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

[Bald Rick]

Asset value £4000, annual ULEZ "tax" £4550. Apologies my mental arithmetic was a bit out, a quick simle calculator check reveals it's actually 113.75%.

Don’t use your car every day then. Simple.

And if your car is worth £4000, you won‘t be selling it for scrap. Sell it, buy a ULEZ compliant car for £3000*, and you’ve made a grand. Even more simples - ULEZ gives you £1000.

*I’ll sell you mine for £3000. ULEZ compliant. Big car with decent 0-60 and top speed. Low mileage. Very reliable.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Dec 2023 ==

ULEZs might stop being a thing if they were about air-quality, but they're not. They're about Pay Per Mile charging.

We already have pay per mile charging, which you already pay, varied by how efficient your car is. It’s called fuel duty, and as a proportion of fuel prices is about as low as it has been for about a quarter of a century.

 

[Energy]

It was central government taxation policy that pushed diesels to the fore, sadly before the politicians knew anything about the pollutants and poisons that they were promoting.

I disagree with the early 2000s government push for diesel but to be fair diesel was seen as a 'clean fuel' at the time.

And yet up until a few weeks ago, I was choking in fumes belching from one of Mr Khan's clapped out buses on the 450 route that was obviously not subject to any ULEZ charges at all. The man is a hypocrite.

Since the 30th September 2023, it has been run with battery buses, that's about a month after the ULEZ expansion was introduced which I consider fairly reasonable.

Clapped out is a strong term, the previous diesel buses are only from 2016.

You say the man is a hypocrite but TfL is changing their buses to electric... oh and vans/lorries over 3.5T and buses over 5T aren't subject to ULEZ, regardless of operator, though they are subject to LEZ.

hich means no rational logic on earth could explain the need to install hundreds of millions of pounds worth of cameras

The current estimated total cost to supply and install the ANPR cameras and associated supporting infrastructure for London wide ULEZ is in the range of £45-55m.

95% of cars were compliant (probably a lie, because everything that comes out of his mouth regarding ULEZ is a lie)

The actual number of cars is available on the TfL website, it's currently at 96.4%.

If you have evidence to support this being untrue please post it.

which means no rational logic on earth could explain the need to install hundreds of millions of pounds worth of cameras to "catch" an ever decreasing small number of polluting vehicles.

Because if there were no cameras people wouldn't follow it? By the same logic, speed cameras have no effect because everyone will follow a speed sign...

And a category of vehicles that is in decline thanks to central government policy.

Yes? That's the point of ULEZ, to make that number decline.

Asset value £4000, annual ULEZ "tax" £4550. Apologies my mental arithmetic was a bit out, a quick calculator check reveals it's actually 113.75%.

Expressing it as a percentage is still misleading as the ULEZ charge does not depend on the vehicle value.

It's also really obvious that the ULEZ charge is a deterrent and neither the Mayor of London nor TfL is expecting people to drive into London and pay the charge every single day. Almost like there was a ULEZ scrappage scheme to help people buy compliant vehicles...

and will be hammered because UK Plc needs more income due to drivers inconsiderately decimating the government's income by moving away from ICE cars. Oh, hang on....that was because of the government??......

The government knows that moving people to electric cars will reduce income from fuel duty and that there will be something to replace it at some point. Whether its pay per mile, a big increase in road tax, or something else.

 

[talldave]

I

The current estimated total cost to supply and install the ANPR cameras and associated supporting infrastructure for London wide ULEZ is in the range of £45-55m.

It's also really obvious that the ULEZ charge is a deterrent and neither the Mayor of London nor TfL is expecting people to drive into London and pay the charge every single day. Almost like there was a ULEZ scrappage scheme to help people buy compliant vehicles...

TfL's March 2023 estimate was £159.5m and I'm confident that like every other public body project it will have exceeded that estimate.

I don't understand your concept of "driving into London every day". Millions of us have been swallowed up into the zone (which extends almost to the M25) and can't move from our homes without being charged.

When I "go into London" I use buses & trains. Daily life, "not going into London", means paying ULEZ daily.

 

[Energy]

TfL's March 2023 estimate was £159.5m and I'm confident that like every other public body project it will have exceeded that estimate.

