They are cracking down on drivers, but at the same time allowing aviation and shipping sectors to expand. The aviation industry does n't pay a penny in fuel duty or VAT. It is unfair drivers are taxed unfairly.
It is us drivers, who are being told to tighten up reduce our carbon footprint and pollution, but aviation is being expanded. Airports around the country are expanding. In London, they are building the third runway and we are paying to build it too.
I agree, this outlines the total hypocrisy of it, as air travel is one of the biggest polluters yet expanding airports is acceptable. Cars are getting more and more efficient year on year yet this is not the case with aircraft which seem to be a much slower curve.
|
|
We are seeing the start of a big change in motoring. I've just pulled out of upgrading my car as I think the residuals will drop through the floor quite soon on diesels...even though it had add blue and reasonable emissions. The digital age has allowed cameras to record everything so there is no escape.
|
|
|
I agree, this outlines the total hypocrisy of it, as air travel is one of the biggest polluters yet expanding airports is acceptable. Cars are getting more and more efficient year on year yet this is not the case with aircraft which seem to be a much slower curve.
While I agree with that, this particular problem is not the overall air quality in the UK its the very bad air quality in the city centres and that is down mainly vehicles and gas heating. I don't see them taxing gas used in town centres but in fact they should. We need to do away with this idea of concentrating everything in one small patch of land.
|
Gas heating is also recognised as a contributor to poor air quality in cities, as are gas hobs and ovens and woodburners/wood pellet boilers.
The impact of these is also being assessed and open flame gas appliances may well be withdrawn from sale in coming years.
|
|
From my recent comment about emission zones in Antwerp Belgium.
Just change a few words and it applies equally to Newcastle.
I find it slightly amusing that this low emission zone in Antwerp , the second biggest port in europe after Rotterdam, is a stone's throw from the enormous dock area where the ships of the world load/unload. Their auxiliary machinery will be kept kept running, generators, pumps hydraulics, heavy fuel oil tank heating boilers etc.
They will have to use light fuel oil when in port but that is not as clean as road diesel.
I doubt that they are classified Euro 5!
|
|
Inevitably the way new controls are implemented will not always be right, and for the died in the wool motorist any further controls and costs will be seen as excessively onerous.
I live in a county town (pop about 100k) in the south west. Some roads around the centre of town become polluted (nose test not particulates!) around work/school drop off times. Normally wind is from the west and general pollution is fairly dispersed after 3000 miles across the atlantic, Devon and Cornwall.
Once or twice a month we drive to see friends and relatives in NW London area. We notice the pollution increasing from Reading onwards. It is unpleasant and cannot be good for you. Flying into Heathrow across London there is sometimes (low wind, sun) a yellow/brown smog covering the city - I assume caused by pollutants.
Emission controls are rightly inevitable. They will force urgency into finding cost effective workable solutions. The best response is to modify your own behaviour to make it compliant with the intent of new controls, not continually bemoan how thoughtless and detached from reality the journey is.
|
|
There are air quality monitoring stations all over the UK, hundreds if not thousands of them. You likely drive past some without knowing what they are. They record PM2.5, PM10 and NOx along with many others. Air quality is scored with 0-50 good, 50-100 moderate and above 100 poor. The near real time readings from these stations is available on the web and can be viewed at aqicn.org . The web site is a bit clunky and slow but it gets there.
My nearest station is close to the busiest junction in the area, lots of standing traffic at peak times and many hundreds of vehicles per hour, a pollution nightmare you would think but it isn't . The air quality index score is seldom above 25 at worst and thats because its in an open area with few buildings within 100m. Location location location.
Edited by CHarkin on 07/06/2019 at 13:30
|
|
|
Inevitably the way new controls are implemented will not always be right, and for the died in the wool motorist any further controls and costs will be seen as excessively onerous.
I live in a county town (pop about 100k) in the south west. Some roads around the centre of town become polluted (nose test not particulates!) around work/school drop off times. Normally wind is from the west and general pollution is fairly dispersed after 3000 miles across the atlantic, Devon and Cornwall.
