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

[annlodge12]

If you are unsure use the TfL checker:

Check your Vehicle

tfl.gov.uk

As all ULEZ's use the same criteria

I paid for my 2015 civic diesel to use in the terminal 5 area and it was accepted.
It's a great source for checking if you can use your vehicle in an ULEZ or not.
Also, be sure to check the TfL page regularly as rules may change over time. Thanks!

 

[MPW]

I am a massive lefty but also believe politicians should serve the whole electorate rather than being so swayed by their extremes. A simple way to reduce that affect would be to have people vote their top 3 choices at elections, giving 3 points for 1st choice, 2 for 2nd, and 1 for 3rd. This means people can vote their least worst option and parties would start moderating as tactic to get those 2nd place votes.

Specific to ULEZ and it's future, I feel a simple way of implementing road charging in GLA would be 'tolls' for driving through pinch points eg high streets or rail crossings. Suburban london is heavily divided by railways with few road over/under bridges. This creates a natural segmentation like was done in Ghent circulation plan. The further you drive, the more points you cross and the more you pay. This would obviously lots of studies into traffic flow impact to avoid rat running with either LTN style interventions or resident and access only roads. While expensive to implement, it would require fewer cameras than trying to do all roads in GLA and avoids privacy concerns of having vehicle GPS tracking.

Just an idea and sorry if wrong thread for it.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I am a massive lefty but also believe politicians should serve the whole electorate rather than being so swayed by their extremes. A simple way to reduce that affect would be to have people vote their top 3 choices at elections, giving 3 points for 1st choice, 2 for 2nd, and 1 for 3rd. This means people can vote their least worst option and parties would start moderating as tactic to get those 2nd place votes.

Specific to ULEZ and it's future, I feel a simple way of implementing road charging in GLA would be 'tolls' for driving through pinch points eg high streets or rail crossings. Suburban london is heavily divided by railways with few road over/under bridges. This creates a natural segmentation like was done in Ghent circulation plan. The further you drive, the more points you cross and the more you pay. This would obviously lots of studies into traffic flow impact to avoid rat running with either LTN style interventions or resident and access only roads. While expensive to implement, it would require fewer cameras than trying to do all roads in GLA and avoids privacy concerns of having vehicle GPS tracking.

Just an idea and sorry if wrong thread for it.

I think TfL have probably put the ULEZ cameras in strategic locations. Chossing junctions and other places (I suspect looking for ways round them). Probably takes more cameras than your idea but picks up a finer detail of where people have been. Basing it on just rail crossings and a few high streets would not pick up a lot of school runs for instance. Also I would be able to drive to central Croydon (which I don't do) and would not pick me up driving to the out of town shops (which i do do). So I should approve !.

 

[HOOVER29]

They really don't.

Just look at all those people driving around instead of walking, cycling, or catching a bus or train.

By us there only has to be a small cloud in the sky for all the school kids to be dropped off at school instead of walking

With 3 schools nearby by the roads can’t cope

 

[Peter Sarf]

By us there only has to be a small cloud in the sky for all the school kids to be dropped off at school instead of walking

With 3 schools nearby by the roads can’t cope

Need to lay on more school busses instead of being stingy. That way the kids might grow up used to public transport.

 

[jon81uk]

Need to lay on more school busses instead of being stingy. That way the kids might grow up used to public transport.

If it’s walkable there is no need for the bus. Kids should just be made to walk even if it’s raining!

 

[Peter Sarf]

If it’s walkable there is no need for the bus. Kids should just be made to walk even if it’s raining!

I know but the trouble is what we might call walkable the parents will want to drive as they are totally used to going in a car. At least if we can get the kids to walk to the bus stop we have progress. They then grow up knowing what a bus is. I know people who will drive just round the corner for a few groceries (even extra beer) and by the time they have found a space I could have walked it quicker. Those kind of people might never have used a bus in their lives or at least have no idea how to do it. Don't forget we are now so "advanced" people can get a McDonalds/Pizza delivered and use an Uber to go places I walk. We are a long way from ULEZ being the magic bullet as a reduction in unnecessary car use would do more to improve the air we breathe and address general pollution. OK ULEZ might mean some now will have better lungs but do they really need better lungs if they are obese and need to join a gym (that they probably drive to) ?.