Of which £110m was expected to be spent on the scrappage scheme, though funds local people improving their cars as opposed to going to contractors. You said specifically the cameras.

Since the scrappage scheme was extended its spend was at £160m.

While extending the scrappage scheme to the London metropolitan area its debatable whether Greater London taxpayers should fund other drivers polluting their roads less or whether drivers polluting the roads should compensate the local area.

I don't understand your concept of "driving into London every day". Millions of us have been swallowed up into the zone (which extends almost to the M25) and can't move from our homes without being charged.

ULEZ only covers the London boroughs, if you are in the zone you are what I consider going into London.

On the last sentence do you mean millions of people have been swallowed by the ULEZ zone (correct) or millions can't leave their house without paying ULEZ? If its the latter 96+% of cars are ULEZ compliant and with greater London having a population of 9 million, a good estimate is that less than half a million people in the Greater London area are being affected by ULEZ.

 

[talldave]

ULEZ only covers the London boroughs, if you are in the zone you are what I consider going into London.

On the last sentence do you mean millions of people have been swallowed by the ULEZ zone (correct) or millions can't leave their house without paying ULEZ? If its the latter 96+% of cars are ULEZ compliant and with greater London having a population of 9 million, a good estimate is that less than half a million people in the Greater London area are being affected by ULEZ.

And London Boroughs include leafy Surrey and Bromley which bear no resemblance in pollution terms to central London. Leaving my home and going to the supermarket in completely the opposite direction to central London is not what anyone would remotely describe as going into London. Similarly, going shopping in Bromley is not going into London either.

Yes, millions have been swallowed by the zone. An extended zone that Khan said he wasn't going to extended into. He lied. He's said he isn't going to change the vehicle criteria or introduce pay per mile. I assume those to be lies too.

Why, otherwise, would he be making pay per mile a key element of Project Detroit, which aims to bring road user charging in-house to TfL?

 

[AM9]

And London Boroughs include leafy Surrey and Bromley which bear no resemblance in pollution terms to central London. Leaving my home and going to the supermarket in completely the opposite direction to central London is not what anyone would remotely describe as going into London. Similarly, going shopping in Bromley is not going into London either.

Yes, millions have been swallowed by the zone. An extended zone that Khan said he wasn't going to extended into. He lied. He's said he isn't going to change the vehicle criteria or introduce pay per mile. I assume those to be lies too.

Why, otherwise, would he be making pay per mile a key element of Project Detroit, which aims to bring road user charging in-house to TfL?

London boroughs don't "include leafy Surrey", the extent of London has been the same since 1965 and those parts that were once on the London borders of Surrey, e.g. Kingston are no more Surrey than Ilford is part of Essex where I grew up. I've got used to them being in London, - 58 years is long enough for anybody. An whether they are 'leafy' or not is irrelevant, drivers have cars to go to more places than the street that they live on, by passing through streets that others live on. A significant proportion of those journeys will be inwards so they become part of other borough's pollution issue.
Also, if London wants to clean up its environment by removing certain types of hydrocarbon burning vehicles, then London can make the polluters pay for it. Where they live has nothing to do with their polluting activities, hence the ULEZ charge being equally applicable to outsiders who choose to drive on London roads.
Sadiq Khan is responsible for ensuring that legal levels of air pollution are not breached, - something that has effectively been enhanced by the Coroner's report on Ella Kissi-Debrah's untimely death. How he does it will be scrutinised at the forthcoming Mayoral election in less than 5 months time. I believe that the majority of the GLA electorate agrees with the intent and operation of the full ULEZ. As for the future of road charging, many here and elsewhere believe that it is the only fair way of taxing road use, and do not fear it. There is no need for the Mayor to comment on it whether you believe that he is lying or not.

