ULEZ Expansion (and being forced into changing cars).

[richw]

TfL talk about a daily charge if your vehicle breaches the standard so....

Ultra Low Emission Zone

Within the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) in central London vehicles must meet exhaust emission standards or their drivers need to pay to drive within the zone

tfl.gov.uk

But you only get a bill if you pass an enforcement camera whilst driving each day. If you know the location of every camera and avoid them, then no you won’t get billed.

 

[Starmill]

I really don’t have a problem with that at all if it reduces air pollution and helps stop 1000s of folk dying every year of respiratory illnesses caused by air pollution. Obviously there maybe other issues, such as moving the air pollution from one built up area to another (has this been shown to happen and if so what are the consequences), but fundamentally if these clean air zones are reducing pollution and stopping people dying they are working. Would it be better to improve public transport alongside them-absolutely. But I’m unconvinced that the money spent on them would stretch far enough to provide any significant public transport benefits if it was spent on that instead.

I agree with you in principle but given all the other benefits of public transport, especially that it's more capacity-efficient and that people too old/young or medically not able to drive can also use it, I think that the clean air plan schemes should all be going hand in hand with proper capital spending on public transport, and narrow universal congestion charging zones around major centres.

 

[GS250]

It's more economical for me to get a used car (even if it may be slightly older than my current one) which is compliant (Doesn't have to be a BMW X5 or a V8...but I want one)

Prepare for small pools of oil over your driveway over time then. After 60k or so these things leak oil like no mans business!

Indeed, a lot of the bus cost inflation in the last 20 years is down to needing to run more buses due to increased delays from the extra traffic.

If you want to be entirely selfish (in terms of being able to drive) you'd want as many other people not driving as possible. As then you'd be able to drive about much more easily with far fewer delays.

The problem is that this doesn't fit with our inbuilt logic that you like people like yourself, so you don't want to be different from others (even if it's better for you).

Also...I'd like to see an independent review of bus lanes and whether they actually speed up bus journeys. The predictable slowdown of all traffic when it approaches the bus lane, 2 lanes into 1 surely takes away from the bus lane? Or are they there for other reasons than simple speed?

 

[Wolfie]

But you only get a bill if you pass an enforcement camera whilst driving each day. If you know the location of every camera and avoid them, then no you won’t get billed.

You assume that all cameras are in fixed locations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Also...I'd like to see an independent review of bus lanes and whether they actually speed up bus journeys. The predictable slowdown of all traffic when it approaches the bus lane, 2 lanes into 1 surely takes away from the bus lane? Or are they there for other reasons than simple speed?

Of course they do, though they're not always well designed in the UK. Typically you need them to be the length of the anticipated car queue after installation.

 

[The Ham]

Also...I'd like to see an independent review of bus lanes and whether they actually speed up bus journeys. The predictable slowdown of all traffic when it approaches the bus lane, 2 lanes into 1 surely takes away from the bus lane? Or are they there for other reasons than simple speed?

Generally any review sites that they do bring benefits (if they didn't they would be removed).

One such review can be found here:

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://democracy.derby.gov.uk/CMIS5/Document.ashx%3FczJKcaeAi5tUFL1DTL2UE4zNRBcoShgo%3DHcKUtW9UCduglG3QwYUlf2jXXidOhBeRlw7sYwEqLQ0U5sw%252BxipFoA%253D%253D%26mCTIbCubSFfXsDGW9IXnlg%253D%253D%3DhFflUdN3100%253D%26kCx1AnS9%252FpWZQ40DXFvdEw%253D%253D%3DhFflUdN3100%253D%26uJovDxwdjMPoYv%252BAJvYtyA%253D%253D%3DctNJFf55vVA%253D%26FgPlIEJYlotS%252BYGoBi5olA%253D%253D%3DNHdURQburHA%253D%26d9Qjj0ag1Pd993jsyOJqFvmyB7X0CSQK%3DctNJFf55vVA%253D%26WGewmoAfeNR9xqBux0r1Q8Za60lavYmz%3DctNJFf55vVA%253D%26WGewmoAfeNQ16B2MHuCpMRKZMwaG1PaO%3DctNJFf55vVA%253D&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiy9-WZt738AhXPVsAKHXYcDHQQFnoECAoQAg&usg=AOvVaw3n73aW6zwQAuy9H5AGycFF

The time savings for buses start at just over 1 minute, bit do go quite a bit higher.

