| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/petrol-and-diesel-facing-ban-in-city-83t0f8zdt?shareToken=35a3d7d1a37b3103d0034424e71ee a77 |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
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? -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
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. 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. |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
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. 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 |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
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.* 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. |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
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? 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 |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
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.* 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 |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
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.* 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. |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
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. -- Roland Perry |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
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. -- 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. |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
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. |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
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.* 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. |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
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? |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
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. |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
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 |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
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 |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
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. |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
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. |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
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 |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
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 |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
On 02/11/2018 14:09, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:33:29 on Fri, 2 Nov 2018, John Williamson remarked: 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. 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. |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
In message , at 14:58:25 on Fri, 2 Nov
2018, John Williamson remarked: 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.? 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. 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 |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
John Williamson wrote:
On 02/11/2018 14:09, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 13:33:29 on Fri, 2 Nov 2018, John Williamson remarked: 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. 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. |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 07:48:24AM -0000, Recliner wrote:
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 |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 05:46:47PM +0000, Graham Harrison wrote:
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. 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 |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
In message , at 11:03:34
on Mon, 5 Nov 2018, David Cantrell remarked: 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. 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 |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
On 05/11/2018 11:27, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:03:34 on Mon, 5 Nov 2018, David Cantrell remarked: 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. |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
In message , at 11:52:11 on Mon, 5 Nov
2018, John Williamson remarked: 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 |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
On 05/11/2018 11:52, John Williamson wrote:
On 05/11/2018 11:27, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 11:03:34 on Mon, 5 Nov 2018, David Cantrell remarked: 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!). |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
In message , at 12:02:10 on Mon, 5 Nov
2018, Someone Somewhere remarked: 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 |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
John Williamson wrote:
On 05/11/2018 11:27, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 11:03:34 on Mon, 5 Nov 2018, David Cantrell remarked: 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. |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
On 05/11/2018 12:18, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:02:10 on Mon, 5 Nov 2018, Someone Somewhere remarked: 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. |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
In message , at 14:07:53 on Mon, 5 Nov
2018, Someone Somewhere remarked: On 05/11/2018 12:18, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 12:02:10 on Mon, 5 Nov 2018, Someone Somewhere remarked: 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. The City is, of course, small enough for this to work. -- Roland Perry |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
"John Williamson" wrote in message ... On 02/11/2018 14:09, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 13:33:29 on Fri, 2 Nov 2018, John Williamson remarked: 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. 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. the problem is that this, and similar bans in other cities, aren't being proposed for 2030 they are being proposed for 2020 tim |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 12:06:37 -0000
"tim..." wrote: "John Williamson" wrote in message ... 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. the problem is that this, and similar bans in other cities, aren't being proposed for 2030 they are being proposed for 2020 I'd love to see an electric bus that can make it up highgate or hampstead or muswell hill more than 2 or 3 times before requiring a recharge being available by 2020. Its one thing running electric buses in nice flat areas such as southwark as is currently done, its quite another running them up 1:10 hills. |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
|
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
On 18/01/2019 16:21, Optimist wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 12:22:33 +0000 (UTC), wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 12:06:37 -0000 "tim..." wrote: "John Williamson" wrote in message ... 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. the problem is that this, and similar bans in other cities, aren't being proposed for 2030 they are being proposed for 2020 I'd love to see an electric bus that can make it up highgate or hampstead or muswell hill more than 2 or 3 times before requiring a recharge being available by 2020. Its one thing running electric buses in nice flat areas such as southwark as is currently done, its quite another running them up 1:10 hills. As a kid I used the 654 trolley bus route which ran between Croydon and Crystal Palace. They handled the climb up Anerley Hill with ease. Then they were replaced by motor buses, which on the first day could not get up the hill. Yes but trolley buses needed overhead wires. I remember the excitement in my schoolboy days when the bus came off the wires. I think it could move on its battery - about 10 yards on the flat. |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
On 19/01/2019 08:57, MikeS wrote:
On 18/01/2019 16:21, Optimist wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 12:22:33 +0000 (UTC), wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 12:06:37 -0000 "tim..." wrote: "John Williamson" wrote in message ... 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. the problem is that this, and similar bans in other cities, aren't being proposed for 2030 they are being proposed for 2020 I'd love to see an electric bus that can make it up highgate or hampstead or muswell hill more than 2 or 3 times before requiring a recharge being available by 2020. Its one thing running electric buses in nice flat areas such as southwark as is currently done, its quite another running them up 1:10 hills. As a kid I used the 654 trolley bus route which ran between Croydon and Crystal Palace.* They handled the climb up Anerley Hill with ease.* Then they were replaced by motor buses, which on the first day could not get up the hill. Yes but trolley buses needed overhead wires. I remember the excitement in my schoolboy days when the bus came off the wires. I think it could move on its battery - about 10 yards on the flat. Battery buses here in Guildford seem to cope with the hills with no problems. They've just been introduced on the park and ride services which all involve climbing hills many times a day. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
City plans to trial petrol and diesel ban
In message , MikeS writes
On 18/01/2019 16:21, Optimist wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 12:22:33 +0000 (UTC), wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 12:06:37 -0000 "tim..." wrote: "John Williamson" wrote in message ... 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. the problem is that this, and similar bans in other cities, aren't being proposed for 2030 they are being proposed for 2020 I'd love to see an electric bus that can make it up highgate or hampstead or muswell hill more than 2 or 3 times before requiring a recharge being available by 2020. Its one thing running electric buses in nice flat areas such as southwark as is currently done, its quite another running them up 1:10 hills. As a kid I used the 654 trolley bus route which ran between Croydon and Crystal Palace. They handled the climb up Anerley Hill with ease. Then they were replaced by motor buses, which on the first day could not get up the hill. Yes but trolley buses needed overhead wires. I remember the excitement in my schoolboy days when the bus came off the wires. I think it could move on its battery - about 10 yards on the flat. Indeed. I think the battery was just intended to prevent the bus finding itself stranded in situations when the arms could not reach (or did not have access to) any wires. I've only once seen a trolley bus on battery power, and I think it was when it had to leave its normal path for a short distance because of some roadworks. [For some reason, I keep thinking of the problems that the original Daleks had when they needed to go up and down up stairs - a totally foreseeable design flaw!] -- Ian |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:38 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk