The IOP ER Letter was published in Nov 2021 and given the expansion from 2019 (Central, same as congestion charge) to the N/S circular in 2021 happened in October I strongly suspect the data had already been gathered and analysed by then and hence effect was only evaluated in the zone already covered by congestion charge - ie: an area that was already substantially restricted.
Nonetheless - the letter does say
On the other hand, the ULEZ is one of many policies implemented to tackle air pollution in London, and in combination these have led to improvements in air quality that are clearly observable. Thus, reducing air pollution requires a multi-faceted set of policies that aim to reduce emissions across sectors with coordination among local, regional and national government
What was the reduction in areas that weren't restricted but then became so - the wider N/S circular enclosure?
Or what it takes to change the world as we disappear under a climate and ecological disaster of our own making.
Ulez hasn't nothing to do with climate or climate change. Nitrogen dioxide is not a greenhouse gas.
I agree that tacking climate change is the most important issue currently facing humanity, but it isn't relevant to this thread.
It is an indirect greenhouse gas. 'Main' issue is with respiratory disease though
The answer is to do MORE – if a small expansion of ULEZ gave a 3% drop overall in NO2, then a bigger expansion and/or more stringent conditions would be better.
So why not make the whole country a ulez zone then?
A total ban on wood burners would be far more effective at improving air quality than the ulez expansion, but obviously there are problems generating revenue out of a ban in wood burners, so that is a non starter.
Bus routes can’t get you into manchester within 90 plus minutes.
They're not gonna get quicker unless there are significantly fewer other vehicles on the road OR there's a comprehensive network of elevated vacuum tubes to teleport the buses above the traffic.
It is an indirect greenhouse gas
What is "an indirect greenhouse gas"?
So why not make the whole country a ulez zon then?
Because the Government can't outsource that to individual councils (or TfL) then sit back and reap the howls of outrage against the leftie socialists who would dare restrict the absolute freedom of the poor oppressed motorist. The country absolutely needs some sort of road-user-charging system but it needs that in conjunction with a national transport strategy and as discussed earlier in this thread, there isn't one and the Government has no plans to actually do anything about anything, especially not if it's going to be unpopular.
I was thinking more along the lines of why aren't you arguing in favour of expanding ulez to the whole country.
Not so much why the current Tory government isn't.
So why not make the whole country a ulez zone then?
Because kids are being maimed right now in cities by local pollution, less so in the Yorkshire Dales.
A total ban on wood burners
Mayor of London is working on that as well, but needs other bodies to step up for further progress…
…a reminder that there is no “total ban” on any type of car in London.
Arguably neither measure is as urgently needed in the Yorkshire Dales, and wood stoves and diesel based transport is less harmful and harder to move away from there (and loads of other places across the country).
When targeting local pollution, target the pollution generated locally first for the biggest impact.
The tabloid tv press were doing 'man on the street' interviews all morning, but it appears 3 out of 5 were in favour. So they kept quoting businesses said such and such against it, but provided no footage.
It is generally accepted by all those concerned and political pundits that Labour lost the Uxbridge by-election recently because of the ulez expansion, so I wouldn't overemphasis its popularity.
Very disputed actually Ernie - and ULEZ zones are popular
I thought that both Labour and the Tories agreed that ulez was the deciding factor in Labour not winning the Uxbridge by-election TJ?
The last time I checked the Labour lead over the Tories in London was about twice the national Labour lead - 40%. So what do you put Labour not winning the Uxbridge by-election down to?
Edit: Surely if it's in the Guardian it must be true??
It’s a Tory seat, I don’t think it was a surprise that it may not be won.
+1 - I don't think they'd even won it in 1997. They did very well to come within 400 votes of winning it. The problem was expectation management rather than the ULEZ.
I think Labour not winning the Uxbridge by-election came as a surprise to everyone, and not least the Tories.
Boris Johnson only had a 7k majority in Uxbridge in 2019
"Labour has opened a 40-point lead over the Conservatives in London"
In Uxbridge, I thought the Labour candidate was *also* anti-ULEZ?
So maybe he just wasn't very good.
