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

[Peter Sarf]

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

No I mean if people used their cars less and especially no longer for the more polluting short journeys where the engine is yet to warm up then there would be little need for the ULEZ (or LTNs).

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

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

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

Yep. Oh there are some amazingly lazy people. I see people doing journeys by car where I could hardly be bothered to go upstairs for the car keys.

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

I fear not. For a start 90% (iirc) of cars are compliant. ULEZ is not aimed at generally reducing pollution.

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

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

Its the same problem as the out of town shopping centres. We have a lot of car culture to undo.

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

I am beginning to see this as I am 63 and beginning to find myself less mobile. I still walk most places but the missus is definitely more in need of my car (long Covid does not help).

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

I agree. I see plenty of 40 somethings who have never considered walking further than to their car.

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

I feel fleecing the motorist is all that will be achieved. There is a shortage of new cars so there is a growing shortage down into the second hand car market. ULEZ is bad timing on the part of Sadiq and co. Really ought to look at implementing a ULEZ when the country is awash with newer cars. But since when did politicians have a long term strategy. Its only the lower echelons who have to cough up - well unless they are poor enough to already not have a car.

 

[AM9]

I feel fleecing the motorist is all that will be achieved. There is a shortage of new cars so there is a growing shortage down into the second hand car market. ULEZ is bad timing on the part of Sadiq and co. Really ought to look at implementing a ULEZ when the country is awash with newer cars. But since when did politicians have a long term strategy. Its only the lower echelons who have to cough up - well unless they are poor enough to already not have a car.

Such a common cry, with a Daily Mail-esque 'fleecing of motorists' claim, as if the health of others doesn't matter. It's never a 'good time' for those that are required to do something about the impact of their actions.
Meanwhile the health of some descends further year on year thanks to continued particulates and NOx pollution. A better time to do something about it would have been a few years ago, but it too late for that. So better late than never as it should reduce the damage over the next few years. Sounds like a better long term strategy than saying "Oooh not yet, just give us a bit more time".

 

[greyman42]

Such a common cry, with a Daily Mail-esque 'fleecing of motorists' claim, as if the health of others doesn't matter. It's never a 'good time' for those that are required to do something about the impact of their actions.
Meanwhile the health of some descends further year on year thanks to continued particulates and NOx pollution. A better time to do something about it would have been a few years ago, but it too late for that. So better late than never as it should reduce the damage over the next few years. Sounds like a better long term strategy than saying "Oooh not yet, just give us a bit more time".

How will ULEZ make people healthier?

 

[Trainbike46]

How will ULEZ make people healthier?

Les air pollution from cars means cleaner air means less negative health impacts from air pollution, means healthier

 

[greyman42]

Les air pollution from cars means cleaner air means less negative health impacts from air pollution, means healthier

Why would there be less air pollution?

 

[bramling]

Such a common cry, with a Daily Mail-esque 'fleecing of motorists' claim, as if the health of others doesn't matter. It's never a 'good time' for those that are required to do something about the impact of their actions.
Meanwhile the health of some descends further year on year thanks to continued particulates and NOx pollution. A better time to do something about it would have been a few years ago, but it too late for that. So better late than never as it should reduce the damage over the next few years. Sounds like a better long term strategy than saying "Oooh not yet, just give us a bit more time".

Yet a whole load of other actions and/or policies from the political establishment seem to have done everything possible to *encourage* car use. You will excuse me for being cynical that this one particular measure happens to generate potential revenue.

 

[stuu]

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

Yes. That must be why Johnson imposed it and planned the expansion. Some really clever politics by Khan to get a political opponent to do that 8 years ago. Maybe we should ask him for tomorrow's lottery numbers?

 

[The Ham]

Why would there be less air pollution?

Older cars (of the same fuel type) trend to be more polluting than newer cars, by "taxing" the user of older cars you reduce the number that are used - thus likely reducing the amount of pollution.

Of course the perception by some that they'll have to pay the £11.50, when they may not, could also lead to fewer cars which not only directly reduces pollution but also may reduce congestion (which in turn reduces pollution).

 

[Dai Corner]

Of course the perception by some that they'll have to pay the £11.50, when they may not, could also lead to fewer cars which not only directly reduces pollution but also may reduce congestion (which in turn reduces pollution).

