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

[Noddy]

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

Once again focusing on the car and not the solution.

 

[Dai Corner]

Once again focusing on the car and not the solution.

What is the solution then?

You just said ULEZ compliant and electric vehicles were part of it?

 

[Noddy]

What is the solution then?

You just said ULEZ compliant and electric vehicles were part of it?

Of course they are part of it because they reduce air pollution and this will help make peoples lives healthier.

 

[AM9]

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

If you are including the pollution during manufacture, be aware that the marginal increase in EV manufacture over ICvs is swamped by the lifetime of pollution that burning hydrocarbon fuels produces. Once the battery recycling industry gets into full swing, that pollution savings that EVs bring ove ICvs will be even higher.
Also, EV manufacturing happens in large purpose built factories, where emissions are continually monitored.
ICvs dump their emissions everywhere, including residential streets, outside school playgrounds, shopping areas and in traffic queues almost everywhere.

 

[tomuk]

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.

Again the use of the word tragic. What is so 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.

I didn't think I was criticising drivers I like the majority are one and living in a rural shire I'm pretty reliant on one. In terms of solutions there is no need to focus elsewhere society seems to have already found one the car. Looking at the Netherlands which is held out as an exemplar they have high bike use but it is very much at the cost of buses rather than cars.

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.

There are those out there who would ask why it is your place to make their lives healthier. That would be from a rather sendtary person sitting in their Kia Ceed at the McDonalds drive in to the rather more healthy globe trotting triathlon runner who likes their rather large SUV.

 

[Dai Corner]

If you are including the pollution during manufacture, be aware that the marginal increase in EV manufacture over ICvs is swamped by the lifetime of pollution that burning hydrocarbon fuels produces. Once the battery recycling industry gets into full swing, that pollution savings that EVs bring ove ICvs will be even higher.
Also, EV manufacturing happens in large purpose built factories, where emissions are continually monitored.
ICvs dump their emissions everywhere, including residential streets, outside school playgrounds, shopping areas and in traffic queues almost everywhere.

What about the hydrocarbons burnt to generate the electricity to charge the EVs?


It's far from a simple calculation.

 

[Noddy]

What about the hydrocarbons burnt to generate the electricity to charge the EVs?


It's far from a simple calculation.

Again, focusing on the problem not the solution. In the UK at least, most hydrocarbon (and biomass) power stations aren’t situated in the densely populated areas, and importantly their noxious output is not at ground level so air pollution isn’t so much of an issue. And in terms of less CO2 (which is a completely different issue) and improving air quality for those who do live around power stations the solution is clear: more wind, solar and nuclear. As we are moving towards.

 

[tomuk]

What about the hydrocarbons burnt to generate the electricity to charge the EVs?


It's far from a simple calculation.

It isn't a simple calculation and varies a lot both in terms of comparator ICE vehicle eg Euro supemini to American Pickup truck and the carbon intensity of the grid the EV is connected to. These variances allow for people to say things like the carbon footprint of an ICE swamps that of an EV.

Fir example even in the UK it varies if your EV is charging in Scotland right now it is carbon free due to the wind and hydro. If you plug it in in the East Midlands very much not due to the gas, coal (and biomass) and grid limitations.

Again, focusing on the problem not the solution. In the UK at least, most hydrocarbon (and biomass) power stations aren’t situated in the densely populated areas, and importantly their noxious output is not at ground level so air pollution isn’t so much of an issue. And in terms of less CO2 (which is a completely different issue) and improving air quality for those who do live around power stations the solution is clear: more wind, solar and nuclear. As we are moving towards.

In very large parts of the country the NOx and PM levels at ground level come nowhere near prescribed limits most if not all of the time. You talk bout focusing on the problem not the solution but you seem to have a solution looking for a problem.

 

[Dai Corner]

Of course they [ULEZ compliant and rechargeable vehicles] are part of it because they reduce air pollution and this will help make peoples lives healthier

Again, focusing on the problem not the solution. In the UK at least, most hydrocarbon (and biomass) power stations aren’t situated in the densely populated areas, and importantly their noxious output is not at ground level so air pollution isn’t so much of an issue. And in terms of less CO2 (which is a completely different issue) and improving air quality for those who do live around power stations the solution is clear: more wind, solar and nuclear. As we are moving towards.

