ULEZ Checker

Super_Eddie_Youds said:

cafcnick1992 said:

Yeah that one - plenty of electric and hybrid vehicles available.

Hard to armour, what with being so heavy in the first place. I’d imagine people would also be trotting out the cost and virtue signalling lines if (again) the MET supplied him with an up armoured EV/hybrid. 

You'll have to ask the Met what there approach is to a senior politician who is at the end of death threats and how they safely get them around London. 

The current TFL plans for diesel replacement possibly give a more extended timeline than i had assumed; e.g. From the 2024 Air Quality report https://www.london.gov.uk/media/105046/download
"TfL plans to convert the entire bus fleet of around 9,000 buses to be zero-emission no later than 2034, but could accelerate this target to 2030 with additional Government funding."

And in a separate update from November 2024 they said-  "all remaining diesel vans to be phased out by 2030".

TFL Group has is also facing budget cuts since then so might have had to redraw the timeline. I don't know specifically but I wonder also if what you saw @O-Randy-Hunt could have been a sub contractor's van? 


__________________

Detailed update on busses and the support fleet (cars and vans) given at a meeting in November 2024 with minutes at https://content.tfl.gov.uk/csop-20241128-agenda-papers-public.pdf;

"3.9 Zero-emission TfL buses: We are on track to deliver a further 500 zero-emission buses this financial year. We currently have 1,719 zero-emission buses operating on the network and are on track to deliver 1,900 in total by the end of March 2025, which equates to almost 20 per cent of our 8,700 fleet. This is helping to cut our reliance on diesel, cut harmful emissions in the capital and reduce CO2. The Mayor has committed to deliver a zero-emission bus fleet by 2030 and we are working to develop plans that will achieve this target. We are working with the Net Zero Matrix team to look at opportunities to connect to the London Underground (LU) power network at locations where a Distribution Network Operator connection is particularly challenging, to accelerate transition to zero-emission buses"

Then page 24, regarding support fleet, which includes cars and vans;

"3.20. Zero-emission support fleet: We have committed to converting all cars in our support fleet to zero-emission capable by the end of this financial year with all remaining diesel vans to be phased out by 2030. Operations is working closely with the Net Zero Matrix team to ensure that our staff are ready to use the new vehicles as they roll out, understanding the charging requirements and potentially altered scheduling that this may require. We are also helping to identify locations for increased electric vehicle charging infrastructure in our depots.

3.21 The Acton depot redevelopment will incorporate 52 charging points for electric vehicles, and we will convert at least 50 combustion engine vehicles to be battery powered.

3.22 We are also working with our supply chain to ensure that they are working to phase out non-zero-emission vehicles when delivering on our behalf."

Good when they get rid of using diesel, that will stop them polluting rivers. 

JamesSeed said:

I think the argument is done and dusted (😉):

Via Politico: "Roadside levels of NO2, a gas that mainly comes from vehicles and has harmful health effects, have decreased by 27 percent across London since the ULEZ was expanded, according to a study independently reviewed and shared by the mayor of London. 

"City Hall added that the London boroughs of Sutton, Merton, Croydon, Harrow and Bromley had the largest reduction in NO2 … which happens to be some of the boroughs most vocally against expanding the scheme."

Sadly, this is behind a paywall:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/mar/07/london-air-pollution-down-since-ulez-expansion-study

Nothing new in some politicians being ideologically against the interests of their electorate.  Just as they object to public sector pay increases so as to assist recruitment and retention of staff.

What will be interesting is to see how this might feed into the overall health model for London. For we need to address the causes of ill health, as well as speed up diagnostics and treatment.  If this plus resolving social care funding and acquiring more kit is achieved, then we'll see a significant reduction in waiting lists over the life of this Parliament. 

Anybody with first hand experience of diagnostics or A&E (for themselves or loved ones) will know of the waits and what one has to do to get prioritised. For me this is far more important than vehicle choices for Khan etc.

PS I've come across some of those who campaigned against Khan & ULEZ plus openly support the vandalising of cameras and traffic lights... dangerous, entitled and bewildered are three words that spring to mind!

