ULEZ

[Aruntraveller]

I saw this earlier on Twitter from Faisal Islam:

Rather massive elephant in room on politics of the car… is how coming Parliament will legislate to replace £28bn a year in fuel duty (given electric cars don’t use petrol/diesel, and new ones banned from 2030) with some other tax on motoring…

Much bigger than LTNs and Ulez…

Not something I'd given any thought to given my inability to plan beyond next week.

What suggestions/predictions do others have?

[Nearly Sane]

I saw this earlier on Twitter from Faisal Islam:

Rather massive elephant in room on politics of the car… is how coming Parliament will legislate to replace £28bn a year in fuel duty (given electric cars don’t use petrol/diesel, and new ones banned from 2030) with some other tax on motoring…

Much bigger than LTNs and Ulez…

Not something I'd given any thought to given my inability to plan beyond next week.

What suggestions/predictions do others have?

That the 2030 date will be rolled back in the next parliament. That car tax will quadruple.

[Nearly Sane]

That the 2030 date will be rolled back in the next parliament. That car tax will quadruple.

Oh and whatever year the measure is actually applied, the year before that will see records set for new cars bought, and that will plummet in the year it applies.

[jeremyp]

I saw this earlier on Twitter from Faisal Islam:

Rather massive elephant in room on politics of the car… is how coming Parliament will legislate to replace £28bn a year in fuel duty (given electric cars don’t use petrol/diesel, and new ones banned from 2030) with some other tax on motoring…

Much bigger than LTNs and Ulez…

Not something I'd given any thought to given my inability to plan beyond next week.

What suggestions/predictions do others have?

Road pricing. Cars - all cars - will be subject to tolls for roads that are commonly congested.

[Outrider]

Road pricing. Cars - all cars - will be subject to tolls for roads that are commonly congested.

I'm not sure it will just be for roads meeting some particular threshold, I suspect there will be a scaled tarriff - the ability to track cars movements is approaching the point where all of them can be tracked anyway, at which point it's an automation activity to charge for that movement wherever you go.

That tracking is going to be necessary for at least some of the network-driven features of some models of self-driving vehicles which likely aren't far away - the only likely defence I can see is going to be a privacy one, but with the roads being already considered 'a public place' in most contexts that might be difficult to make stick.

O.

[jeremyp]

I'm not sure it will just be for roads meeting some particular threshold, I suspect there will be a scaled tarriff

I agree.

- the ability to track cars movements is approaching the point where all of them can be tracked anyway, at which point it's an automation activity to charge for that movement wherever you go.

That tracking is going to be necessary for at least some of the network-driven features of some models of self-driving vehicles which likely aren't far away - the only likely defence I can see is going to be a privacy one, but with the roads being already considered 'a public place' in most contexts that might be difficult to make stick.

O.

Self driving vehicles are years away. Road pricing will probably work through ANPR. I don't think that putting a tracking device in every car is going to fly, unless it is a device that that doesn't transmit full location data.

[Nearly Sane]

I need some furniture to be picked up and removed. First person I contacted won't do it as it's in the LEZ and their van is not compliant.

[Spud]

A car from 2008 is unlikely to be ULEZ compliant. That might be why it only cost you £700.

Have checked on gov.uk, and it is compliant, though I still have to pay the inner London congestion charge. The car looked as though it had never been cleaned inside - I think that's why it was so cheap. The paintwork had been spoiled by a lot of spots of something, cement or something, which have faded now, so its just the dents, which don't matter to me. I think the ULEZ is for cars made before 2007-ish.

[Nearly Sane]

And the cry was Uxbridge....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66388718

[jeremyp]

And the cry was Uxbridge....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66388718

Looking at the graph the BBC supplied, the targets were always impossible. The projected line has the same slope as our past record. The past record, though, includes all the "low hanging fruit".

[Nearly Sane]

Looking at the graph the BBC supplied, the targets were always impossible. The projected line has the same slope as our past record. The past record, though, includes all the "low hanging fruit".

In something like this with those timescales, you would expect a increasing drop over time as projects with bigger impacts were delivered.

