• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Ultra Low Emissions Zone to cover all of London

Status
Not open for further replies.

LUYMun

Member
Joined
15 Jul 2018
Messages
1,197
Location
Cancelled
From 29 August 2023, the ULEZ will be expanded to cover whole of Greater London.

London's Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ) is to be expanded to cover all of London, the mayor has announced, despite "overwhelming" opposition.
From 29 August, drivers of the most polluting cars will have to pay £12.50 a day to enter to the Greater London Authority boundary.
A public consultation found 80% of people in the affected areas were opposed the expansion of the zone.
But Sadiq Khan says five million more people will benefit from cleaner air.

"The ULEZ so far has been transformational, reducing harmful pollution levels by almost a half in central London," Mr Khan said.
"But there is still far too much toxic air pollution permanently damaging the health of young Londoners and leading to thousands of early deaths every year, with the greatest number of deaths in the outer London boroughs."
Under the scheme, which was introduced in 2019, drivers are charged to enter the area within London's north and south-circular orbital roads but the charge is not applied across the capital.
People with non-compliant cars who live in the ULEZ are not exempt from daily charges.

The mayor's office believes about 200,000 non-compliant vehicles are driven regularly in London, a figure it expects to fall rapidly.
Some 60% of those who responded to the public consultation into the expansion plans were opposed to it, with 70% of residents in Outer London against the idea, and 80% of workers in Outer London opposed.
The Greater London Authority (GLA) Conservatives described the opposition as "overwhelming" and "staggering" and criticised the mayor for pushing ahead with the plans despite the public response.
The Conservatives' transport spokesman Nick Rogers spoke out against the timing of the plans.
"Now is not the time to hammer Londoners with a £12.50 daily cost-of-living charge. Residents have made their views very clear to the mayor: they do not want the ULEZ expansion. The mayor must listen to them, scrap these plans and use the £250m saved on real measures that tackle air pollution".

Some MPs in Outer London have pointed out that public transport is not as reliable or efficient there as in other parts of the capital.
Mr Khan said the cost of living had been a "key consideration" for him, adding that plans were in place to relieve the effect on drivers.
He said that expanding the ULEZ London-wide had "not been an easy decision" but that "in the end, public health comes before political expediency".
There will be an increased scrappage scheme fund of £110m and those who scrap more polluting cars will also be offered travelcards. Under the plans, disabled drivers will be entitled to a grace period until 2027.
City Hall also said bus networks would be improved in Outer London.

The Federation of Small Businesses, which has opposed any ULEZ expansion, believes many of its members in Outer London will be badly hit.
Among them is Linda Quayle, who owns and runs a bridal shop in Bexley Village, which will fall inside the expanded ULEZ.
"It's going to be a nightmare," she told BBC London.
"Most of my customers drive and adding in this ULEZ charge, they're just not going to bother.
"There's no way around it to get to me," she said. "I survived lockdown, this is the last thing I need now."

Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, a clean-air campaigner from south London, described the expansion as a "big step in the right direction".
Last year, a coroner ruled Ms Adoo-Kissi-Debrah's nine-year-old daughter Ella died partly due to the effects of pollution near their Lewisham home.
"When we had the inquest, we got the experts in Ella's case to give some recommendations and all of them agreed ULEZ expansion was something that needed to be done to clean up the air in London," she said.

However, a recent TfL report found the zone had had a limited effect on pollution levels, and some motoring groups have said they believe it unfairly penalises drivers.
The Alliance of British Drivers believes Mr Khan has exaggerated the public health benefits of the scheme.
"His whole basis for extending the ULEZ zone on the basis of public health doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny," policy director Brian Gregory said.
"TfL (Transport for London) has an enormous hole in its budget and Mayor Khan is looking to fill that hole by any means that he can."
Mr Gregory added he believed that some campaigners might pursue legal avenues to try to stop the plans.
"I think Mr Khan could quite conceivably find he has legal challenges heading his way," he said.
Presentational grey line

Analysis​

By Tom Edwards, BBC London transport and environment correspondent​

They call it the ULEX (ULEZ extension) - and the plan is London will get the expanded ultra-low emission zone on 29 August 2023.
With this further expansion, the noise against it has been much louder and clearer - many groups have called for it to be delayed.
Outer London is more car-dependent and there is much less public transport.
But the mayor thinks doing nothing is not an option.
This time there seems to be more mitigation.
Although the details aren't clear yet, the scrappage scheme - where you get money to scrap your old car - will be bigger.
City Hall will also give you a travelcard as part of that and disabled drivers will have until 2027 to comply.
The big question politically is: has the mayor overreached? Or is this a brave, radical policy that will ultimately save lives?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

PGAT

Established Member
Joined
13 Apr 2022
Messages
1,813
Location
Selhurst
Gotta make driver’s life hell to bring them on public transport.
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,269
Sounds like it's pretty unpopular with the people who live there

Its the sort of policy that is unpopular but fair if announced with sufficient warning for people to adapt at a reasonable cost. Nine months notice is totally inadequate. I read elsewhere that it covers most diesel cars made before 2016 and most petrol made before 2006. A car sold new (meeting all UK regulations) only six years ago shouldn't be priced out of London next year.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
18,750
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Sounds like it's pretty unpopular with the people who live there

Judging by conversations I’ve had today, pretty unpopular is a gross understatement!

Another example of a parochial politician. I hate all these elected mayors and devolved institutions with a passion. If London (or anywhere else) wants something like a mayor then please make it so the things they bring in don’t apply to those of us from elsewhere. This country will become madness if every area brings in its own pet restrictions and rules.

Gotta make driver’s life hell to bring them on public transport.

You mean the public transport which the politicians have done a good job of crucifying over the last two years?

It seems what the politicians really want is for us to spend our lives sitting at home on a universal basic income. They had a pretty good dry-run at this during the Covid lockdowns!
 

LUYMun

Member
Joined
15 Jul 2018
Messages
1,197
Location
Cancelled
I fail to see how road charging based on emission standards could leave a more environmentally friendly impact. If someone or a company owns a vehicle that doesn't meet the new standards, they would have to replace that with a new (in this day and age, electric) vehicle, which we've already heard the environmental impact new vehicles cause.
It's more efficient to replace the LEZs with zonal Congestion Charges because that at least discourages car users from driving quite often.
 

Speed43125

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2019
Messages
1,165
Location
Dunblane
Its the sort of policy that is unpopular but fair if announced with sufficient warning for people to adapt at a reasonable cost. Nine months notice is totally inadequate. I read elsewhere that it covers most diesel cars made before 2016 and most petrol made before 2006. A car sold new (meeting all UK regulations) only six years ago shouldn't be priced out of London next year.
I would tend to agree with this sentiment, Glasgow and Edinburgh are currently in so called 'grace periods' pending introduction of enforcement for their LEZs. I can understand wanting to bring in the regulation before winter and the extra emissions associated with the season, but this is going to have a big impact on many people as well as ancillary effects such as the used car market in the Southeast.
 

lachlan

Member
Joined
11 Aug 2019
Messages
1,023
I fail to see how road charging based on emission standards could leave a more environmentally friendly impact. If someone or a company owns a vehicle that doesn't meet the new standards, they would have to replace that with a new (in this day and age, electric) vehicle, which we've already heard the environmental impact new vehicles cause.
It's more efficient to replace the LEZs with zonal Congestion Charges because that at least discourages car users from driving quite often.
I fail to see how road charging based on emission standards could leave a more environmentally friendly impact. If someone or a company owns a vehicle that doesn't meet the new standards, they would have to replace that with a new (in this day and age, electric) vehicle, which we've already heard the environmental impact new vehicles cause.
It's more efficient to replace the LEZs with zonal Congestion Charges because that at least discourages car users from driving quite often.
It is effective in reducing local emissions which are the most harmful from a health perspective. There will also be folks who choose not to replace their car and will switch to cycling and public transport. I also believe (though could be wrong) that the additional impact of manufacturing the electric car is more than offset by the reduced emissions when using it (in any country where electricity isn't 100% from coal)
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
104,383
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I support the idea but would have suggested introducing it in say 2026 or even 2030 would make more sense. You could do it by changing the LEZ criteria to the ULEZ ones and maybe even introducing a ZEZ (zero emission) in the present ULEZ area.

As things are this will kill a lot of small businesses which cannot replace vehicles at 9 months notice, and unlike car drivers a cheap old petrol isn't an option.
 

adamedwards

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2016
Messages
796
Sadiq Khan was re-elected on the basis that he would expand the ULEZ and won the election, so he has a democratic mandate for this. Across London many anti-cycling and Low Traffic Neighbourhood candidates stood and lost as residents like less pollution and less traffic, with councils like Barnet, Westminster and Wandsworth moving to Labour who have a platform of doing more active travel.

The current Twitter campaign by the Conservatives has some interesting statistics which show the expanded ULEZ is not popular with understandably people driving into London but makes no mention of the residents views at all, which is curious. I can only assume it didn't give them a number they wanted! There's no information either on the source of any of the stats (Taxi drivers? Conservative votes only?)

The other thing to note is the expanded ULEZ is part of the deal done with the Johnson govt on TfL funding, so 10 Downing St could have stopped this and chose not to.

Alternatives as to how you might achieve reductions in pollution welcomed. I'd personally like to see road user pricing right across London and then the rest of the UK replacing all vehicle duties enabling, for example, hight pricing at peak times so as to encourage less peaking, especially in the mornings. Plus more safe cycle routes and safer road crossings for people walking. Until I retired I commuted into Barnet by bicycle and aside from one TfL funded route there was nothing useful for cycling, indeed the previous Conservative council took out cycle lanes and bus lanes to "smooth the traffic flow" completely negated by the growth in the number of cars.
 

DC1989

Member
Joined
25 Mar 2022
Messages
553
Location
London
9 months notice? It's been talked about happening for ages and it's been clear it's gonna happen. People can't feign surprise at this.

They estimate there are only 100k cars that don't meet the requirements. Over the 16 outer London boroughs is roughly 6k per borough. 300k people per borough (roughly) . They are a extreme minority. A very vocal one of course but a minority nonetheless
 

greatkingrat

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2011
Messages
3,042
I think quite a few of the people complaining don't actually understand what the ULEZ is and think it is like the congestion charge. They think they are going to have to pay to drive every day, even though their car is actually compliant.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
25,066
Location
Bolton
I support the idea but would have suggested introducing it in say 2026 or even 2030 would make more sense. You could do it by changing the LEZ criteria to the ULEZ ones and maybe even introducing a ZEZ (zero emission) in the present ULEZ area.

As things are this will kill a lot of small businesses which cannot replace vehicles at 9 months notice, and unlike car drivers a cheap old petrol isn't an option.
Khan won re-election in May 2021. The implementation date of 29 August 2023 was announced this May. It's really not 9 months notice!

The Lez and Ulez restrictions apply to different classes of vehicles also.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
18,750
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Sadiq Khan was re-elected on the basis that he would expand the ULEZ and won the election, so he has a democratic mandate for this.

He has a mandate from London only. As far as I’m concerned, as someone who lives in what’s supposed to be the United Kingdom, how is this legitimate?

Personally I would have thought Khan’s attention would more fruitfully be focussed on tackling London’s problem of violent crime.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
25,066
Location
Bolton
A car sold new (meeting all UK regulations) only six years ago shouldn't be priced out of London next year.
Such a vehicle is essentially going to be excluded from most major cities countrywide, not only London, within a few years. There is simply no alternative route to meeting the 2024 emissions thresholds.

When inevitably the policies aren't put into place again to meet the targets, Client Earth will once again litigate against the government, and they will be once again forced into it.

Note that these air quality rules aren't really about "the environment" or climate change, though obviously those are heavily related. The rules are first and foremost about health.
 

XAM2175

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2016
Messages
3,468
Location
Glasgow
He has a mandate from London only. As far as I’m concerned, as someone who lives in what’s supposed to be the United Kingdom, how is this legitimate?
The new rules only apply in London, don't they?

Personally I would have thought Khan’s attention would more fruitfully be focussed on tackling London’s problem of violent crime.
Ah yes, because administrations can only focus on exactly one thing at any given time.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
8,165
Location
West Wiltshire
Correct - within the Greater London boundary only.

Strictly there are a few roads just inside, but near the boundary that are excluded.

An example is Hampton Court Road, which provides a route from M3 at Sunbury to Molesley without going over previously weight restricted Walton bridge (Walton bridge was rebuilt few years ago, but the truck LEZ boundary from GLC days never altered) and ULEZ just copied the historic exclusion
 

stuu

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2011
Messages
3,455
He has a mandate from London only. As far as I’m concerned, as someone who lives in what’s supposed to be the United Kingdom, how is this legitimate?
That's not functionally any different from a district council putting in a resident permit scheme. These schemes exist or will exist in the near future in many other cities, Bristol starts this month too. Are you are opposed to local councils having control of their own areas? Should everything be decided by Westminster instead, because that is the extension of your logic?
 

DC1989

Member
Joined
25 Mar 2022
Messages
553
Location
London
What was the point of the public consultation?
To provide feedback to help shape the policy? The feedback led to changing the scrappage scheme, giving disabled Londoners until 2026 to change their vehicle and improving bus services in outer London.

Also this was announced today

 

Speed43125

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2019
Messages
1,165
Location
Dunblane
To provide feedback to help shape the policy? The feedback led to changing the scrappage scheme, giving disabled Londoners until 2026 to change their vehicle and improving bus services in outer London.

Also this was announced today

For those unable to access the article:

Sadiq Khan is planning to roll out a “Singapore-style” network of toll roads across London once drivers have switched to electric vehicles.
The London mayor said that road pricing will be introduced to replace the congestion charge and levies for the Ultra-low emission zone (Ulez) that could use a network of cameras across the capital.
He told The Telegraph: “What we're looking into is smart road-user charging in the long distance, obviously we can't do that now because the technology is not there.
“The nearest comparator is Singapore. It has got a form of road pricing, but it's not too clunky for London.
“But what I want to do sometime in the future is for there to be technology that enables us to get rid of the congestion charge, get rid of the Ulez. And have a system whereby people are charged on a bespoke basis.”
In Singapore, sensors mounted on gantries over major roads track vehicles passing under them and charge an amount that varies based on time and location, with busy areas costing more to pass through at peak hours of travel. All vehicles which use the toll roads must be fitted with a device that communicates with the sensors.
The mayor’s remarks came as he expanded Ulez across all of the capital - which will include stinging drivers with an extra £12.50 for dropping off loved ones at Heathrow airport, even if they are not venturing any further into London.
The airport already has a £5 drop-off charge, taking the total cost to £17.50 per car if the vehicle does not meet certain emissions criteria.

Mr Khan defended putting Heathrow in his expanded Ulez zone, which will cover all of Greater London and lead to hundreds of thousands of motorists being levied with the charge.
Asked if he was embarking on a war against motorists, Mr Khan said: "Not at all. We've made sure this [Ulez] is not anti-car. This is not anti-people who need to get around our city in our vehicles; the electricians, the plumbers, the florists."
Nicholas Lyes, head of roads policy at the RAC, said the Ulez expansion will be "a hammer blow for desperate drivers and businesses already struggling with crippling fuel costs".
But in response, Mr Khan said: “If these groups cared so much about the drivers, they’d want people to be driving cleaner vehicles."
The Ulez has become the flagship policy of Mr Khan’s mayoralty. His book, "Breathe: Tackling the Climate Emergency", is due to be published in May.
He expanded Ulez to the north and south circular roads last autumn. The Greater London expansion, which will come into force on August 29, will bring the likes of Croydon, Romford and Chipping Barnet into a Ulez zone that will be within sight of Slough in the west and the Kent town of Sevenoaks.
Mr Khan defended forging ahead with Ulez expansion despite 60pc of respondents to a public consultation opposing it. Some 70pc of residents in Outer London were against the idea - and 80pc of Outer London workers were opposed.
Mr Khan said: “I didn't call a referendum; this was a consultation.”
However, Paul Scully, a government minister and Conservative MP for Sutton and Cheam, insisted the mayor should have cancelled the plans given the breadth of opposition.
He said: “The Mayor consulted, saying if there was 'overwhelming opposition' he wouldn't extend Ulez.
“Well, 70pc of outer Londoners don't want it; 80pc of business owners in outer London don't want it with the same level of opposition among people working in outer London."
The Ulez expansion follows the death of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah in 2013, a nine-year-old girl who was the first person to have air pollution listed as a cause of death following an asthma attack.
Mr Khan said: “The easy thing to do is to kick the can down the road. If you look at history - and I've studied it recently to refresh myself - in the 1950s, when you could see the smog, there were also people opposing the government to remove power stations from the heart of our city.
“We've seen four million Londoners breathe clean air. There's an additional five million in outer London. And the worst air quality is in outer London. A bigger number of premature deaths. A bigger number of people with respiratory issues. A bigger number of people with asthma, but also the top 10 boroughs with the largest number of deaths are in outer London.
“It's public health, frankly speaking, trumping political expediency.”
To encourage drivers to switch to electric vehicles, Mr Khan also announced a £110m scrappage scheme. This would offer grants for buying EVs or travelcards to those that scrap more polluting cars. Disabled drivers will be entitled to a grace period until 2027.
Mr Khan said any profits generated from the expansion of the Ulez would be used to build “an additional million kilometres of bus routes in outer London”.
 

Ediswan

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2012
Messages
3,271
Location
Stevenage

PeterC

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2014
Messages
4,393
In particular, those sections of the M25 inside the Greater London boundary have been excluded. Either by setting the ULEZ boundary slightly inside the Greater London boundary, or by an explicit exclusion (near North Ockendon).

There is a list here: https://www.mylondon.news/news/north-london-news/ulez-exact-roads-london-wont-25603253
That list looks more restrictive than the official map.


Looking at the north east corner the line on the map excludes the B175 from the county boundary to Havering-atte-Bower and some other peripheral roads giving rural properties charge free access into Essex. Looking across the map there are several other local exclusions not on the list.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
18,750
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
That's not functionally any different from a district council putting in a resident permit scheme. These schemes exist or will exist in the near future in many other cities, Bristol starts this month too. Are you are opposed to local councils having control of their own areas? Should everything be decided by Westminster instead, because that is the extension of your logic?

For something like ULEZ, yes I think it should be done by Westminster as a national policy. Firstly this is more accountable to the population as a whole, given that this essentially affects everyone. Secondly it avoids a patchwork of local policies and systems developing, which appears to be what is now happening.

Clean air isn’t really an issue that is local to specific cities, it can be a problem anywhere, so it’s rather counter-intuitive to have solutions on a parochial basis, where there’s likely to be too much influence from personality or party politics.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
104,383
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
For something like ULEZ, yes I think it should be done by Westminster as a national policy. Firstly this is more accountable to the population as a whole, given that this essentially affects everyone. Secondly it avoids a patchwork of local policies and systems developing, which appears to be what is now happening.

Clean air isn’t really an issue that is local to specific cities, it can be a problem anywhere, so it’s rather counter-intuitive to have solutions on a parochial basis, where there’s likely to be too much influence from personality or party politics.

I would agree, though as TfL has pioneered this using their definitions is probably the best approach.

There should be:

1. One single payment/enforcement mechanism nationally, with drivers able to sign up by credit/debit card/direct debit for automatic payment (not pre-pay like TfL does), and to be able to pay online by card and in PayPoint/PayZone shops using cash for any location. All road tolling should be included in this system too, e.g. Dartford and the M6 Toll plus the London C-charge and any other such charges. Parking companies using entry/exit ANPR encouraged to join too (e.g. LNR stations).

2. One small set of vehicle definitions nationally so people can be clear on what their vehicle is. I would suggest using LEZ (red), ULEZ (as per TfL, amber) and ZEZ (no internal combustion engine use at all, green).

3. Councils etc can apply for one of those definitions to apply to a given area and can set the daily charge and level of discount for residents of that area, which is automatically determined by the registered keeper's address of the car.

4. All signage must be nationally consistent including London, and must use the red, amber and green colours noted. I'd suggest using the "cloud" logo with L, U or Z on it plus the colour to make it very clear.

Primary legislation should be brought in to this end and implemented nationally including London. Khan's arm can always be twisted into it by building it into his next TfL funding settlement, though as it's very close to what he's doing anyway it should be acceptable to him.
 

stuu

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2011
Messages
3,455
For something like ULEZ, yes I think it should be done by Westminster as a national policy. Firstly this is more accountable to the population as a whole, given that this essentially affects everyone. Secondly it avoids a patchwork of local policies and systems developing, which appears to be what is now happening.

Clean air isn’t really an issue that is local to specific cities, it can be a problem anywhere, so it’s rather counter-intuitive to have solutions on a parochial basis, where there’s likely to be too much influence from personality or party politics.
Bletchleyite's principals posted above make complete sense to me, I agree that there should be one national standard for anything like this. But implementation (or not), should be down to local authorities. Air quality is quite dramatically different across the country - the DEFRA maps here show that. e.g. Birmingham is much worse than Manchester for particulates, so it could sensibly be argued that the issue is more pressing in Birmingham
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
20,840
Location
0035
As things are this will kill a lot of small businesses which cannot replace vehicles at 9 months notice, and unlike car drivers a cheap old petrol isn't an option.
Especially in a market where even for a basic, conventional fossil fuel powered car, you could be easily waiting all of that time if you ordered one today.

Looking at the north east corner the line on the map excludes the B175 from the county boundary to Havering-atte-Bower and some other peripheral roads giving rural properties charge free access into Essex. Looking across the map there are several other local exclusions not on the list.
I believe the expanded Ulez area is the same (or if not, it is very similar) having compared the maps for the as the current Low Emission Zone and the proposed Ulez extension.
 
Last edited:

XAM2175

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2016
Messages
3,468
Location
Glasgow
Bletchleyite's principals posted above make complete sense to me, I agree that there should be one national standard for anything like this. But implementation (or not), should be down to local authorities.
Yes, I agree on both points. Simple, standard, definitions applied centrally; but with local-level decisions on when and where they apply.

2. One small set of vehicle definitions nationally so people can be clear on what their vehicle is. I would suggest using LEZ (red), ULEZ (as per TfL, amber) and ZEZ (no internal combustion engine use at all, green).
I am surprised, however, to see no mention of the Umweltplakette system :p
(although it applies much lower standards than London does)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top