Whilst that may not sound much the report also lists that it results in many more trips by bus each year (presumably due to the extra delays to general traffic).

 

[dastocks]

I understand Croydon, Harrow and Hillingdon have refused to sign up to the ULEZ and will refuse planning permission to install enforcement cameras, this will create a big hole in the ULEZ scheme.

A lot of roads already have the cameras because they are being used to to enforce the LEZ, which has the same boundaries as the extended ULEZ. TfL may want to install additional cameras on minor roads, and there will be some roads that can be blocked altogether at/near the zone boundary, creating a 'Low Traffic Neighbourhood' and forcing vehicles to enter/exit the zone passing the cameras on a nearby major road. I think TfL have pretty wide ranging powers over the roads that they control so they can probably cover most gaps without having to get planning permission to install cameras on roads controlled by the boroughs.

 

[The exile]

Generally any review sites that they do bring benefits (if they didn't they would be removed).

One such review can be found here:

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://democracy.derby.gov.uk/CMIS5/Document.ashx%3FczJKcaeAi5tUFL1DTL2UE4zNRBcoShgo%3DHcKUtW9UCduglG3QwYUlf2jXXidOhBeRlw7sYwEqLQ0U5sw%252BxipFoA%253D%253D%26mCTIbCubSFfXsDGW9IXnlg%253D%253D%3DhFflUdN3100%253D%26kCx1AnS9%252FpWZQ40DXFvdEw%253D%253D%3DhFflUdN3100%253D%26uJovDxwdjMPoYv%252BAJvYtyA%253D%253D%3DctNJFf55vVA%253D%26FgPlIEJYlotS%252BYGoBi5olA%253D%253D%3DNHdURQburHA%253D%26d9Qjj0ag1Pd993jsyOJqFvmyB7X0CSQK%3DctNJFf55vVA%253D%26WGewmoAfeNR9xqBux0r1Q8Za60lavYmz%3DctNJFf55vVA%253D%26WGewmoAfeNQ16B2MHuCpMRKZMwaG1PaO%3DctNJFf55vVA%253D&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiy9-WZt738AhXPVsAKHXYcDHQQFnoECAoQAg&usg=AOvVaw3n73aW6zwQAuy9H5AGycFF

The time savings for buses start at just over 1 minute, bit do go quite a bit higher.

Whilst that may not sound much the report also lists that it results in many more trips by bus each year (presumably due to the extra delays to general traffic).

Not to mention the psychological effect of buses moving faster than the rest of the traffic, even if the actual time saving is minimal.

 

[paul1609]

Euro 6 reduces NOx from Euro 5. It's both of those.

The reduced particulates appears to have come with Euro 5b, so not all Euro 5 cars would comply with that.

Euro 5a for new diesel vehicles was introduced in 2009. 5b in 2011, 6 in 2016.
Nearly all vehicles sold in 2009 to 11 were already 5b (reduced particulates) compliant.
12 years later Id imagine that 5a only not 5b could be counted on one hand.

 

[Noddy]

I agree with you in principle but given all the other benefits of public transport, especially that it's more capacity-efficient and that people too old/young or medically not able to drive can also use it, I think that the clean air plan schemes should all be going hand in hand with proper capital spending on public transport, and narrow universal congestion charging zones around major centres.

As I said I don’t disagree that ‘proper’ (to quote you) capital expenditure should be spent on public transport schemes as well. In London billions has been spent on Public transport improvements and cycling initiatives etc.

But what about other areas. Take Bradford for example, which recently introduced a zone for commercial vehicles. What would you do? Options for the rail system are extremely limited-I don’t think there are many places new stations could be added on the two existing lines, while you might be able to increase frequencies slightly this would have a very marginal benefit to airpollution. Perhaps money could be spent on electrification of the Interchange route but again how much of an improvement would this actually make to local air pollution? A tram network (or new heavy rail) would cost hundreds of millions and is basically out of the question. That basically leaves improvements to the bus network and adding bike lanes. There is already a guided busway (along Manchester Road) so you might be able to expand this but the easy stuff on that route has been done. Bradford is not an ideal city for bikes because to the topography (there are not many easy level routes apart from Thornton Road, and out to Shipley), but I’m sure some routes could be created. But how much would all this cost vs how much would pollution be reduced?

I’m not saying money shouldn’t be spent on public transport. It should. But something that seems to be repeatedly missed on this thread in all the discourse about whether they are profit making mechanisms (or not) for local councils is that thousands of people are dying of respiratory illnesses related to air pollution and in the 21st century this should not be happening. The fact is many public transport improvements require central government funding. By creating low emission zones local councils can at least make an attempt to protect their citizens.

Perhaps the biggest mistake is misselling it as a ‘congestion’ charge rather than a ‘pollution’ charge.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps the biggest mistake is misselling it as a ‘congestion’ charge rather than a ‘pollution’ charge.

They are two separate charges. The Congestion Charge is just that. The LEZ/ULEZ are pollution charges.

 

[Noddy]

They are two separate charges. The Congestion Charge is just that. The LEZ/ULEZ are pollution charges.

That’s kind the point of the statement-people (not helped by the media, internet etc, see below*) conflate the original congestion charges in Durham and central London with everything else. All other charges are about reducing pollution which everyone should be in favour of because these zones help to save lives, even if it means people changing their habits or car (as the thread was created to discuss) to avoid paying.



*https://www.warrantywise.co.uk/blog/which-uk-towns-and-cities-will-have-to-pay-a-congestion-charge

WHICH UK TOWNS AND CITIES WILL HAVE TO PAY A CONGESTION CHARGE?​

Whilst other headlines have overshadowed environmental plans, the government is still very much set on their Net Zero Strategy: Build Back Greener. This strategy sets out policies and proposals for decarbonising all sectors of the UK economy to meet an ambitious net-zero target by 2050. One of the main ways they plan to achieve this is through rolling out congestion charges across the UK.

Drivers across the UK are being forced to check whether they will face a daily pollution charge as more zones are rolled out in a bid to reduce air pollution. One of the first cities to implement the changes was London. Due to the success of the scheme, they are widening the zone, resulting in thousands being forced to pay a fee.

Which UK cities and towns are included in the clean air zone schemes?​

As the plan is rolled out things may change, however, here is the current list of towns and cities where the clean air schemes will be rolled out.

LONDON CONGESTION CHARGE - Introduced (expanded on 25 October 2021)​

What is it: Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) charging older petrol and diesel vehicles in the capital.

When is it going to be introduced: Enforced in the Congestion Charge Zone from 8 April 2019 - expanded 18 times in size to inner London on 25 October 2021.

Vehicles charged: Buses, coaches, taxis (registered black cabs exempt), private hire vehicles (PHVs), heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), light goods vehicles (LGVs) and car drivers.

Cost to car drivers: £12.50 daily charge if a diesel car isn't Euro 6 or petrol isn't at least Euro.

BATH CONGESTION CHARGE - Introduced​

What is it: The first Clean Air Zone (CAZ) to be introduced outside of London - but does not charge car drivers.

When is it going to be introduced: Enforced from 15 March 2021.

Vehicles charged: Buses, coaches, taxis, PHVs, HGVs and LGVs

Cost to car drivers: Zero

BIRMINGHAM CONGESTION CHARGE - Introduced​

What is it: A daily Clean Air Zone (CAZ) charge for drivers of older petrol and diesel cars to enter the limits of the city ring road.

