ULEZ - Plans (and would you have to pay?)

[tomuk]

I assume a petrol car is cleaner than a similar aged diesel car ?.

Difficult to say prior to Euro 1 standards in 1993 as there were no common standards. In 93 a petrol and diesel had to meet the same standards. so would be as clean as each other. Although the diesel would put out less CO2 which isn't included in the standards but would put out more PMs albeit to a diesel specific limit in the standard. So an old diesel which has higher MPG is always better than equivalent petrol but was slightly worse on PMs for local air pollution.

 

[The Ham]

I have heard that the London Underground is quite polluted with dust, the levels are less concentrated on the above surface stations.

That's true for PM2.5 but not the case for Nitrous oxides (which is the aim of the ULEZ), for now details this report is useful:

How Bad is Air Pollution on the London Underground?

Recently, a listener to Nick Ferrari’s weekday breakfast show on LBC called in to express concerns that far from protecting Londoners from air pollution, the Mayor of London’s new ULEZ plans ma...

www.envirotech-online.com

The summary at the end concludes:

If you’re regularly travelling into and around London, then, you’re caught between a rock and hard place. Regardless of whether you’re driving or catching the tube, you’re going to be exposed to relatively high levels of air pollution, just of different types. Judging by the evidence, then, Nick Ferrari’s listener made a decent point: the extended Ultra Low Emissions Zone should be combined with improvements in the Underground’s infrastructure. Perhaps, some of the money generated by the fines might be ring-fenced for exactly this purpose. Whatever the outcome, it might be best to consider cycling or walking around the city the next time you’re in London.

The pollution goes somewhere. If it comes out of a tall chimney it still comes down somewhere, just further away. Air pollution in Europe (Scandinavia iirc) has improved as the UK has reduced its use of coal to generate electricity.

The thing with tall chimneys is that it's much easier to install filters, also the vast majority of them are for burning gas - which is a much cleaner fuel to start with. Also there are already steps being taken to reduce their use, for example more green sources of generation.

The transport sector consists of emissions from road transport, railways, domestic aviation, shipping, fishing, and aircraft support vehicles. It is estimated to have been responsible for around 26% of greenhouse gas emissions in the UK in 2021, almost entirely through carbon dioxide emissions. The main source of emissions from this sector is the use of petrol and diesel in road transport.

It has also remained fairly flat in terms of emissions (most of the benefits from greener cars being offset by there being more of them), whilst most other areas have seen noticeable reductions (the other exception is agriculture and to a lesser extent residential).

For example energy production had fallen by about 70%, to a point where it's lower than transport (and had been since 2018) and is still falling. Likewise waste management and other sources have seen similar falls of around 70% whilst business has seen falls of about 40%.

As such the lack of change appears to be areas where it's down to the individual (rather than corporate), such as far boilers in the home and travel (primarily personal travel). There's already steps being taken to reduce gas boilers (if you buy a new home which starts being built later this year there's good chance it'll have a heat pump rather than a gas boiler)

Next thing I wonder is how many lives will ULEZ save and at what cost to the people. Howmany lives are lost or ruined due to drugs, knives, smoking etc.

Drugs are illegal, knives can not be carried in public without good reason and cigarettes can not advertise, have punitive taxes applied and can not be advertised - should we move cars closer to those sorts of restrictions?

(A rhetorical question, as few, even towards the most keen for change would expect those sorts of measures be applied - perhaps with the exception of changes to car adverts so they have to be more life like and not only show one or two cars in the road).

Of course those things do come at a great risk, however there's also quite a few people who die in our roads every year and quite a few who suffer from health issues because of lower air quality.

People will be less inclined to use public transport compared to thirty or more years ago because the town centres are getting gutted and the shops people have to use are in out of town areas that rely on car culture. Sadiq is undoing a process of undermining the usefulness of public transport that has gone on for many decades. He is trying to achieve it quickly by hitting ordinary people in the pocket for the mistakes that the likes of him allowed and are still allowing.

Planning is fairly unregulated, in that if someone wants to build a shop they can do so anywhere (yes their bound by planning restrictions, however these are nearly universally applied, so there's almost no additional restrictions out of town Vs town centre), the problem is how do you create rules which stop out of town shops by still allow suburban and rural shops to be provided?

People are shopping out of town less, as they move towards online shopping. A lot of the issue with empty shops is also linked to this, as there's an over supply of in person shopping facilities.

Some towns have managed to luck out, with their retail parks being mostly limited to the edge of their town centre (Farnborough in Hampshire being a good example as it's possible to walk between the likes of a DfS or B&Q and a food court with a Game in about 5 minutes). However, we are where we are and maybe there is more that should be done to encourage public transport to out of town locations - especially given that few would actually want to take home with them a new washing machine, sofa or carpet.

If someone wanted to CONSTRUCTIVELY reduce pollution then how about reducing how much gas is burnt in central heating systems by properly insulating houses - that might actually help the UKs balance of payments. It would also cause little inconvenience and change to lifestyle. Instead the government gave money to help people to not cut back of gas/electricity usage - that is a short term sticking plaster for a long term problem.

At each turn it is the ordinary person who has to pay.

Residential emissions are already lower than transport and there's plans to reduce them. However it's not a case of this or that, it's a case of everything needs to see falls and transport and gas boilers are the two areas where the falls have been fairly limited.

If there was a thread on air source heat pumps, there would be those calling for transport to see it's emissions fall before they should be forced to change. To which I'd say the same thing, we need both to see improvements.

The easy cuts have happened (significant shift from coal to gas and onto renewables), we're getting to where personal behaviour is needing to change. You can either do what lots are already doing and shifting away from the worst polluting vehicles and reducing the use of your car, or you can carry on what you're doing as society looks on and wonders why you're not joining them.

 

[deltic]

London has major air quality problems. In 2019, the whole of London exceeded the WHO annual average guidelines of 10 µg/m3 for NO2 and 5 µg/m3 for PM2. 5. Forecasts show that all of London will continue to exceed them in both 2025 and 2030.

If you want to see how bad air quality is go up to the top of any skyscraper and look across London and you can see it. I was struck by this during Covid lock downs when the pollution haze disappeared

Not all that pollution is caused by road vehicles but the Mayor has limited powers and the easiest area for him to tackle is that related to road vehicles.

The scheme is not about money making because by the very nature of it there are large upfront costs and diminishing revenue over time as more vehicles become compliant. Compliance rates in inner London are higher than predicted.

It would be difficult to use the equipment for enforcing ULEZ for road user charging and TfL's preferred method is distance-based charging for which cameras are useless.

Regardless of today's court decision its unlikely that ULEZ will go ahead to the planned timetable - the Mayor remains keen for it go ahead this year so that by the time of the Mayoral elections next year the whole issue will have blown out just like the previous expansion to the North and South circulars.

The impact on London's economy of ULEZ expansion is minuscule - the additional costs incurred compared to the size of the economy are estimated to be less than 0.1% of London's total output.

 

[DustyBin]

We don’t live in a ULEZ, but if we lived in the London one our three modern cars would be fine. Apparently I’m even doing by bit by driving a 375bhp hyper hatch which is good to know!

What does concern me though is that neither of my classic cars are exempt. Surely a scheme could be introduced for classic vehicles, aligned with road tax exemption perhaps?

In regard to poorer boroughs benefitting most from the ULEZ, it wasn’t that long ago that I read a journal article about air quality in homes. It was found to be far worse in poorer areas due to lifestyle “choices” unconnected to vehicle emissions. That’s not to say vehicle emissions aren’t part of the problem, but as per usual drivers are an east target for grandstanding politicians who want to be seen to be doing something.

 

[deltic]

That’s not to say vehicle emissions aren’t part of the problem, but as per usual drivers are an east target for grandstanding politicians who want to be seen to be doing something.

No, its a question in most cases of highway authorities fulfilling their legal obligations. Government has lost a number of court cases up to an including the Supreme Court which has forced it to require highway authorities to address air quality that has led to the introduction of most of the clean air zones that are in operation.

 

[GS250]

For the case of tradesmen using older vans...then surely they will just pass the fee onto the customer as they generally did with the congestion charge?

 

[Kite159]

For the case of tradesmen using older vans...then surely they will just pass the fee onto the customer as they generally did with the congestion charge?

Most likely. Or will refuse jobs within London to avoid the paperwork.

 

[Peter Sarf]

It's a very rare specimen of a car in allegedly frequent use that's not old enough to be considered classic.

I am assuming I have to wait until 2033 for mine to be exempt ?. I don't use it much but enough to worry about parts availability. It has been very reliable though and a newer 2006 Vectra I should be trying needs more spent on it in repairs/maintenance than I spent on two Carltons over twenty years !. Its very noticeable and surprising how newer cars are a liability. Also second hand car prices are quite high currently - no surprise as demand must be increasing.

As for electric cars I will avoid them until the technology has settled down. The batteries are very very expensive to replace and seem to be causing very bad fires even in brand new cars. I really think electric cars might turn out to be a dead end. Depends where Hydrogen fuel technology progresses to - fingers crossed.

Yes that is absolutely part of the solution. But blindly criticising cars or drivers is not going to achieve anything and it is potentially counter productive to enter a culture war as illustrated by some of the comments on this thread and in the wider world.


But this is my point! We have solutions to burning hydrocarbons for land transportation and energy. Focus on those. As you have pointed out they can and are being implemented! This makes people (and the environment), wherever they are, healthier.

Yes. I have seen outside this forum the potential for a culture war. One gent who has a new electric car sneeringly pointing out poor people should get better jobs so they can afford to replace their old rubbich. I pointed out to him that they give him money for his cast offs, They do jobs that are essential so would he like to pay them more and I asked how much did he borrow to buy the car and how is the interest rate going. There is a risk that the whole ULEZ thing is creating polarisation.

 

[ainsworth74]

Its very noticeable and surprising how newer cars are a liability.

Is there not an element of natural selection going on though? Your Carlton from 1993 is one of the very few survivors presumably because it was built well in the first place and has been well cared for. With new vehicles they're still going through the elimination process for lemons that should never have been built! I recall at school one year we got loads of brand new glasses in the dining hall and for the first few months there glasses being smashed all the time. By the end of the year the rate of dropped glasses remained the same but all the weak ones had been weeded out. Same thing with cars I bet

 

[Noddy]

As for electric cars I will avoid them until the technology has settled down. The batteries are very very expensive to replace and seem to be causing very bad fires even in brand new cars. I really think electric cars might turn out to be a dead end. Depends where Hydrogen fuel technology progresses to - fingers crossed.

You are wasting your time. Hydrogen, for virtually all forms land transportation, is absolutely dead in the water. There may be a few use cases where it is used, such a very long distance rail frieght (not in this country), or for heavy plant in certain types of remote sites. But other wise no, and certainly not for cars. Even Toyota appear to have finally given up after wasting billions in order to sell 25000 Mirai in 7 years around the world (Tesla alone sold over 2 million EVs in the same period). The market has decided batteries are the solution to cars causing air pollution and global warming because of the economics of batteries.

I would also point out that hydrogen doesn’t exactly have a 100% safety record.

 

[87 027]

For the case of tradesmen using older vans...then surely they will just pass the fee onto the customer as they generally did with the congestion charge?

Most likely. Or will refuse jobs within London to avoid the paperwork.

In both cases putting them at a competitive disadvantage, unlike the congestion charge which applies to all

 

[yorkie]

Just a reminder to stick to the specific question on the title please

 

[Noddy]

In both cases putting them at a competitive disadvantage, unlike the congestion charge which applies to all

Sole traders (who are most likely to be using old vans) are eligible for the scrapage scheme. So they could use this (and probably get more money for their old van, than if they were scraping it themselves or even selling it on).

 

[Kite159]

Sole traders (who are most likely to be using old vans) are eligible for the scrapage scheme. So they could use this (and probably get more money for their old van, than if they were scraping it themselves or even selling it on).

Did I read that the scrappage scheme only applied if said Sole Trader purchased an electric van rather than a diesel van which won't get charged (yet)?

 

[GS250]

Did I read that the scrappage scheme only applied if said Sole Trader purchased an electric van rather than a diesel van which won't get charged (yet)?

The problem is the shop window is pretty empty when it comes to suitable and affordable replacements. Has the horrific waiting list for new or newer vehicles shifted in the last few months?

 

[DustyBin]

No, its a question in most cases of highway authorities fulfilling their legal obligations. Government has lost a number of court cases up to an including the Supreme Court which has forced it to require highway authorities to address air quality that has led to the introduction of most of the clean air zones that are in operation.

That's actually a fair point regarding legal obligations (although it doesn't completely negate my own point).

 

[dcbwhaley]

But that would be mad? Yes if you banned petrol and diesel cars entirely that would do wonders for air quality but it would also have enormous negative consequences. You've got try and strike a balance. An obvious tipping point is to say that vehicles which don't meet certain criteria have to pay an extra charge to discourage usage of those specific vehicles and encourage people to upgrade to more modern (and not even necessarily that modern, petrol cars from 2005 onwards are compliant) vehicles which have a lower impact on air quality.

Why not simply ban non compliant vehicles rather than allowing them to be used with acost?
Because the scheme really is about raising revenue

 

[Trainbike46]

Why not simply ban non compliant vehicles rather than allowing them to be used with acost?
Because the scheme really is about raising revenue

Some reasons I can think off are:
- to still allow occasional use of classic cars, which are hobby projects rather than real transportion
- to limit the impact on very occasional users of london roads (for example, people who drive into london once per year)

Basically, to ensure the shift to cleaner cars happens fastest for those vehicles that drive in london frequently, without entitrely preventing very infrequent use of non-compliant vehicles

 

[deltic]

Why not simply ban non compliant vehicles rather than allowing them to be used with acost?
Because the scheme really is about raising revenue

Because the Mayor doesn't have powers to ban vehicles

 

[The Ham]

Why not simply ban non compliant vehicles rather than allowing them to be used with acost?
Because the scheme really is about raising revenue

If it was really about raising revenue then it would be the congestion charge zone which was getting bigger. Probably by creating a zone 2 much like there is for public transport, in doing so allowing extra income from vehicles which pass through both zones.

As the congestion charge brings in more net revenue (only just) from a much much smaller area.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Is there not an element of natural selection going on though? Your Carlton from 1993 is one of the very few survivors presumably because it was built well in the first place and has been well cared for. With new vehicles they're still going through the elimination process for lemons that should never have been built! I recall at school one year we got loads of brand new glasses in the dining hall and for the first few months there glasses being smashed all the time. By the end of the year the rate of dropped glasses remained the same but all the weak ones had been weeded out. Same thing with cars I bet

I wish it were true. But I have not found these reliable cars. Back in 1999 I could work out a Carlton from 1992 was a good bet - 7 years. Now in 2023 I cannot work out what is good from 2006 - 17 years for natural selection to reveal the fittest. Mechanics tell me it is because newer cars are over complicated. They are hard to work on - it is a case of replacing components until the dud component is eliminated.

Sole traders (who are most likely to be using old vans) are eligible for the scrapage scheme. So they could use this (and probably get more money for their old van, than if they were scraping it themselves or even selling it on).

From what I have seen of the scrappage scheme you need to be poor enough to not have a car in the first place !. It is only for low income / unemployed it seems.

Why not simply ban non compliant vehicles rather than allowing them to be used with acost?
Because the scheme really is about raising revenue

This is what a lot of us think.

And sooner or later electric vehicles will pay more tax - road pricing would make sense as you cannot even tax the fuel they use as it is used for other more essential things.

 

[Ted633]

Some reasons I can think off are:
- to still allow occasional use of classic cars, which are hobby projects rather than real transportion
- to limit the impact on very occasional users of london roads (for example, people who drive into london once per year)

Basically, to ensure the shift to cleaner cars happens fastest for those vehicles that drive in london frequently, without entitrely preventing very infrequent use of non-compliant vehicles

On your 1st point, classic cars are except anyway!

 

[DustyBin]

On your 1st point, classic cars are except anyway!

As per my post upthread, mine aren’t exempt from the London ULEZ charge according to the website.

 

[AM9]

As per my post upthread, mine aren’t exempt from the London ULEZ charge according to the website.

Nor should they be, - by current standards they are generally gross polluters. The VED concession is based on their irregular use rather them being an essential mode of transport for every day. In that context, the daily ULEZ charge is perfectly reasonable.

 

[tomuk]

As per my post upthread, mine aren’t exempt from the London ULEZ charge according to the website.

Nor should they be, - by current standards they are generally gross polluters. The VED concession is based on their irregular use rather them being an essential mode of transport for every day. In that context, the daily ULEZ charge is perfectly reasonable.

From the TFL website, cars over 40 years are exempt so that 1983 V8 Range Rover, MG Maestro or Escort XR3i go free.

Historic vehicles
You can apply with the DVLA stop paying vehicle tax if your vehicle was built more than 40 years ago. This date moves forward on a 40-year rolling system. For example, when the ULEZ launched in April 2019, vehicles built before 1979 were eligible to apply for historic vehicle tax class.

All vehicles that have a historic vehicle tax class are exempt from the ULEZ. This tax class excludes any vehicle used commercially (for example, coffee vans or street food vans).

In line with the existing LEZ discount all vehicles constructed before 1 January 1973 are exempt from the ULEZ, regardless of commercial use or otherwise.

https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/discounts-and-exemptions#on-this-page-6

 

[DustyBin]

Nor should they be, - by current standards they are generally gross polluters. The VED concession is based on their irregular use rather them being an essential mode of transport for every day. In that context, the daily ULEZ charge is perfectly reasonable.

I don’t see why the same rule shouldn’t apply; they’re not “gross polluters” by virtue of their infrequent use. Penalising people for their choice of hobby/pastime seems rather draconian to me and may even put some people off. It also raises the question of what will be next…

From the TFL website, cars over 40 years are exempt so that 1983 V8 Range Rover, MG Maestro or Escort XR3i go free.

https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/discounts-and-exemptions#on-this-page-6

I’ll be honest, I didn’t read that section, I only used the vehicle checker. The good news is that the XR4i is two months away from exemption!

 

[NoRoute]

I have always loathed the idea of diesel engines in cars, and my last car with a 5L petrol engine meets the ULEZ standards. However I am fortunate and I wasn’t influenced by Gordon Brown’s spin. Many people did what they thought to be the right thing at the time and now find themselves liable for the charge.

It's a trade off between CO2 emissions and air quality. Diesels are more thermally efficient than petrol engines with lower CO2 emissions and back in the early 2000s were the best, or at that point the only option for reducing CO2 emissions because Hybrids were still in their infancy and EVs were not even viable at that point.

As we now know, their pollutant emissions are an issue in cities and urban areas (though less of an issue in rural areas or on the motorway) but the technology has also moved on, we don't just have diesels, we now have a huge range of efficient petrol hybrids and EVs.

Gordon Brown left office in 2010 so any car bought during his time in office is now at least 13 years old, most cars get scrapped on average at 14 years old. Bigger issue is those who bought diesels in more recent years, when the various emissions scandals were running, but Brown wasn't around then, it was the various Conservative PMs.

 

[AM9]

I don’t see why the same rule shouldn’t apply; they’re not “gross polluters” by virtue of their infrequent use. Penalising people for their choice of hobby/pastime seems rather draconian to me and may even put some people off. It also raises the question of what will be next…

They are by modern standards gross polluters per mile, hour (or whatever unit of measure you choose) compared to Euro 6 current standards. However, as you say, owing to their infrequent use, their total contribution is lower. But that also means that the incremental cost of driving in the ULEZ will also be minimal, so that is hardly "Penalising people for their choice of hobby/pastime" and inferring that it is "draconian" is pure hyperbole.

 

[DustyBin]

They are by modern standards gross polluters per mile, hour (or whatever unit of measure you choose) compared to Euro 6 current standards. However, as you say, owing to their infrequent use, their total contribution is lower.

The fact that there is actually an exemption (which as per my previous post I hadn’t seen initially) suggests that the powers at be share this view, fortunately.

But that also means that the incremental cost of driving in the ULEZ will also be minimal, so that is hardly "Penalising people for their choice of hobby/pastime" and inferring that it is "draconian" is pure hyperbole.

Define minimal? A once a week charge over the summer months soon adds up, and absolutely does penalise those affected.

Regardless, I’ll concede that “draconian” is slightly hyperbolic, for now anyway…

 

[bramling]

Nor should they be, - by current standards they are generally gross polluters. The VED concession is based on their irregular use rather them being an essential mode of transport for every day. In that context, the daily ULEZ charge is perfectly reasonable.

It’s all rather crude though. For example my 2000 BMW E39 is not compliant, even though the general view seems to be that this is more because that model hasn’t been tested rather than because it’s particularly polluting.

Then there’s the question of maintenance which ULEZ doesn’t seem to address at all. My aforementioned E39 is heavily maintained (whilst nowadays it doesn’t cover much mileage I give it a heavy service every year as my priority is reliability when on holiday). By contrast plenty of fairly modern vehicles can be seen belching out clouds of fumes with the owners seemingly carefree about it.

Of course, if politicians really care about air quality they wouldn’t have spent years pursuing policies which have increased the size of the population in Britain, and London in particular. Khan is as guilty as any on this, but then he’s always come across as a destructive politician.

As regards politicians, one can’t help but add to this that from a personal point of view my car mileage within Greater London has increased significantly since 2018. I’m sure I don’t need to reiterate the reasons behind this shift as we’ve discussed this in the past just a few times!