Ultra low emissions zone

[TheArtfulDogger]

The mayor of London has plans to bring forward the ultra low emission zone start date a year to 2019 and by 2020 to extend it to the boundaries of the north and south circular.

Cars older than 2005 may have to pay extra London 'air pollution charge'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36712220

Whilst I am in favour of reducing pollution in London, it does strike me as a bit extreme as it means that East Dulwich will fall into the new proposed zone and drivers of vehicles over 10 years old, of which there are many in the area, nay be forced to pay to drive locally. Potentially this means that cars will need to be scrapped and new ones bought to allow their owners to drive uncharged and I am not sure this is environmentally friendly either.... As I understand the current proposal historic vehicles will be excluded as will vehicles registered before 1973 (too hard to convert) but that too can change

What are the views of others in the area?

Should the zone be extended?

And as we are only a stones throw inside the south circular, is it fair that people living the other side of the border (sometimes only a street away) get to drive freely outside the zone ?

[uncleglen]

Since many children are driven to and from school and everywhere else, and he obviously hasn't been advised of this

http://www.airqualitynews.com/2016/02/16/higher-air-pollution-health-risk-inside-car-study-finds/

then it's ridiculous and is obviously unfair on poorer people...I suppose it will satisfy the people that think those on benefits, and the lower paid, will no longer be able to afford to drive....

The zone should not be extended

[rendelharris]

uncleglen Wrote:

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

> Since many children are driven to and from school

> and everywhere else, and he obviously hasn't been

> advised of this

>

> http://www.airqualitynews.com/2016/02/16/higher-ai

> r-pollution-health-risk-inside-car-study-finds/

>

> then it's ridiculous and is obviously unfair on

> poorer people...I suppose it will satisfy the

> people that think those on benefits, and the lower

> paid, will no longer be able to afford to

> drive....

> The zone should not be extended

That is a valid point (the fact that it will disproportionately hit poorer people), but to counterbalance that there has been a plethora of recent studies showing that the poorest areas have the worst air quality, that schools with the highest percentage of poorest pupils are disproportionately represented in the list of schools with the highest levels of pollution and that the poorest Londoners are disproportionately represented amongst the nearly 10,000 people who die as a result of air pollution in the city each year. So it's not all anti-poor...

That said, I'd like to see far more positive and proactive measures - walking buses, more and better cycle lanes, cheaper public transport - which would convince people it's a positive to leave the car at home - or not have one - rather than making them feel they're being penalised.

[Seabag]

And this is nothing to do with the half dozen old cars you own, all parked up in E.D?

[bobbsy]

An article in the Times this morning gives some more detail: 2017 will see a ?10 charge for pre 2005 vehicles entering the existing congestion zone, 2019 will extend to all pre 2015 diesels in the ULEZ and will be 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and in 2020 that zone will be extended to the North and South circulars.

Local taxis and Ubers will be exempt.

I agree with the need for more control on polluting vehicles in theory, and think a line needs to be drawn somewhere regarding age of vehicles (pre 2005 seems about right to me), but pre 2015 seems far far too new to me (only 4 years old in 2019 - I've never ever been able to afford a 4 year old car!), and I disagree with the extension of the zone so quickly. I COMPLETELY DISAGREE on exempting taxi's and Ubers.

[Cardelia]

bobbsy Wrote:

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

> I agree with the need for more control on

> polluting vehicles in theory, and think a line

> needs to be drawn somewhere regarding age of

> vehicles (pre 2005 seems about right to me), but

> pre 2015 seems far far too new to me (only 4 years

> old in 2019 - I've never ever been able to afford

> a 4 year old car!), and I disagree with the

> extension of the zone so quickly. I COMPLETELY

> DISAGREE on exempting taxi's and Ubers.

The age thing is a guide, not a line in the sand. All petrol vehicles in the ULEZ will need to be compliant with Euro 4 emissions standards otherwise they get charged. Euro 4 was introduced in 2005 (hence the cutoff date for older vehicles) but my understanding is that any Euro 4-compliant vehicles registered before 2005 should not be charged. Likewise, if there are any vehicles registered after 2005 which are not Euro 4 compliant, they should be charged.

In general diesel-powered vehicles are more polluting than petrols, especially in city centres, hence diesels are being held to newer pollution standards (Euro 6, which was introduced in 2015). If you want to buy an older car, just make sure it's not a diesel. Which is good advice anyway when choosing any car for city centre driving.

Under current plans, residents in the ULEZ will have a three year grace period to change their car once it's introduced. This effectively means that anyone in ED will have until 2023 before they start paying charges for the extended ULEZ. Anyone outside the south circular will have to start paying to drive to ED from 2020. That seems like a fair trade-off to me (although I completely disagree that taxis and Ubers should be exempt) and I'm in favour of the proposed changes even though I'll have to change my car.

[Siduhe]

The Times has reported this morning that "The ?toxicity charge? implemented by Mr Khan, which will increase from an extra ?10 a day to ?12.50 in 2019, will not apply to taxis and Uber cars. Local residents are expected to continue receiving a 90 per cent discount, at least initially."

[uncleglen]

What about lorries and vans? If they are included then the price of all goods will rise....

The poorest areas have the highest pollution because the poor people drive the older cars and they are driving around all day because they have no jobs (visit, for examples, Newham, Croydon and you will see the volume of traffic on the roads at all times). Also, education is needed- poor people tend to think- I need a new car and then buy something old for ?200 and run it into the ground....

Other cities have tried other methods

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/mar/20/licence-plate-driving-bans-paris-ineffective-air-pollution

further down the article it appears that Berlin has been the most successful (why it is last on the list beats me)

Electric cars are scary- I did not realise that I use my hearing INITIALLY when crossing the road and nearly got run over by an almost silent electric car- it was very alarming.

[Jeremy]

People really shouldn't be penalised for a car they bought before the rules were announced. That's the way it works for road tax.

As for electric cars, UG... they are the future so no point fighting against it, but I agree the lack of noise is a concern. It's partly about education (not relying on your ears), but also warning sounds are becoming mandatory in some markets. And a few years down the line, collision avoidance systems will be the norm.

[kford]

To not charge taxis is absurd. The amount of old (some up to 18-years-old) black cabs in town is criminal. Few are Euro6 compliant; most are Euro4 high-milers with no particulate filters and poor tuning. Start there.

[Mugglesworth]

There's a consultation on these proposals here: http://talklondon.london.gov.uk/content/cleaning-londons-air-pollution

Whether you like or don't like the proposals, I suggest filling in the survey. The Mayor stands for transparency and democracy, so I'd expect the survey results to be taken into consideration.

[bobbsy]

Reasonable comment that electric cars are the future so no avoiding them. I do have a particular gripe with them though - they are pollution movers not reducers. At the extreme, if we take that the energy is produced by coal powered stations that pollution is effectively removed from the city centre to a non city location, which is the intention, but I don't believe they should attract any form of subsidy. The UK is also forecast to have a power deficit in the coming years, which will likely force large industry to self supply through oil/gas/distillate powered generation which is at least as bad a cause of pollution as the diesel cars they are replacing.

[Jeremy]

bobbsy Wrote:

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

> Reasonable comment that electric cars are the

> future so no avoiding them. I do have a particular

> gripe with them though - they are pollution movers

> not reducers.

You'd have to assume that the electricity comes from a combination of fossil fuel, nuclear and renewables. And that this balance is likely to tip away from fossil fuels in the future. Also natural gas is cleaner than oil/petrol.

You also need to consider efficiency of the vehicles themselves (regenerative braking, etc)

[Monkey]

Announcing this just the week when southern is cutting train services from ED just shows how out of touch he is. As a result of Southern cutting down services, I will now use my 16-year old car everyday to drive to another station that is really inconvenient to reach by bus.

[bobbsy]

Jermey, agree that electricity comes from a mixture of sources. However as we reach maximum capacity (which we are heading towards 2017/18/19), the marginal MW comes from the most expensive (which also happen to be the most polluting) production sources - oil/fuel oil/distillate, and indeed semi-closed coal capacity (closed as too polluting) which then manage to acquire short term opening exemptions to avoid brown-outs...my argument really is that increasing the amount of electric cars in the coming years will likely cause the electricity they require to be generated from the same polluting fuels they are meant to replace. They are effective however at removing the pollution from a city centre, but not reducing overall pollution.

[Jeremy]

bobbsy - in the short/medium term, maybe. It's a technology for the long term.

[uncleglen]

No one in London will escape from this

http://www.airqualitynews.com/2015/05/11/london-construction-sector-air-quality-site-launched/

[bobbsy]

Yeap, I don't disagree. Would be nice to see some clean power gen plans in the pipeline, let alone plans to meet projected demand!

[rendelharris]

bobbsy Wrote:

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

> Jermey, agree that electricity comes from a

> mixture of sources. However as we reach maximum

> capacity (which we are heading towards

> 2017/18/19), the marginal MW comes from the most

> expensive (which also happen to be the most

> polluting) production sources - oil/fuel

> oil/distillate, and indeed semi-closed coal

> capacity (closed as too polluting) which then

> manage to acquire short term opening exemptions to

> avoid brown-outs...my argument really is that

> increasing the amount of electric cars in the

> coming years will likely cause the electricity

> they require to be generated from the same

> polluting fuels they are meant to replace. They

> are effective however at removing the pollution

> from a city centre, but not reducing overall

> pollution.

That's very true, but as I understand it, an electric vehicle using electricity produced from coal is "only" as polluting as the average petrol vehicle of the same size, so even if all our electricity came from coal it wouldn't make matters worse plus there would be the immeasurable benefit of having clean air in the city. EVs using electricity from gas have the same carbon footprint as the very best hybrids and those using electricity from renewables/nuclear are obviously pretty much carbon neutral bar the emissions from manufacture. At the moment in the UK our electricity comes roughly from 30% coal, 30% gas, 20% nuclear and 20% renewables, so if all cars became electric tomorrow we would have an average of 30% of cars being as polluting as petrol cars, 30% as polluting as the very best hybrids and 40% non-polluting.

Your point about peak capacity is well made, hopefully as electric cars become more commonplace (and all the analysis I've read seems to indicate that they will inevitably replace the petrol car over the next fifty years or so) the surge in demand for electricity will make it more profitable for the energy companies to invest more in renewables.

[wulfhound]

@ OP

The old cars won't, for the most part, be scrapped - they'll be sold. While they're still roadworthy, better to have them polluting less densely populated places, no?

Any scrappage scheme really needs to encourage people towards car clubs (Zip Car etc.) and ultralight EVs (G.Wiz). Using a lower powered vehicle most of the time, with something beefier available to rent when you need to take to the motorway, clearly saves masses of energy vs using a car engineered for the Autobahn to drive a mile to the station.

[Abe_froeman]

Was this in Khan's manifesto?

[i*Rate]

Given the scandal over Volkswagen fiddling their emission figures and taking a look at all of the new larger cars on the roads now, it makes you wonder what pollution levels really are. If you compare the latest Porsche 'people carrier', with it's huge quad exhausts, to a 1960's mini or a Renault 4 for example, how come the old cards have such tiny exhaust pipes if they emit bigger emissions?

I suppose it IS rocket science - what's the answer Mr Khan?

Cough, cough, that's all for now.

[rendelharris]

i*Rate Wrote:

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

If you

> compare the latest Porsche 'people carrier', with

> it's huge quad exhausts, to a 1960's mini or a

> Renault 4 for example, how come the old cards have

> such tiny exhaust pipes if they emit bigger

> emissions?

Larger exhausts actually "debottleneck" an engine, helping it to produce more power for less fuel, so larger pipes don't necessarily equal larger emissions. The big Porsches and all others of that ilk should be banned for their sheer selfishness and utter vulgarity, but that's another story...

[Seabag]

I'm aiming to buy a Panamera GTS as my VW T5 is getting a little dull

Happy to pay the 'new charges' if ness

http://www.porsche.com/uk/models/panamera/panamera-gts/

[James Barber]

We clearly have an air pollution scandal killing around 10,000 people prematurely each year.

It makes lots of sense to resolve this more quickly = proposal to bring it forward from 2020 to 2019. It also means the measures wont be introduced when Saddiq is up for re election in 2020.

What I wouldn't agree with is all the 90% or 100% discounts proposed.

Do have your say on the consultation -

http://talklondon.london.gov.uk/homes-spaces/environment/discussions/expanding-ultra-low-emission-zone