To think there should be a ULEZ concessions scheme?

[declutteringAgain]

For those on very low incomes affected by this ?
Either a reduced rate or a certain number of ‘free’ trips per UC assessment period or similar?

LEZ have been introduced in other cities that don't have the public transport system that London has. Also, for those with disabilities, mobility issues, business needs or live rurally - city centres aren't accessible without private cars regardless of how excellent and reliable public transport is.
London needs to stop acting like it's the only city in the UK. It's uniquely unlike most other UK cities.

London needs to stop acting like it's the only city in the UK

I didn’t realise it was ‘London’ imposing LEZ in other cities.

It's a scheme to improve air quality. Which it already has. And will do even better with the expansion. HTH.

Yabu
Within a city, there are always multiple options for every journey.
It's right and proper that the most polluting option that is also quickest (solo person in a non-compliant car) should be more expensive than the more environmentally friendly options.

What there needs to be is massive investment into more effective public transport solutions.

Some cities elsewhere in the world have really effective systems that are a half-way point between a private car journey and a bus - you register where you need to get from and to, within what time frame, and you get matched up with 4 to 9 others for either a large taxi or a minibus to combine the pickups and dropoffs for a flexible and bespoke route. Similar systems have been tried here but failed to take off because running a private car is too cheap and easy. Making it less cheap and easy is an important step to push people to make the changes that we all need to be made.

It ought to be the case that setting up your life to be able to use public transport most of the time, with occasional taxi rides for (what ought to be) rare journeys that aren't feasible that way, is cheaper than running a car. The ULEZ helps to create the demand that will make sustainable shared-transport options more viable. Every kind of alternative-to-a-car option is only viable if the demand is there.

No, it has improved air quality in certain areas by pushing certain vehicles into other areas.
As to a PP, no-one suggested London was imposing it elsewhere. Although you're naive if you think the location of WM doesn't impact policy throughout the UK. The point is the discussion about LEZ in the UK isn't limited to London but certain posters keep trying to pretend it is . London's public transport or scrappage scheme isn't relevant to someone affected by another city's LEZ.

Pensioners do have passes. Many pensioners are still working as they can't afford to retire in London.

No, hospitals are not always local and the journeys to get to them are complex and sometimes a way out of London or a journey across London

Hospital transport is virtually non existent.

It is a tax on poor people. Yes their are some poor people who don't have cars but many do.

I'm a carer and have to give up my job as it wouldn't be financially viable for me anymore once ulez kicks in, not on UC or any other benefit in order to get some help via the scrap page scheme. Can no longer use my car to visit my elderly and disabled dad.
Took on this second job as a carer to cover costs of mortgage increases whilst working full time as a civil servant, the system is totally broken.

It would be interesting to see the Equality Impact Assessments and the Risk Assessments for the introduction of each city's LEZ. The scheme definitely disadvantages those with certain protected characteristics eg disability, age, sex. As well as negatively impacting those from deprived areas and who are living in poverty.
Even its supporters on this thread are clear it's a negative nudge process that depends on different sustainable and reliable public transport options that have not yet been introduced. And even those 'future' transport options don't address the needs of those with mobility issues or young families plus the protected characteristics outlined above.
It's easy to create a scheme that benefits the young, fit and wealthy. The challenge for, and the test of, a civilised society is how it treats and integrates the vulnerable and those on the margins. The LEZ schemes pretend they don't exist.

It has improved air quality in the ULEZ. Which was the intention. It will improve air quality in the expansion area. Also the intention.

I'm not sure which other areas it should have improved air quality in? It's not going to make the air better in Manchester or Glasgow.

It has not pushed pollution to the London outskirts, either.

ULEZ, combined with the congestion charge, has sped uptake of electric cars within central London and reduced car ownership overall.

London's ULEZ has been remarkably successful at its intended aim. Air quality improved greatly. The bigger ULEZ gets, the greater the benefit to air quality.

As well as negatively impacting those from deprived areas and who are living in poverty.

It has improved the quality of air London's poorest children breathe. It has improved their health. Poor children were much more likely to suffer from air pollution.

i don't live anywhere nr london so not up at all on this debate but from the outside i can't see why everyone is so worked up. the poorest households don't have cars. if people have cars they are not "the poorest". air pollution is a major issue. why don't people want to address this. in london there is fantastic public transport. hasn't the time come for people to realise there's a significant cost to pollution and it is not about rich v poor. it's more that you can't put a price on harming other people's health. the richest shouldn't be able to pay to do this and "the poor" shouldn't be subsidised to do it. people need a shift in thinking and to realise it is not ok to pollute. if you can't afford to upgrade your vehicle (and i sincerely doubt anyone cannot do this if it was their top priority) then you should want to find alternatives that don't cause pollution or risks to other people's health. it should be as socially unacceptable as deliberately blowing cigarette smoke in a baby's face but for some reason countless people want to defend this. i don't get it.

This point gets overlooked all too often.

@Fizzology having a roof over their heads is also important as well as putting food on the table, difficult to do when your forced to give up your second job in order to pay these costs. I can't do my job using public transport

Do ZipCars and similar not exist in the outer boroughs then?

It's usually cheaper than ownership

Yes in theory but would be impossible to administer. Heavier cars (I.e. SUVs) usually owned by rich people should have to pay more.

And those living in deprived areas and in poverty are statistically less likely to own a car, yes they disproportionately suffer the worse from pollution

@landbeforegrime
I agree with all that you say except this, “if you can't afford to upgrade your vehicle (and i sincerely doubt anyone cannot do this if it was their top priority)”.
Here you clearly have no clue what it means to have no disposable income each month

I think you may be confusing two different policies here.

ULEZ is air quality, not a wider environmental tax (the heavy SUV will be paying more in road tax and if ICE/hybrid considerably more in fuel duty)

If its emissions are however low in terms of the particulate matter that harms human health by lung damage, then it should not be punitively taxed under this scheme.

There's enough misconceptions about the purpose of this scheme and what makes a vehicle non-compliant without adding separate elements

I think what is unfair is that some cities have this and others don't. It should be all or none cities across the UK.

It's based on air pollution, not "fairness"

It's clearly not entirely based on air pollution. Otherwise, the busy roads in my borough near me that run past 3 primary schools would be included in the ULEZ zone and they aren't. They are often congested at peak times and yet are outside the boundary of the expansion despite being in Greater London. It makes no sense - the boundary in one case runs right along the edge of a very buy and congested road, excluding it yet including the quiet, dead end side roads.

The point is the discussion about LEZ in the UK isn't limited to London but certain posters keep trying to pretend it is

Well, this thread is about ULEZ, which is London based. Also, not quite sure how some posters conflating the two equates to ‘London’ needing to realise that not everywhere is like London. Naughty London.

London's public transport or scrappage scheme isn't relevant to someone affected by another city's LEZ

I believe that the scrappage system is more generous in some other places than in London, and that that funding is from central Government. I genuinely don’t know much about the other LEZ initiatives, how far out they go and how good the transport is. I do agree that excellent public transport is important.

That may explain it. 🤣

Thanks for the heads up: I'll have to get the telescope out with the boy. 😊😊 If the werewolf-viper hybrids haven't come for us by then!

Alexandrias - its not a 'cash grab scheme', if you are one of the thousands of people who travel around London without a car

I imagine the scheme will be expanded and replicated in time. It would be impossible to implement everywhere all at once