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

[jon0844]

You haven't named the companies.

You haven't worked out a connection between the likes of Shell, BP, British Gas...?

 

[bramling]

a very NIMBY reaction

You’ve just managed to find another concept I dislike! The above term tends to be used as a last resort to justify a multitude of sins.

But I’m not sure what’s “nimby” about my reaction when I’m not advocating anything in my own back yard, so to speak.

In actual fact I probably stand more to gain more from ULEZ than not. Unlike seemingly the population of outer London (where according to TFL themselves over one third of car journeys are under 2km in length, which by definition will be disproportionately polluting due to not allowing the vehicle to warm up properly) I am active to pretty much extreme levels, and very rarely make such journeys. Indeed as I’ve intimated before by far the vast majority, 90%+, of my journeys into London are in vehicles which *are* compliant, and I simply don’t make short journeys by car except in exceptional circumstances. At times this year I’ve been averaging a walking distance of over 10 miles *per day*. And of course I use the Underground to travel in. So you’ll forgive me for not taking lectures from London on minimising pollution.

I will repeat a point I made elsewhere that I find by far the most invasive pollution comes from buses. This applies here in Hertfordshire as well as London. That would be my starting point, and is certainly something that does lie within Khan’s remit.

 

[deltic]

You’ve just managed to find another concept I dislike! The above term tends to be used as a last resort to justify a multitude of sins.

But I’m not sure what’s “nimby” about my reaction when I’m not advocating anything in my own back yard, so to speak.

In actual fact I probably stand more to gain more from ULEZ than not. Unlike seemingly the population of outer London (where according to TFL themselves over one third of car journeys are under 2km in length, which by definition will be disproportionately polluting due to not allowing the vehicle to warm up properly) I am active to pretty much extreme levels, and very rarely make such journeys. Indeed as I’ve intimated before by far the vast majority, 90%+, of my journeys into London are in vehicles which *are* compliant, and I simply don’t make short journeys by car except in exceptional circumstances. At times this year I’ve been averaging a walking distance of over 10 miles *per day*. And of course I use the Underground to travel in. So you’ll forgive me for not taking lectures from London on minimising pollution.

I will repeat a point I made elsewhere that I find by far the most invasive pollution comes from buses. This applies here in Hertfordshire as well as London. That would be my starting point, and is certainly something that does lie within Khan’s remit.

All London buses are ULEZ compliant and have been for 2 years

 

[bramling]

All London buses are ULEZ compliant and have been for 2 years

I never said anything about whether they were ULEZ compliant or not. That doesn’t stop them belching out fumes, in many cases when the vehicle is not carrying many passengers

Somewhere like Barnet High Street resembles a bus rally at times, a gross over-supply of buses, all spewing out fumes within a confined area. I find this considerably more invasive than the presence of cars, especially as buses have a habit of pulling away from a stand just as one is walking past, often more than one at a time too.

Where’s London’s investment in electric tramways, for example, which as well as other benefits like reduced noise would generate zero pollution at point of use? Of course, being cynical such investment goes beyond the political cycle, so that’s one reason it’s conspicuous by its absence.

 

[Noddy]

You’ve just managed to find another concept I dislike! The above term tends to be used as a last resort to justify a multitude of sins.

But I’m not sure what’s “nimby” about my reaction when I’m not advocating anything in my own back yard, so to speak.

This:

I regard it as democratically deficient that someone like Khan can introduce something which affects people (non-London residents) who have no electoral recourse at all.

I wish we could retaliate by having a mechanism to stop Londoners coming to the Home Counties at weekends at swamping “our” green spaces, depositing rubbish and causing pollution / congestion whilst travelling there. Am I being serious? Well maybe.

I don’t know how you could sound any more nimby if you tried.

I never said anything about whether they were ULEZ compliant or not. That doesn’t stop them belching out fumes, in many cases when the vehicle is not carrying many passengers

If they are ULEZ compliant they are producing less harmful fumes.

Where’s London’s investment in electric tramways, for example, which as well as other benefits like reduced noise would generate zero pollution at point of use? Of course, being cynical such investment goes beyond the political cycle, so that’s one reason it’s conspicuous by its absence.

They are investing in zero emission buses:

Global Railway Review

Global Railway Review delivers actionable intelligence that inspires and empowers rail innovators to transform their operations, drive change, enhance performance, and shape the next generation of rail.

www.intelligenttransport.com

Trams would have to go via central government.

 

[bramling]

This:
I don’t know how you could sound any more nimby if you tried.