When is it going to be introduced: Enforced from 1 June 2021

Vehicles charged: Buses, coaches, taxis, PHVs, HGVs LGVs and car drivers.

Cost to car drivers: £8 daily charge if a diesel car isn't Euro 6 or petrol isn't at least Euro 4.

PORTSMOUTH CONGESTION CHARGE - Introduced​

What is it: Clean Air Zone (CAZ) to sting incoming vehicles but not car drivers.

When is it going to be introduced: 29 November 2021.

Vehicles charged: Buses, coaches, taxis, PHVs and HGVs.

Cost to car drivers: Zero

OXFORD CONGESTION CHARGE - Introduced​

When is it going to be introduced: The pilot scheme is due to go live in February 2022.

What is it: First Zero Emission Zone (ZEZ) to be piloted that charges all but electric vehicles to enter 8 city centre streets.

Vehicles charged: All drivers of vehicles with petrol, diesel or hybrid vehicles.

Cost to car drivers: £2 - £10 daily charge

BRADFORD CONGESTION CHARGE - Due January 2022 - On hold until Spring 2022​

What is it: Clean Air Zone (CAZ) that does not charge car drivers.

When is it going to be introduced: 5 January 2022 - Now on hold until Spring

Vehicles charged: Buses, coaches, taxis, PHVs, HGVs and LGVs.

Cost to car drivers: Zero

ABERDEEN, DUNDEE, EDINBURGH AND GLASGOW CONGESTION CHARGE - Due Spring 2022 ​

What is it: Low Emission Zones (LEZ) banning older petrol and diesel vehicles.

When is it going to be introduced: Spring 2022 but not enforced until 2024.

Vehicles charged: Buses, coaches, taxis, PHVs, HGVs LGVs and car drivers.

Cost to car drivers: Penalty Charge Notice of £60 (reduced by 50% if paid within 2 weeks) for non-compliant cars.

MANCHESTER CONGESTION CHARGE - Due 30 May 2022​

What is it: Clean Air Zone (CAZ) for Greater Manchester, Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford, Wigan.

When is it going to be introduced: 30 May 2022.

Vehicles charged: Buses, coaches, taxis, PHVs, HGVs and LGVs.

Cost to car drivers: Zero

NEWCASTLE CONGESTION CHARGE - Due July 2022​

What is it: Clean Air Zone (CAZ) in Newcastle city centre but also Gateshead and North Tyneside - but not charge car drivers.

When is it going to be introduced: July 2022

Vehicles charged: Buses, coaches, taxis, PHVs, HGVs and LGVs.

Cost to car drivers: Zero

BRISTOL CONGESTION CHARGE - Due summer 2022​

What is it: Clean Air Zone (CAZ) charging drivers of older passenger cars who travel in the zone.

When is it going to be introduced: Summer 2022

Vehicles charged: Buses, coaches, taxis, PHVs, HGVs LGVs and car drivers.

Cost to car drivers: £9 daily charge if a diesel car isn't Euro 6 or petrol isn't at least Euro 4.

SHEFFIELD CONGESTION CHARGE - Due late 2022​

What is it: An inner-city Clean Air Zone (CAZ) targeted at the dirtiest vehicles - but not cars.

When is it going to be introduced: Proposed for late 2022.

Vehicles charged: Buses, coaches, taxis, PHVs, HGVs and LGVs.

Cost to car drivers: Zero

LIVERPOOL CONGESTION CHARGE - Due 2022/2023​

What is it: A proposed Clean Air Zone (CAZ) with no clear plans yet in place.

When is it going to be introduced: Proposed for the financial year 2022-23.

Vehicles charged: Unconfirmed

Cost to car drivers: Unconfirmed

Congestion charge zone checker ​

If the scheme has been introduced in your city and you are wondering if you will need to pay a charge, you can use the government’s congestion charge zone checker, here. For London, specifically, you can find out how much you’ll need to pay on the London Transport website, here.

