Forum Topic

Consultation on proposed extension of the ULEZ

Excellent news (also reported on the News pages here) that TfL is consulting on a proposal to extend the ULEZ to cover the whole of London:https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/cleanair?cid=clean-airIt could remove over 125,000 older, more polluting cars from the roads, and despite what the car lobby defenders will claim (stand by for newly-discovered concern for the disabled, poorer people, etc), this action is overdue.

Richard Carter ● 705d43 Comments

Richard the traffic counts for Hammersmith Bridge in the foi pd are manual. I suggest you look at the pdf again:Copying and pasting my second point from an earlier reply that mentions this:2) Hammersmith Bridge -25,000 Manual Count - I think we can ignore that. Probably done from a cafe!Hansard Debate: Hammersmith Bridge: Traffic Data puts the figure at 30,000.DFT for 2018 but all motor vehicles at 22,363 (cars & taxis 17,232)Due to the above and the removal of bus services it is very hard to quantify the amount of traffic that has not been dispersed.You can say that the bus services across the bridge evaporated and that some local traffic almost certainly would have evaporated. but how much?You can not say that the Hammersmith Bridge traffic evaporated as according to the automatic counters that is clearly not the case.On top of the manual HB counts the rounding of bridge traffic to thousands really makes any attempt at calculating reductions impossible. And not all bridges are included such as Richmond. M3/M4 traffic that would have used HB will even be directed down the A3 to Kingston or the M25.It is simply not a good example to illustrate traffic evaporation. Accurate and detailed Hammersmith Bridge data is just not there (well at least not in the public domain) to do any serious analysis.

Ed Robinson ● 700d

Ivonne, It's all set out in the full report here:https://www.hammersmithbridge.org.uk/Uploads/2019-08-22-0850-FOI%201103%201920.pdfAnd there's a summarised version here:https://www.hammersmithbridge.org.uk/n/n42/changes-in-traffic-flowThose links both work for me.

Richard Carter ● 700d

Hello Richard,Thank you for the information and I am sorry to say I cannot altogether follow it.The title states clearly that it is estimated average daily (24 hour) traffic flow changes since the bridge closure, based on automatic (motorised) traffic counters with the two periods of recordings given.For Hammersmith Bridge, it states -25,000 (2018 manual count)? ???????Then we have monitored flow change followed by inferred flow change.  The latter I take it means figures concluded from evidence or assumptions, not automatic traffic counts.So, from monitored high flow change:Chiswick Bridge: 6,500Fulham Palace Road: 3,000Upper Richmond Road: 1,600  - sub-total= 11,100Add inferred high flow change:Kew Bridge:  2,000Chalkers Corner:  8,000Putney Bridge:  4,000Wandsworth Bridge: 2,000 - sub-total = 16,000Add monitored medium flow change:Mortlake Road: 1,500Great West Road: 1,000Battersea Bridge:  1,000 - sub-total = 4,500This gives a total of 31,600 vs the 25,000 over Hammersmith Bridge.Where the Roehampton Lane figures come from I have no idea.Initially, it struck me as odd that Putney Bridge, Wandsworth Bridge and Chalkers Corner have inferred figures.  Also, that Mortlake Road, Great West Road and Battersea Bridge have monitored figures but considered medium flow change?  Where did the evaporation happen?  I tried to open your link to Tim Lennon's FoI but I get a "404 Not found".

Ivonne Holliday ● 700d

Evaporates over Putney Bridge instead.

