-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
ULEZ - Plans (and would you have to pay?)
- Thread starter The Ham
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
"2025 is very very optimistic for EVs" - what? Note, nobody here has said that all vehicles will be EVs in 202, but sure as eggs is eggs, there will be a lot more EVs on London's roads in two years time, (irrespective of Sunak's vain attempt to slow down their rise). Thanks to the inner ULEZ, their penetration in London is already way above the national average. EV prices are falling rapidly and if you know how EVs are constructed wyou will know that they are inherently moprereliable. Lithium battery development is advancing at such a rate that it's not worth commenting on you outdated view of ther reliability of mainternance costs.
The surge of driving everywhere during the pandemic has creating traffic issues that are already pushing drivers back to more appropriate public transport. As for the cost of public transport rising, London has fared quite well, especially for commuting. Sitting still in a fume laden street or tunnel is a considerable disincentive to driving and adding toll charges for the pleasure will help focus the minds of them.
NSEWonderer
Established Member
In theory yes but I'd like to then see statistics that prove there's been a decent shift of motorists affected by ulez and similar tolls etc to Public transport. I'm not so sure however there is any or if there is that it isn't as profound of a result as they wanted. However if anyone has the statistics or so or could point me in the direction of them I'd be more than happy to study that."2025 is very very optimistic for EVs" - what? Note, nobody here has said that all vehicles will be EVs in 202, but sure as eggs is eggs, there will be a lot more EVs on London's roads in two years time, (irrespective of Sunak's vain attempt to slow down their rise). Thanks to the inner ULEZ, their penetration in London is already way above the national average. EV prices are falling rapidly and if you know how EVs are constructed wyou will know that they are inherently moprereliable. Lithium battery development is advancing at such a rate that it's not worth commenting on you outdated view of ther reliability of mainternance costs.
The surge of driving everywhere during the pandemic has creating traffic issues that are already pushing drivers back to more appropriate public transport. As for the cost of public transport rising, London has fared quite well, especially for commuting. Sitting still in a fume laden street or tunnel is a considerable disincentive to driving and adding toll charges for the pleasure will help focus the minds of them.
After all you can't go wrong with more knowledge.
If you have the cost to drive at peak time for (say) £15 or at off peak (when there's less congestion) for £5 if you have the flexibility to travel at the cheapest time you're likely to do so. If you have the ability to go by bus for £2 you're likely to do that.
Whist stationary in traffic (with stop/start technology) doesn't necessarily increase air pollution, the acceleration from stopped creates more than driving smoothly.
However going by bus would reduce emissions further still (as generally regardless of if the bus has 10 people or 100 people is likely to run anyway).
Given a bus with just 8 people on board (but taking up the road space of 2 cars) is likely to have removed 5 cars from the roads when traveling (and potentially free up more road side for moving traffic by not needing to be parked when not moving).
As such, you don't need many people to study to using a bus for roads to need to cater for a noticeable reduction in traffic.
Those days when you drive and it's easy and you get where you're going much faster than those days when it seems to take much longer (where there's no real reason) the level of traffic is likely to be a 2% difference. As such, even a 3% reduction in traffic is likely to make it easier for those still driving to get about.
Therefore, anyone who needs to drive should actually want as many other people not to drive at possible, so that their journeys are much faster and nicer.
The short term congestion will vary with specific loactions and routes, and how much some drivers pretend that there isn't a problem for them. I suspect that after a year or two of a change, (e.g. ULEZ implementation) when the petrolheads realise that camera vandalising or not, it is staying, that they will asess their position. there's no point in maintaining a personal protest if nobody is taking any notice. Once the volume of EVs gets significantly higher, differential toll pricing will probably help to clear the air.
I can't speak for you but most people that I know might like their ICVs, but when it hurts more to use them, they would either change their mode of travel or suddenly discover that EVs are better suited to their needs.
There is absolutely no indication that Khan is willing to implement this.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Easier said than done for a tradesman or someone who simply cannot afford a EV.
With some recent administrations in Westminster, you have nothing left to assess
Do we really need to explain why encouraging people to cycle is good for public health?
thaitransit
Member
I really hope this kind of system never makes it to Australia. It sounds very complex and expensive for everyday people. It also has no consideration for people require special vehicles for work reasons either.
There will always be edge cases, but they will be very much in a minority and as EVs become cheaper and more prevalent, it will be resolved one way or another. There is a limit to the allowance that can be made when a far greater issue needs to be addressed.
NSEWonderer
Established Member
Encourage people to cycle is one thing but how many facilities does their workplaces offer for safe keeping of these bikes. Locks these days won't stop thieves taking these as well as I doubt unless you live quite close to work are you cycling in either.
I do cycle in to work, and have had to replace a bike that was stolen.
