Forum Topic

The new congestion charge

With the new charging zone landing shortly  I wondered that I hadn't seen any new cameras going up. Do they just use the existing ones that monitor red routes etc? It occurred to me that very local journeys  might still be possible providing one doesn't pass a camera.

Karl Henry ● 1568d73 Comments

Pricing is some way off and a different conversation.The problem with the congestion charge is that people have started to believe their own propaganda. I've seen one misleading slogan that indicating that the ULEZ will illuminate poor air quality.All internal combustion engines create local air pollution. It is not a binary thing it is a scale and that needs to be understood. Also the difference between lab test compared to real life situations also needs to be communicated.But the pricing structure of the ULEZ does not address these issues. There should have been a sliding scale but politically I suspect that upsetting owners of older cars was more acceptable than a policy of addressing pollution iin real life situations.

Ed Robinson ● 1530d

Thanks, Matt

Michael Ixer ● 1530d

I agree, I think road pricing is probably a better way of doing it

Matt Palmer ● 1530d

There’s always a hypocracy involved in controlling behaviour like this. Smoking is bad. Let’s not do the logical thing and ban it outright. Let’s tax it and earn a few bob while looking like we care. Or variations thereof. The congestion charge is at least more honest as it sort of does does what it says on the can. Perhaps Road pricing is a fairer way to do things.

Freddie Francis ● 1530d

Report here:https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/pollution-and-air-quality/air-quality-london-2016-2020

Matt Palmer ● 1530d

It would be interesting to see statistics regarding pollution (particularly NO2 and particulates) now and over the past 12, 18, 24 in the ULEZ extension area. If there's a significant reduction then it is surely a success if it saves financial and social costs in terms of deaths and illness even if it doesn't bring in direct revenue? If it's revenue generation that's wanted then just extend the CC to the North and South Circulars - or the M25? 

Michael Ixer ● 1530d

Freddie if it doesn't pay for the running and setup costs I'm not sure it will be expanded. Clearly their projection were wrong to expand outside will probably be even more costly.Of course they could have implemented it earlier but then the buses were not compliant.

Ed Robinson ● 1530d

We’ll it’s great but the least I can hope for is that it won’t have dropped in vale. I can’t see how it will pay for its infrastructure as if successful it won’t bring in much revenue. One inn the eye for those who call it a money making scam initiated by Khan, who didn’t actually initiate it but is an easy target. How long until the zone is expanded to within the M25? Give it five years.

Freddie Francis ● 1531d

Freddie, now it is compliant it may have increased in value :)And once compliant always compliant under the scheme.I see that TFL have again downgraded their forecasts. I wonder if they will even recover their running costs. I think they got it wrong on the charging which is not good for air quality or TFL finances.

Ed Robinson ● 1531d

If anyone is in the position of owning a non compliant vehicle (as specified by the ULEZ checker website, be aware that it could be incorrect. My car, which is a 1999 model so T registration, has been confirmed as compliant. I requested a ‘certificate of compliance’ from the manufacturer and supplied this plus the v5 to TFL. I can now drive in the zones and no longer have to consider spending several thousand to replace it. And to preempt any comments regarding being able to buy a compliant used car for a few hundred, my vehicle is worth over £18k and to have upgraded would have been about another £10k to acquire an equivalent model. So, check before selling. It’s not all about Euro designations. It’s about NOx figures and particulates.

Freddie Francis ● 1533d

It's NOT a congestion charge. It's the ULEZ zone.

Mark Phillips ● 1561d

Ivonne, I was also surprised by the article which was why I posted it to see what people's views were. Of course, we look at the track record of election polls versus results ...

Michael Ixer ● 1562d

A sensible solution would be to impose the charge and not the fine (if they pay the charge within 7 days) for the first week.You will alway get people straying into the boundary possibly due to a diversion etc.The real issue is that the charge should be part of a range of measures to tackle congestion and pollution including improving the efficiency of junctions, minimising roadworks and promoting greener ways to travel.Many people are not comfortable with using public transport late at night which is not helped reducing station/train staff and the loss of confidence in the Met.Some joined up thinking is needed which sadly appears to be lacking at local and national level.

Ed Robinson ● 1562d

“ for those people who really don’t use their cars very often.”I’d love to hear your explanation as to how that would work. I use my car less than once a fortnight as a rule but I’m not sure the ULEZ people have that data.

Freddie Francis ● 1562d

Perhaps you are correct Freddie.I must admit, I was surprised with Michael Ixer's link saying not many Londoners are aware about the extension.I wonder if people in Central London or people within the current ULEZ are not aware, they are already in it.We certainly are very aware as some of us are just outside the extended ULEZ zone but it affects us all.I suppose people coming from outside London are not that aware but may have seen all those red signs warning them of the coming ULEZ zone.  I have also noticed signs showing which roads mean you are entering the ULEZ zone....I think Martine's suggestion of a grace period is wise, though perhaps not as long as 6 months??  Having said this, when the LTNs were introduced there was no grace period.  There were endless signs on the LTNs roads but people driving could not stop to read them all - it would have taken at least three minutes to read and somewhat digest or understand?The red signs on the ULEZ zones are very clear indeed - and simple enough to read in seconds.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1562d

I think my suggestion should apply for the first 6 months, for those people who really don’t use their cars very often.

Martine Guy ● 1562d

Info’s been out there for several years. They even extended the deadline to tomorrows date by over a year. I was posting about ULEZ in this forum at least a year or two ago. It was obvious that there was going to be a nasty surprise in store for a lot of people, inside the zone and outside. I’ve no sympathy for anyone who’s unaware and gets a fine. There’s been more than enough warning.

Freddie Francis ● 1562d

A sensible suggestion, Martine. Perhaps a two week trial period to let it bed in?

Michael Ixer ● 1562d

I think that a lot of people aren’t aware of ULEZ or whether it will effect their vehicle.  Maybe all first penalties issued, should be a warning penalty, so that everyone is made fully aware of their own circumstances.  After that, ie a second penalty, should be enforceable, as no-one will be able to say they didn’t know about it.

Martine Guy ● 1562d

I do my best, wait till tomorrow Andy I may exaggerate but wait till you hear other peoples predicament.

Barbara Stevens ● 1562d

I'm no fan of Khan or the ULEZ but if there's anyone out there who won't visit an ill relative or their mum for the sake of £12.50 then their relative is better off without them.My god Barbara you really know how to exaggerate an issue rather than think of trains  buses and walking.

Andy Pike ● 1562d

Must be like being enclosed in the Berlin Wall, you can only wave from one side of the road to the other. So many people must have been out today visiting relations or shopping. Now what, poor old mum's won't have any visitors at the weekend, so mum it will cost. Sorry unable to visit the Hospital to see you, what with Parking Charges and ULEZ. What about Carer's who will pay their bills I'm sure not all their cars comply. Who voted for Sadiq Khan, nobody I know. I wonder how many Security Guards he will need now.

Barbara Stevens ● 1562d

There does seem to be a lot of ignorance about ULEZ according to this article in the Standard:https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-expansion-majority-motorists-unaware-tfl-london-b961959.html

Michael Ixer ● 1563d

How are they cutting the emissions if people prefer to pay the ULEZ, as it works out cheaper than buying a new vehicle in the long run, worked out over a few years. Or they will add it on your bill for doing work at your property. I've also even seen loads of old cars P Reg W Reg. Or as it seems some people don't even know or have a clue about the ULEZ. Even a lady who works in the local Sainsbury's who drives from Fulham didn't know anything about it. She went down in the lift to get her Reg No. and wanted me to show her on her phone how to check. I think more people don't know about it than do.

Barbara Stevens ● 1563d

Here are the links to the original blog and technical paper.The headline is not very clear but looking at the detail the 98% comes by replacing non-compliance diesels with a Euro 6d diesel.Of course there is an assumption that the old one will be replaced by a brand new latest Euro 6d car. I will be surprised if that was the case. Many diesels are being replaced by second hand petrol that may be Euro 4!https://www.trueinitiative.org/media/791983/true_londonulez_technote_oct2021.pdfhttps://www.trueinitiative.org/blog/2021/october/london-ulez-expansion-could-cut-emissions-from-worst-polluting-vehicles-by-up-to-98-says-new-analysis

Ed Robinson ● 1563d

A confusing article Philippa, as it mentions the following below but ULEZ compliance includes  Euro 4, Euro 5 or Euro 6 petrol.No actual link to the detailed report either. It looks like they have cut and pasted and mixed things up."Shifting from older Euro 2 and 3 petrol vehicles to the latest Euro 6d models cuts average nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions by up to 92% and particulate matter (PM) by up to 83%."

Ed Robinson ● 1563d

The thing that is what's so annoying there was nothing wrong with his old van. Makes you sick.

Barbara Stevens ● 1563d

https://envirotecmagazine.com/2021/10/22/london-ulez-expansion-could-cut-emissions-from-worst-polluting-vehicles-by-up-to-98-says-new-analysis/

Philippa Bond ● 1563d

…Bit of an irrelevant comment. Nothing’s expensive if you already own it. Trading up has a cost. The bigger the van the bigger the cost relative to the value of your old vehicle, to state the obvious. Given that second hand vehicles are selling for higher prices than they were originally at the moment I’d say that the cost for some is highly significant. Got a compliant vehicle? Lucky you. This discussion is of no consequence.

Freddie Francis ● 1563d

not if you have a compliant one.

Matt Palmer ● 1563d

Thank you Barbara, Sean and Freddie for the clarifications.The cost of vans is astronomical!  Pfff

Ivonne Holliday ● 1563d

From about the year 2017, they comply, when you look at prices at any Dealership they seem the same price on a second hand going by the year. Then it seems they go by mileage, the only ones that are cheaper are ones with about 140,000 miles on clock. Which are not worth buying, they would knock you back about £15000. All have approx another 5000 to pay VAT. Depending on the cost of the vehicles.

Barbara Stevens ● 1564d

Diesels ARE compliant if of a certain engine configuration and age.

Freddie Francis ● 1564d

Ed. As I noted it was just a guess. However, looking at one bof these testing sites I can see why there may be legal reasons for using the Euro standards just because there are defined as a standard. One might forsee legal challenges if they were to use an independent testing organisation such as True. I'm not saying that's good but I'd see True as a mechanism to raise issues if their testing showed vehicles weren't meeting the defined standards; there might be legaslissues if the testing showed variances with time  because of poor maintenance, or just wear and tear from normal usage. I'm not saying that's ideal but I suspect it's the approach lawyers might take? If the "True" testing results varies from the Euro standards how would that leave the purchasers of vehicles, wouldn't it create uncertainty? Or perhaps I've missed the point?https://www.trueinitiative.org/blog/2017/october/the-real-urban-emissions-initiative-true-begins-roadside-testing-of-londons-cars

Michael Ixer ● 1564d

Ivonne, my other half has just spent thousands on a nearly new van, they have to be a Euro 6 and it's diesel. No good getting an EV as not enough charging points. Something  was fitted to the new ones to make them comply. So all that is really happening is what Boris did 10yrs ago. Telling everyone they had to get diesel and get rid of their cars vans and taxi's.

Barbara Stevens ● 1564d

Euro 6-compliant diesel vehicles are allowed into the ULEZ 

Sean Hodges ● 1564d

I am not too sure there are vans that are compliant with ULEZ, but may be very wrong.As far as I am aware, most vans run on diesel? Hence not compliant.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1564d

Michael TFL get a regular feed with extensive body and engine details from the DVLA. Unless there is some legal reason the pricing structure and selection is purely policy and not technology based.

Ed Robinson ● 1564d

If their van is not compliant they’ll pay, not if it is. Happy to be put right if that’s incorrect.

Freddie Francis ● 1564d

If you operate a van, as many construction workers do, you'll be paying up to £100 a day - think of that..So, if you're having any work done on your home or workplace, add on the cost of the ULEZ.Anyone happy to start a boycott with me??Marcus Gibsoninfo@gibson-index.com

Marcus Gibson ● 1564d

My guess is that is that it was an attempt to keep costs down so it was based as far as possible on technology compatible with and software used for the congestion charge, and a basic algorithm using the "Euro" categories was selected to keep any software enhancements needed as straightforward as possible.  Just a guess, and of course ULEZ development and implementation has spanned two mayors in office ...

Michael Ixer ● 1565d

My guess is that is that it was an attempt to keep costs down so it was based as far as possible on technology compatible with and software used for the congestion charge, and a basic algorithm using the "Euro" categories was selected to keep any software enhancements needed as straightforward as possible.  Just a guess, and of course ULEZ development and implementation has spanned two mayors in office ...

Michael Ixer ● 1565d

Ideally the Mayor should have a ten year plan as I suspect if there is not a significant improvement in air quality post the ULEZ expansion then other vehicles may be charged. I would prefer a charge that at least based on actual emissions using the True organisation data for example rather than the arbitrary date based system they have selected.People are already confusing ULEZ compliance with low emissions. They may be in for a shock if or perhaps when high polluting vehicle are targeted!

Ed Robinson ● 1565d

I thought a lot of car companies were cheating as well on their car emissions.  I know a lot of people also bought diesel because the fuel was cheaper.  They always made me wheeze.  It should've but never occurred to me that this might be a bigger problem for a lot more people.

Philippa Bond ● 1565d

It's not just TfL that's changed it's mind central government have as well, so I don't see it's a political issue. Diesel vehicles were at one time viewed as prefers me because of lower CO2 emissions and better fuel consumption, but then it transpired they were worse polluters than petrol vehicles producing more particulates and NOx emissions. Isnt that modifying one's views in the light of better knowledge rather than incompetence. I'd agree with some that ULEZ may be a bit of a blunt instrument but reducing pollution is imperative so perhaps it's the satisfactory and sufficient solution as they say on MBA courses; at least, until we're all driving EVs? 

Michael Ixer ● 1565d

My wife’s car is Euro 6 and not compliant because it is older than the arbitrary age cut-off for diesels.Conversion to compliance - which commercial vehicles can do - is also therefore not possible because it is already compliant. I’m not sure of why they have an age cut off for diesels, but they do. Surely if emissions comply with the MOT test, I don’t see why we should have to pay an extra £12.50 daily charge? Typical rip-off Britain. And the charge itself will not raise any significant monies because it is all gobbled up by the administration of the charge.That we were encouraged to buy that particular vehicle in the first place by TfL - it used to be congestion charge free because of low emissions - also grates. Thoroughly incompetent local government from top to bottom.

Stephen Walker ● 1565d

:)Sadly I expect there are still going to be people who are surprised by the changes.  I've noticed the letters 'ULEZ' in a circle added to road sign directions at junctions. You have to keep a look out for it if you are trying to avoid it - the same as you have to with the Congestion Zone.

Philippa Bond ● 1566d

Andy :-)

Michael Ixer ● 1566d

Does this also apply to the more common black and white badgers?

Andy Pike ● 1566d

If you are a Blue Badger you need to check out the restrictions for the new ULEZ charge as it is more complicated than for the Congestion Charge:https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/discounts-and-exemptions#on-this-page-1

Philippa Bond ● 1566d

The Congestion Charge is a £15 daily charge if you drive within the Congestion Charge zone 07:00-22:00, every day, except Christmas Day

Jane Carter ● 1566d

Register With TFL and your payments will automatic and as far as I’m aware, charged via the same app used for the congestion charge. So there are two possible charges. Congestion zone- all vehicles with a few exceptions, e.g. motorcycles (detail from TFL below). ULEZ zone - vehicles charged if not compliant only. Travelling in both will cost you £15 for the congestion zone plus £12.50 for the ULEZ zone (only if your vehicle is not compliant). The charge periods are midnight to midnight. Travel across midnight and you’ll pay £25 in the ULEZ zone. Congestion charge exemptions are: Two-wheeled motorbikes (and sidecars) and mopedsEmergency service vehicles, such as ambulances and fire engines, which have a taxation class of 'ambulance' or 'fire engine' on the date of travelNHS vehicles that are exempt from vehicle taxVehicles used by disabled people that are exempt from vehicle tax and have a 'disabled' taxation classVehicles for more than one disabled person (for example Dial-a-Ride) that are exempt from vehicle tax and have a 'disabled' taxation class

Freddie Francis ● 1566d

and it appears you have to pay both if your car is not ULEZ compliant and you travel in both zones.There is a TfL car checker:https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/check-your-vehicle/Make sure if you need to pay for your trip that you pay on the official TfL website as it appears there are other fake ones which may come up first if you just Google them.https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/avoid-payment-fraud

Philippa Bond ● 1566d

We have a 2003 car bought new by us in The Netherlands. It’s 2.3 litre and compliant. You need to confirm either way via the ULEZ check website to be sure. Don’t assume anything by the registration date.

Freddie Francis ● 1567d

Including in the ULEZ exemption are lots of cars that are rated as Poor/Red rating according to the Tue initiative "Red rating - vehicles that we are confident have NOx emissions that stay above 180 mg/km in a wide range of driving conditions"Worth a look if buying a new or second hand vehicle:https://www.trueinitiative.org/true-ratinghttps://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/pollution-and-air-quality/cleaning-londons-vehicles/cleaner-vehicle-checker

Ed Robinson ● 1567d

Lucille, if (like mine) your car isn't compliment then it would seem so. Although I think £12.50 for now. This is of course assuming there is a camera between your house and The Exchange otherwise "they" presumably won't know.

Karl Henry ● 1567d

The following are likely exempt:Vehicles that meet Euro 6 - introduced in September 2015 for cars and September 2016 for vans - as are some models that met the standard earlierAlmost every petrol car registered from 2005 and some registered between 2001 and 2005Petrol cars registered after 2006

Gabrielle OMahony ● 1567d

"I now have to pay £15 to drive to Putney Exchange car park?"Southside, Richmond & Kingston (East Sheen Waitrose too) are all outside the ULEZ.

Ed Robinson ● 1567d

@Lucille, it’s £12.50 and only if your car isn’t exempt.

Freddie Francis ● 1567d

Lucille, only if your car is not ULEZ compliant.

Michael Ixer ● 1567d

Putney Exchange is dying.. Won't allow pop ups or short let's, thanks Blackrock!

Penelope Becker ● 1567d

So let me get ths straight  - if I live south of Upper Richmond Road I now have to pay £15 to drive to Putney Exchange car park?

Lucille Grant ● 1567d

There is a sign been put up at the URR and Charlwood road that you are entering the zone

Maureen Smith ● 1567d

I assume the line on Trinity Road is where the slip roads' entrance/exit to/from the South Circular finish/start as at their leaving/joining Trinity Road as one can't leave Trinity Road at that point? However, that's not clear from the Map.

Michael Ixer ● 1567d

Someone else posted this link showing the line:https://lruc.content.tfl.gov.uk/map-of-hounslow-richmond-and-wandsworh-in-the-ulez-expansion-area.pdfWonder why Trinity Rd is included and what happens at that point!

Patricia Poulter ● 1567d

There are big signs at the junction of URR and Roehampton Lane. Pretty sure it’s well known that if you turn off the south circular you’ll be in the zone.

Freddie Francis ● 1567d

The boundary is the south circular and north circular roads

Andy Pike ● 1567d

HalloJust a thought - as well as cameras, will there also e signs saying entering the congestion charge?  Should be imo, otherwise how will motorists know where the congestion charge starts and finishes?

Carole Tanner ● 1567d

Well, Woodlands Way seems to justify its own camera set up. The sign that's blacked out has ULEZ and a camera picture on it. https://flic.kr/s/aHsmWYqDH1

Michael Ixer ● 1567d

One by the swimming pool. Another on Gipsy Lane. Black cameras mounted on lamp posts. Probably wireless apart from needing a power source.

Freddie Francis ● 1568d

There are cameras going up all over the place!!

Karen Taylor ● 1568d

Seen a couple on the Upper Richmond Rd. Are there any in the High St.

Barbara Stevens ● 1568d

They might use cameras mounted on cars roaming around?

Michael Ixer ● 1568d