ULEZ Surprise.

[CarreraRSR]

My Newcastle experience has developed to REFUNDED, after I retrospectively applied for local exemption as a Motorhome. They remained silent on my other issue of following Highways Authority diversion due to roadworks on the A1.

My colleague got his T5 Caravelle exempt for Newcastle, not sure of other cities. Has some but not full conversion to camper van. More converted than my Kombi, but I was wondering if my Fortywinks bed and a cooking pod in the back would suffice ...... Just need to sending photos of interior/exterior I believe, I'd need to be a little creative . Not fully looked into it. Been in the Newcastle zone 3 times in last 2 months, so worth a look. Trying to avoid all cities but have had to do Sheffield and live near Bristol, so pains me paying. Found Caura app which might make it far easier to pay than the city webpages?

 

[Trouts]

All the above may be true, but extending ULEZ is all about revenue and clean air is the sophistry of justification.

indeed. but pretty much everything in this country is about making money...

 

[The Flying Scotsman]

indeed. but pretty much everything in this country is about making money...

You mean to fun tax ?
What’s that? You would like to have some fun sir ???
Right get your wallet out and bend over

 

[Trouts]

You mean to fun tax ?
What’s that? You would like to have some fun sir ???
Right get your wallet out and bend over

yeah, exactly! everything, even having fun is about someone making money.

 

[roadtripper]

every supplier has their own data transmission protocols that are not compatible with each other. Change supplier and you need ‘their’ meter installing.

That's no longer the case. SMETS2 is a common protocol and DCC provide common data backhaul for a meters and data consumers.

If you have the earlier SMETS1 meters the issue wasn't the protocol, it was the individual backhaul networks. Most of the SMETS1 meters are being migrated but about half a million will likely need replacing with a SMETS2 due to incompatible radio hardware.

Many things are not great with the programme but meters going dumb on supplier change hasn't been a thing for a while.

Upgrading first-generation smart meters

At the DCC, we're working closely with energy companies to migrate millions of first-generation (SMETS1) smart meters onto our network.

www.smartdcc.co.uk

There's also a link there to a Citizen Advice Bureau tool to check if your meter is correctly connected the the DCC system.

 

[Lubrown]

but extending ULEZ is all about revenue

And that in itself is not daft.

Government has cut local authority funding by 50% while forcing them to cover social care. If cities (people) want road improvements or better public transport (remember people and businesses in London wanted less vehicles due to congestion and associated costs - hence ULEZ) they need to fund it somehow. Sadly things cost money.

 

[Bav]

And that in itself is not daft.

Government has cut local authority funding by 50% while forcing them to cover social care. If cities (people) want road improvements or better public transport (remember people and businesses in London wanted less vehicles due to congestion and associated costs - hence ULEZ) they need to fund it somehow. Sadly things cost money.

Daft? Depends on your viewpoint, but it's undoubtedly deceitful and also highly regressive.

 

[Lubrown]

Daft? Depends on your viewpoint, but it's undoubtedly deceitful and also highly regressive.

How is it deceitful?

Londoners wanted less traffic, the revenue ULEZ generates is all put into providing alternatives to driving and discourages some people from driving in London. It seems a logical method. Not popular with everyone but nothing ever is.

What’s more deceitful in my mind is paying more taxes than ever before while we have far worse access to and quality of public services and a national debt that’s the highest it’s even in over six decades. But sure, let’s get distracted by dead cats.

 

[Stay Frosty]

Ulez fair enough, I followed a tidy but long in the tooth T4 the other day for just over a mile here in Northampton and with the best will in the world, him being part of the Transporter world and all, I swear in that mile he coated my lungs with creosote.
What gets my goat up though is the idea of a congestion charge which if it was an alternative to a parking charge ie. park at any of these empty kerbs you fancy would be easier to swallow but is actually little more than a toll to drive on publicly funded roads.
OTOH if I'm entirely honest I don't give a shit really as I would rather eat my own pants than drive through central London.

 

[Bav]

How is it deceitful?

You've just conceded that the ULEZ extension is about revenue generation, yet Khan is desperate to portray it as all about reducing emissions (to the point he tried to influence independent research and actively manipulated the public consultation process). That's wilful deceit.

Londoners wanted less traffic...

Charging people who have no alternative but to use their vehicles generates income; it doesn't reduce traffic. To name but a few such people:

• care workers performing home visits
• shift workers traveling outside public transport operating hours
• tradesmen carrying tools, equipment and goods

...the revenue ULEZ generates is all put into providing alternatives

Really? When did Khan promise to hypothecate all the income arsing from the ULEZ extension? Personally, I wouldn't believe him if he had, but AFAIK he's done no such thing.

What’s more deceitful in my mind is paying more taxes than ever before while we have far worse access to and quality of public services...

And introducing yet more taxes addresses this... how?

...let’s get distracted by dead cats

Easy to say if it's not your cat (I note you haven't rebutted my point re the charges being regressive).

 

[Lubrown]

You've just conceded that the ULEZ extension is about revenue generation, yet Khan is desperate to portray it as all about reducing emissions

I’m not convinced he is desperate to portray it as ALL about reducing emissions. TFL are pretty clear about where the income is spent. Besides, those two things are not mutually exclusive…
Dissuade vehicles - you get less jams and cleaner air … something the majority of people want.
And if your charge does not dissuade some vehicles then the income from those pays for improvements that will incentivise cleaner better travel… in turn reducing emissions.

I note you haven't rebutted my point re the charges being regressive

That doesn’t mean I agree with you.

And introducing yet more taxes addresses this... how?

ULEZ is not a tax. It’s a charge that people decide if they want to pay or not. Local authorities have to now look at income generation because our taxes (more than we’ve ever paid before) are not getting through to them like they used to. Where is our money going? We are paying more for far far less and that is having knock on effects that mean we have to consider paying for things that our taxes used to cover. This is why I get frustrated when people fall for the dog whistle and miss the big picture.

 

[CarreraRSR]

Dissuade vehicles - you get less jams and cleaner air … something the majority of people want.

I've driven late at night across London when there was little traffic. The journey time wasn't significantly quicker. Yes, no 'jams' but the traffic light system is like driving in Turin during a an England football match and three Minis are trying to escape with a boot load of gold. I firmly believe they are betting against the flow of traffic causing the jams when you have to continually stop at almost every single traffic light despite no traffic coming from the other directions. Constantly stopping traffic flow at every light causes vehicles to idle more and acceleration increases emissions, not reduces it.

Putting ULEZ on the M4 to Heathrow is purely revenue generation. They know the levels of vehicles using this section. The alternative to get to Heathrow is non viable in terms of cost and time for anyone who lives outside London.

 

[CarreraRSR]

Just been helping my father in law with a 2000 Boxster S. Apparently compliant in ULEZ by providing the manufacturers Certificate of Conformity. However, what I found a nightmare is the Clowncil run CAZ areas across the country are not aligned, nor use the same web portals. Apparently it's compliant in Bath but not in Bristol. Same in other Cities. You would think the Clowncils would follow the same criteria, but no, just want to make it as awkward as possible so we are 'forced' to buy new vehicles. Like not being able to check an online system if you dipped into a CAZ or not by accident (hiding behind data protection BS!), not being able to set up an autopay to avoid a fine as I have just endured by dipping in by 20m in Sheffield following a Waze route with avoid tolls box checked whilst in my Euro 5 T6. Sorry, rant over!

Good news, the Boxster was dealt with by TFL extremely quickly yesterday morning and the system was instantly updated.

As for CAZ, they say I'll need to wait up to 15 days for a response......

 

[Stay Frosty]

Not being funny but the National Express buses from Northampton to Heathrow via Luton Airport are a pretty popular and fuss free way of getting to either airport.
Parking at an airport is not cheap either but as with the ULEZ charge is just another cost added on to most people's annual pilgrimage to somewhere warm and sunny.

 

[CarreraRSR]

Not being funny but the National Express buses from Northampton to Heathrow via Luton Airport are a pretty popular and fuss free way of getting to either airport.
Parking at an airport is not cheap either but as with the ULEZ charge is just another cost added on to most people's annual pilgrimage to somewhere warm and sunny.

Some peoples travels are more than annual. Getting to Heathrow for a 6.30 flight is tricky on public transport from Somerset

 

[Bav]

I’m not convinced he is desperate...

Khan's actions indicate otherwise.

Dissuade vehicles...
...
...people decide if they want to pay or not.

Without viable alternatives, you can't dissuade and there is no choice.

That doesn’t mean I agree with you.

Suggests you have no basis for disagreement. Short of taxing those shopping at Primark/Iceland/Lidl, it's hard to think of a more regressive approach.

...people fall for the dog whistle...

"Dog whistle", "populist", "racist", "Nazi", "far-right" - fallacious opprobrium intended to shame into silence those with the temerity to disagree with the "accepted" narrative.

 

[Salty Spuds]

And this is why everything eventually boils down to politics, which is off limits territory.

 

[Scruffy]

Well done, you've all fallen for the dog whistle policies of the current govt. Look, you're all arguing now. Divide and conquer, that's their MO.

 

[Stay Frosty]

Some peoples travels are more than annual. Getting to Heathrow for a 6.30 flight is tricky on public transport from Somerset

I can tell you it's two hours on the train from Sherborne in Dorset or was.

 

[Stay Frosty]

If we're just talking about ULEZ not congestion zones and we all drive Euro 6 Transporters is there actually an issue?