These policies are the answer (and I’d go further - putting heavier sales taxes on new petrol and diesel cars)
Not a crude shuffling around of polluting vehicles from a lucky area to an unlucky area.
I didn’t read anyone dismissing the ULEZ but rather they are saying this isn’t going far enough? However I agree that there were a few strange comments and that I couldn’t follow this thread very easily (I also did not understand how it all became hostile quite quite suddenly).
Also, I think the NIMBY claim is very unfair. We aren’t saying it’s OK for East Dulwich to have pollution because we don’t want it in Forest Hill, we are saying that one area should not experience an increase in pollution as a result of a policy to reduce pollution in other areas. Maybe this concern is wrong and there is some analysis that shows this to be the case, but surely this concern is valid and it’s not NIMBYist?
3 Likes
Absolutely agree. I live outside what will be the zone and confidently expect pollution and congestion on my side of the tracks to go up considerably when this happens. I mean, great for those inside the zone, but for those of us on the border this could be a bit of a nightmare so I agree it would be good to know what plans are in place to make sure pollution isn’t just displaced.
3 Likes
The ULEZ in its current scope has already contributed to a significant reduction of air pollution in Lewisham. Once extended, it is likely to continue improving air quality outside the zone, as @PV notes, drivers of high polluting vehicles will likely make fewer journeys altogether.
ULEZ expansion is predicted to lead to a significant reduction in air pollution by up to 26 per cent even outside of the zone.
I think on PV’s NIMBYism comment, I think it relates to rejecting a policy that will bring a huge benefit to millions living in inner London because of the impact it’ll have in your ‘back yard’ and that, it can be argued, is quite ‘NIMBY’. Like, everyone wants new housing, just not if they think it will negatively affect them etc.
Our Cabinet Member for Environment is having a briefing with TFL on the ULEZ extension in mid-January and I’ll be speaking to Cllr McGeevor after that about potential pollution-mitigation measures along the SC corridor. I shall report back.
I’m broadly in favour of the ULEZ. I live just inside (so perhaps biased) not too far from the South Circular on Brockley Rise, and my children go to Dalmain which is also on Brockley Rise. I’m hopeful it’s introduction will reduce pollution at the school and on this busy road in general.
I can understand the concerns of those on the border of the South Circular. My completely non-scientific gut feeling is pollution won’t get worse. I know people who have either changed their cars to get more efficient less polluting ones, have given up cars completely etc and suspect many people across the inner zone have done this, so would hope this would provide a not insignificant reduction in the more polluting cars travelling through both areas. If you live in the proposed ULEZ, you would think an increasing percentage of people looking for a new car will look for more efficient cars or consider not getting one, which again should help longterm pollution wise.
So will cars who would ‘cut through’ the ULEZ now stay outside and go around the South Circular to get to their destinations. Some will, but you’d think some journeys will not be viable on that basis, so people will either go through the ULEZ and pay the charge, or use a different form of transport. So I’d think there might be less journeys to counter more journeys made on the South Circular.
Additionally all these schemes make people think more about their car use and how much they need to actually use their cars - I’d expect a general reduction also on this basis.
I’d be concerned about parking just outside the ULEZ on residential streets, as I suspect if your car is not compliant you might consider parking your car outside the zone if your normal commute is outside of the ULEZ.
My ultimate hope is this is shown to reduce reduction in the zone is that it is then expanded again further out so all can fully benefit.
There are not doubt many negatives, especially for people in the current climate who will incur extra costs either as individuals or traders who need to use their cars \ transport regularly and that is an uncomfortable aspect for me.
From the pollution reduction point however, I hope in a due course we see a reduction both in and around the ULEZ.
4 Likes
Good post, and I’d wondered about this myself:
But then I think, it’s only a small subset of vehicles this applies to (4 in 5 cars already free to drive in ulez) and would insurance cover your car being parked streets away every night? Possibly not, or possibly with a higher premium for the privilege. I suspect the total impact of this will be low but I wonder if there was anything measured around the borders of the original ULEZ or CC zone…
1 Like
This is a disappointing response from Lewisham Council. It is a shame to feel that a local government representative is dismissing a resident’s legitimate query about policy making as mere nimbyism.
I never said I disagreed with the ULEZ. I simply wanted to know what consideration had been given to ensuring that the problem wasn’t just getting pushed onto a different group of people. I don’t think that’s unreasonable. In fact I think it should have been part of the policy consideration for the decision and therefore there should be no difficulty in answering the question.
Perhaps you are able to provide us with the assessments that were done. That way it may be easier for those of us who have raised concerns about the impact on the areas immediately outside the zone to understand how the impact on us has been reflected in the decision.
