ULEZ here we come

Kaitlin Dryburgh

This Saturday Ultra-Low Emission Zones (ULEZs) will be rolled out through-out all major cities in Scotland. Aberdeen, Dundee and Edinburgh will be following in the footsteps of Glasgow to introduce the zones in their city centres.

All diesel vehicles eight years or older and any petrol vehicles from 2006 or older will be subjected to a £60 day fine (large vehicles will be subjected to higher rates), which doubles in a case of repeat offenders.  

The introduction to ULEZs in the UK has been slightly marred, with London making the biggest song and dance about there establishment. There were reports of groups within communities organising to vandalise cameras, while others wanted to turn up with pitchforks at the mayor’s office. Glasgow’s launch was less controversial, but it wasn’t smooth sailing. There has been more than one legal push-back aimed at the scheme.

The biggest push-back came from business owners and business leaders who claim the scheme will negatively impact on footfall and finances, owing to the fact that many businesses have had to invest in updated vehicles to they comply with the scheme. Stuart Patrick CEO of Glasgow’s Chamber of Commerce boldly stated his detest for the scheme, blaming it for a decline in footfall in the city centre, and went so far as to suggest the restrictions should be lifted overnight.

But when forgetting the routine tittle tattle and looking at ULEZ in the bigger picture we should be asking ourselves HOW is this supposed to work? Obviously the aim of the zones is to reduce high air pollution in cities and further afield, a lifesaving endeavour. But it seems we’ve ignored some vital aspects for this to be a thoroughly robust policy.

First off, there’s no denying it a policy such as this will undoubtedly be more costly to the poorest. Who has the funds to buy a newer model car and upgrade to comply with regulations? Politicians have been quick to point out that there’s no need to purchase a shiny new car and second hand will do just fine, but for some that is simply not a possibility. A landscaper working in London found his business in jeopardy as he was unable to update his small fleet of vehicles, resulting in a potential profit loss. In London it is estimated that three of the four poorest boroughs were likely to pay the highest percentage of fines. Critics have hailed it another tax for the poor. Adaptability is not an option afforded to those living in the poorest areas. Personally, my car is compliant but if I did require a new car right now that would be a bit of a squeeze economically.

However, I’m at an advantage I live in a fairly central area of Edinburgh. Which means I can take advantage of a great public transport system, it may not be perfect but I will debate anyone who tells me there’s a better one in Scotland.

The folks in Aberdeen however don’t have that same luxury. Slow, expensive, and lacking investment. If I wanted to- for example -take a return bus journey from the outskirts of Aberdeen to the city centre it’ll cost £9 and take twice as long as a car. The probabilities of the bus not turning up are also high. A month’s ticket is the best part of £100 only valid on this one route, Edinburgh is £66 for all routes.

So for the likes of Aberdeen is it truly fair to slap them with a ULEZ but turn a blind eye to profit pillaging of their public transport system? You’re asking people to make the better choice and take accountability, well whose taking accountability for the extortionate prices, lack of safe travel at night and lousy options through-out many parts of Scotland?

Then we have the trains. The trains are a joke. Probably one of the most expensive jokes you’ll ever take. I needn’t say much on this subject I’m sure we’re all aware of the situation at present. We’ve now made our city centres less accessible by car, but we’ve forgotten to make them more accessible via public transport.

So it’s not a surprise that ULEZ fines are higher in the most deprived areas.

But there’s a flip side to this. The areas which will see the biggest improvement to their air quality and subsequently their health are the most deprived areas. We have thousands dying prematurely due to air pollution and something needs to be done about it. London’s scheme is thought to reduce air pollution inequalities by 72% by 2030.

Air pollution doesn’t necessarily always hit the poorest areas, it goes on a case-by-case bases, but it always creates further inequalities with health. The wealthier areas have better health outcomes, air pollution or not, they have more resources to combat the effects of air pollution, the poorer areas don’t. This is the problem.

Comparably Scotland has fairly good air quality, especially on a worldwide scale. Yet, we know that Scotland already has 2500-3500 people dying prematurely because of poor air quality. Dundee University found that on days that the air quality lowered hospitals had higher admissions for children with chest infections or acute side-effects of asthma. Children are especially more vulnerable to air pollution.

In Scotland 7% of the population receives treatment for asthma, the most wide-spread respiratory condition, throwing air pollution into the mix can be deadly. A Study by Stirling University looked into the effects of air pollution on those living with asthma, and it painted a fairly repressive way of life. Closing windows when the air quality drops, avoiding outside, and even being advised to move house to improve health, which for some isn’t an option.

Improving our air quality should quite rightly be a priority but let’s think about the bigger picture and make the alternative to cars more accessible. We want to stop cars coming into cities, good, but improve the trains. We’re pushing for more electric cars, okay but where’s the strategy to improve charging infrastructure. It's got to be a comprehensive approach that rewards good behaviour not punish if you don't have the means to comply.

Overall this is a positive move and it seems that public opinion is viewing it more optimistically but we’re just lacking that full-bodied strategy. There’s a missing puzzle piece to this and it starts with better public transport for all.