 

[tomuk]

All other charges are about reducing pollution which everyone should be in favour of because these zones help to save lives, even if it means people changing their habits or car (as the thread was created to discuss) to avoid paying.

I'd would like to see some evidence of them saving lives. The Birmingham ULEZ is raising very little money and has only slightly reduced the level of non compliant vehicles as most were already compliant. So the actual effect on people health is likely very small or negligible and won't be saving any lives as air pollution isn't directly killing anyone anyway merely reducing their life expectancy by a small amount just as many other factors do too.

 

[Noddy]

I'd would like to see some evidence of them saving lives. The Birmingham ULEZ is raising very little money and has only slightly reduced the level of non compliant vehicles as most were already compliant. So the actual effect on people health is likely very small or negligible and won't be saving any lives as air pollution isn't directly killing anyone anyway merely reducing their life expectancy by a small amount just as many other factors do too.

Well it depends what you call directly killing. If the birth defect in your respiratory system, your lung cancer, the asthma that was caused by air pollution kills you, or you are killed by an asthma attack triggered by air pollution personally I’d call that pretty direct. It’s like saying smoking doesn’t directly kill you.

There is plenty of evidence that clean air zones help reduce air pollution. Initial results from Birmingham show falls across the city compared to 2019 and 2020 even though one of the comparator years was 2020 when there was virtually no traffic because of covid*.

And more importantly if clean air zones are proven not to reduce pollution (or they just move the problem elsewhere) I would be the first to say remove them. But that’s not going to happen because it’s obvious they will help reduce air pollution. The original post of this thread was pointing out how the author was having to change an old dirty diesel for something cleaner.

*https://www.centreforcities.org/blog/is-birminghams-clean-air-zone-hurting-its-city-centre/

 

[tomuk]

Well it depends what you call directly killing. If the birth defect in your respiratory system, your lung cancer, the asthma that was caused by air pollution kills you, or you are killed by an asthma attack triggered by air pollution personally I’d call that pretty direct. It’s like saying smoking doesn’t directly kill you.

But where is your evidence that these disease are caused by air pollution to the extant you seem to believe? Cancer research UK say is 10 times more likely to cause lung cancer then air pollution although the air pollution isn't purely from vehicles and the concern is particulates rather than NOx. Air pollution does have an effect on health but thousands as you put aren't dying from it every year rather length if life is being effected by varying degrees.

There is plenty of evidence that clean air zones help reduce air pollution. Initial results from Birmingham show falls across the city compared to 2019 and 2020 even though one of the comparator years was 2020 when there was virtually no traffic because of covid*.

And more importantly if clean air zones are proven not to reduce pollution (or they just move the problem elsewhere) I would be the first to say remove them. But that’s not going to happen because it’s obvious they will help reduce air pollution. The original post of this thread was pointing out how the author was having to change an old dirty diesel for something cleaner.

*https://www.centreforcities.org/blog/is-birminghams-clean-air-zone-hurting-its-city-centre/

The article you linked to goes back to analysis of a three month period after the introduction of the Birmingham ULEZ. It showed some falls of NOx at monitoring stations in the zone but is a short three month period long enough to give a true picture? For example it shows a 13% reduction in Colmore Row, is 13% significant? 87% of the pollution is still there. And is it down to the ULEZ? There have been ongoing pedestrianisation\public ream works in the area reducing traffic and of course the population of higher pollution vehicles continues to fall as new cars are bought. The same analysis also showed that there was an increase in NOX outside the zone as vehicles were now using alternative routes.

 

[Trainbike46]

But where is your evidence that these disease are caused by air pollution to the extant you seem to believe? Cancer research UK say is 10 times more likely to cause lung cancer then air pollution although the air pollution isn't purely from vehicles and the concern is particulates rather than NOx. Air pollution does have an effect on health but thousands as you put aren't dying from it every year rather length if life is being effected by varying degrees.