3 Likes
Councillors are laypeople and broad generalists, mostly juggling a full-time job with council duties. There seem to be expectations on here that we should have at hand a grasp of granular detail on a huge variety of subjects, usually on the data/assessments behind X, Y, Z officer-led decisions as varied as scheduled pavement works, resurfacing works, school street prioritisation, CPZ consultation prioritisation, yellow line placement, healthy neighbourhood prioritisation. Currently, it’s for full-grasp of TFL’s impact assessments on the ULEZ and its possible expansion models.
Sorry to disappoint but as I’m not an expert - I just knew the ULEZ had already contributed to a significant reduction of air pollution in Lewisham and that the ULEZ extension was likely to improve air quality inside the zone and outside the zone. While I did not know its anticipated impact specifically on the SC/NC corridor, I felt based on my prior knowledge and accepting that while it may, or may not, have a negative impact on air quality along the south circular, it was likely to bring a large net-benefit for Londoners and therefore I supported it. I dd not think that would be so controversial.
Finally, my NIMBYism comment wasn’t directed at you but rather it was attempting to clarify @PV’s comments for @CC who asked about it.
1 Like
I see that her mother’s “It’s environmental racism” comment was one of the Quotes of the Year in Private Eye’s Rotten Borough Awards.
3 Likes
So it does. Well spotted John.
1 Like
All I want is reassurance that the impact assessment for this policy took account of the impact on those of us immediately adjacent to the zone, even if the outcome of the policy decision was still the same. You maintain that you can not be expected to know. That is fair enough, as you point out you are not an expert.
Nonetheless you have criticised those of us who have concerns and said that we are showing nimbyism. Whether you think you meant me or not, you did say these comments in a reply to me, and your post suggests that anyone who has any kind of concern is a nimby and I have concerns about being on the immediate outside of the zone so by your reckoning it would appear that this makes me a nimby.
In fact I have no objections to the zone itself. Far from not wanting it in my backyard, I would really rather my backyard were actually in it. As it is, I shall get limited benefit from it and may suffer a negative impact. I just wish I felt that there had been any consideration given to that or recognition that it may cause a problem for some, even if the overall benefit outweighed that.
2 Likes
I assume ‘her mother’ is Rosamund Kissi-Debrah .
I’m afraid I haven’t regularly read ‘Private Eye’ since 1965. What message is it trying to give us when it includes what she said (and she did, I’ve checked) in the Rotten Borough Awards ‘quotes of the year’? Is it intended satirically? If so, what is being satirised?
Here is the impact assessment that was carried out and if it found a clear likely negative impact on the areas outside the zone, I think it would have noted it. I doubt the ULEZ extension will have a negative impact on Forest Hill and the area is likely to see benefit from it and a substantial benefit from the toughening of the Greater London LEZ.
Here is the consultation response to the ULEZ extension. In my experience, sizable policies are rarely carried out on a whim.
Nobody is a NIMBY here if they want the ULEZ extension, but a NIMBY might oppose the ULEZ extension because (they think) it might negatively affect them (even if they accept the wider benefit). I hope you catch my drift.
Robin, the full text in PE is " “It’s environmental racism” - Clean air campaigner Rosamund Kissi-Debrah whose asthmatic daughter Ella’s death in 2013 was caused in part by air pollution, attacks a Lewisham council “low traffic neighbourhood” because she believes it diverts traffic away from wealthier, whiter neighbourhoods into poorer, blacker ones."
So, no satire that I can see, unless you are satirically criticising a satirical magazine for their lack of satire!
2 Likes
So Private Eye now aspires to be a journal of record rather than a ‘fortnightly lampoon’ , and published the story just to make sure that we were all fully informed about what an important public figure had said on a topic of wide national interest? Pull the other one.
Well, that’s the full published text accompanying the award so I guess we must all make up our own minds as to what their aspirations might be.
1 Like
Hm.
I think this is why local governance - especially in a huge complex city-state like London - isn’t working. Things did work better in London before Thatcher’s dismantling of the GLC, and all the defunding of services since then. But it is remarkable that neither of the big parties is offering any major reform or reorganisation proposals. Dysfunctional and unresponsive business as usual seems to be the only offer: it’s as though the problems have become too big to deal with, so we’re left solely with reactive firefighting.
You should buy a copy one day Robin. It’s only 2 quid. You will find that it carries a lot of serious investigative journalism of a far higher standard than one finds in what passes for broadsheet journalism these days. You might be pleasantly surprised. When placed in their context it is possible that you may find yourself better able to judge for yourself the snippets you may pick up here and there.
1 Like
Thank you Leo.
I could only find refence to the Economic and Business Impact Assessment; and nothing to do with any projections or modelling to give any indication of what the pollution levels might be through the South Circular Road corridor and adjacent roads when the ULEZ gets into full swing.
That’s a fair assumption, however, in its absence, I’m happy to wait until confirmation of that comes through from your colleague in the council.
1 Like