I wonder whether it will effect campers going to those zones as there are many attractions to visit from those campsites.
Only if you or your vehicle meets the specified criteria will you be exempt, so it will affect campers just as much as any other group of road users.
Certainly CMHC Crystal Palace is in the proposed ULEZ. And CMHC withdrew from Bristol Baltic Wharf one factor being that it was in the new Bristol controlled zone.
I used to work in a company’s Piccadilly office every so often to cover for someone. Sat (or stood) in the train from Paddington to Didcot, as soon as the endless warehouses became open fields I’d feel a very real and physical release of tension and sense of relief. What I call civilisation!
Several of the Greater London Boroughs are continuing to voice their non-cooperation with the London Mayor. This is the letter written by Bromley Borough Council:-
Dear Mayor of London,
Your letter of 5 February makes assertions that we refute about air quality in outer London and that the expansion of ULEZ is necessary to protect the lives of Londoners.
We share your commitment to improving air quality but our outer London boroughs enjoy good air quality with NOx and PM2.5 levels considerably below the levels in inner and central London.
Your repeated reference to Imperial College London research gives the impression that it forms the primary justification for the expansion of ULEZ to our boroughs. In our opinion, the modelling of the effect of air quality on health is not sufficiently robust to substantiate your claims about excess deaths in our boroughs. In their research paper ’Has the ultra-low emission zone in London improved air quality’ Imperial College London concluded: “ULEZ on its own was not effective in the sense that the marginal effects caused by the ULEZ on improving air quality were small, either at particular locations or averaging across London”.
The conclusion was shared by your own Integrated Impact Assessment that states “The Proposed Scheme is estimated to have a minor (NO2) to negligible (PM2.5) beneficial impact on exposure to air pollution and achieving WHO Interim Targets across Greater London”. It also concluded, “The Proposed Scheme is estimated to have a negligible beneficial impact on carbon emissions in Greater London.”
With such little benefit to be gained from the expansion of ULEZ, very careful consideration must be given to the adverse impacts it will have on residents and businesses, and we believe that you have failed to give sufficient weight to this.
Your expectation that residents in outer London boroughs without ULEZ-compliant cars should use public transport as an alternative is disingenuous. Your own London Plan acknowledges that car use is necessary for areas with low Public Transport Assessment Levels (PTAL) and your own map shows that this applies to the majority of our boroughs.
With public transport not being a realistic alternative, many elderly and low-income residents and small businesses, are likely to lose their mobility and livelihood. Your Integrated Impact assessment identified many adverse impacts including:
adverse impact on health (through stress, anxiety and isolation) that will be caused to people on low incomes, and older and disabled people
poorer health outcomes for people who receive domiciliary care, mobile healthcare services, and/or informal care in outer London – particularly disabled people, older people, pregnant and maternal women, and people with underlying health conditions
the disproportionate financial impact for people on low incomes who travel by non-compliant private vehicle in outer London to access employment (particularly in the night-time economy)
differential impact on young people and/or their carers and families on low incomes due to implications of the increased cost of providing dedicated SEN travel to schools in outer London.
increased cost for some older people, disabled people, people with underlying health conditions and people on low incomes who travel by non-compliant private vehicles to access regular medical appointments at specialist facilities in outer London (and outer London residents accessing healthcare outside London), which may result in adverse health outcomes for these groups.
contraction of the local labour market due to fewer commuters entering Greater London
loss of retail spending by those living outside Greater London
The increased cost of operating LGVs for a significant proportion of tradespeople, street markets, delivery companies and similar.
Although you claim that the extension of ULEZ is not a ‘money-making’ venture, the evidence is to the contrary. Why else would you extend ULEZ when its social and economic cost is so clear and its benefits so small? And even if your assertion is right, the question will surely be asked, who would sensibly place upon low-income households the total cost of the negligible improvement in air quality that your scheme might deliver? We believe that the £270million that it will cost to expand the scheme can be better spent to improve air quality that will not add to the financial burden on Londoners during the cost of living crisis.
We shall continue to defend the interests of residents and businesses and your letter has not weakened our resolve. We remain willing to work with you to help improve even further the air quality in outer London but the expansion of ULEZ is not the solution and you should pause its implementation if you are genuine in wishing us to work together.
Dear Mayor of London,
Your letter of 5 February makes assertions that we refute about air quality in outer London and that the expansion of ULEZ is necessary to protect the lives of Londoners.
We share your commitment to improving air quality but our outer London boroughs enjoy good air quality with NOx and PM2.5 levels considerably below the levels in inner and central London.
Your repeated reference to Imperial College London research gives the impression that it forms the primary justification for the expansion of ULEZ to our boroughs. In our opinion, the modelling of the effect of air quality on health is not sufficiently robust to substantiate your claims about excess deaths in our boroughs. In their research paper ’Has the ultra-low emission zone in London improved air quality’ Imperial College London concluded: “ULEZ on its own was not effective in the sense that the marginal effects caused by the ULEZ on improving air quality were small, either at particular locations or averaging across London”.