Once or twice a month we drive to see friends and relatives in NW London area. We notice the pollution increasing from Reading onwards. It is unpleasant and cannot be good for you. Flying into Heathrow across London there is sometimes (low wind, sun) a yellow/brown smog covering the city - I assume caused by pollutants.
Emission controls are rightly inevitable. They will force urgency into finding cost effective workable solutions. The best response is to modify your own behaviour to make it compliant with the intent of new controls, not continually bemoan how thoughtless and detached from reality the journey is.
I agree that we need to improve air quality, but think we don't need knee-jerk virtue signalling by politicians, given that (idolising diesel over petrol for small and medium sized cars) this casued much of the problems we're currently facing when the then government and EU pushed diesel cars for reductions in CO2, despite their already being a LOT of scientific data available which showed dieselexhaust fumes were very bad for health, far worse than petrol exhaust fumes.
That being said, I certainly can attest to your own experiences, as when I go the opposite way from Hertfordshire to Cornwall on holiday, my asthma clears up almost overnight. In my case, I suspect mine is a combination of the local pollution from cars, factories (I live less than 1/2 a mile away from a large complex) and that the surrounding farmland is mainly arable crops, rather than a better mix with livestock in the West Country and much less in the way of industry and traffic.
If it weren't for the lack of decent year-round employment in that region, I'd probably move there. One thing I've always remembered about working in London was the horrible taste in my mouth from inhaling all those vehicle and diesel train fumes when going to and from work each day. In the summer, I often needed a puff on my inhalor - much worse than I needed as a child (and my asthma is quite mild).
|
|
Like I've said before, cleaning the air up is an admirable policy - but this is an example of where its being used as a revenue generator.
Fining only the polluting cars and gradually reducing the tolerance is the way to go - that means people will think about this when changing their car, or even jump to EV quicker than expected.
Charging every car regardless of emissions is just the usual ker-ching thank you very much - and that's basically what they said they would do on the local news recently - claiming it was a 'fairer' system!
|
|
I was a pedestrian in Trafalgar Square recently. Whilst attempting to cross the road towards Whitehall I had to wait a while for the traffic to clear. During the minute or so I was stood on the curb, an old Routemaster bus went past (on some sort of "tour"). It was astonishing how I suddenly felt asphyxiated by the diesel fumes from this old clanger. It's a good job we have cleaned-up diesel vehicles else we would all be dead from the horrendous fumes.
|
The air quality in the cities may not be as bad as we are led to believe. We’ve recently moved from leafy Surrey to outer London and as my wife is worried about pollution we had a guy round to quote for an air purifier. He was a disarmingly honest chap who said we didn’t need one and said that our air quality was better than his because although he’s lives in the country surrounded by fields there’s a lot of pollution because of farming sprays etc.
For many motorists who live out of the city public transport isn’t an easy option but I found by default a solution of using the car much less. I damaged my knee a year ago and being unable to cycle I bought an electric bike. It’s fantastic -I can whiz into the shopping centres, free parking , no fuel bills etc. For those that haven’t tried one it’s like cycling with with someone pushing you along. I feel the same sense of freedom on it that I experienced when I started driving some 45 years ago.
|
The air quality in the cities may not be as bad as we are led to believe. We’ve recently moved from leafy Surrey to outer London and as my wife is worried about pollution we had a guy round to quote for an air purifier. He was a disarmingly honest chap who said we didn’t need one and said that our air quality was better than his because although he’s lives in the country surrounded by fields there’s a lot of pollution because of farming sprays etc.
I live on the edge of a town: fields to the back. On my daily walk, my nostrils can smell the fumes from one diesel car passing.. But that is rare - I walk away from roads where possible
. No crop spraying here.... no crops. No arable land whatever. Too hilly/wet and poor soil.
Ideal for bees.. lots of trees/gardens and wild flowers..
