[SkyJawa]

All the more reason never to drive to the shitholes these zones will exist in

[Hooded]

Originally Posted by SkyJawa

All the more reason never to drive to the shitholes these zones will exist in

Quite

[nik patel]

Originally Posted by vadimo

Isn't the zone will become 0 emission after 2021? So if you have Euro 6 engine it's just matter of time till that start to incurr penalties

No, just in 2021 everything within the north and south circular will also have to pay the charges unless they have Euro 6 for diesel and euro 5? For petrol.

[Mattyk]

Originally Posted by nik patel

Exactly! You would think it would be the other way round!

1 turbo versus 2?

[JimTyler]

I'm jumping mad, i have a 330d, yep a euro5, and I love my car I dont want to change it but as I live and work in London and my family live all over the south I drive in and out a lot that will now be £25 a day.
Is there any conversion kits?

[nik patel]

Originally Posted by JimTyler

I'm jumping mad, i have a 330d, yep a euro5, and I love my car I dont want to change it but as I live and work in London and my family live all over the south I drive in and out a lot that will now be £25 a day.
Is there any conversion kits?

Feel exactly the same!! but might sell in 1-2 years before it effects me in 2021

[Bryans69]

Originally Posted by Wills2

If Leeds hadn't spent millions and millions cutting the road capacity with cycle and bus only lanes into the city perhaps they wouldn't have a pollution problem, they are responsible for the 2-3 miles of standing chugging traffic every morning and night as they live in a fantasy world where they think they can control peoples habits without providing a viable alternative.

What are cycle and bus lanes if not an alternative?

I'm well aware that cycling and public transport don't work for a lot of people, but for many they could if they made a bit of effort. My 7 mile commute in the London suburbs is pretty impractical on public transport, because its mainly focused on going into central London, rather than around, but a half hour cycle is normally quicker than the odd occasion I decide to drive.

[Wills2]

Originally Posted by Bryans69

What are cycle and bus lanes if not an alternative?

I said they're not a "viable" alternative did you not see that word? It changes the meaning of the statement.

If they were seen as viable there wouldn't be an issue, the fact that traffic and pollution continues to be an issue suggests the alternatives aren't seen as viable.

Cutting the capacity of some of the cities (I'm talking about Leeds remember) major A road network at peak times by 50% and then wondering why pollution rises because you thought everyone would jump on a bus or cycle in is the work of a fool.

Just like the 2+ lanes they put in, all utter nonsense and a waste of the tax payers money.

[TodmordenLad]

I live in London so know all about this. It will be a massive undertaking effecting millions of people as the area in question is large. I haven't read anything about how they intend to police it in terms of the technology employed. If they're going to use what's currently in use for the Congestion Charge, then they'll need a load of ANPR cameras, and I mean LOADS, as the perimeter of and area within the North and South Circular roads is vast.

Its a bold step and I was ambivalent about it until I read the latest London schools air quality report which basically states that there isn't one school in the capital whose surrounding air quality meets EU guidelines for NOx and particulates - that's all inner London Boroughs as far as I know

At the risk of sounding smug, Ive gone from being a two EU5 diesel household to being a two EU6 petrol household in the past 12 months - one change as a result of theft and one as a result of a good part ex offer on my 3 year old F31, which wasn't strictly planned. I sold my F31 outside London and it was easy. Selling EU5 and older diesels within London will become increasingly difficult as the time approaches but not outside the capital, Im sure - unless all other cities follow suit, which they're unlikely to do in the short term

[Techno 9000]

Originally Posted by JimTyler

I'm jumping mad, i have a 330d, yep a euro5, and I love my car I dont want to change it but as I live and work in London and my family live all over the south I drive in and out a lot that will now be £25 a day.
Is there any conversion kits?

Even if it was possible to upgrade your vehicle, they'll no doubt go with the data that the vehicle was registered with to assess the charge, so no point in doing it to try to save money (but you may feel warm 'n' fuzzy that you have reduced your emissions somewhat).

[teaston]

Originally Posted by JimTyler

I'm jumping mad, i have a 330d, yep a euro5, and I love my car I dont want to change it but as I live and work in London and my family live all over the south I drive in and out a lot that will now be £25 a day.
Is there any conversion kits?

£24 a day actually

Only £12.50 a day if you travel weekends or evenings/nights.

[Bryans69]

Originally Posted by Wills2

I said they're not a "viable" alternative did you not see that word? It changes the meaning of the statement.

If they were seen as viable there wouldn't be an issue, the fact that traffic and pollution continues to be an issue suggests the alternatives aren't seen as viable.

Cutting the capacity of some of the cities (I'm talking about Leeds remember) major A road network at peak times by 50% and then wondering why pollution rises because you thought everyone would jump on a bus or cycle in is the work of a fool.

Just like the 2+ lanes they put in, all utter nonsense and a waste of the tax payers money.

