To wonder what all the fuss is about ULEZ

[Winterday1991]

Hardly anyone is affected, only if you have a very old car. No, you should not be free to pollute the air by driving around in a polluting vehicle and so should have to pay a penalty to do so.

It annoys me as everyone agrees we need to tackle climate change, but no one wants the hit on their life/ change their lifestyles.

Many people would say they are centrist.

There is so much misinformation on this thread, mn should really build a verified facts or trusted resources feature to avoid the perpetual spread of falsehoods

The majority of emissions absolutely do not come from the manufacture and scrappage, it varies but is around 15%.

A single fine whilst having the desired impact of fewer people dying is a bit of a blunt instrument, and it should be more closely linked to schemes and incentives which allow a more cost effective way to replace or upgrade.

Just build a bunch of nuclear power plants and stick to the sale of electric only cars from 2030 and we've solved half the pollution issue reasonably easily

Of course it is. Anyone that thinks this is about clean air is deluded. TFL is nearly skint, along with other projects.

However, 5 London councils are awaiting the decision of the High Court, regarding a Judicial Review, and according to The Sunday Times today (can't link as it's a paywall), Khan has been persuaded to rethink all this.

I live in an uncrowded bit of BR5, on the borders of Sevenoaks, and the air quality is ok (I have a lung problem, and would soon know if it wasn't!). The bus service isn't brilliant.

Fine in Central London - but this extension is a cash cow and nothing else.🙄

Politics isn't static, the left, the Right & the centre ground is constantly moving.

With a turn out of 46% and the vote pretty much split between Lab and Con, its a bit of a stretch to say Uxbridge voters are right wing.

Zero road fund implies low emissions, not zero emissions. If it really is zero emission then there is no charge so ask them to check the classification.

What is more the manufacturing and disposal emissions are not at street level in an urban area.

The Conservative passed a law that requires local authorities to reduce air pollution. So far so good but congestion charging is the only way that they can do that and the government has refused to fund one for London, although it has for other places. The misinformation and rabble rousing from some politicians has been absolutely despicable.

Despicable little man that Khan is nobody should be under any illusions that the Tories aren't just as committed to Net Zero lunacy

Even better the incompetent halfwit Shapps is in charge

It is not based on the age of the car. Newer cars pollute less because EU regulation forced manufacturers to make less polluting cars. If you have an older car that meets the standard then it is exempt. Check on the website.

https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-and-climate-change/pollution-and-air-quality/ultra-low-emission-zone-ulez-london/ulez-frequently-asked-questions/can-people-and-organisations-outside-london-apply-scrappage-scheme

I live in one of the home counties and very near to the M25. I'm lucky in that my car is compliant but DHs isn't so he will need to take my car when he is visiting relatives 25 minutes drive away inside the M25. This will restrict him to after 5 when I finish work. He has a blue badge but there is no concession for an inability to use public transport ( not that there is much).
Several people I know who live near to me use shops, supermarkets, parks, leisure facilities, hospitals, cinemas etc in Enfield as they are the nearest ones. They are now going to have to drive North to find a similar facility. This might be several miles to get to things like cinemas etc.
Other friends have clients in London and they will just add the cost on to the bill.

Public transport in Central London is a whole different kettle of fish to public transport in London boroughs. And of course walking, cycling a using public transport are the preferred choices for getting around but outside central London this might not be practical for a variety of reasons (carers, shift workers starting or finishing before the first or last train, if you have heavy kit or equipment that can't easily be carried, if you are dropping children at school or nursery before going to work, and I'm sure lots of other reasons)
And it does hit poorer or lower income families more. The ones who can afford a tesla etc won't be worried. But other people who might have a usuable 10 year old diesel car might struggle to afford another car.
The scrappage scheme is up to £2k. If you couldn't afford a newer, or ulez compliant car in the first place 2k or less may well not be enough to buy one either even if you added some savings.

@Winterday1991why do you have so much beef against people who have worked hard and set up their own businesses to provide for their families?!

Yes some tradespeople are dishonest/unreliable/rip people off but you are tarnishing them all with the same brush! And you can say that about many industries too.

As someone else pointed out they pay for their own insurance, tools, vehicles, fuel and what you pay them is before tax. They have to charge to cover this and now an additional ulez charge on top. They also have deadtime travelling between clients etc that has to be accounted for.

You sound like an idiot and clearly expect to get things in life for the bare minimum!

Just to add, for many people living just outside London, the M25 will effectively become a Berlin Wall . It will effectively block them from seeing friends and relatives, attending social events or clubs and forcing them to find alternatives in the towns scattered around London, possibly several miles away. The expansion will have a massive impact on some people outside London without any scrappage scheme or public transport alternative.

@Fizbosshoes - even in central London public transport is geared to getting people in and out of the Cit and West End There are places near me that take 10 mins to drive to that might take 45 mins on buses and trains

Maybe having a car-centric way of living wasnt such a good idea afterall....

