ULEZ charge in 2021

[TikTak]

kingston12 said:

TikTak said:

kingston12 said:

TikTak said:

We've got a mix here. My Dad will change his car and lives in the zone, but my sister who lives almost on the border, doesn't really have the cash (although her BMW is on it's last legs).

My car is compliant but as I'm just outside of the new zone I'm just hoping it either doesn't come into force with the councils refusing to put up cameras etc. or preferably it triggers us to be part of TFL/Zone 6, £7 for a bus and £18 return into London on the train is painful and if they're by proxy raising the prices of everything else and continuing to kill of driving here, there has to be some kind of alternative.

TfL seem very resistant to moving places into different zones. I've lived in Kingston/Surbiton for years and there has been significant campaigns to move the stations from zone 6 to 4/5 for as long as I can remember, but it has never happened.

Further out, places that are currently outside the zones altogether like Epsom and Esher have groups that want the to be added to zone 6, but nothing has ever happened as far as I'm aware.

Unfortunately you're right those groups and petitions have existed for a while, and this is the exact area I'm talking about (Dad Richmond, Sis Surbiton, me Walton) but something needs to change.

They use Epsom as the example, it's much further out than here and has been Zone 6 for ages, not to mention it actually extends beyond the M25 in the NE/Essex. It's simply an expansion.

Going off at a bit of a tangent. They want to build over 1000 homes here in the next few years, there is already no space at the GP, no NHS dentists in the entire borough and limited transport infrastructure. It's ludicrous to not expand those things and simultaneously add more people and penalize drivers and local businesses.

I hadn't realised that Epsom had actually been added to the zone map now. It looks as though it's in zone 9 though, so the only advantage would be fare capping as opposed to cheaper return travel, wouldn't it?

Y'know what, good point, although by proxy the cap makes it cheaper.

Funnily enough all the stations around it, Epsom Downs, Ewell, Banstead etc. are all 6 and my ex boss lives in Epsom and always said it was 6 so I assumed it was, he's originally from Essex so was probably swindling it.

[braddo]

NomduJour said:

Impact assessment tells us it won’t make any difference.

That is completely false.

I decided to have a look into it.

The impact assessment predicts that reductions in NOx emissions will be:

Outer London by cars - 9.6%, 238,000 tonnes
Inside M25 but outside expanded ULEZ ("LAEI") by cars - 8.1%, 175,000 tonnes.

For light goods vehicles there is an additional reduction of 122,000 tonnes in these areas.

So that's a reduction in NOx emissions of 535,000 tonnes. That is a huge difference.

On page 42 of the report:



Report here:
https://ehq-production-europe.s3.eu-west-1.amazona...

[C70R]

Ice_blue_tvr said:

Got to be at least the 5th time the question has directly been asked.?

If you disagree with ulez you are a liar. Name calling is a tactic Khan himself uses. So it's not surprising it's rubbed off.

If you tell demonstrable lies, you are a liar. That's kind of how the definition works.

Face it, you ran out of paper-thin arguments, so you resorted to lying about me to try and make your point.

All terribly sad.

[Ice_blue_tvr]

braddo said:

Ice_blue_tvr said:

Got to be at least the 5th time the question has directly been asked.?

If you disagree with ulez you are a liar. Name calling is a tactic Khan himself uses. So it's not surprising it's rubbed off.

Does congestion not exist outside of the north and south circ then? Could have fooled me. You think there will be no benefit at all for everyone who lives on a busy road like the A20 or A12, or near a congested high street, or walk outside schools in winter when loads of parents are idling in their dirty diesels??

Believe it or not, I don't disagree. Local schools are piloting safer roads schemes which close roads off around the school which I guarantee will have a bigger effect on kids lungs than ulez being expanded.

I don't disagree with making the air healthier, but I do disagree that the ulez expansion is the most effective solution. No cost/benefit anaylsis has been done, and I'm hugely skeptical that we are at the point of diminishing returns if London's air truly is as toxic as being made out.

The threat of the expansion seems to have scared people into switching to cleaner cars, so it seems pointless to roll out £m's worth of cameras given the tragectory for air quality. If that projection regresses then perhaps the expansion should be reconsidered at that time.

It simply feels like poor allocation of resources as well as being a massively divisive policy, not to mention the tactics deployed are quite undermining to the spirit of democracy.

[Ice_blue_tvr]

C70R said:

If you tell demonstrable lies, you are a liar. That's kind of how the definition works.

Face it, you ran out of paper-thin arguments, so you resorted to lying about me to try and make your point.

All terribly sad.

Which lies?

[NomduJour]

braddo said:

That is completely false.

NOx emissions continue to fall rapidly without any influence from ULEZ. Overall picture - complete waste of time, effort and money:

[braddo]

I think that 'population weighted annual mean' isn't very useful when the area has massive variations in population/pollution density.

For example cleaning up the bus fleets has made a big difference to Oxford St and Putney High St but made naff all difference to some green fields south of Orpington.

Reducing NOx emissions by half a million tonnes is rather a lot.

ULEZ isn't a waste of money and it's the road charging infrastructure of the 2030s.

[NomduJour]

braddo said:

Reducing NOx emissions by half a million tonnes is rather a lot.

ULEZ isn't a waste of money and it's the road charging infrastructure of the 2030s.

As above, NOx continues to drop rapidly with no input from ULEZ.

ULEZ is an inequitable waste of money and road charging should be strongly resisted.

[Graveworm]

braddo said:

NomduJour said:

Impact assessment tells us it won’t make any difference.

That is completely false.

I decided to have a look into it.

The impact assessment predicts that reductions in NOx emissions will be:

Outer London by cars - 9.6%, 238,000 tonnes
Inside M25 but outside expanded ULEZ ("LAEI") by cars - 8.1%, 175,000 tonnes.

For light goods vehicles there is an additional reduction of 122,000 tonnes in these areas.

So that's a reduction in NOx emissions of 535,000 tonnes. That is a huge difference.

On page 42 of the report:



Report here:
https://ehq-production-europe.s3.eu-west-1.amazona...

Cars contribute 12 percent of Nox so, if that is correct then we get a 1 percent reduction, in Nox, from a pot, that has already fallen by 80 percent. So the additional benefit is 0.2 percent. I am not sure that represents best value..

[kiethton]

braddo said:

it's the road charging infrastructure of the 2030s.

This is the big issue

Why should where we drive, how we drive and how much we drive be monitored?

I doubt it'll be imposed alongside a reduction in fuel duty (electricity is basically the same cost as petrol per mile on a public charger) which will still need to be paid for.

Although not yet implemented I followed a car with a piece of paper hiding the number plate (zone 4) yesterday, can only expect incidence of that or minor numberplate digit transposition errors to increase significantly....

[bad company]

Love this guy, hope it works.

https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/23434589.viral-...

[braddo]

Graveworm said:

Cars contribute 12 percent of Nox so, if that is correct then we get a 1 percent reduction, in Nox, from a pot, that has already fallen by 80 percent. So the additional benefit is 0.2 percent. I am not sure that represents best value..

Inside the M25 cars contribute a far higher % of roadside emissions than that. There aren't power stations or heavy industry emitting NOx inside the M25...

I doubt anyone can think of a cheaper way to save 500,000KG of NOx every year that also pays for future road charging infrastructure.

[NomduJour]

braddo said:

Inside the M25 cars contribute a far higher % of roadside emissions than that.

Shall we play spot the difference?

[fido]

braddo said:

I doubt anyone can think of a cheaper way to save 500,000KG of NOx every year that also pays for future road charging infrastructure.

Let’s go full-on with arbitrary taxation.. what about a 18th century style car windows tax?

[C70R]

bad company said:

Love this guy, hope it works.

https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/23434589.viral-...

He sounds sensible and balanced.
“I live yards from the zone so will be done daily. Can't wait to see if I get a ticket lol.”

I'd love to hear his views on 5G.

[NomduJour]

C70R said:

He sounds sensible and balanced.
“I live yards from the zone so will be done daily. Can't wait to see if I get a ticket lol.”

I'd love to hear his views on 5G.

Have you made up a reason to support a low emissions zone that won’t lower emissions yet? ()

[braddo]

A 9% reduction in annual NOx emissions (500,000kg) is fine with me.

Postponing the expansion for a year would be good but it's coming and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it.

[Fastdruid]

NomduJour said:

braddo said:

Inside the M25 cars contribute a far higher % of roadside emissions than that.

Shall we play spot the difference?

I mean I can spot that NOx goes down in a number of areas and appears to go from over to under the WHO interim limit in places. That's just this year as well so not accounting for the longer term either where ULEZ will influence decisions. Every person from however far away who dares ventures past the M25 into the anthill in their toxic diseasal will get fined and next time they come to get a car will think "Hmmm, everywhere seems to be getting a ULEZ, maybe I'll go with something other than a diesel next time[1]". That's a win even if they don't live near London and don't contribute generally to the London smog.

You seem to be in the mindset of "any method must reduce all NOx massively if not to zero immediately otherwise it's pointless". ULEZ is a method of influencing long term decisions while also nicely paying its way. The good news for you there is that a large amount of the Particulate Matter is from farming so you can bang on about how ULEZ won't affect that. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/2...



[1] Or at the least get a Euro6+ one.

[Ice_blue_tvr]

Ice_blue_tvr said:

C70R said:

If you tell demonstrable lies, you are a liar. That's kind of how the definition works.

Face it, you ran out of paper-thin arguments, so you resorted to lying about me to try and make your point.

All terribly sad.

Which lies?

Avoiding another direct question?

[Graveworm]

braddo said:

Graveworm said:

Cars contribute 12 percent of Nox so, if that is correct then we get a 1 percent reduction, in Nox, from a pot, that has already fallen by 80 percent. So the additional benefit is 0.2 percent. I am not sure that represents best value..

Inside the M25 cars contribute a far higher % of roadside emissions than that. There aren't power stations or heavy industry emitting NOx inside the M25...

I doubt anyone can think of a cheaper way to save 500,000KG of NOx every year that also pays for future road charging infrastructure.

NOx from cars has fallen at a higher rate than NOx overall so, if you are correct, the savings already accrued in London would be more than the 80% overall.

People paying the charges is a cost, the scrappage scheme is a cost, the cameras, legislative process etc are a cost. You are starting out with we need to save NOx so what is the cheapest way?
The correct question is could that money, give more benefits elsewhere and is the cost to those who are paying and society, in general, worth the gains? Or even the simpler question, I have this much money what is the best way to spend it?
Still nothing from the mayor as to how many fewer people will die or not get ill so we can compare it to other heath interventions on a cost benefit basis.

Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 5th April 16:09