Ultra low emissions zone

[stephent]

Can I ask which park of the discount you disagree with - the diesel standards were introduced so recently it seems unfair not to allow a discount on at least say Cat 5 diesels?

[kford]

Pretty much any diesel made before 2014 will fall foul of the uLEZ rules. And most petrol cars built before 2006.

[bobbsy]

Imdont think it's fair either, given diesel cars were promoted as the clean alternative for so many yard. I think cars owned at the time of the new logislation should be exempt until they are sold.

[Cat in a Hot Tin Bus]

The second phase of consultation is open

Have your say here

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/environment/air-quality-consultation-phase-2?cid=airquality-consultation

[James Barber]

Hi ford, stephent,

You're right it would be unfair. But I can't help feeling it's even more unfair for the 10,000 avoidable premature deaths resulting from the avoidable air pollution.

[Lowlander]

I'd throw another cat in and say that anyone who was "mislead" buying a diesel should really have spent 5 minutes researching beforehand. The toxicity has been known about and published for years. That doesn't excuse the government or car makers for peddling otherwise though.

These proposals seem fair; it won't be for another 7 years that anyone in ED will have to pay.

[bil]

I don't understand this method of penalising people without first providing viable alternatives. Perhaps Southwark can install more electric charging points on residential roads? Hopefully electric/hybrids will become cheaper but those with flats, terraced homes and front gardens that don't have OSP (I think, the majority of the SE22) won't be able to charge the vehicles. Could the Mayor hurry up and improve SE22's public transport connections into London e.g.local bike scheme, a rail/tube service that delivers a frequent reliable service; basic stuff that exists elsewhere (albeit costly). If we have good alternatives we shouldn't need cars but our options are inadequate. Yes we want to prevent avoidable deaths! If the Mayor and TFL are really committed to this then they have to invest first (yeah that would make sense!)

[TheArtfulDogger]

Talking of investing, how much would it actually cost to set up the cctv system needed to monitor the north /south circular route.

I found a document from Islington https://www.islington.gov.uk//~/media/sharepoint-lists/public-records/environmentalprotection/qualityandperformance/reporting/20152016/20150401islingtonulezextensionstudyfinalreport that suggests a cctv network would cost ?10.2 million in 2014 (allowing for inflation) per km

The north circular is 41.4 km long (source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Circular_Road)

the south circular is 33km long (source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Circular_Road,_London)

A total if 74.4 km at a potential 2014 cost of ?10.2 million per km makes it ?758.88 million

Allow for inflation from the 2014 estimate, cost overrun and other costs and that could be closer to a billion pounds in 2019 just to implement then there is the potential cost to householders to replace their vehicles that don't meet the necessary levels. Finally there is the cost to run the scheme, I assume capita will manage it on behalf of tfl.

I would be interested to see the figures that the mayoral office predicts for implementing as far as the north and south circular

Whilst cost should not be a factor compared with lives saved, it has to be considered.

Equally did anyone see top gear a few years ago where they did no2 comparisons during and after a London wide bus strike ?

They showed that no2 levels dropped significantly during the bus strike, and the following study backed it up http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2394054/oxford-street-pollution-plummeted-during-bus-strike-say-scientists

Therefore turning all buses to electric or converting to run on petrol rather than diesel will aide a drop in pollution levels which is a good start.

As Bil pointed out above south London doesn't have an effective transport system to replace cars if they are taxed off the road.

By restricting heavy traffic to the south circular and further out, it means that the already congested, slow and heavily polluted south circular will just get worse thus moving the no2 problem out to the south circular , which depending on weather and wind direction could cause it to drift into the edges of east Dulwich

Finally, deliveries to stores and businesses in the new zone will potentially increase cost wise which may be passed on to consumers as vehicles will either have to be converted, replaced or pay the new charge.

Overall I believe that there needs to be a better understanding of what expanding the ultra low emmision zone from the current congestion zone to the north and south circular roads actually means for London and Londoners as a whole before we can make any sort of informed decession.

[James Barber]

Hi The ArtfulDogger,

I very much doubt it would cost anything like that to actively monitor it. But I suspect much of the monitoring would be via where vehicles are registered.

Witnessed air pollution of moving vehicles what 10 years ago. The system cost ?100,000 then per vehicle lane. They could tell how many cylinders were working from the emitted air pollution. So the systems available now must be even smarter and significantly cheaper.

Hi bil,

People can find alternatives to diesel vehicles but people can't avoid breathing (for long). So again I think the balance of unfairness is people having to breath polluted air over finding replacements for cars and vans.

[TheArtfulDogger]

Hi James, I was talking of the cost to implement the necessary cameras or systems to know when a vehicle enters the zone, plus the need for cameras to monitor vehicles already in the zone, after all people shouldn't be charged a daily rate if their vehicle is on their drive!

Not quite sure what your air pollution of moving vehicles statement is actually saying, it seems very confusing.

As I said I want to see the projected costs for implementing, running and maintenance of the proposal before making any decision

As Bil said in his post, before penalising drivers in the south, we need better transport alternatives implemented first he wasn't questioning the unfairness of alternatives to diesel vehicles, although the mayors proposal is that we replace or convert any vehicle that doesn't meet the standards, a lot of Londoners simply can't afford to do that especially those who use cars infrequently but still need them

[bil]

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/environment/air-quality-consultation-phase-2?cid=airquality-consultation

[Townleygreen]

I agree James

[rendelharris]

Bit off topic, but re monitoring, I know many people would say Big Brother etc but why isn't it made compulsory for every vehicle to carry a tamperproof GPS transmitter so that it can be seen to enter any chargeable zones - which could also be used to enforce speed limits, prove red light jumping, track stolen vehicles, stop hit and runs etc etc. I know, loads of people will hate the idea, but at the moment traffic laws are a joke, broken by most people some of the time due to lack of traffic police. I'd accept one on my bike to prove I don't jump reds if that would help!

