Extension to ultra-low emission zone to north/south circulars

[edanna]

There is a consultation live at the moment about extending the ultra low emission zone (ULEZ) to the north and south circulars. Under the proposals, people living or working in East Dulwich (and a lot of other areas) would need to pay every time they use their car or van if it doesn?t meet the standards. In the case of diesel vehicles that means pre-2015. No ?sunset period? is planned for residents - so everyone would be expected to pay from day 1.

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/environment/air-quality-consultation-phase-3b/?cid=airquality-consultation

I can only find discussion on the EDF around the last consultation about the central London zone so apologies if there?s a thread already on the new consultation.

[micromacromonkey]

It's a great idea, but it does need implementing correctly.

I'll be one of the ones who has to pay, even though my diesel car is only 6 years old, but then I've got 2 young kids so on balance it'll be better for my family. Although this will benefit us all in health terms, I can see how people without children in the proposed area might feel that they are getting a slightly raw deal.

The diesel thing is annoying; successive governments of whatever colour have been using tax breaks to push us more towards diesel, then are now telling us all with collective billions invested in diesel cars that if we don't sell up soon then our investment will drop massively in value. It can't help but affect diesel resale prices, and what is worse since most new cars are bought on PCP (i.e. credit) then you could end up owing money to hand back your diesel car after 4 years. That is a domesday scenario for the government as thousands of people defaulting on their car loans is going to see us heading towards credit crunch part II. I assume they must factor in these these sort of macroeconomic externalities before they announce schemes like this, interesting to see if central government has a view.

Times are changing though, and you either change with them or pay the penalty (literally in this case). I'm all for this idea, we need to implement it ASAP, and in fact if they did it alongside some sort of diesel scrappage scheme it would be a great way to make a step change in driving habits and pollution. I'll probably look to go to a plugin hybrid next.

[alex_b]

It isn't suggested to take effect for cars until October 2021, so another three and a half years. I'm not sure a further 'residents' sunset clause could be justified.

Also most new cars were Euro 6 from Sept 2015 (all were from Sept 2016). As PCPs are typically 3 or 4 years it seems doubtful it will have a disastrous effect on PCP final payment values for current PCPs.

[edanna]

I agree that decreasing emissions is a good idea but I think this could ruin people and small businesses who need a vehicle and can?t afford a new one.

[Calsug]

If the charge supported increased transport links in south London then I might support but I feel it won?t...

[Cardelia]

micromacromonkey Wrote:

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

> The diesel thing is annoying; successive

> governments of whatever colour have been using tax

> breaks to push us more towards diesel, then are

> now telling us all with collective billions

> invested in diesel cars that if we don't sell up

> soon then our investment will drop massively in

> value. It can't help but affect diesel resale

> prices, and what is worse since most new cars are

> bought on PCP (i.e. credit) then you could end up

> owing money to hand back your diesel car after 4

> years. That is a domesday scenario for the

> government as thousands of people defaulting on

> their car loans is going to see us heading towards

> credit crunch part II. I assume they must factor

> in these these sort of macroeconomic externalities

> before they announce schemes like this,

> interesting to see if central government has a

> view.

If you buy a car on PCP then at the end of the contract you either hand the car back and walk away, or finance the balloon payment to own it outright. The only way you can owe the lender any money is if you exceed the stipulated mileage, or if you've damaged the car and it needs repairs. Resale values don't come into it, and they won't affect the size of the balloon payment either because those are determined at the very start of the PCP process.

[rendelharris]

Calsug Wrote:

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

> If the charge supported increased transport links

> in south London then I might support but I feel it

> won?t...

Isn't reducing the pollution which ends the lives of 10,000 Londoners prematurely every single year an aim worth supporting?

[Calsug]

I prefer the carrot approach instead of the stick...

Wrote:

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

> Calsug Wrote:

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

> -----

> > If the charge supported increased transport

> links

> > in south London then I might support but I feel

> it

> > won?t...

>

> Isn't reducing the pollution which ends the lives

> of 10,000 Londoners prematurely every single year

> an aim worth supporting?

[Penguin68]

You can check whether your current vehicle meets the requirements here:-

https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/vrm-checker-ulez

Many high spec petrol engines pre-2015 do.

[El Presidente]

This is an appalling tax on people who through no fault of their own have cars that don't meet these standards and just happen to live somewhere. It is a regressive tax that will hit people on lower incomes harder. ?12.50 every time you need to drive your car from outside your home? Even if you use your car once a week you are talking ?600 a year. This is just gouging the public for cash.

[rendelharris]

El Presidente Wrote:

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

> This is an appalling tax on people who through no

> fault of their own have cars that don't meet these

> standards and just happen to live somewhere. It is

> a regressive tax that will hit people on lower

> incomes harder. ?12.50 every time you need to

> drive your car from outside your home? Even if you

> use your car once a week you are talking ?600 a

> year. This is just gouging the public for cash.

50% of people on lower incomes (>?25k) neither own nor have access to a car. It's not just gouging the public for cash, it's attempting to reduce the air pollution which is literally choking London to death. Unless you don't believe the scientific evidence about pollution, it's hard to see how driving around in the most polluting vehicles is defensible.

[El Presidente]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> El Presidente Wrote:

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

> -----

> > This is an appalling tax on people who through

> no

> > fault of their own have cars that don't meet

> these

> > standards and just happen to live somewhere. It

> is

> > a regressive tax that will hit people on lower

> > incomes harder. ?12.50 every time you need to

> > drive your car from outside your home? Even if

> you

> > use your car once a week you are talking ?600 a

> > year. This is just gouging the public for cash.

>

> 50% of people on lower incomes (>?25k) neither own

> nor have access to a car. It's not just gouging

> the public for cash, it's attempting to reduce the

> air pollution which is literally choking London to

> death. Unless you don't believe the scientific

> evidence about pollution, it's hard to see how

> driving around in the most polluting vehicles is

> defensible.

I firmly believe in the science (though it is just scaremongering to say 'it is choking London to death'). A phased approach that increased penalties on heavy vehicles and gave some kind of exemption for residents would be a much more sensible approach than this blanket tax on people who through no fault of their own have the wrong type of car.

And are you saying lower income people don't need cars? That's just arrogant and out of touch with reality for working people. Those on lower incomes (of which i would include people earning beyond ?25k in London) do have cars, often use them for work and are more likely to have the old cars which this will hit.

This is a massive overreaction that will excessively penalise low income people living in London, which is already a stretch. It's political grandstanding designed to appeal to middle class green zealots who don't care about the plight of low income working londoner's.

p.s my car will be fine before you ask

[rendelharris]

El Presidente Wrote:

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

> I firmly believe in the science (though it is just

> scaremongering to say 'it is choking London to

> death').

10,000 people every year in London die prematurely due to pollution. That's not scaremongering, it's a scientific fact.

> And are you saying lower income people don't need

> cars? That's just arrogant and out of touch with

> reality for working people. Those on lower incomes

> (of which i would include people earning beyond

> ?25k in London) do have cars, often use them for

> work and are more likely to have the old cars

> which this will hit.

As I said above, 50% of lower income earners neither own nor have access to a car. No I'm not saying lower income people don't need cars (it's a bit much to ask me a question then call me arrogant for the answer you've made up) - most people, of all incomes, don't need to use cars as much as they do. If having to shell out ?12.50 makes someone walk a mile to the supermarket instead of driving that's to the good. One third of all car trips in London are for journeys under two kilometres, journeys that could be walked in twenty minutes or cycled in five - that's a disgrace.

[El Presidente]

>

> As I said above, 50% of lower income earners

> neither own nor have access to a car. No I'm not

> saying lower income people don't need cars (it's a

> bit much to ask me a question then call me

> arrogant for the answer you've made up) - most

> people, of all incomes, don't need to use cars as

> much as they do. If having to shell out ?12.50

> makes someone walk a mile to the supermarket

> instead of driving that's to the good. One third

> of all car trips in London are for journeys under

> two kilometres, journeys that could be walked in

> twenty minutes or cycled in five - that's a

> disgrace.

Your arrogance is astonishing and palpable "most people, of all incomes, don't need to use cars as much as they do". Who gives you the right to decide that? And even if your figures are right (source?) that means half of people on low incomes do have cars. That's a lot of people poorer so you can force your middle class ideology down their throat.

You also ignore those who CAN'T walk or cycle. What if you are too old, infirm, unwell, have kids, can't lift the shopping etc.

[rendelharris]

El Presidente Wrote:

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

> Your arrogance is astonishing and palpable "most

> people, of all incomes, don't need to use cars as

> much as they do". Who gives you the right to

> decide that?

Who gives you the right to decide that you can drive your polluting dangerous machinery around as much as you like without any regards for the suffering it's causing for others?

> You also ignore those who CAN'T walk or cycle.

> What if you are too old, infirm, unwell, have

> kids, can't lift the shopping etc.

Ah, the good old people who advocate limiting car use are attacking the elderly and disabled argument (well done for the shouty capital letters). If people need to use cars nobody objects to their using them - if the people who could walk or cycle would do so, rather than selfishly use their cars to go half a mile to the shops, there would be more space on the road for those who need to use them, more parking too.

You want to use your car whenever and wherever you wish. Be honest enough to admit that, instead of trying to make the right to pollute the city some sort of crusade for the poor and disabled, it's dishonest.

You won't change your tune though, so good day to you, I'm off to walk a mile and a half to the cinema.

[El Presidente]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> El Presidente Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > Your arrogance is astonishing and palpable

> "most

> > people, of all incomes, don't need to use cars

> as

> > much as they do". Who gives you the right to

> > decide that?

>

> Who gives you the right to decide that you can

> drive your polluting dangerous machinery around as

> much as you like without any regards for the

> suffering it's causing for others?

>

> > You also ignore those who CAN'T walk or cycle.

> > What if you are too old, infirm, unwell, have

> > kids, can't lift the shopping etc.

>

> Ah, the good old people who advocate limiting car

> use are attacking the elderly and disabled

> argument (well done for the shouty capital

> letters). If people need to use cars nobody

> objects to their using them - if the people who

> could walk or cycle would do so, rather than

> selfishly use their cars to go half a mile to the

> shops, there would be more space on the road for

> those who need to use them, more parking too.

>

> You want to use your car whenever and wherever you

> wish. Be honest enough to admit that, instead of

> trying to make the right to pollute the city some

> sort of crusade for the poor and disabled, it's

> dishonest.

>

> You won't change your tune though, so good day to

> you, I'm off to walk a mile and a half to the

> cinema.

I can see you are struggling with some basic concepts here, hence you trying to make out i have some ulterior motive.

But as i said already - this won't change a thing for me. I will be able to use my car whenever i want without charge.

Others won't. It is regressive policy that will affect people who can't afford it the most. You know that but, be honest here, because it won't affect you, you don't care.

[James Barber]

Poorer residents are impacted to a greater deal by air pollution as they are more likely to live along the roads that are busier and most polluted. So poorer residents are disproportionately impacted health wise by air pollution and cost wise if they run an older vehicle by this plan but are much less likely to run any vehicle.

I think it is accurate to say we have an air pollution crisis. We need the political leadership that Boris did not provide to solve it. I don't think the proposal will fully solve this crisis but it will take an important step towards doing so.

As much air pollution is caused by the friction between tyres and roads, clutches, etc. So even the cleaner cars are only clean in the sense of exhaust emissions they'll still be causing particulates.

Wood and coal burning is still a problem - despite us all living in a smoke free zone.

[Mugglesworth]

There might be a business opportunity here. How about buying up diesel vans and cars in London (where secondhand value for them is being obliterated) then shipping them to other parts of the country for sale where particulate pollution is not so much of a problem? Assured a decent mark up with the buyers still getting a bargain. London sellers would at least get something to put down as a deposit on a new vehicle. Yes, it's spreading pollution more thinly rather than removing it but, as an interim measure, it's preferable to abandoned vehicles in every street.

[Cardelia]

El Presidente Wrote:

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

> I firmly believe in the science (though it is just

> scaremongering to say 'it is choking London to

> death'). A phased approach that increased

> penalties on heavy vehicles and gave some kind of

> exemption for residents would be a much more

> sensible approach than this blanket tax on people

> who through no fault of their own have the wrong

> type of car.

We already have "a phased approach that increased penalties on heavy vehicles". The existing LEZ has been going strong for 10 years now and the requirements were made more stringent as time passed, but it has only ever applied to heavy vehicles. The central zone T-charge which was introduced last year applies equally to all vehicles which do not meet modern emissions standards, but only in central London. Now the expanded ULEZ will target cars and other light vehicles in inner London. This has been coming for many years and people have had plenty of time to get used to the idea that driving highly polluting vehicles in a city like London is not a good thing.

> And are you saying lower income people don't need

> cars? That's just arrogant and out of touch with

> reality for working people. Those on lower incomes

> (of which i would include people earning beyond

> ?25k in London) do have cars, often use them for

> work and are more likely to have the old cars

> which this will hit.

By the time the ULEZ comes to Dulwich in 2021, the oldest compliant petrol cars will be 16 years old. Those are not going to be expensive, are they? There will be plenty of choice of compliant cars which cost less than ?1000.

> p.s my car will be fine before you ask

Well, my car won't be fine and I'll have to change it. Or give it up and rely on hiring a car, I haven't decided what to do yet. But I still wholly support introducing the ULEZ.

[Calsug]

Really? So the south circular that goes through Clapham along the Common is where all the poor people live!? Not to mention all the people who live in Fulham and Chelsea - because tons of poor people live there. Sorry James that?s total tosh

Whilst I fully support the need to cut pollution in our capital I honestly believe that can only be achieved through better public transport infrastructure not by taxing people out of their cars - what happened to great concepts like cycle highways above train tracks for example? Why are there no boris bikes in East Dulwich? Why is the main form of connection in SE London an unreliable and expensive train service or an overcrowded bus?

I personally only use my car to get out of London, I don?t drive it on a daily basis but instead put my commute in the grubby mitts of southern rail to give me a 4 carriage train during rush hour also I would quite happily walk a few miles to get somewhere instead of using a bus ...

so actually I?m a bit annoyed that now I will be charged to get out of London on the odd weekend

Totally agree about the wood smoke though - Certainly from my runs I know a few areas where houses definitely are burning something they shouldn?t be.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Poorer residents are impacted to a greater deal by

> air pollution as they are more likely to live

> along the roads that are busier and most polluted.

> So poorer residents are disproportionately

> impacted health wise by air pollution and cost

> wise if they run an older vehicle by this plan but

> are much less likely to run any vehicle.

>

> I think it is accurate to say we have an air

> pollution crisis. We need the political leadership

> that Boris did not provide to solve it. I don't

> think the proposal will fully solve this crisis

> but it will take an important step towards doing

> so.

> As much air pollution is caused by the friction

> between tyres and roads, clutches, etc. So even

> the cleaner cars are only clean in the sense of

> exhaust emissions they'll still be causing

> particulates.

> Wood and coal burning is still a problem - despite

> us all living in a smoke free zone.

[kford]

I bet we'll still see 10-year-old EURO4 cabs driving around. I followed a 2002 taxi the other day through Peckham. Couldn't breathe for soot particles. And there's 21,000 of them.

[James Barber]

Hi Calsug,

Air pollution hits the poorest the most. In Southwark the most polluted roads are roads which disproportionately have our poorest residents - Old Kent Road, New Kent Road, Walworth Road, London Road, Peckham Rye, Peckham Road, Camberwell Road, Camberwell New Road...

https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/article-abstract/39/3/485/3076806

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/19/poorest-london-children-face-health-risks-toxic-air-poverty-obesity

Totally agree public transport improvements are necessary. Trams can be quickly built an deployed and no plans in place to do this.

The taxation raised will be used to maintain current public transport and the appearance of TfL fares freeze.

[El Presidente]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Calsug,

> Air pollution hits the poorest the most. In

> Southwark the most polluted roads are roads which

> disproportionately have our poorest residents -

> Old Kent Road, New Kent Road, Walworth Road,

> London Road, Peckham Rye, Peckham Road, Camberwell

> Road, Camberwell New Road...

> https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/article-abstra

> ct/39/3/485/3076806

> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/1

> 9/poorest-london-children-face-health-risks-toxic-

> air-poverty-obesity

>

> Totally agree public transport improvements are

> necessary. Trams can be quickly built an deployed

> and no plans in place to do this.

> The taxation raised will be used to maintain

> current public transport and the appearance of TfL

> fares freeze.

Whether this is true or not is just one consideration. This doesn't inevitably lead to a conclusion that a regressive flat tax should be imposed on people who can't afford to buy new cars. There are other ways pollution can be reduced without resorting to imposing a ?12.50 daily charge on people who need to drive for good reason i.e work, they can't walk etc. Public transport is not a solution for everyone. Walking is not a solution for everyone.

This is a tax on working class londoners with little or no political voice to please a group of overly vocal, environmental do gooders who either aren't affected by it because they don't have jobs that require it (i.e local councillors) or can afford to buy new cars.

Progressive politics in action!

[James Barber]

Hi El Presidente,

Majority of Councillor have regular full-time jobs. Most outside of Southwark. My day job mostly see's me travelling around /se England but occasional trips across the UK.

Air pollution is killing many Londoners prematurely and disproportionately poorer Londoners. It's also damaging the health of of the rest of us and life chances of London children and again disproportionately children from poorer families.

But the proposed changes will be painful for many and some will need to change how they get around London.

I would be interested in your alternative proposal?

[El Presidente]

>

> I would be interested in your alternative

> proposal?

I would propose a phased approach that was proportionate to the risk.

The consultation puts two broad three proposals for tightening the rules. Those that affect heavy vehicles only would reduce emissions, affects the most polluting vehicles and targets primarily those who choose to drive into the area. These should be supported.

Those that affect light vehicles should be scaled back. The fairest solution would be to allow an exemption for residents while the policy was evaluated. This would put choice at the heart of the proposal. It would still improve air quality as it would deter those who choose to drive into the zone, without penalising those who live in the area and have no choice. The impact of these changes should be evaluated before deciding whether a further tightening was necessary.