You feel local environments are more important than the world as a whole? In other words

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

 

[Noddy]

You feel local environments are more important than the world as a whole? In other words

If you are referring to CO2 you are conflating two different issues. And I pointed out that there is an obvious solution to reducing CO2 that the UK and the world as a whole are moving towards, albeit more slowly than I would like. But that’s a completely different issue to improving air quality and, in your words, ‘stopping people driving’.

 

[tomuk]

If you are referring to CO2 you are conflating two different issues. And I pointed out that there is an obvious solution to reducing CO2 that the UK and the world as a whole are moving towards, albeit more slowly than I would like. But that’s a completely different issue to improving air quality and, in your words, ‘stopping people driving’.

You say conflating two issues but about a third of UK carbon emissions are due to transport i.e. cars and vans and a similar proportion of NOx emissions are also due to road transport i.e. cars and vans. Therefore reducing there emissions by stopping people driving whether by carrot or stick would make a big impact on both.

 

[Noddy]

You say conflating two issues but about a third of UK carbon emissions are due to transport i.e. cars and vans and a similar proportion of NOx emissions are also due to road transport i.e. cars and vans. Therefore reducing there emissions by stopping people driving whether by carrot or stick would make a big impact on both.

For heavens sake LEZ/ULEZ are about reducing air pollution and making peoples lives healthier, and their success (or failure) will be measured against that measure and only that measure, not CO2.

 

[tomuk]

For heavens sake LEZ/ULEZ are about reducing air pollution and making peoples lives healthier, and their success (or failure) will be measured against that measure and only that measure, not CO2.

Ok so what effect has the ULEZ had in London?

 

[simonw]

Ok so what effect has the ULEZ had in London?

The evidence is clear: low-emission zones like London’s Ulez work

Looking at the health problems caused by air pollution, poorer communities have most to gain

www.theguardian.com

 

[stuu]

Ok so what effect has the ULEZ had in London?

There is a one year report here.

NOX down 46% in central London is the headline figure.

No doubt this is isn't good enough and just about money and why shouldn't I drive a 1983 Dodge Charger wherever I want because its against my human rights to stop me.

 

[tomuk]

There is a one year report here.

NOX down 46% in central London is the headline figure.

Yes the interesting headline figure which for some reason compares 2017 with now.

If you look at the detail of the report NOx figures were falling before the ULEZ was announced and continued to fall right up to Covid when they unsurprisingly drop further. Between Q1 2017 and Q4 2019 there was a 29.5% fall with no ULEZ and no COVID. Q4 2019 and Q3 2022 there has been a 28% fall despite COVID and the ULEZ. And central roadside NOx emissions are climbing back towards levels pre covid which despite the ULEZ.
Is the ULEZ as effective as made out?

No doubt this is isn't good enough and just about money and why shouldn't I drive a 1983 Dodge Charger wherever I want because its against my human rights to stop me.

No I don't want to drive a 1983 Dodge Charger through the ULEZ although if it was a 1982 I could do so no without charge and could for the 1983 one from next year. I would just like to drive say a 2014 Diesel Renault Megane or other medium hatchback\small crossover that gets 50+mpg and doesn't emit outrageous amounts of NOx and PM with relatively lower CO2 emissions.

 

[Bald Rick]

It's all BULL.

If it was about Air quality. They would have banned Petrol/Diesel cars altogether. Its all about money.

Please do some research on the subject.

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

No one has to change cars.

There is no pollution problem in Hillingdon

Heathrow says hello!

 

[stuu]

Yes the interesting headline figure which for some reason compares 2017 with now.

If you look at the detail of the report NOx figures were falling before the ULEZ was announced and continued to fall right up to Covid when they unsurprisingly drop further. Between Q1 2017 and Q4 2019 there was a 29.5% fall with no ULEZ and no COVID. Q4 2019 and Q3 2022 there has been a 28% fall despite COVID and the ULEZ. And central roadside NOx emissions are climbing back towards levels pre covid which despite the ULEZ.
Is the ULEZ as effective as made out?