I think my sarcasm may have gone over some heads there. I wasn’t seriously suggesting that the south-east follows Khan-style divisive politics, much as there might be some merit in London getting a taste of its own medicine.

If they are ULEZ compliant they are producing less harmful fumes.

That doesn’t stop me getting a mouthful and a lungful of crud. Just because it’s less harmful doesn’t mean it isn’t harmful at all. In fact, the over-supply of dirty buses in London is probably the biggest factor dissuading me from using cycling as a mode of transport (though threat of crime is now a factor as well).

They are investing in zero emission buses:

Where are they? I certainly don’t see them in the parts of London I frequent. As I say, all I see is a posse of largely empty buses clogging up high streets.

 

[Noddy]

I think my sarcasm may have gone over some heads there. I wasn’t seriously suggesting that the south-east follows Khan-style divisive politics, much as there might be some merit in London getting a taste of its own medicine.

This issue isn’t your sarcasm. It’s that you don’t like something going on in your backyard. Something that the folk who actually live there voted for.

Where are they? I certainly don’t see them in the parts of London I frequent. As I say, all I see is a posse of largely empty buses clogging up high streets

If you had read the article you’d see where they are operating. But clearly you could not be bothered, which rather comes back to my point that your argument is a selfish one, and very little to do with the pros/cons of LEZs/ULEZ.

 

[The Ham]

I never said anything about whether they were ULEZ compliant or not. That doesn’t stop them belching out fumes, in many cases when the vehicle is not carrying many passengers

Somewhere like Barnet High Street resembles a bus rally at times, a gross over-supply of buses, all spewing out fumes within a confined area. I find this considerably more invasive than the presence of cars, especially as buses have a habit of pulling away from a stand just as one is walking past, often more than one at a time too.

Where’s London’s investment in electric tramways, for example, which as well as other benefits like reduced noise would generate zero pollution at point of use? Of course, being cynical such investment goes beyond the political cycle, so that’s one reason it’s conspicuous by its absence.

Define not many passengers.

Cars rarely carry many (the average is often about 1.2), so a bus with 8 people could easily be carrying the same number of people as 5 cars.

How do buses compare in terms of NOx, how many cars would a bus need to take off the road to result in an improvement?

According to some, like this article, buses produce (total, not just per person) less than diesel cars:

Diesel cars more polluting than trucks or buses, says new report

Diesel cars emit twice the level of poisonous nitrogen oxides (NOx) than the latest trucks and buses

www.fleetalliance.co.uk

The results are based on tests of 24 Euro 6-compliant buses and trucks, in both laboratory and real-world conditions. On average, NOx emissions of the heavy-duty vehicles tested were approximately 210 mg/km.


Currently, NOx emissions of Euro 6 compliant diesel passenger cars under real-world driving conditions are approximately 500 mg/km, as determined by testing carried out by German type-approval agency KBA and other European agencies.

Yes that is from some time ago and car engines will have improved since then, however it does highlight that even fairly old buses are likely to be better than more modern cars.

As others have highlighted electric buses will improve things further (and probably faster than cars will), however in the meantime hybrid buses are also improving things - there's now currently less than 50% of the London bus fleet are straight diesel's (total fleet of 8,643; 3,838 are diesel, 950 electric, 3,855 are hybrid/fuel cell).

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/fleet-annual-audit-report-31-march-2023.pdf

 

[alex397]

Where are they? I certainly don’t see them in the parts of London I frequent. As I say, all I see is a posse of largely empty buses clogging up high streets.

I think you may be thinking of London’s buses in the 1980s, well known to belch out fumes. But it is 2023 now, and diesel buses are the cleanest they’ve ever been, and London has a huge amount of hybrid and fully electric buses now.

A posse of largely empty buses? Well if you are seeing buses in Barnet High Street they are likely to be near the end or at the start of the route, so not likely to be very busy at that point.
If you got rid of most of these “largely empty” buses, then quite simply less people will be visiting Barnet High Street as they won’t bother shopping there, or they may decide to get a taxi or start driving again. Meaning more traffic and pollution.

Buses are not the issue, and are clearly part of the solution. Yes, even diesel buses.

 

[bramling]

Something that the folk who actually live there voted for.

That’s a matter for debate, actually, as was illustrated quite clearly in Uxbridge two weeks ago.

Likewise I remember talking with a lot of voters during the last mayoral election, and the general view was very much a case of holding their nose and voting for Khan simply because they felt the Conservative candidate was even more odious. Hardly a ringing endorsement by any means.

Meanwhile, if we consider behaviours, there seems to be little evidence of Londoners, those in the suburbs especially, being concerned about pollution. Plenty of short car journeys abound.

In any case, why should living somewhere confer special privileges? This strikes me as being rather similar to people who seem to feel that their house extends to the road outside their front door when it comes to parking. Why is this any more legitimate than me constructing an argument that if I go to London I shouldn’t have to breathe in fumes from all those lazy Londoners making sub-2km car journeys when they could just as easily walk, and possibly be less of a long-term burden on the health service in the process?

If you had read the article you’d see where they are operating. But clearly you could not be bothered

They don’t seem to be operating anywhere I frequent, which I’d say is a pretty representative cross-section of London. The fact that they might be elsewhere doesn’t help my lungs were I to choose to make a journey by cycle.

 

[The Ham]

They don’t seem to be operating anywhere I frequent, which I’d say is a pretty representative cross-section of London. The fact that they might be elsewhere doesn’t help my lungs were I to choose to make a journey by cycle.

See my previous post about how buses from around 2017 are less of an issue for NOx than diesel cars of the same age.

 

[bramling]

See my previous post about how buses from around 2017 are less of an issue for NOx than diesel cars of the same age.

Ok less of an issue, but still an issue.

 

[Trainbike46]

Ok less of an issue, but still an issue.

As stated before, all TfL buses have been compliant with the ULEZ since 2021, and an increasing portion of the vehicles are electric. TfL Buses are not the problem for air quality in London, and as more electric buses are rolled out they are getting increasingly cleaner

 

[jon0844]

I watch a YouTuber that shows all the new cycle paths/routes being built in and around London and I was quite stunned how far we've come. It would be such a shame to reverse this through populism.

So many streets are now so much more quiet. Are people being locked up indoors (as the conspiracy theorists would have you believe relating to LTNs) or just using their cars less - and perhaps walking, cycling or taking a bus? If you provide a good bus service including very early and late, low-paid workers are more likely to use them than a car, with parking issues and the like (it also costing a lot to service and maintain a vehicle, especially if it's older and not only non-compliant with ULEZ but likely harbouring lots of potentially expensive repair/maintenance jobs to come).

The Tories are using ULEZ as an election issue now, that's clear to all. I doubt they'd actually undo anything, but they'll promise the world to secure votes. Like so much of what the Government has done, they underestimate the people quite a lot. The same people who still support rail workers, NHS staff and so on - despite being inconvenienced for a year or more.

I think they will underestimate this too, with the car lobby groups being perhaps the loudest and shouting over those who actually want cleaner air.

What I would say is that you might need to look at the type of vehicles that are non-complaint and offer bigger cash incentives to certain motorists over others, so the worker who needs a car to get to work at 5am in a 'normal' car is compensated more than a non-complaint 'Chelsea tractor'. I am not sure how you could do this effectively, but the ultimate solution should be to get rid of the non-compliant cars. Then do the same for commercial vehicles, old taxis, buses and coaches.

 

[greyman42]

You haven't worked out a connection between the likes of Shell, BP, British Gas...?

Big employers that pay good wages and dividends for share holders and pension funds?

 

[Peter Sarf]

That’s a matter for debate, actually, as was illustrated quite clearly in Uxbridge two weeks ago.

Likewise I remember talking with a lot of voters during the last mayoral election, and the general view was very much a case of holding their nose and voting for Khan simply because they felt the Conservative candidate was even more odious. Hardly a ringing endorsement by any means.

It seems to happen more and more that I find myself choosing to vote for the least worst,

Meanwhile, if we consider behaviours, there seems to be little evidence of Londoners, those in the suburbs especially, being concerned about pollution. Plenty of short car journeys abound.

From my place in Croydon I think pollution is less of a hot topic than it was in central London. Certainly no one I speak to in Croydon is concerned about pollution - which is a bit surprising.

In any case, why should living somewhere confer special privileges? This strikes me as being rather similar to people who seem to feel that their house extends to the road outside their front door when it comes to parking. Why is this any more legitimate than me constructing an argument that if I go to London I shouldn’t have to breathe in all the fumes from all those people making sub-2km car journeys when they could just as easily walk, and possibly be less of a burden on the health service in the process.



They don’t seem to be operating anywhere I frequent, which I’d say is a pretty representative cross-section of London. The fact that they might be elsewhere doesn’t help my lungs were I to choose to make a journey by cycle.