Barbara Stevens ● 701d

Oh dear, so much here that's wrong, it's hard to know where to start. But I’ll make just three points:1. “The date of Hammersmith Bridge very relevant” and “Bus services continued unlike the recent closure.”  I think you mean that buses continued using the bridge after the 1997 closure and it’s the 2019 closure that is the issue here. But it’s irrelevant because it doesn’t affect the principle that traffic evaporation occurs when restrictions are applied.2. “The data used was probably captured manually, which tends to be unreliable. Possibly extremely unreliable if it was raining and the figures made up from a nearby cafe.”  What a charmingly fantastical picture this conjures up, of poor traffic counters sheltering in a nearby cafe! Unfortunately for Ed, it is literally fantastical (imaginative or fanciful; remote from reality), because, as the report containing the figures that Tim Lennon requested explains perfectly clearly, the traffic counts were based on automatic traffic counters (using loop inductors to detect the number of vehicles passing over them) and data from automatic number plate recognition cameras. 3. “what you call evaporation is more time added to people commute to get to an alternative transport hub.” Firstly, it’s not what I call traffic evaporation (I didn't invent it!), but a long-recognised phenomenon (eg, https://tinyurl.com/yckkxkc6). And you miss the point that much of the traffic evaporates because people decide their journey wasn’t necessary in the first place, so far from taking it longer, it actually saves time for them.

Richard Carter ● 701d

When Hammersmith Bridge closed before I remember there were a group of commuters who took to their cycles and stayed cycling after it reopened.

Philippa Bond ● 701d

Thank you Richard,Now I'm on a PC (all links below).I shall refrain from returning insults and stick to the facts.I do not see how this powerpoint proves your evapouration theory. Just a few points:1) I can not see the term "traffic evapouration" used in the document you link to - or even the word "evaporation".2) Hammersmith Bridge -25,000 Manual Count - I think we can ignore that. Probably done from a cafe!Hansard Debate: Hammersmith Bridge: Traffic Data puts the figure at 30,000.DFT for 2018 but all motor vehicles at 22,363 (cars & taxis 17,232)3) The dates used are up to the 12th July. Bus route changes were made on the 3rd of August. The data will not reflect those changes.4) By comparing autumn/winter with spring/summer it ignores the benefit of the through traffic via Richmond Park due to the extra daylight. The positioning of the arrow would seem to indicate the censor is North of Clarence Lane which would impact the Roehampton Lane figures. Those arguing for no through traffic through the park would say it is considerable - I'm not sure.Closure could also see more traffic using Clarence Lane / Upper Richmond Road.Figures Upper Richmond Road (Sheen) +1,600 and Putney Bridge +4,000 would seem to explain the -5,000 on the North part of Roehampton Lane.No figures for the roads that approach Putney Bridge sound side.Conclusion: Insufficient evidence IMO to claim "traffic evaporation" in this case. traffic evaporation" is usually a term used for private car travel but in this case it includes removing public transport too.If there were accurate figures for Hammersmith Bridge I may have a different opinion in this case.Taking the DFT 17K figure and allowing for the rounding to thousands (a bit odd) the other bridges have increased to 15.5K. Which is not what I would call evaporation especially given more people tend to drive in the winter.https://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/17808905.new-bus-routes-changes-due-hammersmith-bridge-road-closure/https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/1997-11-10/debates/8282c105-0d04-46ae-b289-8c1b65a73f19/HammersmithBridgeTrafficDatahttps://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/how_is_the_hammersmith_bridge_cl

Ed Robinson ● 701d

Climate change is worldwide.  Air pollution is worldwide.  Australia have voted in a party who intend pitting clomate change higher up their agenda.  They have had terrible wild fires and flooding in recent years.  Friends living in Australia are way ahead of us re water saving and reuse and solar and wind energy.

Philippa Bond ● 701d

I think a steam train just went through Putney - are they green?Anyway for all things trains see the "The Man in Seat Sixty-One".LNER do some good family deals but nowhere near the German deal unfortunately.https://www.seat61.com/https://twitter.com/seatsixtyone

Ed Robinson ● 701d

Richard,The date of Hammersmith Bridge very relevant.1) Bus services continued unlike the recent closure.2) The data used was probably captured manually, which tends to be unreliable. Possibly extremely unreliable if it was raining and the figures made up from a nearby cafe.The first point is very relevant because what you call evaporation is more time added to people commute to get to an alternative transport hub (Putney STN/East Putney). This resulted in overcrowding pre-Covid.Those who do not wish to restore bus services to Hammersmith Bridge will quote the exact same report and make the same error.

