Have your say on the Ultra Low Emissions Zone

Over 15,000 Londoners took part in our Clean Air consultation last year to share views and ideas on improving the quality of the air we breathe. The latest in a suite of measures to follow this comes today, as the Mayor announced further consultation on detailed proposals for the Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ).

Proposals cover: 

  • Bringing forward implementation of the ULEZ to start as early as 2019, at that point replacing the T-charge and creating stricter emissions standards;
    • Petrol vehicles that don’t meet Euro 4 standards and diesel vehicles that don’t meet Euro 6 standards will face a daily charge of £12.50 (cars, vans and motorbikes) / £100 (buses, coaches and HGVs) if they drive in the ULEZ, which will initially cover the same ground as the congestion charging zone.
  • Expanding the ULEZ throughout the whole of Greater London for heavy diesel vehicles including buses, coaches and lorries in 2020.
     
  • Expanding the ULEZ up to the North and South Circular roads for cars and vans in 2021.

The ULEZ will apply to all vehicle types except black taxis and it’s estimated that its introduction in central London alone will result in nearly a 50% cut in road transport NOx emissions by the end of 2020.

The different timescales outlined are intended to provide Londoners, motorists coming into the capital from elsewhere and businesses which will be affected sufficient time to take the necessary steps to prepare for these new standards. They also reflect the minimum amount of time needed for Transport for London (TfL) to consult on and implement such technically complex schemes covering large parts of the capital.

You can have your say on the proposed early introduction of the ULEZ in central London, plus additional measures to reduce emissions, on TfL’s consultation portal until 25 June. A further statutory consultation on the proposed expansion of the ULEZ will take place in Autumn 2017.

 

4th Apr 2017
0
1 month ago (2:35 PM)

Comments:

John Smuts

new

We bought a diesel car specifically because the government encouraged us to do so as it was (supposedly) better for the environment. It is about 8 years old now and it seems we are going to be penalised for doing what we were encouraged to do. Hardly seems fair.

maureen

new

So true.

C Smith

new

Quite right John, well said.

borisjoyston

new

It's unfair, but we also have to consider the fact that people are getting sick, many dying due to the emissions of diesel vehicles. It's hardly fair on them either. There aren't a lot of options to rectify the mistake the government made all those years ago, other than discouraging the use of diesels. Diesels might help mitigate the effects of global warming compared to petrol, but in the short term it's also taking a toll on human health.

For people who have moved to London from other parts of UK, the pollution in the air is immediately noticeable at the back of your throat the minute you step out of the train/bus/car.

The Cyclist

new

Sorry but, you say "many are getting sick , many dying due to the emissions of diesel vehicles" this is where there is a gross misconception. TFL say that and I will quote them !!

"It is estimated that the equivalent of 9,400 premature deaths occur each year in London due to illnesses caused by long-term exposure to air pollution and 448 schools in London are in areas exceeding legal air quality levels. Diesel vehicles are recognised as a major contributor to pollution and associated health impacts in London and the Mayor wants to phase out these vehicles from the bus, taxi and other fleets."

There are other reports by TFL that say, " IT IS ESTIMATED and "THE EQUIVELANT OF 9400 DEATHS ARE DUE TO POLLUTION CAUSED BY DIESEL VEHICLES"...

Now forgive me but blaming diesels as "major contributors" and the "equivelant" of 9400 deaths are not the same not are they the sole factor or blame for these said 9400 deaths are they ! TFL Consistently push these figures to the public in all their consultations to the "public" but - it is not the public who are being consulted it is only being put on the TFL website at present and so only known to those who are actually subscribed to the TFL Website !

I personally have asked TFL for proof about these 9400 deaths being contributed to diesel owners and how many of these were also smokers and/or working in a fume/smokey environment- to date I have had no answer !! This frustrates me tremendously.....what is a consultation when its one way? If there were factually 9400 deaths totally to blame for diesel fumes why then are TFL ALSO BLAMING PETROLS PRE EURO 4 ? does not make sense does it !

borisjoyston

new

The Cyclist. I don't believe that just because it isn't the sole contributor to their deaths/illnesses that it should be given a pass. It's a factor that can be eliminated or reduced from the compounded reasons for their deaths/illnesses.

You seem to be downplaying the impact of diesel on these illnesses and deaths. Could you point me to studies or disputes *against* the negative effects of diesel exhaust on human health? My apologies if I'm reading too much into your reply with this last statement.

livehere

new

The smokey etc environment they work in is in central London. There is absolutely no question that the diesel air pollution in central London is consistently at levels damaging to children's lung development. You cannot directly prove whether or not each individual death is caused specifically and only by diesel pollution. It is a question of comparisons between deaths from specific causes in areas with differing levels of diesel pollution, and doing complex calculations to make sure other causative factors that could skew the figures are eliminated. And don't forget that diesel exhaust contains particles that are so carcinogenic that it is not safe to have any level of them at all in the air we breathe. It is not just about heart disease and asthma. But 'major contributors' and 'equivalent of 9400 deaths' are more than good and very urgent reasons to ban diesel use right now.

Robert Munster

new

This 9400 deaths a year figure keeps coming up, but it is a complete misunderstanding of the science. After all, there are only about 50,000 deaths a year in London in total, so a bit of basic maths would soon tell you that it can't possibly mean that 9,400 actual people actually die each year purely due to air pollution caused by vehicles. If you look at the original report it is 'equivalent deaths,' which is a statistical construct that doesn't really mean anything in real life. All the report actually says is that some people die a bit earlier due to pollution aggravating their illnesses, which is pretty obvious really.

Although air pollution is a problem, London's air is actually the cleanest it has been for a long time, probably since before the industrial revolution although records do not go back that far! In my view there is a lot of panic and scaremongering about what is in reality quite a minor issue. The increase in use of diesel cars is a bad thing, but improvements in emissions across the board more than make up for this, so London's air is still getting cleaner without any help from the Mayor.

After all, the Mayor is merely proposing to increase compliance with the latest standards, so the benefits are likely to be pretty marginal. The Mayor may well say that air pollution will improve, but it would have done anyway, because people will always be buying new vehicles and those will automatically be compliant with the new standards anyway. In the short term the ULEZ will bring a lot of pain and some benefit, but there is no long term benefit at all.

The second question is whether the Mayor is attacking the right areas. Buses contribute almost as much NOx in total as diesel cars do in total - I estimate 2-3 times as much per passenger mile. A lot could be achieved simply by reducing excessive off-peak bus frequencies, which would save the Mayor a lot of money to boot!

What's worse is that many of the Mayor's (and previous Mayors') and local Councils' policies have made traffic congestion far worse, increasing pollution in the process. It has been estimated that speed humps increase NO2 emissions by about 60%, which dwarfs any marginal improvement that the ULEZ will achieve.

Also, have a look at where the pollution is worst - in central London - where car use is already negligible. As you get further out where car use is more prevalent, pollution levels drop! The existing ULEZ proposal makes some sense as it largely covers the area where air pollution breaches legal limits. The enlarged area seems pretty arbitrary and includes large areas where pollution is well within limits, particularly in the north-east where it almost reaches the edge of Greater London. Incidentally, I still have not seen any explanation of how the eastern side of the enlarged ULEZ will work, as its border is at the Woolwich Ferry which doesn't operate 24/7 and obviously can't handle increased traffic.

And still there has been no acknowledgement of what an unfair and blunt instrument a flat charge is. It should be easy enough to vary the charge according to the age of the vehicle, with the oldest and most polluting vehicles paying more than those that are only just outside the criteria. Ideally the scheme should also reflect distance driven within the zone, although this is more complex.

C Smith

new

Boris.You said it yourself, "train & bus", have you not noticed these all over our country, these vehicles kick far more diesel fumes than cars! ":-)

borisjoyston

new

C Smith. Yes, they are a problem too, and the sooner they can go down to zero emissions, the better. Emission reduction isn't an overnight solution. The technology to electrify cars is at or reaching a tipping point where mass production and economies of scale is rapidly bringing their prices down (as a function of driving range). We're not quite there with heavier vehicles like buses, but even in this area I would point to some shorter routes that have been able to go fully electric while some are hybrid. I live near a bus station and have to walk past it at peak hours while they idle in traffic. Would be glad to have them be hybrids at least so they aren't idling their engines.

Robert Munster

new

"The technology to electrify cars is at or reaching a tipping point where mass production and economies of scale is rapidly bringing their prices down (as a function of driving range). "

Yes, but the emphasis is on "reaching". We are not quite there yet - electric cars are still not a practical option for anyone who doesn't have off-street parking and/or needs to make long journeys. Give it five years, though, and we will probably be there. So that is when we should start looking at phasing out dirty diesel (and petrol) cars. If we start doing it now in time for a 2019/2021 deadline, all we will be able to replace dirty diesels with is slightly-less-dirty petrols or diesels. This ironically could mean that by 2025, say, air quality would have been better without ULEZ than it will be with it!

The Cyclist

new

John you must act on this and spread the word-tell your London assembly mp find them on the tfl site here for your area and email them they are there for YOU ....ACT NOW... https://www.london.gov.uk/people/assembly.....they get 55k a year pal make them earn it...It can work in our favour !! Why should we pay twice? remember if they do a scrappage scheme (only the govt can do this) they will only pay you a pittance "towards" a new car not cash- you,ll still have to find the rest bud £10-£20k....) I aint got that.

livehere

new

Given the wide publicity that has been given to the diesel exhaust fumes pollution problem for far longer than 8 years, how come car-buyers have not been taking it into account when deciding between hybrid, electric, petrol and diesel?

clark

new

John Smuts
So presumably you also exercise regularly, don't smoke, eat junk food or drink alcohol to excess because the Government tells you to.

Didn't think so

C Smith

new

John. You say "eat junk food or drink alcohol to excess because the Government tells you to." WHAT government has told us to do these very negative things, be sensible if your going to comment. We'r not sure / do you even know what your tenuous point was?

C Smith

new

Clark. You say "eat junk food or drink alcohol to excess because the Government tells you to." WHAT government has told us to do these very negative things, be sensible if your going to comment. We'r not sure / do you even know what your tenuous point was?

Steve R

new

C. Smith
Try putting the "don't" back into that comment and you will realise he stated the opposite of your conclusion.

oliverg8sr

new

Sorry to see that the horrible black cabs will get away with belching filth for even longer. It seems to me that there is little to recommend them; they are disgustingly polluting, ludicrously expensive to hire, often driven by sociopaths, and anachronistic in an age when googlemaps can replace the knowledge. Time to get tough.

C Smith

new

Quite right. 'The knowledge' is easily replaced with a Tom Tom / GPS, plus the much cheaper Minicabs are far cheaper, cheerful, courteous & smarter.

livehere

new

And, I hear, one uber cab company has already gone totally zero emissions.

gmg57

new

Firstly let me say I am not a black cab driver or have a personal connection with any. I am however a firm supporter. TomTom/GPS cannot replace the knowledge. It simply steers lots of cars down the same route (maybe that adds to congestion by the way). It cannot replace real knowledge of how to get across this busy city with its many road closures etc. While no sector of society is perfect and I have come across the odd curt black cab driver by far the and away the majority have been knowledgeable, courteous and helpful. Vehicles are spotlessly clean and safe. The same can most certainly not be said of the majority of mini cabs. Personal safety and the most efficient journey is worth paying slightly more.

Steve R

new

It appears my last post wasn't acceptable, but I am sure you will be able to work out the rhyming slang humour I used to describe people following on inappropriate routes and they didn't think about their error.

gmg57
I quite agree with you, my personal knowledge of London's streets meant I could find my way around, I didn't need SatNav, I know my compass directions. It has been some time since I regularly needed to drive in London and there are so many street closures that I now have to resort to the main routes and join the traffic jam. I do think we need to reveiw the Hackney Carriage Act and its successors to enable more widespread use of less polluting vehicles.
I am not impressed by the extension of the zone as there will need to be even more exemptions and it will cover an exponential number of residential homes, what about their visitors?
I don't believe this scheme has been thought through and is just another money maker

The Cyclist

new

YES-cant believe it ! Isnt this what started it all -pollution? Looks like khan is backing down to them as there are many of them !! We can do the same .TFL Fully intend to cost millions of Londoners money on the say so of only 15,000 who bothered to reply to this site of which only 10000 were in favour as the other 8 million odd Londoners never knew about it !! do yourself a favour- I was told by a senior member from TFL this expansion consultation of the south and north circular would be not happen till after june now this. I was also told we would be written to in south n north as it would directly affect us, looks like TFL keep saying one thing then move the goal posts its not a fair way and if I'm honest quite deceitful.... do yourself a favour and email your local london assembly member found here they get 55k a year just waiting to hear from you...find them on the tfl site here for your area and email them they are there for YOU ....ACT NOW... https://www.london.gov.uk/people/assembly well said bud, I'm a rider a driver and a cyclist this whole thing is poorly thought out and is aimed primarily at making funds obviously !

afalani

new

It seems that the Government is trying hard to finds ways to increase tax on road users! I think the congestion charge is too high as it is and part of this revenue should be used for improving the environment. I am against penalising drivers any further.

The Cyclist

new

YES-TFL Fully intend to cost millions of Londoners money on the say so of only 15,000 who bothered to reply to this site of which only 10000 were in favour as the other 8 million odd Londoners never knew about it !! do yourself a favour- I was told by a senior member from TFL this expansion consultation of the south and north circular would be not happen till after june now this. I was also told we would be written to in south n north as it would directly affect us, looks like TFL keep saying one thing then move the goal posts its not a fair way and if I'm honest quite deceitful.... do yourself a favour and email your local london assembly member found here they get 55k a year just waiting to hear from you...find them on the tfl site here for your area and email them they are there for YOU ....ACT NOW... https://www.london.gov.uk/people/assembly well said bud, I'm a rider a driver and a cyclist this whole thing is poorly thought out and is aimed primarily at making funds obviously !

albano

new

Hi guys,
I own a bike from 2001 and it looks I will be affected by ULEZ. It looks I will have to pay the congestion and also seems my car will be affected by it in 2021.Is there a compensation plan to help us to get a less contaminating vehicle?

C Smith

new

I agree with you. The Mayors only plan / option for the already heavily over-taxed life blood of London, is for same to purchase a brand new vehicle that will reach the ever increasing, impossible & prohibitive emissions targets. The facts are, the Buses let out bad more emissions than most put together.

The Cyclist

new

NO theres not-TFL Fully intend to cost millions of Londoners money on the say so of only 15,000 who bothered to reply to this site of which only 10000 were in favour as the other 8 million odd Londoners never knew about it !! do yourself a favour- I was told by a senior member from TFL this expansion consultation of the south and north circular would be not happen till after june now this. I was also told we would be written to in south n north as it would directly affect us, looks like TFL keep saying one thing then move the goal posts its not a fair way and if I'm honest quite deceitful.... do yourself a favour and email your local london assembly member found here they get 55k a year just waiting to hear from you...find them on the tfl site here for your area and email them they are there for YOU ....ACT NOW... https://www.london.gov.uk/people/assembly well said bud, I'm a rider a driver and a cyclist this whole thing is poorly thought out and is aimed primarily at making funds obviously !

Talk London

new

Hi albano,

There are no plans in place to compensate individuals who have more than one vehicle affected by the new measures. However, the Mayor strongly believes the Government should deliver national incentives exclusively under their control (such as taxation) to discourage diesel and to accelerate the uptake of alternatively fuelled vehicles.

The Mayor has submitted a proposal to the Chancellor for a national vehicle scrappage fund to be delivered by Government, with the aim to make converting to cleaner vehicles affordable for motorists and businesses. The Mayor’s proposal includes a fund of over £500m for London.

Hope that's helpful,

Talk London Team

alggomas

new

I think many tourist and other companies will be rather peeved after spending in excess of £100,000 on a diesel coach!
I think you should faze this in with lower charges until say 2025.
I also think that MP's should pay congestion charge and any car congestion charge they have.
MP 's, whatever they impose on other people they are hardly touched. Especially when Mr. Osborne gives wealthy people a 5% tax cut while cutting some benefits for others.

C Smith

new

Just another London stealth Tax, other cities are available!

The Cyclist

new

YES !! GOT IT IN ONE AND HE AINT LISTENING EITHER!

thomdon

new

When you say 'up to north and south circular', does that include them?

The Cyclist

new

YES-TFL Fully intend to cost millions of Londoners money on the say so of only 15,000 who bothered to reply to this site of which only 10000 were in favour as the other 8 million odd Londoners never knew about it !! do yourself a favour- I was told by a senior member from TFL this expansion consultation of the south and north circular would be not happen till after june now this. I was also told we would be written to in south n north as it would directly affect us, looks like TFL keep saying one thing then move the goal posts its not a fair way and if I'm honest quite deceitful.... do yourself a favour and email your local london assembly member found here they get 55k a year just waiting to hear from you...find them on the tfl site here for your area and email them they are there for YOU ....ACT NOW... https://www.london.gov.uk/people/assembly well said bud, I'm a rider a driver and a cyclist this whole thing is poorly thought out and is aimed primarily at making funds obviously !

The Cyclist

new

YES-TFL Fully intend to cost millions of Londoners money on the say so of only 15,000 who bothered to reply to this site of which only 10000 were in favour as the other 8 million odd Londoners never knew about it !! do yourself a favour- I was told by a senior member from TFL this expansion consultation of the south and north circular would be not happen till after june now this. I was also told we would be written to in south n north as it would directly affect us, looks like TFL keep saying one thing then move the goal posts its not a fair way and if I'm honest quite deceitful.... do yourself a favour and email your local london assembly member found here they get 55k a year just waiting to hear from you...find them on the tfl site here for your area and email them they are there for YOU ....ACT NOW... https://www.london.gov.uk/people/assembly well said bud, I'm a rider a driver and a cyclist this whole thing is poorly thought out and is aimed primarily at making funds obviously !

Meadow

new

When motor racing, truck racing and air shows are banned to protect the environment then I might believe the hype but until then I will take all this as another way of extracting money from the motorists now that revenue from tobacco sales has dropped.

CNielsen

new

My understanding is that only those vehicles, petrol and diesel, which don't meet the Euro standards (4 and 6) will face those ULEZ charges. Can't see anything wrong with that!! Roll on 2019 I say! Can't happen soon enough for me! The upside health benefits will be major! Next I'd like to see those black smoke belching vehicles off our A roads and motorways!!

C Smith

new

Glad you can afford a recent Reg' Compliant vehicle, we the mere mortals (majority) have to settle & struggle with older ones.
If anyone wants to seriously reduce bad emissions, you would need to outlaw the combustion engine!
While your at it, you need to kull all cattle on the planet as, it's a fact that their emissions are MOST responsible for the hole in the ozone layer.
As the Beatles said ... "Living is easy with eyes closed", especially in your Ivory Tower. Rgds

bumphere

new

Oh and motorcycles, which according to TfL's data don't even register as a sufficient source of pollution.

The Cyclist

new

Well good lucks all I ca say while you wait for your emergency plumber or milkdelivery on an electric motor !! So you think its ok to "LET OFF " THE MOST POLLUTANT CAUSE- TAXIS? HONESTLY .....!

livehere

new

Yes, there are still electric milk delivery vehicles in the centre of London. One wakes me up every night with its noisy motor.

Bigjohn2004

new

The day I see electric planes noiseless and pollution free flying out of London City Airport is the day I will take seriously anything a Mayor of London says on the subject of pollution.
In the meantime The Mayor should use his powers to close the Airport and not allowing it to expand and pollute more of London. Put that in your pipe and don't smoke it.(Health & Safety warning)

C Smith

new

Absolutely right.
The problem is, the Mayor asks for our views here then, he will collate all, ignore all the against & then pretend when all here were read & collated ... were in favour. It's a pointless (Immoral PR) exercise that's properly costing us the Taxpayer more for him / the Mayor to ignore our real concerns, opinions & wishes later??? Bad service Mayor.

The Cyclist

new

TRUE, I was told by a senior member from TFL this expansion consultation of the south and north circular would be not happen till after june now this. I was also told we would be written to in south n north as it would directly affect us, looks like TFL keep saying one thing then move the goal posts its not a fair way and if I'm honest quite deceitful.... do yourself a favour and email your local london assembly member found here they get 55k a year just waiting to hear from you...find them on the tfl site here for your area and email them they are there for YOU ....ACT NOW... https://www.london.gov.uk/people/assembly well said bud, I'm a rider a driver and a cyclist this whole thing is poorly thought out and is aimed primarily at making funds obviously !

Talk London

new

Hi C Smith and The Cyclist,

The measures being taken forward all received strong support from across London’s population in earlier waves of consultation last year. You can read more detail in our blog.  Concerns raised by consultation respondents, through stakeholder organisations, business, campaigning groups, and throughout this and other discussions on Talk London are fed back to policy teams at City Hall and Transport for London to help refine proposals. Further feedback is being sought regarding the early implementation of the ULEZ in central London, plus additional measures to strengthen emissions standards via the TfL Consultation Portal until June, with a final consultation stage on whether or not to expand the ULEZ beyond central London in Autumn 2017. All responses are read and considered before measures are implemented.

Talk London Team
 

C Smith

new

These new Taxes create more space on the roads for the rich people who can MOST AFFORD IT !!!

The Cyclist

new

well said c smith tell your London assembly MP find them on the tfl site here for your area and email them they are there for YOU ....ACT NOW... https://www.london.gov.uk/people/assembly well said bud, I'm a rider a driver and a cyclist this whole thing is poorly thought out and is aimed primarily at making funds obviously !

adam haywood

new

I dumped my car for an Ebike years ago best thing i ever did, i dont have to use southen rail any more :-) the bike paid for it self with in a year and now saves me a small fortune each year, more cash to spend down the pub happy days.

john_clark

new

2019 ULEZ; I can accept that even a 3 year old Euro 5 diesel should not be used in central London during working hours; but I cannot see how a 2001 petrol Golf should be charged too or that there should be any charge outside working hours. This 24/7 charge seems to apply to my 1988 BMW motorcycle; as a 1976 one (with much the same engine) would be exempt as a historic vehicle this seems a bit daft.

2020 (21?) ULEZ; the extension to the whole area inside the N and S Circular Roads seems to me to create difficulties, especially outside working hours for people travelling from one end of London to another and will increase pollution on and just outside these roads.

Finally our Euro 5 camper is based in a 2013 van which would be worth about £8-9k now. The conversion would still be worth about £15k, but cannot be transferred to a Euro 6 VW. We would thus be unable to take advantage of any scrappage scheme which did not take into account this conversion value.

The Cyclist

new

well said john I'm a biker too and have a van.....you have to email your concerns to your London assembly member m8, to be counted .... tell your London assembly mp find them on the tfl site here for your area and email them they are there for YOU ....ACT NOW... https://www.london.gov.uk/people/assembly well said bud

Pages

Showing 1-50 of 112 comments