Air pollution (both particulates and NOx) are well documented to contribute to a wide range of illnesses.

you helpfully forget that air pollution doesn't just kill people, but also reduces quality of life, through things like increasing ashtma, and dementia

And, upthread there was the wel-established case of a young girl dying due to air pollution. Air pollution is a serious crisis that is killing people and reducing quality of life. This is well established in the scientific literature and reported on in various media (though the quality of coverage does vary).

The article you linked to goes back to analysis of a three month period after the introduction of the Birmingham ULEZ. It showed some falls of NOx at monitoring stations in the zone but is a short three month period long enough to give a true picture? For example it shows a 13% reduction in Colmore Row, is 13% significant? 87% of the pollution is still there. And is it down to the ULEZ? There have been ongoing pedestrianisation\public ream works in the area reducing traffic and of course the population of higher pollution vehicles continues to fall as new cars are bought. The same analysis also showed that there was an increase in NOX outside the zone as vehicles were now using alternative routes.

It is only right that ULEZ zones are used as part of a broader package of measures. 13% is quite a big drop in pollution levels. you would expect the reduction to get larger over time, as more people change out their high-pollution vehicles (some people may be waiting for a delayed car they have on order, for example).

 

[The Ham]

But where is your evidence that these disease are caused by air pollution to the extant you seem to believe? Cancer research UK say is 10 times more likely to cause lung cancer then air pollution although the air pollution isn't purely from vehicles and the concern is particulates rather than NOx. Air pollution does have an effect on health but thousands as you put aren't dying from it every year rather length if life is being effected by varying degrees.

The article you linked to goes back to analysis of a three month period after the introduction of the Birmingham ULEZ. It showed some falls of NOx at monitoring stations in the zone but is a short three month period long enough to give a true picture? For example it shows a 13% reduction in Colmore Row, is 13% significant? 87% of the pollution is still there. And is it down to the ULEZ? There have been ongoing pedestrianisation\public ream works in the area reducing traffic and of course the population of higher pollution vehicles continues to fall as new cars are bought. The same analysis also showed that there was an increase in NOX outside the zone as vehicles were now using alternative routes.

The goal is to be below 40 micrograms per cubic meter.

As such a 13% fall would mean that a level of 45.9 before is now just below that threshold. As such whilst the fall still leaves a fair amount of pollution lingering, it's at a level which is deemed acceptable.

However the other thing to note is that reaching 0 is unlikely (even in rural areas) and so isn't a realistic target. However it's probably too complex to explain that, so the value of 0 is used.

The higher rates outside the zone are unfortunate, however what's bit said is what those values are. For instance of they were 38 before a 5% increase would still have the value at below 40.

 

[tomuk]

The goal is to be below 40 micrograms per cubic meter.

As such a 13% fall would mean that a level of 45.9 before is now just below that threshold. As such whilst the fall still leaves a fair amount of pollution lingering, it's at a level which is deemed acceptable.

However the other thing to note is that reaching 0 is unlikely (even in rural areas) and so isn't a realistic target. However it's probably too complex to explain that, so the value of 0 is used.

The higher rates outside the zone are unfortunate, however what's bit said is what those values are. For instance of they were 38 before a 5% increase would still have the value at below 40.

I believe the EU targets are as follows
annual average levels of the gas to be below 40 µg m-3.

Hourly levels must also not exceed 200 µgm-3 more than 18 times in a calendar year.

These targets are just targets though and are be definition quite arbitrary 39 isn't safe while 41 is dangerous

On the Birmingham ULEZ I'm not sure with the preliminary data it can be deemed a success or otherwise From the BCC Six Month report https://www.brumbreathes.co.uk/down...onth-report-for-birmingham-clean-air-zone.pdf

	2016 to 2021	2019 to 2020	2019 to 2021	2020 to 2021
Clean Air Zone	-42%	-15%	-13%	+2%

So during the five year period, of which the ULEZ was only in force for sixth months, there was a 42% fall in NOX and in the year the ULEZ has been in force there is actually a 2% increase. On that basis I would suggest that the changes in NOX are based more on the general improvement in vehicle emissions and the change in travel patterns due to covid rather than any effect of the ULEZ.