 

[MasterSpenny]

Two men have been arrested after the Sidcup ULEZ camera explosion…

Sidcup: Two men arrested over Ulez camera explosion

The explosion happened in Sidcup after a newly installed traffic camera had been cut down.

www.bbc.co.uk

Sidcup: Two men arrested over Ulez camera explosion​

Two men have been arrested over an explosion that damaged a Ulez camera in south-east London.
The blast happened in Sidcup on the evening of 6 December after a camera had been cut down shortly before.
Det Ch Supt Trevor Lawry said: "The explosion could easily have had far more harmful consequences."
The Met's Counter Terrorism Command arrested a 60-year-old man in Sidcup and a 61-year-old man in Horsham, West Sussex, earlier on Monday.
They were held on suspicion of conspiracy to cause an explosion likely to endanger life or property and remain in custody at a south London police station.
The 61-year-old was further arrested on suspicion of causing criminal damage.
Detectives are conducting searches at addresses in Sidcup and Horsham, the Met said.
The explosion, on Willersley Avenue in Sidcup, happened at about 18:45 GMT on 6 December.
Police believe a Ulez camera installed on the road earlier that day was cut down not long before the blast, at about 17:15.
It was further damaged in the explosion, which was caused by a "low-sophistication" improvised explosive device, the Met said. A residential property was also damaged in the explosion.
The Counter Terrorism Command is continuing to appeal for information and is looking for camera footage from anyone who drove or cycled on Willersley Avenue on the evening in question.

 

[AM9]

Two men have been arrested after the Sidcup ULEZ camera explosion…

Sidcup: Two men arrested over Ulez camera explosion

The explosion happened in Sidcup after a newly installed traffic camera had been cut down.

www.bbc.co.uk

Good! If they are found guilty, let's hope that the beak throws the book at them.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Good! If they are found guilty, let's hope that the beak throws the book at them.

My concern is that this explosion shows what lengths people are prepared to go to to protest. Lets hope this is a one off and there are no other extremists ready to jump into their boots. Someone will get hurt one day.

I can imagine more police resources went into investigating this explosive act than into all the other "vandalism" events regarding ULEZ. Perhaps protesters should think about what level of protest is protest/minor-misdemeanour and what triggers the resources of the anti terrorist police. Because if an act is serious enough to cause the anti terrorist police to be involved you can bet the penalties will be higher !.

 

[AM9]

My concern is that this explosion shows what lengths people are prepared to go to to protest. Lets hope this is a one off and there are no other extremists ready to jump into their boots. Someone will get hurt one day.

I may be reading something your words here but the cameras (or ULEZ in general) are not and would not be the cause if somebody did get hurt, - it is just simple criminal activity, not a protest!

I can imagine more police resources went into investigating this explosive act than into all the other "vandalism" events regarding ULEZ. Perhaps protesters should think about what level of protest is protest/minor-misdemeanour and what triggers the resources of the anti terrorist police. Because if an act is serious enough to cause the anti terrorist police to be involved you can bet the penalties will be higher !.

I would expect that intense investigation into this incident has revealed a lot more than just finding the twerps that did it, so maybe that intelligence will be used to break this daft campaign of vandalism and criminal damage. A few arrests will remove the culprits from the food chain.

 

[talldave]

London boroughs don't "include leafy Surrey", the extent of London has been the same since 1965 and those parts that were once on the London borders of Surrey, e.g. Kingston are no more Surrey than Ilford is part of Essex where I grew up. I've got used to them being in London, - 58 years is long enough for anybody. An whether they are 'leafy' or not is irrelevant, drivers have cars to go to more places than the street that they live on, by passing through streets that others live on.

Well I was raised in a London Borough (I'm as old as the Borough and was its first registered baby) and was accustomed to the postal address as being Surrey. So whilst I may have legally been wrong, I considered it Surrey.

As for Pay per Mile taxation, I would rather have politicians like Khan be honest that the reason there are thousands of cameras going up is for PPM. But instead we're meant to believe it's about air quality, which it's not because non-compliant cars can still pollute as much as they want. TfL's plans originally had PPM pencilled in for 2023, but I guess 2020's tickly cough scuppered that.

As for transitioning the UK's motoring tax take, surely EVs should go first onto PPM as ICE cars are, as another poster pointed out, already PPM taxed via fuel duty?

 

[AM9]

As for transitioning the UK's motoring tax take, surely EVs should go first onto PPM as ICE cars are, as another poster pointed out, already PPM taxed via fuel duty?

