Mayor Pushes Ahead With ULEZ

London Mayor Sadiq Khan has announced today that he is definitely going ahead with the introduction of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) in central London from 2019, i.e. he is bringing forward the original planned date based on the results of his last consultation.

This will cover any vehicle that enters the existing Congestion Charge zone and will operate seven days per week, 24 hours a day, unlike the Congestion Charge (a.k.a. tax). The additional charge will be £12.50 for cars, vans and motorbikes that do not meet defined emission standards, or £100 per day for lorries, buses and coaches.

Diesel cars that do not meet the Euro 6 standard, which meets most of them that will be more than 4 years old in 2019, will need to pay the additional charge – making it cost as much as £22.50 to drive into central London. Petrol cars will only have to meet the Euro 4 standard so even older such vehicles may be OK. Go to this web page to check your vehicle:

The ULEZ will replace the “T-Charge” on older vehicles which came into force in October this year.

The Mayor is also introducing a “particulate matter standard” to the ULEZ standards bearing in mind recent concerns about that kind of air pollution. It is not clear how that will work as it suggests that vehicles that comply with the Euro standards might fail on other grounds.

Bearing in mind that the ULEZ may be extended across a wider area (for example to the North/South circular), it seems likely that not many London residents will be buying diesel cars in future as emissions standards tighten, and more will buy electric vehicles.

The consultation responses (over 18,000 in total) showed 72% of the general public support the principle of a ULEZ, with only 21% opposed. But for those who drive within central London, 65% were opposed. Some 52% of drivers were also opposed to bringing forward the ULEZ to 2019. The ABD was one of only three stakeholder groups who opposed the the ULEZ.

The Mayor also makes a pitch for a national vehicle scrappage scheme, a new Clean Air Act, changes to VED, and more money for City Hall in his press release.

Will the announced measures reduce air pollution? Probably although these are improving anyway as older vehicles are scrapped and replaced. But the main culprits as regards pollution were and are HGVs, LGVs, buses and taxis. Imposing such draconian standards on cars and even motorbikes 24×7 is not a cost-effective solution. The fact that the Mayor and Transport for London (TfL) have failed to provide any cost/benefit justification, nor even any of the budget costs of the scheme in response to an FOI Act request just tells you one thing. This scheme is as much about making money for the Major’s coffers as improving air pollution. This was also reflected in the consultation comments “written in” where 5% of respondents suggested it was a tax/revenue raising scheme for TfL.

But there were very few comments in support of extending the ULEZ boundary. Only 1% supported extending it to the North/South Circular. Let us hope that kills off that idea which would impose a major financial burden on many more London residents.


You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.


Proposal to Increase PCN Cost

Transport for London (TfL) have announced proposals to increase the cost of a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) from £130 to £160. That is the charge payable when you don’t pay the Congestion Charge (a.k.a. tax) or infringe the Red Route rules.

They claim the number of people incurring PCNs has been increasing, particularly those who are repeat offenders (64% of Congestion Charge infringers and 38% of Red Route infringers). They claim increasing the PCN cost would reduce the number by providing a stronger deterrent but provide no evidence for that claim.

It is possible that repeat offenders have increased simply because TfL do not manage to collect the PCN charge – they provide no data on this in the consultation which as usual with recent TfL consultations is very poor. It does not provide the information required to make an informed response.

One reason for the increase in Congestion Charge PCNs may simply be that people now have more difficulty in paying it since the number of payment methods have been reduced over the years since introduction, or that TfL are not promoting the need to pay as actively.

But it is wrong that the increase of 23% in the PCN cost is much higher than could be justified by general price inflation since the last increase. This just looks like part of the Mayor’s strategy to make life more and more difficult for the average motorist as a very high proportion of infringements that result in PCNs are accidental or from ignorance by drivers rather than deliberate avoidance.

That explains why TfL collected income of £168 million from Congestion Charge infringements and £35 million in Red Route infringements last year. That’s surely enough!