[Charles Notice]

Why not chip people at birth?

[TheArtfulDogger]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Bit off topic, but re monitoring, I know many

> people would say Big Brother etc but why isn't it

> made compulsory for every vehicle to carry a

> tamperproof GPS transmitter so that it can be seen

> to enter any chargeable zones - which could also

> be used to enforce speed limits, prove red light

> jumping, track stolen vehicles, stop hit and runs

> etc etc. I know, loads of people will hate the

> idea, but at the moment traffic laws are a joke,

> broken by most people some of the time due to lack

> of traffic police. I'd accept one on my bike to

> prove I don't jump reds if that would help!

Same reason we don't have a national identity card to stop things like benefit fraud, infringement of civil liberties

[rendelharris]

Charles Notice Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why not chip people at birth?

Yes that's exactly the same thing.

[rendelharris]

TheArtfulDogger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Same reason we don't have a national identity card

> to stop things like benefit fraud, infringement of

> civil liberties

Yes, but cars are already constantly monitored on the road by ANPR cameras, speed cameras, CC cameras, so it wouldn't be something new, it'd just be being done better.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

bil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't understand this method of penalising

> people without first providing viable

> alternatives.

There are many viable alternatives to high pollution cars.

[bil]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> bil Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I don't understand this method of penalising

> > people without first providing viable

> > alternatives.

>

> There are many viable alternatives to high

> pollution cars.

Dogkennelhillbilly...please explain those alternatives. I'm sure that will help those people with old cars who can't afford the upgrade.

[bil]

TheArtfulDogger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Talking of investing, how much would it actually

> cost to set up the cctv system needed to monitor

> the north /south circular route.

>

> I found a document from Islington

> https://www.islington.gov.uk//~/media/sharepoint-l

> ists/public-records/environmentalprotection/qualit

> yandperformance/reporting/20152016/20150401islingt

> onulezextensionstudyfinalreport that suggests a

> cctv network would cost ?10.2 million in 2014

> (allowing for inflation) per km

>

> The north circular is 41.4 km long (source

> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Circular_Roa

> d)

> the south circular is 33km long (source

> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Circular_Roa

> d,_London)

>

> A total if 74.4 km at a potential 2014 cost of

> ?10.2 million per km makes it ?758.88 million

>

> Allow for inflation from the 2014 estimate, cost

> overrun and other costs and that could be closer

> to a billion pounds in 2019 just to implement then

> there is the potential cost to householders to

> replace their vehicles that don't meet the

> necessary levels. Finally there is the cost to run

> the scheme, I assume capita will manage it on

> behalf of tfl.

>

> I would be interested to see the figures that the

> mayoral office predicts for implementing as far as

> the north and south circular

>

> Whilst cost should not be a factor compared with

> lives saved, it has to be considered.

>

> Equally did anyone see top gear a few years ago

> where they did no2 comparisons during and after a

> London wide bus strike ?

>

> They showed that no2 levels dropped significantly

> during the bus strike, and the following study

> backed it up

> http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2394054/oxfor

> d-street-pollution-plummeted-during-bus-strike-say

> -scientists

>

> Therefore turning all buses to electric or

> converting to run on petrol rather than diesel

> will aide a drop in pollution levels which is a

> good start.

>

> As Bil pointed out above south London doesn't have

> an effective transport system to replace cars if

> they are taxed off the road.

>

> By restricting heavy traffic to the south circular

> and further out, it means that the already

> congested, slow and heavily polluted south

> circular will just get worse thus moving the no2

> problem out to the south circular , which

> depending on weather and wind direction could

> cause it to drift into the edges of east Dulwich

>

> Finally, deliveries to stores and businesses in

> the new zone will potentially increase cost wise

> which may be passed on to consumers as vehicles

> will either have to be converted, replaced or pay

> the new charge.

>

> Overall I believe that there needs to be a better

> understanding of what expanding the ultra low

> emmision zone from the current congestion zone to

> the north and south circular roads actually means

> for London and Londoners as a whole before we can

> make any sort of informed decession.

Very interesting. Thanks for the info!

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

bil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > bil Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > I don't understand this method of penalising

> > > people without first providing viable

> > > alternatives.

> >

> > There are many viable alternatives to high

> > pollution cars.

>

>

> Dogkennelhillbilly...please explain those

> alternatives. I'm sure that will help those people

> with old cars who can't afford the upgrade.

It ain't rocket science but luckily you've got 7 years to figure it out.

[bobbsy]

I'll help dogkennelhillbilly out...

Walk - which many people cannot do for any appreciable distance

Cycle - as above

Bus - slow and polluting

Tube - oh there isn't any

Train - slow and expensive.

So yes, losds of viable options in SE London...

[BrandNewGuy]

Yeah, those trains just crawl into London Bridge. I could easily beat that 13-minute journey in my car...

[Jeremy]

Well yeah, realistically for travelling into central London (especially during the week) the train is easily the best way. But a car's certainly very useful for nipping around South London, or journeys out of London, or when the train's not running over the weekend.

I guess the silver lining is that buying a basic second-hand eligible car isn't going to cost much more than your annual running costs.

[uncleglen]

Still doesn't tackle the particulate pollution from construction or, increasingly in this area, people burning logs....Lots more rain is what we really need