 

[HOOVER29]

Need to lay on more school busses instead of being stingy. That way the kids might grow up used to public transport.

Don’t get me started on busses
29 miles from the second biggest city in the uk & no bus service there
15 miles from Derby - same
22 miles from Nottingham- ditto.

Our side of town, a town with around 15,000 occupants, has no bus service whatsoever

Meanwhile a 600 home estate being built the other side of town gets a bus route through it to save car journeys

 

[AM9]

Don’t get me started on busses
29 miles from the second biggest city in the uk & no bus service there
15 miles from Derby - same
22 miles from Nottingham- ditto.

So absolutely nothing to do with the ULEZ then.

 

[Krokodil]

I know but the trouble is what we might call walkable the parents will want to drive

The answer there is to make the streets surrounding the schools restricted zones. Prohibit most motor vehicles, except for blue badge holders and goods vehicles, and issue permits to residents. Would really improve safety on school streets.

 

[jon81uk]

I know but the trouble is what we might call walkable the parents will want to drive as they are totally used to going in a car. At least if we can get the kids to walk to the bus stop we have progress. They then grow up knowing what a bus is. I know people who will drive just round the corner for a few groceries (even extra beer) and by the time they have found a space I could have walked it quicker. Those kind of people might never have used a bus in their lives or at least have no idea how to do it. Don't forget we are now so "advanced" people can get a McDonalds/Pizza delivered and use an Uber to go places I walk. We are a long way from ULEZ being the magic bullet as a reduction in unnecessary car use would do more to improve the air we breathe and address general pollution. OK ULEZ might mean some now will have better lungs but do they really need better lungs if they are obese and need to join a gym (that they probably drive to) ?.

But for a primary school walkable is only going to be one or two bus stops, its not going to be worth running a school bus, yes if there is a public bus they should be encoraged to use it instead of the parents driving, but the emphasis should be on getting the parents out of the car. The comment you originally replied to was about parents who drive because there is a cloud in the sky, rather than risking their child walking in the rain. So in that example it is walkable, the children normally walk until there is a risk of bad weather, so its too close for a school bus service, the best (as mentioned above) would be just excluding cars from getting close to the school removing any advantage of driving to avoid the rain so those kids have to walk. Those who live further away would still get the bus, those who live closer can walk.

 

[Trainbike46]

I know but the trouble is what we might call walkable the parents will want to drive as they are totally used to going in a car. At least if we can get the kids to walk to the bus stop we have progress. They then grow up knowing what a bus is. I know people who will drive just round the corner for a few groceries (even extra beer) and by the time they have found a space I could have walked it quicker. Those kind of people might never have used a bus in their lives or at least have no idea how to do it. Don't forget we are now so "advanced" people can get a McDonalds/Pizza delivered and use an Uber to go places I walk. We are a long way from ULEZ being the magic bullet as a reduction in unnecessary car use would do more to improve the air we breathe and address general pollution. OK ULEZ might mean some now will have better lungs but do they really need better lungs if they are obese and need to join a gym (that they probably drive to) ?.

A solution for that implemented in a place where I used to live (so not Belfast), was to ban cars from an area a few streets around schools during both drop-off and pick-up times, that way, even parents who would drive would still have to walk anyway. it also kept cars away from most kids, so improved safety as well

Edinburgh used to have a "walking bus" scheme, which is another option to reduce the school run

 

[Peter Sarf]

But for a primary school walkable is only going to be one or two bus stops, its not going to be worth running a school bus, yes if there is a public bus they should be encoraged to use it instead of the parents driving, but the emphasis should be on getting the parents out of the car. The comment you originally replied to was about parents who drive because there is a cloud in the sky, rather than risking their child walking in the rain. So in that example it is walkable, the children normally walk until there is a risk of bad weather, so its too close for a school bus service, the best (as mentioned above) would be just excluding cars from getting close to the school removing any advantage of driving to avoid the rain so those kids have to walk. Those who live further away would still get the bus, those who live closer can walk.

I agree. Its a fine line as to where a bus becomes attractive or relevant. But I would say anything that gives an alternative to the car will help. Something has to change. When I was at infants school it was a school bus as too far to walk. Eventually the council opened a nearer primary school and as I started junior school hey presto I was within walking range. I do not recall ever getting a lift from either school (except to hospital !). I do not recall seeing other kids getting a lift. So back then we did not need a ULEZ. How do we get back to not needing a ULEZ ?. Is it possible ?.

 

[stuu]

I agree. Its a fine line as to where a bus becomes attractive or relevant. But I would say anything that gives an alternative to the car will help. Something has to change. When I was at infants school it was a school bus as too far to walk. Eventually the council opened a nearer primary school and as I started junior school hey presto I was within walking range. I do not recall ever getting a lift from either school (except to hospital !). I do not recall seeing other kids getting a lift. So back then we did not need a ULEZ. How do we get back to not needing a ULEZ ?. Is it possible ?.

The ULEZ is nothing to do with reducing traffic, it is entirely about emissions. Do you mean LTNs?

 

[The Ham]

The ULEZ is nothing to do with reducing traffic, it is entirely about emissions. Do you mean LTNs?

Reduce traffic and it reduces emissions, if the culture is that you walk, cycle or scoot to school, when you become an adult you're more likely to keep that culture and look to walk, cycle or scoot where you can rather than assuming that driving is how you get about.

We used to walk past a house (510m to the school gate) where the kids were driven every day, some days we'd see then getting in the car, they'd overtake us, and then we'd walk past them as the car was being parked - only for the parent to drive back home again.

We've since moved house, so the distance to school is now at least 1.3km (so about double what we were doing before), we still walk it as whilst it'll be marginally quicker to drive, not by enough to make it worth the effort. In fact quite a few who live near us do walk, so driving short distances isn't universal.

 

[jon0844]

But the point is, given most cars are ULEZ compliant, you might now be reducing congestion a little by having some cars not travel (but many might still travel, but stump up the £12.50) so it isn't about reducing traffic - just cleaner air.

LTNs are about encouraging people out of cars (not necessarily to get rid of cars, as some people seem to believe) and that will reduce congestion, as well as emissions AND possibly helping people become a little fitter.

 

[Dai Corner]

In an effort to get back on topic, do we think the £12.50 a day charge is reducing the number of parents driving their children to/from school?

 

[bramling]

Reduce traffic and it reduces emissions, if the culture is that you walk, cycle or scoot to school, when you become an adult you're more likely to keep that culture and look to walk, cycle or scoot where you can rather than assuming that driving is how you get about.

We used to walk past a house (510m to the school gate) where the kids were driven every day, some days we'd see then getting in the car, they'd overtake us, and then we'd walk past them as the car was being parked - only for the parent to drive back home again.

We've since moved house, so the distance to school is now at least 1.3km (so about double what we were doing before), we still walk it as whilst it'll be marginally quicker to drive, not by enough to make it worth the effort. In fact quite a few who live near us do walk, so driving short distances isn't universal.

Some people are just unbelievably lazy. In my road there’s at least two households (baby boom generation, of course) who quite simply are *never* seen leaving the house on foot, no matter where they’re going.

It doesn’t help that much new housing is set up for this. There’s a village near here that’s recently had loads of new housing built. The only two services in the village are a small primary school, and a tiny village shop which sells little more than the bare essentials and is only open in the daytime. One can only wonder how many extra car journeys this new housing has generated. Certainly the road which leads to the village used to be a pleasantly quiet lane to cycle down, and is now conspicuously busier, so thanks to the powers that be for spoiling that.

 

[AM9]

Some people are just unbelievably lazy. In my road there’s at least two households (baby boom generation, of course) who quite simply are *never* seen leaving the house on foot, no matter where they’re going.

Members of the 'baby boom' generation are now at least 59 years old so there may be many reasons why they don't (or can't) walk more than a couple of hundred meters. I'm all for supporting walkers, but recognise that health issues rather than being "unbelievably lazy", may push older adults into driving distances that much younger drivers definitely don't need to drive.

 

[bramling]

Members of the 'baby boom' generation are now at least 59 years old so there may be many reasons why they don't (or can't) walk more than a couple of hundred meters. I'm all for supporting walkers, but recognise that health issues rather than being "unbelievably lazy", may push older adults into driving distances that much younger drivers definitely don't need to drive.

Not going to disagree with your general point, however elements of this generation have been like this all their lives, so we really can’t just put this down to poor physical health. Indeed there may well be an element of cause/effect.

 

[renegademaster]

Some people are just unbelievably lazy. In my road there’s at least two households (baby boom generation, of course) who quite simply are *never* seen leaving the house on foot, no matter where they’re going.

It doesn’t help that much new housing is set up for this. There’s a village near here that’s recently had loads of new housing built. The only two services in the village are a small primary school, and a tiny village shop which sells little more than the bare essentials and is only open in the daytime. One can only wonder how many extra car journeys this new housing has generated. Certainly the road which leads to the village used to be a pleasantly quiet lane to cycle down, and is now conspicuously busier, so thanks to the powers that be for spoiling that.

How easy would it be for a proper small sized supermarket (like a co op or a spar) to get planning permission ? That's probably more of the cause

 

[AM9]

Not going to disagree with your general point, however elements of this generation have been like this all their lives, so we really can’t just put this down to poor physical health. Indeed there may well be an element of cause/effect.

Those that don't have a problem are in effect the predecessors of the '40 somethings' that are driving rather than walking today.

 

[jon0844]

In an effort to get back on topic, do we think the £12.50 a day charge is reducing the number of parents driving their children to/from school?

Not to any significant degree.

 

[greyman42]

The ULEZ is nothing to do with reducing traffic, it is entirely about emissions.

It's entirely about fleecing the motorist to try and cover up Khan's financial mismanagement of TfL.

 

[jon81uk]

It's entirely about fleecing the motorist to try and cover up Khan's financial mismanagement of TfL.

Nope. TfL don't expect to have any income from it in 2027 as motorists move to less polluting vehicles. So yes short-term there is income but its not a plan to manage TfL.

Also the financial issues at TfL stem from the government insisting that fare revenue must pay for everything TfL does, including road management, then the pandemic causing large reductions in fare revenue. Same would have happened if there was a different mayor. Now that ridership has improved again following the pandemic, TfL is now making a surplus again.

 

[jon0844]

It's entirely about fleecing the motorist to try and cover up Khan's financial mismanagement of TfL.

Not a very good way of doing it, any more than installing average speed cameras at great cost and then everyone complies and you make no money! There are obvious benefits from ULEZ, or speed management (not that I believe all speed limits are appropriately set, but that's a different argument) and making loads of money just isn't it.

Fleecing motorists would be expanding the congestion zone and making it 24 hours.

 

[HOOVER29]

So absolutely nothing to do with the ULEZ then.

Another veteran member

 

[AM9]

Another veteran member

Still nothing to do with ULEZ, or anything else in this thread.

 

[GusB]

It's entirely about fleecing the motorist to try and cover up Khan's financial mismanagement of TfL.

There are plans to introduce ULEZ schemes in cities other than London, so how do you explain them? You can't blame Khan for them all, surely.

 

[greyman42]

There are plans to introduce ULEZ schemes in cities other than London, so how do you explain them? You can't blame Khan for them all, surely.

No i don't blame Khan for ULEZ in other cities, but it is still about fleecing the motorist in these cities.