Extension to ultra-low emission zone to north/south circulars

[uncleglen]

I think it is about time this was addressed. Within the North and South circular roads there is a rush hour level of traffic ALL DAY and most of it is the unemployed driving around in their old cars. How someone who is unemployed either needs or can afford a car is beyond me so the more of them that are forced off the road the better- although I doubt very much if they will be as some of these so-called 'unemployed' will be able to afford the extra tax if they can afford to run a car on benefits- AND many of them get a reduced-cost Oyster travel card as well

[Earl Aelfheah]

Calsug Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I prefer the carrot approach instead of the

> stick...

>

>

>

>

> Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Calsug Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > If the charge supported increased transport

> > links

> > > in south London then I might support but I

> feel

> > it

> > > won?t...

> >

> > Isn't reducing the pollution which ends the

> lives

> > of 10,000 Londoners prematurely every single

> year

> > an aim worth supporting?

I completely agree. If we want people out of their cars, they have to be given alternatives. Otherwise behaviour doesn't change, people's costs just go up. Double the number of trains running through East Dulwich and make reduce the number of delays and you'd see a huge drop in car ownership.

[rendelharris]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Within the North and South circular roads there is

> a rush hour level of traffic ALL DAY and most of

> it is the unemployed driving around in their old

> cars.

Any scintilla of evidence for this beyond your personal prejudiced world view?

[goldilocks]

Any clear rationale for why taxis are exempt - except for their massive lobbying prowess? Feels at odds to license vehicles to carry on a commercial business in which they are driving around the ULEZ zone all day in a car that would otherwise be subject to punitive charging

[flocker spotter]

All black cabs will have to be younger than 15 years and new cabs have to be either electric or zero emissions - so there is a roll out plan for black cabs already in place

[Calsug]

Not so sure about trams James - Edinburgh was a good case study on trams not being quick or even cheap to deploy ... think laying down track and having trams competing on roads that already can?t cope with cyclists, cars and buses is a recipe for disaster. It would create more traffic and ultimately more pollution

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi Calsug,

>

>

> Totally agree public transport improvements are

> necessary. Trams can be quickly built an deployed

> and no plans in place to do this.

> The taxation raised will be used to maintain

> current public transport and the appearance of TfL

> fares freeze.

[DuncanW]

I support this and do currently own a car that would be liable for the charge.

The reality is that in our area this change will not function as a tax on the poor, or anyone else, but as a de facto ban on the more polluting diesel vehicles. To use your car twice a week would cost ?1,300 pa so surely most people will accept they need to switch their car over rather than to pay the tax.

The argument that this will disproportionately affect the poor is weak at best. It is true that this will be be a big change and much of the cost will be borne by those who currently own these cars, having bought them in good faith.

Some of those will be less well off, but let's say you're on a modest income and you bought a car last week blithely unaware that diesels are now seen as unacceptably polluting - how much would this person have spent on this car? If it was ?20K I would suggest they might not be that poor after all. So maybe ?5k - that's still a fair amount of money though... depreciation means that the car would halve in value typically over three years, and let's assume that it halves again because of the ULEV - that's a loss of ?1,250 with three years to plan around it... are those figures about right?

I'm not making light of a loss of around ?1,250 for someone on a low income, but that seems like it would be towards the far end of worst-case-scenario. And I would argue that there would be a scaling where typically, as the value of the car and therefore the loss increases, so would the income/wealth status of the individual affected.

I've cobbled this together on the hoof and and it's not supported by source date, but I hope the general point makes sense.

So the current situation can't continue. There's a price to pay for that. I think the price is worth paying.

[Abe_froeman]

Is scrapping all those diesel cars enivronmentally friendly?

Are the petrol cars tbat will replace them less polluting?

What is the environmental impact (let alone cost) of constructing an enforcement network in an area of hundreds of square miles?

Why isnt the issue of wood burning stoves being addressed, which causes far more pollution than diesel cars?

[flocker spotter]

of course it will affect the poorer sections of London more. Plenty of work out there to back this up, from both sides of the spectrum.

[natty01295]

REGARDING

THE UNEMPLOYED;

They will Not have any insurance or Tax Or Mot

And No Driving Licence

[wulfhound]

Thousands a year dying prematurely due to bad air, kids having their lung development stunted, and y'all are talking about... money.

[micromacromonkey]

Cardelia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you buy a car on PCP then at the end of the

> contract you either hand the car back and walk

> away, or finance the balloon payment to own it

> outright. The only way you can owe the lender any

> money is if you exceed the stipulated mileage, or

> if you've damaged the car and it needs repairs.

> Resale values don't come into it, and they won't

> affect the size of the balloon payment either

> because those are determined at the very start of

> the PCP process.

Ah OK, whenever I was looking at getting a car on PCP years ago I don't think that GMFV was an option, so the risk was on the consumer. GMFV now places the risk on the finance firm instead; same result, systemic risk.

[B+]

There is no need to have zones, cameras, a small army of enforcers and staff.

Just increase the Tax on diesel fuel then those that do the most mileage with their diesel vehicles will pay the most, and if the extra revenue raised is used to fund a diesel vehicle scrappage scheme then it would be a tax that phases itself out as diesel vehicles gradually leave our roads.

[sally buying]

Far too simple for the eco warriors.

First rate idea

[solar]

That's an A+ suggestion B+

[kford]

The PCP bubble bursting and Brexit will put paid to this.

[rendelharris]

B+ Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There is no need to have zones, cameras, a small

> army of enforcers and staff.

> Just increase the Tax on diesel fuel then those

> that do the most mileage with their diesel

> vehicles will pay the most, and if the extra

> revenue raised is used to fund a diesel vehicle

> scrappage scheme then it would be a tax that

> phases itself out as diesel vehicles gradually

> leave our roads.

Great idea, but it'd have to be applied nationwide with an outcry from the rural areas who tend to use diesel a lot - Land Rovers and tractors - otherwise people would just drive out of London to fill up their diesel vehicles, adding to the problem.

[first mate]

Not every time. I really doubt that. People tend to go with what is most convenient and would likely pay higher charges until they can change their vehicle. It's a good, workable idea.

[rendelharris]

I agree it's a good idea, just question whether it's workable without a nationwide rollout; if applied solely inside the ULEZ I can certainly see people nipping over the other side of the south circular to fill up.

[B+]

It would only be a matter of time until the rest of the u.k

wants to reduce/eradicate diesel pollution anyway, so for it to work will need to be a

national scheme from the start.

Qualifying rural vehicles could be given tax rebates without the expense

of an infrastructure based solution that will become redundant

once there is no longer a diesel problem.

If the tax revenue was kept separate from the government?s general coffers

and if a regular announcement of how the funds were growing and being used,

(a bit like the national lottery) then it could create a feel good factor that makes

this extra tax palatable. Also if the most polluting and heavily used vehicles

were replaced first we would be able to measure the benefits of cleaner air

fairly quickly.

[rendelharris]

OK I'm in!

[Penguin68]

Qualifying rural vehicles could be given tax rebates

They already are - 'red' diesel. The government is currently investigating its use https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/red-diesel-call-for-evidence/red-diesel-call-for-evidence

[Penguin68]

At the moment the ultra-low emission zone is already 'policed' by congestion charge cameras - hence there is virtually no additional infrastructure cost in implementing it (some more coding for the camera software, and running it 24-7 and not just during congestion charge times). To extend it as wide as is planned will require many, many more cameras to spy on every route that crosses into the new zone, together I assume with data runs to identify qualifying vehicles which are registered within the zone (although of course they could well, on the peripheries, be kept outside the zone). All told the costs of implementing and running such a scheme will be huge. This is much more complex than road tolling (where you choose carefully the limited routes you will be charging on). Just think of the number of suburban roads that lead into, particularly, the South Circular (which, unlike the North Circular, which is real, is just a mapping convention). All will need to be covered by cameras and cabling to those cameras. The proposal is simply (outwith its intentions) madness. Attacking the problem of diesel pollution at its source is the only remedy, and that means taxing diesel so it is used less, and a beneficial scrappage scheme to encourage old diesels to be taken off the road. Such a scrappage scheme would be expensive, but it's a better use of public money than spy cameras on (I imagine literally thousands) of suburban roads.

[kford]

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> At the moment the ultra-low emission zone is

> already 'policed' by congestion charge cameras -

> hence there is virtually no additional

> infrastructure cost in implementing it (some more

> coding for the camera software, and running it

> 24-7 and not just during congestion charge times).

> To extend it as wide as is planned will require

> many, many more cameras to spy on every route that

> crosses into the new zone, together I assume with

> data runs to identify qualifying vehicles which

> are registered within the zone (although of course

> they could well, on the peripheries, be kept

> outside the zone). All told the costs of

> implementing and running such a scheme will be

> huge. This is much more complex than road tolling

> (where you choose carefully the limited routes you

> will be charging on). Just think of the number of

> suburban roads that lead into, particularly, the

> South Circular (which, unlike the North Circular,

> which is real, is just a mapping convention). All

> will need to be covered by cameras and cabling to

> those cameras.

Indeed. The vast cost of implementing it, with the backdrop of Brexit and Carillion, would mean that the whole project would have to rely on residents NOT renewing their 'polluting' cars and instead paying the fees and fines to fund it and then on, to pay for its upkeep.

[Abe_froeman]

Which makes it pie in the sky in my opinion.

A nationwide tax is outside Khan's powers and as he would get no personal publicity for it he wont be advocating it.

"The problem of diesel pollution" has largely been solved with modern diesels. The major issue now is that initiatives like Sadiq Khan's have put people off buying diesels altogether. Last year there was a twenty per cent fall in new diesel car sales and as a result for the first time in twenty years carbon dioxide (the most damaging greenhouse gas) from new cars increased.

These measures are not improving the environment.

Banning wood stoves in London would reduce mkre NOx than this diesel tax but Khan wont contemplate it for some reason. His green logic is hard to fathom.