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

[The Ham]

You seem to be avoiding answering the question "what is the average life expectancy in the ULEZ and how is it expected to change"

I don't think I can put it more simply than that. would you agree with this Guardian article which says six months.

London's ultra-low emission zone: good or bad idea?

Campaigners say it will cut pollution, but opponents claim it will hit poor people hardest

www.theguardian.com

Reading around the subject a bit, it appears that 6 months is an addition to the average life expectancy of children born now.

As air quality doesn't impact everyone equally, then I suspect that if you happened to be someone who suffered when there's poor air quality then you're individual life expectancy could be improved quite significantly.

However, even if air quality doesn't impact you, there's a good chance it would impact someone you know. Whilst that's not such a big a deal of its someone you are on speaking terms, it could well be someone who is very close to you which would be much harder.

That could be a spouse, child, grandchild, business partner, boss, nephew, niece, God child, best friend, friend with benefits, or many other people with whom you have a close friendship with.

 

[Trainbike46]

There are some extraordinarily knowledgeable people on this forum ....when it comes down to the subject of trains. However, once the discussion branches out into other areas, that in this case I happen to know a lot more about, the ignorance and ill-informed opinions come pouring out.
Speaking as an ex-director of transport in a London local authority, I think I can do so with some background knowledge at my fingertips......
The simple fact driving all this is that pollution from motor vehicles represents about half of our harmful emissions in urban areas and is killing people prematurely in large numbers. Around 200 a year in my former borough, so extrapolated across 33 London boroughs, your are all free to do the arithmetic. Forget your political dogma and your poorly justified views on loony left councils or mayors.....the is about human lives. And haven't you ever wondered why this isn't a discussion in Germany or the Netherlands......it's simple.....all the politicians of whatever colour agree it's a no brainer, and unlike the UK, no political party is sufficiently shameless or desperately clawing for votes to try to appeal to the same knuckle-dragging F wits who were similarly convinced by Brexit. Perhaps there will be a snappy three word phrase generated by Tory central office to rouse up some more idiots again this time around, fuelled by the Uxbridge result. Notably, no-one appears to have picked up on the 83% pass rate in the survey.....the truth is it affects a small minority of the oldest most polluting vehicles, exactly as it should, and is really aimed at HGVs and private coach operators. I have a diesel 2017 Mercedes estate that weighs 2 tonnes, but it passed ULEZ no bother.
There's a similar thread on here about LTNs, which I have delivered very successfully by any measure anyone will care to challenge me on, but to be frank I'm a member on here to get away from all that sh!te I have to listen to from people who are a waste of our valuable clean air However, what I will say is that Rishi "BP contract" Sunak can review whatever the F he likes, it will make no difference to the Councils who have introduced LTNs under their own governance processes. Bluntly he has no power to do anything about them other than prevent DfT money being spent on them......and most of them are funded differently anyway. So it's just more populist crap from a loathsome bunch of scumbags who care only about feathering their own nests and appealing to the lowest common denominator, which I'm sad to see has some traction around here (pun intended)

Rant over, and I'm going back to look at historic bashing moves in the back in the day thread.

Thank you for pointing out what a surprising number of people on this thread seem to have missed, namely that this about people's lives, and quality of life!

Measures are needed to improve air quality throughout the country, and ULEZ is a small part of that.

I think some of you understand what I was saying. OK the Covid models were done by different people at Imperial College so a direct relationship is not possible. But I remain sceptical that from a presumably limited number of sensors from which they modelled the pollution they can predict the pollution levels to every part of the UK to two decimal places at 20m resolution. If the levels are indeed correct at my house (and I do not believe they are) then it may reduce my life expectancy. But at 74, and having lived here for over 40 years, I am going to die anyway in the next 10-20 years so a possible 1%-2% change in that is not something I am going to worry about.

