LEZ expanding......

[Tracker]

malc d - 2014-07-30 3:31 PM

The new " land rent " fee will be an additional charge relating to the area of the planet

that your are " renting " ( when away from home ).

 

You mean like environmental site fees for parking?

 

I thought we paid income tax and VAT for all that?

 

I thought that only a land owner can charge land rent - or am I missing something here - it's just that I'm too lazy to Google 'land rent'?

[Bulletguy]

candapack - 2014-07-29 11:05 PM

 

I've just come home after 4 days in London visiting daughter.

Fabulous city, but why anyone would want to drive into the centre, especially in a motorhome, is beyond me.

*-)

 

Apart from the insane, nobody does.

Unfortunately the LEZ extends much further out than just central London. My son live in Richmond and that's in the LEZ now.

 

 

pelmetman - 2014-07-30 10:41 AM

 

Seems like the "experts" dropped a clanger when they started encouraging everyone to drive diesels *-).....and they deffo have a problem down Souf with pollution.

 

 

It was all about Sales.

 

If you remember virtually everybody bought a petrol driven vehicle because 1) they were much cheaper to buy than diesel cars and 2) what diesel cars were around at the time were not particularly good.

 

The one redeeming factor of course was Diesel fuel was much cheaper than Petrol.

 

Cheap diesel powered imports began to drift in which appealed to the masses and encouraged by both low(ish) purchase prices couple with the still then, much cheaper fuel costs, sales of diesel cars began to take off. Even more once BMW and Audi had refined the diesel engine to the point of being better than many petrol equivalents.

 

The masses soon jumped on the diesel bandwagon.

 

Cue for cynical UK Gov who then shot the pump price of Diesel up above that of Petrol once they'd realised more people were now buying diesel powered cars than petrol. The rest as they say is history.

 

As for pollution in the South. Ever wondered how much crap gets chucked out in the air every time a 747 or a380 Airbus lands at Heathrow? And those damn things are flying in at the rate of one every minute.

 

 

[Rayjsj]

candapack - 2014-07-29 11:05 PM

 

I've just come home after 4 days in London visiting daughter.

Fabulous city, but why anyone would want to drive into the centre, especially in a motorhome, is beyond me.

*-)

 

I was Born in London, but have not set a foot (or a Wheel) in there (nor will I) since the 'Congestion Charge' and the LEZ were introduced, nor would I live in or visit ANY city where such 'Twaddle' were introduced. I prefere the real countryside, and as far away from London as possible. (Twaddle = restrictions and laws, purely for 'laws sake' with no real benefit to anyone, EXCEPT the people collecting all the money in charges and fines.)

I don't suppose London mourns my dissapearance, there are more than enough 'Visitors' to make up the numbers. Good luck to them. Ray

 

Agree with the above post ! Plus all the old Cabs and Buses, the air around Heathrow is Putrid, I worked around there for a while, and they are thinking of expanding It ! A very 'Cockeyed' way of improving Air Quality.

[Guest pelmetman]

Rayjsj - 2014-07-30 11:28 PM

 

I was Born in London, but have not set a foot (or a Wheel) in there (nor will I) since the 'Congestion Charge' and the LEZ were introduced, nor would I live in or visit ANY city where such 'Twaddle' were introduced. I prefere the real countryside, and as far away from London as possible.

 

 

Ditto :D..................

 

 

[RogerC]

Rayjsj - 2014-07-30 11:28 PM

candapack - 2014-07-29 11:05 PMI've just come home after 4 days in London visiting daughter.Fabulous city, but why anyone would want to drive into the centre, especially in a motorhome, is beyond me. *-)

I was Born in London, but have not set a foot (or a Wheel) in there (nor will I) since the 'Congestion Charge' and the LEZ were introduced, nor would I live in or visit ANY city where such 'Twaddle' were introduced. I prefere the real countryside, and as far away from London as possible. (Twaddle = restrictions and laws, purely for 'laws sake' with no real benefit to anyone, EXCEPT the people collecting all the money in charges and fines.) I don't suppose London mourns my dissapearance, there are more than enough 'Visitors' to make up the numbers. Good luck to them. RayAgree with the above post ! Plus all the old Cabs and Buses, the air around Heathrow is Putrid, I worked around there for a while, and they are thinking of expanding It ! A very 'Cockeyed' way of improving Air Quality.