ETA
There would likely be a long tail of the 5 - 10 % but the aim itself is not impossible. I fear that much of the preparatory work needed over the last decade or longer has not progressed sufficiciently.


Long term goals are easy for govts to announce, and failures are generally easy to blame on someone else. Uxbridge shows that failure, particularly if it is trumpeted as practicality, may be a vote winner.

[jeremyp]

In something like this with those timescales, you would expect a increasing drop over time as projects with bigger impacts were delivered.

No you wouldn't. You do the easy stuff first and quickly.

Long term goals are easy for govts to announce, and failures are generally easy to blame on someone else. Uxbridge shows that failure, particularly if it is trumpeted as practicality, may be a vote winner.

I think low emission zones have generally been botched in the implementation. People don't realise how low the bar is for a petrol car to be compliant and the fee collection methods make them look like council money grabbing, rather than an effective anti-emissions policy.

[Nearly Sane]

No you wouldn't. You do the easy stuff first and quickly.
I think low emission zones have generally been botched in the implementation. People don't realise how low the bar is for a petrol car to be compliant and the fee collection methods make them look like council money grabbing, rather than an effective anti-emissions policy.

And the easy stuff in something like this will be minimal.

[Nearly Sane]

Labour Ulez U-turn?


https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/starmer-ditches-commitment-to-ulez-style-clean-air-zones-across-country/ar-AA1fceAP

[SteveH]

Just read, via Microsoft's front page, a blatantly biased anti-ULEZ piece from the Daily Hate-Mail. If it is anything to go by, it would appear that DH-M journalists have been instructed to always refer to it as "the much-hated ULEZ".

[ProfessorDavey]

Just read, via Microsoft's front page, a blatantly biased anti-ULEZ piece from the Daily Hate-Mail. If it is anything to go by, it would appear that DH-M journalists have been instructed to always refer to it as "the much-hated ULEZ".

Which is kind of weird given that the majority of Londoners approve and the support is greatest in inner London, where the ULEZ is actually in operation.

But then the Mail have never been interested in evidence and accuracy, rather than plugging their own editorial line.

[jeremyp]

And the easy stuff in something like this will be minimal.

And why would you assume that?

[jeremyp]

Which is kind of weird given that the majority of Londoners approve and the support is greatest in inner London, where the ULEZ is actually in operation.

But then the Mail have never been interested in evidence and accuracy, rather than plugging their own editorial line.

London is different from a lot of places. London is a city in which having a car is not an advantage. It has very good public transport and, if you can afford to live in inner London, you can probably afford a ULEZ compliant car.

If you live a bit out of the centre of a city like most people and you have a diesel car that you depend on, you are not necessarily going to be quite so well disposed towards clean air zones.

[ProfessorDavey]

London is different from a lot of places. London is a city in which having a car is not an advantage.

True

It has very good public transport

Also true 

and, if you can afford to live in inner London, you can probably afford a ULEZ compliant car.

Not true at all - there are plenty of parts of inner London which have levels of deprivation as great as anywhere in the country. Many of these people can't afford a car, let alone a compliant one, but points one and two above provide mitigation.

If you live a bit out of the centre of a city like most people and you have a diesel car that you depend on, you are not necessarily going to be quite so well disposed towards clean air zones.

Depends on whether your diesel car is compliant - most are.

[ProfessorDavey]

If you live a bit out of the centre of a city like most people and you have a diesel car that you depend on, you are not necessarily going to be quite so well disposed towards clean air zones.

Worth noting that even if your car isn't compliant there is nothing to stop you flogging it. While the market for non compliant vehicles in London isn't going to be strong, there is nothing preventing these cars being perfectly saleable in parts of the country where ULEZ compliance isn't an issue - i.e. virtually all of the country. Given that the second hand car market has been particularly bouyant over the past couple of years there is no reason why someone selling won't get a good price for their non compliant car, either as trade-in or private sale.

Just for a laugh I checked out the valuation of my most recent non compliant car - a 2011 Citroen diesel - had retained 70% of the price I got for it when I sold it 6 years ago.

[jeremyp]

Worth noting that even if your car isn't compliant there is nothing to stop you flogging it.

Non compliant cars are losing value. Buying a compliant car will inevitably cost you money.

Buying cars is generally bad for the environment because making a new car has quite an impact. The government should be encouraging us to keep our cars for longer.

[ProfessorDavey]

Non compliant cars are losing value.

Are they? Evidence please.

I was rather surprised at the market value of the non compliant diesel car that I got rid of in 2016 when it was already 6 years old. Seems to be holding its value rather well. Don't forget that the market value of a car is complicated and ULEZ compliance will be one of many, many factors and will only be of the slightest relevance to a small proportion of the potential buyers across the UK.

Buying a compliant car will inevitably cost you money.

Not really the right question - the question is whether, and to what extent, trading in a nominally non-compliant car for a compliant car will cost you more than it would have done without the ULEZ.

Buying cars is generally bad for the environment because making a new car has quite an impact.

Who said anything about trading in an old non-compliant car for a new compliant one? Certainly not me. Likely most people will be trading in an used non-compliant car for a used compliant one. So the environmental cost of manufacture is already baked in.

The government should be encouraging us to keep our cars for longer.

That is already happening, not through government edict, but because cars are more reliable and last longer than they used to. Apparently the average age of cars on the road now is greater than its ever been.

But this is classic 'nudge' policy - put in place something which encourages people to do something now that they would have done in any case in the near(ish) future.

[ProfessorDavey]

... the fee collection methods make them look like council money grabbing, rather than an effective anti-emissions policy.

In the case of the ULEZ expansion this does seem to be a major factor, albeit not for councils.

The ULEZ expansion was required by central government, specifically the Department for Transport under Grant Shapps, as a condition of the bail-out of TFL required because of the pandemic.

So it was explicitly designed as a money raising, as well as emission cutting, initiative.

[jeremyp]

Are they? Evidence please.

You'll have to accept my brother's word for it who had to recently dispose of a non compliant car.

I was rather surprised at the market value of the non compliant diesel car that I got rid of in 2016 when it was already 6 years old. Seems to be holding its value rather well.

2016 is hardly current.

Who said anything about trading in an old non-compliant car for a new compliant one?

Nobody.

Certainly not me. Likely most people will be trading in a used non-compliant car for a used compliant one. So the environmental cost of manufacture is already baked in.

No. Because the person you bought the newer car off has to buy themselves a new car (or newer car) and so forth.

I live in Bristol and any cursory examination of its city centre is that it is dying. This is in part due to the council's insistence on banishing cars from it. The CAZ is only the latest initiative in this respect. I suspect it will be the final nail in the coffin.

I live within walking distance of the city centre. I could shop there using only the transport of my own legs. But because the choice of shops is becoming more limited every day - unless you want a coffee or to donate to a charity - my expeditions are more likely to be successful if I go to Cribbs Causeway, which is a massive out of town centre to the North West and is importantly just off the M5. Naturally, I have to drive there. Bristol Council's policies have made the city centre more car free which is great for people on foot but they haven't reduced overall car usage at all. In fact, in my case, they increase my car usage.

[ProfessorDavey]

You'll have to accept my brother's word for it who had to recently dispose of a non compliant car.

Nope doesn't cut it as evidence - merely unverified anecdote.

2016 is hardly current.

Nope you are missing the point.

My last non compliant car was a 2011 diesel citroen, which I sold in 2016 for £5,800. Using one of the many car market value checkers I put in this car's registration number and assumptions that mileage continues as when I owned it and it remained in good condition for its age. This provided a current market value (i.e. in Aug 2023) of a smidge over £4,100. That car has held its second hand value very well, despite being non compliant. And that makes sense as for mot people, in most parts of the country ULEZ compliance when buying car is irrelevant. Also the types of car most likely to be non compliant - old, fairly large diesel cars - are actually rather attractive second hand as they tend to be difficult to replicate with more modern cars in terms of available room and are cheap to run.

So as long as ULEZ compliance isn't an issue - which it wouldn't be for most people - then the upsides are sufficient to ensure that market value of those cars is highly competitive.