Forum Topic

ULEZ Expansion

If you object to expansion of the ULEZ zone, contact Councillor Claire Gilbert (email cllr.c.gilbert@wandsworth.gov.uk) to voice your concerns so that she can raise them at the Citizens Assembly on air quality in April.Apart from the Mayor's biased interpretation of his 'consultation', Sadiq Khan has contradicted his claims of benefits to air quality by simultaneously announcing that hospital admissions of asthmatic children in London, SINCE the zone was expanded to the Nth/Sth Circular Rds, have actually risen by 64%. This doesn't suggest that ULEZ is working. He also rejected votes from a motoring organisation which polled drivers yet, when he realised the consultation wasn't going his way, himself spent public money on advertising and lobbying 18-30 y.o's on social media. He can't have it both ways. We live in Putney, just outside of the Sth Circular, and already can't pop down to the High Street in our car without incurring a £12.50 charge. From August, unless the scheme is scrapped, we won't even be able to leave our driveway to shop in Kingston, or even our local Asda supermarket in Roehampton, without incurring the charge. We would rather spend our money in our own borough. The Mayor's scrappage scheme won't help either because many less well off folk simply can't find the difference to buy another car. It will only help those who can. Apart from anything, scrapping perfectly serviceable vehicles while the manufacture and disposal of electric vehicles causes such damage to the environment, makes no sense either environmentally or fiscally.As for Putney High Street pollution levels, we all know it's exacerbated by traffic being diverted from Hammersmith Bridge, so it shouldn't be held up as an example for justification.

Roy Robart ● 462d78 Comments

Philippa, that is from 2020.He has chosen expansion that will take longer, cost more and will probably be less effective than amending the current tariff structure."h. The immediate reintroduction of the London Congestion Charge, LEZ and ULEZ and urgently bring forward proposals to widen the scope and levels of these charges, in accordance with the relevant legal powers and decision-making processes.

Ed Robinson ● 428d

Take a look at this - especially item 12:https://content.tfl.gov.uk/extraordinary-funding-and-financing-agreement-may-2020.pdf

Philippa Bond ● 428d

Various reports.Sensible thing to do would be to extend the tariff to all private cars in the existing ULEZ and build up funds for a proper scrappage scheme while improving public transport in outer London.https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/ulez-labour-seema-malhotra-jon-cruddas-labour-criticise-khan/

Ed Robinson ● 435d

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/massive-6-1-magnitude-earthquake-hits-new-zealand-as-nation-still-reeling-from-cyclone/

Philippa Bond ● 435d

I'd be far more worried that Fire & Rescue had long enough ladders for the high buildings now being built and that the Building Regulations are good enough and that the work overseen.  There is still remediation work needed on a lot of buildings where faults have been identified post Grenfell.

Philippa Bond ● 436d

I think it was 2007 in Folkestone in Kent 4.2 . There are pictures and caused some damage. There are a few where damage has been caused.

Barbara Stevens ● 436d

All I can say is when googled it has a list under earthquakes. You only have to google how many earthquakes in Britain. Do we want anything bigger, lets hope flats built here are sturdy.

Barbara Stevens ● 436d

Earthquakes or tremors? 3.2 does not seem very intense, particularly if you compare it with 7.5 and 7.7 for those in Turkey.

Ivonne Holliday ● 436d

And no buildings collapsed

Andy Pike ● 436d

There have been about 43 earthquakes in Britain since December 2022. a couple of them were about 3.2.

Barbara Stevens ● 436d

Caroline, probably some fish. If you actually google the amount of earthquakes in Britain. You might get a shock. It sounds like a train going under your house.

Barbara Stevens ● 436d

I had not heard about the earthquakes in Essex and Norfolk Barbara. Were many people killed?

Caroline Whitehead ● 436d

Your slipping Philippa, tut tut, what about the earthquake in Essex and in the sea off Norfolk. Keep up Philippa.

Barbara Stevens ● 436d

Luckily we don't get many earthquakes as we're not on a major fault line in the earth's crust. You can check those out on a map of the world.  Actually there were a couple of small earth tremors in Blackpool about a week ago.  These in the UK tend to happen in mining areas.  Fracking also causes earth tremors. There were school buildings built here in the 50s called CLASP buildings which were designed to be flexible enough to move a bit if the ground shifted underneath them.  Unfortunately that was before asbestos was found to be carcinogenic and that was used in many of them.  There are some more modern versions. Things change all the time.

