New expanded London ULEZ zone

axisus · February 2023

I just heard on the radio about the expansion of ULEZ. Apparently it's covering all of London from the end of August. I've been working for 33 years in outer London, and it already costs me plenty just getting to work as I live 30 miles away. I just can't afford to stump up an extra £3k just to get to work. We also don't have the funds to go and buy a low emission car.

I'm not saying that it shouldn't happen, after all cleaner air is good all around, but basically I'm stuffed ...

Is it going to be a headache for anyone else?

victorludorum · February 2023

There seems to be some resistance from the councils in the outer boroughs. I read about Croydon refusing to put the cameras up, and I think others like Bromley are also up in arms, so this might not be cut and dried just yet.

Dominic · February 2023

Thank that diminutive ,puny little milk bottle -shouldered Imp for holding a Public Consultation where 82 % of people asked to comment said NO .
He completely ignored this by saying "it's a consultation not a Referendum "
So what was the point holding it ?
As my wife says to me " Why ask me , you'll do what you want anyway "
He then said that the 82 % objection was from 'vested interests ' .........No shit , vested interests like the OP and millions of others who have to work and live here .
Vile little Snake ........gone soon I hope .

euan · February 2023

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/16/girls-death-contributed-to-by-air-pollution-coroner-rules-in-landmark-case

crunchman · February 2023

The big problem is the complete lack of action from central government. They refuse to do something coherent and organised so it's left up to local authorities.

The government needs to do something centrally with road tax and fuel duty.

The big thing they need to do is tax cars by weight. Tyre and brake wear is a much bigger source of particulate emissions than exhausts. Cars (if you can call a lot of them cars anymore) are getting bigger and bigger. Chelsea tractors weighing 2.5 tonnes are not uncommon around here.

Ultimately though, we have to reduce the number of journeys made by car. Something like 70% of car journeys are under 5 miles. A very large proportion of those should be walked or cycled.

Kittyfrisk · February 2023

Raising blood pressure as well as opposition https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64499710

lovestrat74 · February 2023

I get why they are doing it but I do not agree with how they are implementing it. Millions spent on cameras and the technology to monitor this. Why not just introduce a ULEZ tax based on the vehicle you own? No costly infrastructure. Just an additional tax that operates in the same way as road tax.

Tone71 · February 2023

Dominic said:

Thank that diminutive ,puny little milk bottle -shouldered Imp for holding a Public Consultation where 82 % of people asked to comment said NO .
He completely ignored this by saying "it's a consultation not a Referendum "
So what was the point holding it ?
As my wife says to me " Why ask me , you'll do what you want anyway "
He then said that the 82 % objection was from 'vested interests ' .........No shit , vested interests like the OP and millions of others who have to work and live here .
Vile little Snake ........gone soon I hope .

This.....100% spot on, vile little man who can't run a bath let alone London.

blobb · February 2023

Dominic said:

Thank that diminutive ,puny little milk bottle -shouldered Imp

You discredit your argument by resorting to insults in your opening.

I don't really know the man or the details of this project he appears to be embarking on, what I do know is that if your primary aim is behaviour modification, you can only do that by offering a better alternative to the system you are attempting to lift the price on. To not do so marks it put as a revenue raiser not a behavioour modifier. So called 'Green' policies can never be soley for the purpose of raising revenue.

Which is this?

scrumhalf · February 2023

The next increase in my council tax bill will increase by the maximum amount possible as regards that part relating to Khan and his office.

What do I get for it?

It's a non-job. We functioned perfectly well without having some puffed-up self-important gnome who's only there to take credit for good things. All the other stuff is someone else's fault. He costs a fortune and is poor value for money.

euan · February 2023

crunchman said:

Science

This is correct

Bellycaster · February 2023

crunchman said:

The big problem is the complete lack of action from central government. They refuse to do something coherent and organised so it's left up to local authorities.

The government needs to do something centrally with road tax and fuel duty.

The big thing they need to do is tax cars by weight. Tyre and brake wear is a much bigger source of particulate emissions than exhausts. Cars (if you can call a lot of them cars anymore) are getting bigger and bigger. Chelsea tractors weighing 2.5 tonnes are not uncommon around here.

Ultimately though, we have to reduce the number of journeys made by car. Something like 70% of car journeys are under 5 miles. A very large proportion of those should be walked or cycled.

People with mobility issues might need to use their Car for shorter journeys. They might also be some of the ones least able to afford charges.

euan · February 2023

Yep and because people might have the need to buy a washing machine once every ten years everyone should drive Ford F150s

crunchman · February 2023

Bellycaster said:

crunchman said:

The big problem is the complete lack of action from central government. They refuse to do something coherent and organised so it's left up to local authorities.

The government needs to do something centrally with road tax and fuel duty.

The big thing they need to do is tax cars by weight. Tyre and brake wear is a much bigger source of particulate emissions than exhausts. Cars (if you can call a lot of them cars anymore) are getting bigger and bigger. Chelsea tractors weighing 2.5 tonnes are not uncommon around here.

Ultimately though, we have to reduce the number of journeys made by car. Something like 70% of car journeys are under 5 miles. A very large proportion of those should be walked or cycled.

People with mobility issues might need to use their Car for shorter journeys. They might also be some of the ones least able to afford charges.

I didn't say all of those journeys could be walked or cycled. I said a very large proportion. Some people do have mobility issues. Sometimes you need to carry something heavy. I drove a journey of just over a mile the other night as I had to carry two acoustic guitars in hard cases. I cycle or walk that journey far more often than I drive it. The problem is that most people just default to the car.

A significant proportion of that 70% of journeys is a single able bodied adult in a car who would be well able to make the journey under their own steam.

WIth electric bikes, people could easily make longer journeys by bike. My wife's journey to work often takes her about 40 minutes at the moment because of traffic. You could easily do that journey in 25 minutes on an electric bike.

We do need a transport revolution. Long term it will happen anyway. With all the building work that's going on in major cities, there will be more demand for roads and we will get total gridlock.

It will get worse when driverless cars arrive on the scene. People don't drive into central London as they have to pay about £30 a day to park. With a driverless Uber, you won't have to pay to park it, and it will be about half the price of a conventional one as it loses by far the biggest cost (the driver's wages). There will be more car journeys still unless something is done to curb it.

There will be massive gridlock, and that will result in people giving up on cars because you can do the journey in half the time on a bike (and a lot more cheaply). If people don't give up on their cars, then road pricing will be brought in with a lot of public support.

I suspect the ULEZ cameras are being put in with an eye to road pricing in the future. It would actually make more sense for people to get out of their cars now voluntarily. I'm off to the office in half an hour on my bike, and it will be quicker, and a lot cheaper, than it would be in a car.

francer · February 2023

Also, some of gains from low emissions are now being undermined by the proliferation of woodburners which the government seems unwilling or unable to tackle (yet).

Gassage · February 2023

It's all very well moaning about the charge, but the evidence is clear- 44% reduction on NOx emissions since introduction.

That cannot be overlooked.

axisus · February 2023

Gassage said:

It's all very well moaning about the charge, but the evidence is clear- 44% reduction on NOx emissions since introduction.

That cannot be overlooked.

In all fairness I did frame my original post in a way that didn't criticise the change.

Offset · February 2023

Tone71 said:

Dominic said:

Thank that diminutive ,puny little milk bottle -shouldered Imp for holding a Public Consultation where 82 % of people asked to comment said NO .
He completely ignored this by saying "it's a consultation not a Referendum "
So what was the point holding it ?
As my wife says to me " Why ask me , you'll do what you want anyway "
He then said that the 82 % objection was from 'vested interests ' .........No shit , vested interests like the OP and millions of others who have to work and live here .
Vile little Snake ........gone soon I hope .

This.....100% spot on, vile little man who can't run a bath let alone London.

Yep, context is everything. Slapping a blanket tax on anyone who needs to drive within this zone and can't afford a low emission vehicle - and in the middle of a cost of living crisis in which people can't even afford to heat their homes at that - is ridiculous.

Khan is a twat. Makes me (almost) yearn for Ken Livingstone.

crunchman · February 2023

francer said:

Also, some of gains from low emissions are now being undermined by the proliferation of woodburners which the government seems unwilling or unable to tackle (yet).

Small steps forwards:

https://www.idealhome.co.uk/house-manual/home-energy/government-wood-burning-stove-regulations-pound300-fine

The stats are probably a bit misleading in the way they are presented in that article though. When they say that wood burners are the largest source of small particulates, that doesn't take account of local variations. In rural areas a lot of people have wood burners as they have readily available cheap (sometimes free) wood, and have space to store it. In London very few people have wood burners. Transport is the biggest source of particulate emissions in London.

Gassage said:

It's all very well moaning about the charge, but the evidence is clear- 44% reduction on NOx emissions since introduction.

That cannot be overlooked.

That's another stat I'd be careful with. NOx is reducing for a variety of reasons. I'm seeing a lot more hybrid and electric cars on the road than I used to. That will reduce NOx. Newer petrol and diesel cars are better than old ones on NOx as well.

I'm also seeing a lot more bikes on the road where I live. I suspect that is more driven by wanting to get around more quickly and by petrol and diesel costs than the ULEZ though. If I look at our street, I cycle most of my journeys. I see the neighbours both sides of me out on bikes. The same for the family the other side of the road. We all own ULEZ compliant cars.

What have NOx emissions done in other UK cities during the same time period. That's not a perfect control, as there has been a bigger uptake of cycling in London, but it will give some kind of baseline. I suspect that the 44% figures is largely from Sadiq Khan's marketing people crediting the ULEZ for trends that were happening anyway.

Like I said above, the big problem the ULEZ isn't addressing is particulates. Tyre and brake wear is a much bigger source of particulates than exhausts. Electric cars won't help much there, if they help at all. They are heavier and will give off more particulates from their tyres. Regen braking might offset that a bit if they driven sensibly, but there is a lot more material wearing away from your tyres than your brake pads.

We have to get people out of their cars, and the ULEZ is only going to make a marginal difference on that.

Grunfeld · February 2023

Gassage said:

It's all very well moaning about the charge, but the evidence is clear- 44% reduction on NOx emissions since introduction.

That cannot be overlooked.

I'd heard, (I didn't dig into the data), that the initial inner zone produced a significant reduction.

But the second expansion out to the A406 produced no significant reduction whatsoever.

If that's the case then the third expansion out to the M25 would also be a waste of time in terms of measurable reduction of emissions.

For me, I've got no issue with the overall aim to reduce emissions etc however if the expansions are having no significant effect then a gentler scheme should have been used. e.g. I'm going to have to get rid of a perfectly good car and replace it with another one and I doubt this will be an overall environmental win.

crunchman · February 2023

Grunfeld said:

For me, I've got no issue with the overall aim to reduce emissions etc however if the expansions are having no significant effect then a gentler scheme should have been used. e.g. I'm going to have to get rid of a perfectly good car and replace it with another one and I doubt this will be an overall environmental win.

It might not be an overall environmental win, but if it's one less stinky diesel that I have to cycle behind I won't be complaining.

Grunfeld · February 2023

crunchman said:

It might not be an overall environmental win, but if it's one less stinky diesel that I have to cycle behind I won't be complaining.

I cycle too. You have to look at the bigger picture.

This expansion of ULEZ is going to hit people hard: my ex- uses public transport for nearly all journeys. She's got a perfectly working older car which she'll have to ditch. She uses that car to take her elderly mother and her step-father to their hospital appointments. With no car they will have to be taken to hospital by ambulance transport.

For me, it's about more than cycling.

crunchman · February 2023

Grunfeld said:

crunchman said:

It might not be an overall environmental win, but if it's one less stinky diesel that I have to cycle behind I won't be complaining.

I cycle too. You have to look at the bigger picture.
This expansion of ULEZ is going to hit people hard: my ex- uses public transport for nearly all journeys. She's got a perfectly working older car which she'll have to ditch. She uses that car to take her elderly mother and her step-father to their hospital appointments. With no car they will have to be taken to hospital by ambulance transport.
For me, it's about more than cycling.

The problem is that thousands pf people are dying prematurely in London from air pollution.

It's not just London. Official figures 2 or 3 years ago were 40,000 premature deaths per year across the UK because of air pollution. It might be slightly better now, but it's still a big problem.

Like I said in my first post in this thread, the big problem is total lack of action by central government, and leaving it to local government (generally Labour in big cities) to make themselves unpopular. It's cynical politicians at their worst.

I'm seriously considering voting Labour at the next general election for the first time since 1992. I'd probably better leave it at that though as this thread isn't in P&E.

VimFuego · February 2023

if it helps, I had a work related drive into central london over the weekend and the ambulance I was in belched out so much black smoke (especially from the heating in the back) that it'd offset a huge amount of any gains made elsewhere.
Good job we're ULEZ exempt!!!

Clecko · February 2023

We're in Crystal Palace. The discussion about this on local Facebook groups has been an absolute bin fire.

Dominic · February 2023

The people that don't have an option to walk,cycle,skateboard,scooter etc are the people that cannot escape this penalty ;
Tradesmen ,builders, Contractors of all kinds
Appliance Repair Men
Delivery drivers
This also makes up the majority of daytime Urban traffic in London.....
The need to carry tools,plant,heavy goods means the need for work vans ......and a genuine need not just somebody who doesn't want the inconvenience of Public Transport etc or
There is no viable alternative ......there are no commercially available Vans of Transit size .....there are a few smaller electric vans but they are simply too small for most purposes (ideal for something like a locksmith maybe ) and more importantly they are far too expensive .......they are also very limited in range when hauling some weight.
It's all very well seeing the guy who has come to fit the wood floor in the lounge arrive in a £74,000 van but don't be surprised when he says he charges £600 per day because he needs to pay finance on the van that replaced £10k of Ford Transit ......
If he can get the Finance .
Ultimately all costs wash up on the shore of the end user .......not ideal when people can't pay the GAS bill .
Legitimate Trade vehicles should be exempt for lack of viable alternative.

crunchman · February 2023

Dominic said:

The people that don't have an option to walk,cycle,skateboard,scooter etc are the people that cannot escape this penalty ;
Tradesmen ,builders, Contractors of all kinds
Appliance Repair Men
Delivery drivers
This also makes up the majority of daytime Urban traffic in London.....
The need to carry tools,plant,heavy goods means the need for work vans ......and a genuine need not just somebody who doesn't want the inconvenience of Public Transport etc or
There is no viable alternative ......there are no commercially available Vans of Transit size .....there are a few smaller electric vans but they are simply too small for most purposes (ideal for something like a locksmith maybe ) and more importantly they are far too expensive .......they are also very limited in range when hauling some weight.
It's all very well seeing the guy who has come to fit the wood floor in the lounge arrive in a £74,000 van but don't be surprised when he says he charges £600 per day because he needs to pay finance on the van that replaced £10k of Ford Transit ......
If he can get the Finance .
Ultimately all costs wash up on the shore of the end user .......not ideal when people can't pay the GAS bill .
Legitimate Trade vehicles should be exempt for lack of viable alternative.

Why is he going to charge £600 per day when the ULEZ charge is £12.50 per day?

Surely he can just add £12.50 to his invoice for properties within the zone.

As for delivery drivers, pretty much every delivery van used by all the major courier companies is ULEZ compliant. (Amazon use electric ones around here). Even if it's not ULEZ compliant, if you are making 30 deliveries per day, spreading out £12.50 across 30 deliveries isn't going to break the bank.

A lot of those objections are just whataboutery because you don't like the scheme.

The big problem is that central government won't do anything meaningful to clean the air, because they want to make Labour local authorities unpopular with those who won't see the big picture.

Reverend · February 2023

I've spoken to loads of people in the last few weeks about how a CAZ (the term used for most areas) has affected people in another city.

Trying to get a new van is a nightmare. prices are up by £10k or so for new vans, waiting times are up to a year and second hand compliant vans are rarer than Boris telling the truth.

CAZ tend to mean that people have longer journeys and so there is more pollution but i is moved to more residential areas - inner city areas are usually more financial/commercial.

Dominic · February 2023

^ Not really ......ULEZ was actually Boris' idea .......the Imp is just following through with the Buffoon's plan

Dominic · February 2023

none of the deliveries we get are electric vans except Ocado

idiotwindow · February 2023

crunchman said:

It's all very well seeing the guy who has come to fit the wood floor in the lounge arrive in a £74,000 van but don't be surprised when he says he charges £600 per day because he needs to pay finance on the van that replaced £10k of Ford Transit ......
If he can get the Finance .
Ultimately all costs wash up on the shore of the end user .......not ideal when people can't pay the GAS bill .
Legitimate Trade vehicles should be exempt for lack of viable alternative.

Why is he going to charge £600 per day when the ULEZ charge is £12.50 per day?

The same point can be made about those thinking of selling non-ULEZ cars that currently work fine and buying something newer and more expensive – it's probably more cost-effective to suck up the daily cost (or pass it on in the case of tradespeople). However, the direction of travel (excuse the pun) is clear and the ULEZ expansion is another example of policy implemented largely by (mostly unelected) middle class people in white collar jobs (probably still working at home on their laptops) that disproportionately affects those on lower income. People who are working and doing stuff that actually keeps society ticking along and who are often struggling to make ends meet as it is. The people making the policy (including the likes of Khan) simply have no idea (or care about) how people lower down the income scale live. Telling people to get on their bikes is just a left of centre ("progressive") version of the old right wing Norman Tebbit trope.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

New expanded London ULEZ zone

Comments