@Sluj so they're happy to use the amenities of a London borough? The quid pro quo of that is that they contribute for the emissions they are subjecting that London borough to. You can't have it all ways. If their home county then becomes concerned about emissions it is in their gift to introduce their own scheme.

The ULEZ was conceived of WAY before covid. It's been on the cards since Johnson was Mayor. It hasn't been designed to shore up TFL's finances post Covid (which anyway are totally bizarre- London is the only capital in Europe that doesn't subsidise its public transport system, despite the net wealth contribution to the rest of the country).

And if it was- so what? The transfer from polluter to public transport is absolutely what should happen. And I say this as a person in an outer borough with a car (not a particularly new one, but a very small, low emissions one for which I am perfectly happy to pay tax)- but also as a person who uses a lot of public transport and walks and cycles a lot (and for prefernece)

Polling consistently shows londoners are pro ULEZ, with the outer boroughs pretty much split on it.

Yes, we are happy to use shops, leisure centres and cinemas in a neighbouring London Borough just as they are welcome to come and spend money in ours. We are not using anything "paid for" by Londoners; they have not paid for Morrisons or Cineworld to be built. 🙄
No one owns these things. If my hospital appointment is at the North Middlesex or Chase Farm, I don't get a choice.

Did everyone moaning contribute to the very well advertised consultation? I do feel sorry for people who bought diesels assuming they were cleaner but their ire should be directed at the car manufacturers who lied about their diesel emissions, not a health measure.

@Croissantsandpistachio the consultation was responded to and very clear that the majority of those living in the outer London Boroughs were against this. Including the local councils showing evidence that our air quality was already improved and now of very good quality. Saint Sadiq then decided he was going to ignore it. Hence the court action.

Actually, @Beetleback it is a wealth tax but on the people who can least afford to pay it!

There's a really good House of Commons briefing paper here on the consultations and subsequent amendments to the scheme: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2022-0240/

Commons library briefings have to be entirely factual and non political.

Everyone does know that disabled drivers have an exemption to the scheme? Until 2027? That was in response to the consultation, as was the scrappage scheme. Londoners then voted 51% in favour in polling. Particulate matter doesn't know borough boundaries- there are very high levels of drift.

@Sluj if I went to Bristol by car for the weekend to see the museums I would pay the charge. It's the same thing. If you want to travel into greater London you have choices: public transport, a lower emissions car, walk or cycle or- use facilities somewhere else. Hospital appointments are indeed a bummer - if you need to see a particular consultant, but we asked for ours to be moved to a hospital easier by public transport.

London can't make transport policy for people who don't live in London and who would experience a very particular set of inconveniences (wanting to go to a specfic cinema or supermarket) in favour of policy that will benefit millions who actually live in the city. It does strike me that the scrappage scheme looks a but low in value but there are likely to be very specific tax reasons why that's at the level it is.

Did everyone moaning contribute to the very well advertised consultation? I do feel sorry for people who bought diesels assuming they were cleaner but their ire should be directed at the car manufacturers who lied about their diesel emissions, not a health measure.

I'm pretty sure "consultations" are often just a formality. A couple of small examples. My DC school was about to become part of a MAT. The school did a consultation, it was apparent that a lot of parents were not in favour but the assumption was it was already done deal.

A local sports centre near me used to give free parking for members but now was introducing parking charges until 10pm. The questions on the consultation form were heavily weighted and essentially you had to say you didn't support the councils efforts be be greener if you disagreed with parking charges (they hadn't given any examples of how they might make it easier to get to said sports centre on public transport, or make any cycle lanes/designated bike routes etc)

Same council planned to close 2 sports facilities in the Borough. They said they had done a consultation when in fact at a council meeting, 2 chairmen of the clubs using the facilities confirmed the "consultation" amounted to a 5 min chat in the car park informing them of the impending closure!!

Khan does consultations to go through the motions not listen to the responses

He is an execrable little weasel

The Tories do this too. It's a real issue in UK politics but definitely across the political spectrum

You don't get it. Lots of amenities and facilities are over the M25 in Enfield and alternatives are not plentiful for those outside it. I'm not talking about having a day out in London, I'm talking about living in a place like Waltham Cross and having your dentist, friends, family and nearest leisure facilities a mile away in Enfield. Do you really think its reasonable to expect such a person to travel to Harlow in the next county if they want to go to the cinema when there is one just down the A10 in Enfield?
I get there is pollution in London but there is also bad pollution in Hertfordshire, especially when the M25 is jammed and all those Londoners hop on the A414 to avoid it. Its just not feasible to expect every different county to introduce their own congestion charge.
I know there is pollution but making the capital city a no go zone for so many people on the edge of it is problematic for them too - with no consultation or compensation on offer.