Philippa Bond ● 437d

Also heaven help if there is an earthquake here, have local residents seen all the flats gone up on the way to Wandsworth roundabout. Lets hope they have been built properly, rather overwhelming so close to the road.

Barbara Stevens ● 437d

"Our first hurdle is to get on to the longlist of stations that TfL will consider upgrading with a lift, then we need to make the shortlist. This stage is crucial, as we need to illustrate that there is huge local demand."I'm confused (easily so I know).Perhaps it may be better to petition to reverse the assumption that less physically abled people do not want to travel on public transport.Or is East Putney on a longer list and this petition, which doesn't ask if you need or would use such a facility, gets it bumped up, effectively pushing another station down that may be more deserving?If so can we at least see the lists & the dates?Is it me or can anyone else see issues with this petition?Unless the information is open what could go wrong??

Ed Robinson ● 438d

Good on Fleur Anderson MP for calling and campaigning for accessible stations.Too many people just when they should be letting the train take the strain decide to use a car.

Philippa Bond ● 438d

There are always those who change their minds especially if they haven't worked out what they need properly or their needs change.Those who change their electric cars create a second hand electric car market.Rather than travelling one person per car clogging up the roads it is far better to have good public transport and safer cycle routes.

Philippa Bond ● 438d

Drivers ditch electric cars in droves and return to petrol.

Barbara Stevens ● 438d

Barbara. I don't see what your objection was to my comments about war or my observations regarding the earthquake. Obviously, there's good cause to use all transport methods to provide relief to the casualties of that disaster; I didn't indicate anything otherwise (not intentionally, anyway), and I agree with you it's good if those running development and construction companies are being held to account - let's hope it happens in the UK and well as Turkey! (Sorry, I wasn't quite sure of the relevance of the earthquake to ULEZ?Seeing as you raise it; I do walk to places where practicable, otherwise I use public transport where possible; using a Zipcar is a last resort, such as recently transporting a friend with an injured foot and their do across London - that was the first time I'd used a car in a couple of years, and my last flight was over four years ago - unfortunately there are places where it's difficult to get to to see friends or colleagues in a timely manner without flying (even in the British Isles). I don't think I was actually criticising anyone else - I realist those with families or elderly relatives might have to use cars, etc for various reasons because of the pressures of modern life, just making to observations based on my understanding of the facts? To be honest, I'm not sure if London's ULEZ is the correct solution but it certain raises awareness and perhaps is better than no action?

Michael Ixer ● 438d

Well the companies who built the flats in Turkey have been arrested, for obviously not building them properly. Also for all the vehicles delivering food clothes etc. to Turkey how do you think they are going to get them there. What an uncaring selfish man you are. You just keep putting all your days out on the forum, how do you get to them Shanks Pony. All those little children and families left with nobody. Also a lot of the breathing problems is probably parents smoking and Council Properties in disrepair.  Government don't want to spend money to repair the building they built.

Barbara Stevens ● 438d

An interesting technicality here. Aside from the unnecessary death and destruction wars do cause "fumes", as you put it, Barbara; all the military planes, tanks, vehicles moving troops and supplies (which I suspect aren't ULEZ compliant), missiles, etc generate exhaust fumes containing pollutants and greenhouse gases. And there's also the negative effect of some countries deciding to re-commission dirty coal power plants to generate electricity because of oil and gas shortages caused by the Russian attack on Ukraine. However, Khan is trying to address London's pollution which is a local issue.And, yes, sadly the middle east earthquake is a natural disaster over which we have little control other than to have better contingency and relief plans, and perhaps have better building standards to mitigate the effects? (Ok, middle eastern building standards aren't a UK issue, but we haven't done much better with Grenfell and cladding standards; and one wonders how many international construction and supply companies have benefitted developments in the middle east?)