 

[Noddy]

But where is your evidence that these disease are caused by air pollution to the extant you seem to believe? Cancer research UK say is 10 times more likely to cause lung cancer then air pollution although the air pollution isn't purely from vehicles and the concern is particulates rather than NOx. Air pollution does have an effect on health but thousands as you put aren't dying from it every year rather length if life is being effected by varying degrees.

I find it quite tragic that this kind of attitude still persists. Have we learnt nothing in the last 200 years since we started burning fossil fuels? Just because (most*) people have not had their cause of death listed as air pollution doesn’t mean it hasn’t killed (probably 100s of) thousands of people since the Industrial Revolution began, and it doesn’t mean it isn’t killing people today.


* As @Trainbike46 points out Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah was the first person in the UK to actually have air pollution listed as their cause of death. She lived near the South Circular in London. She was nine when she died.

 

[The Ham]

I believe the EU targets are as follows
annual average levels of the gas to be below 40 µg m-3.

Hourly levels must also not exceed 200 µgm-3 more than 18 times in a calendar year.

These targets are just targets though and are be definition quite arbitrary 39 isn't safe while 41 is dangerous

On the Birmingham ULEZ I'm not sure with the preliminary data it can be deemed a success or otherwise From the BCC Six Month report https://www.brumbreathes.co.uk/down...onth-report-for-birmingham-clean-air-zone.pdf

	2016 to 2021	2019 to 2020	2019 to 2021	2020 to 2021
Clean Air Zone	-42%	-15%	-13%	+2%

So during the five year period, of which the ULEZ was only in force for sixth months, there was a 42% fall in NOX and in the year the ULEZ has been in force there is actually a 2% increase. On that basis I would suggest that the changes in NOX are based more on the general improvement in vehicle emissions and the change in travel patterns due to covid rather than any effect of the ULEZ.

The ULEZ only enforces improvements in vehicle emissions, so the fact that you state that as one of the reasons that there's benefits highlights that it's doing it's job.

This is shown in the data, as if you look at the numbers of compliant vehicles in all categories (except buses and coaches) the numbers have improved.

 

[DC1989]

Air quality in outer London is now worse than inner London isn't it? So only natural for this to be extended

Re - councils refusing to let TFL install cameras, TFL have the legal powers to do it anyway, it's just sabre rattling from those councils. Most of the conservative run councils like to blame TFL for all sorts publicly whilst privately holding out the begging bowl for money from them

 

[geoffk]

The latest Transport Times report suggests that the UK Govt is rowing back on its targets and relying on technological fix (e.g. electric cars) rather than lifestyle change (less car use and flying). It even suggests it's reluctant to antagonise the car lobby! (surely not).

Transport Times Events | News/Blog | Net zero policy hits a new low

Claire Haigh, Founder & CEO Greener Vision publishes her consulation on tackling the climate crisis which will run over the summer.

www.transporttimes.co.uk

 

[matacaster]

As I said I don’t disagree that ‘proper’ (to quote you) capital expenditure should be spent on public transport schemes as well. In London billions has been spent on Public transport improvements and cycling initiatives etc.

But what about other areas. Take Bradford for example, which recently introduced a zone for commercial vehicles. What would you do? Options for the rail system are extremely limited-I don’t think there are many places new stations could be added on the two existing lines, while you might be able to increase frequencies slightly this would have a very marginal benefit to airpollution. Perhaps money could be spent on electrification of the Interchange route but again how much of an improvement would this actually make to local air pollution? A tram network (or new heavy rail) would cost hundreds of millions and is basically out of the question. That basically leaves improvements to the bus network and adding bike lanes. There is already a guided busway (along Manchester Road) so you might be able to expand this but the easy stuff on that route has been done. Bradford is not an ideal city for bikes because to the topography (there are not many easy level routes apart from Thornton Road, and out to Shipley), but I’m sure some routes could be created. But how much would all this cost vs how much would pollution be reduced?