Earlier in this thread there was a map of all measuring stations in London, so feel free to go back and check if they meet your standard for enough. On top of that, they almost certainly used Satellite based NOx monitoring, which covers the entire world (and therefore the entire UK)

It's important to note that it's not just about premature deaths, but also reduced quality of life air pollution also causes, through causing and aggravating various diseases including asthma

 

[E27007]

Thank you for pointing out what a surprising number of people on this thread seem to have missed, namely that this about people's lives, and quality of life!

Measures are needed to improve air quality throughout the country, and ULEZ is a small part of that.

The mass adoption of the diesel car was supposed to raise air quality "Clean Diesel" , far from it , due to the cheating by the car makers, a single diesel car had a real world Nox emission of four or five petrol cars

 

[The Ham]

The mass adoption of the diesel car was supposed to raise air quality "Clean Diesel" , far from it , due to the cheating by the car makers, a single diesel car had a real world Nox emission of four or five petrol cars

No the rise of diesel was supposed to reduce our carbon emissions, whilst from 2018 (so some time after the encouragement to get diesels) this article suggests that it depends on where you live as to what car you should get:

Is diesel actually better for the environment? | RAC Drive

Has the anti-diesel campaign damaged its reputation that it's now having an impact on our environment? However, could it still can be the best choice?

www.rac.co.uk

In its advice on cars and fuel options for motorists, the Department for Transport (DfT) states that diesel vehicles have significantly lower CO2 emissions per kilometre travelled due to their higher efficiency.

The DfT advice goes on to suggest that diesel engines have a lower, though still significant, impact on climate change.

As a general rule, due to constant technological advances and updated EU emissions regulations, the newer the diesel vehicle is, the greener the engine is.

This is backed up by a report by scientists from the University of Montreal, which states that the modern technologies adopted by new diesel vehicles makes them now far cleaner, particularly in relation to particulates.

So while diesel engines aren’t as environmentally-friendly as their electric counterparts, they can be seen as preferable to petrol motors from a CO2 point of view and still have an important role to play in helping meet carbon reduction requirements.

This is why you should think carefully about both petrol and diesel options before purchasing your next car.

Where air quality is a serious concern - usually in built up areas like cities, petrol will often be the better choice.

Obviously the better choice would be to but have a car, now for many that is impracticable - so the next best thing is reduce your car use (which can still have reasonable impact).

For example it'll be very hard for many people to just stop using their car, however if 80 cars were used an average of 2 miles a week less than before that would be the same as the emissions saved from one car doing 8,000 miles a year from not being used at all.

Whilst there's additional emissions from building the car, even if that roughly double the emissions from use your talking about 150-200 cars. If an entire primary school with a 1.5 form entry (about 300 children) were to deliver that across every car represented by people who attended that school, there's a good chance (allowing for some having not car and others being siblings so two or three children way only one car) that they could reduce their emissions by enough to be the equivalent of one car fewer on the roads.

For some 2 miles a week less is walking to school 5 or 6 times a month, for others that's WFH once every two months, for others it's going by train once a year to see family, for others there's yet more options.

Arguably the best is the reduction of local travel, as that directly benefits the people doing it through reduced local NOX emissions as well as reduced CO2 emissions. That would be especially true for that primarily school example above.

5 or 6 times a month would likely mean that they could still avoid getting wet by driving.

 

[pitdiver]

Although my wife and don't live anywhere near London we received a letter from TfL via the DVLA telling us our car MAY be non compliant. We have no intention of ever driving anywhere near the the ULEZ zone. But if we do paying the £12.50 will make the air cleaner for the time we are in it? I live in Nottinghamshire.

 

[jon81uk]

Although my wife and don't live anywhere near London we received a letter from TfL via the DVLA telling us our car MAY be non compliant. We have no intention of ever driving anywhere near the the ULEZ zone. But if we do paying the £12.50 will make the air cleaner for the time we are in it? I live in Nottinghamshire.

I'm sure you actually understand the charge is meant to be a deterrent, it doesn't actually make the air cleaner. If you have no plans to go into any major city centres then you are fine.

 

[AM9]

There are quite a few drivers for whom £12.50 is not a problem in the greater scheme of things, and on paying that feel that they have a 'right' to drive whatever vehicle they have (provided that it passes an MoT at the appropriate levels of emissions), through the most sensitive areas of the extended ULEZ as often as they like. Cars of that era are unlikely to have stop/start facilities so sitting in extended congestion, or parked kerbside with the engine running will add to the mobile NOx/particulate pollution machine's impact.
I would imagine the rules on unnecessary engine running will be tightened soon.

 

[jon81uk]

There are quite a few drivers for whom £12.50 is not a problem in the greater scheme of things, and on paying that feel that they have a 'right' to drive whatever vehicle they have (provided that it passes an MoT at the appropriate levels of emissions), through the most sensitive areas of the extended ULEZ as often as they like. Cars of that era are unlikely to have stop/start facilities so sitting in extended congestion, or parked kerbside with the engine running will add to the mobile NOx/particulate pollution machine's impact.
I would imagine the rules on unnecessary engine running will be tightened soon.

I could also see the charge to drive a non-compliant car increase significantly over the next few years. Something line £20 in 2024 rising by at least £10 a year following that so it effectively becomes a fine rather than a charge. Currently the charge is low to nudge people towards complying, but I expect it will change to become a bigger push.

 

[341o2]

The mass adoption of the diesel car was supposed to raise air quality "Clean Diesel" , far from it , due to the cheating by the car makers, a single diesel car had a real world Nox emission of four or five petrol cars

Just like phasing out 4 star petrol in favour of nice clean green cars running on unleaded fuel with catalytic converters

 

[AM9]

Just like phasing out 4 star petrol in favour of nice clean green cars running on unleaded fuel with catalytic converters

I can't think of any section of the population that benefitted from ever rising levels of lead in the atmosphere.

 

[341o2]

I can't think of any section of the population that benefitted from ever rising levels of lead in the atmosphere.

True, but we were told that the future lay in nice clean green cars running on unleaded fuel with a catalytic converter.

 

[AM9]

True, but we were told that the future lay in nice clean green cars running on unleaded fuel with a catalytic converter.

Well it was, relatively until something better came along (EVs). With all the furore over ULEZ, also relected in some of the posts in this thread, it is obvious that even introducing improvements for fundamental health reasons requires a lot of self-interest attitudes to be changed to improve the lifestyle of everybody.

 

[The Ham]

True, but we were told that the future lay in nice clean green cars running on unleaded fuel with a catalytic converter.

Even in the 1980's it was known that CO2 emissions were likely to cause global warming - the fact that lead free petrol was better for people (in the same way lower NOX levels are) didn't negate the fact that increasing use of cars (even EV's generate emissions, so whilst lower are still worse than walking/cycling) isn't a great option to pursue.

 

[Dai Corner]

Well it was, relatively until something better came along (EVs). With all the furore over ULEZ, also relected in some of the posts in this thread, it is obvious that even introducing improvements for fundamental health reasons requires a lot of self-interest attitudes to be changed to improve the lifestyle of everybody.

The thing is, ULEZs will worsen the lifestyle of some people. Think of those who won't be able to drive in the zones but can't afford new cars and can't access public transport,or those who will have to pay more for deliveries and services to cover the cost of compliant vehicles or ULEZ charges.

In return we're told a child born today might expect to live six months longer than the eighty-odd years they otherwise would. That's pure speculation as we have no idea what other hazards they'll face in the future.

There's a balance to be struck and arguments to be made on both sides.

 

[greyman42]

Although my wife and don't live anywhere near London we received a letter from TfL via the DVLA telling us our car MAY be non compliant. We have no intention of ever driving anywhere near the the ULEZ zone. But if we do paying the £12.50 will make the air cleaner for the time we are in it? I live in Nottinghamshire.

No, it will not make the air any cleaner.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Aug 2023 ==

Thank you for pointing out what a surprising number of people on this thread seem to have missed, namely that this about people's lives, and quality of life!

Have the people affected by this been asked if it is what they want?

 

[341o2]

Even in the 1980's it was known that CO2 emissions were likely to cause global warming - the fact that lead free petrol was better for people (in the same way lower NOX levels are) didn't negate the fact that increasing use of cars (even EV's generate emissions, so whilst lower are still worse than walking/cycling) isn't a great option to pursue.

The Advertising Standards Agency became involved with some of the claims made regarding lead free petrol. I cannot recall any statement that unleaded fuel is better for the evvironment. ie the possiblilty of something even better in the future. Unleadead petrol was the future (so we were told), a bit like EVs today. Some cycnics said of course, as the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders were involved, the real aim was to get you to buy a new car, thus increasing their members profits.

 

[stuu]

The Advertising Standards Agency became involved with some of the claims made regarding lead free petrol. I cannot recall any statement that unleaded fuel is better for the evvironment. ie the possiblilty of something even better in the future. Unleadead petrol was the future (so we were told), a bit like EVs today. Some cycnics said of course, as the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders were involved, the real aim was to get you to buy a new car, thus increasing their members profits.

Lead in petrol directly damaged people's central nervous systems, it is very toxic. It was also damaging the environment, but the main reason was public health

 

[deltic]

The thing is, ULEZs will worsen the lifestyle of some people. Think of those who won't be able to drive in the zones but can't afford new cars and can't access public transport,or those who will have to pay more for deliveries and services to cover the cost of compliant vehicles or ULEZ charges.

In return we're told a child born today might expect to live six months longer than the eighty-odd years they otherwise would. That's pure speculation as we have no idea what other hazards they'll face in the future.

There's a balance to be struck and arguments to be made on both sides.

There are over 6,000 petrol cars on sale on Autotrader within 10 miles of central London presently on sale for less than £2k (which is the amount available to any Londoner under the scrappage scheme) - there are unlikely to higher delivery charges as a result of ULEZ - there may be an increase for some trades but it will be relatively small in relation to the total bill - try to get a plumber for less than a £100 in London. The impact on life expectancy will be heavily dependent on underlying health conditions. Ella Kissi-Debrah was just 9 when she died - there is no reason why she should not have lived until her 80s.

 

[341o2]

27 years ago, I decided I had had enough of London, I could see what was going to happen and moved to a quiet rural location.
The best decision I have ever made

 

[The Ham]

27 years ago, I decided I had had enough of London, I could see what was going to happen and moved to a quiet rural location.
The best decision I have ever made

The issue is that lies of people feel that they have to work in London, so even if they live in a rural location they end up spending a lot of time within London (obviously they and their children still benefit through less exposure).

 

[tomuk]

Ella Kissi-Debrah was just 9 when she died - there is no reason why she should not have lived until her 80s.

That unfortunately is very much not the case the pollution in the coroners judgement was a significant contributory factor. She sadly had very severe asthma which would have had a negative effect on her ongoing well-being and ultimately life expectancy.

 

[AM9]

That unfortunately is very much not the case the pollution in the coroners judgement was a significant contributory factor. She sadly had very severe asthma which would have had a negative effect on her ongoing well-being and ultimately life expectancy.

Ah the ultimate polluter's get out words. A contribution to bad health and possibly death is not negotiable in health terms, even if some want it to be.

 

[bramling]

Ah the ultimate polluter's get out words. A contribution to bad health and possibly death is not negotiable in health terms, even if some want it to be.

But surely the ultimate conclusion of that particular argument is we never do anything for fear that it imposes a negative externality on someone else? That’s clearly unrealistic.

 

[AM9]

But surely the ultimate conclusion of that particular argument is we never do anything for fear that it imposes a negative externality on someone else? That’s clearly unrealistic.

The alternative for some (too many) is that it isn't their problem. It took some time for a coroner to file a cause of death as partly attributable to traffic pollution, probably because of the pressure from the majority to not rock the boat (plus immense pressure form vested interests like the oil industry
I wonder how many other premature deaths can be attributed to the same range of causes. In 1952, the pollution level was such that about 4000 people died in london. This caused a change in the law to ban the burning of coal in many areas. That was relatively easy to impose because the visual image of the smog was apparent to all. The problem with modern airborne pollution caused by traffic burning hydrocarbons is that the pollution is less visible, and to a degree, temporary relief can be provided with medication and cleaner air environments like hospitals for the worst cases.
I don't accept your argument that would end with "we never do anything for fear that it imposes a negative externality on someone else?" In this case, it isn't 'somebody', which implies a single person, it already does affect many thousands of people, - especially those unlike you or me who can jump on a train and escape the pollution when at home. These poor London residents have the same problems with polluted air 24/7/365.

 

[bramling]

The alternative for some (too many) is that it isn't their problem. It took some time for a coroner to file a cause of death as partly attributable to traffic pollution, probably because of the pressure from the majority to not rock the boat (plus immense pressure form vested interests like the oil industry
I wonder how many other premature deaths can be attributed to the same range of causes. In 1952, the pollution level was such that about 4000 people died in london. This caused a change in the law to ban the burning of coal in many areas. That was relatively easy to impose because the visual image of the smog was apparent to all. The problem with modern airborne pollution caused by traffic burning hydrocarbons is that the pollution is less visible, and to a degree, temporary relief can be provided with medication and cleaner air environments like hospitals for the worst cases.
I don't accept your argument that would end with "we never do anything for fear that it imposes a negative externality on someone else?" In this case, it isn't 'somebody', which implies a single person, it already does affect many thousands of people, - especially those unlike you or me who can jump on a train and escape the pollution when at home. These poor London residents have the same problems with polluted air 24/7/365.

Not necessarily disagreeing in principle, however it does seem to be the case that a significant quantity of Londoners don’t see this as a problem, especially in the suburbs, where there is considerable car use (of both compliant and non-compliant vehicles). Much of this car use is completely avoidable given the high number of very short journeys I see, as well as a decent (ish) transport network - though noting of course that London’s buses aren’t especially “clean” either.

It seems a majority of people are content to trade-off air quality for the expedience of the car.

Meanwhile, politicians - including Khan - make no attempt to deal with population growth, which is of course contributing to poor air quality. Even if someone doesn’t own a car they will still be contributing to pollution in terms of things like delivery vehicles, tradesmen, etc etc. On this basis one can’t help but be rather cynical when politicians start on about London’s air quality.

 

[tomuk]

Ah the ultimate polluter's get out words. A contribution to bad health and possibly death is not negotiable in health terms, even if some want it to be.

In the real world it very much is a possibility in any activity unless you basically don't exist. There is risk of and actual impact to heath of both ourselves and other in everything we do.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Aug 2023 ==

The alternative for some (too many) is that it isn't their problem. It took some time for a coroner to file a cause of death as partly attributable to traffic pollution, probably because of the pressure from the majority to not rock the boat (plus immense pressure form vested interests like the oil industry

That old chestnut the 'oil industry'. Everything is covered up or suppressed due to the power of big oil.

In the case concerned the coroner did delivery a verdict in the normal way and speed which didn't include pollution as a contributory factor. After five year capaigning and a high court case the original inquest verdict was quashed and a new inquest held which did include air pollution in the cause of death.

I wonder how many other premature deaths can be attributed to the same range of causes. In 1952, the pollution level was such that about 4000 people died in london. This caused a change in the law to ban the burning of coal in many areas. That was relatively easy to impose because the visual image of the smog was apparent to all. The problem with modern airborne pollution caused by traffic burning hydrocarbons is that the pollution is less visible,

A very misreported study with a bit of added interpretation puts it at an equivalent of 40,000 premature deaths a year.

and to a degree, temporary relief can be provided with medication and cleaner air environments like hospitals for the worst cases.

What are you referring to? Where are these cleaner air hospitals? What medication?