Michael Ixer ● 438d

It's a shame like I have said before, unless it happens to you nobody cares. When the ULEZ came to Putney nobody protested, now it's meant to be going to cover a larger area people are protesting in Bromley. My other half had just got in his van to go to work and a neighbour further down the road told him to turn off his ignition, twerp how was he meant to go to work. He also had just paid thousands for a compliant vehicle. So I knocked on their door and had a go. Oh there are schools at the end of the road and that is where all the parents drop of their children in their cars, Ha Ha.  Fumes Fumes. When I asked what car they had, they didn't park in our road they had to park somewhere else because their car wasn't compliant. So my reply was OH it doesn't matter if you annoy somebody else with your fumes in another road. Hypocrite. Matt who has been worrying about fumes, look what is now happening in all the other Countries have they got time to worry about fumes, I really don't think so. Earthquakes aren't to do with fumes, wars aren't to do with fumes. Get Sadiq Khan out.

Barbara Stevens ● 438d

Matt,Lots of assumptions in the detail when trying to work out how things would be without the ULEZ. Assuming the same mileage for example (p37).Putting aside all the guesswork around pre-post pandemic working and cost of living etc:Fuel prices also increased dramatically in 2021 starting around £1.20 and hitting £2.00 which would explain some of the decrease of vehicles within the zone. Older vehicles tend to be less efficient and private owners are more likely to be impacted by such changes. This is mentioned on p29: "though fuel prices may also have had an impact on overall trends"I stick by my earlier comments on the subject regarding incorrect tariff etc!

Ed Robinson ● 440d

I see you just copied and pasted it from the Mayor's tweet.I think he is referring to this publication:Inner London Ultra Low Emission Zone Expansion One Year Report(Publication date: Friday 10 February 2023)https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-and-climate-change/environment-and-climate-change-publications/inner-london-ultra-low-emission-zone-expansion-one-year-report

Ed Robinson ● 440d

Hi Matt,I will take a look later.But as I've previously stated: I would prefer absolute measures not relative.The UlEz expansion will reduce emissions.The question is by how much and is it enough?Big difference between cleaner and clean!(I can't see the scale on your graph)

Ed Robinson ● 440d

Clean or cleaner air:  we all need it.To get there we need to make changes to our routines and the sooner we start to think about it the easier we will make it for ourselves.When did everyone last look at the TfL website to work out alternative ways to travel places.  It helps when you are not under pressure!

Philippa Bond ● 440d

interested to know your thoughts Ed.

Matt Palmer ● 440d

No Ed.  If I had made a quote from that link it would have been in quotation marks.  The link leads to a lot of info it and would not be a good idea to just take a small amount from it - exactly why I put the link there.

Philippa Bond ● 449d

It looks like the ULEZ has been downgraded.Early tweet by the Mayor said (It's still there):  "..every Londoner will benefit from clean air"Latest:  "..every Londoner will benefit from cleaner air"Big difference!

Ed Robinson ● 451d

ULEZ expansion being pushed hard today I see..No egg shortage in the statements and adverts.Would it hurt just to tell the truth, the whole truth that is?Some of these claims are going to come back and bite them big time!At the very least get the figures right. 4 out of 5 compliant in one tweet 85% in another :)

Ed Robinson ● 451d

"I was just giving the link to the official and actual ULEZ..'Sorry Philippa, you made an incorrect statement ("The poorest Londoners don't own cars") then supplying a link that did not confirm your statement.The actual quote from your link:"Toxic air is also an issue of social justice with the poorest Londoners and Londoners from ethnic minority backgrounds least likely to own a car but also worst affected by toxic air. Only five per cent of the lowest income Londoners own a car yet they are around 10 per cent more likely to suffer from toxic air. "https://www.london.gov.uk/ultra-low-emission-zone-will-be-expanded-london-wideThe binary message & binary tariff illustrates exactly what is wrong with the ULEZ. It would be good if there was a link to the actual research behind these figures. An inner & outer London breakdown would be useful, but it does not confirm your statement.

Ed Robinson ● 454d

I was just giving the link to the official and actual ULEZ info there so people could read it for themselves and find out rather than just paying attention to what they hear second hand and only get hold of a part of it.

Philippa Bond ● 454d

A lot of Londoners are too poor to run cars.  I've known carers who were only paid the Minimum Wage and the top Minimum Wage is often quoted which is for older workers and the youngsters' rate is much less.  Then people wonder why some of them are not as dedicated as they might be when some other activity comes up that they find more attractive.

Philippa Bond ● 455d

Yes, I remember you finding out and doing that.  There was something on the info about the ULEZ saying that you could make representations or something as you mention.  I haven't studied it all this time but it is worth reading all the info on the ULEZ on the Mayor of London's website.  A knee-jerk reaction just to change - when you may not have to - isn't helpful.  There is a pro-fossil fuel lobby aligned to the climate change denial lobby and the far right who are stirring up dissent.

Philippa Bond ● 455d

Before you junk your car because it’s not ULEZ compliant it is very important to research whether it actually is or isn’t. If in doubt ask the manufacturer for a ‘certificate of compliance’. Initially my car wasn’t compliant according to the app where you check. After the certificate was supplied and accepted by TFL it is now not subject to the charge. Its registration date is 1999.

Freddie Francis ● 455d

Relevance to ULEZ is,?

Andy Pike ● 455d

"The National Living Wage and the National Minimum Wage rates will increase from 1 April 2023 as follows: 23-year-olds and over (National Living Wage): from £9.50 to £10.42 an hour. 21–22-year-olds: from £9.18 to £10.18 an hour. 18-20-year-olds: from £6.83 to £7.49 an hour."Usually you will find that the amount quoted is the highest rate and not the lowest.

Philippa Bond ● 455d

"The poorest Londoners don't own cars"The link does not say that - below is the actual quote.The problem is people like things to be simple which is not always the case. The percentage will no doubt increase as you move out of the inner London.But the statement also hides the obvious in that we do not have  just two categories: Poor & Rich in the London. The range is of course a spectrum not a binary thing!"Toxic air is also an issue of social justice with the poorest Londoners and Londoners from ethnic minority backgrounds least likely to own a car but also worst affected by toxic air. Only five per cent of the lowest income Londoners own a car yet they are around 10 per cent more likely to suffer from toxic air."

Ed Robinson ● 455d

Gabrielle, fully agree, my other half had to get rid of his van. Now again last October,it is absolutely stupid. Next they will say electric is stupid. Good job he didn't get electric. £25000 grand to one person is like £250 to the rich. It's just throwing money away to run a business.  Not enough vehicles are even being made if the ULEZ goes out further.

Barbara Stevens ● 455d

How do you get to the Cable Car. Why would you travel all that way to get to the other side of the river. If you don't drive Philippa why worry your pretty little head about anybody else.

Barbara Stevens ● 455d

Here is the Press Release.  You can see that there has been a lot of discussion around the various groups who will be worst affected and there are various offers you can take up if you fit into one of the categories stipulated.  The poorest Londoners don't own cars and also tend to live where there is highest pollution.  So do read it.https://www.london.gov.uk/ultra-low-emission-zone-will-be-expanded-london-wideIt is an incentive to look at the different options for getting around.  You might find ways you hadn't thought of and ways to cross the river you hadn't even thought of ie:  what exactly is the IFS Cloud Cable Car?How life has changed since we got the Journey Planner and there is more info every time I look at it.  I have friends now who will sit in a cafe and can tell when the next bus is due just by looking at their smartphone. 

Philippa Bond ● 455d

The thing I find amusing is 2010-2015 it was "buy diesel buy diesel diesel is great" so there are very few petrol cars from these years. Those diesel cars are now not ULEZ compliant but the petrol equivalents are. It really does feel like a tax on the poor.

Gabrielle OMahony ● 456d

No, Philippa, I haven't. I've probably ridden a bike about twice since I've lived in London, before that I rode one frequently when I was at school in Essex, although I originally learned to ride one in London when I was about five years old. I must admit I never really liked the idea of cycling in London traffic. I can get to places I need on foot, tube, train and bus plus the (very) occasional Zipcar trip, or hire care if I'm on holiday somewhere where the public transport is difficult or nonexistent; the only exception was hiring hotel bicycles on the last trip to Egypt :-)

Michael Ixer ● 456d

I guess with no car it does give you the incentive to try out the new methods of transport.  Have you tried an e-bike?

Philippa Bond ● 456d

"Do you think so?  I think there are changes in circumstances all the time. "Exactly! Add in to the equation the impact is uncertain, the units you are taxing are dropping anyway due to age plus that drop may be accelerated with the tax. Not to mention swapping older cars to slightly less older! The ULEZ expansion has huge margins of uncertainty. The last expansion would have been the same. Yet the claimed benefits seem to be static, I guess they call it a political equation:"net operating surplus £200m with a range  +/- c.50%""reduce the number of the most polluting cars on London’s roads by between an additional 20,000 and 40,000 a day"

Ed Robinson ● 456d

The Elizabeth Line is great. An easy way to get to the Barbican and the ExCel centre at Custom House. Not the most direct way but it's an easy change at Paddington and avoids crowds at Waterloo and Bank or Canning Town. Time for Cross Rail 2 so there's a change at Clapham Junction for northern travel to central London (and they can complete the link of the Northern Line from Battersea to Clapham Junction).

Michael Ixer ● 456d

Do you think so?  I think there are changes in circumstances all the time.  We try and plan ahead (or many of us do when we can) but in fact there are many things we just can't plan for.  Science changes all the time.  Some ideas and beliefs stick and stay and work and some don't.  I still see adverts inviting people to claim against Mercedes in the way that there were claims against VW.  You have to find the best info you can at the time and then make your decisions on that.  I wonder how many people have still not tried the Lizzie line for example - or tried a Zipcar?  We stick to our routines and sometimes have to try to stop and investigate as when pressurised it is more stressful finding alternatives. 

Philippa Bond ● 456d

"Sadiq Khan has suggested in the past that someone buy a second hand ULEZ compliant vehicle"It's more than that.He has set the expectation that that car will not be charged a ULEZ fee under his term.This effectively gives him no room when the ULEZ needs to either: reduce emissions further (please see my earlier post about TRUE Initiative submission) or raise more revenue etc.A bit of honesty would be to say that the ULEZ is set at the current level but it may move depending upon the above.I not sure if they believed their own propaganda that over span the benefits, they simply did not think things through or it was omitted on purpose.

Ed Robinson ● 457d

I very much miss this website:  www.fixmytransport.com which was very useful for pointing out problems with bus routes etc as the need for particular stops change.If the need can be found again (as there were these before the pandemic) the small minibuses that you call and which will then pick you up and take you to where you want within a particular area ie demand responsive travel could be asked for.  There have been several running in the country over the last few years and many run in other countries.I don't think that because Sadiq Khan has suggested in the past that someone buy a second hand ULEZ compliant vehicle rather than an EV that this should be a problem as it is a perfectly reasonable and logical response to a problem where there have been other options including grants for those on low incomes.  Many people never buy new cars.He was forced to give concessions to the Govt in his negotiations with them over because he no longer had all the money coming in from fares with the drop in public transport use post pandemic with a drop in commuters.  I don't believe that any other capital city in the world is expected to run all their public transport on the receipts of their PT fares - in fact many have reduced or have free fares especially now when trying to encourage people back to work and away from personal car transport.

Philippa Bond ● 457d

Sounds about right!

Matt Palmer ● 457d

Matt. Some EVs have regenerative braking which would reduce the need for using the brake pedal and thus creating fewer particulates. (And looking at the framework link a primary aim L/ZEZs seems to be a reduction of NO2.) But, I agree, an integrated public transport system is desirable; however, wasn't TfL Rail's takeover of the SWR train franchise - which would have been a step in that direction - blocked when there was a change of transport minister? Tory dogma over the good of the travelling public?

Michael Ixer ● 457d

"pollution, climate damage and congestion"Do not forget revenue.I think the ULEZ seems to have failed on all of those. When originally announced under Boris the targeted vehicles were a much higher percentage. ULEZ for all the hipe is not very progressive.Ideally there should be alternative safe, affordable and frequent public transport as an alternative. Putting aside the recent revelations concerning the police and the levels of crime on TFL a lot of outer London is poorly served by public transport.The numbers of impacted vehicles is proportionally more outside London. The Mayor does have a mandate for inner London and he should use that to generate more revenue for the expansion of greener transport such as communal cycles.There is only a couple of years revenue under the current tariff which he has not addressed. We need to see a plan that looks more than 24 months ahead - where is it??

Ed Robinson ● 457d

EV's don't really solve the pollution either issue. They may well help with C02 but the dust from their brake pads is worse than lighter petrol cars due to the extra weight.We need a proper, joined up public transport system with people incentivised to use it and not their cars.

