Talk:Ultra Low Emission Zone

Transport Low‑importance

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Exemptions

I understand if the vehicle entering the ULEZ has a ‘disabled’ or ‘disabled passenger vehicle’ tax class they will be exempt. There are other exemptions listed in the link below.

Perhaps a section on those vehicles which are exempt from the charge should go under the charges section?

https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/discounts-and-exemptions#on-this-page-1

10:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)10:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robata (talk • contribs)

I've just added this to the charges section as you suggested. Bellowhead678 (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Current charging scheme

1) What is the significance of the difference between:

vehicles pre-[year]

and pre-[year] vehicles

If none, can the difference be removed?

2) Taking this as an example: "Petrol cars and vans that do not meet Euro 4 standards (vehicles pre-2006)"

The meaning of 'vehicles pre-2006' is not clear in the context. Are we to take it that no pre-2006 vehicles meet the Euro 4 standards? Or that the Euro 4 standards only apply to pre-2006 vehicles, or what?

Can this please be reworded unambiguously?

The Euro 4 standards came into force in 2006 - as far as I know most vehicles built before that date meet the standards. Happy to reword as per any suggestions as I can't think of a better way to put it myself. Bellowhead678 (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the Map ?

Please would someone add a link to an official map of the Ultra Low Emission Zone area ? Darkman101 (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Title of article

A better title would be "London Ultra Low Emission Zone". As with "London low emission zone". S C Cheese (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

afaik London is the only ULEZ, and adding it would be unnecessary disambiguation; there are multiple LEZs, but only one ULEZ. 213.105.99.162 (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of "emissions"

As a layman, I would read "emissions" to mean either carbon dioxide or *all* emissions unless specified otherwise.

It's unclear here whether the emissions being referred to are carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, something else, or a combination.

This is important, because it defines what the benefit of the ULEZ is. EditorPerson53 (talk) 07:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Tfl"

The first appearance of Tfl in the article is not explained. What is Tfl? GBC (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transport for London, now explained in the article. Thanks for flagging it. the wub "?!" 00:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounciation

How is "ULEZ" pronounced? --95.24.69.191 (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Balance

The introduction statement "The zone has been shown to reduce the number of polluting cars on the road and reduced roadside emissions" is as summary of the body text. The Imperial study says air pollution has been reduced, but by less than TfL show. That is reflected in the body text. MRSC (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, User:A82937 I meant to link to this discussion in the edit summary. Hope you can contribute to the conversation here. MRSC (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Imperial study found the effect was 'marginal,' according to the reports author [1]. Your wording misrepresents this.

The original opening paragraph included evidence from both sides. You have removed evidence to the contrary, which means the text pushes a single viewpoint. This edit restores the original balance. A82937 (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming over. Just a side note first, references should not be cited in the introduction, but should be in the main body. All text in the introduction should summarise what is in the body of the article.

Second side note, we should stick to statements of fact in the article and avoid weasel wording like "reportedly". Now that's out of the way, the substantive part...

The first claim in the introduction is "The zone has been shown to reduce the number of polluting cars on the road". This is backed up in the article and the sources cited. Is this disputed?

The second claim concerns the effectiveness of the zone in reducing air pollution. Both the TfL figure and the Imperial study show a reduction in air pollution. The Imperial study says that the reduction is less than the TfL figures. This supports the introduction wording The zone has ... reduced roadside emissions. i.e. All studies cited in the article show a reduction in air pollution. The body text says A study from Imperial College London found the ULEZ caused smaller reductions in air pollution emissions than had been reported. That seems a fair summary, but there might be better wording?

Again, thanks for engaging here. MRSC (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The first claim in the introduction is not disputed to my knowledge.

The text on the second claim is not a fair summary, as the Imperial study finds that the reduction is less than the TfL figures to the point that the report author considers the change 'marginal' and that it reflects badly on the effectiveness of ULEZ as a policy instrument.

Perhaps as a compromise wording:

"The zone has been shown to reduce the number of polluting cars on the road and reduced roadside emissions, although the extent of this is disputed." A82937 (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's split into two sentences, to make clear the first part isn't disputed and bring in the word 'effectiveness' as that is key: "The zone has been shown to reduce the number of polluting cars on the road. It has been shown to reduced roadside emissions, although its effectiveness has been disputed." Think that reflects wording of third party sources better. MRSC (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that works A82937 (talk) 08:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As of October 3, 2023, the section "effects on air pollution" still seems a little unbalanced, in that it stresses only the negative findings of the Imperial College report. For a more balanced view, I would suggested adding their conclusion "the ULEZ is one of many policies implemented to tackle air pollution in London, and in combination these have led to improvements in air quality that are clearly observable." BobBadg (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from the above, it seems that there are more recent studies that do show significant effects of ULEZ on air pollution, which should be reported here. https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/the-truth-about-londons-ultra-low-emission-zone/ BobBadg (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added this quote, from the Imperial report, but it has been removed. Any reasons, comments? Or shall I put it back in> BobBadg (talk) 06:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New symbol

SVG file File:UK traffic sign TA5054.F.svg (pictured right) is ready for use when the expanded zone comes into effect on Tuesday. --Minoa (talk) 08:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vigilante vandalism

This section needs better sources or rewriting. TalkTV, LBC and the Daily Mail are not reliable sources. MRSC (talk) 11:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Telegraph rather than the Mail, and the TalkTV interview is being quoted by the Telegraph, which seems okay. I've swapped out the LBC source for the same story in the Independent. Belbury (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 30 August 2023 Telegraph piece cites the Daily Mail and TalkTV as sources for the story. MRSC (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you what you mean. Belbury (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Air pollution equivalent to that emitted by London's airports

This comes from the Guardian article https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/28/london-ulez-averts-more-air-pollution-than-that-caused-by-capitals-airports-report-shows. The title of this article is sensationalised and should by itself not be used. Reading further into the article we can see this comparison only holds for Nitrogen Oxides (NO_x) emissions.

For PM_2.5 this comparison does not hold. Furthermore, there is no mention of CO₂ in this article at all, which is the main pollutant (by mass) in both cars and airplanes. Jacque6306 (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]