JamesSeed said:

I think the argument is done and dusted (😉):

Via Politico: "Roadside levels of NO2, a gas that mainly comes from vehicles and has harmful health effects, have decreased by 27 percent across London since the ULEZ was expanded, according to a study independently reviewed and shared by the mayor of London. 

"City Hall added that the London boroughs of Sutton, Merton, Croydon, Harrow and Bromley had the largest reduction in NO2 … which happens to be some of the boroughs most vocally against expanding the scheme."

Sadly, this is behind a paywall:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/mar/07/london-air-pollution-down-since-ulez-expansion-study

but as I commented above doesn’t the 3 point improvement for outer London only match that for the rest of the country without the benefit of ULEZ?

Or does the graph mean something else ?

Hal1x said:

Cars are elitist and there are some who will only be happy when everyone is on public transport, bikes or on foot- except themselves of course. Motorists are being priced out and/or penalised for trying to park as we see around the Valley.

This persecution complex that people obsessed with cars have is hilarious. Let's take the air quality and pollution arguments out of it for now.

The ULEZ outer London pre implementation research showed without a doubt that poorest in society rely on public transport and that ULEZ (and fuel duty) disproportionately impact middle and upper middle classes with their fuel guzzling 4x4s and SUVs. 

Despite that fuel duty has been frozen since 2010 whilst rail fares have increased nearly 60% in that period. 

Even if we ignore the cost aspect it is simply an incredibly inefficient way of moving people around. Maximum flow rate of a 3 lane highway is around 8000 people per hour (that's with generous assumptions on number of buses and coaches as well as multi-occupancy vehicles). Obviously this number is massively lower on smaller roads and in towns and cities. A brand new subway line can do 1-2000 people a minute so between 60,000 and 120,000 an hour. A railway line more than 30,000 an hour. 

The amount of space occupied by car dominated infrastructure is mad. Not just the cars themselves but the roads, safety areas around roads, car parks, parking spaces along roads and on individual properties. They are the most space inefficient form of transport. In outer city and suburbs 50-60% of space is often dedicated to cars. 

Traffic is a huge economic efficiency drain in this country where we have one of the largest productivity gaps in the developed world, we can't afford these kind of inefficiencies. Spaces that could be used for grass verges, natural beauty, trees to provide shade and reduce the urban heat island effect, encourage wildlife and biodiversity, provide drainage and absorption to prevent flooding etc. Etc. Etc. 

And of course the safety aspect.

Literally the only benefit of cars is their convenience.

Not saying they shouldn't exist but as a society we are far far too reliant on an inefficient mode of transport and too protective of them whilst listening too much to the car lobby. It's just another area where we are falling behind the rest of the world. Many European cities are discouraging cars, making cities more accessible by other means and making their cities greener at the same time. China is building almost car free cities. Only the Americans have a bigger love in with cars in cities than us.

Some graphics below that demonstrate some of these points.

Hal1x said:

cantersaddick said:

Hal1x said:

Cars are elitist and there are some who will only be happy when everyone is on public transport, bikes or on foot- except themselves of course. Motorists are being priced out and/or penalised for trying to park as we see around the Valley.

This persecution complex that people obsessed with cars have is hilarious. Let's take the air quality and pollution arguments out of it for now.

The ULEZ outer London pre implementation research showed without a doubt that poorest in society rely on public transport and that ULEZ (and fuel duty) disproportionately impact middle and upper middle classes with their fuel guzzling 4x4s and SUVs. 

Despite that fuel duty has been frozen since 2010 whilst rail fares have increased nearly 60% in that period. 

Even if we ignore the cost aspect it is simply an incredibly inefficient way of moving people around. Maximum flow rate of a 3 lane highway is around 8000 people per hour (that's with generous assumptions on number of buses and coaches as well as multi-occupancy vehicles). Obviously this number is massively lower on smaller roads and in towns and cities. A brand new subway line can do 1-2000 people a minute so between 60,000 and 120,000 an hour. A railway line more than 30,000 an hour. 

The amount of space occupied by car dominated infrastructure is mad. Not just the cars themselves but the roads, safety areas around roads, car parks, parking spaces along roads and on individual properties. They are the most space inefficient form of transport. In outer city and suburbs 50-60% of space is often dedicated to cars. 

Traffic is a huge economic efficiency drain in this country where we have one of the largest productivity gaps in the developed world, we can't afford these kind of inefficiencies. Spaces that could be used for grass verges, natural beauty, trees to provide shade and reduce the urban heat island effect, encourage wildlife and biodiversity, provide drainage and absorption to prevent flooding etc. Etc. Etc. 

And of course the safety aspect.

Literally the only benefit of cars is their convenience.

Not saying they shouldn't exist but as a society we are far far too reliant on an inefficient mode of transport and too protective of them whilst listening too much to the car lobby. It's just another area where we are falling behind the rest of the world. Many European cities are discouraging cars, making cities more accessible by other means and making their cities greener at the same time. China is building almost car free cities. Only the Americans have a bigger love in with cars in cities than us.

Some graphics below that demonstrate some of these points.

You really need to chill out! There are a hell of a lot worse things to worry about in the world at the moment than people driving their car to work, shopping or football. You seem to really, really dislike that people choose to drive, and have some sort of fanatical hatred of the car, and a desire to penalise and punish those who want or need to drive.

Perfectly chill here. No hatred either. I own a car and use it when necessary I'm simply pointing out that the evidence says they are the least efficient way to move people around, the least safe mode of transport, the worst use of space, a massive economic inefficiency, a massive polluter and a driver of poor localised air quality leading to massive health costs. That should be reflected more in policy than it currently is.

I think maybe the person being fanatical is the one claiming motorists are being penalised not the person presenting evidence that they aren't and they actually dominate far too much of our lives.

Sure there are bigger things to worry about but this is a thread on the topic and you're actually the one that brought it up. I just replied. It's also part of the wider system in the UK where a significant proportion of the population are against any change and so we fail to progress as other countries are and so get left further and further behind in so many areas. We could be living happier, healthier and fairer lives if people were more open to change.

The amount of cars using the roads inside the Ulez zone has increased, since it's introduction.   

Cars kill city centres, London when there are no cars in it is such a lovely place

Rothko said:

Cars kill city centres, London when there are no cars in it is such a lovely place

Have a word with your mate and ask why he licences 300-500 mini cabs every week. I'm sure the £300 per licence and congestion charge on them has nothing to do with it.

2007 - 38000 tfl licenced drivers
2025 - 108,000 tfl licenced drivers

Carter said:

I love all this chat about there being no reason to have a car when you can use a pushbike, bus, train, whatever. Local authorities couldn't give a monkies about air quality but they do care for all the money they can make by charging people to go about their day whilst also not giving a monkies about improving public transport or investing in local infrastructure, or not building on all the green land developers can get their hands on. Because it costs money. 

Funnily enough its mostly buses and the moronic way they are driven down one particular road near me that puts me right off cycling to work before I get near my van to go out polluting the world, keeping the economy going. Stupid diesel van with its capacity to put all my tools, PPE, stores needed for jobs and its capacity to cover the entirety of the South East without needing to waste time plugged into a charger doing zero productive work 

Except back in the world of reality no one has actually said that. Just that cars are maybe not the best form of transport for every situation and so maybe shouldn't be the default for every journey and policy should probably reflect that and encourage mode shift towards active travel and investment in better public transport. And that cities, where good public transport does exist, can probably have much less cars and car focused infrastructure.

JamesSeed said:

seth plum said:

The attraction of cars is not only about convenience, they are often a packhorse.

I have a car and I use it as a packhorse when required. Which is basically for big shopping or for going to the dump. Or for visiting friends who don’t leave near a station. But 90% of the time I’m on public transport. It’s about balance, for me. Much, much more relaxing on the bus. 👍

Not at night sadly with some fellow passengers !

I agree with the with  the broad sentiment however. 

Dansk_Red said:

Can someone explain why they have not quoted figures before ULEZ when comparing to air quality to after ULEZ, they are quoting estimated projected figures what air quality might have been if ULEZ had not been introduced. They must have the true before figures, this makes me think that improvement is not as good as expected. I am all for ULEZ but not the way it was implemented.        

I think
that’s what this graph shows. 

.