Not really, IC vehicles not only take up road space, they also cause pollution and far mode CO2 than EVs, so if pay per road usage is introduced, it should be equally applied to all powered road vehicles.

 

[talldave]

Not really, IC vehicles not only take up road space, they also cause pollution and far mode CO2 than EVs, so if pay per road usage is introduced, it should be equally applied to all powered road vehicles.

EVs take up road space, so that observation is an irrelevance. EVs are substantially heavier than ICE vehicles so cause more damage to the infrastructure, but I fail to see where they're compensating UK plc for that? Their fuel is only taxed at 5% (or 0% if their owners have cunningly built themselves a solar panel array to be proud of). Where's the EV owners' contribution to the large amount of generating infrastructure required for EVs? Perhaps we should have a stepped standing charge so that those who are using more than their "domestic" share of energy are "taxed" for their share of the infrastructure needed to feed their power hungry vehicles? Those with the most inefficient EVs or high milers pay more. Those doing low mileage and with smaller more efficient EVs pay less.

 

[Trainbike46]

EVs take up road space, so that observation is an irrelevance. EVs are substantially heavier than ICE vehicles so cause more damage to the infrastructure, but I fail to see where they're compensating UK plc for that? Their fuel is only taxed at 5% (or 0% if their owners have cunningly built themselves a solar panel array to be proud of). Where's the EV owners' contribution to the large amount of generating infrastructure required for EVs? Perhaps we should have a stepped standing charge so that those who are using more than their "domestic" share of energy are "taxed" for their share of the infrastructure needed to feed their power hungry vehicles? Those with the most inefficient EVs or high milers pay more. Those doing low mileage and with smaller more efficient EVs pay less.

If you wish to discuss pay per mile road pricing, whether that is using existing cameras or not, you should start a new thread about it.

ULEZ, as implemented at present, does not represent pay per mile roadpricing; it seems to be effective in getting people to change their vehicle for a less polluting vehicle, and is therefore achieving it's air quality objectives

 

[Energy]

Where's the EV owners' contribution to the large amount of generating infrastructure required for EVs?

In what they pay for electricity?

EVs are substantially heavier than ICE vehicles so cause more damage to the infrastructure, but I fail to see where they're compensating UK plc for that?

The road damage is proportional to the axle weight to the fourth power. Cars are nothing compared to lorries, while EVs are heavier they are still insignificant.

While doing road tax based on damage to the road is logical, you'd tax lorries so much that it would likely trickle through to consumer pricing and be very unpopular.

(or 0% if their owners have cunningly built themselves a solar panel array to be proud of)

Cunningly? The government is well aware of solar panels, they are the ones who started the solar feed-in tariff.

"domestic" share of energy are "taxed" for their share of the infrastructure needed to feed their power hungry vehicles?

Yes, they use more power so they pay for more electricity.

Perhaps we should have a stepped standing charge

The standing charge is for your energy provider's fixed costs like metering, admin, and maintaining the line into your home. It isn't for generation.

Really it should be renamed to something like metering charge, its a bit ambiguous between suppliers exactly what it funds.

Those with the most inefficient EVs or high milers pay more. Those doing low mileage and with smaller more efficient EVs pay less.

So what you're proposing is that those who use more energy pay more and those who use less pay less? You've been beaten to it.

 

[GLC]

but I fail to see where they're compensating UK plc for that? Their fuel is only taxed at 5% (or 0% if their owners have cunningly built themselves a solar panel array to be proud of).

Or you charge at a public charger, where the VAT is charged at 20%, and you will pay more for the privilege of a faster charger. My local rapid chargers are 85p/kWh, which is nearly triple my home rate. Even my local slow chargers are 40p/kWh. And as someone who can’t charge at home, I rely on these public chargers. And my EV weighs 1.4 tonnes, and so while there are lighter cars, including one myself, it’s hardly excessive as a lot of modern cars weights are

 

[AM9]

... Those with the most inefficient EVs or high milers pay more. Those doing low mileage and with smaller more efficient EVs pay less.

Sounds like pay per mile. Good that you've arrived at the correct solution for charging vehicles' drivers when they use the public highway. Keep the duty on fuel until the IC vehicle drivers get the message and we'll be on the most effcient route to reduce CO2 generation.

