the vehicle EVs emit the same amount of PM10 as modern gasoline and diesel cars.

Analysis that compare PM2.5 emissions, conclude that EVs bring about a negligible reduction in emissions. 

Compared to an average gasoline ICEV, the EV emits 3% less PM2.5. Compared to an average diesel ICEV, the EV emits 1% less PM2.5.

https://www.ridef2.com/blog-del-direttore-ridef/will-electric-vehicles-contribute-less-particulate-matter-pm10-and-pm25-to-our-air-recent-analysis-and-meta-analysis-conclude-negligibly-and-policies-to-reduce-number-and-weight-of-vehicles-are-needed4720595#


So again... the biggest polluters will be the very busses that you advocate increasing the numbers of on our roads!!!???

Tommy Monk wrote:Quill... diesels are high polluters of PMs and NO2...


Plus... trains at peak times are already running as many services as the network can carry, and are already jam packed!


Much the same can be said for busses too... as well as the fact that they are a much too slow and unreliable a method for most people to use for anything more than just a short 'few stops' journey... for example, where I live, a ten minute journey by car can take an hour by bus... so imagine how long a 40 min car journey to work would take if I had to do it by bus, especially with all the changes onto different busses needed to get to my destination?


And another point... around 50-90% of the PMs produced by a vehicle are not coming from the engine exhausts (so doesn't matter if LPG/hybrid or even electric vehicles)... but from the rest of the moving parts of the vehicle, like the brakes and tyres etc...


A large fraction (50-85% and up to 90%) of traffic generated PM10 and PM2,5 is not due to the exhaust emissions by the motor, but rather to non-exhaust emissions (brake wear, road wear, tyre wear and road dust resuspension) 

Non-exhaust emissions are found to be proportional to the mass of the vehicle EVs emit the same amount of PM10 as modern gasoline and diesel cars.

Analysis that compare PM2.5 emissions, conclude that EVs bring about a negligible reduction in emissions. 

Compared to an average gasoline ICEV, the EV emits 3% less PM2.5. Compared to an average diesel ICEV, the EV emits 1% less PM2.5.

https://www.ridef2.com/blog-del-direttore-ridef/will-electric-vehicles-contribute-less-particulate-matter-pm10-and-pm25-to-our-air-recent-analysis-and-meta-analysis-conclude-negligibly-and-policies-to-reduce-number-and-weight-of-vehicles-are-needed4720595#


So again... the biggest polluters will be the very busses that you advocate increasing the numbers of on our roads!!!???

As I say, London Transport needs new, alternative fuel vehicles.  That fix is easy.

In the US we replace every bus fleet in the US every 3-years.  The US Department of Transportation pays for 80% of the cost of new buses, and any plant facilities. We have far more cities than your wee islands.  By retiring fleets we replace the older, pollution-causing vehicles, even before they become outlawed.

Please don't tell me that the mighty British Government, Home Office, can't afford to keep up with the negligible task of keeping modern transportation up to date.  Because I won't believe you.

This is probably an early glimpse into an inevitable future reliant on even more public transport , as more and more people drift towards big cities...

Come back in another decade or three, and it's quite possible that all personal transport other than walking or bicycles will have been banned from major city centres..

Especially considering that over 50% of humanity now lives in around the major cities.

Quill, if the stupid government stopped paying millions to other countries in the form of "Aid" just to look "good" we could afford to pay for a lot more !!!

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:Many retired and less well off people will live in that area zone and rely on their car in order to get out. They wont be able to afford to pay £12.50 every time they want to drive their car.

The London transport system is the best in the country.  

The people who spout that line are usually the ones who walk out their front doors and step into their cars every morning.

No doubt quill, along with the other envirocretins, will be totally happy to see disabled people virtually confined to their homes.

Get this through you dense skulls...busses are fuck all use to those disabled who whilst capable of say 50 yards walking at a time are non the less otherwise disabled, nor are they ANY use to those who are totally incapable of walking an need a carer with them

The busses dont pick up from you home
The busses dont go precicely where you want them to
The busses dont pick up at times you want them to
The busses are unreliable
The busses do not have facilities fot wheel chairs
The busses do not have facilities for buggies

Using busses reduces your freedom of movement and choice of where and when to go
Of course this only affects the less well.of and disabled, so one canto suppose that the "new left" will find this, totally acceptable

nicko wrote:Quill, if the stupid government stopped paying millions to other countries in the form of "Aid" just to look "good"  we could afford to pay for a lot more !!!

That could well be so. Especially when the recipients treat it as an entitlement. I mean, if Israel keeps getting our money, at least let us claim it as the 51st state.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

This is probably an early glimpse into an inevitable future reliant on even more public transport , as more and more people drift towards big cities...

Come back in another decade or three, and it's quite possible that all personal transport other than walking or bicycles will have been banned from major city centres..

Especially considering that over 50% of humanity now lives in around the major cities.

Mass immigration is clogging up our roads and public transport system...!

Vic wrote:No doubt quill, along with the other envirocretins, will be totally happy to see disabled people virtually confined to their homes.

Not at all.  We have an excellent para-transit department with many vans available to help the disabled.  The only inconvenience is you must call and make a reservation.

Frankly, its much more convenient for the disabled.  No parking problems.  No pulling a wheelchair from the boot, setting it up, etc.  Plus, it's door-to-door service.

Vic wrote:The busses dont pick up from you home

It’s a brief walk to a bus stop. If it’s not convenient, write a letter to the planning department and suggest a better location.

If you’ve ever parked a car a half mile away, you learn that driving is no better.

Vic wrote:The busses dont go precicely where you want them to

Neither do cars. You can get there, but then you have to go searching for a parking spot or pay money at a lot...and still walk back..

Vic wrote:The busses are unreliable

Congestion affects cars too. At least on a bus you can read or book or look at scenery. You don’t get all upset and traffic-troubled.

Vic wrote:The busses do not have facilities fot wheel chairs

Yes they do. All of our buses have special ramps or internal elevators to bring wheelchairs on board. Also for bicycles…either on the front of the vehicle, or in basement compartments.

Lord Foul wrote:No doubt quill, along with the other envirocretins, will be totally happy to see disabled people virtually confined to their homes.

Get this through you dense skulls...busses are fuck all use to those disabled who whilst capable of say 50 yards walking at a time are non the less otherwise disabled, nor are they ANY use to those who are totally incapable of walking an need a carer with them

The busses dont pick up from you home
The busses dont go precicely where you want them to
The busses dont pick up at times you want them to
The busses are unreliable
The busses do not have facilities fot wheel chairs
The busses do not have facilities for buggies

Using busses reduces your freedom of movement and choice of where and when to go
Of course this only affects the less well.of and disabled, so one canto suppose that the "new left" will find this, totally acceptable

Many elderly and disabled already rely on taxis, minivans and special-needs (short-)buses..

People in those groups, who are presently providing their own means of private transport are already in a minority in most larger cities.

In Australia, such services are often subsidised...

Vic wrote:The busses do not have facilities for buggies

Yes they do. All of our buses have locations for child carriers, and for shopping carts as well. Also places for uncontained parcels and bags.

Vic, you haven’t been on a bus in a long time…I can tell.

Wolf wrote:In Australia, such services are often subsidised...

In the US, where the Department of Transportation pays for 80% of the cost of buses to state and local transit departments, a para-transit department is mandatory. Again, the feds pay for it...but it's the law, no exceptions.

Lord Foul wrote:No doubt quill, along with the other envirocretins, will be totally happy to see disabled people virtually confined to their homes.

Get this through you dense skulls...busses are fuck all use to those disabled who whilst capable of say 50 yards walking at a time are non the less otherwise disabled, nor are they ANY use to those who are totally incapable of walking an need a carer with them

The busses dont pick up from you home
The busses dont go precicely where you want them to
The busses dont pick up at times you want them to
The busses are unreliable
The busses do not have facilities fot wheel chairs
The busses do not have facilities for buggies

Using busses reduces your freedom of movement and choice of where and when to go
Of course this only affects the less well.of and disabled, so one canto suppose that the "new left" will find this, totally acceptable

I'm not sure about scheduled "route" buses, Vic, but in my neck of the woods the regular "park and ride" service buses all have dedicated spaces for wheelchairs and buggies...I used to take my late wife on one regularly when she became dependent on a wheelchair.

I have to say that the local P&R bus service is the only one that I use because my nearest scheduled bus route is more than three miles from where I live and it runs so infrequently that it is impossible to plan a day's shopping or business in town around it.

So, I have little choice but to use my Beamer or, if I am feeling mischievous and want to frighten "snowflake" yummy mummies and young bucks out to impress the birds with their Range Rover Evokes (HAR, HAR, HAR, HAR, HAR! as Cap'n Shady would say) I take the gas-guzzling, emission regulation-busting Landy 2a.

So.what you are saying is that , forvthe same cost to me there will be a vehicle available, on demand, to pick me up from my front door, take me to the shop(s) I want and home again....at MY  convenience.? AND that there will be a suitable vehicle available, on demand, to pick me up at my convenience,take me to anywhere in the country I wish to go fishing, along with my tackle, on any number of days a year, stay available to me in case I decide to go somewhere else and then bring me home, along with my catch and smelly bait.?

AND that there will be available a  vehicle to take me and the missus and 7 dogs and all the  kit we take  for a week at a time to our wood in wales. Stay available 24/7. And then bring us home.....at no extra cost to me?