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

[simonw]

As mad as it sounds. I would support a full ban and a proper scrappage scheme. Not you can still drive it if you pay £12.50

There is a scrappage scheme, not sure what constitutes a 'proper' one.

 

[Mabs]

There is a scrappage scheme, not sure what constitutes a 'proper' one.

Isn't it you only qualify if your on benefits.

The polluting car has nothing to do with benefits. You want to take the car off the road. Offer a scrappage scheme with no conditions.

There is a scrappage scheme, not sure what constitutes a 'proper' one.

And are you employed by Sadik Khan working being a desk.

 

[SynthD]

Isn't it you only qualify if your on benefits.

The polluting car has nothing to do with benefits. You want to take the car off the road. Offer a scrappage scheme with no conditions.


And are you employed by Sadik Khan working being a desk.

No, any London resident can scrap any non compliant car. Read the page that is easy to find and learn from. https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/scrappage-schemes

 

[Ted633]

No, any London resident can scrap any non compliant car. Read the page that is easy to find and learn from. https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/scrappage-schemes

Incorrect, only if you are on a benefit of some sort you can claim up to £2000.

To apply, you must live within one of the 32 London boroughs or the City of London and receive one or more of the following benefits:

• Universal Credit
• Armed Forces Independence Payment
• Attendance Allowance
• Carer's Allowance
• Child Tax Credit
• Constant Attendance Allowance
• Disability Living Allowance
• Employment and Support Allowance
• Housing Benefit
• Income Support
• Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit
• Jobseeker's Allowance
• Pension Credit
• Personal Independence Payment
• Severe Disablement Allowance
• War Pensioners' Mobility Supplement
• Working Tax Credit

ULEZ car and motorcycle scrappage scheme

To help prepare for the ULEZ expansion 2023, the ULEZ car and motorcycle scrappage scheme is for Londoners on low income or disability benefits. Eligible applicants can get a payment to scrap or retrofit a ULEZ non-compliant car, motorcycle, moped or WAV

tfl.gov.uk

 

[jfollows]

For heaven’s sake for the umpteenth time LEZ/ULEZ are about air quality, not CO2.

I and the quiet majority fully support them. You are in a very small (vocal) minority.

Yes, but Gordon Brown and Labour confused the two all the way back in 2001, I didn't realise it was so long ago, leading to 50% of new car registrations being for diesel cars by 2017, although that percentage declined dramatically since then in the light of more clarity about how toxic diesel engines are and cheating by car manufacturers to make them look better than they are.
So politically, because of Labour owners of cars of a certain age (registered before 2015) are more likely to be liable because they're diesel. Petrol cars have to be older then 2005 or so to be similarly liable so there are far fewer of them.
It's the right thing to do, but it needs to be supported by a clear strategy from Labour which underpins the reasons for this ULEZ expansion. This then needs to oppose tactical withdrawal by the Conservatives in a scrabble for votes.
My current car is pre-2015 petrol, because I loathe diesel engines in cars, so I escape this time. It’ll get replaced by a newer petrol car in October 2024.
EDIT BBC article with background (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41985715):

Why officials in Labour government pushed 'dash for diesel'​

• • Published
    16 November 2017

By Martin Rosenbaum
Freedom of information specialist
@rosenbaum6

As Chancellor Philip Hammond considers tougher budget measures on diesel cars, documents obtained by the BBC reveal how the "dash for diesel" was encouraged by presentational considerations.
The shift to promoting diesel vehicles under the last Labour government can be seen as a textbook example of the law of unintended consequences.
In 2001, the then Chancellor Gordon Brown introduced a new system of car tax aimed at protecting the environment. In actual reality it fostered a popular move towards highly polluting diesel cars - a trend which according to some experts has been associated with thousands of premature deaths a year.
New light is shed on how this happened by records received by the BBC, after a two-year freedom of information battle with the Treasury. Some of these papers show that civil servants objected to a stronger policy to deter diesel usage on presentational grounds, because they did not want the government to be seen as "penalising" diesel drivers.

'Overly harsh'​

Mr Brown brought in a sliding scale for car tax or vehicle excise duty (VED), to make it cheaper for cars with lower emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas which contributes to global warming. This resulted in lower VED rates generally for diesel cars, which tend to be more fuel efficient. But they emitted greater quantities of other pollutants harmful to health, nitrogen oxides and particulates.
The records confirm that ministers and civil servants in the Labour government were well aware that diesel pollution damages air quality (even if perhaps they did not appreciate the full extent). But officials preparing the 2000 Budget argued against higher tax for diesel cars "so we are not seen as being overly harsh on diesel users".
Advice from the Treasury's tax policy section presented to ministers stated: "Relative to petrol, diesel has lower emissions of CO2 but higher emissions of the particulates and pollutants which damage local air quality. A diesel supplement is necessary so that we do not create incentives for people to choose diesel vehicles over similar petrol models in order to attract a lower VED rate."
But their concern was how this supplement would be perceived: "Presentationally, this should be seen as ensuring fair treatment of petrol and diesel, rather than as a penalty on diesel users."
The officials therefore rejected imposing larger supplements on diesel cars which would have a greater deterrent effect, concluding "we would prefer the smaller £10 supplement, so we are not seen to be 'penalising' diesel vehicles."

'Dash for diesel'​

They added that this could be re-visited if another budget decision on fuel duty "opens us up to criticism of doing too little on local air quality".
In the documents released to the BBC this presentational factor was the only argument given against a higher supplement for diesels. This was advice from officials which may not have represented the motives of ministers. The Labour government's policy followed a consultation exercise on vehicle duty and environmental concerns.
The resulting financial incentive for diesel cars helped to prompt a "dash for diesel" after it came into effect in 2001 and was extended in further years. This particularly happened within company car fleets which were responsible for a substantial proportion of new car purchases.
There are now 12 million diesel cars on Britain's roads, while back in 2000 there were only three million. And in recent years diesels have accounted for around half the new car market, whereas in 2000 only one in seven new cars was a diesel model.
Millions of Britons switched to drive very polluting vehicles, while being told it was less damaging to the environment. Emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulates have been linked to respiratory difficulties, heart attacks and lung cancer.
The health issues affecting diesel vehicles have since been recognised and the government has pledged to tackle them. According to reports ahead of the forthcoming budget, Mr Hammond is considering extra tax on the sale of diesel vehicles and an increase in diesel fuel duty.
I first applied for relevant documents from the Treasury in October 2015, under the freedom of information law and the regulations governing environmental information. Their response to the request has involved considerable delays.

'Toxic'​

At one stage the Treasury argued that it would be against the public interest to release any information, as it would damage the policy development process and inhibit the quality of advice. It later changed its stance and said the application would be too expensive to answer. Eventually officials decided to respond partly to a narrower request.
Gordon Brown's office declined to comment. In his memoirs published this month there is no specific reference to the diesel issue, but Mr Brown states that "our policy on fuel taxation was heavily influenced by our desire to promote cleaner fuels and vehicles".
Paul Morozzo, clean air campaigner at Greenpeace, said: "It's now clear politicians have known diesel is toxic to people's health for decades. This government must not make the mistakes of the last. It must prioritise public health over the motoring lobby in next week's budget by getting tough on diesel."
The Treasury said that it can't comment on decisions taken under a previous government, or on budget speculation. It refused to comment on the reasons for the FOI delays.
PS: This issue remains politically sensitive today, as illustrated by the fact the Conservatives have now picked up on this disclosure.
The Environment Secretary Michael Gove said: "The dash for diesel was pursued under a Labour government, and these documents show they knew the damage this would do to our environment. This is yet another example of a Conservative government having to clean up Labour's mess.
"We are taking action and have put in place a £3bn plan to improve air quality and reduce harmful emissions as well as ending the sale of new diesel and petrol cars and vans by 2040."

 

[Peter Sarf]

For heaven’s sake for the umpteenth time LEZ/ULEZ are about air quality, not CO2.

I and the quiet majority fully support them. You are in a very small (vocal) minority.

Perhaps the quiet majority don't need to do anything about ULEZ because their cars are compliant - currently.

Have you considered what proportion of the people who have to change cars really support the imposition of ULEZ ?.

Bath does not charge private cars, motorcycle.
but does charge vans, pickups, taxis, private hire

Nothing like consistency around the country

This is what gets me. And then the goal posts will get moved anyway.

The quiet majority want these sorts of things to stop *others* doing things, whilst continuing themselves. We saw that attitude in spades during Covid with the “we went for a day out at the beach and were shocked to find it was packed” brigade.

Same with stuff like speed humps. People like having measures in their own roads to stop others driving fast, but how do such people drive when they’re out and about?

This is true. Its rather like NIMBYism.

As for speed bumps. I would actually like the one gone from outside my house. It creates noise all night and extra fumes !. Those it is meant to slow down don't care - they don't care about the speed limit, others' safety or the damage to their own car. The rest of us have to endure the damage done to our cars even driving at well below 20mph. I drive at 5mph in my own car because I can sense the strain it is putting on various parts of my car (and sometimes my back). Better to catch the people going over the speed limit .

If people really cared about pollution then they simply wouldn’t use cars in the way they do. They may profess to care, until doing so affects their standard of living, or involves extra effort.

This is the point. We should not just be looking at less polluting vehicles. We need to look at the carbon footprint of their replacements but more importantly at how we reduce the NEED for cars etc. In outer London there is more need for a car and that need is growing in my experience (witness out of town shopping areas).

Has anyone asked what people who actually live in the areas that ULEZ operates in what they think of it now it's in place?

This is something I admit I have failed to ascertain. What I do know is that inner London residents are less likely to own or need a car in the first place. The outer London Boroughs are a different thing - where the need for a car is greater and the pollution levels are not so bad.

Not quite the same question but this is close:

Strong support for Sadiq Khan plan to expand London’s ULEZ clean air zone, poll finds

Mayor wants to expand the zone to the Greater London border from August 2023

www.independent.co.uk

It is not just Londoners who drive in London. A lot of lower paid individuals live outside London and drive into outer London. Tradesmen also. There are a lot of non Londoners who will be impacted. An example is home-care visitors who drive round London all day (a ridiculous situation) but start and end their day outside the expensive to live in London. They are not paid enough to live in London.

I actually wonder if this is going to be an economic hit too far. We are all struggling with higher energy costs. For councils all they do is screw us more.

How many people get stabbed (including those who survive but still cost the health care system) ?. We are heading in a virtuous direction hammering law abiding citizens who register their car in their own name but we are completely ignoring those outwith the law. It gets to the point where I don't want to play this game anymore. Why live in a dangerous place - and Croydon is intimidating if you visit the centre. We need to sort out the real problems at source - not push people around.

 

[davews]

I for one am not convinced there is a pollution problem in the first place. When you remember the situation in the 1970s before catalytic converters came on the scene cars are far far less polluting nowadays. I walked every day to work in those days along a main road and it was horrible. The whole thing has been driven out of all proportion over a single death which seems to have been blamed on pollution but in all reality was probably totally unrelated. I, like I guess the 95% who never took part in those polls, totally oppose this nonsense. Those who voted in favour were probably steered by what the media is thrusting down their throats rather than any understanding of the real pollution figures.

 

[jfollows]

I for one am not convinced there is a pollution problem in the first place.

I am convinced that you're wrong.
The problem with tetraethyl lead being added to petrol was solved around 1990 by removing it, and catalytic converters help more with petrol engines. But the scourge of diesel engines and their significant nasty emissions remains, and is only partially solved in newer cars only. A lot of the bad pollution isn't immediately obvious to people walking alongside busy roads either.

 

[Mabs]

There is no pollution problem in Hillingdon and that's why I fully support my council for fighting the ULEZ Campaign in court. I am willing to pay more in council tax to support my council.

 

[stuu]

I for one am not convinced there is a pollution problem in the first place. When you remember the situation in the 1970s before catalytic converters came on the scene cars are far far less polluting nowadays. I walked every day to work in those days along a main road and it was horrible. The whole thing has been driven out of all proportion over a single death which seems to have been blamed on pollution but in all reality was probably totally unrelated. I, like I guess the 95% who never took part in those polls, totally oppose this nonsense. Those who voted in favour were probably steered by what the media is thrusting down their throats rather than any understanding of the real pollution figures.

There are thousands of premature deaths because of poor air quality. This is a proven, researched fact. Of course cars were worse in the past but that doesn't mean we should ignore it

 

[simonw]

And are you employed by Sadik Khan working being a desk.

I don't work for anyone, let alone as a desk

 

[Mabs]

There are thousands of premature deaths because of poor air quality. This is a proven, researched fact. Of course cars were worse in the past but that doesn't mean we should ignore it

If you look at it with one eye closed and from a different angle and figures missing or manipulated.

It's a load of crap. Those people already probably had lung problems from smoking or other health problems and probably would have died anyway.

The air is clean.

 

[Trainbike46]

If you look at it with one eye closed and from a different angle and figures missing or manipulated.

It's a load of crap. Those people already probably had lung problems from smoking or other health problems and probably would have died anyway.

The air is clean.

London's air isn't clean, air pollution is a real problem with real consequences. If you don't believe that, try walking through the rotherhite tunnel, which will make very clear that vehicles impact air quality across the city (through an extreme example)

 

[Mabs]

London's air isn't clean, air pollution is a real problem with real consequences. If you don't believe that, try walking through the rotherhite tunnel, which will make very clear that vehicles impact air quality across the city (through an extreme example)

Why are you talking about inside a tunnel. Obviously there will be smoke. Why not minitor the air outside on a London street. You really are desperate.

 

[Trainbike46]

There are a lot of air quality monitoring stations across london, a map is available here, providing details on the location of each site if you want to check them all yourself: https://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/publicdetails.asp

Certain factors of air quality (particularly NOx) are also measured using satellites.

Everything that ends up in any road tunnel also ends up in the outside air, and the rotherhite tunnel is a place where you could clearly experience the air quality impact of vehicles if you wanted to. If cars didn't impact air quality (and that obviously ridiculous claim is the claim you're making), then the air in the rotherhite tunnel would be clean. But it isn't because cars do impact air quality significantly.

 

[Mabs]

The last time I was walked down Central London I don't remember almost choking to death.

It's all money making schemes to get rid of the council estates and poor people out-of major cities.

 

[Sunil_P]

In London's case, it's all about generating revenue for TfL. They even admitted as such in the letter they sent us a couple of months back.

 

[Mabs]

There are a lot of air quality monitoring stations across london, a map is available here, providing details on the location of each site if you want to check them all yourself: https://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/publicdetails.asp

Certain factors of air quality (particularly NOx) are also measured using satellites.

Everything that ends up in any road tunnel also ends up in the outside air, and the rotherhite tunnel is a place where you could clearly experience the air quality impact of vehicles if you wanted to. If cars didn't impact air quality (and that obviously ridiculous claim is the claim you're making), then the air in the rotherhite tunnel would be clean. But it isn't because cars do impact air quality significantly.

A bit like a kitchen. Lots of pollution inside the kitchen. It's a small contained space.

It's common sense and the Tunnel argument doesn't stand.

And in time the polluting cars will come out of circulation when people change their vehicles.

Sadiq Khan needs to go.

And by the way my car is ULEZ compliant but I'm still against the ULEZ corrupted scheme.

 

[stuu]

If you look at it with one eye closed and from a different angle and figures missing or manipulated.

It's a load of crap. Those people already probably had lung problems from smoking or other health problems and probably would have died anyway.

The air is clean.

What are you basing that on? Do you have relevant qualifications or professional experience to justify your opinions?

 

[tomuk]

No the quiet majority want these things because they recognise that air pollution comes at a terrible cost.