I would love to see a ULEZ in Cambridge but I guess the Tories have different ideas so I shall carry on delighting in breathing in crap from other people's exhausts. Thanks.
Our car car is not ulez compliant, it will cost £12 or whatever it is to drive and see my mother in law. Oh well. Sad thing is we could easily take a train but even for only 1 person it still works out cheaper to use the car. ( if you assume we need a car anyway, which we do).
In Uxbridge, I thought the Labour candidate was *also* anti-ULEZ?
So maybe he just wasn’t very good
It suits Starmer to blame Khan's ULEZ instead of e.g. Labour nationally still isn't compelling in trad Tory seats or Starmer is uninspiring.
But if ULEZ did cost Labour this time around, I reckon it'll be forgotten by the next election there. No-one is moaning about the congestion charge in London or the original ULEZ and even LTNs are much less controversial than they were. Like gay marriage, everyone's just realised it's not the end of the world and got on with their lives.
Thinks like commercial vehicles, heavey construction plant. Gensets etc they’re far worse for ppm.
@dangeourbrain I believe the MCPR (Mobile Combustion Plant Regulations) may address the gen sets at least. They also cover static plant somewhat surprisingly.
I spent the weekend ill on a campsite so did a bit of research. This 9 in 10 being compliant in the ULEZ expansion I just dont believe. We live just outside it – KT7. My sis-in-law is inside, KT1 I think. When I walk about or ride the local area I see much more than 1 in 10 being older diesels and much older petrol. I dont think its true..
I checked our car.
19 year old Astra 1.6 petrol is exempt.
I assume it’s mostly Diesels and massive petrols that fall foul.
I think the zone it doesn’t is in Birmingham.
So those of you against this. Howmany deaths disproportionately among the poorer is acceptable to you so you can drive you dirty car into a city centre?
Thats the reality. Ulez saves lives
I am not sure that a modern low emission diesel car, with a euro 5 engine, and which passes the MOT emission test, is necessary a dirty car.
I am not even sure that vehicles are the main contributors to nitrogen dioxide levels, have you got a gas boiler?
What I do know is that it is a problem which is currently resolving itself through the natural replacement of old vehicles with those with the very latest technology.
I also know that wood burners are incomparably more damaging to health than modern vehicles, and yet there seems very little concern about that. Why are people even allow to sell wood for burning? Won't someone think of the children?
Ernie, how about we see how the results of the Scottish ULEZ councils pan out? That's a flat out ban, no charge, just a doubling fine every time you break the rules.
A total ban on wood burners would be far more effective at improving air quality than the ulez expansion,
That depends on which air quality objective you're trying to improve, and where.
Once installed, controls on congestion and emissions are usually popular. It’s a weird one because they tend to stir up worries and opposition before implementation but then after they are generally in favour or neutral once the changes are implemented.
Probably the most notable one was the Stockholm congestion charge which was trialled as a one year pilot. At the end of the year, residents were asked to vote on whether to retain it. They voted for.
https://www.ibm.com/blog/stockholm-congestion-pricing-iot-analytics-government/#
That depends on which air quality objective you’re trying to improve, and where.
Well yes, I had particle pollution in mind.
Although I believe that wood burners also create nitrogen dioxide.
And where? Well since children's health has been brought up more than once wherever children breathe air.
Ernie - your euro 5 car produces more pollution which is why its not ULEZ compliant. deislas are particularly bad for larticulates which are now seen as a real hazard
Now how many children dying is it worth it so you can drive your dirty car ( anyone not just Ernie) into the city?
I thought that both Labour and the Tories agreed that ulez was the deciding factor in Labour not winning the Uxbridge by-election TJ?
They would both be mistaken. The lack of Brunel University students voting in Uxbridge due to holidays was probably more important than ULEZ on Labour's fortunes.
Ernie – your euro 5 car produces more pollution which is why its not ULEZ compliant. deislas are particularly bad for larticulates which are now seen as a real hazard
And a euro 6 car produces more pollution than a zero emissions car. So why has Sadiq Khan shelved plans for the introduction of a zero emissions zone.
