ULEZ - Really quite surprised

[KWR73]

Being a commuter in to London, well East London I was really scared about the ULEZ expansion.  I had a bad ULEZ experience driving through London on a Sunday with a newer car, admittingly it was Diesel than my 987.1 3.2S and was shocked to find it is ULEZ exempt.  The £80 fine I got not knowing that ULEZ was 24hours a day, 7 days a week was an unexpected pain.

Hearing that Khan had been returned as mayor again prompted me to check the ULEZ -  Check your vehicle (tfl.gov.uk)

Wrongly I had assumed that the ULEZ expansion was going to make me buy a commuter (based on 5 days in London), and make a wallet dent based on 1 or 2 days a week going forwards post pandemic.  

Was a real weight off for me, anyone else surprised or un-necessarily concerned.

[Terryg]

Just checked mine which is the allegedly much cleaner and more fuel efficient 987.2 and  it isn't exempt. Strange. Or do you mean that yours is exempt in the outer regions but chargeable in the city?

Edited May 15, 2021 by Terryg

[Clivescoobydo]

Strange that as just checked my 02 986 3.2S and it is not exempt! When I checked a year ago it was 🤔 which I thought was a bit strange at the time.  Must be tightening up the rules 

[DaveEFI]

3 hours ago, Terryg said:

Just checked mine which is the allegedly much cleaner and more fuel efficient 987.2 and  it isn't exempt. Strange. Or do you mean that yours is exempt in the outer regions but chargeable in the city?

The ULEZ  and Congestion Charge are different. A 987.2 is exempt from the ULEZ, but not CC. The really annoying thing is there are many thousands of diesels - VW, Audi, Merc, BMW etc, which have the Euro 6 certificate, but this was fiddled in lab tests, and they don't meet that standard in use. A subject of many ongoing court cases. It's rather typical of so many of these traffic reducing measures. Seen to be doing something to satisfy the activists. And of course raises revenue. That it may not actually reduce pollution doesn't matter. Close to here in SW London (but outside the proposed ULEZ extension) they have introduced fenced off cycle lanes in each direction on a main road. Reducing the traffic (including buses) to a standstill for much of the day. And stationary traffic produces emissions too, so actually increases the total for that journey.

[Clivescoobydo]

3 minutes ago, DaveEFI said:

The ULEZ  and Congestion Charge are different. A 987.2 is exempt from the ULEZ, but not CC. The really annoying thing is there are many thousands of diesels - VW, Audi, Merc, BMW etc, which have the Euro 6 certificate, but this was fiddled in lab tests, and they don't meet that standard in use. A subject of many ongoing court cases. It's rather typical of so many of these traffic reducing measures. Seen to be doing something to satisfy the activists. And of course raises revenue. That it may not actually reduce pollution doesn't matter. Close to here in SW London (but outside the proposed ULEZ extension) they have introduced fenced off cycle lanes in each direction on a main road. Reducing the traffic (including buses) to a standstill for much of the day. And stationary traffic produces emissions too, so actually increases the total for that journey.

Welcome to the new ‘enforced’ world order...

[zcacogp]

4 hours ago, DaveEFI said:

The ULEZ  and Congestion Charge are different. A 987.2 is exempt from the ULEZ, but not CC. The really annoying thing is there are many thousands of diesels - VW, Audi, Merc, BMW etc, which have the Euro 6 certificate, but this was fiddled in lab tests, and they don't meet that standard in use. A subject of many ongoing court cases. It's rather typical of so many of these traffic reducing measures. Seen to be doing something to satisfy the activists. And of course raises revenue. That it may not actually reduce pollution doesn't matter. Close to here in SW London (but outside the proposed ULEZ extension) they have introduced fenced off cycle lanes in each direction on a main road. Reducing the traffic (including buses) to a standstill for much of the day. And stationary traffic produces emissions too, so actually increases the total for that journey.

 

4 hours ago, Clivescoobydo said:

Welcome to the new ‘enforced’ world order...

Ain't that the truth, brother! The increasing ridiculousness of the traffic situation was one of the reasons why we got out of East London 6 months ago and headed for the wilds of the Cotswolds. Kahn has nothing more than the interests of himself and his activists at heart and he will destroy traffic in the capital bit by bit. 

KWR73. whereabouts in East London are you based? 

[KWR73]

19 hours ago, zcacogp said:

KWR73. whereabouts in East London are you based? 

I live in deepest darkest Kent, but commute in to ghost town that is Canary Wharf, well I did pre-pandemic.

Have driven for years, easy as long as you hit Blackwall before peak.

[Paul P]

1 hour ago, KWR73 said:

I live in deepest darkest Kent, but commute in to ghost town that is Canary Wharf, well I did pre-pandemic.

Have driven for years, easy as long as you hit Blackwall before peak.

Did that exact run for 20 years.  Now I am free lancing I don’t have to hit that part of town and I don’t have to hit town at all most days.  

[Bradders59]

My 02 plate, 3.2 Omega is exempt. My 59 plate Clio 1.5 dci isnt, and nor is my Boxster, which is to be expected.

Assuming its still the same area as the congestion zone ? it wont affect me whichever one I use.

My daughter lives just off the right hand side of Commercial street, coming from Whitechapel direction, and the zone starts when you turn left off Commercial street, so right on the edge, but no quite inside the zone.

 

Edited May 17, 2021 by Bradders59

[dim33]

I was surprised to see that my 987.1 3.4 doesn't have to pay a ULEZ charge.

When I checked my old CBR600 motorcycle (600cc as the name suggests) it has to pay £12.50.

I do not see how a 600cc motorcycle can pollute more than a 3.4 litre car.

[zcacogp]

1 hour ago, Bradders59 said:

Assuming its still the same area as the congestion zone ? it wont affect me whichever one I use.

My daughter lives just off the right hand side of Commercial street, coming from Whitechapel direction, and the zone starts when you turn left off Commercial street, so right on the edge, but no quite inside the zone.

 

It is currently the same area as the CC zone but Khan will expand it; he's talking about the area between the N and S Circular roads. Oh and it's likely to be for longer hours - possibly 24 hours a day. 

https://www.lgcplus.com/finance/london-mayoral-polls-khan-reveals-plan-to-reverse-congestion-charge-hike-27-04-2021/#:~:text=London mayoral polls%3A Khan reveals plan to reverse congestion charge hike,-27 April 2021&text=But he has now indicated,until 10pm%2C including at weekends.

[zcacogp]

5 minutes ago, dim33 said:

I was surprised to see that my 987.1 3.4 doesn't have to pay a ULEZ charge.

When I checked my old CBR600 motorcycle (600cc as the name suggests) it has to pay £12.50.

I do not see how a 600cc motorcycle can pollute more than a 3.4 litre car.

You are trying to apply logic to government rhetoric, which is never going to work. 

Pointing out that buses and taxis which pollute more than private cars but come under different legislation so won't have to pay is wrong is another example of trying to apply logic where it's not wanted. 

Pointing out that by far the most polluting thing in Central London doesn't have wheels at all is also not allowed. The fact the gas heating boilers (domestic and commercial) pump out FAR more pollution than traffic in London is something you aren't allowed to talk about. 

Khan's only two interests are raising money and maintaining a political charade. The latter can be used to do the former by taxing private car users. 

[Steve Laming]

I checked my cars quite some time ago and all ok. Looking at this thread I thought perhaps things have changed. But no, still ULEZ exempt.

That's on a 986 2.7 2001, Cayman 987 2.7 2007 and a Cayenne 955 2004.

Still have to pay the CC charge though. 

[McDonald]

4 minutes ago, zcacogp said:

Pointing out that buses and taxis which pollute more than private cars but come under different legislation so won't have to pay is wrong is another example of trying to apply logic where it's not wanted. 

There's been major investment in London's busses, they're not the heavy polluters of yesteryear. Taxis are also going electric much more quickly than the national fleet. Old diesel taxis can't renew their licences.

Polution makes the city a very unhealthy place. Traffic moving slower than horses is obviously ridiculous too. It's never going to be popular with petrol-heads but something has to be done.

[zcacogp]

12 minutes ago, McDonald said:

There's been major investment in London's busses, they're not the heavy polluters of yesteryear. Taxis are also going electric much more quickly than the national fleet. Old diesel taxis can't renew their licences.

Polution makes the city a very unhealthy place. Traffic moving slower than horses is obviously ridiculous too. It's never going to be popular with petrol-heads but something has to be done.

First point - true, of course. However the pollution contribution from public transport in London significantly outweighs that from private cars. 

Second point - also true, of course. However general statements like this don't further the discussion; while the larger sources of pollution are not addressed then the problem won't get any better. Taxing private cars is merely political gesturing and achieves nothing other than the annoyance of those who own and run private cars; petrol-heads and non. (And, for the record, there are very very few petrol-heads in London). 

[Bradders59]

My daughter who is a pretty severe Asthmatic and lives in central London, tells me that the worst place of all for poor air quality is the tube in busy hours.

Its so bad she walks to work, which takes 20 minutes, rather than stand in a carriage struggling for breath.

Little tin Khan doesnt seem interested in that though for some reason.

[DaveEFI]

2 hours ago, zcacogp said:

You are trying to apply logic to government rhetoric, which is never going to work. 

Pointing out that buses and taxis which pollute more than private cars but come under different legislation so won't have to pay is wrong is another example of trying to apply logic where it's not wanted. 

Pointing out that by far the most polluting thing in Central London doesn't have wheels at all is also not allowed. The fact the gas heating boilers (domestic and commercial) pump out FAR more pollution than traffic in London is something you aren't allowed to talk about. 

Khan's only two interests are raising money and maintaining a political charade. The latter can be used to do the former by taxing private car users. 

You need to define pollution. It can be divided into two types. The first effects the health directly, PM and Nox. The second, CO2, bad for the planet. PM  comes mainly from diesels. One can be said to be a local problem, the other worldwide.

[Mattman42]

Thanks for the link - i'd not checked before.

we got a 50% hit rate for the cars in our household; the Impreza and Polo are both ULEZ exempt, the X6 and MX5 aren't. Surprised that the Impreza is exempt but not the newer diesel which should be more efficient

 

[PFX]

On 5/17/2021 at 2:53 PM, Bradders59 said:

My daughter who is a pretty severe Asthmatic and lives in central London, tells me that the worst place of all for poor air quality is the tube in busy hours.

