Saw this too, wonder how long before they issue face masks for people in the worst of it.
@ChrisBeach moved into existing topic
Does everyone know that in 2021 they are extending the emission zone to the south circular.
I am all for improvement to air quality but does the Mayor expect everyone to go out and buy brand new cars!
Personally I cannot afford paying an extra £12
a day to have a car inside the zone. Here
Is a link to a petition if anyone wants to sign it.
Can you imagine the increase in pollution levels on that ring road and in the area just outside of its circumference?
How can there be any justification for shifting a high proportion of polluting traffic away from one area if the result is that people in another area will suffer from far higher concentration of pollutants?
I believe that if the charge was dropped to, say, £2.50 a day, it would still have a significant effect but it wouldn’t make travel in the new extended area so prohibitive that it pushes all the pollution on us.
I would think the Mayor expects us to sell our cars - or at least use them less.
Children are dying near here because of pollution. That means that when you get into a car, you are helping to kill them.
Motor vehicles are helpful for many people and around half of the residents of Lewisham have access to one, but there is a huge amount of evidence that people use cars for trips that could easily be achieved by walking, cycling or public transport.
Personally, I don’t think the zone goes far enough.
Most petrol cars made after 2005 are compliant and will not be charged. The big offenders are diesels and only ones made after September 2016 are compliant.
As someone who has had serious health issues with his lungs and jumps at any opportunity to get out of London to somewhere with fresh air I only wish the ULEZ extension could come sooner!
The report on the tragic case you referred to states that the South Circular Road has notoriously high levels of pollution. Let’s assume that instead of everyone selling their cars or not using them, the ones who don’t want to pay the £12-a-day charge will predominently use that road and serious ill health - or worse - will prevail all along that route.
If you live on or outside the South Circular, I fear this ULEZ zone change may make your situation worse.
Government lever-pulling tends to create winners and losers.
Pollution on the A205 can hardly get much worse. It is full to the brim right now. Any reduction on the roads to the north will help the air quality of the whole region. It may also deter people from the south from passing through SE23.
In any case, it seems that people are not giving up their cars for short journeys - this is one measure that the government can use to help society. We have accepted rule changes so that the the rights of everyone to not breathe air in enclosed spaces from smokers are protected. This is not so different.
I agree with Chris on this. The false equivalence of the north and south circular roads for this implementation is daft. The south London boundary should be somewhere much further south than us.
- declaring interests - we live in Perry Vale ward though we don’t have a car of the type affected
I don’t think this will push much additional traffic onto the south circular or roads further out. Some yes, but a small amount compared to the traffic levels already seen on the south circular.
What will improve is that all large businesses with fleets, or even small businesses travelling within London on a daily basis, will want to upgrade their vehicles. This will make more of a difference than the occasional trips by occasional driverd made by people outside the zone to avoid crossing the boundary.
People looking to buy replacement cars can purchase 15 year old petrol cars that will be compliant. Generally speaking you can pick up a 15 year old car for a reasonable price but you may find yourself with a less nice car than the polluting one you drive today. (For disclosure: my car is compliant and will be 15 years old in 2021 and i rather like my car).
The thing that concerns me is rat-running inside the zone and this comes down to the south circular being a poor choice of boundary. Unless there will be thousands of cameras across London we can expect to see cameras only on major boundaries - for example London Road and Honor Oak Road but possible not Devonshire Road. Allowing any gaps in camera coverage will allow people living within the zone with polluting vehicles to bypass the cameras. Another example in the same area would be popping down to sainsburys from Westwood Park. Assuming there is a camera on the Honor Oak Road / London Road junction you may find it cheaper to pop down Manor Mount the wrong way and risk a fine rather than the certainty of being seen leaving the zone in your polluting car and get an automatic £20 charge. It only take a few hundred situations like this every day to make London’s roads less safe.
A lot will come down to implementation. In North London it will be fine. In South London i predict unforseen complications (known unknowns - as Donald Rumsfeld would call them) and i don’t think TfL can have a clue about how to resolve all the issues in a financially responsible way.
I agree with Chris, but it’s a complicated scenario to imagine:
journeys starting and/or ending within the zone will be subject to the charge, so pollution may decrease as people with non-compliment vehicles avoid the charge by not driving or switch to compliment vehicles; and
-journeys starting and ending outside the zone, but that travel through the zone will be encouraged to circumvent it, so that will shift the pollution to the external boundary and external outskirts of the zone.
I expect that overall total pollution will decrease, but the benefits will not be evenly spread. The south circular will be busier and new ratrunning on the external outskirts of it will increase as people try to avoid the even longer south circular queues.
I expect that the biggest winners will be the residential streets just inside the zone that will have less traffic, but also smaller and quieter vehicles, and vice versa.
In summary, positive - yes, progressive - no.
I guess that although certain parts of FH may be out of the area a build up of traffic skirting the boundary will still effect it depending which way the wind is blowing. It’s a bit like the borough that was a nuclear free zone. Not if the bomb dropped it wasn’t.
The recent posts highlight why this measure doesn’t go far enough.
People are discussing how they can drive their cars differently to avoid the zone. The problem is that driving cars is affecting not only their heath, but everyone else as well. Not to mention climate change, physical fitness et al. We have to collectively drive cars less.
London is not the only place where these problems occur, but the proposed changes here are still miles (2021) away whereas elsewhere changes are happening right now:
The recent posts highlight how policies like this create winners and losers, because they simply move the problem around.
Seems to me that current policy focusses on punishing and vilifying car drivers, with associated idealism (“people should just cycle”, “20’s plenty” etc). Negative, interventionalist policy-making like this is not the way forward, IMO.
We should recognise and acknowledge people’s motivation for driving, and find a technical solution that’s a win-win for everyone. Whether it’s the Boring Company, or opening up London further to modern, efficient low-polluting car networks (Uber, Zipcar e-Golfs etc) - there are positive solutions that improve everyone’s experience, as opposed to punishing some people (most notably low income people that rely on their vehicles) in some areas and shifting problems around.
Not true. As much as those who feel they must assert their rights to speed and damage the lives of others by polluting the environment, the well researched facts simply state that if routes are taken away, traffic vanishes. You can google “traffic evaporation” for more information but here are some pieces that discuss/explain the fact. Note that none of this is new,.
http://rachelaldred.org/writing/thoughts/disappearing-traffic/ The TfL report cited in there is located here
No one is trying to vilify car drivers, taking a car is often necessary. However, by getting in a car we must realise we are damaging not only our own health but those of others, especially the young and old. We just need to do it less. That’s not a punishment for just drivers. E-cars alone are not a sustainable solution either, because particulates from brakes and tires are equally as damaging. People are still allowed to smoke, but changes to public health policy have resulted in many lives saved as a result of more knowledge about what it can do, and the availability of cigarettes.
We’re moaning about changes that aren’t happening for years. How many lives will be lost in the meantime? Are we happy about this? We have good transport connections in SE23 and some lovely parks and walkways. We can help solve this problem by walking to the shops from time to time, or taking a bus. How hard is that?
Of course traffic vanishes if routes are taken away.
Likewise our Internet bandwidth south of the A205 would probably improve if we fined everyone north of the A205 for using the Internet.
We need to get beyond this ideological and zero-sum “I hate cars” argument where every car driver inconvenienced is a victory for our cause, regardless of the consequences for their lives and freedoms, and the lives and freedoms of people they serve / visit / care for.
A post was split to a new topic: “E-car vs ICE car emissions” in the opt-in geeks category
Shenzen (a city of 12M) replaced its entire fleet of 16,000 buses with fully electric ones. I know China are a bit mad when it comes to scale projects, but the UK’s foray into electrification has been far too timid.