Views on the ULEZ expansion
The latest ULEZ expansion is controversial and opposed by many. Critics say it’s simply a cash-raising exercise that’s badly timed alongside the rising cost of living, and that it is unlikely to bring significant improvements in air quality.
According to RAC research, TFL has collected £93.6m in fees since the first expansion of the ULEZ to within the North Circular and South Circular roads, and the next widening is going to be much bigger, so it will make even more money for the London authority.
“While we support the principle of the ULEZ to improve air quality, we are concerned that its expansion is taking place when drivers are already struggling with high fuel costs,” said the RAC’S head of roads policy, Nicholas Lyes. “We therefore urge the Mayor of London to look at expanding the scrappage scheme to help more households and microbusinesses trade in an older vehicle for a compliant one. Alternatively, residents within the expanded zone should be granted a ‘sunset’ period until August 2024 to give them more time to upgrade to a compliant vehicle.”
Those reservations are echoed by the National Franchised Dealers Association (NFDA). Chief executive Sue Robinson said: “The Mayor is forcing the residents of London to make a decision before they are ready. During a period of unprecedented financial struggle and in the midst of a cost of living crisis, families of low income might not be ready to make a transition to a newer vehicle, even with the scrappage scheme.”
Furthermore, many of the local authorities affected by the expansion do not believe their transport systems or residents are ready for the imminent change, and some are vehemently opposed to the introduction of the ULEZ within their boundaries.
Some boroughs have refused to sign a legal document allowing TFL to install some of the 2750 additional enforcement cameras that are needed for the new zone on their roads. However, TFL says it will install around 1800 (two-thirds) of the cameras on traffic lights, and this doesn’t require consent from the local authorities.
As we went to press, eight outer London boroughs – Bromley, Bexley, Croydon, Harrow, Havering, Hillingdon, Kingston and Sutton – were considering what legal action they could take against the expansion.
In a statement, Mayor of Croydon Jason Perry said: “For many Croydonians, their car is the only reliable option to get around, given the reduced public transport options compared with inner London. Punishing those who cannot afford to buy a more modern vehicle is deeply unfair and out of touch at a time when the cost of living is increasing.”
Sutton councillor Bobby Dean said: “We will continue the fight to make residents heard and demand a delay [to implementation] and more funds to help people change their vehicles, as well as investment in public transport in our borough.”
The question of alternatives to car ownership resonates nationwide. Toby Poston, director of corporate affairs for the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association, said tackling congestion and improving air quality “requires careful consideration of the provision of public transport, while ensuring that active travel solutions, such as walking or cycling, are safe and practical.
“The role of local authorities is not just to encourage people to use sustainable transport options, but to actively incentivise them,” he added. “People need to see how shared and public transport solutions provide a workable alternative.”
The looming battle over the ULEZ expansion