Ed Robinson ● 701d

Now Australia want to ban Petrol Vehicles. Then it will be OH NO we got it wrong ban Diesel Vehicles.

Barbara Stevens ● 701d

Minus Hammersmith Bridge because they are all coming to Putney and Wandsworth Bridge.

Barbara Stevens ● 701d

Widened pavements, cycle lanes, just produce more traffic jams. More noise from Ambulances and fire engines trying to get past, with sirens going.

Barbara Stevens ● 701d

Absolutely Richard!Also, perhaps I should have written buenas tardes rather than good afternoon…..

Mike Warman ● 702d

Well, Mike, if we're really going to be pedantic (BTW I definitely deny Andy's earlier contribution), shouldn't it rather read “en casa Carter”?

Richard Carter ● 702d

Hi Andy Whilst I don’t disagree with your comments, as a thread on pedantry I can’t resist - I believe that should have read “chez Carter” rather than “in chez Carter”, alternatively “in casa Carter” would work well ;-)Have a nice afternoon!

Mike Warman ● 702d

https://www.dw.com/en/most-beautiful-train-routes-to-travel-with-germanys-9-ticket/g-61847301Shame it doesn't happen here!

Katrina Black ● 702d

Interesting how one pedantic person digs out Ed for being pedantic.No self awareness in chez Carter.

Andy Pike ● 702d

In fact, checking the details again, I see that Mr Ed is not just pedantic but plain wrong: the figures quoted are from a comparison of traffic flows that compared data from 3 September 2018 to 10 April 2019 with 11 April to 12 July 2019  that were obtained from an FoI request by Tim Lennon (https://www.hammersmithbridge.org.uk/Uploads/2019-08-22-0850-FOI%201103%201920.pdf). Oh, and the Crown copyright note at the bottom right, dates 2019, might have given a clue as to the date.

For Mr Ed's convenience, I'll attach the full diagram below. * Not inappropriately, the original Mr Ed was a talking horse in a 1960s television show: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mister_Ed

Richard Carter ● 702d

Mr Pedantry, Ed Robinson, imagines he's found a killer response to the post about traffic evaporation, but whether the figures for Hammersmith Bridge were from 1997 or 2019 is completely irrelevant: it's the principle that counts, and that principle is that the level of traffic is not fixed but is a function of the amount of road space.Even the link he provides (to the Cairns et al paper) backs this up: in their conclusion, the authors write:"Overall, all follow-up work has broadly confirmed the findings of the original study. When pedestrianisation schemes or wider pavements or cycle lanes or bus (and other priority vehicle) lanes or road closures are introduced, pre-scheme predictions of what will happen are usually excessively pessimistic. In practice, it is rare that schemes result in a significant deterioration of traffic conditions. Traffic levels can reduce by significant amounts, with the average being that perhaps 11% of the traffic on the treated road or area cannot be found in the area afterwards."

Richard Carter ● 702d

Now this must be the type of initiative to move people from cars to public transport?https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/20/germany-public-transport-boost-9-euro-month-ticket#aoh=16533800494914&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fworld%2F2022%2Fmay%2F20%2Fgermany-public-transport-boost-9-euro-month-ticket
Perhaps when we have Great British Railways, or is that just another PR stunt from this useless government? I believe Germany also has financial measures to assist people to transition to electric cars. Isn't that the true meaning of levelling up?(This is reported on other news sites but I used the Guardian as I know it's not behind a paywall.)

