ULEZ

[NoBeardNoTopKnot]

Well, you're getting it anyway.  There's always a born-yesterday contingent which truly believes they can derail this with a protest.

They can't because:

1) The actual decision was made in under 10 mins.
2) The quango enquiry committee was on a 'nice drink'.
3) It still is.
4) Oddly many on the quango, who you must appreciate are now our true 'experts' and consultants. They are set to become ideal candidates to appoint to head-up a bureaucracy.
5) With outward purity of spirit, whilst on a very 'nice drink', the quango's findings take ever so long. The reason for this would have nothing to do with being on a very, very 'nice drink'
6) A 1400 page document is available.
7) Nobody reads it.
8) The real effort was setting up a bureaucracy.
9) Bureaucracy  loves a reason for more bureaucracy.
10) There is an enquiry to allow those behind the pace to carp on about something they're getting anyway.
11) The bureaucratic juggernaut staffed by 200-300 'workers' and 'officers' and half a dozen lucrative software-contracts formed-up two years back.
12) Words of 'green' will be uttered. There's lots of 'green' sloshing around in this one. Money talks.

Apologies however, 'One size fits no-one', is all wrong. This would be a travesty. Such words imply there's a choice and something isn't working.  One-size-fits-All  far improves. Our size? Our size is perfect, it fits because there's an 'expert' report - which you won't read - to say it does.

The report is there to do just that, it makes your words, my words and those in this thread futile.



To claim these words are wrong or right misses the point? You're getting it anyway.

[William]

I've a lot of sympathy with the above. From a policy perspective the ulez doesn't make a lot of sense - and as above, essentially us tax payers we're paying a mass of 'officials' a lot of money to implement a perverse policy.
The mayor has said there are three policy objectives to the ulez: (1) toxic air pollution; (2) climate emergency; and (3) traffic congestion.
On (1) we know the current ulez doesn't work because vehicle derived air pollution in central london already breaks targets and legal limits. So why will the ulez extension magically reduce toxic air pollution in the suburbs? Especially given only 10% of vehicles are in scope, a number that will naturally and fairly rapidly reduce as older cars become unviable. So the £160m it's costing to increase the ulez will be policing a diminishing number of the already small cohort of vehicles.
On (2) penalizing the less well off who own the 10% of older in-scope vehicles to tackle the climate emergency, a global issue, seems unequitable.
On (3) how will this help with traffic congestion? Those who can't afford to replace their vehicle will have to carry on driving it, but be taxed heavily to do so. Those who can afford to replace their car outright or under the scrappage scheme will just replace their older car with a newer one, presumably with a detrimental embodied carbon cost in doing so.

[diffwhine]

I vote William for Mayor of London...

At last somebody who makes sense! 

[DaveKrezz]

i blame the Romans!

[NoBeardNoTopKnot]

If William is right and I suspect he is, when revenue drops - dress it up as something else - they'll quietly confess to the fourth [now hidden] criteria. Or simply bump the charge. By then, apathy will rule, and a few amendments will give it another 'Title'. This expressly as a catch-all for revenue missed. It won't be hard. One more 1400 page report should cover it.

Job done.

[Oddjob]

Great post by William 
My fear is that once it's in place they'll say it's not working and up the charge to £25 and then £50 etc. When the LEZ started 12 years ago they wanted £100 a day to drive my van within the M25 but that just hit commercial vehicles so didn't get as much publicity.
And as NBTK says, the criteria will be raised so you need to buy cleaner vehicles or eventually they'll all be full electric only.

[William]

If William is right and I suspect he is, when revenue drops - dress it up as something else - they'll quietly confess to the fourth [now hidden] criteria. By then, apathy will rule, and a few amendments will give it another 'Title'. This expressly as a catch-all for revenue missed. It won't be hard. One more 1400 page report should cover it.

Job done.

My money's on general road pricing. Has to be to justify the £160m investment and to cover running costs. The sheer density of the cameras on every traffic light junction suggests nothing less. At least general road pricing hits the policy objectives better than the current model!

[Oddjob]

Someone needs to work out a way of getting all the ulez cameras into a satnav. 

[Lomas]

A dustbin perhaps would be better than a satnav?

[Kernowcam]

I have to go to north Weald , north of London soon. Petrol 2.5l camper , old.
As a country bumpkin am I right I need to simply get on the m 25 and no further in?

[Wittsend]

Stick on the M25 and you'll be fine.

Why not check your route here on the AA Route Planner

You can plan a route by postcodes ....

 

[Davidss]

Yes.
While, in some places, the M25 borders the expanded zone, it does not get inside, for more detail see an official map.

Regards.

[Kernowcam]

Interesting.  I've checked my vehicles and both of our newer runabouts are ulez exempt along with my Land Rover. Silly but my camper (1994) is not.
So am I right I can drive anywhere with my cars apart from the central London congestion zone?

How about other cities? Bristol Portsmouth. Sorry this is all new as I rarely leave the south west.

[diffwhine]

Its probably safest if you check the official website first:

https://www.gov.uk/clean-air-zones

Some only affect commercial vehicles at present like Bath and Portsmouth that I am aware of. Others are more draconian like the London ULEZ.

I think the Historic status quirk in the system is a bit of a strange one given the clean air zone objectives, but while we have it, I think we need to be careful not to be seen to abuse it.

[diffwhine]

And while we are off topic on environmental issues, I'm going even further off topic...

OT, but is it me?

We had a delivery of Bodyshop shampoo yesterday. In the parcel was a "free" empty 300ml aluminium bottle. Apparently we are supposed to take this bottle to a Bodyshop, refill it and then transfer the lid from our empty plastic bottle. We are then supposed to recycle the plastic bottle.

So I ask the question... Why do I need a new aluminium bottle when I can just as easily refill the plastic bottle? Surely it's more environmentally friendly to use an existing plastic bottle than use energy and resources creating another metal bottle? Equally I now need to drive some 20+ miles to the nearest Bodyshop to fill this bottle.

Can somebody please explain the logic in this because I can't work it out?

Is this greenwashing to the extreme?