Well, you lucky London users, you will from today be paying £21.50 per day to drive into work, if you own a pre 2006 vehicle! - That's just over £100pw out of your wage every week, or almost £6000pa. I see a boon-time for scrap dealers and the second hand car market. For £6000 you can get a decent vehicle to avoid the T-Charge, saving you £2600pa, making your purchase £3000 in reality, so do you a)bite the bullet now and change, or b)change, and hope the T-charge doesn't extend to all vehicle ages? c) grump and pay up!
Do you think it's a good scheme, or just another tax on the poorer motorist?
|
|
Not all pre 2006 cars are in the charge criteria. Some are exempt. Dealers might well ship them off to other parts of the country were the charge doesn't exist, get a few more quid for them.
|
>> Well, you lucky London users, you will from today be paying £21.50 per day to
>> drive into work, if you own a pre 2006 vehicle!
As pointed out in other thread many older cars including Roger's Jazz and HC's 120i are not affected by this measure which is mainly about NOx and particulates. Target is mostly older diesels.
It also only applies in the congestion charge zone and the number of people who NEED to drive there is pretty small. Last central London office I worked in with a car park had a handful of hard core drivers. Pretty well all were youngish men who'd borrowed so much to buy their BMW etc they couldn't afford the tube fare.
|
|
I totally "get" the need to reduce pollution, but it does seem like this new charge is penalising those who on average, can least afford it. Most of the vehicles affected will be ones which are owned by those who can not afford a more modern one, of course there will be exceptions, but by and large that will be the case. Those vehicles will, by default, be approaching the end of their useful life, and within 5 years most of them will be off the roads anyway. But for what remains of their usefulness, they could have provided transport for people who need it and need to be careful about how much they spend.
|
If they really wanted to stop cars entering London they would make the charge £500 or simply ban cars.
What they really want is the revenue, so they make the charge "affordable".
|
|
I guess it makes sense deterring the more polluting vehicles from idling away in traffic queues, though on a global scale it's nimbyism because environmentally it's much better that older vehicles are driven into the ground rather than to build a new one.
|
>> . though on a global scale it's nimbyism because environmentally it's much better that older
>> vehicles are driven into the ground rather than to build a new one.
>>
I agree and will continue getting the most life out of my cars.
The majority could be maintained by DIY & raiding the breakers yards but it so much more difficult now . The tin worm got most off them but the last one went to charity.
Not sure what will happen to my current car as it should outlast my motoring days.
|
|
Cynically, it smacks of the very usual practice of those trying to raise their career profiles by being seen to do something rather than nothing. On a micro scale it's a bit like the office manager who decides that it's important to move all the desks, not because it actually helps the business much but because they need to be seen to be in charge of their little kingdom and making decisions.
|
>> I guess it makes sense deterring the more polluting vehicles from idling away in traffic
>> queues, though on a global scale it's nimbyism
It's about local air quality in urban areas. Away from the town/city environment NOx breaks down rapidly by natural processes. It doesn't persist like CO2 so there isn't quite the same calculation about global cost of solving the problem.
|
I'd have to pay for my van (53 plate Iveco) but not for our i10 or any of the bikes; pretty much as I expected.
I did actually have to drive the van in London one Sunday earlier this year, having visited a motorbike show at House of Vans skateboard park under Waterloo station on the way back from picking a bike up in Kent;ithe driving experience, even on a quiet day, left me in no doubt that I wouldn't be hurrying back.
It also left me eternally thankful that there are no dairy farms anywhere near London. It's a filthy dump and I detest the place.
|
>> It also left me eternally thankful that there are no dairy farms anywhere near London.
>> It's a filthy dump and I detest the place.
>>
That is tantrum provoking talk! :-)
|
>>It's a filthy dump <<
I've been lucky enough to do a fair amount of deliveries in the City but have usually been able to do them at night or very early mornings.
I think it's a beautiful city with some of the best architecture we have in this country but most of it is hidden from the normal view of the tourist. (or stressed driver HM !)
If you stop and look up at the buildings there is so much to see but often that isn't possible in the day time.
It has an atmosphere that no other British city has, a kind of magic and old buildings we should all be so proud of. It's part of our heritage and something we should treasure and preserve.
I've delivered in the rough areas as well as the posh areas, and there are always a vast variety of people who never cease to interest me, and I find them equally as important in what makes London special.
The diversity of the cultures and people I meet after driving just a couple of miles never ceases to amaze me.
Pat
|
>> That is tantrum provoking talk! :-)
>>
I do hope so. ;-)
|
>> If they really wanted to stop cars entering London they would make the charge £500
>> or simply ban cars.
>>
>> What they really want is the revenue, so they make the charge "affordable".
If they really wanted the revenue they would apply it to many more cars. Its not about revenue, because too few cars are affected, its not about polution because if you were serious you would ban buses and taxis, its about the mayors green image.
|
That's quite a cynical view Zero !
And one I happen to share entirely.
;-)
|
>> its about the mayors green image.
Politics is politics and you cannot exclude that but...
Most if not all service buses in T charge area are already low emission and/or hybrids. Taxis are a more thorny problem but a combination of requirements applied to new registrations and incentives to get old smokers off road are moving in right direction.
And whatever's postponed as 'too difficult for now' every NOx emitter gone improves quality of air I'd be breathing if I still worked in WC2.
|
My daughter has just found out that her 2000 1.3 petrol Yaris cops the T charge.
She was not aware it was a major polluter but certainly not changing it so no improvement there :-(.
Not a happy bunny but not a regular visitor by car to town.
|
Perhaps if the Mayor concentrated on getting the traffic moving instead of slowing it down the congestion would improve.
