Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Guest posts

Guest post: “The ULEZ is a bold measure – but a vital one.”

72 replies

MumsnetGuestPosts · 26/04/2019 14:41

London’s toxic air is an invisible killer and amounts to nothing short of a public health crisis. Thousands die prematurely every year in our city as a direct result of our polluted air, while many more develop life-changing illnesses including cancer, heart disease, dementia and asthma.

What makes this issue particularly scandalous is that it is our children who are among the hardest hit. They don’t contribute to the problem and yet they bear the brunt of it. In parts of London, for example, there are children growing up right now with stunted lungs because of exposure to filthy air – and this will affect them not just in the short-term, but for the rest of their lives.

As the Mayor of London, I’m not willing to shirk my responsibilities and turn a blind eye to young people in our city breathing dangerously polluted air. To do so would be to ignore the duty of care I have to our children. Protecting children’s health and life chances is surely a moral necessity in any civilised society. And so, that’s why my administration has chosen to push ahead with the boldest and most ambitious plans of any major city in the world to tackle air pollution. This includes supporting air quality audits around schools and nurseries to find ways we can improve the air our children breathe.

This month, we introduced the world’s first ever Ultra-Low Emission Zone, the toughest emission standard of any major city in the world. The ULEZ is the centrepiece of my campaign to clean up our dirty air and works by levying a daily charge on the oldest and most polluting vehicles entering central London. It is enforced 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, and is designed to encourage more Londoners to get out of their cars and onto public transport, to switch to cleaner vehicles, or to walk or cycle. The ULEZ is set to expand even further in 2021, delivering benefits to all Londoners far beyond its boundaries.

Experts say the impact of the ULEZ will be transformative, with hazardous nitrogen oxides from exhaust pipes expected to be reduced by around 45 per cent. Along with a series of other measures we’re implementing – like no longer licensing new diesel taxis and buying only electric, hybrid or hydrogen-powered buses – we will be able to deliver cleaner air for millions of Londoners. 75 percent of London’s buses now meet clean air rules – we’re aiming to make that 100 percent by 2020.

To give you some idea of the difference we can make, King’s College London estimates that without action it would take 193 years to bring London’s air quality to within legal levels. But with the action we’re taking, we can hope to achieve this goal in just six years. This means the number of schools in London in areas breaching air pollution will be reduced from over 450 today to just five in 2020 and zero in 2025.

We know that traffic emissions are the biggest source of air pollution in our city and that addressing them is key to solving the problem. This is what the ULEZ is all about and it’s also why we’ve been working hard to make public transport a more attractive and affordable alternative for Londoners with our four-year freeze on TfL fares, and the unlimited Hopper bus fare.

But this issue is larger than London, or indeed the rest of the UK, which is in the midst of a similar air quality crisis. As a father and a politician, I spend a lot of time thinking about the world we’re going to leave for future generations. The natural environment that many of us took for granted throughout our lifetime is reaching a tipping point.

Our children appear to grasp this better than many adults and are starting to take action – from online activism to the recent school climate strikes taking place in cities around the world. It’s now time for all of us to see the bigger picture and realise that we can be the first generation who gets it and finds solutions, and the last generation that fails to rise to the challenge.

We have made huge strides in the past in turning the tide on air pollution and environmental problems in London so there is no reason why we can’t do so again. Fewer than 70 years ago, the Great Smog claimed thousands of lives and the River Thames was so polluted it was declared biologically dead. It took brave and innovative policies to make change happen but we proved it was possible.

In 2019, we face a different challenge. Often we can’t see the tiny pollution particles that weave their way deep into our children’s lungs, but we know they are there and that they pose a deadly threat. So I make no apology for the tough action I’m taking.

The ULEZ is a bold measure – but a vital one. It does require Londoners to adapt, but in such circumstances inaction simply isn’t an option. After all, we owe it to our children to ensure the air they breathe is clean and safe, and that the planet we leave to them isn’t imperilled by environmental degradation and climate change.

We will be forwarding your questions on 02/05/2019

OP posts:
starpatch · 27/04/2019 08:09

No it does not disproportionately effect the poor. The majority of people living in inner London do not own cars, those that do are much more likely to be well off. Whereas people who live alongside busy roads are disproportionately the poor .

CKWattisthemanager · 27/04/2019 08:25

It's recognised that the point at which a car is most polluting is in it's manufacture.
Hopefully people won't scrap cars just because of emission zones. Let them fade away with natural time wastage so the benefit of them and the cost to the environment in manufacture is felt.

WorkingItOutAsIGo · 27/04/2019 08:33

I didn’t say it disproportionately affects the poor I said the less well off. I can sell my diesel car and buy a new one and be slightly annoyed I have lost several thousand pounds. But the tradesmen and shopkeepers I talk to, who have one diesel van for their business which may be five or six years old - for them it is a major financial outlay unexpectedly early. And they are the less well off. They count every penny and those few thousand pounds are going to cripple them for the next few years.

AnyoneButAnton · 27/04/2019 08:47

Flog them second hand to people living in rural areas, who’ll be more likely to be doing the distances that make diesels a carbon-efficient choice anyway. Older diesels are a reasonable choice for rural areas.

The “what about the poor people?” line is hopelessly disingenuous. The poor people, adults and children, will be the primary beneficiaries of this policy. And the villains of the piece are not the politicians who introduced the policy, in a difficult balancing act of trying to stop people being poisoned without inconveniencing too many voters, but sodding VW (et al) whose executives needed locking up en masse.

AnyoneButAnton · 27/04/2019 08:48

I do feel sympathy for small van drivers though. I agree that this is going to be incredibly thought for them.

Oliversmumsarmy · 27/04/2019 09:03

Well Dd has just driven into London for a job. Where she usually parks on a Saturday has been changed to a 4 hour restriction so has spent the past 45 minutes driving around looking for a yellow line to park on all day.
She will probably continue to do this so her emissions will end up going up.

We don’t have public transport in our are and the cost of a taxi to and from the station and the tube will just make it not worth while to continue.

HandInGove · 27/04/2019 09:18

We have a public health emergency here.
This is an excellent measure and our children rely on adults getting their act together on this NOW. Kids lungs are being permanently damaged.

Keep on and do more Mayor Khan. Parents are behind you.

Please can you gather together a load of other mayors from across the UK and get them to commit to the same thing and share back office resources with them to actually help each other get it done.

The government couldn’t care less about this- thank god for a London Mayor with enough resources to make it happen who does.

Windygate · 27/04/2019 09:23

Smithfield Market has just announced plans to move out of the City of London to Barking. So shifting the business, congestion and pollution to Barking. ULEZ is just another stealth tax.

ChardonnaysPrettySister · 27/04/2019 09:34

And a one more question.

I’m currently sitting on a bus that keeps stopping and waiting to even out gaps in the service. That’s fine, but the driver keeps the engine running throughout.

Would it be helpful to instruct the drivers to switch off the engine to keep pollution down?

There are so many things that are not done before bringing the big ULEZ guns out.

Dermymc · 27/04/2019 09:47

@Oliversmumsarmy she could drive to a station or tube station and get public transport into London. To say there is no public transport for London is insane! Whichever direction you are coming from there are trains or tubes you can get. Driving into Central London should be an absolute last resort.

Artbum · 27/04/2019 10:00

More people would use public transport if tube stations in particular were more accessible. Not everyone can climb stairs. Why have TFL been allowed to curtail and change a number of bus routes into central London to try and force people onto Crossrail when it hasn’t even opened yet?

I welcome ULEZ, my only criticism is that it doesn’t go far enough at the moment. Has it made any measurable difference to pollution levels. I live near the Westway, will ULEZ make significant differences to pollution in North Kensington and similarly blighted areas?