I’m not saying money shouldn’t be spent on public transport. It should. But something that seems to be repeatedly missed on this thread in all the discourse about whether they are profit making mechanisms (or not) for local councils is that thousands of people are dying of respiratory illnesses related to air pollution and in the 21st century this should not be happening. The fact is many public transport improvements require central government funding. By creating low emission zones local councils can at least make an attempt to protect their citizens.

Perhaps the biggest mistake is misselling it as a ‘congestion’ charge rather than a ‘pollution’ charge.

The route to Shipley is flat, but that up Thornton Road is a pretty continuous incline up to denholme.
There were quite a number of rail lines which served the Bradford area. One up Thornton to Halifax, line properly serving Pudsey, line through fagley, eccleshill on way to Shipley, Huddersfield via Brighouse Cleckheaton etc + others a bit farther out. All closed by Both parties. They had intermediate stations, but insufficient footfall and we're usually fairly slow and infrequent. Reopening of most is impossible due to building, infilling

 

[341o2]

Prepare for small pools of oil over your driveway over time then. After 60k or so these things leak oil like no mans business!

Mine is approaching 20 years old, nearly double the mileage, and doesn't leak a drop

 

[Bletchleyite]

The latest Transport Times report suggests that the UK Govt is rowing back on its targets and relying on technological fix (e.g. electric cars) rather than lifestyle change (less car use and flying). It even suggests it's reluctant to antagonise the car lobby! (surely not).

Transport Times Events | News/Blog | Net zero policy hits a new low

Claire Haigh, Founder & CEO Greener Vision publishes her consulation on tackling the climate crisis which will run over the summer.

www.transporttimes.co.uk

ULEZ has basically nothing to do with carbon, it's about increasing urban air quality. Certainly electric cars help (as does switching from a 10 year old diesel to a 10 year old petrol) but it'll be a long time before even most cars are electric so other actions are needed.

Carbon reduction is pretty much entirely separate.

 

[GS250]

Mine is approaching 20 years old, nearly double the mileage, and doesn't leak a drop

What model E39?

ULEZ has basically nothing to do with carbon, it's about increasing urban air quality. Certainly electric cars help (as does switching from a 10 year old diesel to a 10 year old petrol) but it'll be a long time before even most cars are electric so other actions are needed.

Carbon reduction is pretty much entirely separate.

You do that properly by heavily reducing population density. Funnily enough a lot of people drive older larger diesel engines (I'm talking 3 litres) but no problem with air quality in Skye.

 

[tomuk]

ULEZ has basically nothing to do with carbon, it's about increasing urban air quality. Certainly electric cars help (as does switching from a 10 year old diesel to a 10 year old petrol) but it'll be a long time before even most cars are electric so other actions are needed.

Carbon reduction is pretty much entirely separate.

In fact it is opposite if we were all driving round in diesel powered vehicles, preferably with Adblue after treatment to reduce the Nox, you would reduce the carbon output compared to the near 20 year old Euro 4 petrols that qualify for the ULEZ

 

[AM9]

What model E39?


You do that properly by heavily reducing population density. Funnily enough a lot of people drive older larger diesel engines (I'm talking 3 litres) but no problem with air quality in Skye.

It would be cheaper to allow only electric cars (heavily subsidised) than remove about 4 million Londoners from the outer boroughs.

 

[J-2739]

You do that properly by heavily reducing population density. Funnily enough a lot of people drive older larger diesel engines (I'm talking 3 litres) but no problem with air quality in Skye.

Or by increasing population density, making sustainable modes of transport more effective.

 

[341o2]

What model E39?

Toyota Corolla 2003 1.6 hatchback