So now there are figures showing that there has been a noticeable drop in NOX, it's apparently nothing to do with the ULEZ.

It's pointless trying to discuss anything with people who continually move the goalposts to suit their argument, I'm out

 

[Mabs]

Please do some research on the subject.



No one has to change cars.





Heathrow says hello!

Tell that to your Prime Minister. To close down Heathrow.

 

[tomuk]

So now there are figures showing that there has been a noticeable drop in NOX, it's apparently nothing to do with the ULEZ.

It's pointless trying to discuss anything with people who continually move the goalposts to suit their argument, I'm out

Whose moving the goalposts? I'm just looking at the data provided in the TfL one year report on the ULEZ. If ULEZ is about improving the air quality than surely looking at it effects are valid measure of its success. Including in that success a reduction in NOx levels which occurred prior to and has likely continued since it's introduction is debatable.

There is no point in discussing things with people who ignore the evidence and take their jumpers for goalposts home in a huff.

 

[Bald Rick]

Tell that to your Prime Minister. To close down Heathrow.

So you agree there is pollution in Hillingdon then?

 

[Mabs]

So you agree there is pollution in Hillingdon then?

The airport wasn't included in the discussion. Take that away and Hillingdon is very green. And the Government will never put it on the table for discussion but our cars and on the table ready to be dismantled.

 

[Bald Rick]

The airport wasn't included in the discussion.

You said:

There is no pollution problem in Hillingdon

But Heathrow is in Hillingdon. leaving aside the aircraft pollution, there are also roughly 200,000 road vehicle movements per day to and from the airport. Unless you believe that road vehicles and aircraft don’t cause pollution of any kind, it’s difficult to see how it’s not a problem…

 

[The Ham]

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.

The 1970's had far far fewer cars (the start of the decade was about 13 million, even the end of the decade was still below 20 million, this compares with a little over 40 million now), which due to the low levels of cars meant that there was far less congestion than there is now.

The single death you refer to is the first death attributed by a coroner, not just because (for example) someone wrote a news story about how it was the caused by air pollution:

Air pollution: Coroner calls for law change after Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah's death

Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah's mother calls on the government to "reduce air pollution immediately".

www.bbc.co.uk

A coroner has called for a change in the law after air pollution led to the death of a nine-year-old girl.

Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, who lived near the South Circular Road in Lewisham, south-east London, died in 2013.

An inquest had found air pollution "made a material contribution" to her death.

Coroner Phillip Barlow said there is "no safe level of particulate matter" in the air and called for national pollution limits to be reduced.

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.

Yes, the air quality in London has improved, even over the last 30 years, however that doesn't mean that the air is clean. Nor does it mean that more couldn't be done to improve it.

Targeting cars is a bad way of getting rid of poor people from major cities - 46% of households in the lowest 20% of income don't own a car, that rises to 65% for those households in the lowest 10%. With 57% of council house households not having access to a car.

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?

There's no simple solution, what you suggest is unworkable though (although fairly few people already live in rural locations, it being about 15% of the population - however that's not all living in a remote farmhouse or even working in agriculture, as any settlement with up to 10,000 people in it counts as rural), something which may need to happen is a cultural shift in the way may think from "I'm going somewhere so I'll drive" (as that's the norm) to "do I need to drive this journey, would another mode of travel be better?".

That's likely to result in more walking, cycling and maybe not even making the trip at that time (pairing it with another trip for another purpose), however such change can only really be through nudging people to do the right thing and often when it's not impacting a significant percentage of the population.

There's already starting to be a shift towards that happening, it's just a case of are you going to be one who is left behind and your neighbours wonder why you continue to drive your car when it's not that far and it's a pleasant day to walk it.

 

[Starmill]

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?

I note that nobody is actually arguing for anything remotely like this. What people are arguing for is the most polluting vehicles to be used less frequently and then phased out. Why exactly do you have a problem with that? How are these 'straw man' arguments useful?

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.