 

I wholeheartedly agree.........any city that imposes 'Zones' or imposes other ways/means of extracting evermore money from me should I wish to visit using any of my vehicles can go whistle dixie.  As for the 'diesel' pollution issue............what the heck did they expect.  Diesel was promoted as the 'cleaner' way to go so people 'went' that way as did the manufacturers.  In essence nothing changes......the 'experts' give the politicians ammunition to fire 'new improved cleaner greener' policies/methods bullets'  at Joe Public.  Joe Public 'unarmed' has no option but to concede at gun point and then hey ho some years later the 'experts' develop some new bullets and the whole sorry gunfight 'holdup' starts over again.

 

[clifford60]

you've seen what it's like i yorkshire. come and spend your brass up ere. we don't have owt like exclusion zones unless you're from lancashire and scenery is alot grander than that theer london.

[Tracker]

The last time I went to London was about 5 years ago and I was struck by how much it had improved and cleaned itself up sine I worked in North London in the 60's.

 

There is no doubt that it is a city of contrasts, like most cities, but it is till a vibrant and fascinating place to visit, or to live if that is your thing.

 

The problem is that half the world seems to think so too and when you get that kind of demand / supply inequality prices invariably go up - and so does indirect taxation.

 

I too have no desire to return, but being expensive does not make London a bad place as it is just our own lifestyle choice that keeps us away!

[Bulletguy]

Rayjsj - 2014-07-30 11:28 PM

 

I was Born in London, but have not set a foot (or a Wheel) in there (nor will I) since the 'Congestion Charge' and the LEZ were introduced, nor would I live in or visit ANY city where such 'Twaddle' were introduced. I prefere the real countryside, and as far away from London as possible. (Twaddle = restrictions and laws, purely for 'laws sake' with no real benefit to anyone, EXCEPT the people collecting all the money in charges and fines.)

 

 

So very true.

 

"Low Emission" is no more than a smoke screen ('scuse the pun) for punitive taxation, something UK Gov has always excelled at.

 

Here is the nonsense;

 

My van is a Duetto Autosleeper on a 2000 reg Mk5 Transit chassis with 2.5TDi engine. But that's chargeable under the LEZ.

 

The car i used to own was a Focus 1.8 petrol which was ok to drive in the LEZ. Yet my van has a lower emission than that of the Focus i had.

 

Until anyone can come up with a logical explanation on that, then i will continue to believe what i've always felt about LEZ. It's no more than a tax purely for the sake of swelling up the coffers. FWIW i even challenged the powers that be at TFL......and they couldn't give me an explanation at all! I even sent copy of both emission read outs to them proving my van was actually lower than that of my car!

[Muswell]

The LEZ is not a tax but a penalty of between £250 and £1000 if a non-conformant vehicle enters the zone. It is aimed at diesels because of the high levels of NOx and particulates they produce.

[Robinhood]

.....well, though it has been explained to you before, you still keep "prattling" on about your two vehicles

 

The answer is the same as it was when I first pointed you to it several years ago, viz:

 

There are emissions and emissions.

 

The LEZ, as with most emissions zones in Europe, targets the particulate matter specifically emitted by diesel engines, rather than CO2, NOX and other gases output by both petrol and diesel engines, which is (presumably) what you are comparing between your two vehicles.

 

Particulate matter has been targeted globally by most emission control zones as a primary issue, as it was seen as a major contributor to adverse health in city centres. I have little doubt that the PM10 and PM2.5 output of your Duetto is much greater than that of the focus. Hence (whether you like it, acknowledge it, or not), there is a clear logical explanation for the approach (set out at length in various strategy documents published by the Mayor of London).

 

Having got (an element of) control on particulate matter, attention has now passed to NOX, and again, a relatively logical approach is being taken, addressing the issue of those vehicles that create the larger part of the problem, e.g. Taxis and Buses that are permanently within the "problem" zones will be specifically targeted with a large reduction in NOX.