 

[talldave]

If you wish to discuss pay per mile road pricing, whether that is using existing cameras or not, you should start a new thread about it.

ULEZ, as implemented at present, does not represent pay per mile roadpricing; it seems to be effective in getting people to change their vehicle for a less polluting vehicle, and is therefore achieving it's air quality objectives

ULEZ may not "represent" PPM today but it's TfL's stated plan to modify the scheme to implement it. Can you provide links to data showing what it's achieved in the August 2023 extension area?

Results from Glasgow's ULEZ showed an increase in pollution after the scheme's introduction.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Jan 2024 ==

Or you charge at a public charger, where the VAT is charged at 20%, and you will pay more for the privilege of a faster charger. My local rapid chargers are 85p/kWh, which is nearly triple my home rate. Even my local slow chargers are 40p/kWh. And as someone who can’t charge at home, I rely on these public chargers. And my EV weighs 1.4 tonnes, and so while there are lighter cars, including one myself, it’s hardly excessive as a lot of modern cars weights are

But VAT at 20% doesn't replace fuel duty in balancing the government's books. ICE drivers even pay VAT on the fuel duty; around 60% of petrol cost ends up with government at the moment.

The ULEZ infrastructure would provide a convenient means of recouping tax revenue from EV drivers as well, although at present the income doesn't reach government coffers.

 

[GusB]

ULEZ may not "represent" PPM today but it's TfL's stated plan to modify the scheme to implement it. Can you provide links to data showing what it's achieved in the August 2023 extension area?

ULEZ is about reducing pollution and leaving us with cleaner air - please stop conflating it with other measures. I note that you've asked someone else to provide a link when you have failed to provide one citing TfL's "stated plan". It is, of course, completely irrelevant anyway, so I won't press you any further on that issue.

Results from Glasgow's ULEZ showed an increase in pollution after the scheme's introduction.

Can you provide links to data proving this?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Jan 2024 ==


But VAT at 20% doesn't replace fuel duty in balancing the government's books. ICE drivers even pay VAT on the fuel duty; around 60% of petrol cost ends up with government at the moment.

Irrelevant to the current topic.

 

[Trainbike46]

Source: https://www.london.gov.uk/programme...r-quality/ultra-low-emission-zone-ulez-london

Another report looking at the impact of ULEZ and LEZ in London, though more focused on the LEZ, is available here: https://www.bath.ac.uk/announcement...-and-peoples-well-being-new-ipr-policy-brief/

In short, these measures do improve air quality

 

[talldave]

In short, these measures do improve air quality

That's all good, but it's not about the August 2023 extension zone.

ULEZ is about reducing pollution and leaving us with cleaner air - please stop conflating it with other measures. I note that you've asked someone else to provide a link when you have failed to provide one citing TfL's "stated plan". It is, of course, completely irrelevant anyway, so I won't press you any further on that issue.

London's ULEZ is about what TfL say it's about. The plan for migration to full PPM was buried in a random TfL document. I'll see if I can track it down. I believe that plans for ULEZ are spot on relevant to a thread about ULEZ plans, but we'll have to agree to differ on that!

Can you provide links to data proving this?

There are many news stories online about the Glasgow embarrassment that relate to data from Air Quality Scotland. This is one such example that contains a link to their site:

Air pollution INCREASES in Glasgow Low Emission Zone since rules enforced

The controversial zone has been widely panned and it seems it may not even be having the desired impact

www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk

Air pollution INCREASES in Glasgow Low Emission Zone since rules enforced

The controversial zone has been widely panned and it seems it may not even be having the desired impact........

 

[Trainbike46]

That's all good, but it's not about the August 2023 extension zone.

Obviously there is no hard reliable data available for a scheme that isn't even fully in effect (look at the list of time-limited exemptions!). However, it isn't much of a stretch to believe that if it worked in inner london, it will work in outer london as well. It will likely be a year or two before we have specific data. Also I note the link I provided perfectly supports the claim I made.

