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
3 weeks ago (2:35 PM)

Comments:

LiamO

new

Julia
I agree in principle but I believe that the general design of pedestrian crossings on major roads is flawed. There has been a tendency in recent years to build lateral islands in the middle of the road which funnel pedestrians into a right turn on the island and then out through a left turn to the other side of the crossing. This means that pedestrians are passing each other on a small island. This is particularly counterproductive for wheelchair users, people pushing buggies/prams and the elderly. I believe it would be better to have a wide open space marked out by black & white stripes which allows people to cross quickly in a straight line.
The light phases should also be smarter so that the cycle is only a complete one when a pedestrian pushes the button on the post. In this way there would be no pedestrian part of the cycle during quiet times, or at night, when traffic is often stopped while no-one is crossing. At present the lights are on a continual cycle but the buttons on the posts do nothing as they have no influence on the cycle.

julia couchman

new

Liam
Many thanks on expanding my comment to include how important it is for the handicapped in wheel chairs, the baby buggies and push chairs. I would like to add, cyclists pushing their bicycles, people using scooters, people with carry cases, people enlarged because they have knapsacks on their backs, people trying to hold onto their small children, the blind with a dog and other people who find road crossings difficult. The space is tight on those islands. The system where there is an island barricading people inside it so they are safe from traffic but then creating a situation where the pedestrians have to cross each other to set off to the other side of the road is a nightmare for the nibble footed and I imagine almost impossible for anyone else. Society at the moment is anti vehicle and pro cyclist and it is omitting to consider the plight of pedestrians who if the streets are too difficult will take a car or if they can afford it a taxi.

mfmason4

new

I agree with the comments that are asking questions about honest data which may be able to tell which gases and particulates are the ones needing strict control, and which energy sources are the most polluting.
When fossil fuels are being burned, pollutants are formed. This will include gas cookers, gas boilers, household fires, and especially wood burning stoves.
As usual, only vehicle emissions are being addressed.
Reducing congestion would help a lot. Cars sitting at idle in stationery jams are more polluting than ones completing their journeys. Probably,(diesel powered) taxis spend far more of their time stationery at idle, than actually on route with a fare.
Unfortunately, there does not appear to be definitive knowledge to help at the moment.
A recent survey in U.S.A. cities stated that vehicle emissions included small particulates, around 2.5 microns, which caused all sorts of health hazards. Because this survey was in America, the vehicle emissions blamed came from petrol engines, because they have a very small number of diesel cars, which have been prevented from competing in the market by strict emissions.Diesel particulates generally are much larger in diameter.
At the moment, the drive to be seen to do something is overreaching.
It may be too difficult to determine accurate data, but surely we should try.This is not just a London issue, it is worldwide.

peterd123

new

If the ULEZ is all about emissions and pollution. Why are all the boats on the river and all the planes that fly over the area not included? yet you include motorcycles, that don't pollute. And you want to charge electric vehicles that cost more than £40k extra road tax. I don't think you have any idea about the problem. You are just looking at money making schemes. But it seems your team does not have any experience in this field. I think a team of junior school children could do better. And why are you changing the sequencing of traffic lights in London all of a sudden? perhaps in the hope that everyone believes your crap about too much traffic and pollution. We know your game!

thomas hayward

new

I think that in central London there are no need for cars I believe that they are the main cause of pollution the only motorised vehicles that need to run are buses and delivery vans for trade and transport otherwise there are no need for cars there is the London underground with stations everywhere and they are all within walking distance of each other also there are buses there are several bus stops on every street going to everywhere around central London and even outer London and then there is the dlr, London over ground and the national rail so why is there a need for cars they could really solve the massive problem of pollution and they would only be gone in central London not the rest of London.

Pages

Showing 101-105 of 105 comments