 

Though I don't live in a city centre, I have some sympathy with the initiatives being taken globally to manage what is clearly a problem; I do, however, have some issues with the specifics of implementation in London (but you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs!).

 

Much of the background can be learnt here:

 

http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/publications/mayors-air-quality-strategy

 

 

 

 

 

[malc d]

Presumably the politicians who support the LEZ are not the same politicians who support a third runway at Heathrow with all that increased pollution from extra aircraft movements, and the extra road traffic that it would generate...

 

 

(?)

[Guest pelmetman]

malc d - 2014-07-31 2:32 PM

 

Presumably the politicians who support the LEZ are not the same politicians who support a third runway at Heathrow with all that increased pollution from extra aircraft movements, and the extra road traffic that it would generate...

 

 

(?)

 

Your not supposed to ask awkward question like that (lol) ...........

 

 

[Bulletguy]

Muswell - 2014-07-31 2:15 PM

 

The LEZ is not a tax but a penalty of between £250 and £1000 if a non-conformant vehicle enters the zone. It is aimed at diesels because of the high levels of NOx and particulates they produce.

That's true....i was mixing Congestion charge with LEZ! *-)

 

Just having a 'senior moment' but hope you got the gist of the post!

[Bulletguy]

malc d - 2014-07-31 2:32 PM

 

Presumably the politicians who support the LEZ are not the same politicians who support a third runway at Heathrow with all that increased pollution from extra aircraft movements, and the extra road traffic that it would generate...

 

 

(?)

 

I'm sure the forum 'Scientists' will have an answer for that. ;-)

[Bulletguy]

Robinhood - 2014-07-31 2:31 PM

 

The answer is the same as it was when I first pointed you to it several years ago, viz:

 

 

I joined the forum four years ago.

 

Must have been one of your previous 'pupils'?

[Robinhood]

malc d - 2014-07-31 2:32 PM

 

Presumably the politicians who support the LEZ are not the same politicians who support a third runway at Heathrow with all that increased pollution from extra aircraft movements, and the extra road traffic that it would generate...

 

 

(?)

 

....funnily enough, I'm not sure that this (at least at the highest level) stands up.

 

Though the LEZ was implemented days before Boris took over as Mayor of London, he has been a (the?)major supporter (and shaper) of the initiative since then.

 

AIUI, Boris would prefer (for reasons of pollution overall (noise, emissions, etc.)) to build a new airport on "Boris Island" in the Thames, and "house over" Heathrow to help with London's housing issues.

 

Whilst I doubt it's going to happen, it does demonstrate at least a bit of "joined up thinking".

 

;-)

[Robinhood]

Bulletguy - 2014-07-31 2:59 PM

 

Robinhood - 2014-07-31 2:31 PM

 

The answer is the same as it was when I first pointed you to it several years ago, viz:

 

 

I joined the forum four years ago.

 

 

.....it seems much longer..........

 

Bulletguy - 2014-07-31 2:59 PM

 

 

Must have been one of your previous 'pupils'?

 

....or your "doppelganger".......

 

http://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/LEZ-in-London/29001/#M334043

 

 

;-)

 

 

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

If they really want to do something about air pollution down South, they could stop being so London centric *-)....................... How about moving government to Birmingham?....................it'd reduce the cost of MP's second homes .........and they could turn the Houses of Parliament into a theme park :D..................Although sometimes you'd think it already is *-).........

 

 

[malc d]

Robinhood - 2014-07-31 3:05 PM

 

malc d - 2014-07-31 2:32 PM

 

Presumably the politicians who support the LEZ are not the same politicians who support a third runway at Heathrow with all that increased pollution from extra aircraft movements, and the extra road traffic that it would generate...

 

 

(?)

 

....funnily enough, I'm not sure that this (at least at the highest level) stands up.

 

Though the LEZ was implemented days before Boris took over as Mayor of London, he has been a (the?)major supporter (and shaper) of the initiative since then.

 

AIUI, Boris would prefer (for reasons of pollution overall (noise, emissions, etc.)) to build a new airport on "Boris Island" in the Thames, and "house over" Heathrow to help with London's housing issues.

 

Whilst I doubt it's going to happen, it does demonstrate at least a bit of "joined up thinking".