The conclusion was shared by your own Integrated Impact Assessment that states “The Proposed Scheme is estimated to have a minor (NO2) to negligible (PM2.5) beneficial impact on exposure to air pollution and achieving WHO Interim Targets across Greater London”. It also concluded, “The Proposed Scheme is estimated to have a negligible beneficial impact on carbon emissions in Greater London.”
With such little benefit to be gained from the expansion of ULEZ, very careful consideration must be given to the adverse impacts it will have on residents and businesses, and we believe that you have failed to give sufficient weight to this.
Your expectation that residents in outer London boroughs without ULEZ-compliant cars should use public transport as an alternative is disingenuous. Your own London Plan acknowledges that car use is necessary for areas with low Public Transport Assessment Levels (PTAL) and your own map shows that this applies to the majority of our boroughs.
With public transport not being a realistic alternative, many elderly and low-income residents and small businesses, are likely to lose their mobility and livelihood. Your Integrated Impact assessment identified many adverse impacts including:
adverse impact on health (through stress, anxiety and isolation) that will be caused to people on low incomes, and older and disabled people
poorer health outcomes for people who receive domiciliary care, mobile healthcare services, and/or informal care in outer London – particularly disabled people, older people, pregnant and maternal women, and people with underlying health conditions
the disproportionate financial impact for people on low incomes who travel by non-compliant private vehicle in outer London to access employment (particularly in the night-time economy)
differential impact on young people and/or their carers and families on low incomes due to implications of the increased cost of providing dedicated SEN travel to schools in outer London.
increased cost for some older people, disabled people, people with underlying health conditions and people on low incomes who travel by non-compliant private vehicles to access regular medical appointments at specialist facilities in outer London (and outer London residents accessing healthcare outside London), which may result in adverse health outcomes for these groups.
contraction of the local labour market due to fewer commuters entering Greater London
loss of retail spending by those living outside Greater London
The increased cost of operating LGVs for a significant proportion of tradespeople, street markets, delivery companies and similar.
Although you claim that the extension of ULEZ is not a ‘money-making’ venture, the evidence is to the contrary. Why else would you extend ULEZ when its social and economic cost is so clear and its benefits so small? And even if your assertion is right, the question will surely be asked, who would sensibly place upon low-income households the total cost of the negligible improvement in air quality that your scheme might deliver? We believe that the £270million that it will cost to expand the scheme can be better spent to improve air quality that will not add to the financial burden on Londoners during the cost of living crisis.
We shall continue to defend the interests of residents and businesses and your letter has not weakened our resolve. We remain willing to work with you to help improve even further the air quality in outer London but the expansion of ULEZ is not the solution and you should pause its implementation if you are genuine in wishing us to work together.
I used to get the same feeling on my regular commutes to Barrow in Furness and Helensburgh using the M6. Once past Preston the traffic had dropped away and there were more green fields. Leaving at Jn 36 for BiF was a pure joy.
At the moment both Abbey Wood and the Crystal Palace CC sites are outside the ULEZ. Should the ULEZ be extended, both sites will be within the zone. So even if you use public transport entirely during your stay, you will still have to find £25 for arrival and departure, on top of the site fees.
Last edited:
I'm all for improving air quality by reducing the quantity of emissions released. And I also support the need to do something quickly to improve the worst affected areas. So as a short term solution the introduction of restrictions in those areas is probably a an expedient proposal, BUT, it should only be necessary a short term, because if the prime source of these emissions is vehicular, then as the rollout of EV and other low emission vehicles increases, so should the air quality. If that is the case, then the justification for restrictions will reduce over time.
It will also be the case that if an area is subject strict restrictions, then it's very likely the areas surrounding the tight zone will see a benefit, as less high polluting traffic will attempt to pass through the outer area to reach the inner tight zone.
I suspect the bean counters at the GLC have worked out that before the UK vehicle fleet becomes cleaner, by expanding the ULEZ zones will produce a significant increase in the income the scheme produces, and Ill bet that once the ULEZ is established , it becomes mightily difficult to get it removed when pollution levels drop.
A nice little earner!
It will also be the case that if an area is subject strict restrictions, then it's very likely the areas surrounding the tight zone will see a benefit, as less high polluting traffic will attempt to pass through the outer area to reach the inner tight zone.
I suspect the bean counters at the GLC have worked out that before the UK vehicle fleet becomes cleaner, by expanding the ULEZ zones will produce a significant increase in the income the scheme produces, and Ill bet that once the ULEZ is established , it becomes mightily difficult to get it removed when pollution levels drop.
A nice little earner!