Yes I did see it. Depends on your definition of viable. The majority of journeys in the UK are under 5 miles, and the majority of those are done by car. I would suggest that for a large number of those, cycling, for example, would be viable. However, for a number of reasons, people still choose to drive rather than use another method. One of the reasons people state as not wanting to cycle is that it is dangerous. Separating cars and lorries from bikes is a step towards dealing with this.

Of course this change isn't going to happen overnight, it has to be a long term plan to get more people out of cars and using more appropriate forms of transport for shorter journeys.

I have two guys that work for me, both under 30. Both live less than three miles from the office, and both drive. They come in most mornings moaning about the traffic, yet when I suggest they could cycle, which would be quicker in most cases, I get the normal, 'when I sort my bike out'.

If things like increased charging, together with an improved cycling infrastructure, get just some of the people out of cars onto bikes, that can only be good for reducing pollution and congestion, and improving peoples health.

I'll get off my soapbox now and go dry my soaking cycling gear......

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by Bryans69

Yes I did see it. Depends on your definition of viable. The majority of journeys in the UK are under 5 miles, and the majority of those are done by car. I would suggest that for a large number of those, cycling, for example, would be viable. However, for a number of reasons, people still choose to drive rather than use another method. One of the reasons people state as not wanting to cycle is that it is dangerous. Separating cars and lorries from bikes is a step towards dealing with this.

Of course this change isn't going to happen overnight, it has to be a long term plan to get more people out of cars and using more appropriate forms of transport for shorter journeys.

I have two guys that work for me, both under 30. Both live less than three miles from the office, and both drive. They come in most mornings moaning about the traffic, yet when I suggest they could cycle, which would be quicker in most cases, I get the normal, 'when I sort my bike out'.

If things like increased charging, together with an improved cycling infrastructure, get just some of the people out of cars onto bikes, that can only be good for reducing pollution and congestion, and improving peoples health.

I'll get off my soapbox now and go dry my soaking cycling gear......

Cyclists, now there is another topic altogether!

[Firaxis]

It's quite interesting when independent testing becomes a factor, I started researching due to a potential 125d purchase and quickly realised emissions and toxicity can be more about the car / manufacturer than the type of fuel.

https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/new-...e-the-most-nox

When a petrol 1.2L Nissan Qashqai produces more NOX than a 150hp BMW diesel then blanket statements are a difficult proposition. That's the main fundamental issue for me, it all seems rather half arsed.

I understand the immediate issue at hand is to alleviate city pollution which is of course a key issue needing swift resolution, although again it's a case by case scenario when real world testing is involved.

From what I've read hybrids have been exempt from the 2040 ban, although according to the what car tests the Peugeot 508 RXH hybrid emits three times the Euro 5 standard.

So why not just employ an agency for independent testing (like the NASA experiments)? Find out what's really causing issues and charge based upon it? Grant higher incentives (like the scrappage scheme) to trade against cars that are ACTUALLY known to be environmentally friendly?

Then there's the matter of transference, where we're just moving the issue somewhere else when using grid based power for electrics and pollution created by manufacturing new cars en mass when all petrol and diesels are defunct. Another topic for another time, still it does make me wonder.!

Hydrogen anyone?

[Lorcan]

Originally Posted by Firaxis

So why not just employ an agency for independent testing (like the NASA experiments)? Find out what's really causing issues and charge based upon it? Grant higher incentives (like the scrappage scheme) to trade against cars that are ACTUALLY known to be environmentally friendly?

Then there's the matter of transference, where we're just moving the issue somewhere else when using grid based power for electrics and pollution created by manufacturing new cars en mass when all petrol and diesels are defunct. Another topic for another time, still it does make me wonder.!

Hydrogen anyone?

What is actually friendly though? A doctor customer who worked in the field of air quality in submarines and spacecraft recently told me that the move to higher combustion temperatures and DPF/OPF is simply reducing the particulate size to pass an EU filter paper test. The smaller particles simply pass through the paper so pass the test as "clean", but due to the smaller scale (barely above molecule size) can now enter your bloodstream directly through your body instead of having to be inhaled, where at least you had a chance of coughing them out. Look for this to come home to roost in 5-10 years.

[Sasquartch]

Originally Posted by Lorcan

What is actually friendly though? A doctor customer who worked in the field of air quality in submarines and spacecraft recently told me that the move to higher combustion temperatures and DPF/OPF is simply reducing the particulate size to pass an EU filter paper test. The smaller particles simply pass through the paper so pass the test as "clean", but due to the smaller scale (barely above molecule size) can now enter your bloodstream directly through your body instead of having to be inhaled, where at least you had a chance of coughing them out. Look for this to come home to roost in 5-10 years.

This ^

In older diesels there were plenty of particulates but these were large (comparatively) and hence very visible and perceived as 'bad'. In this case the smaller particles tended to stick to the larger particles and not be so mobile

Then, as legislation progressed, the chase for CO2 emmissions meant a drive for greater efficiency resulted in higher combustion temperatures which meant NOX and small particulates increased as a side effect. Legislation then mandated a reduction in various emissions which resulted in all the stuff bolted on to a modern diesel and associated unreliability eg EGR, DPF etc Unfortunately as Lorcan says, what isn't filtered is actually more dangerous due to the particulate size

Electric is the way forward whether by charging through the power grid or generation from Hydrogen. We're still some way off though as a lot of technology has to be further developed to make this practical

[goodbyalfa]

Originally Posted by Wills2

I said they're not a "viable" alternative did you not see that word? It changes the meaning of the statement.