I don't accept your argument that would end with "we never do anything for fear that it imposes a negative externality on someone else?" In this case, it isn't 'somebody', which implies a single person, it already does affect many thousands of people, - especially those unlike you or me who can jump on a train and escape the pollution when at home. These poor London residents have the same problems with polluted air 24/7/365.

The pollution isn't just in London it is all over the country to suggest that others can escape it and leave the poor Londoners to it and therefore don't care as it doesn't effect them is absurd both due pervasiveness of said pollution and also the chronic not acute nature of the impact.

 

[Noddy]

That unfortunately is very much not the case the pollution in the coroners judgement was a significant contributory factor. She sadly had very severe asthma which would have had a negative effect on her ongoing well-being and ultimately life expectancy.

My underlined. Asthma is both triggered (as an ‘event’ on a day to day basis) and caused (as an underlying health condition) by air pollution. While we will never be able to say for certain (hence the coroners judgement in a legal sense), the likelihood is that her asthma was caused (and certainly made worse) by air pollution as her young lungs were developing, and then it was repeatedly triggered by pollution. While we don’t and can never know what her life would have been like in other circumstances many folk live well into old age with asthma (I speak from personal experience).

 

[Dai Corner]

There are over 6,000 petrol cars on sale on Autotrader within 10 miles of central London presently on sale for less than £2k (which is the amount available to any Londoner under the scrappage scheme)

How many are ULEZ compliant and therefore useful for someone taking advantage of the scrappage scheme before the money runs out? What condition are they in at that price?

 

[AM9]

How many are ULEZ compliant and therefore useful for someone taking advantage of the scrappage scheme before the money runs out? What condition are they in at that price?

Probably not that different to the non-compliant vehicles that they have been travelling around in.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Aug 2023 ==

In the real world it very much is a possibility in any activity unless you basically don't exist. There is risk of and actual impact to heath of both ourselves and other in everything we do.

That is true, and most of those risks that generally affect the perpetrator of the hazard. Pollution on the scale that is now regularly encountered in the ULEZ (original and extended), affect the population that is unlucky enough to just live there. That pollution is brought in largely by drivers from outside the area, some travel in from leafy suburbs, often not even in the GLA and of course say that the pollution is no problem for them.

That old chestnut the 'oil industry'. Everything is covered up or suppressed due to the power of big oil.

The oil industry is the major benefactor, ably supported by the motor vehicle manufacturers until very recdently.Then there's the UK Government, supposedly elected to look after the population's interests, - except this one seems joined at the hip of the motoring lobby.

In the case concerned the coroner did delivery a verdict in the normal way and speed which didn't include pollution as a contributory factor. After five year capaigning and a high court case the original inquest verdict was quashed and a new inquest held which did include air pollution in the cause of death.

The coroner in that case was the first to acknowledge the part that urban pollution took in the girl's demise, to the limit of defining a legal verdict based on the probability supported by available evidence at the time.

A very misreported study with a bit of added interpretation puts it at an equivalent of 40,000 premature deaths a year.

Just as there have been studies recently emphasising the increasing part that traffic pollution is playing in chronic diseases like asthma, and the impact on the longevity of those sufferers.

What are you referring to? Where are these cleaner air hospitals? What medication?

Hospitals take a significant influx of asthma sufferers in house during times of enhanced pollution levels. The Air conditioned environment may not be perfect but it is certainly better than the background levels on residential streets in parts of London.

The pollution isn't just in London it is all over the country to suggest that others can escape it and leave the poor Londoners to it and therefore don't care as it doesn't effect them is absurd both due pervasiveness of said pollution and also the chronic not acute nature of the impact.

You should note that my whole post was in reply to @bramling 's post, and it is my belief that although he works in the City of London, he commutes in from the north-east of Hertfordshire, i.e. well away from areas with the current pollution levels of the ULEZ.

 

[Bald Rick]

I’m really struggling with the concept of arguing against cleaner air. The expanded ULEZ is simply one policy (of many) to bring it about. Of course there are winners and losers, as there are with all policies.