London pollution & ULEZ

[Tony Edwards]

Fact checked here:

Government funding agreement did not force Sadiq Khan to extend ULEZ to cover all of Greater London - Full Fact

A letter published in 2020 is circulating on social media as evidence that the proposed ULEZ expansion was ordered by the government.

fullfact.org

Seems pretty potato potato to me.

 

[Hades]

Seems pretty potato potato to me.

I think the point the article is making is that Khan proposed an expansion to the North and South Circulars, which the government supported and insisted on when bailing him out of his self made funding hole... and then he expanded across the whole of Greater London.

 

[jpaul]

( online safety bill - would it be so bad if some of the social media companies withdrew from the UK, europe will be gunning for them soon, and, Zuck couldn't risk it there with threads. )


statue idiots were let off and we/tax payer had to stump up for policing costs - Keir said he disagrees with ulez expansion and probably there is, now, growing public distaste
so camera vigilantes will be let off . (a hack on the IT system would be more elegant).
Public opinion is fickle easy to manipulate, they have misrepresented the air/health benefits of ulez expansions sunny uplands.

 

[Tony Edwards]

( online safety bill - would it be so bad if some of the social media companies withdrew from the UK, europe will be gunning for them soon, and, Zuck couldn't risk it there with threads. )


statue idiots were let off and we/tax payer had to stump up for policing costs - Keir said he disagrees with ulez expansion and probably there is, now, growing public distaste
so camera vigilantes will be let off . (a hack on the IT system would be more elegant).
Public opinion is fickle easy to manipulate, they have misrepresented the air/health benefits of ulez expansions sunny uplands.

What an odd thing to believe.

 

[loftie]

I think the point the article is making is that Khan proposed an expansion to the North and South Circulars, which the government supported and insisted on when bailing him out of his self made funding hole... and then he expanded across the whole of Greater London.

The expansion to the north/south circular was already confirmed and happening - it wasn't a proposal.

08 June 2018

​

• Sadiq confirms expansion of ULEZ up to North and South circular roads from 25 October 2021

Here's Khan in 2018 asking about the prospect of introducing ULEZ for the entirety of London.

Spoiler: Because I CBA to reformat it

The Mayor asked TfL to examine
expanding ULEZ London-wide to cover
light vehicles to outer London and
whether this was the most effective
measure for bringing non-compliant
areas of outer London into compliance.
They have advised that there is no
appropriate boundary road for a wider
zone that incorporates the North
Circular other than the Greater London
boundary. The necessary infrastructure
for this wider zone would take significant
time to implement. The additional 1.7
million households affected by this
level of expansion would have to be
given a reasonable pre-compliance
period before charging started, which
could delay the possibility of achieving
benefits for Londoners earlier.
Considering the benefits expected
from the earlier implementation of the
central London ULEZ and the application
of ULEZ standards to heavy vehicles
London-wide from 2020, it is likely that
targeted local measures such as local
road closures, vehicle restrictions or
other interventions could be equally
effective and likely to bring areas of
non-compliance into compliance in a
quicker timeframe than expansion of
the ULEZ to cover light vehicles in outer
London. However, the Mayor will keep
the situation under review and consider
what measures will be most effective
and likely to secure compliance on those
outer London roads within the shortest
time possible.

 

[Nasher]

I also see some of the surrounding councils being eaten up by the ULEZ are refusing to let signs be installed. Which I guess makes fees for people coming in that way un-enforcable.

 

[loftie]

I think I read Hertfordshire doing that, unless they were included in the scrappage scheme.

 

[StriderX]

I also see some of the surrounding councils being eaten up by the ULEZ are refusing to let signs be installed. Which I guess makes fees for people coming in that way un-enforcable.

Ignorance isn't a valid reason.

 

[Hades]

Ignorance isn't a valid reason.

Actually in this case it is. You can appeal parking fines on the basis of poor signage and I would expect that "there was no sign to tell me I was in a ULEZ" is a valid reason for a ticket being cancelled.

Or is it reasonable to expect everyone in the country to know where every ULEZ starts and ends before getting in a car?

 

[Hades]

I think I read Hertfordshire doing that, unless they were included in the scrappage scheme.

Also Kent and Surrey.

 

[StriderX]

Actually in this case it is. You can appeal parking fines on the basis of poor signage and I would expect that "there was no sign to tell me I was in a ULEZ" is a valid reason for a ticket being cancelled.

Or is it reasonable to expect everyone in the country to know where every ULEZ starts and ends before getting in a car?

So if you take every speed limit sign down and all the parking signs down you can do whatever you want? Cool.

 

[Hagar]

Actually in this case it is. You can appeal parking fines on the basis of poor signage and I would expect that "there was no sign to tell me I was in a ULEZ" is a valid reason for a ticket being cancelled.

Or is it reasonable to expect everyone in the country to know where every ULEZ starts and ends before getting in a car?

Yes

 

[Hades]

So if you take every speed limit sign down and all the parking signs down you can do whatever you want? Cool.

