Would You Pay £100 per Month to Park on Someones Drive and Avoid ULEZ ?
In the News
One Resident in Chessington, SW London is offering people working in the area the use of their drive , but it will cost £100 per month
It is the only road not covered by ULEZ where you need to pay £12.50 per day to enter the zone if you do not have a compliant vehicle but there is only one way to access it and you need to go back the same way to avoid entering the zone
Would you pay this if you worked in the area ?
www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/ulez-chessington-bridge-road-people-david-b1103186.html
I suppose if you had to pay 20 days per month a fee of £12.50 totalling £250, it would make sense financially. However, it would depend how much the rest of your journey would cost to get where you need to be, unless it was within walking distance.
I guess if it’s cheaper it makes sense but it’s a bit ridiculous. I really don’t think targeting the poorest in society for the climate problem is fair
jms19 it really isn't fair, when the richest in society cause the most pollution but they won't care one bit.
If it makes financial sense and someone lets their drive it’s a win win for both parties. My son went to a country park and it was full. To their delight some of the grand houses were letting out their drives and charged £10 all day. With a dozen car’s parking and paying it’s easy money.
I'm not saying it isn't a benefit to the environment in some ways but forcing people to buy expensive new cars often EVs which are mainly imported and which uses vast resources in building them is so damaging to our economy and the environment in general even if the damage to the environment is mainly focused in China or somewhere else it still effects us.
It's another tax on the poor basically.
It reminds me of the cycle2work scheme in a way where you can buy a bicycle which can be up to £15k on some schemes and you don't pay income tax on the cost of the bike. So if you are on £60k a year and bought the maximum £15k bike (which will be a short life high cost performance bike) you might be able to save maybe 42% or over £6k in tax on that £15k purchase. However if you are very poor and need a bike just to get to work and you don't pay income tax because you are below the tax threshold you get nothing because there is no income tax to offset your purchase against.
Here is my logic. You provide a s/hand refurbished bike to those who need one on a low income or benefits. Perhaps allow the scheme to be used once every 7 years (a reasonable lifespan for a bike). Cost to the taxpayer very low and doesn't cause an influx of imports causing a greater trade deficit. You abolish the cycle2work scheme or at least limit it to something like a £500 purchase which is fine for a normal bike or maybe £1200 for a simple ebike. No one needs a £15k bike to commute to work and clearly just a perk for the rich.
ULEZ scheme is going to force many cars off the road. These cars may only get light use and have many years left in them. Far better to have an older car and use it less than buy a brand new car with all the damage to the environment that causes.
Lets not forget a EV caught fire recently on a container ship, it destroyed all the other EV's on board I think there was about 500 and I think there may have been 3000 conventional combustion engine vehicles onboard too destroyed. At least one person was killed and the container ship was heavily damaged and maybe scrapped. Cancer forming lithium got into the seas and will enter the food chain including fish we eat. EV's are much less stable with a much higher incident of fires. So more EV's imported is not ideal to say the least there are huge disadvantages. Forcing more people to buy EV's will cause many other issues including environmental.
Politicians haven't really thought this through. It's a complex problem that cannot be sorted by basically egotistical morons. It needs a lot of thought and we need to work out where we want to get to and work towards. Large 3 tonne electric SUVs are a very long way from the ideal solution.
BonzoBanana You have mirrored my thoughts exactly B , i think they are one of the biggest mistakes this century , removing a said pollution problem to replace it with one even worse
I cannot imagine how much all this is costing the taxpayer for the infrastructure , never mind the extortionate cost to buy the monstrosities
I did post a very interesting article on parking EVs yesterday but it was removed as LD didnt like the title, so i changed it but it was only approved now and has ended up on page 2 of chat because of the delay , so it will probably not be viewed by anyone
telmel You would think the one thing that was obvious regarding helping the environment would be a push towards transport solutions that only suit single occupants. Less resources go into manufacturing, less energy is used, less wear on road surfaces etc. Less congestion because of size and easier parking. Most people only need single occupancy vehicles for most of their trips. We need to look at Japan as we now have a very high population density and they have been dealing with that for decades and one of their solutions was much smaller cars and a greater push towards cycling. They also have much more local shopping and set their taxation to encourage this. This provides many more jobs and means people travel less. It works very well and is what we should be copying. Online sales are far lower and they have many more shops refurbishing goods and reducing imports.
Join for free to get genuine deals, money saving advice and help from our friendly community
Chief Bargain Hunter