If they were seen as viable there wouldn't be an issue, the fact that traffic and pollution continues to be an issue suggests the alternatives aren't seen as viable.

Cutting the capacity of some of the cities (I'm talking about Leeds remember) major A road network at peak times by 50% and then wondering why pollution rises because you thought everyone would jump on a bus or cycle in is the work of a fool.

Just like the 2+ lanes they put in, all utter nonsense and a waste of the tax payers money.

Cambridge is exactly the same.
Car hating local council, bus lanes are us and badly arranged and maintained roads, leads to awful traffic issues. Drive a bike they say, take a bus the say.. Great if you live in the locality, not so much if you live in the sticks...

[Firaxis]

Originally Posted by Lorcan

What is actually friendly though? A doctor customer who worked in the field of air quality in submarines and spacecraft recently told me that the move to higher combustion temperatures and DPF/OPF is simply reducing the particulate size to pass an EU filter paper test. The smaller particles simply pass through the paper so pass the test as "clean", but due to the smaller scale (barely above molecule size) can now enter your bloodstream directly through your body instead of having to be inhaled, where at least you had a chance of coughing them out. Look for this to come home to roost in 5-10 years.

The whole point of DPF's is to oxidise soot particles into C02 when burnt over 550 degrees. Once regeneration is completed smaller particles are left attached to the ceramic lining until it gets full and needs replacing.

He might be talking about particulate nano matter (PM10) which does enter the blood stream and affect your lungs (just wiki it). These are made up of sulphates, nitrates etc. etc. and can form reactions with secondary PM's like nitrogen oxide (NOx).

NOx's effect on lung tissue is well documented and is a by product of the ICE. So what your doctor friend saying is somewhat true? But neither is it a revelation or misunderstood..

The question is what to do about it? Even with lab style Euro 6 emissions in the real world you can find diesels far less pollutant than petrols. So, more comprehensive testing is needed instead of ideal theoretical's.

I can see there being a mixture of hydrogen fuel cell and FCEV's in the future.. For now at least, target the cars causing an actual issue.

[TodmordenLad]

Very few EU6 diesels achieve EU6 compliance in real world tests, if this website is anything to go by

https://equaindex.com/

For Air Quality, read NOx - and particulates I think

If the London ULEZ only allowed diesels into the zone which achieved EU6 compliance in real world tests, there'd hardly be any diesels cars on the road - apart from the odd BMW and VW

[Firaxis]

Originally Posted by TodmordenLad

Very few EU6 diesels achieve EU6 compliance in real world tests, if this website is anything to go by

https://equaindex.com/

For Air Quality, read NOx - and particulates I think

If the London ULEZ only allowed diesels into the zone which achieved EU6 compliance in real world tests, there'd hardly be any diesels cars on the road - apart from the odd BMW and VW

That's the issue in a nutshell, they monitor air quality in cities and fine based upon statistics. You'd of thought they'd relax the emissions standards (to say Euro 5) but make sure every car / van / truck meets said criteria in the real world?

Because some of these "Euro 6 compliant" cars according to independent tests aren't even meeting Euro 3 standards. So instead of doing things properly they just ban them and leave people to deal with the fallout, irrelevant if your Euro 5 IRL is more efficient than a brand new Euro 6.

[TodmordenLad]

Originally Posted by Firaxis

That's the issue in a nutshell, they monitor air quality in cities and fine based upon statistics. You'd of thought they'd relax the emissions standards (to say Euro 5) but make sure every car / van / truck meets said criteria in the real world?

Because some of these "Euro 6 compliant" cars according to independent tests aren't even meeting Euro 3 standards. So instead of doing things properly they just ban them and leave people to deal with the fallout, irrelevant if your Euro 5 IRL is more efficient than a brand new Euro 6.

Yes, Im sure you're right.
Mind you, my old F31 330D - which I sold - was supposed to be EU5 but according to EquaIndex, "meets Euro 3 limit for diesels" on air quality, so I would have ended up paying the ULEZ charge, whatever the scheme, I suspect.
Obviously the London ULEZ scheme is regional rather than national and the Mayor has bitten the bullet, under pressure from groups representing public health and education and in the face of pretty compelling evidence. The government, of course, would never introduce any human health/environment protection scheme nationally which would damage tax revenues from the sale of fossil fuels.

[Witney]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

Manchester tried for a congestion charge in 2007 - to fund and extension to the tram system. They couldnt get the necessary support amongst councils that make up GMC. I doubt they will try again for a while after how much it cost.... They may introduce a pollution charge though as that would be more politically acceptable now...

Not trying to be controversial, but it wasn't lack of support from councils, they voted for it. There was a referendum and it was rejected by Greater Manchester residents. The no vote was 79%!!