Or people with non-compliant cars will drive them to shopping or leisure destinations outside the ULEZ instead, producing the same or more pollution. None of this will end up in the ULEZ as the wind always blows in the opposite direction, of course.

 

[Krokodil]

Or people with non-compliant cars will drive them to shopping or leisure destinations outside the ULEZ instead, producing the same or more pollution. None of this will end up in the ULEZ as the wind always blows in the opposite direction, of course.

Wind tends to scatter things over a wider area, it will be much less concentrated than the current smog around the South Circular.

There are documented trends of poorer cardiovascular development among kids living along the South Circular.

 

[AM9]

Yet a whole load of other actions and/or policies from the political establishment seem to have done everything possible to *encourage* car use. You will excuse me for being cynical that this one particular measure happens to generate potential revenue.

In terms of road transport, one part of the 'political establishment' has encouraged private motoring whilst the other has generally tried to limit it. The difference is that one generates revenue for their friends whereas the other contributes to the exchequer or local services. I don't really need to say which part is which.

 

[bramling]

In terms of road transport, one part of the 'political establishment' has encouraged private motoring whilst the other has generally tried to limit it. The difference is that one generates revenue for their friends whereas the other contributes to the exchequer or local services. I don't really need to say which part is which.

Well, that’s a matter for debate. By how much did road traffic grow between 1997 and 2010?!

 

[GusB]

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

As a matter of interest, how does the ULEZ affect you personally?

My first question is, do you live in or near London and/or frequently drive into the ULEZ? If not, it doesn't affect you in the slightest and you really don't need to care.

If you do live in or near London and frequently drive into the ULEZ, is your vehicle actually compliant with the rules?

Ways to meet the standard

Find out how to meet the emissions standards of ULEZ

tfl.gov.uk

To meet the ULEZ emissions standards, your vehicle must meet the required Euro standard for your vehicle and emission type. For newer vehicles, the Euro emissions standards may be listed in section D.2 of your vehicle log book (V5C).

The ULEZ standards are:

• Euro 3 for motorcycles, mopeds, motorised tricycles and quadricycles (L category)
• Euro 4 (NOx) for petrol cars, vans, minibuses and other specialist vehicles
• Euro 6 (NOx and PM) for diesel cars, vans and minibuses and other specialist vehicles

Lorries, vans and specialist heavy vehicles (all over 3.5 tonnes Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW)) and buses, minibuses and coaches (all over 5 tonnes GVW) do not need to pay the ULEZ charge. They will need to pay the LEZ charge if they do not meet the LEZ emissions standards.

The article goes on to provide the dates at which it was mandatory for new vehicles to comply; bear in mind that many vehicle manufacturers will have made sure that their vehicles were compliant long before.

What are the Euro standards and when did they come into effect?​

Euro standards are a range of emissions controls that set limits for air polluting Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and Particulate Matter (PM) from engines. New vehicles and road vehicle engines must show that they meet these limits to be approved for sale:

• Euro 3 became mandatory for all new motorcycles in 2007
• Euro 4 became mandatory for all new cars in 2005 and light vans in 2006
• Euro 6 became mandatory for all new heavy duty engines for goods vehicles and buses from January 2014, September 2015 for cars and light vans, and September 2016 for larger vans up to and including 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight.

If you have a petrol car, it would needed to have been compliant in 2005 - how many people are actually driving 18 year-old cars these days? If it's a diesel, the date is September 2015 - eight years ago. Again, realistically, how many people are driving diesel cars older than that?

Those who have diesel cars that were manufactured before September 2015 may find that their vehicle is actually compliant; if it's not, they only have to trade it in for one that was made after September 2015 and they will comply with the rules.

If you're running a vehicle of that age, you either: a) treat it as a classic car and care about the vehicle enough to ensure that it's properly maintained, MOTd when it should be (in which case it should pass the relevant emissions standards); b) buy an old banger for peanuts and run it into the ground, in which case you're probably used to buying a slightly newer vehicle every now and again anyway, or; c) don't care about any rules whatsoever, in which case you're probably not even insured and shouldn't be on the road.

Which of those categories do you fall into?

 

[bramling]

As a matter of interest, how does the ULEZ affect you personally?

My first question is, do you live in or near London and/or frequently drive into the ULEZ? If not, it doesn't affect you in the slightest and you really don't need to care.

The above assumes there’s no further mission creep. I don’t trust our political system at the moment.

If you do live in or near London and frequently drive into the ULEZ, is your vehicle actually compliant with the rules?

One of my three was supposedly not compliant, but it turns out it actually is. I’ve had to go through a quite complex process to get is whitelisted. Naturally, I’m pretty peeved about having to spend my time (as well as a small sum of money) having to do this. Why should I have to do this to appease a political construct that I am not even part of, and which not living in London I have no direct means of holding to account?

 

[The Ham]

Well, that’s a matter for debate. By how much did road traffic grow between 1997 and 2010?!

Between 2000 and 2010 road milage grew by 4.7%, however there had been three consecutive years of falling milage:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9023/road-traffic-estimates-2010-revised.pdf

Statistical Release – Annual road traffic estimates - Page 2 of 8
1. Road Traffic in 2010
The annual estimates show that:
 In 2010, the overall motor vehicle traffic volume in Great Britain was 1.6 per cent lower than in 2009, at 303.2 billion vehicle miles.
 This follows a 0.9 per cent year on year fall between 2008 and 2009, and a 1.0 per cent fall between 2007 and 2008. Motor vehicle traffic has fallen for three consecutive years for the first time since records began in 1949. However, traffic levels in 2010 were 4.7 per cent higher than in 2000

Digging further (TRA0101):

Road traffic statistics (TRA)

Data on road traffic by road and vehicle type, produced by Department for Transport.

www.gov.uk

Confirms a growth rate of 8.36% from 1997 to 2010.

Conversely 2010 to 2022 had seen growth of 6.79% - although the mileage rates for 2022 are still below those in 2019, so are likely to be due to the significant change in working patterns due to COVID and so nothing to do with government policy.

It should also be noted that this is for 1 year less than the 1997 to 2010 period is long and if you changed it to 1998 to 2010 to match the same period length growth falls to 6.42% (it's more reasonable, if the purpose is to compare political party policy, to remove the first year than the last year as the first year would be more likely to be linked to the previous administration).

To illustrate this if we look at the 10 years (2012 to 2022) we see a rate of growth of 6.3% compared with 4.7% between 2000 and 2010.

Hopefully that answers your question.

The above assumes there’s no further mission creep. I don’t trust our political system at the moment.

What mission creep are you concerned about?

ULEZ expanding out of London? That could only happen with national government support or at local level. That's unlikely to happen in the next 2 years, by which point a while load of non compliant cars will have been scrapped.

ULEZ fees increase? That's hardly mission creep, however again it's not something which would impact all that many and fewer and fewer for each month which passes as cars get replaced.

Congestion charge zone expands? That could happen, however that's not likely in the next 7 months (i.e. before the mayoral elections) and even then it's the sort of thing which is likely to be brought up by someone (for example Tories, trying to win votes of a Labour mayor, may ask the question thinking that being anti ULEZ won them a recent election - so let's put some clear water between us and them by asking the question). If it's denied by someone, it's likely to be off the table for at least 18 months after the election of they win. Again it's unlikely within the next 2 years.

What else are you concerned about?

 

[GusB]

The above assumes there’s no further mission creep. I don’t trust our political system at the moment.

There will be mission creep - these rules will only become tighter as time goes on.

One of my three was supposedly not compliant, but it turns out it actually is. I’ve had to go through a quite complex process to get is whitelisted. Naturally, I’m pretty peeved about having to spend my time (as well as a small sum of money) having to do this. Why should I have to do this to appease a political construct that I am not even part of, and which not living in London I have no direct means of holding to account?

I'm guessing that the vehicle in question is probably a fairly niche case. I'm sure you could find a place to park said vehicle outside the boundaries of the ULEZ and take public transport into the centre. If not, you'll have to suck up the charge and that's just tough

 

[Noddy]

One of my three was supposedly not compliant, but it turns out it actually is. I’ve had to go through a quite complex process to get is whitelisted. Naturally, I’m pretty peeved about having to spend my time (as well as a small sum of money) having to do this. Why should I have to do this to appease a political construct that I am not even part of, and which not living in London I have no direct means of holding to account?

I still don’t understand why you need all three cars to be compliant though when you made it clear in post 124 you live in the Home Counties, not London. Fair enough if you actually live in London to get the third registered, but in your case just don’t use the third one to go to London. You can only drive a maximum of one car at a time, and you and a partner/spouse can only drive two at a time. It seems to me that you are more interested in fighting the system, rather than working with it.

 

[DelW]

Why should I have to do this to appease a political construct that I am not even part of, and which not living in London I have no direct means of holding to account?

Because if you wish to drive that vehicle into London, you're required to comply with rules set by the freely elected representatives of its residents. Those rules were inaugurated by a Conservative administration and had cross-party support, until certain parts of the press started campaigning against them and the Sunak government sniffed a possible electoral advantage.

 

[bramling]

I still don’t understand why you need all three cars to be compliant though when you made it clear in post 124 you live in the Home Counties, not London. Fair enough if you actually live in London to get the third registered, but in your case just don’t use the third one to go to London. You can only drive a maximum of one car at a time, and you and a partner/spouse can only drive two at a time. It seems to me that you are more interested in fighting the system, rather than working with it.

In the case of the third one, I want to take it to London on an occasional basis to keep the wheels turning. As (unlike many people, I should add) I don’t do much in the way of local short-trip driving, it offers an opportunity to keep the car healthy.

Plus I happen to enjoy driving the vehicle concerned.

I'm guessing that the vehicle in question is probably a fairly niche case. I'm sure you could find a place to park said vehicle outside the boundaries of the ULEZ and take public transport into the centre. If not, you'll have to suck up the charge and that's just tough

Yes it is niche, but that’s not really my problem.

I could park outside the boundary, but without incurring inconvenience this would mean having to walk or cycle which in this case I’m not prepared to do for reasons of time.

You’re quite right it is tough, as were I to do this then bang goes any goodwill which might have hitherto existed in being flexible as to where I am prepared to drive to for work purposes. The consequence of that is that London potentially suffers, not me, so tough but possibly not in the way you were thinking!

 

[Noddy]

In the case of the third one, I want to take it to London on an occasional basis to keep the wheels turning. As (unlike many people, I should add) I don’t do much in the way of local short-trip driving, it offers an opportunity to keep the car healthy.

Plus I happen to enjoy driving the vehicle concerned.



Yes it is niche, but that’s not really my problem.

I could park outside the boundary, but without incurring inconvenience this would mean having to walk or cycle which in this case I’m not prepared to do for reasons of time.

You’re quite right it is tough, as were I to do this then bang goes any goodwill which might have hitherto existed in being flexible as to where I am prepared to drive to for work purposes. The consequence of that is that London potentially suffers (*), not me, so tough but possibly not in the way you were thinking!

None of those are reasons why you have to drive the third in car in London (or any other urban area for that matter). They are all decisions you choose to make for your own ease, comfort and pleasure. And your last point illustrates the rather selfish and self-centred attitude you have to this issue.

 

[Peter Sarf]

In the case of the third one, I want to take it to London on an occasional basis to keep the wheels turning. As (unlike many people, I should add) I don’t do much in the way of local short-trip driving, it offers an opportunity to keep the car healthy.

Plus I happen to enjoy driving the vehicle concerned.



Yes it is niche, but that’s not really my problem.

I could park outside the boundary, but without incurring inconvenience this would mean having to walk or cycle which in this case I’m not prepared to do for reasons of time.

You’re quite right it is tough, as were I to do this then bang goes any goodwill which might have hitherto existed in being flexible as to where I am prepared to drive to for work purposes. The consequence of that is that London potentially suffers (*), not me, so tough but possibly not in the way you were thinking!

This is my feeling. It is not really endearing me to the ecological cause. I feel less ecological than I used to - I too avoid using my car as much as feasible. But I lost enthusiasm when Croydon Council started charging me £300+ pa for not using it - residents parking fee for a "more polluting car" that I won't actually be driving while it is parked so they are stupid. Now I am spending a fortune getting my ULEZ compliant replacement working (for the third time) I am inclined to use it as much as possible while I still can.

I fear there will be a backlash when further car limiting things have to happen. ULEZ is a case of playing their card for health reasons rather than the bigger problem - global warming.

EDIT - I ought to add some of my friends and family think it odd how much I rely on public transport and walking so using my car more is an easy way out and at least the car will benefit from more use while I am ULEZ compliant.

 

[bramling]

None of those are reasons why you have to drive the third in car in London (or any other urban area for that matter). They are all decisions you choose to make for your own ease, comfort and pleasure.

Isn’t that how everyone gets through life (even though some people prefer not to admit it?). We could all *choose* never to do anything.