Oliversmumsarmy · 27/04/2019 10:03

Dermymc there is no public transport in our area as it is all single track with small passing spaces.

So not suitable for busses and you can’t walk on the road as you are constantly diving for the bushes to avoid people driving like maniacs

You are not guaranteed a parking space when you get to the station so it is drive into London or pay the £25 parking charge to park in someone’s driveway.

Vulpine · 27/04/2019 10:04

Oliver's mummy - or could she cycle a to train station and take her bike on the train. There are always alternatives.

Dermymc · 27/04/2019 10:32

Could you drop her to the station? Surely she has to pay the congestion charge!

AnyoneButAnton · 27/04/2019 11:05

Congestion charge doesn’t apply on a Saturday. But it would be a strange zone 6 station where the car park is full at the weekends, surely?

Vulpine · 27/04/2019 12:32

In that case Oliver's mummys dd should be given an exemption Hmm

Zone4flaneur · 27/04/2019 13:31

Glad lots of people are sticking up for the policy. Children are dying as a result of traffic pollution in London.

I don't by the displacement to the south circular argument. We live very close to the S Circular. I think it will act as a nudge for people who might routinely drive from, say, Anerley to Brockley to jump on the train instead (heaps of people on my street do that sort of journey all the time). It will lead to a net reduction as lots of people will decide to take a different mode of transport.

I do think bus routes need work- we need more routes w-e rather than radial routes, but if it inconveniences people- fine. We have a climate and air quality emergency.

Zone4flaneur · 27/04/2019 13:32

*buy

FiremanKing · 27/04/2019 14:18

Fines and higher charges will not clean the air. It’s a ‘poll tax’ charge to get more revenue.

Car owners are seen as fair game. Monies from fines and charges will no doubt be spent on super duper bike lanes, extra Parking Wardens and even more Cameras to help squeeze every last drop out of the motorist.

jackparlabane · 27/04/2019 14:22

I think since Citymapper and similar apps came out, more people are slowly moving to more complex public transport journeys. My DP is terrible at reading timetables and hasn't got a map of London in his head so if something needs a change of train, he would have no clue.

Now he just types into Citymapper and follows the instructions (whereas previously he'd have been much more likely to drive). I recommend it to tourists almost every day (work in a central London touristy area with lots of lost tourists asking for directions). Locally, Zipcar is helping lots of people not need to own a car.

Moving Smithfield out of central London is a great idea - there's no reason why so much stuff should come into the centre just to go out again. It'll mean loads of vans not needing to clog up central roads.

Vulpine · 27/04/2019 15:19

Fireman - given that it's the motorists doing the polluting that seems kinda logical! They are indeed 'fair game'.

Zone4flaneur · 27/04/2019 16:00

I have absolutely no problem with car drivers being fined to generate revenue for more sustainable transport.

Citymapper is great. We have a car club membership as well for the odd time we really need one (lugging stuff about). Even if we needed it a lot it would be a lot cheaper than owning a car.

Don't forget this only applies to the most polluting cars. Why anyone would drive a diesel in a built up area (if it's not a van) is beyond me. Why anyone would voluntarily drive into central London regularly is also beyond me. It takes ages, for a start.

Of course it cleans the air! Air quality improved by about 30% in Oxford st during the extinction rebellion protests.

Zone4flaneur · 27/04/2019 16:03

Fireman- do you think everyone should just be allowed to pollute as much as they want, then, and to hell with the consequence? Or just you? Fines will dissuade people from making car journeys. Good.

BSJohnson · 27/04/2019 16:12

I hope you're right, zone4.

FiremanKing · 27/04/2019 16:18

Zone4flaneur

Fines and charges will only deter some people.

In my opinion the fines and charges are not tackling the problem. It’s the emissions at source that need to be reduced/eliminated.

Swipe left for the next trending thread