The real problem for TFL is their £1.5 billion overspend debt. ULEZ is a canny method to fix the financial bleed.I'm all for improving air quality by reducing the quantity of emissions released. And I also support the need to do something quickly to improve the worst affected areas. So as a short term solution the introduction of restrictions in those areas is probably a an expedient proposal, BUT, it should only be necessary a short term, because if the prime source of these emissions is vehicular, then as the rollout of EV and other low emission vehicles increases, so should the air quality. If that is the case, then the justification for restrictions will reduce over time.
It will also be the case that if an area is subject strict restrictions, then it's very likely the areas surrounding the tight zone will see a benefit, as less high polluting traffic will attempt to pass through the outer area to reach the inner tight zone.
I suspect the bean counters at the GLC have worked out that before the UK vehicle fleet becomes cleaner, by expanding the ULEZ zones will produce a significant increase in the income the scheme produces, and Ill bet that once the ULEZ is established , it becomes mightily difficult to get it removed when pollution levels drop.
A nice little earner!
According to London's own statistics, 92% of cars comply with the ULEZ requirements so very few motorists will be required to pay the charge.
92 per cent of vehicles comply with expanded ULEZ one month on
First month of Mayor’s expanded Ultra Low Emission Zone sees an impressive 92 per cent of vehicles comply
www.london.gov.uk
That is according to the London mayor! And his report only applies to the present LEZ which is bounded by the North and South circular roads. And very likely the quoted 92% compliant cars is wrong. It simply means that drivers can't afford to pay out £12.50 every day they go to work. According to the DVLA, there are 12.9 million diesel cars on Britains roads and around 9.5 million of those don't meet current Euro 6 emission standards.
Last edited:
The proportion of petrol cars meeting the ULEZ requirement is much higher as they only have to be Euro 4.
The cost of the ULEZ to the general public is the cost of changing their car to a more recent Euro standard where that change is earlier than would have otherwise occurred - it's not the cost of the daily charge as very few will incur that.
I found the outer London zone difficult to fathom out. About 6 years ago we went to Ilford, M11 to outer ring road, then north after a couple of miles.
Nice CL if you like Peacocks.
As an outsider I thought I might try to find out if my route took me through any sort of zone. It turns out I was OK except for the central London zone. But finding out that information was a nightmare. It is easy to see how people can get caught inadvertently.
About 45 years ago we drove an Australian relative from Liverpool to relatives in Whithaven. We left in the dark. We had nearly got as far as Preston and she said she was confused. I had been telling her of all the places we were passing through. “But we have never actually left one place yet” she said.
Very different for her who might bee travelling for Tours between places at home.
John
I don't know where you have come across that myth. Thousands of car owners living within Greater London use their cars every day simply to reach a point where they can use public transport. Hundreds more are using their cars for shopping and attending hospital appointments. Just take a look at the overflowing carparks.
The lady who comes to visit me on one afternoon each week works for AgeUK. She lives just outside the proposed ULEZ, as I do, but has two clients who live a mile or so inside the zone. She has already told them that she will no longer be able to continue visiting them if the proposal comes about. Each afternoon visit earns her around £24 - to drive her car each day to visit them would use up £12.50 of that.
She drives an 02 registered HDi Citroen Xsara which she's had from new. It's in pristine condition with less than 50K on the clock. Why would she want to change it?
That's exactly the sort of car they're trying to stop being used in urban areas - a 21-year old Euro 3 diesel - which could be producing 6x the NOx and 10x the soot particles of a Euro 6 diesel.
Last edited:
Similarly it will affect carers many of whom do not even get fuel costs. It will impact district nurses as even if they are reimbursed the costs will fall to the NHS. Something akin to a Blue Badge might mitigate it for some.
That doesn't mean they are right! The lady does around 1000 miles a year in it. The area in which she drives already has low emission readings. This is today's reading during rush hour.
And it's debatable what will damage the planet more - scrap her functional car or build a new replacement.
So the London Mayor is trying to raise cash to supplement the £1.6 billion TFL losses whilst his train drivers go on strike 🤬. I suspect being green is just an excuse to raise cash from the innocent decent people as described in earlier posts. No politics intended😃
If part of the reasoning for the extension of the ULEZ is to persuade those with 'polluting' vehicles to change them for ULEZ compliant vehicles, there appears to be a shortage of these, according to Autotrader..... :https://cardealermagazine.co.uk/pub...nt-used-cars-as-expansion-draws-nearer/280037
Still with people using cars to get on public transport. When the last strike was on our road transport changed dramatically. Normally between 0500 and 8.30 am and 3pm to 7 pm the road is more like the M25 , but that few days was unbelievable quite. The station which is about one mile down the road to London etc takes most of this traffic.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Trouble with static caravan insurance quote
- Started by Hipflask
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter