Basil Jet wrote:
On 01/11/2018 10:05, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 01/11/2018 09:35, Recliner wrote:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/petrol-and-diesel-facing-ban-in-city-83t0f8zdt?shareToken=35a3d7d1a37b3103d0034424e71ee a77


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.

On 01/11/2018 17:46, Graham Harrison wrote:
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 15:08:19 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 11:42:01 on Thu, 1 Nov
2018, Someone Somewhere remarked:
On 01/11/2018 10:14, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:54:43 on Thu, 1 Nov
2018, Graeme Wall remarked:


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/p...ing-ban-in-cit
y-83t0f8zdt?shareToken=35a3d7d1a37b3103d0034424e71ee a77

Good luck with that one.Â* 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
Â*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.

On 02/11/2018 07:00, Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
On 01/11/2018 10:05, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 01/11/2018 09:35, Recliner wrote:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/petrol-and-diesel-facing-ban-in-city-83t0f8zdt?shareToken=35a3d7d1a37b3103d0034424e71ee a77


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?

Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 02/11/2018 07:00, Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
On 01/11/2018 10:05, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 01/11/2018 09:35, Recliner wrote:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/petrol-and-diesel-facing-ban-in-city-83t0f8zdt?shareToken=35a3d7d1a37b3103d0034424e71ee a77


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.

In message , at 07:33:12 on Fri, 2 Nov
2018, Someone Somewhere remarked:
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.

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

Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 17:46:47 on
Thu, 1 Nov 2018, Graham Harrison
remarked:
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.

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

On 01/11/2018 18:12, Roland Perry wrote:

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.

On 02/11/2018 12:57, Mark Bestley wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 17:46:47 on
Thu, 1 Nov 2018, Graham Harrison
remarked:
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.

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.

In message , at 12:57:46 on
Fri, 2 Nov 2018, Mark Bestley remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 17:46:47 on
Thu, 1 Nov 2018, Graham Harrison
remarked:
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.

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

In message , at 13:33:29 on Fri, 2 Nov
2018, John Williamson remarked:
On 01/11/2018 18:12, Roland Perry wrote:

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