Congestion Zone charges

Drover said:
GeoffL, total scam by councils, before I uprated mine to 4 ton it was 3500kg. The charge was £10 (car price) now its £50 or £100.....same vehicle, same emissions,
Dover-ferry ,train -eu or Wales for us....
the Uk is a sham
Click to expand...
Ah yes, but our VED tax is a lot less than for the same van rated at 3,500kg...
 
I have a huge quandary over the congestion charge...Bristol have one but its called
, Bristol operates a Class D CAZ, meaning that all vehicle types are charged by the day whenever they enter the zone, unless they comply with certain emissions standards.
Not a congestion charge, though they say it is.
My motorhome is cert 2 in europe but if plated at 3500kgs would be £10 not the £100 in Bristol as its 4000kgs
Still cert 2 in France no matter the weight.
It's a TAX and nothing to do with clean air or emissions
 
marchie said:
No, the topic is Clean Air Zones in relation to Congestion Zones. As I said, happy to disagree

Steve
Click to expand...
I was responding to your posts re woodburning stoves etc .
Apologies if I totally misunderstood what you posted
 
Drover said:
GeoffL, total scam by councils, before I uprated mine to 4 ton it was 3500kg. The charge was £10 (car price) now its £50 or £100.....same vehicle, same emissions,
Dover-ferry ,train -eu or Wales for us....
the Uk is a sham
Click to expand...
I would note that if you operate your van at 4t it's emissions will be higher than if you limit it to 3.5t
 
Drover said:
I have a huge quandary over the congestion charge...Bristol have one but its called
, Bristol operates a Class D CAZ, meaning that all vehicle types are charged by the day whenever they enter the zone, unless they comply with certain emissions standards.
Not a congestion charge, though they say it is.
My motorhome is cert 2 in europe but if plated at 3500kgs would be £10 not the £100 in Bristol as its 4000kgs
Still cert 2 in France no matter the weight.
It's a TAX and nothing to do with clean air or emissions
Click to expand...
A congestion charge should have nothing to do with emissions, a EV will add to the congestion the same as any petrol/diesel engined vehicle. CAZ does supposedly help with clean air.
 
alcam said:
I was responding to your posts re woodburning stoves etc .
Apologies if I totally misunderstood what you posted
Click to expand...
No worries. It's a topic that winds me up beyond safe levels of blood pressure. Hammer the vehicles to generate revenues when there are far more dangerous and insidious forms of pollution where the Greens appear unwittingly dim, or deeply cynical; or both ...

Steve
 
I was gobsmacked at how easy it was, really good joined-up thinking for the whole country in one place, why isn't the rest of the UK doing exactly the same thing?

Scotland leading the way again
 
marchie said:
No worries. It's a topic that winds me up beyond safe levels of blood pressure. Hammer the vehicles to generate revenues when there are far more dangerous and insidious forms of pollution where the Greens appear unwittingly dim, or deeply cynical; or both ...

Steve
Click to expand...
As I , basically , said earlier no idea of details re pollution but sitting at a pavement cafe where there is traffic (ICE) it feels difficult to breathe .
Don't know what other pollutants contribute to that ?
I do agree emission zones should not be money makers . I assume , if effective , they won't actually make money.
 
alcam said:
As I , basically , said earlier no idea of details re pollution but sitting at a pavement cafe where there is traffic (ICE) it feels difficult to breathe .
Don't know what other pollutants contribute to that ?
I do agree emission zones should not be money makers . I assume , if effective , they won't actually make money.
Click to expand...
I think we're in danger of starting lap 2 of this discussion!

If we wish to achieve Clean Air, then charging polluters for an exemption is stupid. It does make a lot of money for the local authority who just need to sit back and count the cash that can be used to supplement other budgets

If we wish to achieve Clean Air for our children et seq sake, then permitting woodstoves that produce carcinogens is equally stupid.

And if we want Clean Air, why do we permit Office Air Con systems to pump out their emissions?

Motorists = Easy Target?

Steve
 
marchie said:
I think we're in danger of starting lap 2 of this discussion!

If we wish to achieve Clean Air, then charging polluters for an exemption is stupid. It does make a lot of money for the local authority who just need to sit back and count the cash that can be used to supplement other budgets

If we wish to achieve Clean Air for our children et seq sake, then permitting woodstoves that produce carcinogens is equally stupid.

And if we want Clean Air, why do we permit Office Air Con systems to pump out their emissions?

Motorists = Easy Target?

Steve
Click to expand...
The evidence from London shows a charge works, people avoid the area unless they have no choice, or they buy less polluting vehicles if they want to regularly enter a zone. The other option would be to totally ban vehicles, this would cause even more complaints.
 
It should be charged by emissions not by weight, length, height, how many wheels it has or how many people are in it......just by the emissions it produces.there should be no exception.
Now thats fair..... after all it's how the road works :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
 
colinm said:
The evidence from London shows a charge works, people avoid the area unless they have no choice, or they buy less polluting vehicles if they want to regularly enter a zone. The other option would be to totally ban vehicles, this would cause even more complaints.
Click to expand...
Do you have a link to the evidence, please?

Steve
 
colinm said:
The evidence from London shows a charge works, people avoid the area unless they have no choice, or they buy less polluting vehicles if they want to regularly enter a zone. The other option would be to totally ban vehicles, this would cause even more complaints.
Click to expand...
It only works as a tax on the poor and to force the hoi polloi from the roads, out of the area etc.

Perhaps they should impose a permit scheme, issuable only to residents and those with a genuine business reason, within the city centre and ban all motor vehicles (including EVs) that don't have a valid permit. That would certainly be fairer to the general population. Generally, it's only city centres (rather than suburbs) that now have air pollution problems. The number of older vehicles is small and reducing each year and those still around are only around because they have a low annual mileage -- i.e. don't travel as much each year and hence don't pollute much, or because they are very well cared for -- and hence less likely to produce excessive pollution. The argument for "clean air zones", such as the ULEZ, is argument by assertion, not supported by evidence AFAICT.

The excuse that Sad IQ gives for expanding the ULEZ is his claim that around 4,000 people a year are dying in London because of pollution from cars. However, a FOI request to the ONS asking "How many deaths are recorded in London as a direct result of car emissions?" and got the following response, "It is unusual for wider contextual factors such as exposure to car emissions, pollution or air quality to be recorded among the causes of death. There was one death recorded in London during the period 2001 to 2021 which had exposure to air pollution recorded on the death certificate in either part 1 or part 2 of the death certificate. This death was attributed to environmental air pollution, however we are unable to determine whether this involved car emissions." IOW not a single death in the last 20 years has been confirmed to be due to pollution from car emissions.
 
marchie said:
Do you have a link to the evidence, please?

Steve
Click to expand...
Yes, we used to occasional visit London for work, our mode of transport changed due to congestion charge and LEZ. Also I have posted before, after visiting central London I would come home feeling 'dirty', and want to shower and change clothes, it became much better after the charges. There you go firsthand experience, but if that's not enough Google will give you the info ;)
 
colinm said:
Yes, we used to occasional visit London for work, our mode of transport changed due to congestion charge and LEZ. Also I have posted before, after visiting central London I would come home feeling 'dirty', and want to shower and change clothes, it became much better after the charges. There you go firsthand experience, but if that's not enough Google will give you the info ;)
Click to expand...
That's just your anecdotal impression. The fact is that pollution in London is now low and hence pollution is not a valid reason to expand the ULEZ. Two sources that provide actual measurements (as opposed to the modelling that TfL etc. seem to rely on):

Air quality in England

Air Quality in England provides information on air quality, latest monitoring data from region's monitoring sites, news, air quality reports and other air quality issues.
www.airqualityengland.co.uk www.airqualityengland.co.uk
air.plumelabs.com

Air Quality London: Live air quality and pollution Forecasts

Real-time levels and forecasts of Particulate Matter (PM2.5, PM10), Ozone (O3) and Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) in London. The air quality report by Plume Labs.
air.plumelabs.com air.plumelabs.com
 
colinm said:
Yes, we used to occasional visit London for work, our mode of transport changed due to congestion charge and LEZ. Also I have posted before, after visiting central London I would come home feeling 'dirty', and want to shower and change clothes, it became much better after the charges. There you go firsthand experience, but if that's not enough Google will give you the info ;)
Click to expand...
That is not evidence, Colin. It is one person's reaction. Never mind.

Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top