Ultra Low Emissions Zones - Good or Bad?

[DynamicSpirit]

Splitting this off from the Tory discussion, which is veering onto the controversy over Sadiq Khan expanding the London ULEZ to cover all of London. I believe other cities are considering similar schemes.

Replying to all three posts above, I'd tend to agree that "stick" approaches punishing motorists are unhelpful and can potentially cause people great difficulty.

Some people may need to drive less-environmentally-friendly vehicles, either for personal reasons or for work, and may incur significant costs upgrading their vehicle.

If the aim is to encourage more people to use environmentally-friendly vehicles or public transport, this should be done with "carrot" based approaches not "stick" based ones.

How could an approach that uses only carrots and not sticks work? Presumably you'd have to make public transport super-cheap as part of the carrot, but how would that be paid for?

I live in a part of London that basically has buses and trains trains going almost everywhere locally. But despite that, I can still think of a fair few people I know locally who will unthinkingly and routinely drive short journeys that can perfectly well be done by walking or getting the bus - just because of habit/they like driving/don't think about the consequences. I can't see any way that you'll get those people to do the decent thing and stop using their cars for journeys where they don't need them, unless you apply a stick as well as a carrot.

I mean okay, but this is broadly the same ULEZ rules that are coming into cities across Scotland, and are being looked at across the UK. The vast majority of Londoners don't own affected vehicles, and almost all of the poorest most vulnerable Londoners don't own a vehicle at all. The pollution from these vehicles is causing significant health issues, ultimately blighting lives and costing the NHS a huge amount of money.

I broadly agree, but I think there is an issue that ULEZ is exclusively targeting older cars and hitting those people with a huge charge, while completely exempting newer cars that are, in all likelihood, only slightly less polluting. And where owners of older cars then get subsidised to buy new cars via the scrappage scheme, that means you're incurring all the environmental/climate costs of manufacturing the new cars, and then those people have no incentive to drive less (which is what is really needed to tackle urban pollution).

In principle I totally agree with the aims of the ULEZ expansion, but I can't help feeling it would've been much better to just introduce a straight congestion charge that would apply to all vehicles, but at much lower, and therefore more affordable, rate.

 

[nw1]

Splitting this off from the Tory discussion, which is veering onto the controversy over Sadiq Khan expanding the London ULEZ to cover all of London. I believe other cities are considering similar schemes.


How could an approach that uses only carrots and not sticks work? Presumably you'd have to make public transport super-cheap as part of the carrot, but how would that be paid for?

I live in a part of London that basically has buses and trains trains going almost everywhere locally. But despite that, I can still think of a fair few people I know locally who will unthinkingly and routinely drive short journeys that can perfectly well be done by walking or getting the bus - just because of habit/they like driving/don't think about the consequences. I can't see any way that you'll get those people to do the decent thing and stop using their cars for journeys where they don't need them, unless you apply a stick as well as a carrot.

I'd probably say raise the funds equally via increases in taxation, rather than targeting people who may need to use their vehicle.

I see what you're saying about places with good public transport links already, but how can you police this? Perhaps restruct ULEZ to inner London only, as was formerly the case. (Caveat: I'm not sure exactly how easy it is to get round the Uxbridge area purely on public transport).

What also about people who might use a van to take their tools with them, etc? Presumably vehicles used for commercial purposes should be exempt.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd probably say raise the funds equally via increases in taxation, rather than targeting people who may need to use their vehicle.

Most people don't need to use their vehicle, though, they choose to use it because they prefer using it, but the vast majority of journeys inside large cities do not need to be completed using a private motor vehicle, it is simply more convenient to do so.

What also about people who might use a van to take their tools with them, etc? Presumably vehicles used for commercial purposes should be exempt.

Absolutely not, because old diesel vans and lorries are some of the worst polluters. Though schemes should be in place to assist businesses who need to upgrade their vehicle, because almost all such vehicles are diesel. Whereas anyone with a noncompliant car can sell their diesel (plenty of non-urban users who would buy it) and purchase an older compliant petrol (petrols always emitted far less nasty stuff than diesels), so this should be affordable to everyone.

One thing I think should exist is a more standard approach to ULEZs. There is some standardisation already - the class of ULEZ dictates to an extent what vehicles are included. However there should be a much more standardised scheme than even that, which as London is well-established I'd base on theirs - with only the charges able to be varied, and a single national website for payment of all road tolls where you can sign up for automatic payment too, as well as the ability to pay for any scheme at a Post Office, PayPoint/PayZone and potentially machines at motorway services too. Also a national policy that the direct route from a major road or motorway to the nearest park-and-ride facility should never be chargeable.