As it happens, I’d place a wager that I do a damn sight more walking than a substantial proportion of the population, so you will forgive me for not feeling too guilty about a once a month venture into the edge of the ULEZ zone, in a car which it turns out isn’t so polluting after all.

And your last point illustrates the rather selfish and self-centred attitude you have to this issue.

Not really. If I, *out of the goodness of my heart*, have in the past been prepared to use my personal car for the benefit of work-related purposes, then no one can really say it’s selfish if an external change means I either cannot or no longer wish to do that. Indeed this has already been the case with me since ULEZ was implemented inside of the North Circular.

The fact that the nature of my work means this could have a detrimental impact on the people of London isn’t, and shouldn’t, be my problem. We all collectively make our electoral choices, and then of course have to live with the consequences of those decisions - in this case the solution is that the people of London (indirectly) will be paying for a taxi for me, and if it happens to take half an hour or more longer to get somewhere then so be it.

 

[greyman42]

Older cars (of the same fuel type) trend to be more polluting than newer cars, by "taxing" the user of older cars you reduce the number that are used - thus likely reducing the amount of pollution.

Taxing the use older cars does not reduce the number that are used.
Banning the use of older cars would, but that would not raise any money.

As a matter of interest, how does the ULEZ affect you personally?

My first question is, do you live in or near London and/or frequently drive into the ULEZ? If not, it doesn't affect you in the slightest and you really don't need to care.

I do not live near London or own a car. This does not mean that i don't sympathise with the people who do and are getting ripped off for no good reason.
It would be like someone saying that they are well off and could not care less if the government scrap the triple lock on pensions. That would be a very selfish attitude to take.
Just because something does not affect you directly, does not mean that you should not care.

 

[AM9]

.... ULEZ is a case of playing their card for health reasons rather than the bigger problem - global warming. ....

"ULEZ is a case of playing their card for health reasons", as you choose to put it is true, there is a rising health problem in London that is directly linked to airborne pollutants from road vehicles that needs to be addressed as soon as possible. "Global warming", or more correctly climate change, is a much bigger problem which will be addressed when ICVs are removed from roads, but given the bleating from some about just discouraging the worst polluters on the streets of London for a genuine health issue, the permanent fix of no ICVs at all would cause even more noise from motorists.
The fact is that reducing the polluting non-compliant traffic on streets in cities, (don't forget there are other local authorities un the UK taking this step), can be implemented promptly by this measure, in a few years, the traffic will be virtually all EVs for the benefit of everybody's health including the impact of limiting CO2 emissions.

 

[Noddy]

Isn’t that how everyone gets through life (even though some people prefer not to admit it?). We could all *choose* never to do anything.

As it happens, I’d place a wager that I do a damn sight more walking than a substantial proportion of the population, so you will forgive me for not feeling too guilty about a once a month venture into the edge of the ULEZ zone, in a car which it turns out isn’t so polluting after all.




Not really. If I, *out of the goodness of my heart*, have in the past been prepared to use my personal car for the benefit of work-related purposes, then no one can really say it’s selfish if an external change means I either cannot or no longer wish to do that. Indeed this has already been the case with me since ULEZ was implemented inside of the North Circular.

The fact that the nature of my work means this could have a detrimental impact on the people of London isn’t, and shouldn’t, be my problem. We all collectively make our electoral choices, and then of course have to live with the consequences of those decisions - in this case the solution is that the people of London (indirectly) will be paying for a taxi for me, and if it happens to take half an hour or more longer to get somewhere then so be it.

If you choose to make different decisions ULEZ would have had no financial or other impact on you. You are choosing to make it have an impact on you, then proceeding to moan about it on this forum (and presumably elsewhere), and not only this but apparently make further decisions, basically with a sod you attitude, to intentionally increase your emissions when travelling to/in London. Can you not see what this says about you?

 

[bramling]

If you choose to make different decisions ULEZ would have had no financial or other impact on you.

In this case this traces back to a decision made 23 years ago, when ULEZ wasn’t a thing. Funnily enough, given that the vehicle in question turns out to be compliant, clearly this was actually a good decision.

and not only this but apparently make further decisions to intentionally increase your emissions when travelling to/in London. Can you not see what this says about you?

When a substantial segment of the population uses their cars as minimally as I do, especially for short trips within the London area, I might start being interested in what others may think.

 

[NSEWonderer]

My issue with ulez and tfl is that if its brought in to lower the emission rate for health reasons then why also are they actively countering all that work with all the cycle lane introductions that are tearing up roads and narrowing them to in cases single lane traffic?

As a result more cars stuck in one area, not moving quickly enough and thus dropping pollutants in an area for longer aswell as on some areas the cycle lane cuts between bus stops and thus increasing the risk of collisions with pedestrians.

Not much health improvements neither with the introduction of the Silvertown tunnel which is right near the Blackwall tunnel and both use the now same narrow feeding roads which will essentially pollute up most of the Charlton, 02 and Co areas.

Won't even mention that the tolls on both tunnels will have the adverse effect of leading a more than usual number of motorists to use the terribly polluted Rotherhithe tunnel or Woolwich Ferry(when it works that is).

 

[AM9]

My issue with ulez and tfl is that if its brought in to lower the emission rate for health reasons then why also are they actively countering all that work with all the cycle lane introductions that are tearing up roads and narrowing them to in cases single lane traffic?

As a result more cars stuck in one area, not moving quickly enough and thus dropping pollutants in an area for longer aswell as on some areas the cycle lane cuts between bus stops and thus increasing the risk of collisions with pedestrians.

There will be a short term bunching of traffic, but the slower the traffic goes, the more disincentive there is to drive through central London.

Not much health improvements neither with the introduction of the Silvertown tunnel which is right near the Blackwall tunnel and both use the now same narrow feeding roads which will essentially pollute up most of the Charlton, 02 and Co areas.

Won't even mention that the tolls on both tunnels will have the adverse effect of leading a more than usual number of motorists to use the terribly polluted Rotherhithe tunnel or Woolwich Ferry(when it works that is).

By 2025, there will be many more EVs on the roads in London and most of the other cars will have stop/start capability that reduces pollution from standing traffic. The tolls to be introduced may be variable wrt time allowing charges to be higher when congestion creates unsafe air conditions. Ultimately, the ability to vary toll fees will allow polluting vehicles to be charged a higher rate, or even prohibited. Unlikely at present, but if ICVs are clearly creating pollution problems in the tunnels, such a move is likely to be accepted by the majority of the London electorate.

 

[NSEWonderer]

2025 is very very optimistic for EVs. Even the 2030 forecast was. EVs are not only expensive to buy even if financing but their repair bills are much more expensive especially the lithium batteries which aren't as easy to replace for example damaged cells.

Whilst we assume the slower traffic will disinterest drivers from continuing to drive through or to London this isn't also helped but the increasing public transport costs and unreliability that many will attest to facing and thus prefer to drive. I'd have to see some numbers ofc but I don't think the slower traffic created by some of these changes gas truly warded people from driving.

 

[The Ham]

Taxing the use older cars does not reduce the number that are used.
Banning the use of older cars would, but that would not raise any money.

There's a scrappage scheme, so that would reduce the number of older cars.

Also even if those cars don't get scrapped and used elsewhere in the country, generally there is still a benefit to London's air quality.

Even where those older cars are used, there's a good chance that they are replacing an even older car - so the air quality is no worse than it was previously.

My issue with ulez and tfl is that if its brought in to lower the emission rate for health reasons then why also are they actively countering all that work with all the cycle lane introductions that are tearing up roads and narrowing them to in cases single lane traffic?

As a result more cars stuck in one area, not moving quickly enough and thus dropping pollutants in an area for longer aswell as on some areas the cycle lane cuts between bus stops and thus increasing the risk of collisions with pedestrians.

Not much health improvements neither with the introduction of the Silvertown tunnel which is right near the Blackwall tunnel and both use the now same narrow feeding roads which will essentially pollute up most of the Charlton, 02 and Co areas.

Won't even mention that the tolls on both tunnels will have the adverse effect of leading a more than usual number of motorists to use the terribly polluted Rotherhithe tunnel or Woolwich Ferry(when it works that is).

A car takes up about 2.5m (often a bit wider, sometimes a bit narrower depending on how fast it is traveling) by 5m of road space and typically carries about 1.3 people.

In comparison a cycle takes up about 1.25m (again depending on how fast it's traveling) by 2.5m of road space and typically carries about 1 person.

As such you can easily move 4 people by bike in the same space as one car.

(Yes cycling isn't suitable for everyone, however it is suitable for more people than currently do it).