Narrowing roads to make cycle lanes is all very well, but if it means the lanes are then too narrow to keep the traffic moving the cyclists are then breathing the emissions from the queuing traffic.
How will this affect the very small, one man business type vans and old estate cars used to carry tools to work in London, will they be able to afford it or will they have to put up their prices?
Pat
|
>> Perhaps if the Mayor concentrated on getting the traffic moving instead of slowing it down
>> the congestion would improve.
>>
>> Narrowing roads to make cycle lanes is all very well, but if it means the
>> lanes are then too narrow to keep the traffic moving the cyclists are then breathing
>> the emissions from the queuing traffic.
>>
>> How will this affect the very small, one man business type vans and old estate
>> cars used to carry tools to work in London, will they be able to afford
>> it or will they have to put up their prices?
>>
>> Pat
>>
Prices will go up of course, resulting in the place becoming even lass affordable for folk with lower-paid jobs resulting in turn in them becoming commuters. And so the cycle continues.
Regarding your previous post, Pat, yes there are some splendid buildings, as you may know I particularly like railway architecture and London naturally has some gems, I concede that you do have to look outside your normal scope to see some of them. In fairness I don't really care for cities on a good day, and in mitigation to London, Birmingham is an even bigger dump.
|
>>Perhaps if the Mayor concentrated on getting the traffic moving instead of slowing it down the congestion would improve.
Which is the last thing he wants. Because if the congestion improved more cars would come.
Far better to make congestion worse, then the cars go away.
|
>>Which is the last thing he wants. Because if the congestion improved more cars would come.
Not sure that's true. There's nowhere to park. Eliminate all forms of taxi, particularly UBER which just cruise around filling the streets with empty cars rather than sitting on ranks (as there are no UBER ranks), and then you're not increasing parking availability but you are allowing essential journeys - deliveries, residents etc..
|
>>There's nowhere to park
I usually use the car park in Park Lane. Its never been full as far as I know. Without going on, there's loads of car parks I use which always have spaces. Albeit expensive.
The congestion charge and the cost of car parking will not stop either the wealthy or those on expenses.
3 hours in a traffic jam does though.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 24 Oct 17 at 13:09
|
>> >>There's nowhere to park
>>
>> I usually use the car park in Park Lane. Its never been full as far
>> as I know
40 quid parking fee probably explains that. Add the £11.50 congestion charge and you have got over 50 quid.
|
As I said, expensive.
However, it doesn't stop me, nor does the congestion charge, 3 hours in a traffic jam does though.
Which is the point of *not* improving the traffic flow. Its actually an argument for making it worse.
|
>>My daughter has just found out that her 2000 1.3 petrol Yaris cops the T charge
I don't suppose she has parking at work though.
If you want to improve London traffic and air quality, then ban all forms of taxi. People can perfectly well go by tube or bus.
|
So even if London's air eventually gets a little cleaner, what happens to all the smog and NOx which travels from Britains largest car park, the M25 and all the outlying urban areas surrounding the capital?
Perhaps with the revenue raised, he'll build a huge dome and London will look like Cornwall's Eden project.
|
|
As I understand it, NOX soon dissipates into the air and so is only a problem close to busy roads or in concentrated situations. Unlike CO2 which the (once) evil petrols emit - this does not dissipate but rises up and becomes a greenhouse gas. No ICE engine is perfect. And electric cars' environmental credentials are dependant on how the 'leccy is generated.
|
In consultation.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-41735392
Seems to be all diesels, not just the older ones.
|
Recent desire in Scotland seems to be to be one step "greener" than down south.
A congestion charge in Glasgow could be interesting since much of the pollution must come from the motorways going very close to the centre and charging everyone on that would be a real challenge.
|
>> Recent desire in Scotland seems to be to be one step "greener" than down south.
>> A congestion charge in Glasgow could be interesting since much of the pollution must come
>> from the motorways going very close to the centre and charging everyone on that would
>> be a real challenge.
>>
Unfortunately the one step involves onshore wind farms. Far too many up here when we have ideal locations for tidal power.
As for motorway charging, not too difficult with ANPR cameras and some software. I am sure whoever supplies London with congestion and pollution charging systems would be happy to supply some kit.
|
>> As for motorway charging, not too difficult with ANPR cameras and some software. I am
>> sure whoever supplies London with congestion and pollution charging systems would be happy
>> to supply some kit.
>>
Cost of it might be a little issue and I thought Scotland didn't do charging for motorways, it would effectively be putting a bridge toll on the Kingston Bridge.
|
|
The cost would not be a problem, the politicians would not be spending their money. We don't have to worry too much though, the SNP have started their decline, they won't do anything to upset the voters. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 24 Oct 17 at 17:57
|
>>Unfortunately the one step involves onshore wind farms. Far too many up here when we have ideal locations for tidal power.
Tidal is far from proven power - onshore wind is the cheapest form of leccy production there is at today's prices.
Offshore wind is pricier but there was a big farm opened last week.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40699979
|
|
I doubt if it would be too difficult to adapt hydro power technology to tidal. The tides are a bit more reliable than the wind. I concede that cost is a problem until the subsidies are removed from wind farms.
|
The engineering challenges in utilising wave power make wind farms look like flintstones technology, and the ecological problems, some unknown, are not to be underestimated.
Still given that we have some of the highest rise and fall of tides in the world, then we should be benefiting from it.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 24 Oct 17 at 20:33
|
|
I think that wave power is a non starter, the various forms of tidal are a totally different matter.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 24 Oct 17 at 21:30
|
The Mayor says
...just the beginning and he plans to include diesel cars that were now only TWO YEARS OLD.
so paying the T- charge from April 2019 and increase to £12.50
PLUS a tenfold increase in the charging zone from 2021
|
T- Charge - sooty123