Perhaps a couple of parking spaces here and there need to be removed and replaced with secure bike storage.
bramling
Veteran Member
For significant elements of the population, EVs are currently simply impracticable because either they lack the charging infrastructure at their home location, or they simply can’t afford an EV.
Whilst the second of those issues may be dealt with naturally as time goes on, do we really have the confidence in governments to address the issue of charging? Especially as it will be an issue which goes beyond political cycles, and despite all the rhetoric isn’t really going to be a salient electoral issue, especially with the state the country is in at the moment and all the other issues people currently have. Indeed if anything a focus on EVs is likely to exacerbate those more salient issues.
I’m sure in time change will come, but I don’t see it happening as quickly as you seem to think it will. Even less so for rural areas where this is all even less salient.
It will be interesting, in time, to see data on how effective ULEZ expansion has proven to be. Anecdotally I can’t claim to have seen any improvement in air quality in central London. For me far bigger issues are the explosion in SUV use, and poorly maintained vehicles - neither of which are issues ULEZ addresses.
NSEWonderer
Established Member
Why would they rip up parking spaces to spend more money on secure bike storage. And define secure bike storage.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Till we get practical supercacpictors that rival batteries in holding charge whilst charging in a matter of minutes at the worst then it's way too early for the EV stuff.
Even assuming we get charging points of good distance from each other for cars to recharge, it will still turn a quick 10min petrol fill for example into a 1hr or two hour stop being impractical for many traveling. Evs only make sense for inner city usage but not many people buy a car just to drive in the confines of London
It takes nothing like that long to charge using a rapid charger - which is what you find at service stations and supermarkets.
I live in Somerset, there's loads of EVs here
I sense a yet another post coming along claiming that EVS won't catch on because they couldn't take on a charge for a 400 mile journey without stopping in the same time as it takes to fill a petrol tank. However it would be off topic because this thread is about ULEZ which only require that a petrol ICV is newer than 2005 or a diesel is newer than 2016. The number of petrol cars older than 2005 must be a fairly small proportion of the total, and many of those are likely to follow the general pattern of private car use where the mileage after 5 years falls steadily and the cars are not used every day.
deltic
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 3,719
The monitoring reports for the original ULEZ areas shows that there is both a reduction in the use of the most polluting vehicles and traffic volumes generally.
The mayor does not have the power to ban vehicles as far as I am aware only to impose road user charging.
Indeed, however there aren't any data sets which go down to sub 1 year.
Peter Sarf
Established Member
Would be so nice if we all just needed to drive less ?. Not because we are forced to but because towns are set up better for public transport use (he's on about out of town shopping again ?).
I have been told the scrappage scheme only pays up if you produce a receipt for a replacement car. I privat purchase is not going to work apparently.
As for cycle lanes we now have a road near us with bollards segregating the cycle lanes. Now Ambulances, Fire Engines and the Police cannot get through as people cannot move over.
Now a bus takes about 88 people so a lot more than a cycle can carry yet central Croydon is getting overrun with cycle lanes that are pushing the bus routes further from the centre of town. With better town centre planning the busses would be more attractive and ULEZ would be less of an issue. But no instead the result is more incentive to operate a car. And guess how many cycles use the cycle lanes - almost none. Worse still There are more cycles whizzing along the pavement in George Street in central Croydon.
I don't see EVs reducing the amount of traffic so there will still be the same traffic problems caused by cycle lanes etc etc.
The thing is, if there are so few cars that are not ULEZ compliant then why bother with a ULEZ ?.
NSEWonderer
Established Member
How many of those Evs support rapid charge and even with rapid charge are we talking below 30nins charging time for actual decent range or are you having to adapt your driving with more coasting etc to really make up the range it claim the fast charge will recover for you in said time.
I'm not against Evs at all but the forecasts for roll outs etc is bollocks with current tech. What really should have been taking over is Hybrids which are more realistic. But the advantages of those like no CC and certain discounts were removed by the same Governent that were pushing them.
Peter Sarf
Established Member
Goalposts moved. I remember when diesel was being encouraged. I remember when a gas conversion would save you money and congestion charge - but not with ULEZ. Lets see where Hydrogen fuel cells take us - if they are successful then EVs will be pointless.
Oh and while I mention ULEZ and moving goalposts. The goverment have decided to abandon the home energy saving scheme (insulation etc). So we are not going to reduce our energy usage in the UK but instead play money go rounds subsidising expensive energy so people can use more. Bit like not trying to reduce the need for cars but instead we try to make cars nicer.
I looked at the notes for the scheme. I don't see any mention of obtaining a replacement vehicle, just scrapping a non-compliant vehicle.