AIr quality in towns by comparison is poor and in cities appalling. I can choose where I go as retired so I do not go into city centres ever.
|
The air quality in the cities may not be as bad as we are led to believe. We’ve recently moved from leafy Surrey to outer London and as my wife is worried about pollution we had a guy round to quote for an air purifier. He was a disarmingly honest chap who said we didn’t need one and said that our air quality was better than his because although he’s lives in the country surrounded by fields there’s a lot of pollution because of farming sprays etc. For many motorists who live out of the city public transport isn’t an easy option but I found by default a solution of using the car much less. I damaged my knee a year ago and being unable to cycle I bought an electric bike. It’s fantastic -I can whiz into the shopping centres, free parking , no fuel bills etc. For those that haven’t tried one it’s like cycling with with someone pushing you along. I feel the same sense of freedom on it that I experienced when I started driving some 45 years ago.
Some of it may depend upon how susceptible each of of us are to each 'pollutant'. My (main) asthma allergy is to house dust mites, but as I've said before, it's made worse when I'm in urban/industrial areas or arable crops, but especially built-up areas with heavy traffic.
I personally have no idea what aspect of arable farming locally causes my asthma to flare up - it could be the type of crops themselves (oilseed r@pe gets a lot of bad press on that front) or the chemicals sprayed on them, or it could none or both them and that I live near a large industrial plant, though the prevailing wind direction means that the vast majority of the fumes are blown away from where I live. Other than at rush hour, there's not that much traffic about.
When I lived in my parents house (more traffic in the area than where I live now), which is just outside of London, I essentially grew out of my asthma and it was only a problem when travelling to Central London.
I still suspect most of the problems relate to the large change from mainly petrol cars in the UK to near parity with diesels, and the huge increase in the number of vans on the road, particularly those mostly doing stop-start urban work delivering things to us all. It'll be interesting to see what happens when the ratio of petrol to diesel vehicles returns to its more historic norm or hybrids/EVs do the same.
Also worthy of note (as of yesterday's local BBC News bulletin) was that Cambridge is also looking to introduce something similar, and are also considering a general congestion charge and a parking space tax.
I'm not familiar with how Newcastle is laid out, but as a local, I know Cambridge, and there's not much scope for expanding public transport in the busiest parts of the city unless motorised vehicles (except for deliveries and emergency vehicles) are completely banned and huge amounts of money are poured into buses and perhaps even trams. The railway station is a good 20-odd minutes walk away from the city centre, so it would need the already full bus services to be seriously upgraded, though I doubt if they could cope with all the shopping people would be bringing home.
I doubt if the council has the money to spend (given they lost a fortune on the infamous Guided Busway project), so the punative taxes route may be their only option, as a congestion charge would, I believe, just push people away because the alternative wouldn't be cheap either. Large towns and cities that are newer, have wider roads (and less listed buildings that can't be demolished to make way for new transport systems) and railway stations within 5-10 mins walking distance of the centre might fair better. Older cities with less scope to change may not.
I suspect many have grown too large. Quite ironic in Cambridge's case, given the council allowed essentially a new town on the edge and huge amounts of flats to be built within the city in the last 10 years, essentially wiping out any gains they made in improving public transport (at great cost). To me, it was all about getting more revenue to bloat council spending. The traffic is now far worse than it was when I moved to the region. IMHO, a guide to Newcastle in what NOT to do.
|
|
Fairer translates as 'most profitable'
|
|
This is an ambiguous subject. Cleaner air is desirable and no sensible person would argue against it. How to achieve it is the rub. It is easy for HM Gov to hand down statute law to enable this, but ill thought out law is usually bad law and brings it into disrepute. Most of our towns and cities are historic and the major transport routes are immovable. There is no space nor money to rebuild the road and rail structure to accommodate such new legislation about traffic. Therefore most people have no option but at some point to enter these zones and have to pay. Some just see it as another tax. I could understand it if all the revenue collected went into a ring fenced fund to provide adequate transport for people to travel to work etc. The obvious answer is plenty of out of town park and ride facilities. Some places have these but they are by no means plentiful enough to offset the car journeys. If Russia, India and China and the USA did a fraction of what the UK does towards reducing emissions the world would be a far healthier place.
Cheers Concrete
|
|
Essentially everybody wants it, but most want someone else to pay for it or be disadvantaged (inconvenienced) by it.
|
This subject can go on and on and on with no outcome other than pocketfuls of cash for greedy Governments and Councils alike.
My question/s would be?
What are these do good Government / councils doing with the money they rob from the ‘offending drivers’ on a DAILY BASIS?
As I see it, you drive into a city, in your polluting car, you are then charged/fined for the honour (fine so far) BUT, THE NEXT DAY you do exactly the same ( probably as you work in the city) etc.
So, how is fining drivers solving the “pollution”?
All it’s doing is filling the pockets of the Government and Council highway robbers without resolving the issue.
Of course, everyone will need to dump their polluting car and just ‘pop out’ and buy an electric one as most people can afford to do this (not)!
Nb has anyone noticed that when the PM/ Citizen Khan/ MP’s etc are being ferried across the Capital etc how many 3/4/5 litre gas guzzling cars transport them around?
As I said, this will go on and on and on, the only folk affected are the motorist.
|
|
Well, they were on the local news again this week - still saying that charging every car was 'fairest' - perhaps they should invest in a dictionary first, as they misuse a few words, another one being 'improvements'!
So once this is inevitably rolled out this will simply be an additional tax on commuters, the cash raised used to prop up the rotten council.
If they were serious, simply ban any vehicle over a certain polluting level - that would have an immediate impact and proves its related to air quality and not money raising. Although having seen some of the buses around central station they would be the first on the banned list.
|
|
Have you any links to the proposal for a 100% across the board charge?
In CAZ D zones private vehicles which meet Euro 6, diesel or Euro 4 petrol emissions are exempt from charging, so it is only the older vehicles which are charged.
The downside with this is most people who run older cars do so because they can't afford newer ones. A decision which punishes the poor may not go down well come local election time..
|
|
The city's figurehead is, at least, setting an example by running an all-electric official car: http://nissaninsider.co.uk/lord-mayor-leads-the-way-with-leaf/
|
The city's figurehead is, at least, setting an example by running an all-electric official car: http://nissaninsider.co.uk/lord-mayor-leads-the-way-with-leaf/
Yeah I’d have a leaf if it was free, and had a guaranteed free parking space with charging point available! Setting an example, or getting a freebie.
|
The city's figurehead is, at least, setting an example by running an all-electric official car: http://nissaninsider.co.uk/lord-mayor-leads-the-way-with-leaf/
Setting an example, or getting a freebie.
Both...although would you not rather they had a freebie than had to pay for the car?
|
Have you any links to the proposal for a 100% across the board charge?
The second post contains a link:
www.breathe-cleanair.com/longer-term-investment
On my reading there are two alternative proposals.
The first is similar to London's ULEZ but is described as a charging clean air zone. Non-compliant vehicles which, given all post 2005 petrol cars are compliant will be nearly all diesel, pay a daily charge to enter the zone. The proposed zone includes some parts of Gateshead where national government has ordered action because of the levels of pollution.
The second is a more tightly drawn zone within Newcastle itself. In this area non compliant vehicles would be banned with fines for offenders. There would also be a charge of around £2 for all vehicles crossing the main Tyne bridges. In effect this is a congestion charge.
Both will undoubtedly cause expense and inconvenience for some drivers.
Now it's all very well to describe the proposals as highway robbery and to introduce 'whataboutery' around Ministerial cars or those used by the Mayor of London (does he even have an official car?). But what would those making such points propose to reduce localised pollutants which, on evidence which is more or less incontrovertible, harm residents, particularly young children.
|
|
The problem with ULEZs is that they primarily affect those least able to change their behaviour (e.g. buy a new car or get a taxi) when public transport won't do, meaning the rich can continue to afford to run their gas guzzler and drive it into city centres (thus making no difference to the pollution), whilst poorer people who can't afford a newer EU6 diesel (if they need to use their car a lot) or the extra fuel cost of running an EU4 petrol (as well as the cost to change) will have to put up with using the bus, even when it's not appropriate.