Michael Ixer ● 702d

Barbara, Richard neglects to mention the study was based on the 1997 closure of Hammersmith Bridge and that it was still open for buses.Detail also evaporates conveniently."1997: Bridge closed to vehicles except a single bus in each lane, emergency vehicles, bicycles, motorcycles and pedestrians, which corresponded to the maximum safe load for the bridge in its condition."https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/hammersmith-bridge/hammersmith-bridge-timeline"The other scheme that should be mentioned is Hammersmith Bridge, London, which was reopened to general traffic in 1999."https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/disappearing_traffic_cairns.pdf

Ed Robinson ● 702d

Michael,last time I looked at the research it was US based around intercity highways. There is a difference between this kind of commuting and in city traffic.Electrification of the railways with relatively cheap season tickets (per mile) led to congestion on the tracks. Fast trains were given priority over local services. People started commuting huge distances. Local services of a few miles travelled slower than horse speed. Be it trains or roads it's not a scalable model to encourage this type of commuting.However road transport is still needed in the city by buses, vans, lorries etc and also some private cars. Where possible city road transport should be efficient. Inefficient junctions and crossing do not help anyone. Vehicles idling in traffic be it ULEZ compliant or not still cause air pollution.Public transport must be made safer and incentives to get people off the road if possible. Joined up thinking is needed.Why were TFL ordering 2 door buses when many cities have switched to 3 door buses. £400m would be saved if the bus increases speed by 1mph. Boarding times could have been reduced with 3 doors but they prefer to stick to the 1980's method of boarding at the front!The mayor needs to be more bold, detailed and joined up.

Ed Robinson ● 702d

It was a comment on the American comic strip you posted not on the issue itself.

Andy Pike ● 702d

Look, I'll try to spell this out clearly.1. There is no fixed level of traffic: it varies with the conditions.2. If roads are made wider (ie, with more lanes) congestion is initially less because there is more space for the vehicles.3. Subsequently, because it seems easier to drive, more people are encouraged to drive (this is what Michael refers to as 'induced demand') so that the roads soon become as congested as before, but at an overall level that is greater - so along with the congestion you get more tailpipe emissions and thus more pollution.4. Conversely, if you reduce the level of road provision (ie by closing Hammersmith Bridge), congestion rises at first because the same number of vehicles are trying to use the reduced road space.5. But then people at the margin see that driving is more difficult and so find alternative modes of travel, or don't travel at all ('traffic evaporation').A simpler way of looking at it, is to compare traffic with water in a pipe. Restrict the pipe and, because you have the same level of water, the rate of flow slows. But traffic isn't like that, because its level depends not only on the road space but on the effect on individual drivers - the crucial point is that the level of traffic is NOT a constant like the water in the pipe.

Richard Carter ● 703d

Little roads more congestion.

Barbara Stevens ● 703d

It's called induced demand and quite a lot of research has been done regarding it. This is an article not behind a paywall:https://www.vox.com/2014/10/23/6994159/traffic-roads-induced-demand

Michael Ixer ● 703d

It's always good to see reasoned argument on here ...

Richard Carter ● 703d

And in the Beano..........

Andy Pike ● 703d

A clear illustration of what happens when the level of road space is increased; the reverse effect happens when you reduce it.

Richard Carter ● 703d

Well I read yesterday, they are prepared to spend about £2200000 on Security for some of the London Bridges.

Barbara Stevens ● 703d

What a load of rubbish you should have seen Wandsworth Roundabout about an 1 hr ago you have never seen so many vehicles. Also Disraeli Rd, the cycle stand is full of bikes with their handle bars missing, seats missing, buckled wheels, it's a disgrace.

Barbara Stevens ● 703d

"No one imagines that this is the sole answer to pollution/congestion, so to dismiss it out of hand doesn't help: it is one part of the necessary many actions that are needed."Yes but this will prevent action from being taken for the next 5 years!The mayor has powers but chooses not to use them.With regards to Hammersmith bridge evaporation. The Major cut the 72 bus which was a vital link between Roehampton and Hammersmith for decades without consultation.Lastly the link is to: "Improving air quality and Londoner’s health, tackling climate change and reducing congestion"I'm not sure how long haul tourism fits into climate change. Perhaps someone can explain??

Ed Robinson ● 704d

No one imagines that this is the sole answer to pollution/congestion, so to dismiss it out of hand doesn't help: it is one part of the necessary many actions that are needed.

