London's LEZ

[Belly]

I was reading the Readers' Letters in the May Railway Modeller and one correspondent made mention that London has a Low Emmission Zone and in future certain vehicles would be fined if they were bought into the zone.

It made me think:  Is there any likelihood of future steam specials running out of London with the Low Emmission Zone in place?

[moogle]

I think it only applies to road transport. Could be wrong.
There must be a few exceptions to the rule though.
Otherwise you couldn't have the annual London to Brighton Veteran Car Rally.
If it applied to railways as well there would be a fair few diesel loco's banned too, not just steam!   

[Sprintex]

I think it only applies to road transport. Could be wrong.

Nope, you're right 

Basically it's just another form of Government bullying and stealth-taxation forcing people and companies to buy newer vehicles under the pretence of them being "greener"  If it's all about pollution-control then why not ban older vehicles altogether rather than just letting them in and backhandedly making money out of them?? 

Started out with HGVs, now it's filtering down to vehicles over 3.5t - next it'll be ALL vehicles.


Paul

[red_death]

Sorry Paul but that is just nonsense.  London has some of the worst air quality in the EU and subsequently faces massive fines for failing to meet air quality targets. The LEZ only applies to some diesel vehicles with the worst emissions (which incidentally costs the NHS millions in health problems).

That was why the LEZ was introduced.  Tax or charge it doesn't really matter what it is called the whole point about is to try and change people's behaviour (as many taxes are designed to do).  There is no element of bullying or stealth about it - it is blatantly upfront what the aim is.

As for outright ban, I doubt very much a £100 daily charge is sustainable for any business so the incentive to retro-fit a filter or get a cleaner vehicle is very high, but no doubt there will always be the odd exceptions.  No doubt if it was a ban you would complain about that.

Cheers, Mike

[Sprintex]

At least an outright ban wouldn't be two-faced.

So retro-fitting a filter (which has a horrendous cost for doing, in the region of two grand) or replacing an aging vehicle is mere pennies to your average struggling self-employed van owner is it? Quoting "air quality targets" is pointless too since these have been devised by the very politicians that tout the still-unproven human induced global warming propaganda that is SO useful for taxing everyone to the hilt. There is still just as much evidence that the natural cycle of the Earth is responsible for the increasing base temperatures as there is for this Simpsons-esque "will somebody please think of the children" nonsense.

I believe I've answered the OP's question anyway, so that's the last I'll say on the matter as it's one of those topics that isn't worth arguing over - there will always be people on both sides. Believe what you like but the truth is out there if you care to research it 


Paul

[guest311]

Quoting "air quality targets" is pointless too since these have been devised by the very politicians that tout the still-unproven human induced global warming propaganda that is SO useful for taxing everyone to the hilt.
Paul

off topic but I agree wholeheartedly.

every year I fork out £245 to tax my car, because of it's 'environmentally damaging emissions' then take it in for an MOT which shows mostly '0's in the emissions readings, in fact according to what some people would have you believe about the air quality, what comes out of my car's exhaust is cleaner than what goes in through the air filter 

so I'm afraid I see all these schemes as one thing, and one thing only, another way to make money !

rant over

[Pengi]

As this question posed by Belly has been answered, I'm going to lock this topic.