We are seeing electric and hybrid busses appearing in Croydon. Not all routes yet. I suspect the majority of cleaner buses are in central London - where they need to be the most.

I watch a YouTuber that shows all the new cycle paths/routes being built in and around London and I was quite stunned how far we've come. It would be such a shame to reverse this through populism.

I am alarmed in Croydon at us losing bus routes near the centre of Croydon in favour of cycle lanes. There are so few cycles I see using them - none on many visits. Meanwhile the busses have been made less convenient. The missus wants to go to the out of town shops instead as we can drive there. That to me is a seriously backward step.

So many streets are now so much more quiet. Are people being locked up indoors (as the conspiracy theorists would have you believe relating to LTNs) or just using their cars less - and perhaps walking, cycling or taking a bus? If you provide a good bus service including very early and late, low-paid workers are more likely to use them than a car, with parking issues and the like (it also costing a lot to service and maintain a vehicle, especially if it's older and not only non-compliant with ULEZ but likely harbouring lots of potentially expensive repair/maintenance jobs to come).

Afraid not. I used to think the same about newer cars. But my stint with Vauxhall Carltons from 1999 to 2020 has been cheaper in maintenance/repair costs than this current year is with what I hoped would be the replacement - a Vauxhall Vectra. It is so bad that in the three years I have owned the Vectra the last Carlton has remained in my owner ship being used for some of the time and stored for the rest. I am seriously considering reverting to the older car and scrapping the Vectra. It really is that bad. I wanted to be cleaner but actually achieve most of it by not using my car(s) much - now getting harder as we seem to need cars more.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I had a Vectra some years ago and it was totally reliable. However Vectras are now getting a bit old, and it's always a gamble when you run an old car, it's not just about the car itself but how the previous owners maintained and drove it.

But re ULEZ, if you prefer older go petrol, as you can go far further back that way.

 

[AM9]

I had a Vectra some years ago and it was totally reliable. However Vectras are now getting a bit old, and it's always a gamble when you run an old car, it's not just about the car itself but how the previous owners maintained and drove it.

But re ULEZ, if you prefer older go petrol, as you can go far further back that way.

The repmobiles of old were generally reliable, - that's why they were so popular with leasing firms. As for the legacy of previous drivers, that should be apparent after the first full service.

 

[jfollows]

Eligibilty to apply to the scrappage scheme has been extended (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66398942):

Eligibility for a scrappage scheme has been extended to more people ahead of the expansion the Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) to all of London.
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has announced all Londoners with a non-compliant car can access up to £2,000 to replace their vehicle.
More support is also being given to small businesses, charities and those with disabilities.
Previously only those entitled to means tested benefits could claim money.
It comes after Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer urged the Labour mayor to "reflect" on the Ulez expansion following the party's by-election loss in Uxbridge in July.
In order to fund the expansion, the Mr Khan plans to use £50m of City Hall's reserves. This takes the total of the scrappage fund from £110m to £160m.

• Ulez expansion: Contested claims examined
• What you need to know about the Ulez scrappage scheme
• What did we learn from Ulez court action?

The scheme will be available on a first-come first-served basis, with low income and disabled Londoners having already had seven months to apply.
Vehicles that automatically comply are petrol cars and vans made after 2006, diesel cars and vans made after 2015 and motorbikes made after 2007.

“Apply” because there’s a defined amount of money and the scheme currently stops when this money is all allocated.

 

[GS250]

Afraid not. I used to think the same about newer cars. But my stint with Vauxhall Carltons from 1999 to 2020 has been cheaper in maintenance/repair costs than this current year is with what I hoped would be the replacement - a Vauxhall Vectra. It is so bad that in the three years I have owned the Vectra the last Carlton has remained in my owner ship being used for some of the time and stored for the rest. I am seriously considering reverting to the older car and scrapping the Vectra. It really is that bad. I wanted to be cleaner but actually achieve most of it by not using my car(s) much - now getting harder as we seem to need cars more.

Phwooaaar! 80s 90s overload.....Loved those old Carltons btw. To think they even brought out a 24v 3.0L manual version. That concept seems a thousand years ago now. 'Granada man' was absolutely spoiled for choice back then. Never properly replaced ditto the Senator. The Omega wasn't bad but lots of electrical gremlins. Came with a variety of engines and trim at least. Then again it was replacing 2 models.

Definitely a distrust of the latest vehicles but the average badge obsessed harpie will still push hubby go out and buy the latest Range Rover or Tesla.