 

;-)

 

 

" Joined up thinking " ?

 

That's debatable.

 

A few weeks ago a Conservative politician on Question Time suggested that they could remove Heathrow airport - transferring the pollution to Kent ( which isn't that far away from London ) - then cover the vacant land at Heathrow with a hundred thousand houses.

That means an extra 150,000 cars in west London.

 

.... and all that is on top of the massive new port they are currently building ( close to East London ) in the Thames estuary.

 

Sounds more like " joined up pollution " to me.

 

;-)

 

Incidentally, it should be pointed out to Boris that he is NOT the mayor of Kent - it's up to the people of Kent to decide if they want an airport.

 

 

My only consolation is that I'm sure all the planning is being done by experts.

 

[Robinhood]

malc d - 2014-07-31 4:12 PM

 

Robinhood - 2014-07-31 3:05 PM

 

malc d - 2014-07-31 2:32 PM

 

Presumably the politicians who support the LEZ are not the same politicians who support a third runway at Heathrow with all that increased pollution from extra aircraft movements, and the extra road traffic that it would generate...

 

 

(?)

 

....funnily enough, I'm not sure that this (at least at the highest level) stands up.

 

Though the LEZ was implemented days before Boris took over as Mayor of London, he has been a (the?)major supporter (and shaper) of the initiative since then.

 

AIUI, Boris would prefer (for reasons of pollution overall (noise, emissions, etc.)) to build a new airport on "Boris Island" in the Thames, and "house over" Heathrow to help with London's housing issues.

 

Whilst I doubt it's going to happen, it does demonstrate at least a bit of "joined up thinking".

 

;-)

 

 

" Joined up thinking " ?

 

That's debatable.

 

A few weeks ago a Conservative politician on Question Time suggested that they could remove Heathrow airport - transferring the pollution to Kent ( which isn't that far away from London ) - then cover the vacant land at Heathrow with a hundred thousand houses.

That means an extra 150,000 cars in west London.

 

.... and all that is on top of the massive new port they are currently building ( close to East London ) in the Thames estuary.

 

Sounds more like " joined up pollution " to me.

 

;-)

 

 

......Oh, I think it demonstrates an element of joined up thinking, alright, just no acknowledgement of any of the "practicalities" of enabling any change (as I implied).

 

I suspect the removal of the planes, and all the vehicle movements associated with 60-odd million passengers, all the workforce, and countless tons of freight per year would probably more than "net-off" the vehicle-related effects of new houses (average car ownership in London is considerably less than 1 per household).

 

malc d - 2014-07-31 4:12 PM

 

Incidentally, it should be pointed out to Boris that he is NOT the mayor of Kent - it's up to the people of Kent to decide if they want an airport.

 

 

....but if you're going to improve London, it's all got to go somewhere else. As one of my early managers once said to me when faced with some external dissent - "What do they think we're doing here, running a democracy?"

 

;-)

[malc d]

Robinhood - 2014-07-31 4:38 PM

 

....but if you're going to improve London, it's all got to go somewhere else. As one of my early managers once said to me when faced with some external dissent - "What do they think we're doing here, running a democracy?"

 

;-)

 

 

That's the dilemma.

 

" Improving " London means different things to different people.

 

 

;-)

[Guest pelmetman]

malc d - 2014-07-31 4:54 PM

 

Robinhood - 2014-07-31 4:38 PM

 

....but if you're going to improve London, it's all got to go somewhere else. As one of my early managers once said to me when faced with some external dissent - "What do they think we're doing here, running a democracy?"

 

;-)

 

 

That's the dilemma.

 

" Improving " London means different things to different people.

 

 

;-)

 

Maybe we need to change from being known as the UK...........to UKOL..........United Kingdoms Of London :-|..............

 

 

[Bulletguy]

pelmetman - 2014-07-31 3:43 PM

 

If they really want to do something about air pollution down South, they could stop being so London centric *-).........How about moving government to Birmingham?

 

 

Anything north of Watford is alien territory so they'd struggle to find it.

 

The only reason the Cameroon kid and his sidekick ventured up to Aberdeen recently is he's suddenly woken up to a forthcoming referendum which could see an independent Scotland.