Before I got a car (1997-8), I used to travel by bus/tube/walk to my job (at the time) in North London. Traffic wan't as bad as it is now, yet the journey (other than in the school holidays) took between 1hr and 75 mins, all for a journey of about 8 miles. Even in the worst traffic (going a different route - not possible via public transport), the journey took a maximum of 40 mins, and only 15 mins on school holiday days.
Many people still have to use their cars because public transport doesn't cover all journeys (especially if you [as I had to] have to change buses etc more than once) and/or in a reasonable journey time. Thus only a few people can change their habits.
What we also cannot do is transfer pollution from vehicles in city areas to the countryside and coastal areas, where power stations are. EV owners cannot just shift their responsibility for the pollution their vehicles cause via secondary means onto other people.
I would personally insist on all new homes, particularly those larger/more upmarket ones, being force to install secure charging points (including some for visitors) and sufficient PV panels to be able to contribute more than the average usage requirement of an EV car to the grid, plus that of the Building Regs requirements more generally. The same goes for new build/significant refurbs of commercial properties with large amounts of (useful) roofspace to accommodate PV panels and car parking to install secure charging points.
If not done so already, scrap VAT on such products to encourage the take up.
|
The problem with ULEZs is that they primarily affect those least able to change their behaviour (e.g. buy a new car or get a taxi) when public transport won't do, meaning the rich can continue to afford to run their gas guzzler and drive it into city centres (thus making no difference to the pollution), whilst poorer people who can't afford a newer EU6 diesel (if they need to use their car a lot) or the extra fuel cost of running an EU4 petrol (as well as the cost to change) will have to put up with using the bus, even when it's not appropriate.
All petrols since 2005 have been EU4 so, whilst I accept buyers of pre 2015 diesels might be caught out, there are plenty of compliant vehicles that are cheap to purchase and operate.
Many people still have to use their cars because public transport doesn't cover all journeys (especially if you [as I had to] have to change buses etc more than once) and/or in a reasonable journey time. Thus only a few people can change their habits.
Some people feel they need to use their cars, Those who have to and have no other options are a small minority.
What we also cannot do is transfer pollution from vehicles in city areas to the countryside and coastal areas, where power stations are. EV owners cannot just shift their responsibility for the pollution their vehicles cause via secondary means onto other people.
CO2 pollution might well be transferred at source. Makes no difference to its effect which is global. Difference is local pollutants like NOx and particulates from ICE vehicles which, even if we ignore the growth in wind/solar/renewables, are not a significant issue for remaining fossil fuel (gas) powerstations.
I would personally insist on all new homes, particularly those larger/more upmarket ones, being force to install secure charging points (including some for visitors) and sufficient PV panels to be able to contribute more than the average usage requirement of an EV car to the grid, plus that of the Building Regs requirements more generally. The same goes for new build/significant refurbs of commercial properties with large amounts of (useful) roofspace to accommodate PV panels and car parking to install secure charging points.
Agree
|
The problem with ULEZs is that they primarily affect those least able to change their behaviour (e.g. buy a new car or get a taxi) when public transport won't do, meaning the rich can continue to afford to run their gas guzzler and drive it into city centres (thus making no difference to the pollution), whilst poorer people who can't afford a newer EU6 diesel (if they need to use their car a lot) or the extra fuel cost of running an EU4 petrol (as well as the cost to change) will have to put up with using the bus, even when it's not appropriate.
All petrols since 2005 have been EU4 so, whilst I accept buyers of pre 2015 diesels might be caught out, there are plenty of compliant vehicles that are cheap to purchase and operate.