Its so bad she walks to work, which takes 20 minutes, rather than stand in a carriage struggling for breath.

Little tin Khan doesnt seem interested in that though for some reason.

Sorry to hear about your daughter's struggle.

We have also moved out of East London some years ago to Oxfordshire, in an attempt to escape bad air quality and hoping that our children will grow up in a healthier environment. And, I can relate to the public transport statement - while still in London, I swapped District Line for a motor bike for my daily 10 mile commute (too far to walk and not safe to cycle in my case) into Central London. I don't mind paying the ULEZ when going back into London occasionally for work, but would very much like to see this kind of tax being purpose-bound i.e. being allocated to measures which help improve air quality- better public transport (including better air on the tube/underground), more subsidies for electric cars and charging networks etc.

Air pollution in London is and always has been a problem, sadly it is an unpopular topic and being ignored by many people and even authorities:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/30/air-pollution-girl-died-london-should-have-treated-emergency-ella-kissi-debrah

As I understand it, road tax is dependent on how much CO2 a car emits:

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/consumer-news/88361/ved-road-tax-how-does-car-tax-work-and-how-much-will-it-cost

ULEZ would be charged in a similar way, so as a VERY lose rule of thumb - the higher your car tax, the more likely you'll be liable to ULEZ.

Hence, my 2.7 Boxster which costs 330.- road tax a year (paid annually) is exempt from ULEZ. My Mercedes ML (12 years old) however which costs me some 580.- is liable to ULEZ..

On 5/17/2021 at 2:15 PM, dim33 said:

I was surprised to see that my 987.1 3.4 doesn't have to pay a ULEZ charge.

When I checked my old CBR600 motorcycle (600cc as the name suggests) it has to pay £12.50.

I do not see how a 600cc motorcycle can pollute more than a 3.4 litre car.

I can - your CBR600 probably produces close to 100 horsepower, and does not have a catalytic converter, right? Low engine displacement is not necessarily a guarantee for low emissions....what comes out of your exhaust depends on many factors such as displacement (big pots want to be filled accordingly), efficiency (how much or little fuel is needed to produce power), power output (the more power the more fuel needed if engine system is the same other than displacement) and exhaust gas management (catalytic converter which breaks down CO and nitrous oxide etc. and DPF i.e. diesel particle filter which filters microscopic solids from the exhaust gas) which keeps most of that cr*p out of the air and our kids' lungs....

 

[Pinewood]

On 5/15/2021 at 6:55 AM, Terryg said:

Just checked mine which is the allegedly much cleaner and more fuel efficient 987.2 and  it isn't exempt. Strange. Or do you mean that yours is exempt in the outer regions but chargeable in the city?

are you sure? 

I just plugged my 987.2 registration in and it is ULEZ exempt (was a year ago also) 

[Terryg]

29 minutes ago, Pinewood said:

are you sure? 

I just plugged my 987.2 registration in and it is ULEZ exempt (was a year ago also) 

I put the reg into the OP listed website, looking at it now it just lists the congestion charge as payable, it doesn't mention ULEZ, I never knew the difference before, I assume that means then it is ULEZ exempt?

[zcacogp]

ULEZ and Congestion charge are different things. Everything needs to pay the congestion charge (unless it's a Motability car or an ambulance or something like that). Vehicles which are below the minimum requirement need to pay the ULEZ as well. The standards are Euro 4 for petrol cars and Euro 6 for Diesel cars. All 987-series and later Porsches are Euro 4 compliant (the 987 arrived in 2005 which is when mandatory Euro 4 compliance came in for all cars) so won't pay ULEZ but they will need to pay Congestion Charge. 

It is possible that a much newer diesel car will not be Euro 6 compliant so will need to pay ULEZ. I think that Euro 6 only came in for 2015 or so, so a diesel car made before this may well not be compliant. 

[Pinewood]

11 hours ago, Terryg said:

I put the reg into the OP listed website, looking at it now it just lists the congestion charge as payable, it doesn't mention ULEZ, I never knew the difference before, I assume that means then it is ULEZ exempt?

yes it's exempt. 

 

ULEZ and congestion charging are seperate taxes. 

 

[Clivescoobydo]

On 5/15/2021 at 7:32 AM, Clivescoobydo said:

Strange that as just checked my 02 986 3.2S and it is not exempt! When I checked a year ago it was 🤔 which I thought was a bit strange at the time.  Must be tightening up the rules 

Just double checked, only the congestion charge applies to my 02 Boxster S, no ULEZ charge applies.  And noticed the congestion charge is also temporarily being applied at weekends!

Edited May 20, 2021 by Clivescoobydo

[EagleStar]

2 hours ago, Clivescoobydo said:

Just double checked, only the congestion charge applies to my 02 Boxster S, no ULEZ charge applies.  And noticed the congestion charge is also temporarily being applied at weekends!

You mean temporarily, temporarily, until it applies everyday for ever and ever….