Keir Starmer and the Labour Party have prevaricated to appease the far-right media on London's ULEZ (ultra low emission zone) even though it is intended to save to least 4,000 lives a year.
The Tories are attacking the scheme even though it was a Boris Johnson creation and they are funding similar schemes in places like Birmingham and Portsmouth.
Sadiq Khan has extended the scheme anyway, rightly in my opinion.
But what do you think?
Are ultra low emission zones the right thing for cities to do?
- Yes (88%, 597 Votes)
- I don’t know but show me the answers anyway (7%, 44 Votes)
- No (5%, 35 Votes)
Total Voters: 676
Loading ...Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I think we always have to be careful with binary questions that solicit binary answers, because all too often, the answer is, “it depends”.
I think the question should be “How and who does ULEZ benefit and disadvantage.”
➡️ It definitely benefits those who have respiratory health issues, and will probably save lives.
➡️ But it will disadvantage those with lesser incomes, who can not afford to upgrade their polluting vehicles.
So, the grats need to be means tested…
None of the scrappage deals apply to us at all here right on the ULEZ border, as we’re outside London. We’re in it if we go over the local bridge and head for the nearest shopping centre though, once the 13th largest in Europe and still very busy despite business transferring online. Many local people do their shopping there and ULEZ expansion adds £12.50 a trip if they drive in, and for shopping they need to, and this in the midst of a cost of living crisis, and of course they’re served in the shops by other locals who work there, and now find themselves looking at an extra £12.50 a day just to get to work and back. Again, these people aren’t any of them able to take part in the scrappage compensation scheme as we aren’t Londoners. How are people in this position supposed to cope? There are suggestions we all had years to prepare but I gather from the local forums the extent of the extension was only made clear a few months ago. There’s no increase either to the local bus service I’m aware of, and I know from personal experience (haven’t driven for decades) that in the rush hour it’s woefully inadequate as things are already.
It’s a mess. It didn’t need to be, but it is.
I agree – it is clear that the scrappage scheme need to be considerably more generous
Urgent action is needed to address the harmful effects of pollution. The evidence is overwhelming. Schemes such as ULEZ should be accelerated not delayed. A creative scrapping scheme would mitigate the impact and should be targeted at those who have the greatest need. There could be a resulting economic stimulus. I regularly use the train network. The condition of the dangerously overcrowded train I used on Monday was a disgrace.Public Transport us an essential service. A massive investment to upgrade and improve the network using a public ownership model would contribute to reducing pollution and emissions and would have a beneficial multiplier impact. HS2 is an unnecessary vanity project notwithstanding the fact that other European countries have had high speed services for many years.
There are issues with city-based environmental strategies. Diesel engines and woodburning stoves can produce more particulate pollution, so they’re bad for your neighbours – but from a global perspective they’re better than alternatives such as petrol engines or gas boilers. Similarly, low emissions zones, combined with scrappage schemes, are good for cities, but incentivise people to buy new cars. I haven’t done the maths, but my guess is that buying new cars might well be worse from a global perspective than cleaning up the air in a particular city.
A coherent environmental strategy would be primarily focused not on ULEZs or LTNs, but on disincentivising commuting (working at/near home), building superb electric public transport provision, incentivising car-sharing (not just journey-sharing, but electric car-clubs that effectively end most personal car ownership), etc…
Car sharing is being promoted in a big way in France – “covoiturage” signs, special lanes on roads, hubs where drivers and passengers can hook up, etc. Nobody seems even vaguely aware of it in UK
Re the comment on the French car sharing scheme…Co voiturage, there are specific (free) car parks built beside the Autoroutes to encourage this ,also I noticed ,on a recent trip on La Meridienne,down to Beziers, illuminated signs offering a 100 Euro bounty for car owners offering to do this. Seems a sensible idea for commuters to do this.
Let’s not forget that expanding ULEZ was an explicit requirement from Grant Shapps when he was SoS for Transport for providing the funds to keep London Transport going when their revenue crashed due to Covid. Why Labour didn’t cover Uxbridge with copies of that letter during the recent by-election is beyond comprehension.
Agreed
Colin: You say “Why Labour didn’t cover Uxbridge with copies of that letter during the recent by-election is beyond comprehension.”. Sadly, I think you could have kept it shorter: “Labour’s failure to advocate any alternative … is beyond comprehension”.
I know, it’s been said a million times … but it needs to be said until they realise their role…….
It might be acceptable if there was any kind of infrastructure for alternatives in other areas, or schemes to actually allow people who have to have cars (there is no public transport where I live 25m from Oxford) to obtain a ULEZ compliant vehicle.
For those outside London having to risk a fine to drop someone off at Heathrow is unreasonable – another convenient cash cow.
And other cities aren’t like London. Oxford for example is small enough to have a workable park and ride system.
But most people do not use park and ride schemes
Park and Ride in York (my only experience, and as an occasional visitor) seems to be used by a great many people. I agree it is probably not ‘most people’, but I suspect it is a sufficient number to keep the city centre from seizing-up completely.
You sound dismissive of something I have always thought was a good idea. I’ve always hated driving in unfamiliar city centres and Park and Ride seems a good way to avoid it and also to make the city centre more easily accessible by car on the occasions when it is necessary to be using the car.
Perhaps you are not being dismissive, but merely observing a fact.
I use park and rides
And go by train whenever possible
But many don’t is what I was saying
I despair at it all really.
I applaud ULEZ and agree with the aims and objectives.
But our transport policy in this country is so dire I can see the other side.
There is too little money supporting transition to less polluting vehicles; the bus services are in a mess and where it is really falling apart in my view is on the rural transport scene into cities – the interconnections radiating in and out.
We already have too few railway and tram routes from the shires into towns/cities and use motorists as pawns.
The whole thing is a mess – and this mess enables Tories to play games with ULEZ.
Transport policy in this country does not add up.
And don’t even mention HS2.
It seems that none of the lessons from the gilets jaunes protests in France have been noticed.
We can ony have change if we do not punish those on the lowest incomes and with least assest as a result.
Surely every reasonable person wants to breathe cleaner air so personal reticence to ULEZ can only come from those at or near the threat of having to replace their vehicle but are unable to afford to do so.
As usual it all comes back to money. A government with the courage to drive climate action forward would ensure a properly funded and effective scrappage scheme was in place phased across the country not just in localities.
Someone has always got a reason why something can’t be done….let’s make this a country where we get things done!
Agreed
Wouldn’t it make sense to have better public transport in place before launching ULEZ? If people can’t afford to replace a car, and can’t get to work without one, of course they will be opposed.
That is implicit in what I am suggesting in other comments
The diesel cars that are being charged now are the same diesel cars that were encouraged for years with cheaper fuel tax.
If (Because) the vehicles are dangerous to health then surely they should be banned outright. Instead we have a weaselly payment scheme that allows you to use your dangerous car if you can afford it – or makes you pay if you can’t afford to replace it. Air pollution in London is disgusting. But “pay to pollute” schemes are wrong practically and in principle. The government should take responsibility for its decision and reimburse the owners properly.
We had Johnson as mayor for ten years and he did nothing about air pollution. Except talk about fantasy solutions until the news cycle was over. Year after year. Brilliant really, in a sick kind of way.
These cars are going – those post 2016 are compliant
So, the non-compliant ones will fade out, but the carbon cost of scrapping still useable cars is also high so a trade off is appropriate
For any ULEZ to work, there needs to be copious public transport – & not just at rush hour. Railway stations also need to be safe i.e. manned (erm… ????). With one or two exceptions (Vienna) most cities perform poorly – Brussels is making a dogs-dinner of transport – making it very difficult to get into town (fine) but offering irregular public transport after 1830hrs. (not fine). In the latest saga it is taking 8 months to replace 3kms of tram track – pathetic. Most politicos make a big song & dance about supporting public transport – but it is all mouth and no trousers.
Agreed
I’m not sure of the actual statistics but I think it’s only a relatively small proportion of vehicles that aren’t compliant? I assumed my own car, a 2003 Honda Jazz, would be liable for the charge but was astonished to discover that it was ULEZ compliant. Clearly having a modest car pays off. It will cause hardship to some and sadly these details have not been sufficiently adressed but I would like to see the many ridiculously large and powerful SUVs discouraged from their totally inappropriate presence in our cities – I believe this is happening in France where they will incur higher parking charges. Here in Cambridge they are trying to introduce a congestion charge rather than ULEZ which is not a good solution for a city of this size….I tend to see congestion as a rather good disincentive to using a car, and only drive if absolutely necessary, especially in such a small city. It’s the private schools that add considerably to the problem here…it’s time they were compelled to provide their own busses, when their term ends the traffic is very much diminished.
Fascinating watching Sunak positioning his language to be that of an opposition leader when being interviewed about ULEZ, whilst the actual of the oppositon (who increasingly sounds like he could be the next leader of the Conservative Party) has taken cover.
I know many people who are not affected by the charge (and understand that) but who are still very angry about it. Why? I suspect three main reasons 1. General distrust of politicians, they see it as the thin end of a wedge and suspect their, currently compliant cars, will be targeted next. 2. General dislike of the principle of cameras everywhere recording what we are doing. 3. Everyone wants clean air and accepts the principles of taxation but (despite what some commentators think about ordinary people not being concerned about taxes that don’t affect them) people need to feel any taxation is FAIR and this implementation of the ULEZ charge seems to be targeted squarely at those least able to pay. (I suppose the truth will be proved in a years time, if little money was raised because most people changed their cars it will be deemed a success. If however a lot of money is raised, the air quality will be no better as the cars still came in, the poor will be poorer and it will be deemed a failure).
There E many assumptions in there that look to be unsubstantiated