Discussion:
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
Add Reply
Recliner
2018-11-01 09:35:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/petrol-and-diesel-facing-ban-in-city-83t0f8zdt?shareToken=35a3d7d1a37b3103d0034424e71eea77>
Graeme Wall
2018-11-01 09:54:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/petrol-and-diesel-facing-ban-in-city-83t0f8zdt?shareToken=35a3d7d1a37b3103d0034424e71eea77>
Good luck with that one. Are there enough low emission buses, taxis,
delivery vehicles, and so on to make it even remotely practical?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Recliner
2018-11-01 10:05:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/petrol-and-diesel-facing-ban-in-city-83t0f8zdt?shareToken=35a3d7d1a37b3103d0034424e71eea77>
Good luck with that one. Are there enough low emission buses, taxis,
delivery vehicles, and so on to make it even remotely practical?
Buses and taxis, yes — all new London taxis are PHEVs, with quite a decent
zero emissions range. Some delivery vehicles are now electric (and I'm not
talking about milk floats), and presumably more will be by the time this
starts.

Presumably emergency vehicles will be exempted.
Basil Jet
2018-11-02 05:17:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/petrol-and-diesel-facing-ban-in-city-83t0f8zdt?shareToken=35a3d7d1a37b3103d0034424e71eea77>
Good luck with that one. Are there enough low emission buses, taxis,
delivery vehicles, and so on to make it even remotely practical?
Buses and taxis, yes — all new London taxis are PHEVs, with quite a decent
zero emissions range.
So what happens when you walk up to an enclosed rank, such as
Paddington, wanting to go to the City and the first electric vehicle is
the fifth one in the rank?

I strongly suspect all taxis would be exempt.
--
Basil Jet - listening... Soft Cell. Soft Machine. Solomon Grey. Sonic
Youth. Sonique. Sonny Rollins. Sophie Ellis Bextor. Soul-Junk. Space.
Space (French). Spacehog. Spacemen 3. Spear Of Destiny. Spectres (UK).
Spiller feat Sophie Ellis Bextor. Spiritual Vibes. Spiritualized.
Splat!. Split Enz. Spoon. Spring King. Squeeze. Sroeng Santi.
Recliner
2018-11-02 07:00:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/petrol-and-diesel-facing-ban-in-city-83t0f8zdt?shareToken=35a3d7d1a37b3103d0034424e71eea77>
Good luck with that one. Are there enough low emission buses, taxis,
delivery vehicles, and so on to make it even remotely practical?
Buses and taxis, yes — all new London taxis are PHEVs, with quite a decent
zero emissions range.
So what happens when you walk up to an enclosed rank, such as
Paddington, wanting to go to the City and the first electric vehicle is
the fifth one in the rank?
I strongly suspect all taxis would be exempt.
That's certainly not the long-term intention, but I guess it's something to
be tested during the trial. One initial compromise could be that any taxi
can drop off in the zone, but only electric taxis can pick up. But I'm sure
their long-term plan is to stop any diesel taxis entering the zone at all.
Someone Somewhere
2018-11-02 07:34:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/petrol-and-diesel-facing-ban-in-city-83t0f8zdt?shareToken=35a3d7d1a37b3103d0034424e71eea77>
Good luck with that one. Are there enough low emission buses, taxis,
delivery vehicles, and so on to make it even remotely practical?
Buses and taxis, yes — all new London taxis are PHEVs, with quite a decent
zero emissions range.
So what happens when you walk up to an enclosed rank, such as
Paddington, wanting to go to the City and the first electric vehicle is
the fifth one in the rank?
I strongly suspect all taxis would be exempt.
That's certainly not the long-term intention, but I guess it's something to
be tested during the trial. One initial compromise could be that any taxi
can drop off in the zone, but only electric taxis can pick up. But I'm sure
their long-term plan is to stop any diesel taxis entering the zone at all.
And exactly how do you plan to police that using e.g. ANPR? Or are
there going to be cameras that do occupancy counting?
Recliner
2018-11-02 07:48:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/petrol-and-diesel-facing-ban-in-city-83t0f8zdt?shareToken=35a3d7d1a37b3103d0034424e71eea77>
Good luck with that one. Are there enough low emission buses, taxis,
delivery vehicles, and so on to make it even remotely practical?
Buses and taxis, yes — all new London taxis are PHEVs, with quite a decent
zero emissions range.
So what happens when you walk up to an enclosed rank, such as
Paddington, wanting to go to the City and the first electric vehicle is
the fifth one in the rank?
I strongly suspect all taxis would be exempt.
That's certainly not the long-term intention, but I guess it's something to
be tested during the trial. One initial compromise could be that any taxi
can drop off in the zone, but only electric taxis can pick up. But I'm sure
their long-term plan is to stop any diesel taxis entering the zone at all.
And exactly how do you plan to police that using e.g. ANPR? Or are
there going to be cameras that do occupancy counting?
There will obviously be ANPR cameras to monitor all vehicles entering the
zone, and those not on the allowed list will be photographed. If a taxi
enters with no visible passengers or with the For Hire sign illuminated, it
gets the warning notice, and if the offence is repeated, a fine.
David Cantrell
2018-11-05 10:58:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
There will obviously be ANPR cameras to monitor all vehicles entering the
zone, and those not on the allowed list will be photographed. If a taxi
enters with no visible passengers or with the For Hire sign illuminated, it
gets the warning notice, and if the offence is repeated, a fine.
It's hard enough reliably seeing whether the For Hire sign is
illuminated using human eyes during daylight hours, never mind using
cheap fixed cameras.
--
David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

Only some sort of ghastly dehumanised moron would want to get
rid of Routemasters
-- Ken Livingstone, four years before he got rid of 'em
Roland Perry
2018-11-01 10:14:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/petrol-and-diesel-facing-ban-in-cit
y-83t0f8zdt?shareToken=35a3d7d1a37b3103d0034424e71eea77>
Good luck with that one. Are there enough low emission buses, taxis,
delivery vehicles, and so on to make it even remotely practical?
That was my first thought (and similar to earlier discussions about
similar zones in Central Oxford).

We have to assume that public sector vehicles (not just emergency ones,
but waste/litter collection, fixing streetlights, etc) will be exempt?

That just leaves similar vehicles operating in the private sector.
Hybrid Openreach and builders' vans, anyone?

[To be fair, BT claim to have been testing some low emissions vans for a
year now, but they would say that, wouldn't they]
--
Roland Perry
Someone Somewhere
2018-11-01 11:42:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/petrol-and-diesel-facing-ban-in-cit
y-83t0f8zdt?shareToken=35a3d7d1a37b3103d0034424e71eea77>
Good luck with that one.  Are there enough low emission buses, taxis,
delivery vehicles, and so on to make it even remotely practical?
That was my first thought (and similar to earlier discussions about
similar zones in Central Oxford).
We have to assume that public sector vehicles (not just emergency ones,
but waste/litter collection, fixing streetlights, etc) will be exempt?
That just leaves similar vehicles operating in the private sector.
Hybrid Openreach and builders' vans, anyone?
[To be fair, BT claim to have been testing some low emissions vans for a
 year now, but they would say that, wouldn't they]
The problem is for those of us who live just outside (in my case East)
of the City and have to transit it as part of the beginning of a longer
journey (which is not reasonably possible to complete on public
transport - for example I have family in rural areas on the
England/Wales borders).

Yes, the inner ringroad can be followed, but given the woeful state of
traffic in London, any further limitations of options could cause utter
chaos in the case of a single breakdown or accident.

What we need to prevent is regular journeys, not all journeys - that
would also cover emergency vehicles, people having to fix things and so
on, but not daily deliveries or commuting to work.
Roland Perry
2018-11-01 15:08:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/petrol-and-diesel-facing-ban-in-cit
y-83t0f8zdt?shareToken=35a3d7d1a37b3103d0034424e71eea77>
Good luck with that one.  Are there enough low emission buses,
taxis, delivery vehicles, and so on to make it even remotely practical?
That was my first thought (and similar to earlier discussions about
similar zones in Central Oxford).
We have to assume that public sector vehicles (not just emergency
ones, but waste/litter collection, fixing streetlights, etc) will be
exempt?
That just leaves similar vehicles operating in the private sector.
Hybrid Openreach and builders' vans, anyone?
[To be fair, BT claim to have been testing some low emissions vans for a
 year now, but they would say that, wouldn't they]
The problem is for those of us who live just outside (in my case East)
of the City and have to transit it as part of the beginning of a longer
journey (which is not reasonably possible to complete on public
transport - for example I have family in rural areas on the
England/Wales borders).
Yes, the inner ringroad can be followed, but given the woeful state of
traffic in London, any further limitations of options could cause utter
chaos in the case of a single breakdown or accident.
What we need to prevent is regular journeys, not all journeys - that
would also cover emergency vehicles, people having to fix things and so
on, but not daily deliveries or commuting to work.
I can definitely relate to this "occasional use" exemption. There are
many driving restrictions in place which are primarily aimed at regular
drivers. If I was to venture inside the N/S circulars in my diesel car,
or use the Dartford Crossing, one or twice a year, would it really break
the bank to waive the fee?
--
Roland Perry
Graham Harrison
2018-11-01 17:46:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/petrol-and-diesel-facing-ban-in-cit
y-83t0f8zdt?shareToken=35a3d7d1a37b3103d0034424e71eea77>
Good luck with that one.  Are there enough low emission buses,
taxis, delivery vehicles, and so on to make it even remotely practical?
That was my first thought (and similar to earlier discussions about
similar zones in Central Oxford).
We have to assume that public sector vehicles (not just emergency
ones, but waste/litter collection, fixing streetlights, etc) will be
exempt?
That just leaves similar vehicles operating in the private sector.
Hybrid Openreach and builders' vans, anyone?
[To be fair, BT claim to have been testing some low emissions vans for a
 year now, but they would say that, wouldn't they]
The problem is for those of us who live just outside (in my case East)
of the City and have to transit it as part of the beginning of a longer
journey (which is not reasonably possible to complete on public
transport - for example I have family in rural areas on the
England/Wales borders).
Yes, the inner ringroad can be followed, but given the woeful state of
traffic in London, any further limitations of options could cause utter
chaos in the case of a single breakdown or accident.
What we need to prevent is regular journeys, not all journeys - that
would also cover emergency vehicles, people having to fix things and so
on, but not daily deliveries or commuting to work.
I can definitely relate to this "occasional use" exemption. There are
many driving restrictions in place which are primarily aimed at regular
drivers. If I was to venture inside the N/S circulars in my diesel car,
or use the Dartford Crossing, one or twice a year, would it really break
the bank to waive the fee?
Probably not BUT where do you set the limit? In any case, this is
not about raking in money (even though it might do so). It's about
air quality and therefore keeping as many "polluting vehicles" out
is/should be the aim.
Roland Perry
2018-11-01 18:12:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graham Harrison
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Someone Somewhere
What we need to prevent is regular journeys, not all journeys - that
would also cover emergency vehicles, people having to fix things and so
on, but not daily deliveries or commuting to work.
I can definitely relate to this "occasional use" exemption. There are
many driving restrictions in place which are primarily aimed at regular
drivers. If I was to venture inside the N/S circulars in my diesel car,
or use the Dartford Crossing, one or twice a year, would it really break
the bank to waive the fee?
Probably not BUT where do you set the limit?
Somewhere between five and ten per scheme per annum.
Post by Graham Harrison
In any case, this is not about raking in money (even though it might do
so). It's about air quality and therefore keeping as many "polluting
vehicles" out is/should be the aim.
While I agree that regular vehicles like commuters' cars, and ultra-
regular users like taxis, buses and many delivery vans, should be
cleaned up, the hoops someone who drives a few miles in such an area
five times a year is expected to jump through (such as buying a new car
for those rare Central London trips, or driving the other way round the
M25 to avoid Dartford) is totally disproportionate.
--
Roland Perry
news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley)
2018-11-02 12:57:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Graham Harrison
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Someone Somewhere
What we need to prevent is regular journeys, not all journeys - that
would also cover emergency vehicles, people having to fix things and so
on, but not daily deliveries or commuting to work.
I can definitely relate to this "occasional use" exemption. There are
many driving restrictions in place which are primarily aimed at regular
drivers. If I was to venture inside the N/S circulars in my diesel car,
or use the Dartford Crossing, one or twice a year, would it really break
the bank to waive the fee?
Probably not BUT where do you set the limit?
Somewhere between five and ten per scheme per annum.
Post by Graham Harrison
In any case, this is not about raking in money (even though it might do
so). It's about air quality and therefore keeping as many "polluting
vehicles" out is/should be the aim.
While I agree that regular vehicles like commuters' cars, and ultra-
regular users like taxis, buses and many delivery vans, should be
cleaned up, the hoops someone who drives a few miles in such an area
five times a year is expected to jump through (such as buying a new car
for those rare Central London trips, or driving the other way round the
M25 to avoid Dartford) is totally disproportionate.
Now that is the view of someone living outside the zones.

Living inside the zones I suspect people want the stronger limits.
--
Mark
Someone Somewhere
2018-11-02 13:41:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley)
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Graham Harrison
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Someone Somewhere
What we need to prevent is regular journeys, not all journeys - that
would also cover emergency vehicles, people having to fix things and so
on, but not daily deliveries or commuting to work.
I can definitely relate to this "occasional use" exemption. There are
many driving restrictions in place which are primarily aimed at regular
drivers. If I was to venture inside the N/S circulars in my diesel car,
or use the Dartford Crossing, one or twice a year, would it really break
the bank to waive the fee?
Probably not BUT where do you set the limit?
Somewhere between five and ten per scheme per annum.
Post by Graham Harrison
In any case, this is not about raking in money (even though it might do
so). It's about air quality and therefore keeping as many "polluting
vehicles" out is/should be the aim.
While I agree that regular vehicles like commuters' cars, and ultra-
regular users like taxis, buses and many delivery vans, should be
cleaned up, the hoops someone who drives a few miles in such an area
five times a year is expected to jump through (such as buying a new car
for those rare Central London trips, or driving the other way round the
M25 to avoid Dartford) is totally disproportionate.
Now that is the view of someone living outside the zones.
Living inside the zones I suspect people want the stronger limits.
Well given I'm quoted above, and I live less than a mile outside the
square mile, I think you're wrong.
Roland Perry
2018-11-02 14:06:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley)
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Graham Harrison
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Someone Somewhere
What we need to prevent is regular journeys, not all journeys - that
would also cover emergency vehicles, people having to fix things and so
on, but not daily deliveries or commuting to work.
I can definitely relate to this "occasional use" exemption. There are
many driving restrictions in place which are primarily aimed at regular
drivers. If I was to venture inside the N/S circulars in my diesel car,
or use the Dartford Crossing, one or twice a year, would it really break
the bank to waive the fee?
Probably not BUT where do you set the limit?
Somewhere between five and ten per scheme per annum.
Post by Graham Harrison
In any case, this is not about raking in money (even though it might do
so). It's about air quality and therefore keeping as many "polluting
vehicles" out is/should be the aim.
While I agree that regular vehicles like commuters' cars, and ultra-
regular users like taxis, buses and many delivery vans, should be
cleaned up, the hoops someone who drives a few miles in such an area
five times a year is expected to jump through (such as buying a new car
for those rare Central London trips, or driving the other way round the
M25 to avoid Dartford) is totally disproportionate.
Now that is the view of someone living outside the zones.
Living inside the zones I suspect people want the stronger limits.
For themselves and others driving every day. Not people like me who make
as a long term average one trip a year.
--
Roland Perry
John Williamson
2018-11-02 13:33:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
While I agree that regular vehicles like commuters' cars, and ultra-
regular users like taxis, buses and many delivery vans, should be
cleaned up, the hoops someone who drives a few miles in such an area
five times a year is expected to jump through (such as buying a new car
for those rare Central London trips, or driving the other way round the
M25 to avoid Dartford) is totally disproportionate.
Set the penalty at a bit more than it would cost to divert round the
restriction. Reading the article linked to, the ban will only apply to
the Square Mile, anyway, while Sadiq Khan has plans to extend it to the
whole conurbation as soon as he can get away with it.


He's the reason that the company I work for has had to replace almost
their entire fleet recently, as he's brought forward the Euro 6
requirement by a couple of years. We have 6 year old Euro 5 vehicles,
which cost about twenty grand to modify.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
Roland Perry
2018-11-02 14:09:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Williamson
Post by Roland Perry
While I agree that regular vehicles like commuters' cars, and ultra-
regular users like taxis, buses and many delivery vans, should be
cleaned up, the hoops someone who drives a few miles in such an area
five times a year is expected to jump through (such as buying a new car
for those rare Central London trips, or driving the other way round the
M25 to avoid Dartford) is totally disproportionate.
Set the penalty at a bit more than it would cost to divert round the
restriction.
How do you measure such a cost? Just extra miles (and hence gallons) of
driving polluting people living further out, or does my time have a
value too?

My time as a semi-retired person, is probably worth less than someone
with an urgent appointment in Central London.
--
Roland Perry
John Williamson
2018-11-02 14:58:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by John Williamson
Set the penalty at a bit more than it would cost to divert round the
restriction.
How do you measure such a cost? Just extra miles (and hence gallons) of
driving polluting people living further out, or does my time have a
value too?
Like all such things, the answer will be a fudge based on wage levels
and fuel costs.

Call it twenty quid a trip as a starter, and if that doesn't put enough
off, then increase it. It's a penalty to discourage people, not a carrot
to entice people to update their transport.
Post by Roland Perry
My time as a semi-retired person, is probably worth less than someone
with an urgent appointment in Central London.
If I had an urgent appointment in Central London, I'd either use public
transport or a pushbike, as they are the fastest ways to get round the
City. By about 2030, all buses will be electric, as will most cabs. Uber
and other private hire drivers will have to make up their minds whether
they want to upgrade their cars or refuse trips.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
Roland Perry
2018-11-02 16:16:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Williamson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by John Williamson
Set the penalty at a bit more than it would cost to divert round the
restriction.
How do you measure such a cost? Just extra miles (and hence gallons)
of driving polluting people living further out, or does my time have
a value too?
Like all such things, the answer will be a fudge based on wage levels
and fuel costs.
Normally, the "value" of leisure time comes out at around minimum wage
(but try telling that to someone getting up at 6am on a Sunday instead
of 8am). Fuel cost avoiding Central London depends on whether one's
destination is Central London, or somewhere "across" London.

Maybe they should have built all those extra Ringways, after all.?
Post by John Williamson
Call it twenty quid a trip as a starter, and if that doesn't put enough
off, then increase it. It's a penalty to discourage people, not a
carrot to entice people to update their transport.
I don't do any trips unless I *have* to. So that's a broken theory.
Post by John Williamson
Post by Roland Perry
My time as a semi-retired person, is probably worth less than someone
with an urgent appointment in Central London.
If I had an urgent appointment in Central London, I'd either use public
transport or a pushbike, as they are the fastest ways to get round the
City.
I don't have a pushbike, and trains into Central London are often scare
at times like Sunday mornings, when I typically plan to travel into
London avoiding the traffic. You can't get a student's entire effects
onto a train, let alone a bike.

If I didn't need the carrying capacity of a car, I'd have been on a
train in the first place (or the person I was giving a lift to would
be).

Albeit a little way from London, my next non-trivial trip in a car will
be to pick someone up Saturday evening after a work shift, a couple of
hours after the last of the bus-every-3hrs has departed.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2018-11-02 21:32:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Williamson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by John Williamson
Set the penalty at a bit more than it would cost to divert round the
restriction.
How do you measure such a cost? Just extra miles (and hence gallons) of
driving polluting people living further out, or does my time have a
value too?
Like all such things, the answer will be a fudge based on wage levels
and fuel costs.
Call it twenty quid a trip as a starter, and if that doesn't put enough
off, then increase it. It's a penalty to discourage people, not a carrot
to entice people to update their transport.
Post by Roland Perry
My time as a semi-retired person, is probably worth less than someone
with an urgent appointment in Central London.
If I had an urgent appointment in Central London, I'd either use public
transport or a pushbike, as they are the fastest ways to get round the
City. By about 2030, all buses will be electric, as will most cabs. Uber
and other private hire drivers will have to make up their minds whether
they want to upgrade their cars or refuse trips.
Uber are raising fares, to provide drivers with the funds to upgrade to
PHEVs.
Someone Somewhere
2018-11-02 07:33:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graham Harrison
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/petrol-and-diesel-facing-ban-in-cit
y-83t0f8zdt?shareToken=35a3d7d1a37b3103d0034424e71eea77>
Good luck with that one.  Are there enough low emission buses,
taxis, delivery vehicles, and so on to make it even remotely practical?
That was my first thought (and similar to earlier discussions about
similar zones in Central Oxford).
We have to assume that public sector vehicles (not just emergency
ones, but waste/litter collection, fixing streetlights, etc) will be
exempt?
That just leaves similar vehicles operating in the private sector.
Hybrid Openreach and builders' vans, anyone?
[To be fair, BT claim to have been testing some low emissions vans for a
 year now, but they would say that, wouldn't they]
The problem is for those of us who live just outside (in my case East)
of the City and have to transit it as part of the beginning of a longer
journey (which is not reasonably possible to complete on public
transport - for example I have family in rural areas on the
England/Wales borders).
Yes, the inner ringroad can be followed, but given the woeful state of
traffic in London, any further limitations of options could cause utter
chaos in the case of a single breakdown or accident.
What we need to prevent is regular journeys, not all journeys - that
would also cover emergency vehicles, people having to fix things and so
on, but not daily deliveries or commuting to work.
I can definitely relate to this "occasional use" exemption. There are
many driving restrictions in place which are primarily aimed at regular
drivers. If I was to venture inside the N/S circulars in my diesel car,
or use the Dartford Crossing, one or twice a year, would it really break
the bank to waive the fee?
Probably not BUT where do you set the limit? In any case, this is
not about raking in money (even though it might do so). It's about
air quality and therefore keeping as many "polluting vehicles" out
is/should be the aim.
Yes - and those are the vehicles that do it 200 times a year, not 5.

The question is, how much of London traffic is made of regular vehicles
and how much is made of occasional visitors? I'd suggest it's 95% the
former (a lot of non-Londoners I know will actively avoid or refuse to
drive in London) but I have no citable evidence. Reduce or clean up
their journeys and the job is basically done.

Of course, horrendously polluting vehicles should be kept out
regardless, but we're talking about e.g. 10 year old petrol cars which
clearly meet some emissions standards.
Roland Perry
2018-11-02 09:00:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by Graham Harrison
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Someone Somewhere
What we need to prevent is regular journeys, not all journeys - that
would also cover emergency vehicles, people having to fix things and so
on, but not daily deliveries or commuting to work.
I can definitely relate to this "occasional use" exemption. There are
many driving restrictions in place which are primarily aimed at regular
drivers. If I was to venture inside the N/S circulars in my diesel car,
or use the Dartford Crossing, one or twice a year, would it really break
the bank to waive the fee?
Probably not BUT where do you set the limit? In any case, this is
not about raking in money (even though it might do so). It's about
air quality and therefore keeping as many "polluting vehicles" out
is/should be the aim.
Yes - and those are the vehicles that do it 200 times a year, not 5.
The question is, how much of London traffic is made of regular vehicles
and how much is made of occasional visitors? I'd suggest it's 95% the
former (a lot of non-Londoners I know will actively avoid or refuse to
drive in London) but I have no citable evidence.
I just have my own anecdata which says I currently have very little
*need* to drive in London, being just an hour away by train and the
traffic inside the N/S circular is dire and parking horrendous. I do
however drive *around* especially the North Circular perhaps once a year
on the way to/from somewhere when the M25 is at a standstill.

Since the congestion charge came in, I've only had to pay it once, but
one of my children was at University in London for four years and that
involved a "taxi-dad" trip at the beginning and end of every term. Their
accommodation was always in Z2, never Z1 or Z3+; nevertheless it was a
somewhat specialist need. After a while we got quite good at doing
turn-arounds within the 2hr-max typically for parking meters in those
parts.
Post by Someone Somewhere
Reduce or clean up their journeys and the job is basically done.
Of course, horrendously polluting vehicles should be kept out
regardless, but we're talking about e.g. 10 year old petrol cars which
clearly meet some emissions standards.
The wider ultra-low-emissions-zone supervised by the Mayor, and due to
come into force in April, requires a diesel to be Euro-6 which means
that some cars bought as little as two years ago (in the twilight of
Euro-5) will be charged.

If they'd allowed Euro-5, I might have considered buying an early Euro-5
car recently, but as it stands I had nothing to lose getting a late
Euro-4 (in terms of regulatory compliance, anyway).
--
Roland Perry
David Cantrell
2018-11-05 11:03:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graham Harrison
Probably not BUT where do you set the limit?
I don't have access to the detailed journey data needed to do a sensible
analysis.
Post by Graham Harrison
In any case, this is
not about raking in money (even though it might do so). It's about
air quality and therefore keeping as many "polluting vehicles" out
is/should be the aim.
Wrong. The aim should be to reduce *pollution*, not to reduce polluting
vehicles. What's worse, a hundred polluting vehicles entering the zone
once a year each, or a single polluting vehicle entering every day?
Obviously the latter.
--
David Cantrell
Roland Perry
2018-11-05 11:27:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Cantrell
Post by Graham Harrison
Probably not BUT where do you set the limit?
I don't have access to the detailed journey data needed to do a sensible
analysis.
Post by Graham Harrison
In any case, this is
not about raking in money (even though it might do so). It's about
air quality and therefore keeping as many "polluting vehicles" out
is/should be the aim.
Wrong. The aim should be to reduce *pollution*, not to reduce polluting
vehicles. What's worse, a hundred polluting vehicles entering the zone
once a year each, or a single polluting vehicle entering every day?
Obviously the latter.
Changing it to "reducing the number of polluting *trips*" encompasses
both ideas, but still shows that its the regular commuters/deliveries
rather than people visiting Auntie Flo on her birthday who need to be
discouraged.
--
Roland Perry
John Williamson
2018-11-05 11:52:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by David Cantrell
Wrong. The aim should be to reduce *pollution*, not to reduce polluting
vehicles. What's worse, a hundred polluting vehicles entering the zone
once a year each, or a single polluting vehicle entering every day?
Obviously the latter.
Changing it to "reducing the number of polluting *trips*" encompasses
both ideas, but still shows that its the regular commuters/deliveries
rather than people visiting Auntie Flo on her birthday who need to be
discouraged.
Something that might help somewhat, and would be virtually free to
implement,would be to make the congestion charge apply 24/7 rather than
just on weekdays.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
Roland Perry
2018-11-05 12:00:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Williamson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by David Cantrell
Wrong. The aim should be to reduce *pollution*, not to reduce polluting
vehicles. What's worse, a hundred polluting vehicles entering the zone
once a year each, or a single polluting vehicle entering every day?
Obviously the latter.
Changing it to "reducing the number of polluting *trips*"
encompasses both ideas, but still shows that its the regular
commuters/deliveries rather than people visiting Auntie Flo on her
birthday who need to be discouraged.
Something that might help somewhat, and would be virtually free to
implement,would be to make the congestion charge apply 24/7 rather than
just on weekdays.
No, that's the opposite, and would penalise the Auntie Flo trips while
failing to further penalise the commuters/deliveries.

Although I could support a 24x7 charge if every vehicle had (say) a
dozen free trips a year; you could call it "Aunt Flo's Law".
--
Roland Perry
Someone Somewhere
2018-11-05 12:02:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Williamson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by David Cantrell
Wrong. The aim should be to reduce *pollution*, not to reduce polluting
vehicles. What's worse, a hundred polluting vehicles entering the zone
once a year each, or a single polluting vehicle entering every day?
Obviously the latter.
Changing it to "reducing the number of polluting *trips*" encompasses
both ideas, but still shows that its the regular commuters/deliveries
rather than people visiting Auntie Flo on her birthday who need to be
discouraged.
Something that might help somewhat, and would be virtually free to
implement,would be to make the congestion charge apply 24/7 rather than
just on weekdays.
No - because that doesn't affect multiple journeys for the same vehicle
on the same day.

Arguably it should be e.g. £5 per journey, £10 for the most polluting
vehicles (and maybe an even higher figure for e.g. certain lorries), and
£2 for those that are emission free at the tailpipe (as they are not
entirely polluting free in general and there still needs to be an aspect
of congestion charging). A journey could be classed as passing through
the congestion charge boundary inbound (with an exception that twice
within a very short time was obviously due to a circuitous journey).
Have an upfront charge to register and prove intent, and then bill in
arrears electronically (probably paying back the registration fee).

I'd also have a punitive fine for vehicles left with their engines
running, whilst parked up, anytime and anywhere in London - ie make it
worth collecting as well as painful to pay.

Personally I'd be more than happy to pay that, and to pay any loading on
occasional big deliveries or similar, ditto for taking taxis (although
I'd look for emission free at the tailpipe versions!).
Roland Perry
2018-11-05 12:18:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Someone Somewhere
Arguably it should be e.g. £5 per journey, £10 for the most polluting
vehicles (and maybe an even higher figure for e.g. certain lorries),
and £2 for those that are emission free at the tailpipe (as they are
not entirely polluting free in general and there still needs to be an
aspect of congestion charging). A journey could be classed as passing
through the congestion charge boundary inbound (with an exception that
twice within a very short time was obviously due to a circuitous journey).
Putting aside the policy issue of charging at all for a moment, that
doesn't work on a topological basis. One car could be driving all day
long while staying inside the emissions zone (remember we are talking
about the N/S circular very soon), whereas another which just happened
to 'live' near the boundary could do half a dozen short trips spread
throughout the day, but nevertheless crossing the boundary.

Unless you set your "very short time" at say 12hrs, which isn't at all
what you meant.
--
Roland Perry
Someone Somewhere
2018-11-05 14:07:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Someone Somewhere
Arguably it should be e.g. £5 per journey, £10 for the most polluting
vehicles (and maybe an even higher figure for e.g. certain lorries),
and £2 for those that are emission free at the tailpipe (as they are
not entirely polluting free in general and there still needs to be an
aspect of congestion charging).  A journey could be classed as passing
through the congestion charge boundary inbound (with an exception that
twice within a very short time was obviously due to a circuitous journey).
Putting aside the policy issue of charging at all for a moment, that
doesn't work on a topological basis. One car could be driving all day
long while staying inside the emissions zone (remember we are talking
about the N/S circular very soon), whereas another which just happened
to 'live' near the boundary could do half a dozen short trips spread
throughout the day, but nevertheless crossing the boundary.
Unless you set your "very short time" at say 12hrs, which isn't at all
what you meant.
We were talking about the City of London (which is what this thread
started as) and our own made up plans, not the emissions zone as
proposed by the Mayor of London.

The City is, of course, small enough for this to work.
Roland Perry
2018-11-05 21:03:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Someone Somewhere
Arguably it should be e.g. £5 per journey, £10 for the most
polluting vehicles (and maybe an even higher figure for e.g. certain
lorries), and £2 for those that are emission free at the tailpipe
(as they are not entirely polluting free in general and there still
needs to be an aspect of congestion charging).  A journey could be
classed as passing through the congestion charge boundary inbound
(with an exception that twice within a very short time was obviously
due to a circuitous journey).
Putting aside the policy issue of charging at all for a moment, that
doesn't work on a topological basis. One car could be driving all day
long while staying inside the emissions zone (remember we are talking
about the N/S circular very soon), whereas another which just happened
to 'live' near the boundary could do half a dozen short trips spread
throughout the day, but nevertheless crossing the boundary.
Unless you set your "very short time" at say 12hrs, which isn't at
all what you meant.
We were talking about the City of London (which is what this thread
started as) and our own made up plans, not the emissions zone as
proposed by the Mayor of London.
It's a bit confusing when people start talking about the congestion
charge, which as far as I know goes to TfL (or its Mayor) rather than
the City of London.
Post by Someone Somewhere
The City is, of course, small enough for this to work.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2018-11-05 12:44:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Williamson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by David Cantrell
Wrong. The aim should be to reduce *pollution*, not to reduce polluting
vehicles. What's worse, a hundred polluting vehicles entering the zone
once a year each, or a single polluting vehicle entering every day?
Obviously the latter.
Changing it to "reducing the number of polluting *trips*" encompasses
both ideas, but still shows that its the regular commuters/deliveries
rather than people visiting Auntie Flo on her birthday who need to be
discouraged.
Something that might help somewhat, and would be virtually free to
implement,would be to make the congestion charge apply 24/7 rather than
just on weekdays.
The ULEZ will indeed operate 24/7, but the charge will be in addition to
the congestion charge:

<https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/ulez-where-and-when?intcmp=54312>

There will be a 'sunset' period for some existing vehicles, giving their
owners time to replace them:

<https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/discounts-and-exemptions>

Otherwise, the main vehicles to be hit will be all but the newest diesels.
Marland
2018-11-01 12:02:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/petrol-and-diesel-facing-ban-in-city-83t0f8zdt?shareToken=35a3d7d1a37b3103d0034424e71eea77>
Good luck with that one. Are there enough low emission buses, taxis,
delivery vehicles, and so on to make it even remotely practical?
Given enough notice those things can mainly be coped with, Taxis and Buses
are already well on the way.
To be honest the article isn’t that clear if it is just cars or vehicles.
Cars would imply private ones and presumably ones operated by the emergency
services would be allowed.
That still leaves a lot of service provision on the edge though, while it
is not an emergency in the 999 sense
someone who urgently needs a plumber because their leak is potentially
causing thousands of pounds of damage to their flat and others below may
not be that happy to be told “sorry most of our vehicles are not allowed
where you live,the one that is won’t be free for hours”, and that scenario
will apply to a multitude of items from photocopiers to freezers in shops
and restaurants at least for a while till vehicle development catches up
with the market.

GH
Alex Peel
2018-11-05 13:36:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
HMU
CALL OR TEXT or watsapp ....+237682822983
Email :....... ***@gmail.com

hello we are leading suppliers of pharmaceutical product meds online
we operate on daily and retails basis and very reliable and our
product are 100% top quality am ready to supply on large and smaller
orders and i am looking in building a strong business relationship
with potential client around the world i do world wide delivery and
delivery is guarantee.
see price list offer and pm me or you can get me on whatsapp

FOR ZOLPICLONE 7.5MG SMALLER ORDER
250 tabs..........................&#8206;£90
500 tabs...........................&#8206;£150
1000 tabs.........................&#8206;£250
2500 tabs.........................£350
5000 tabs.........................£500
7500 tabs.........................£700
10000 tabs........................£850
15000 tabs........................£1200
25000 tabs........................£1500
FOR DIAZEPAM SHALINA BRAND
diazepam 10mg 500pills £100
diazepam 10mg 300pills £70
diazepam 10mg 1000pills £150
diazepam 10mg 5000pills £350
diazepam 5mg 1000pills £120
diazepam 5mg 5000pills £300
diazepam 5mg 10000pills £500
diazepam 10mg 10000pills £700
FOR ROCHE DIAZEPAMS 10MG SMALLER ORDER
250 tabs..........................&#8206;£90
500 tabs...........................&#8206;£150
1000 tabs.........................&#8206;£250
2500 tabs.........................£350
5000 tabs.........................£500
7500 tabs.........................£700
10000 tabs........................£850
15000 tabs........................£1200
25000 tabs........................£1500
TEVA 10MG DIAZEPAMS SMALLER ORDER
250 tabs...........................&#8206;£90
500 tabs...........................&#8206;£150
1000 tabs.........................&#8206;£250
2500 tabs.........................£350
5000 tabs.........................£500
7500 tabs.........................£700
10000 tabs.......................£850
15000 tabs.......................£1200
25000 tabs.......................£1500
..
ketamine £20 each vial/1g
ketamine powder each gram £25
FOR TRAMADOL APPLE FLAVOUR
tramadol 50mg 250pills £80
tramadol 100mg 300pills £90
tramadol 225mg 300pills £120
tramadol 50mg 500pills £130
tramadol 100mg 500pills £140
tramadol 250mg 500pills £150
tramadol 50mg 1000pills £200
tramadol 100mg 1000pills £220
tramadol 250mg 1000pills £250
FOR TRAMADOL BULK ORDER
tramadol 50mg 5000pills £450
tramadol 100mg 5000pills £550
tramadol 250mg 5000pills £700
i also have my delivery records all around the worlds and i
providedated pictures with buyers name and my name CALL US OR TEXT
....+2376682822983 email for detailsi supply more than the quantity
listed,i give additional discount to more larger ordersi look forward
in doing great business with reliable buyersthanks email for details
Research Chemicals Ltd

CALL OR TEXT or watsapp ....+237682822983
Email : ........... ***@gmail.com
Loading...