No because there are laws in place for that exact example. If you are driving in an urban area with street lights and no speed signs then there is a specific speed limit. If you are in an rural area with no street lighting and no speed signs then there are different speed limits. I hope you know what they are because you should have learnt it as part of your theory test.

 

[adam cool dude]

No because there are laws in place for that exact example. If you are driving in an urban area with street lights and no speed signs then there is a specific speed limit. If you are in an rural area with no street lighting and no speed signs then there are different speed limits. I hope you know what they are because you should have learnt it as part of your theory test.

There is no law for that regarding ULEZ though so the point is valid.

 

[Hades]

There is no law for that regarding ULEZ though so the point is valid.

Well I guess we will have to wait fo a test case to decide it.

On a different point though I'm not sure how drivers will be causght without the cameras going up, which the councils are also refusing to do.

 

[loftie]

Also Kent and Surrey.

Also with the scrappage blackmail?

 

[Tony Edwards]

I also see some of the surrounding councils being eaten up by the ULEZ are refusing to let signs be installed.

Tories gonna Tory?

 

[jpaul]

for all those that believed Khan - even press finally exposing his sunny uplands now -

Sadiq Khan’s office tried to discredit and “silence” scientists who found that his ultra-low emissions zone (Ulez) policy had little impact on pollution, The Telegraph can disclose.

In private emails seen by The Telegraph, Shirley Rodrigues, the London Mayor’s deputy for environment and energy, told Prof Frank Kelly she was “really disappointed” that Imperial College had publicised findings questioning the effectiveness of Ulez.

Prof Kelly, a director of Imperial’s Environmental Research Group, which has been paid more than £800,000 by Mr Khan’s office since 2021, agreed to issue a statement – partly written by Ms Rodrigues – saying Ulez had helped to “dramatically reduce air pollution”.

London Conservatives said the correspondence revealed an “alarmingly cosy relationship” between the Mayor’s office and the scientists it was funding, as well as a desire to “silence scientists who question the effectiveness of Khan’s policies”.

Prof Kelly’s colleagues said they stood by their research “100 per cent”, but The Telegraph understands that the fallout has had a chilling effect, leaving them unwilling to publish further work on the subject.

seems the existing ULEZ had produced some small mean 3% reduction in Nox/No2 .. and some sites started now increased or returned to pre-ulez levels ..
slower traffic flow being one reason. ... stupid sadiq barking up wrong tree.

Has the ultra low emission zone in London improved air quality?​

There are three monitoring sites that showed a significant increase (at the 10% level) in roadside concentrations of either NOx (site CT6) or NO2 (sites HV3 and WA8). However, since increases in both NOx and NO2 were not observed at any sites, the results imply that the change in concentrations of NOx and NO2 were highly site-specific and could have been influenced by atmospheric chemistry, vehicle flows, changes in vehicle fleet (i.e. ULEZ compliance) and changes in traffic speeds, which affect vehicle NOx emissions factors and the fraction of NOx emitted as NO2
....
Specifically, the highest reduction in kerbside NO2 concentrations (13%) was observed at the only site within the ULEZ; the highest reduction in kerbside NOx concentrations (7%) was at a site that is outside the zone yet next to its boundary. However, significant concurrent decreases in both NO2 and NOx concentrations were not observed at either of these sites. We also observe a diminishing improvement in air pollution at some locations. For example, at site WM6 within the ULEZ, the normalised concentrations of NO2 and NOx both started to increase in July 2019 after an initial reduction, and by September 2019, their levels reached a plateau where NOx had returned to the pre-ULEZ levels while NO2 remained lower than pre-ULEZ (see SI section S14). For NO2 and NOx , this 'rebound' also occurred for NO2 at a roadside site within the ULEZ, but not at any other roadside sites within the ULEZ nor kerbside sites close to the ULEZ.

 

[bigmike20vt]

reducing polluting cars into cities will work.... of course it will. So IF it isn't having much of an effect then that can only mean one thing...... it does not go far enough.
Be careful what you wish for because if powers that be decide it's not good enough maybe polluting cars will be banned from London full stop, or maybe what qualifies as compliant will be tightened

IF it is slower traffic making ICE cars less efficient that is a problem everywhere because like it or not (I am unconvinced personally) more and more 20mph zones are being rolled out country wide in residential areas. Personally I would prefer more enforcement of 30 other than outside schools and perhaps places like elderly people homes because I believe most fatal accidents occurs by cars.initially travelling faster than 30, but that is just a gut feeling.
but like it or not it's happening.. . pollution wise not an issue however with EVs. the opposite in fact.

 

[bigmike20vt]

nice summation of 1) the nonsense that some people are spouting about the huge costs they face when getting a ulez compliant car combined with 2) the absolute hypocrisy of both the government and media WRT people protesting when the subject is one which supports their political goals.

Tory Protest Hypocrisy - One Rule for Us ...

The Conservatives in both government and the media have been quick to attack Just Stop Oil protests blocking traffic and being a nuisance. Well, there was an...

www.youtube.com