please empty your brain below
ULEZ is not a tax but a road user charge. Residents who live in those areas outside the boundary may now suffer from worst air quality than those who do so I wouldn't call them winners.

spankybackpack | 22.08.23 - 7:21 a.m. | #

As a Chingford resident I’ve been aware of these boundary anomalies for a while, so I did some research to find out how this boundary was chosen.

The reason is simple, the new ULEZ boundary has been chosen, for administrative ease, to be identical to the existing LEZ, which was drawn up in 2008 and only really affected lorries. For that reason it didn’t matter that these sizeable residential chunks lay outside it.

It is disappointing (to say the least) that TfL didn’t tweak the LEZ boundary to include these residential areas when the ULEZ expansion was being planned.

dg writes: see tomorrow's post.

Dan | 22.08.23 - 7:52 a.m. | #

The Malden Rushett carve out means Chessington’s theme park and the huge garden centre next door will be *just* out of reach for the stream of SUVs that pour in daily off the M25. Potentially a helpful source of income for TfL.

David | 22.08.23 - 8:01 a.m. | #

Spanky is quite right. As a Chingford native who moved northeastwards several decades ago, the majority of pollution here arrives via wind from London - eg for many years from the huge incinerator on the Edmonton/Chingford border, and the mass exodus of old/polluting vehicles (including PTWs) that traverse Epping Forest from London.
Epping Forest DC will probably have to impose its own Clean Air Zone in 2025 as the Forest is in an unacceptable state of conservation owing to NOx etc.
You may then have a ULEZ exempt chunk of Greater London leading in to a CAZ-protected bit of Essex!

Crispy | 22.08.23 - 8:30 a.m. | #

If those Chessington SUVs are petrol engined and less than 17 years old (i.e. post Euro4 in 2006) or diesel engines and less than 8 years old (i.e. post Euro6 in 2015) they will not be charged.

The main problem is likely to be very old cars (which shouldn't be too difficult to replace) and “white vans” say 10 years old (which, if used for business purposes, should be fully depreciated in the business accounts and for capital allowance purposes anyway).

I was ashamed to hear a representative of my county council (Herts) yesterday trying to justify his council’s political point scoring by refusing to put up warning signage. The cost will fall on residents and those passing through who inadvertently cross the boundary without prior warning.

Andrew | 22.08.23 - 8:40 a.m. | #

David - I have heard that the garden centre are aiming to move their entrance to Fairoak Lane (just outside the zone) so that visitors can avoid the charge.

andy c | 22.08.23 - 8:59 a.m. | #

...Hooky Street Coffee?

Scott | Homepage | 22.08.23 - 9:20 a.m. | #

Given the high density of cars spotted on your walk, I wonder how many of these (exempt) owners were in the highly-vocal voices opposing the expansion?

Perhaps more seriously, my regular builder told me a year ago that the diesel van he uses for work and equipment storage is uncompliant, but the cost of replacement had become unviable, as second-hand vehicles have tripled in cost in light of the zone extension and new ones are even pricier. I think it’s small traders, not SUV drivers, who’ll be hardest hit and least able to afford the charge.

Labourer | 22.08.23 - 9:33 a.m. | #

I do look forward to your follow-up post reporting on the exhaust fumes you have *intentionally* inhaled. Will it be classified by bus stop or by borough? Don't tell us, I want to keep guessing.

HTFB | 22.08.23 - 9:53 a.m. | #

I'm happy with ULEZ but electric vehicles aren't the panacea people seem to think they are. Increased particulate emissions from the tyres of heavier EV's is bad news, as is the extra damage their weight does to road surfaces. Also, given that UK electricity is heavily fossil fuel dependant, all we are doing is spreading the problem.

Oh and don't get me started on the environmental costs of 20 mph zones.

ap | 22.08.23 - 10:10 a.m. | #

The North and South circulars weren't perfect, but they were
a) easy for everyone to understand
b) well within London, so that the "impact" was 99% on Londoners who have democratic control over the scheme

The new boundary is far less straightforward going right through residential areas, and also impacts people living outside London far more, who don't have any say in the scheme, and don't benefit from scrappage.

Mikey C | 22.08.23 - 10:19 a.m. | #

It would have been interesting, at least to me, to have checked the details of the vehicles in the borderline areas to see whether they would have to pay the charge, given that 95% of cars entering London are already exempt

Ian | 22.08.23 - 10:55 a.m. | #

re Mikey C. There is an interesting philosophical debate to be had about who roads inside London should be run and operated for - the Londoners who live on and near them or the non-Londoners who drive through them.
However, when the burden of air pollution falls only on the Londoners, i think it is also only the Londoners who should have the say on that particular aspect.

Will | 22.08.23 - 11:02 a.m. | #

It is open for the surrounding local authorities to fund scrappage schemes for their residents who choose to drive into London.

Nick | 22.08.23 - 11:22 a.m. | #

It's not taxation. It's a user charge. You don't have to use it. If you live in the home counties you don't pay anything towards London.

MMR | 22.08.23 - 3:00 p.m. | #

Given that it is claimed that most vehicles inside London are already complaint I assume it's a short term money making scam that once all vehicles are complaint will generate no income but will be replaced with road pricing in some form. That assumes that EURO7 comes in first to catch out a few more vehicles.

Andrew Jarman | 22.08.23 - 5:08 p.m. | #

IMHO "the number of drivers who won't pay a penny from next Tuesday is even higher than you might think" is probably the reason that TfL expands the ULEZ as much as they can.

Patrickov | 22.08.23 - 5:18 p.m. | #

...we're lapsing into general comments about ULEZ rather than comments about the ULEZ boundary.

diamond geezer | Homepage | 22.08.23 - 5:25 p.m. | #

It might have made sense to adjust the boundary slightly around hospitals that serve areas outside London. For example there's currently a plan to move A&E from St Helier and Epsom to a new unit on the Sutton hospital site a couple of hundred metres inside the ULEZ boundary. If Surrey residents go elsewhere to avoid ULEZ, it might completely invalidate the already rather dubious case for moving services there instead of St Helier. It's likely to cause some chaotic parking just outside the zone, even more so if the map is correct and the Royal Marsden's entrance is on the boundary but its car park is inside. But should we ever have expected any meaningful consultation between a Labour mayor and a Tory health department?

Nick L | 22.08.23 - 8:22 p.m. | #

My wife lived in Somerset Close, New Malden until she was 23 (she is now 74). Never did she expect it to receive a dg write-up!

Alan P. | 22.08.23 - 10:03 p.m. | #

‘Getting away with air pollution murder’; are you auditioning for a job in Khan’s Ministry of Truth?

David B | 23.08.23 - 5:33 a.m. | #

Nick L - Provided the hospital car park entrance and exit both give directly on to an exempt road, users of the car park should escape the ULEZ as it only applies to public highways, not private land.

timbo | 23.08.23 - 7:52 a.m. | #











TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy