Forum Topic

ULEZ

Commenced today but will not be extended to cover the area inside the North and South Circular Roads until October 2021 and will still not benefit most of Ealing.Why?Time to start a petition?Would you sign it (and pass it on)?

N V Brooks ● 2211d20 Comments

October 2020 at the earliest according to the TfL website for low emission and....wait for it.... 2037 (not a typo) before London buses are zero emission!

N V Brooks ● 2195d

The really big difference to the centre of Ealing should come this year when the low bus emission zone is implemented. This is probably more important locally than ULEZ. That will mean non-polluting buses on all routes along the Uxbridge Road. The Mayor has pledged to bring this forward although there may be cause for concern that the current financial difficulties at TfL might bring about a delay.

Mark Evans ● 2196d

The nonsense of the 'Diesel premium' is that most Diesel vehicles of Euro6 and above are actually emitting fewer particulates than the 'suck in' in London. The pre and post catalytic 'scrubbers' and Exhaust Gas recirculation mean that many Diesels are cleaner than petrol vehicles.

N V Brooks ● 2203d

I was a bit disappointed that the Extinction Rebellion crowd didn't come out against the ULEZ. The reason policy originally favoured diesel was because it offered lower CO2 emissions but then we ditched that because air quality became the priority based on dodgy science. If greenhouse gases might result in the planet expiring in a ball of fire perhaps we should consider making their reduction the main aim of policy?

Andy Jones ● 2203d

The trains are heavily subsidised in the UK as well but due to the ludicrous manner in which the network was fragmented and franchised the TOCs (Train Operating Companies) receive more than they paid for the franchise, can walk away when things go pear-shaped and are free to charge what they like on most fares as these are unregulated.

N V Brooks ● 2207d

https://unfccc.int/news/renewable-energy-accounts-for-third-of-global-power-capacity-irenaIt is changing but yes, I'd forgotten that we saw double decker trains in Paris years ago.  Not sure how far they went - maybe just to the suburbs?

Philippa Bond ● 2207d

ULEZ only really affects Diesel drivers (Those vehicles around 5 years and older).Petrol cars are mainly untouched.It's be great to life in a Utopian world where there's no pollution, however until a system is discovered where fossil fuels are not required it's not going to happen for some time, maybe in a century!Likewise it would be be great to adopt the life of our continental neighbours, but the real fact it this country is vastly over-populated (South east specifically).The infrastructure is difficult to upgrade without people getting upset (wouldn't it be great to have double-decker trains) alas all those Victorian bridges negate the possibility and taking them down or building a new track is going to be extremely costly due to the stakeholder engagement and environmental measures.So just like the congestion charge, people will pay, some may renew their cars (more resources used) but ultimately I can't see much of a stepped change happening.

Lee Page ● 2208d

It is a shame that it is expensive to go by train.  In other European countries the trains are subsidised so that people use them more rather than using a car to go to work.  People often don't work 9-5 in the same place every day of the week nowadays as they have to share childcare and often work part of the week from home so season tickets just don't work.  It is time for an overhaul.

Philippa Bond ● 2208d

Solar powered train, anyone?https://1010uk.org/and the Harwich to Ebsjerg ferry closed :( due to new environmental law and a lot of people are hoping against hope that a ferry service to Scandinavia will start again:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-29353171

Philippa Bond ● 2208d

Ah sorry! Yes, should cover area inside m25.After all, the M25 was built to keep vehicles away form London.

Paul James ● 2209d

The link that Paul James provides earlier in this thread notes that nearly half the estimated pollution related death arise from pollution occurring outside London, so the claims for the ULEZ seems suspect even before allowing for pollutants from sources other than private motor vehicles (eg. gas boilers, construction machinery, buses, planes). It should also be noted that particulate and NOx levels are concentrated in a relatively small number of areas; in Ealing there are two places where EU NOx limits are breached, Horn Lane in Acton and the Hanger Lane gyratory. Specific measures to reduce traffic congestion at these locals may have more impact on air quality than a further tax on motorists.

Vlod Barchuk ● 2210d

Diesel trains and boats should not be forgotten either.

Nicholas Beard ● 2210d

I’ve always been sceptical about the ‘figures’ bandied about in respect of deaths from air quality.There’s no indication about lifestyle or even where these people killed by poor air live. Who knows if they smoked at some time in their lives, they may have been exposed to other pollutants at work, they may even have had a pre-existing medical condition. Far too many variables involved without giving details of every death.Cars are certainly cleaner now. Remember when petrol used to contain lead? My car is 14 years old but is a petrol powered one and is exempt from the ULEZ, so clearly something was already being done back in 2005.As Andy says, this policy will hit those on lower incomes who struggle to replace vehicles hit by the new charge.

Simon Hayes ● 2210d

Blanket bans are impractical as there are always likely to be reasons for non-compliant vehicles to enter the zone.Overall there seems to have been very little questioning of the science used to justify this policy. We keep hearing figures of several thousand people a year dying due to air pollution but the statistical basis for these claims is very shakey being based on studies from other cities and extrapolated into London. The claim that our air quality shortens life expectancy doesn't stand up to much scrutiny as there doesn't seem to be any link between how urban the area you live in is and how long you live. There is a very strong link between your income and life expectancy so it is very likely that the ULEZ will shorten the lives of a significant number of people who are having to replace a vehicle which they rely on to scrape an already meagre income.The targeting of diesel also seems to have little basis in proper research. Most diesel cars currently on the road are Euro Standard 5 or 6 which have particulate filters which make them as clean as any other vehicle for this kind of emission. What they do pump more out of is NOx. There is no dispute that particulates are not good for people's health but the evidence that NOx causes serious problems is not there simply because it always occurs at the same time as particulate pollution so you can't really test how harmful it is. Industrial workers exposed to much higher levels of NOx have not shown an elevated level of health deterioration. If you are burning a gas hob or using a gas oven in an inadequately ventilated kitchen you will be exposed to many times more NOx than you would on our local streets.It is entirely possible, or even probable, that removing Euro standard 5 cars from our roads will deliver zero benefit in terms of air quality but as a fund raising measure it couldn't be more perfectly targeted at the 'just about managing' class.

Andy Jones ● 2211d

You make a fair point but the change was hardly overnight.ULEZ was first announced back in 2014, the extension to the initial zone was announced in 2017.If a further extension to include Ealing from, say, 2023 was announced now it would give those with the most polluting vehicles four years to make alternative arrangements.Personally I think that a 'charge system' is the wrong approach and a blanket ban, again with a four-five year notice period, would be far better and this should include all vehicles including buses and taxis which, for some reason, are exempt.

N V Brooks ● 2211d

No, I’m saying that suggesting expanding the ulez to Ealing is premature. Not everyone can afford to buy an expensive newer car. There are enough financial pressures on people as it is.I’d like to see a more balanced approach and perhaps not just tax people out of their cars. Change will happen but demanding it overnight is just ridiculous.

Simon Hayes ● 2211d

Are you saying that the dirtiest of polluting vehicles make no difference to the quality of life of Londoners?PS I drive a Diesel, albeit a Euro 6.2 one  (can't use public transport due to severe mobility issues).

N V Brooks ● 2211d

Because it would alienate a lot of voters. If you own and drive a car in Ealing at the moment you are already being squeezed by the local mob in the Town Hall.Very laudable to sit on a moral high horse about the evils of vehicle pollution but until economic activity no longer requires the transportation of large volumes of, or bulky, goods, then there is no alternative. Unless of course you want to go back to horse and cart and canal boats from Brentford. Electric vehicles may take over one day, but if you want your handy next day Amazon or Ocado delivery then dirty old internal combustion engines are what you have to put up with.A lot of the argument about air quality ignores the enormous input from, for example, construction work (of which there is an endless amount across London) or emissions from central heating systems. Kick the car owners again because it’s an easy target.I’m an asthmatic, and have been since childhood. I grew up in a semi-rural area and got lots of exercise and fresh air. I’ve lived in London a long time and my asthma is no worse than when I was a child. A lot of asthma is genetic. Air quality may not help, but it’s not the single factor. Using anti bacterial cleaners, which kill a lot of ‘good bacteria’ as well as bad is another major contributor, as it is in the increase in allergic conditions.Perhaps there ought to be a ban on aircraft flying over urban areas while we’re at it. Certainly jet engines aren’t emissions free, but then how would all the eco warriors get to these international conferences on climate change.London may not be the cleanest city, but cities by definition are dirty, noisy and invariably messy. It’s the by-product of human existence. I suggest you go to Delhi, Mumbai or Bangkok if you want to see somewhere with really dangerous levels of pollution.There are many areas in which public health is not looked after. Why not tax fast food outlets out of existence to combat obesity. Make cigarettes illegal for obvious reasons. Ban all artificial food additives. Make salt content in food negligible. Do the same with sugar.Of course,  none of those things are as ‘on message’ as a vehicle tax. What is lacking is any balance in the ULEZ move. Those who can afford it carry on, those who can’t are the ones who pay.

Simon Hayes ● 2211d

I ask why not to question the reason for introduction but why it only covers a very limited area and, even when extended, will not cover most of Ealing.The reason for the introduction does not need links just simple answers.

N V Brooks ● 2211d

Why?https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/pollution-and-air-quality/health-and-exposure-pollution

Paul James ● 2211d