ULEZ - public don't care / uninterested

[Horizon22]

I am wondering how the boundary points were chosen. Looking where my mother lived in the North of Romford it's possible to drive from, say, Stapleford Abbotts to Brentwood through Havering and Noak Hill without touching the ULEZ.

Was there local involvement or were the sensible bits just a matter of a local connection by the guy with a map and a pencil?

You'd have to go back to 1965 for that! They were mostly old city councils and boroughs and Middlesex disappeared. Here's an assuming video explaining it.

 

[PeterC]

You'd have to go back to 1965 for that! They were mostly old city councils and boroughs and Middlesex disappeared. Here's an assuming video explaining it.

With a degree in historical geography I do have a good understanding of the relationship between modern political boundaries and the Domesday Book.

I was referring to the boundary points ts of the ULEZ. These cut through traditional community/parish boundaries so that there are areas of Greater London, such as the example that I gave, which are outside.

 

[Wolfie]

The other factor is likely to be the change to FPTP in Mayoral elections. I suspect many who would previously voted LibDem or Green, with Khan as a second choice, recognise their preferred party has no chance and voted for Kahn to ensure Susan Hall did not win. Not being a London voter I think Khan has done as well as can be expected in the circumstances but doesn't have much power in the face of a hostile government.

I am inclined to agree. Ironically one of the main reasons why the Government made that change is that they believed it would give the Tories a better chance of winning. They absolutely needed to chose a more credible candidate first. As one of the voters "(almost) anyone but Hall" was pretty much the driving factor.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This surely means the London ULEZ zone is a total no issue to the general public and in reality rolling more out or expanding them is not going to affect a politicians electoral chances. Strongest evidence being that the voting turnout went down in London. If it was the issue the media and social media made I would would have expected a voter turnout of 60% or more, not going down.

Must be a couple of individuals around London damaging ULEZ cameras and media hyperbole whipping up a non-story.

It is pretty much a non-story because the vast majority of cars are compliant. It's a potential issue for tradespeople and others who rely on vans (which are mostly only available in diesel) and who don't have much money so have to drive an older one, but those people aren't in anywhere near the majority. Those on a tight budget can, as far as a personal vehicle goes, just buy a 10-15 year old compliant petrol car instead of an old diesel. Indeed, I wonder will we see a return to the days when the default car of gardeners, sparkies and odd jobs men was a beat up old Astra estate (or maybe these days some random SUV as there are far more of them than estates now) with the back seats permanently down rather than a Transit van?

Also London has a fairly large (compared to other places) proportion of people who don't run a private vehicle at all, and so the most they'll be is neutral but most will probably support it - why would you want to breathe other peoples' muck?

 

[deltic]

I am wondering how the boundary points were chosen. Looking where my mother lived in the North of Romford it's possible to drive from, say, Stapleford Abbotts to Brentwood through Havering and Noak Hill without touching the ULEZ.

Was there local involvement or were the sensible bits just a matter of a local connection by the guy with a map and a pencil?

Its complicated, need to ensure vehicles, in particular HGVs, can divert from not driving into the zone, it must obviously fall solely within Greater London, need to able to put cameras in place as close as possible to the boundary. The boundary was fixed when the Low Emission Zone was introduced back in 2008.

 

[Horizon22]

With a degree in historical geography I do have a good understanding of the relationship between modern political boundaries and the Domesday Book.

I was referring to the boundary points ts of the ULEZ. These cut through traditional community/parish boundaries so that there are areas of Greater London, such as the example that I gave, which are outside.

The vast majority of it is the Greater London boundary. I imagine the tiny discrepancies are where roads “face out” of London, and would be disproportionately impacted without any ability to divert away.

You can’t drive through Havering without reaching the boundary. So I am not sure of your point.

ULEZ: Where and when

Where and when the ULEZ will operate

tfl.gov.uk

 

[SynthD]

There’s only so long you can lie to Tesla owners about the fines they’d owe for driving around Uxbridge. Most of the hate against it could not survive the reality of living with it.

 

[PeterC]

The vast majority of it is the Greater London boundary. I imagine the tiny discrepancies are where roads “face out” of London, and would be disproportionately impacted without any ability to divert away.

You can’t drive through Havering without reaching the boundary. So I am not sure of your point.

ULEZ: Where and when

Where and when the ULEZ will operate

tfl.gov.uk

You can drive through the North of the Borough without entering the ULEZ.

South along the B175 to Havering village, left into Broxhill Road, left along Noak Hill Road and Chequers Road and back into Essex.

 

[Enthusiast]

The vast majority of it is the Greater London boundary.

All of it is within the Greater London boundary. They Mayor has no powers to impose it outside. The point being made here is not all of the GL area is in the ULEZ. Apart from some major roads and motorways which fall within the GLA but are not part of the ULEZ there are also some small areas on the peripheries of the outer London boroughs which are outside ULEZ. The above is an example. Here is a text version describing those areas:

https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/ulez-boundary-description

And here's a map:

https://lruc.content.tfl.gov.uk/ulezdetailedmap.pdf

The dark grey areas are within the GLA boundary but outside ULEZ.

 

[Horizon22]

All of it is within the Greater London boundary. They Mayor has no powers to impose it outside. The point being made here is not all of the GL area is in the ULEZ. Apart from some major roads and motorways which fall within the GLA but are not part of the ULEZ there are also some small areas on the peripheries of the outer London boroughs which are outside ULEZ. The above is an example. Here is a text version describing those areas:

https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/ulez-boundary-description

And here's a map:

https://lruc.content.tfl.gov.uk/ulezdetailedmap.pdf

The dark grey areas are within the GLA boundary but outside ULEZ.

Sorry I meant the other way around; the vast majority of Greater London is within ULEZ!

 

[sprunt]

At some point - probably as electric cars creep up to becoming the majority - road charging will have to be seriously considered or the income steams will disappear. I imagine a large city council/authority would naturally be one of the first to trial this. That or the congestion charge in London gets expanded.

I don't disagree that road charging is likely, but given that the income loss from fuel duty will be to Central Government, wouldn't the charges be expected to come from there rather than from local authorities?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't disagree that road charging is likely, but given that the income loss from fuel duty will be to Central Government, wouldn't the charges be expected to come from there rather than from local authorities?

In order to blame local authorities it wouldn't surprise me if they did it by allowing them to introduce such schemes and cutting the central Government block grant further - plenty of precedent and it means LAs get blamed!

 

[Wolfie]

In order to blame local authorities it wouldn't surprise me if they did it by allowing them to introduce such schemes and cutting the central Government block grant further - plenty of precedent and it means LAs get blamed!

No chance. The loss of income to HMT from zero carbon/not using fossil fuels is way too much for alternative charges on road transport not to be levied.

 

[sprunt]

In order to blame local authorities it wouldn't surprise me if they did it by allowing them to introduce such schemes and cutting the central Government block grant further - plenty of precedent and it means LAs get blamed!

I can see that, but would cuts to local authority grants cover the loss of revenue from fuel duty?

 

[edwin_m]

I'm wondering if the Johnson government's support for extending ULEZ was nothing more than laying a political trap for Khan.

 

[Wolfie]

I'm wondering if the Johnson government's support for extending ULEZ was nothing more than laying a political trap for Khan.

They demanded that as part of the COVID bail out package for TfL then Tory candidates consistently slagged off Labour for doing it. It absolutely was party political.

 

[Mikw]

According to the news agents podcast if the result of the Mayoral election had been closer the Conservatives were thinking of employing Trump's "stolen election" strategy.
Thank goodness it wasn't that close.

 

[bluenoxid]

The expansion of ULEZ felt party political but I think it backfired on the government. Nobody likes silly games.

 

[Peter Sarf]

However, there have been reductions in government funding to councils. As such councils have prioritised schools and social care which is why roads have been left to deteriorate and green bins are now paid at many councils.

Your correct of course. In the end I blame both central government and Local Authorities for sleepwalking us deeper and deeper into car culture.

But all this will affect how central government views losing its cash cow of fuel duty. I would suggest that road pricing will appear along with an increase in road tax. The road tax being unfair on those like me who endeavour to use our car as little as possible.

Will any attempt be made to redress the decline of the high street as a result of out of town shopping ?. Without it I see it all as a trap. People commuting further and further to out of town centre offices it another tragedy. Town centres seem to have gone from bulging at the seams to now almost desserts.

 

[MotCO]

But all this will affect how central government views losing its cash cow of fuel duty. I would suggest that road pricing will appear along with an increase in road tax. The road tax being unfair on those like me who endeavour to use our car as little as possible.

I can't believe that ICE car drivers will accept fuel duty, VAT on fuel + fuel duty, road tax and road pricing, whilst EV drivers only face road pricing. Surely road pricing can only be introduced if fuel duty, VAT on fuel + fuel duty and road tax were reduced or eliminated.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can't believe that ICE car drivers will accept fuel duty, VAT on fuel + fuel duty, road tax and road pricing, whilst EV drivers only face road pricing. Surely road pricing can only be introduced if fuel duty, VAT on fuel + fuel duty and road tax were reduced or eliminated.

The entire point of doing that is to encourage them not to accept it - by switching to an EV.

 

[MotCO]

The entire point of doing that is to encourage them not to accept it - by switching to an EV.

How many ICE vehicles are on the road? How many years will it take to produce enough EVs so that everyone has one, always assuming they could afford one? (Bearing in mind that the number of private EV buyers are declining as percentage of market share.) How many people had to buy compliant vehicles to meet the ULEZ, then find they could be penalised further by not being able to afford an EV?

Road pricing is probably inevitable, but to introduce it now in a cost of living crisis, without adjusting other taxes downwards, is a vote loser.

 

[Enthusiast]

They demanded that as part of the COVID bail out package for TfL then Tory candidates consistently slagged off Labour for doing it. It absolutely was party political.

This has been quoted often and it is false.

This misunderstanding (whether portrayed accidentally or deliberately) stems from a letter, dated 14th May 2020, from Grant Shapps, then Secretary of State for Transport, to TfL. It sets out conditions for the government’s Covid bail-out package to TfL:

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/extraordinary-funding-and-financing-agreement-may-2020.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2ZSAqkvZRiAT2-7dVtTzhp0yiXAoZ9BNJ6uPdES9I1gkRbel9msYJye-o

The condition relating to ULEZ says this:

The immediate reintroduction of the London Congestion Charge, LEZ and ULEZ and urgently bring forward proposals to widen the scope and levels of these charges, in accordance with the relevant legal powers and decision-making processes.

At that time, the proposals in train to expand ULEZ and which TfL were being urged to bring forward, were to extend it from its initial boundary (which was the inner London Congestion Zone) to the North and South Circular Roads. It is this expansion which that letter refers to. Sadiq Khan's subsequent decision to expand ULEZ to the whole of Greater London (which is the plan that caused the most controversy and was said to have cost Labour the Uxbridge by-election, among other things) was not a requirement of the TfL deal. In fact, the government explicitly told the Mayor in the final settlement letter (30th August 2022) that he was not allowed to use the bailout money on the ULEZ expansion:

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-settlement-letter-30-august-2022.pdf

22. Road User Charging. You have decided to consult on proposals for the introduction of a London-wide Ultra Low Emission Zone for introduction in 2023, to improve air quality in London. TfL have estimated this will cost £250m in capital infrastructure costs. HMG grant funding in this settlement should not be used to cover the costs of your policy decisions to charge road users, and therefore if you choose to implement this scheme or other road user charging options, you must fund them through alternative sources available to you.

Finally, at Mayor’s Question Time on 21st July 2022, the Mayor was asked, categorically, who was the “decision maker” to expand the ULEZ zone to encompass the whole of Greater London. Page 26 of the transcript, here:

https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/londonassembly/meetings/documents/s100100/Appendix%202%20-%20Questions%20to%20the%20Mayor.pdf

Neil Garratt AM: Thank you, Chair. For the proposal to expand the ULEZ to the whole of London, who is the decision maker to do that or not do that?
Sadiq Khan (Mayor of London): Me.
Neil Garratt AM: It is your decision whether that proceeds or not?
Sadiq Khan (Mayor of London): Yes.

It is wholly false to suggest that the TfL emergency funding package had, among its conditions, a stipulation to expand ULEZ to encompass all of the GLA area. The proposal already in train was the intermediate stage and the Shapps letter merely suggested it be brought forward. The final expansion, to the whole of London, may have been in the Mayor's mind at that time (I'm quite sure it was) but no proposals had been published and no conditions to implement it were imposed by the government as a part of any funding package. Not only was it not party political, it was not true at all.

Hopefully that puts that to bed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How many ICE vehicles are on the road? How many years will it take to produce enough EVs so that everyone has one, always assuming they could afford one?

The vast majority of cars and vans on the road are ten years old or younger. So near-full adoption (bar true classics which I'd hope would be exempt in some form and people who run proper old bangers who are in relatively small numbers) will take something around that once ICE vehicles cease to be sold.

 

[renegademaster]

The vast majority of cars and vans on the road are ten years old or younger. So near-full adoption (bar true classics which I'd hope would be exempt in some form and people who run proper old bangers who are in relatively small numbers) will take something around that once ICE vehicles cease to be sold.

The quoted post was about a theoretical road pricing scheme to push people into evs not ulez

 

[Ralph Ayres]

I am wondering how the boundary points were chosen. Looking where my mother lived in the North of Romford it's possible to drive from, say, Stapleford Abbotts to Brentwood through Havering and Noak Hill without touching the ULEZ.

Was there local involvement or were the sensible bits just a matter of a local connection by the guy with a map and a pencil?

The area already existed as a less-demanding Low Emission Zone, and if there were changes for ULEZ they were trivial. The Greater London boundary was the starting point but there needed to be a suitable point for large vehicles to turn round safely or detour at each entry point without just reversing in the road. That point obviously couldn't be outside Greater London unless adjacent LAs joined in (good luck with that!) so there are some quite large incursions including ironically the main road past my small cul-de-sac. We are inside ULEZ but can't go anywhere else without leaving it. I really didn't think they'd bother the expense of monitoring but a camera duly went up and it's duly vandalised on a regular basis. Every resident's car is ULEZ compliant so the vandals are saving us nothing but equally TfL are losing no revenue though there is the cost of occasionally doing repairs. All rather petty from both TfL and the objectors.

 

[Cloud Strife]

The issue is what is the next stage - road pricing, even lower emission targets e.g. to Euro 7 levels?

Euro 5 is an obvious next step for petrol cars, and I'd go further and say that it should go to Euro 6. It's been mandatory since 2015 for cars, meaning that it's an easy win at very little cost. Motorbikes could also go to Euro 4. Euro 7 is incredibly problematic to introduce, and it may never happen. It might make more sense to simply introduce a rule requiring EVs only if the first registration is after a certain point, such as 2030.

Having said that, the difference between London and cities without any such requirements (like Warsaw) is like day and night as a pedestrian.

 

[notverydeep]

Euro 5 is an obvious next step for petrol cars, and I'd go further and say that it should go to Euro 6. It's been mandatory since 2015 for cars, meaning that it's an easy win at very little cost. Motorbikes could also go to Euro 4. Euro 7 is incredibly problematic to introduce, and it may never happen. It might make more sense to simply introduce a rule requiring EVs only if the first registration is after a certain point, such as 2030.

Having said that, the difference between London and cities without any such requirements (like Warsaw) is like day and night as a pedestrian.

In the case of petrol engines Euro 4, 5 or 6 are really the same from the perspective of the particulates that the ULEZ is aiming to reduce, hence Euro 4 petrol being accepted, but diesels didn't reach the same reduced level until Euro 6, hence the chosen levels, but disparity in the age of impacted vehicles. Even many late 1990s petrol cars are OK...

There isn't really anywhere to go on particulates from here (for ICE vehicles). Euro 7 isn't even agreed, let alone the majority of ICE vehicles.

 

[Energy]

There isn't really anywhere to go on particulates from here. Euro 7 isn't even agreed, let alone the majority of ICE vehicles.

It isn't agreed and the industry focus appears to be far more on zero emissions mainly through battery, and a little slither through hydrogen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Euro 5 is an obvious next step for petrol cars, and I'd go further and say that it should go to Euro 6. It's been mandatory since 2015 for cars, meaning that it's an easy win at very little cost. Motorbikes could also go to Euro 4. Euro 7 is incredibly problematic to introduce, and it may never happen. It might make more sense to simply introduce a rule requiring EVs only if the first registration is after a certain point, such as 2030.

I'd probably agree that ZEZs (zero emission zone - i.e. electric or hydrogen power only ) are likely to be common well before requiring Euro 7 is viable. There's already a small one in Oxford. The diesel engine is certainly in its death throes, other than for industrial and marine applications; petrol may last longer but not much longer.