Many people still have to use their cars because public transport doesn't cover all journeys (especially if you [as I had to] have to change buses etc more than once) and/or in a reasonable journey time. Thus only a few people can change their habits.
Some people feel they need to use their cars, Those who have to and have no other options are a small minority.
What we also cannot do is transfer pollution from vehicles in city areas to the countryside and coastal areas, where power stations are. EV owners cannot just shift their responsibility for the pollution their vehicles cause via secondary means onto other people.
CO2 pollution might well be transferred at source. Makes no difference to its effect which is global. Difference is local pollutants like NOx and particulates from ICE vehicles which, even if we ignore the growth in wind/solar/renewables, are not a significant issue for remaining fossil fuel (gas) powerstations.
I would personally insist on all new homes, particularly those larger/more upmarket ones, being force to install secure charging points (including some for visitors) and sufficient PV panels to be able to contribute more than the average usage requirement of an EV car to the grid, plus that of the Building Regs requirements more generally. The same goes for new build/significant refurbs of commercial properties with large amounts of (useful) roofspace to accommodate PV panels and car parking to install secure charging points.
Agree
The statement that only a small minority need to use cars is nonsense. I have to drive, my 45 minute journey would take several hours by public transport. Where I have worked over the past 20 years and more, most people travel ~20 miles to work.Very few could use public transport. Some people at my current work place sometimes cycle, they do 15 miles, but they are very fit and healthy. Public transport for them is out. I used to cycle 7 miles, easily doable but I would never cycle in a big city, it’s very dangerous. As for electic cars, they are more polluting than thought due to manufacturing with toxic and expensive battery chemicals.
|
The statement that only a small minority need to use cars is nonsense. I have to drive, my 45 minute journey would take several hours by public transport. Where I have worked over the past 20 years and more, most people travel ~20 miles to work.Very few could use public transport. Some people at my current work place sometimes cycle, they do 15 miles, but they are very fit and healthy. Public transport for them is out. I used to cycle 7 miles, easily doable but I would never cycle in a big city, it’s very dangerous. As for electic cars, they are more polluting than thought due to manufacturing with toxic and expensive battery chemicals.
I was thinking about areas where a LEZ might apply and specifically about Newcastle. Newcastle has excellent suburban trains/trams (ie the Metro) and buses. Any smaller town with an LEZ, and Northampton is a likely candidate, should be adding Park/Ride to the mix so that cars can be left outside the Zone.
I'd also respectfully disagree about dangers of cycling in big cities. In fact I'd say that two of safest places I've ridden are London and New York. City riding requires technique and an attitude of mind but if routes are chosen carefully and lines through junctions planned and practiced it's OK. I'm on a course in London N7 later this month. As it happens I'm travelling with a colleague who feels she needs somebody to 'hold her hand' on the Underground but otherwise I'd happily make my way from Euston along the canal and Caledonian Road on the eponymous bike.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 15/06/2019 at 13:14
|
The statement that only a small minority need to use cars is nonsense. I have to drive, my 45 minute journey would take several hours by public transport. Where I have worked over the past 20 years and more, most people travel ~20 miles to work.Very few could use public transport. Some people at my current work place sometimes cycle, they do 15 miles, but they are very fit and healthy. Public transport for them is out. I used to cycle 7 miles, easily doable but I would never cycle in a big city, it’s very dangerous. As for electic cars, they are more polluting than thought due to manufacturing with toxic and expensive battery chemicals.
I was thinking about areas where a LEZ might apply and specifically about Newcastle. Newcastle has excellent suburban trains/trams (ie the Metro) and buses. Any smaller town with an LEZ, and Northampton is a likely candidate, should be adding Park/Ride to the mix so that cars can be left outside the Zone.
I'd also respectfully disagree about dangers of cycling in big cities. In fact I'd say that two of safest places I've ridden are London and New York. City riding requires technique and an attitude of mind but if routes are chosen carefully and lines through junctions planned and practiced it's OK. I'm on a course in London N7 later this month. As it happens I'm travelling with a colleague who feels she needs somebody to 'hold her hand' on the Underground but otherwise I'd happily make my way from Euston along the canal and Caledonian Road on the eponymous bike.
