3 ms·

ULEZ does not only affect private vehicles, the list of who qualifies for a discount or exemption is pretty short (residents are exempt for now, taxis, historic

ULEZ does not only affect private vehicles, the list of who qualifies for a discount or exemption is pretty short (residents are exempt for now, taxis, historic vehicles, and things like agricultural and military vehicles or excavators, mobile cranes): https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/discounts-and-exemptions https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/dis... According to the report, only 9% of all vehicles were exempt (38% of non-compliant vehicles, which were 23.2% of all vehicles in September). Everyone else either pays the charge (£100 per day for lorries, buses, and coaches), incurs a penalty, or upgrades their vehicles.

easytiger 7y ago
Sorry, wasn't suggesting commercial vehicles were exempt, but that the ulez doesn't mean they won't make the trip.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  It might mean the next commercial vehicle that company buys meets the European emissions standards, though.
  - easytiger 7y ago
    It might indeed. But that doesn't make the headline claim true
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      Skepticism not backed up with any specific evidence doesn't make it false, either.
    - tomgp 7y ago
      Looking at the report I don't really understand where your scepticism comes from there really does appear to have been a 36% reduction in NO2 readings over the period under consideration, an acceleration of an existing trend which the authors take into account in their modelling. They acknowledge the need for further monitoring to confirm that it's not an anomaly but given the existing readings it seems like the press release is making a reasonable representation of the science given the constraints of the format.
  - rwmj 7y ago
    Anecdata, but a friend of mine is a flower seller in central London and she has just bought (actually some sort of monthly hire-to-buy scheme) an e-van for deliveries. She was driving a really dirty, ancient van before that and paying a fortune in ULEZ charges. She saving enough in ULEZ and petrol to make the change cost-neutral.
- tialaramex 7y ago
  Say you're a national logistics firm. Your fleet is 60% compliant with the ULEZ rules. ULEZ comes in, and now your London deliveries are affected by this annoying payment, which is a cost to the business seemingly at random. Big boss comes down. We floated telling London businesses this is a cost we're passing on. Every single one laughed and said they'd move to our competitors if we send a new contract through with increased prices. I'm supposed to deliver Q3 growth figures, "half our bloody London customers walked" is not growth. So, make a pool of vehicles that are compliant and make sure every London delivery uses that pool of vehicles. Bingo, the eight year old truck that was scheduled to go to Charing Cross tomorrow is now headed to Derby and a six month old truck goes to Charing Cross. It's not a _lot_ but added up across the whole of the ULEZ it makes a difference.
  - jason0597 7y ago
    >Every single one laughed and said they'd move to our competitors if we send a new contract through with increased prices. What competitor complies can offer better prices while also paying the charge for the ULEZ? Does that competitor have electric vans and trucks?
    - elgenie 7y ago
      This is equivalent to asking why competing firms don’t simply agree to collude to stop innovating and fix prices, except in this case the colluding parties lose by paying a toll as opposed to reaping monopsony profits. Given a meaningful incentive to do something within its means, a company will either do that thing or lose business to companies that do.
    - tialaramex 7y ago
      ULEZ isn't "no diesel trucks" it's "only modern compliant diesel trucks". So the competitor doesn't need to pay the charge so long as either all their trucks are compliant OR as we do at the end of the example they use their noodle and allocate only compliant vehicles to London. I would be _astonished_ if some and maybe all actual companies in that game hadn't gone "Oh, we need to ensure only our compliant trucks enter the ULEZ" back when this rule was written, long before it came into effect. The UK is full of archaic stuff that makes it awkward for a not-so-smart logistics company so "We mustn't send old trucks to central London" probably isn't even on the top ten weirdest scheduling constraints they deal with.
- bigbraintime 7y ago
  This is silly. That's exactly what it means. If you tax an activity people do it less and the article is evidence of that.

easytiger 7y ago

Sorry, wasn't suggesting commercial vehicles were exempt, but that the ulez doesn't mean they won't make the trip.

ceejayoz 7y ago
It might mean the next commercial vehicle that company buys meets the European emissions standards, though.
- easytiger 7y ago
  It might indeed. But that doesn't make the headline claim true
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Skepticism not backed up with any specific evidence doesn't make it false, either.
  - tomgp 7y ago
    Looking at the report I don't really understand where your scepticism comes from there really does appear to have been a 36% reduction in NO2 readings over the period under consideration, an acceleration of an existing trend which the authors take into account in their modelling. They acknowledge the need for further monitoring to confirm that it's not an anomaly but given the existing readings it seems like the press release is making a reasonable representation of the science given the constraints of the format.
- rwmj 7y ago
  Anecdata, but a friend of mine is a flower seller in central London and she has just bought (actually some sort of monthly hire-to-buy scheme) an e-van for deliveries. She was driving a really dirty, ancient van before that and paying a fortune in ULEZ charges. She saving enough in ULEZ and petrol to make the change cost-neutral.
tialaramex 7y ago
Say you're a national logistics firm. Your fleet is 60% compliant with the ULEZ rules. ULEZ comes in, and now your London deliveries are affected by this annoying payment, which is a cost to the business seemingly at random. Big boss comes down. We floated telling London businesses this is a cost we're passing on. Every single one laughed and said they'd move to our competitors if we send a new contract through with increased prices. I'm supposed to deliver Q3 growth figures, "half our bloody London customers walked" is not growth. So, make a pool of vehicles that are compliant and make sure every London delivery uses that pool of vehicles. Bingo, the eight year old truck that was scheduled to go to Charing Cross tomorrow is now headed to Derby and a six month old truck goes to Charing Cross. It's not a _lot_ but added up across the whole of the ULEZ it makes a difference.
- jason0597 7y ago
  >Every single one laughed and said they'd move to our competitors if we send a new contract through with increased prices. What competitor complies can offer better prices while also paying the charge for the ULEZ? Does that competitor have electric vans and trucks?
  - elgenie 7y ago
    This is equivalent to asking why competing firms don’t simply agree to collude to stop innovating and fix prices, except in this case the colluding parties lose by paying a toll as opposed to reaping monopsony profits. Given a meaningful incentive to do something within its means, a company will either do that thing or lose business to companies that do.
  - tialaramex 7y ago
    ULEZ isn't "no diesel trucks" it's "only modern compliant diesel trucks". So the competitor doesn't need to pay the charge so long as either all their trucks are compliant OR as we do at the end of the example they use their noodle and allocate only compliant vehicles to London. I would be _astonished_ if some and maybe all actual companies in that game hadn't gone "Oh, we need to ensure only our compliant trucks enter the ULEZ" back when this rule was written, long before it came into effect. The UK is full of archaic stuff that makes it awkward for a not-so-smart logistics company so "We mustn't send old trucks to central London" probably isn't even on the top ten weirdest scheduling constraints they deal with.
bigbraintime 7y ago
This is silly. That's exactly what it means. If you tax an activity people do it less and the article is evidence of that.