While Rishi Sunak spouts pro-motorist rhetoric, Amsterdam, Paris and Edinburgh are leading the charge to be healthier cities, says Devi Sridhar, chair of global public health at Edinburgh University
I don’t have a problem with ULEZ zones or LTNs for that matter but more with the lack of advanced warning about the London expansion.
As is often the way, it’s the implementation that’s a problem for people. The full ULEZ plans should have been made public, with a timeline of expansions, five years in advance to give people a chance to plan around them.
I think the August expansion was announced on 25th November of last year. So less than a year’s notice.
I don’t think that’s enough given the number of people it will affect.
And, obviously they didn’t decide on 24th November that this seemed like a cracking idea but must have planned it earlier.
All I’m saying is more notice would have allowed people to make better informed decisions about vehicle purchases. People who need to head into, or travel through, the expanded ULEZ might have made different choices if they’d known in advance that this was coming.
@Hossenfeffer It’ll affect around 10 000 000 people, I think.
The effect is better air to breath and less illness caused.
If you were to tell them you were going to improve their air, but you’d decided to give them 5 years notice rather than one year, I think stepping back quickly out of reach would bd wise.
The effects are of course incremental.
Is this a new thing?
The MOT was introduced last century, I forget when it changed from “not a smokescreen” to limited exhsust emissions. But, no.
@Hossenfeffer vehicle purchase decisions involved would be an earlier buying of a less old car, or not a LandRover Defender, Aston Martin DB5, old Diesel etc.
Petrol newer than 16 years old, diesel newer than 5y, generally.
Not, generally, of ordering a new VW ID.3 (I drove into the dealer, said “I’d like that one” drove it home, but if I’d made a specification it would have taken much of a year to arrive.
But if I had, I’d have an order form, and IIUC, would have been exempt from ULEZ charge!
@Hossenfeffer And finally, Londoners who now need a <15 year old petrol car, to replace their 16 year old one, can have I gather £2000 toward it as scrappage, funded by the people who get cleaner air out of it, their wider neighbours.
Occasional visitors are asked not to be mucky, but if they insist, can pay.
Frequent visitors - well yes, action indicated.
@Hossenfeffer Barcelona has one. We drove a far from new SLK into there. (We don’t live in London, either)
It required registration with an automatic system, in English, and a e5 fee.
Nuisance, but it is now recognised as compliant not just in Barcelona, but throughout Spain.
That’s an area of nuisance in England, that this is multiplying effort, and an incompetent and uncaring central gov isn’t coordinating it.
I don’t have a problem with ULEZ zones or LTNs for that matter but more with the lack of advanced warning about the London expansion.
As is often the way, it’s the implementation that’s a problem for people. The full ULEZ plans should have been made public, with a timeline of expansions, five years in advance to give people a chance to plan around them.
@Hossenfeffer @Emperor is 5 years practical with a 5 year election cycle?
Are you calling for no detail of any plan to be adjustable in less than 5 years?
When we’re the ULEZ plans, in some form, published, please?
I think the August expansion was announced on 25th November of last year. So less than a year’s notice.
I don’t think that’s enough given the number of people it will affect.
And, obviously they didn’t decide on 24th November that this seemed like a cracking idea but must have planned it earlier.
All I’m saying is more notice would have allowed people to make better informed decisions about vehicle purchases. People who need to head into, or travel through, the expanded ULEZ might have made different choices if they’d known in advance that this was coming.
@Hossenfeffer It’ll affect around 10 000 000 people, I think.
The effect is better air to breath and less illness caused.
If you were to tell them you were going to improve their air, but you’d decided to give them 5 years notice rather than one year, I think stepping back quickly out of reach would bd wise.
The effects are of course incremental.
Is this a new thing?
The MOT was introduced last century, I forget when it changed from “not a smokescreen” to limited exhsust emissions. But, no.
@Hossenfeffer vehicle purchase decisions involved would be an earlier buying of a less old car, or not a LandRover Defender, Aston Martin DB5, old Diesel etc.
Petrol newer than 16 years old, diesel newer than 5y, generally.
Not, generally, of ordering a new VW ID.3 (I drove into the dealer, said “I’d like that one” drove it home, but if I’d made a specification it would have taken much of a year to arrive.
But if I had, I’d have an order form, and IIUC, would have been exempt from ULEZ charge!
@Hossenfeffer And finally, Londoners who now need a <15 year old petrol car, to replace their 16 year old one, can have I gather £2000 toward it as scrappage, funded by the people who get cleaner air out of it, their wider neighbours.
Occasional visitors are asked not to be mucky, but if they insist, can pay.
Frequent visitors - well yes, action indicated.
@Hossenfeffer Barcelona has one. We drove a far from new SLK into there. (We don’t live in London, either)
It required registration with an automatic system, in English, and a e5 fee.
Nuisance, but it is now recognised as compliant not just in Barcelona, but throughout Spain.
That’s an area of nuisance in England, that this is multiplying effort, and an incompetent and uncaring central gov isn’t coordinating it.