There are many news stories online about the Glasgow embarrassment that relate to data from Air Quality Scotland. This is one such example that contains a link to their site:

Air pollution INCREASES in Glasgow Low Emission Zone since rules enforced

The controversial zone has been widely panned and it seems it may not even be having the desired impact

www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk

And that article is bull****:
- comparing 1 month with one other month is bad statistic, especially when ignoring the wider context (like this article does)
- Air pollution is seasonal, so it would be better to compare June 2023 with June 2022 instead of May 2022
- The articles source doesn't actually have data for June 2023, suggesting their "June 2023" figure is from a daily or hourly capture rather than a monthly mean. Hourly/daily means should not be compared to monthly means because of day to day variation (In January there has been a factor 4 difference from 1 day to the next)
- The article was published on 19 June, when no monthly mean data could have existed for June yet, making certain that they are not comparing like for like

Simply put, this stinks of someone who decided they were going to find data suggesting the Glasgow LEZ wasn't working, cherry-picked a day/hour with high air pollution in June, and then wrote an article about it.

 

[jon81uk]

That's all good, but it's not about the August 2023 extension zone.

Thats because its barely been four months since the extension, there won't be the data yet.

 

[stuu]

There are many news stories online about the Glasgow embarrassment that relate to data from Air Quality Scotland. This is one such example that contains a link to their site:

Air pollution INCREASES in Glasgow Low Emission Zone since rules enforced

The controversial zone has been widely panned and it seems it may not even be having the desired impact

www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk

Any which are from reputable media?

 

[GusB]

Well, if the Glasgow LEZ follows London's lead, I'm sure we'll be looking at a significant improvement in air quality.

London Ulez averts more air pollution than that caused by capital’s airports, report shows

Air quality improvements 2019-2022 from lowering vehicle emissions came even before scheme’s expansion to whole of city

www.theguardian.com

More toxic air pollution has been averted by London’s ultra-low emission zones than is produced by the capital’s airports or its river and rail transport combined, according to a new analysis of the effects of the Ulez.

The report showed that improvements in air quality between 2019 and 2022 from lowering motor vehicle pollution – even before the expansion of the Ulez throughout the capital since August – rivalled the potential savings from entirely cleaning up London’s aviation or industrial and commercial heat and power generation.

City Hall said the report, commissioned from Logika Group Air Quality Consultants using Transport for London data, showed the effectiveness of Ulez policies in tacking pollution and underlined the reasons for extending the zone to cover the whole of London, as of 29 August.


Motorists must pay £12.50 a day to drive a non-compliant car – typically a diesel more than seven years old or a petrol car more than 17 years old – in the Ulez, which covered a small central zone when launched in 2019 and was expanded to inner boroughs in 2021.

The report found that the Ulez and the pre-existing low-emission zone for HGVs reduced road traffic particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions by 180 tonnes across London over three years, a cut exceeding the particulate pollution produced by rail and river transport and agriculture combined.

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions from road traffic fell by an estimated 13,500 tonnes in London in the same period – which the report says was a figure roughly equivalent to the emissions produced by planes taking off and landing at London Heathrow and City airports.

The figures are estimates and do not cover the period since the Ulez expanded throughout London. The first official data since the latest expansion showed that the number of older, more polluting vehicles in London had dropped by nearly half in a month, with an average 95% of vehicles driven in the city now compliant and not subject to a fee. Early data suggested TfL was netting £1m a day in charges and fines, although the scheme was not designed to raise revenue in the long term.

It will be interesting to see how the figures look when the data collected since the ULEZ expansion is included.

 

[DC1989]

It's interesting there are still a ever shrinking minority of people still fighting this. I frequently walk past sets of traffic lights in Bexley with different anti ULEZ stickers stuck to them each couple of weeks

The latest ones are glorifying 'blade runners' that are nobly fighting tyranny for our freedom

The rest of the population has quietly moved on - I was surprised to see a 20 year old people carrier that I see doing the school run has upgraded from covering his number plate to a sleek electric one.

 

[PeterC]

The rest of the population has quietly moved on - I was surprised to see a 20 year old people carrier that I see doing the school run has upgraded from covering his number plate to a sleek electric one.

You mean replaced the vehicle or just got a new number plate with a green flash on?

 

[DC1989]

You mean replaced the vehicle or just got a new number plate with a green flash on?

No brand new vehicle