Sorry Bromp, but London isn't safe for cyclists, even though there are lots more cycle lanes than there used to be. A former boss of mine got fell off his bike (guess which make it was?) cycling from our office just North of the very same Euston Road area down to theatreland, causing a nasty concussion and, if I recall, possibly a small break or dislocation of his arm.
I've also ridden in North London, both as a child and as an adualt many years later (about 12 years ago) and would certainly not do any more - besides the pollution, there are many more vehicles on the road, especially vans and HGVs, many of whom do not pay attention to cyclists or don't even realise they are there, especially in heavy traffic. As a regular commuter to London in and around the central zone for many years, I've seen many a cyclist have a spill, often due to this.
Whilst some areas can cater for cycle lanes, most cannot and thus cyclists have to take their chances with the traffic and pedestrians, who are often ingrossed in something on their phones are just as cuplable. Cyclists don't get let off that easy, especially the (now) many lycra speed merchants (including many cycle couriers who like to think that traffic signs and signals don't apply to them). I gave up my bike because of the number of accidents Iread about (many fatal) locally in/near my home town and in London and other cities within my reach.
Whilst bus services and the train/Tube can take you to most places, this often necessitates many changes, and waiting for buses especially is time-consuming. I agree with Leif's point as I've confirms what I said the same in another post, plus I know how difficult it can be if you're trying to lug home a load of shopping on the bus - which is why many people still use their car - if everyone had to use the bus, they'd be no room for all the bags. As someone who lived for 30 years just outside of North London, I know that a car is essential for many journeys into North London, and public transport is just not a viable option for about 50-75% of journeys. There also is the serious problem of safety when travelling on buses (especially) late at night.
Most buses barely have enough space to accommodate myself (not a large or tall person) in anything approaching reasonable comfort - the lack of back support and leg room is mostly terrible. Unfortunately, due to poor city/town planning, many more people HAVE to use their cars to do normal things, especially those living around the edges of larger towns and cities where public transport is not available as much or economically viable. Any subsidy would have to be paid for by someone, and having a rich person pay the same to use their car as a poorer one via a ULEZ/congestion charge is hardly fair, especially as the richer one could still pollute but make a relatively small contribution to the coffers, given there are not many of them compared to the rest of us.
As regards buying a Euro 4 car, many poorer people run Euro 3 petrol cars, which aren't that much older, but the cost to change may not be affordable if their current car is essentially worthless. £1500 may be not very much to many people, but it is to many who are not well off.
Park & Ride services can be useful for commuters, but many people now need to quickly access their car for their jobs - to go to meetings, site visits, etc, many of which are nowhere near stations or on public transport routes (or that run a useable service, especially out of the morning/evening rush hour). One of my former bosses got annoyed at me because I walked to work (10 mins) and if I needed (with or without notice) to use my car to go to a meeting/site visit, that I had to walk home and pick it up. Imagine if you had to leave 20-30 mins+ early every time and arrived back the same time late, or just went home because you would'nt get back via the bus until after (say) 5.30pm?
Unfortunately the solutions suggested are, in my view, too much of a one-size-fits all and only suitable for a few people, often those who just commute and can (financially and time-wise/convenience) afford to change their behaviour. I still think that city/town planning is the key - over population can affects things a LOT, but also the siting of new housing (especially change of use) and provision of shopping services and community amenities.
I can also remember a time (and I'm only in my mid-40s) when housing in many towns and cities was cheap enough (without having to resort to rent controls and having to spend £££ on subsidised council housing) for most people to live reasonably locally to their workplace that they didn't need to travel (including on public transport) a huge distance (and thus time) to work or to access amenities. Very little in the way of joined up thinking, and sometimes far worse.
Besides, if Newcastle's public transport system is so great, why do so many people not use it?
|
|
Sorry Bromp, but London isn't safe for cyclists, even though there are lots more cycle lanes than there used to be. A former boss of mine got fell off his bike (guess which make it was?) cycling from our office just North of the very same Euston Road area down to theatreland, causing a nasty concussion and, if I recall, possibly a small break or dislocation of his arm.
There are bits of Northampton that worry me far more than say Trafalgar Square but I will agree to respectfully disagree over safety of cycling in London.
We can also discuss the need for private vehicles in cities until the cows come home. Of course there are essential users. I'm an office based Advice Worker but I have colleagues who do Outreaches and home visits which require them to drive.
The fact remains though that we have multiple city and town locations where levels of local pollutants (NOx, particulates etc) are a direct threat to health. If not LEZs etc then what action do we take instead?
|
The fact remains though that we have multiple city and town locations where levels of local pollutants (NOx, particulates etc) are a direct threat to health. If not LEZs etc then what action do we take instead?
For a start, reduce the need to commute the distances we do, which is often caused by high house prices in cities, which is often caused by over population and poor town planning.
A good example of this locally to me is Cambridge - the outskirts 'new villages' that have recently and are continuing to be built have terrible transport links (roads only, and to other roads already full) to the city centre, which cannot cope with any more traffic and is often not suitable for buses, given the huge number of students (ironically) on bicycles.
We don't need millions more people to live in the UK. It was essentially full up (infrastructure and housing-wise) 20 years ago. Many cities just weren't built for the amount of people commuting into them/going shopping/for leisure from afar on a daily basis.
At the same time, many smaller towns and villages are dying (from a shopping and business pov), essentially becoming domitories that are completely empty most of the day, sometimes for months as many (e.g. in touristy areas) are bought up as holiday homes. Locals can't afford to live in them, so move away to the (ever-growing) city suburbs. Technically I did that because I couldn't afford a home nearer to where I was working. Some of my colleagues live up your way and commuted into London, costing them (this was 15+ years ago) £5k even back then.
And yet, successive governments and councils of all hues further encourage this process as the years go by. The situation needs an all-encompassing approach. Of course that would require people with sense and courage in positions of power and influence (and not just the politicians), many of whom like the status quo, because they can blame others for the problems.
I don't think this forum would have the scope to come up with a viable solution, given this is hardly a proper round table discussion over the long term. Besides, I think I'd develop RSI with all the typing - much easier and quicker to discuss such (weighty) matters on a face to face basis (not that this is an offer to do so here, just an acceptance of reality for very complex issues people haven't resolved in many years).
|
Have you any links to the proposal for a 100% across the board charge?
In CAZ D zones private vehicles which meet Euro 6, diesel or Euro 4 petrol emissions are exempt from charging, so it is only the older vehicles which are charged.
The downside with this is most people who run older cars do so because they can't afford newer ones. A decision which punishes the poor may not go down well come local election time..
The problem with that davey is that once these measures are in place and they see the revenue, future councillors will never reverse or alter it. So it is virtually cast in stone. I am sure the technology is there to discriminate against more polluting vehicles rather than a blanket approach, but will they adopt it? Unlikely given the example of speed, sorry safety cameras. It is a catchall approach. They never seem too interesting using technology to target the real offenders. Twas ever thus, especially where revenue is concerned.
Cheers Concrete
|
It seems Newcastle are looking at either a CAZ which meets Government guidelines and will only charge the most polluting vehicles (easily done through ANPR), or a more draconian congestion charge which everyone pays. The Council will have to justify the chosen option with Government and show it isn't just a way of generating income, CAZ cat D is the highest, so justification will have to be sound.
Regardless one of them will be installed, as it will in all major cities. I actually live in an area which goes live next year, but all private cars are exempt as it couldn't be justified to Government,
|
|
Jump into an EV? They are pretty expensive, the battery will degrade, long journey range anxiety, winter...heater, lights, wipers = less range, trying to find a charging point etc. I won't be jumping. I'd use the train for long journeys..so how to get to the station?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