What terrible cost?
The quiet majority which it appears you aren't a member of quietly go about their lives choosing the car for most of their journeys.

 

[Mabs]

What are you basing that on? Do you have relevant qualifications or professional experience to justify your opinions?

No I'm not a qualified person in that field. If that was the case, we wouldn't be discussing on this forum. If only the professionals could have a say.

I live in the ULEZ area and I've done all my life. The air pollution is over exaggerated.

Those that have real concerns should wear a mask or work from home or move away from a major city. If you want to see pollution, Its in places like China or India.

 

[tomuk]

There are thousands of premature deaths because of poor air quality. This is a proven, researched fact. Of course cars were worse in the past but that doesn't mean we should ignore it

In the large majority of cases premature by minutes if not seconds and very much in competition with myriad other environmental and lifestyle choices people have lived under through their life.

 

[Noddy]

They really don't.

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

If people really cared about pollution then they simply wouldn’t use cars in the way they do. They may profess to care, until doing so affects their standard of living, or involves extra effort.

What terrible cost?
The quiet majority which it appears you aren't a member of quietly go about their lives choosing the car for most of their journeys.

I would find the fact that I’m being attacked by both sides here as highly amusing if it wasn’t for the fact that the topic is so serious and tragic.

As a public transport advocate I would also point out to @bramling and @Dai Corner that you get your messaging completely and utterly wrong when you focus on criticising drivers. Some folk have to drive and have no alternative. Focus on the solutions, not the problem.

 

[Dai Corner]

I would find the fact that I’m being attacked by both sides here as highly amusing if it wasn’t for the fact that the topic is so serious and tragic.

As a public transport advocate I would also point out to @bramling and @Dai Corner that you get your messaging completely and utterly wrong when you focus on criticising drivers. Some folk have to drive and have no alternative. Focus on the solutions, not the problem.

What's the solution to stopping people driving?

Force everyone to live in urban areas so public transport is reasonably viable with affordable subsidies? Permits to live in rural areas only available to those who have to do so like farm workers?

 

[Mabs]

What's the solution to stopping people driving?

Force everyone to live in urban areas so public transport is reasonably viable with affordable subsidies? Permits to live in rural areas only available to those who have like farm workers?

You might aswell stop all forms of driving, including food, parcel and medical deliveries.

The idea to stop driving is nonsense. Do you want us all to go back on horses and ponies from the 1400s.

 

[AM9]

You might aswell stop all forms of driving, including food, parcel and medical deliveries.

The idea to stop driving is nonsense. Do you want us all to go back on horses and ponies from the 1400s.

Surely the "horses and ponies from the 1400s", would-be quite dead by now.

 

[Dai Corner]

You might aswell stop all forms of driving, including food, parcel and medical deliveries.

The idea to stop driving is nonsense. Do you want us all to go back on horses and ponies from the 1400s.

Quite.

I assume those who want to ban the private car must either never have had access to one and/or are living in urban centres with no inkling that there is anything beyond the reach of a bus/train ride plus a walk or cycle ride.

 

[Mabs]

I applied to become a train driver. If at the interview I said I don't drive a car. Its very unlikely I'd get the job. They expect me to arrive to work at crazy times and not rely on public transport at 3am.

Also the depots are not always very close to the train station or a bus stop. The walk could be upto 30 minutes.

We need some common sense if it still exists.

 

[Noddy]

What's the solution to stopping people driving?

You are again focusing on the driver. That’s not the issue. The issue is how do we make people’s lives healthier? The answer is a combination of walking, cycling, public transport, ULEZ, EVs and everything else will follow. It is most definitely not focusing on ‘stopping people driving’ or criticising those who drive.

 

[Dai Corner]

You are again focusing on the driver. That’s not the issue. The issue is how do we make people’s lives healthier? The answer is a combination of walking, cycling, public transport, ULEZ, EVs and everything else will follow. It is most definitely not focussing on ‘stopping people driving’ or criticising those who drive.

Right. So cars are ok as long as the pollution they produce is somewhere other than where they're driven?