Indeed. People won't use public transport or active travel because they're told they should or because "but the pollution". They'll use it when a reliable, sensibly priced and comfortable service is provided, and when top-class dedicated active travel infrastructure is constructed.

 

[Peter Sarf]

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)

I have heard that the London Underground is quite polluted with dust, the levels are less concentrated on the above surface stations.

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.

The solution would be to steadily undo the things that re-enforce car culture. Instead we gaily continue to build out of town shops that demand the use of a car.

Again, focusing on the problem not the solution. In the UK at least, most hydrocarbon (and biomass) power stations aren’t situated in the densely populated areas, and importantly their noxious output is not at ground level so air pollution isn’t so much of an issue. And in terms of less CO2 (which is a completely different issue) and improving air quality for those who do live around power stations the solution is clear: more wind, solar and nuclear. As we are moving towards.

The pollution goes somewhere. If it comes out of a tall chimney it still comes down somewhere, just further away. Air pollution in Europe (Scandinavia iirc) has improved as the UK has reduced its use of coal to generate electricity.

Please do some research on the subject.



No one has to change cars.



Heathrow says hello!

My bold. OK so they have to change cars or pay £12.50 for a days use. Plus some might resort to public transport, some might give up working in London.

As for Heathrow. I live under the path of planes from the West as they approach Heathrow when landing from the East. I would like to know what proportion of pollution in Croydon is caused by vehicles compared to planes.

Next thing I wonder is how many lives will ULEZ save and at what cost to the people. Howmany lives are lost or ruined due to drugs, knives, smoking etc.

I note that nobody is actually arguing for anything remotely like this. What people are arguing for is the most polluting vehicles to be used less frequently and then phased out. Why exactly do you have a problem with that? How are these 'straw man' arguments useful?


Indeed. People won't use public transport or active travel because they're told they should or because "but the pollution". They'll use it when a reliable, sensibly priced and comfortable service is provided, and when top-class dedicated active travel infrastructure is constructed.

Is my 1993 Vauxhall Carlton as polluting as a diesel ?.

People will be less inclined to use public transport compared to thirty or more years ago because the town centres are getting gutted and the shops people have to use are in out of town areas that rely on car culture. Sadiq is undoing a process of undermining the usefulness of public transport that has gone on for many decades. He is trying to achieve it quickly by hitting ordinary people in the pocket for the mistakes that the likes of him allowed and are still allowing.

If someone wanted to CONSTRUCTIVELY reduce pollution then how about reducing how much gas is burnt in central heating systems by properly insulating houses - that might actually help the UKs balance of payments. It would also cause little inconvenience and change to lifestyle. Instead the government gave money to help people to not cut back of gas/electricity usage - that is a short term sticking plaster for a long term problem.

At each turn it is the ordinary person who has to pay.

 

[tomuk]

Is my 1993 Vauxhall Carlton as polluting as a diesel ?.

Yes it probably is. a Euro 4 (2006) diesel will put out a quarter of the NOx as a petrol car as old as your Carlton.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Yes it probably is. a Euro 4 (2006) diesel will put out a quarter of the NOx as a petrol car as old as your Carlton.

I assume a petrol car is cleaner than a similar aged diesel car ?.

 

[Starmill]

Yes it probably is. a Euro 4 (2006) diesel will put out a quarter of the NOx as a petrol car as old as your Carlton.

It's a very rare specimen of a car in allegedly frequent use that's not old enough to be considered classic.

 

[Noddy]

The solution would be to steadily undo the things that re-enforce car culture. Instead we gaily continue to build out of town shops that demand the use of a car.

Yes that is absolutely part of the solution. But blindly criticising cars or drivers is not going to achieve anything and it is potentially counter productive to enter a culture war as illustrated by some of the comments on this thread and in the wider world.

The pollution goes somewhere. If it comes out of a tall chimney it still comes down somewhere, just further away. Air pollution in Europe (Scandinavia iirc) has improved as the UK has reduced its use of coal to generate electricity.

But this is my point! We have solutions to burning hydrocarbons for land transportation and energy. Focus on those. As you have pointed out they can and are being implemented! This makes people (and the environment), wherever they are, healthier.