Matt Palmer ● 457d

The UK's mega battery company (Britishvolt) has gone flat.On the plus side BYD's small ev (Seagull) costing between 8,000-10,000 dollars may hit the market later this year."Business minister boasted Britishvolt was Brexit success story months before collapse"https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/22/business-minister-boasted-britishvolt-brexit-success-months-before-collapsehttps://insideevs.com/news/632590/byd-seagull-small-ev-leaked-in-china-said-to-start-under-9000-usd/

Ed Robinson ● 457d

Ed, I have to admit that this something that doesn't affect me as a non car owning, very occasional Zipcar user so I have looked at it in detail. However, I note that there appears to be a government framework around this:https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/air-quality-clean-air-zone-framework-for-england/clean-air-zone-framework
Hence, I'm unclear as to how much leeway local authorities have when determining the rules for low or zero emission zones; for example, can they vary restrictions and charges based on a daily pollution metric? (I also note some exemptions are determined at a national, not local, level.)My understanding that the TfL charges for freedom passes before 9am on weekends came about because of government pressure on TfL finances? As a public transport user I feel more subsidy is needed to move people away from cars - as is the case in many continental cities.It seems to be forgotten sometimes that there are three separate but related issues: pollution, climate damage and congestion - and, yes, EVs do not solve the last one!  

Michael Ixer ● 457d

Michael,Similar. Tariffs should be tweaked accordingly to meet the goals that are set in terms of pollution, revenue and congestion.This is the crucial point: tariffs must be changeable to cope with days when there is an emergency i.e. particularly poor air quality.If the goals are not met then tariffs need to change it is that simple.With regards to electric vehicles, they still add to congestion, it depends if  the goals are met.Vehicle drivers should not vote to tax someone else that drives knowing that they will not be charged anything. The dishonesty of the current system is unbelievable. The way the scheme has been sold is disgraceful.

Ed Robinson ● 457d

On the News if any body else saw this, if they expand the ULEZ, there will not be enough new vehicles, they were speaking to a company that sells vans. Thought also one of the companies that make electric have moved overseas.

Barbara Stevens ● 457d

So, Ed, would you prefer a scheme such as the Oxford Zero Emissions Zone (ZEZ) scheme where only full electric vehicles are exempt from charges?https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/residents/roads-and-transport/oxford-zero-emission-zone-zez/charges-oxfords-zezhttps://motorway.co.uk/sell-my-car/guides/oxford-clean-air-zone

Michael Ixer ● 457d

Philippa,The case for cleaner air should not be confused with how we compensate or charge for the ULEZ.The compensation/charge is political and hence should be challenged.It is a form of retrospective taxation which may be necessary for us all but that does not excuse it being a regressive tax that falls only on a small proportion of the population.Given the above - compensation should be paid. If that means widening the tariff then so be it. After all - widening the tariff will also improve air quality further.The problem is that the ULEZ has been sold on the principle of only a small proportion of the population will have to pay it whereas all cars cause congestion and lots of ULEZ compliant cars have been rated as having poor emissions.

Ed Robinson ● 457d

You're asking me why I'm critical of Sadiq? The guy who's ironically set up a Cost of Living help hub at the same time as he's proposing to expand ULEZ, deprive pensioners of pre-9 a.m. travel permanently, putting up fares by record amounts to bail out his bankrupt TfL and hiking council tax? If his motives were altruistic and he could provide clear evidence, we'd be having a different discussion but he's using the climate and health agenda as emotional blackmail to counter his mismanagement. I've had asthma all my life - even growing up in rural Queensland, Australia. People get asthma for any number of reasons - like maybe having to put up with mould spores in London's council housing. Don't use it as a tool to justify a raid on our pockets.

Roy Robart ● 457d

I don't know why you are so critical of Sadiq Khan when the UK Govt has been taken to court and lost several times over past years because of the high air pollution in the UK.  The UK Govt also lobbied the EU to officially reduce the levels of air pollution considered acceptable so that the levels here in the UK did not seem so bad.  World Health Organisation pollution levels are even stricter than EU ones.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56282064Scientists have been telling us we have problems for over thirty years but there has been a concerted effort by climate change sceptics and those with an interest in promoting fossil fuel extraction and use to downplay and dismiss those warnings.It is only now as we are getting the greater temperature extremes and together with extremes of weather and with the attention drawn to it by the actions of environmentalist and environmental groups that it has started to become increasingly obvious to more people.https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/27/climatologist-michael-e-mann-doomism-climate-crisis-interviewIf more action had been taken earlier it would not have become so urgent to take action now.  Politicians like power and want to keep power when they have it and anything that might be seen as unpopular is something they are likely to try and avoid.  Our political system unfortunately doesn't help the general population who are unaware and kept unaware.