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/scrappage-schemes/car-and-motorcycle
GLC
Member
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2018
- Messages
- 403
Hydrogen fuel cells powered cars are EVs. The fuel cell produces electricity, and an electric motor is used to propel the car
NSEWonderer
Established Member
Yup
That's no different to many other roads in the country which only have one lane in each direction.
Anyway even if that were more of an issue across the country can you answer me this; which vehicles are the ones where there's too many which are causing the traffic congestion, is it the cycles or is it the cars?
Also, why do the cycle lanes need to have bollards installed, is it so the cyclists stay in their lane or is it so cars stay in theirs?
If there wasn't so much of an issue with general traffic impacting on cycle lanes then the "lost" road lane could have been formed with some paint so that emergent services could have used it with cars and cycles moving (right and left accordingly) out of the way.
Whilst 88 (bus) is greater than 10 (cycle), 10 is greater than 3 (car) for the same road space. (Although it should be noted the reality would be that you could probably fit more cycles into the space).
The issue with buses is that they are often slower (even when there's no congestion) than cycling (as you've got to get to/from the bus stop) - especially if you've got to allow for a 20 minute or less frequent service. They are less reliable. They cost more (my bike is 15 years old and had cost me less than £1,000 for everything, including my waterproof coats, lights, charging the lights, etc.).
Now if the issue was that there were too many cyclists and they were getting stuck in cycle only jams, then you may well have a point. However, the bottom line is that there's still far too many cars. It's unlikely that someone in a bus would switch to driving, if they switch to cycling the impact is unlikely to be noticeable. What is noticeable is when car drivers switch to cycling or the bus, even if only 3% of them do so.
Even 10% would make it like the school holidays during term time - so there's still plenty of scope for people who need to to be able to drive.
Maybe you should call for a congestion charge for Croydon to resolve the issues you've highlighted. As that would speed up the buses and result in more people in the cycle lanes (which probably are fairly busy, it's just that cyclist are less obvious than a queue of cars and they aren't delaying each other as much as cars).
A congested road up to a set of traffic lights with a queue of 10 cars getting through each set of lights is far more noticeable than 10 cycles in the same 25 second window, at the traffic lights, or over the 60-90 second for the cycle time of the traffic lights when they are away from the lights.
An old boss of mine, when people would challenge us on there being a car every (say) 8 second would often look at his watch say car, wait the 8 seconds and then say car again. It's surprising just how long that is, especially for a cycle which is so much smaller and less visually intrusive than a car or van. Of course cycles aren't likely to be spread out, each 8 seconds away from the last, so you could see three and then none for 30 second before seeing another two (and 30 second really does feel a long time when clock watching).
Careful, I suggested that on another thread and the response was akin to the response you'd get if you walked into Alabama and suggested that it might be nice if guns weren't necessary. Apparently having neighbourhoods where the bare essentials are within a short walk would be "North Korea".
Regarding cycle lanes, I spent yesterday in Nuremberg and am now in Munich. The cycling infrastructure is very good, it's properly segregated from the road. Crossing points too are well-designed. As a result they get used. It's only the UK that thinks that it's enough to slap some paint down in the gutter or stick some blue signs up along the pavement.
NSEWonderer
Established Member
Haha that alabama comparison.
Snow1964
Established Member
London's traffic levels are far from constant each week, for years have always been about 20-30% lower in school holidays. Consequently going to be very slow to get reliable statistics on any shift. It would be very easy to make a bad comparison between August (in holidays) and September using raw numbers.
There might be something in TfL Board papers for the committees in October that gives early hints, perhaps even some bus usage figures, but I am not sure there will be a full 4 week reporting period since ULEZ expansion, might simply be too early.
If you assume outer London is roughly 10% of UK population (allowing for some outside border who regularly cross into zone) then applying UKs new car sales (nearer 1.7m, but over 2m per year pre covid), get something like 15,000-20,000 cars per month in zone are being replaced each month. Within couple of years ULEZ won't be a moneyspinner as will only be about 3 or 4% who need to pay.
If only affecting 3 or 4% (say 1 in 30) in couple of years, then not going to be much of an incentive to mode switch from cars
NSEWonderer
Established Member
That is quite true
A 30% fall in traffic during the school holidays is quite a lot.
Whilst schools directly account for about 10%, so there'll be a bit more due to holidays being taken, there's also still people using childcare settings.
Whilst delays can easily reduce by 1/3 (so an hour during term time to 40 minutes in the holidays) that's because a junction at over 85% capacity rapidly adds delays with each few percent it increases by, whilst under 85% capacity then any delays are limited. As such some fairly small changes in traffic volume can have a much more noticeable impact on journey times.
Incentive for who? If the ULEZ charge is still in force, some drivers would still change modes.
- Status