The ABD has already responded to this consultation but anyone who drives in London should also do so as soon as possible. Go here for more information and a simple on-line response form you can use: . DO MAKE SURE YOU OBJECT!

Roger Lawson

London Assembly Recommends Solutions to Traffic Congestion

The London Assembly Transport Committee have been conducting an inquiry into Reducing Traffic Congestion in London. Their report that invited comments and suggestions contained data showing that congestion in London has significantly worsened in the last couple of years. Indeed many of the comments submitted provided further evidence of that and few people who have driven in London of late would disagree. Average daytime traffic speeds on weekdays in London are now down to 7.8 mph. See previous blog post for more information.

You can see the ABD’s submission to the inquiry here:

So what bright ideas did the Committee come up with to tackle congestion (i.e. what are their recommendations)?

Firstly the Chair, Caroline Pidgeon, suggested that the Congestion Charge was initially successful but it was “no longer fit for purpose”. It has been undermined by various changes such as the increase in private hire vehicles, and more goods vehicle deliveries driven by internet buyers having goods delivered to their offices. These were common themes noted by others.

Comment: The “initial success” of the Congestion Charge (a.k.a. tax) is a myth as we first reported in 2006 and repeatedly thereafter – see . Instead of reducing congestion it has just been used as a money raising measure by TfL to support the Mayor’s budgets – and the new Mayor is even shorter of money than the last having made some rash promises to get elected. Despite more than doubling the tax from that originally imposed, traffic continued to grow for the reasons given above and because of the general increase in the population and business activities. One can therefore agree it was not “fit for purpose” and it was also a very poorly designed system where one had to pay the charge just by driving a few yards into the central zone and spending one minute there, while another driver who drove around all day within the zone paid the same, i.e. the charge was not related to road usage, or focussed on the most congested areas.

Flat rate pricing is seen not to be effective so the Committee is recommending a more general “road pricing” scheme. How this would be technically done is not explained (Comment: politicians don’t have to worry about the practicality of what they are proposing). They are also talking about covering a wider area than the existing central area with such a scheme, i.e. a congestion tax across the whole of London! And they want it integrated with the new ULEZ enforcement system.

They also wish TfL to encourage local boroughs to implement a Workplace Parking Levy along the same lines as in Nottingham.

As regards the problem of delivery vehicles, they suggest TfL should encourage more consolidation, and also pilot a ban on personal deliveries to staff. (Comment: this may be sensible if they are a real problem but surely more evidence on what the impact of such deliveries is should first be ascertained). Click and collect at tube and other stations should also be encouraged.

There is also a suggestion that Private Hire Vehicles (PHVs or “mini-cabs”) should pay the Congestion Charge. At present all licensed taxis and PHVs are exempt from the Congestion Charge. Why? Well it’s probably because it was a sop to the vociferous taxi lobby to prevent them objecting when the scheme was introduced, but it seems odd that they should have such an exemption. After all they contribute to congestion very substantially. Private cars are a now a small proportion of traffic in central London (roughly 18%). It’s all the HGVs, LGVs, taxis, PHVs, and buses that are the major contributors to congestion, and air pollution of course.

The Committee accepted that one of the contributions to traffic congestion was road space reduction in recent years. Lots of respondents complained about the impact of the Cycle Superhighways which has been one major cause.

In summary, this is a very disappointing report, with proposals to spend money on replacing the Congestion Charge with a new, larger system when it won’t reduce congestion. The unsatisfied demand is so huge that any road space will quickly fill up however the charge is structured.

You can read the Committees Report and all the responses here:

Note that one Committee member, David Kurten from UKIP, made a contrary statement to the Committee’s recommendations. He supported reform of the congestion charge system but not a wider road pricing scheme. He also opposed Work Place Parking Levies, and expressed concerns about the Cycle Superhighways. Comment: Very sensible reservations indeed.

If you want to read some of the comments submitted by various organisations to get some idea of how difficult it is to drive in London nowadays, try the one submitted by the “Driver-Guides Association” on page 84 – they mentioned the closure of Shorter Street for example which the ABD has also attacked; and the one submitted by the Professional Tourist Guides on page 159 – they quote an example of it taking 2 hours to drive from the National History Museum to St. Pauls (approx. 5 miles) – I can believe it and I doubt that is exceptional at all now the Embankment has been reduced to one lane.

Postscript: The GLA later published an Addendum to their report that indicated opposition from another Member. This is what it said: “Views of Steve O’Connell AM GLA Conservatives: would like to clarify his views on Recommendation 1 of report, London stalling: Reducing traffic congestion in London. Whilst Steve O’Connell is willing, in the interests of cross-party working, to see proposals brought forward for how road-pricing in London might work, he remains strongly opposed to the principle of road-pricing and would be almost certain to oppose any specific proposals.”. Why was this not published in the initial version of the report? We do not know

Roger Lawson

Mayor Calls for Congestion Charge on VW

London Mayor Sadiq Khan has asked that Volkswagen pay £2.5 million for “missed” congestion charge payments after the emissions rigging disclosures. He suggested that was the figure owners avoided paying by claiming a discount for a low emission vehicle when they were nothing of the sort. Vehicles affected are Audi A1 and A3, Skoda Fabia and Octavia, Seat Ibiza and Leon, and VE Golf and Polo cars.

Comment: the Mayor said “if you don’t ask you don’t get”, but of course there is no threat of legal action or formal claim. It looks like political posturing as the chance of making this stick legally is surely very low. It is the owners of the vehicles who claimed the discount on the basis of the information available to them and in good faith. Is the Mayor going to go back to them and ask for more money? I don’t think so. It is also arguable that the real life emissions of the vehicles concerned were indeed low and hence would have qualified anyway.

Roger Lawson

Traffic in the City of London, and Beech Street

The City of London Corporation has recently published a report entitled “Traffic in the City of London”. It acknowledges that “certain major infrastructure project such as Crossrail and the Cycle Superhighway” along with new building development have increased demand on the highway network. As a result traffic congestion in some parts of the City has increased.

Their solutions include “reducing the amount of traffic in the City to a level our community finds acceptable”, making representations for London wide policy change (e.g. changes to the Congestion Charge, which would include higher charges and wider geographic coverage) and reducing goods vehicle movements. They also propose to “actively discourage vehicle movements”.

In addition they suggest bridge tolls over all the Thames bridges using ANPR technology as on the Dartford Crossing to reduce traffic volumes and more active management by TfL of traffic signals to reduce traffic into the City.

Zero Emission Vehicles Only and Beech Street

They also suggest a ban of all vehicles in the City other than zero emission ones and have already firmed up proposals to do that for Beech Street, or close it completely to through traffic. Beech Street runs underneath the Barbican and is heavily used as a cross-city route.

The City Corporation’s report is well worth reading and is a good example of the anti road transport mentality that is now so prevalent.

Roger Lawson

Congestion Taxes Unpaid

Transport for London (TfL) have disclosed that in addition to running up bills of £500,000 in unpaid parking fines, which diplomats have avoided or delayed paying last year, they also have an outstanding amount of £96 million in unpaid “Congestion Charges”. That is a considerable amount which would make some difference to TfLs budget shortfall.

The new Mayor Sadiq Khan repeated the claim by his predecessor that this tax is actually a “service charge” which should be paid. But the embassies claim that as it is a tax, and as foreign embassies are exempt from taxes, they do not have to pay it.

There is a simple question to ask here. What service is being provided? In essence none so the embassies are correct to refuse payment. It was only rebranded a service charge to fool those who have been forced to pay it that this was not simply a money raising tax but something else. It is not.

So my advice to the embassies is: “don’t pay it”. And TfL should stop calling it a service charge and correctly label it what it is.

Roger Lawson