Philippa Bond ● 458d

True, they dropped during lockdown in 20/21 - as you'd expect - but the 64% increase figure in 21/22 was in some part during the first expansion to Nth/Sth Circular Roads. So does ULEZ work? And Khan's using the 64% increase from a much lower than usual base to fiddle his justification because ANY increase in traffic could only have had an upward effect - only in this case, more dramatic. The outer boroughs already enjoy good air quality. I'll reluctantly swallow the first inner London expansion, as inconvenient as I find it, but the proposed one is taking it too far.

Roy Robart ● 458d

Then they should do it nationally and remove petrol tax as effectively the more you drive the more you pay. But hell will freeze over before they do anything as sensible and fair as that.

Freddie Francis ● 461d

"transport produces around a quarter of the country's greenhouse gas emissions"Yes but that is all transport.Aviation is 14% of that 24%. International shipping is 8% - I suspect both, especially the shipping are actually higher.I'm not sure how flying in USA tourists will reduce that - unless being high on cannabis means they can somehow fly without a plane!2020 - 52% of that 24% was personal transport i.e. cars and taxis. Way too high!Reducing pollution is a no brainer but how we do it is very much political and needs honest discussion.

Ed Robinson ● 461d

It's not "madness" to extend to the M25 but the logical move to attack the twin dangers of atmospheric pollution and the climate emergency: transport produces around a quarter of the country's greenhouse gas emissions (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-and-environment-statistics-2022/transport-and-environment-statistics-2022) and this has to be reduced.And I'm not sure what you're referring to in asking "where [I] got your figures from." If it was the fall in asthma admissions during lockdown, it was here: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/london-children-admitted-hospital-asthma-rises-year-b1040507.html (the fifth para).

Richard Carter ● 461d

"What he's doing is putting in the infrastructure to pave the way for Pay per Mile - and EVERYONE will pay for that."I sincerely hope so: road space is a scarce resource, and road pricing is inevitable. It wouldn't be a simplistic Pay per Mile as you seem to imply, but a variable rate depending on the traffic levels: highest, for example, in the rush hour, and lowest in the early hours of the morning.

Richard Carter ● 461d

I don't see the point of buying an older, compliant vehicle if people can't afford a new one. They won't know it's history and wear and tear will soon lead to expensive repairs.I think there'll be an organic move to newer, compliant vehicles over a relatively short anyway, so why is Khan pushing so hard on what he claims are only the remaining 10-15%? All that investment on diminishing returns.What he's doing is putting in the infrastructure to pave the way for Pay per Mile - and EVERYONE will pay for that.

Roy Robart ● 461d

It's now been alleged that Khan did indeed already decide to implement before 'consulting'.

Roy Robart ● 461d

Khan's 2021 mandate (I've read it) was to expand to the Nth/Sth Circular. He may have partly been elected on that, but not this latest madness to extend to the M25.And Khan DID say asthma admissions for children in London went up 64% in 20/21, so I'm not sure where you got your figures from. All this despite lockdown and ULEZ.

Roy Robart ● 461d

We already shop online for virtually everything and have our groceries delivered weekly. But it's nice to hit the shops and restaurants sometimes or go to a DIY centre for bigger items or plants.I also believe in being kind to the environment whilst not totally buying the climate change hysteria.But it bugs me that these restrictions are suddenly put on us. As it is, I can't even take anything to the dump in Smugglers Way (which we pay for in our Council Tax) without incurring ULEZ.

Roy Robart ● 461d

Philippa,The true initiative is generally recognised and referenced by TFL.The problem with the ULEZ is how it was/is sold:  Just buy a cheap ULEZ compliant car and all will be good.  People then associate ULEZ compliance with clean.  Politicians - in this case Labour start holding banners saying:    "ULEZ - Say goodbye to exhaust emissions"Because the Mayor has promoted buying ULEZ compliant cars he can not move away from this position towards TRUE's latest recommendation: "TRUE recommends modification to existing ULEZ compliance standards to phase out vehicles with proven excess real-world NOx emissions including older vehicles; for example, the number of Euro 4 petrol vehicles with a ‘poor’ TRUE rating has increased threefold in the past 3 years." https://www.trueinitiative.org/blog/2022/july/true-submits-evidence-supporting-further-london-ulez-expansion

Ed Robinson ● 462d

Ed, what was the group that you thought had a better method for measuring and reducing pollution?  I know you don't like the way that the ULEZ method was decided.  But then there are generally always more questions to be asked.The lobbying and membership of the All Party Political Group in parliament for reductions in fuel taxes has shown that there are problems with transparency.  Open Democracy shows that.

Philippa Bond ● 462d

"Please don't forget that a consultation is just that - a consultation. Not a Yes/No vote""a consultation is advisory only"A bit like the referendum!Everything is advisory in the UK.Never a good idea to ask questions when you do not really to know the answer.Difficult to form an absolute opinion on the expansion when all the facts have not been shared but can we not push the following rubbish:"with a car that is not ULEZ compliant, selfishly wants to go on being free to pollute the atmosphere; time for that to stop for the health of everyone."It implies that ULEZ compliant cars do not pollute - they do. Some more than non-compliant ones.We need accurate data and transparency.I have not seen how many cars are registered in the expanded zone that are not ULEZ compliant. (Cars passing through is a different measure).But what we do know is it will cost £160m plus £110m for scrappage and generate between £100m-£300m in the first year which will fall to nothing by 2027.I would like to see the predicted fall of non-compliant cars during that period if there was no ULEZ to compare with.I could then make a judgment if that was the best way to bring down pollution.My current thoughts are the tariff needs to change to target more vehicles and this should be done with the existing ULEZ first.But if Khan does this he will not get his third term.However the cash is needed to expand services to enable people to switch to greener transport.With high bicycle thefts and lack of storage not to mention low utilisation of personal bicycles, I think dockless community bi/tricycles may offer the best green and economic option.

Ed Robinson ● 462d

Roy Robart complains that the Mayor's interpretation of the consultation exercise is biased. Not sure about that, but a consultation is advisory only, and it’s hardly an earth-shattering surprise that the motoring lobby opposes the ULEZ expansion or that Sadiq is not cowed by it. Luckily, we’re ruled by elected politicians not lobby groups. And Roy, with a car that is not ULEZ compliant, selfishly wants to go on being free to pollute the atmosphere; time for that to stop for the health of everyone.He also complains about the increase in hospital admissions for asthma since the expansion to the N/S Circulars: all the more reason to restrict the use of polluting vehicles: the number of hospital admissions for asthma fell in London in 2020/21, when pollution levels fell dramatically as a result of successive lockdowns, which is an argument for even harsh. And as for his assertion on pollution in Putney High Street that “we all know it's exacerbated by traffic being diverted from Hammersmith Bridge,” there’s no evidence that pollution in PHS has risen: it’s been the same for the past 5 years.Finally, I had to laugh at Alexander MacLeod's fantastical new take on the expansion: it will, apparently, make “Londoners less well informed people about the city they are living in.” Eh? How does that work? Perhaps he could explain to us.

Richard Carter ● 462d

I wouldn't say ULEZ is ideal but does anyone know what Cllr Gilbert's solution to the pollution health problem is?

Michael Ixer ● 462d

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't that the motoring organisation run by a climate change sceptic that is linked to the remains of Nigel Lawson's Global Warming Sceptics Group which has now morphed into something else and residing with Reform UK in Tufton Street?  Desmog has further info on them.Please don't forget that a consultation is just that - a consultation. Not a Yes/No vote. Do you ever shop online? That is a good way to get heavy loads of shopping delivered.  I've never done that for ordinary shopping but the youngsters certainly do.  We still need more cleaner buses - what happened to Boris' friend who bought Wright bus?  I thought he was building hydrogen buses and then there was the Guildford company who were making electric buses.  Building just about anything however is environmentally damaging. EV batteries which are no longer suitable for powering cars can be reused in other ways.  It is very important that all batteries are recycled so that the metals which are toxic to the environment can be reused in other ways.  I discovered recently that Cancer Research is collecting some household batteries. Apparently 95% of the batteries put on the market are portable household ones but only 25% make it back to be recycled.  Quite a way to go then!

Philippa Bond ● 462d

Councillor Gilbert deserves our full support if she is opposing the planned extension of ULEZ.The Mayor's approach to this matter is dubious, and in my opinion is less an environmental  initiative, and more a subterfuge method for fund raising. Socially I think the effect would be to make London a less attractive place and Londoners less well informed people about the city they are living in. Alexander MacLeod

Alexander MacLeod ● 462d