Just to dispose of one myth about the traffic, of the 25.000 daily crossings of Hammersmith bridge when it was last open. only 4,000 were diverted to Putney bridge: Chiswick bridge carried 6,500 more daily. But the wider point is that around 10,000 car journeys simply 'evaporated' as people found other ways to travel or simply didn't use their cars: evidence for not reopening the bridge to motor traffic at all.

Richard Carter ● 704d

The link at the bottom refer to the Oxford' ULEZ. The point it makes is very important and was missing from the last expansion and this one:"It provides drivers with a clear policy direction over time by pre-announcing what will change up to 2025'One of the negative things the ULEZ did was to persuade people that ULEZ compliant vechiches are clean - they are not. "It's time to say goodbye to toxic exhaust emissions" was an example of an incorrect slogan that oversold the ULEZ benefits.The expansion will improve air quality but probably not significantly.The scheme also does not allow for days when air quality is poor. Currently we are advised to stay indoor and not to exercise outdoors. That has happen twice this year already. In Paris the mayor would take measures - sadly not London. By having just non-compliant vehicles paying the Mayor loses that option.I was really hoping for something better.https://myurbancar.com/2022/04/30/oxford-calling-clean-air-charges/

Ed Robinson ● 704d

Lucille, get them to mend Hammersmith Bridge, then all the traffic won't be diverted to Putney. I could moan I'm in the Bus garage Rd. We have just come back from Richmond Sainsbury's with 2 twerps cycling next to each other all the way from Manor lane, holding up all the traffic. Putney is a direct route to everywhere. But nearly everything in the Putney Exchange has shut and in the High Street. The same traffic comes from Sheen, but Sheen doesn't look dirty.

Barbara Stevens ● 704d

The air along the Upper Richmond Road adjacent to the High Street palpably stinks Barbara. Why should I be forced to live elsewhere just because so many people insist on driving into London through Putney?

Lucille Grant ● 705d

Go and live in the sticks, then you will have clean air. Why move here if you don't like it and always moaning. People live in town for work and jobs, obviously that is why you have more traffic. You want your food delivered your parcels delivered, what do you expect. Loads of buses every 5 mins, instead of continually picking fault why not move. You will be getting people to get rid of their vehicles every 2 years soon, it's bad enough every 10yrs.

Barbara Stevens ● 705d

No real interest in this as an ex Londoner but why is he going through a sham consultation. If the vast majority came out against it he would still proceed we know that for sure.Secondly in the words of his honourable leader Near Smarmer" is the middle of the worst cost of living crisis for 40 years the best time to impose this additional burden on hard pressed families?"

Andy Pike ● 705d

I have decided to oppose the extension.This or the next mayor will be locked into the same tariff structure for the next 5 years throughout London. I find that completely unacceptable.Just targeting older cars which are rapidly falling in number is not enough as the last expansion showed.

Ed Robinson ● 705d

Or you could just sell it to someone who lives well outside of the ULEZ. The concentration of noxious emissions in inner London is very deleterious to health, whereas outside of London, in lower concentrations, dispersed into a wider atmosphere, such vehicles can be used to the end of their natural economic life without net harm either to health or the environment.I have an old car which I will dispose of/replace if and when this change comes into force and though I will not regret it, it would be the ULEZ extension which has nudged me into doing it.

Michael Winstanley ● 705d

The forced scrapping of usable vehicles did feel like displacement of pollution though from here to where new vehicles are made and of ones recycled or landfills.I buy things and keep them until they are end of life.  It's good economically (for me) and environmentally.  But things like the ulez break that approach.

Alan Sherman ● 705d

Considering the last extension's cost and end result I'm not convinced it is the best way to reduce pollution. Unless of course they change the tariffs that is to something nearer Oxford's ULEZ.I'm not sure where 125,000 comes from but it would be interesting to know what the expected number would be by the time it is introduced.You could do an awful lot of green transport for the same budget.

Ed Robinson ● 705d