Doesn't he care about children dying?
https://www.ft.com/content/d373d159-7a96-427a-9d97-14542eac8527
deislas are particularly bad for larticulates which are now seen as a real hazard
Hm, the filters do remove most if not all of it. Nitrous oxides are the main problem, but that can be almost entirely fixed with a modern SCR system. However, tyre and brake dust is also a bad source of pollution, and petrol engines also produce a lot of smaller particulates that can enter your bloodstream via the lungs.
So all in all, traffic is just generally bad.
Why are people even allow to sell wood for burning?
They aren't, in most big towns and cities. Clean air act 1956 I think. Or rather, you aren't allowed to burn it.
Come onErnie – how many dead children is it worth 🙂
Surely you need to ask that question to Sadiq Khan, it is him who has decided to shelve his zero emissions zone.
How long can it wait, whilst children are dying?
And why are we waiting to ban gas boilers?
Its a really simple question. Removing the ULEZ will cost lives. How many lives is it worth it to you?
whataboutery is irrelevant 🙂
Why are people even allow to sell wood for burning?
They aren’t, in most big towns and cities. Clean air act 1956 I think. Or rather, you aren’t allowed to burn it.
A Google search of "wood for burning" suggests that it is very easy to buy wood for burning. I have to assume that they are not being fined for flouting the law.
Like it or not Diesels aren’t welcome in cites. I hate them personally, filthy smelly things and would never own one, but drive a diesel company van unfortunately.
I imagine that’ll change if costs continue to rise which is the point I guess.
Camden council already charge diesels more to park.
For parking permits and on street parking.
I think it was something like £50 for the morning to park near a job I had to do at Farringdon tube station. A 50% charge IIRC, having a bang up to date Euro whatever makes no odds.
Obviously I’d have used the tube if I didn’t need over 50kg of tools for the job.
It just gets added to the invoice, so doesn’t bother me.
whataboutery is irrelevant 🙂
How is mentioning Sadiq Khan's zero emissions zone when discussing pollution 'irrelevant whataboutery'?
It sounds extraordinarily relevant to me.
So, how many children need to die before he introduces it?
It has only been "shelved" which suggests that he recognises how important it is.
He was asked to delay the ulez expansion but he obviously needs the revenue from it now. Presumably he doesn't feel that the zero emissions zone will provide him with sufficient revenue to make it a priority?
super. Another thread derailed by the usual suspects - instead of a women's forum can we have one just for the perpetual arguers to bicker away on.
if we care that much all the buses and lorries need to be non-diesel. Dont even start me on Euro6 diesels being clean, which is just tripe. every few miles the dpf burns all the crap and dumps it straight onto the floor
I love cars petrol and diesel, but hey are not clean. My 2014 VW Caravelle I just use as least as possible and I use the EV, which has to be charges and the fuel for this is probably not clean either. We all just have to try and drive less
My 46mpg A3 TDI 185 sline is compliant
My missus’ Astra 55mpg CDTI isn’t… I know it doesn’t go from MPG but was surprised hers that I’d expect to be better on fuel would be better emissions, clearly not
super. Another thread derailed by the usual suspects – instead of a women’s forum can we have one just for the perpetual arguers to bicker away on.
Terrible isn't it, a political thread where not everyone has the same opinion.
Sterile threads where everyone agrees are so much more useful.
I've got to be honest here. Apologies just don't really cut it when it doesn't actually mean anything because you (and the others) will just get dragged into another bickering pointscoring posting-fest in a few days time. The behaviour doesn't change and the 'sorry I did it again' becomes meaningless.
If any of you really mean it then stop doing it; there are some subjects that are practically undebatable now because of it.
@ernie - fine to have alternative opinions but the last two hours have basically been TJ trying to get you to answer a trap of a question, and you refusing to (fine) but then keep poking him to make him more annoyed. It's not a debate, it's childish.
[edit - I'm not the thread police, just saying what I think. Sometimes I need someone to point stuff out to me when I behave like a tit]
Well yes, I had particle pollution in mind.
And which air quality objectives are breached in the ULEZ zone?
jonv - I think many of us need that nudge. No worries from me