ULEZ....if it has any silver cloud to it's lining it's that it's increased the value of some older petrol engines cars. These still reliable cars were often heading to the scrapyard with at least half of their useful life in them. Hardly 'green'.....

 

[AlterEgo]

My car is a bus/train. Londoners have no right to moan about this when they have a world class public transport system. Try being a bus user in rural Norfolk with one bus an hour between 07:30 and 18:30.

London does not have a world class public transport system, it just looks better than where you live in Norfolk. That's not the same.

 

[E27007]

Eligibilty to apply to the scrappage scheme has been extended (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66398942):

“Apply” because there’s a defined amount of money and the scheme currently stops when this money is all allocated.

I have read the details of the extended scheme, to be eligible you must be on benefits , and the scrappage value of the vehicle is discretionary, ie "up to" £1000 for motorcycles and "up to " £2000 for cars.
The scrappage scheme is likely to be expensive to operate due to the bureaucracy of the process, probably just a PR exercise

 

[DC1989]

I have read the details of the extended scheme, to be eligible you must be on benefits , and the scrappage value of the vehicle is discretionary, ie "up to" £1000 for motorcycles and "up to " £2000 for cars.
The scrappage scheme is likely to be expensive to operate due to the bureaucracy of the process, probably just a PR exercise

No that's not right - that was the previous phase of the scheme. Now every single Londoner with a non compliant car is being given 2k

 

[jfollows]

I believe https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/scrappage-schemes changes the rules:

Currently people receiving Child Benefit, or certain low income or disability benefits are eligible to apply, but from 21 August 2023, we will be removing the requirement to receive benefits. This means that anyone living in one of the 32 London boroughs or the City of London with an eligible vehicle will be able to apply to scrap a car or motorcycle.
We are also providing greater support for disabled Londoners by increasing the grant payment to scrap or retrofit a wheelchair accessible vehicle (WAV). Eligible applicants can now get £10,000 to scrap a ULEZ non-compliant WAV, or £6,000 to retrofit a ULEZ non-compliant WAV.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Aug 2023 ==

No that's not right - that was the previous phase of the scheme. Now every single Londoner with a non compliant car is being given 2k

... until the money runs out.

 

[adamedwards]

If you want to see how polluted your home is, go to http://www.addresspollution.com and look up your postcode and house number. You can of course also check your kids schools, workplaces and anything else of interest. For example, here in Hatfield Herts the big local park at Stanborough Lakes is in the highest category for pollution because, I assume it is just east of the A1(M) and A414 trunk road so prevailing westerly winds blow the particulates into the park. Note this site is about particulates and other nasties, not CO2.

The campaign behind it want to see all houses given a pollution rating along side their energy efficiency rating to make people aware of what they are buying into and thereby drive demand for change, like the ULEZ.

 

[jon0844]

FYI it's https://addresspollution.org

 

[davews]

How are these figures derived? It seems my house (with a full screen shot so I can see they have got the right house) is in the red 'high pollution' category. Quiet suburban cul-de-sac in non-industrial area with intermittent traffic. Don't recall anybody ever coming down the street and measuring anything related.

 

[Dai Corner]

Note that the organisation behind that website is a campaigning one and has its own agenda.

Home - Central Office of Public Interest

The Central Office of Public Interest is a people-powered research and advertising organisation where our only client is you.

www.copi.org.uk

COPI is a non-profit creative industry alliance. People in film, ads, tv & music who care about what's going on. Together we run above the line campaigns created by the best in the industry. We also work with academics and scientists, so all our campaigns are based on the latest verified data and evidence.

COPI aims to re-balance the heavily corporatised information environment with stuff that actually matters.

We raise awareness on issues of more pressing concern to society & planetary ecosystems than the unchecked profligate drive of consumerism.

 

[Ediswan]

Note that the organisation behind that website is a campaigning one and has its own agenda.

I tried the postcode for a rural area I know TQ13 7TR. The website declared all pollution below WHO guidelines, lowest category. But still presented a large DEMAND ACTION message.

 

[Dai Corner]

I tried the postcode for a rural area I know TQ13 7TR. The website declared all pollution below WHO guidelines, lowest category. But still presented a large DEMAND ACTION message.

I tried SW1A 1AA (Buckingham Palace) which is reported as Very High (not surprisingly for central London) but Port Talbot Steelworks is only Significant and my home in suburban Newport is High.

They all give a different colour DEMAND ACTION button though!