|
|
Post by TB123 on Feb 25, 2023 10:46:01 GMT
Now the ASA has received hundreds of complaints about Khan’ new ULEZ advert. Personally, I think his ‘every journey matters’ phrase is a blatant lie, as his ULEZ plan would see poorer people unable to make journeys. While I'm usually supportive of Labour, Khan seems to be going off on one completely. www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/council-ulez-expansion-free-town-centre-car-parking-harrow-b1062910.htmlPeople need to realise that cars are still very much the preferred mode of transport for people in outer London. A relatively poor Borough in Barking and Dagenham has a car parked outside almost every single house because of the terrible transport connections in the area. Barking is the only place you might see it slightly lower, but even then you often see cars outside every house that has a car parking spot for one. Why would anyone on the planet rely on an every 15 minute bus on a Sunday to do the weekly shop, when you can just carry a lot more in a car and go where you want when you want. In inner London it's a totally different story as you often have multiple bus routes running at far greater frequencies. The promise of various schemes is an empty promise completely. You need to put the improvements in first, not the other way around. I sincerely hope the ULEZ expansion gets blocked in the courts until improvements like this exist and are delivered in a timely manner. I'm in support of ULEZ on the principle of it but it's fair to say the current proposal has some shortcomings. And I blame central government for those mostly - TfL funding deals mandating revenue-raising schemes like ULEZ and unlike provincial cities (who've received £10s of millions for their ULEZ-equivalent CAZs) making not a penny available for mitigations, hence a small scrappage scheme, no help for affected Home Counties residents and very little in the way of extra bus mileage. I don't think the scheme should be scrapped because of these issues, I think government needs to pull their finger out and support London. Air pollution is costing the NHS too much and outer London is not immune to this. I also disagree with Conservative councils spending taxpayer money, in challenging economic times, on litigation for what is, quite clearly, political stunts against a Labour Mayor. Some Labour councils in East London have expressed concern with the scheme but have done so in a collegiate manner, how it should be. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Feb 25, 2023 12:14:14 GMT
It will probably come as no surprise to hear that I am against ULEZ expansion. On paper it seems great, but in reality, ineffective.
Let's look at maps of air pollution in London on a typical day. The most polluted areas are Heathrow, and inner London, areas already covered by the ULEZ, or contain aviation pollution. The fact inner London has higher pollution than outer London, shows the current ULEZ is severely ineffective or just not working. You then look at outer London other than Heathrow, and it is mainly a sea of the deepest blues, the best readings you can get. Central London is still the worst, outer London does not need ULEZ, it is currently better than Central London.
Government stats, depending on pollutant show on average 10-12% is attributable to motoring sources. This means, that even if the ULEZ results in a 20% emissions reduction (which the current one does not), you only get a 2% overall reduction in pollution. If the current levels of pollution are going to affect someone's health, it is unlikely the changes will bring them much benefit.
Most pollutants from motoring on average are about 5% of the level they were in 1990. So 1990 was 20 times as bad. Was it armagedden then? If not, why should it be now? If there are issues, the real cause is being covered up, probably because tackling would be difficult and even more unpopular. Tackling it seems to be beyond what the Mayor and the other government figures are willing to undertake at the present time.
So why scapegoat motorist? The answer is easy. Love them or loathe them, in the 90s the EU started a progressive series of regulations that have cleaned up the motoring industry considerably. Year on year, these regulations have caused motoring pollution to drop as older cars naturally are replaced. There already is a path to zero emissions (no mention of the 500 tonnes of ore that needs to be mined to create the batteries for one bus), so by 2040 motoring emissions will be negligible. This is without any other political interference. By introducing policies against motoring, politicians can take credit and say their policies are working. Nothing like backing a 100% certainty. Yes, pollution is being reduced, but this is not a result of UK or London policies ... it is a legacy of EU regulations.
The people that this policy hits hardest are the poorest. To me it is just another tax on the poor. And that is something I can not support. Can you?
As previously stated, by 2040 motoring air pollution will be virtually eliminated. When there are still air pollution issues then, what will they do? They don't have a plan, or at least one that has been made public.
Personally I am ashamed of the Mayor, the Government and the local councils to allow this ineffective greenwashing agenda be imposed of the UK public as a money making rouse! It is just another tax. We are becoming a high taxation nation, but not through traditional taxation channels.
|
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Feb 25, 2023 12:38:04 GMT
What's so terrible about having the District and Elizabeth lines? Yes there's bits in the middle like Becontree Heath that are near neither whilst places in the north like Marks Gate that aren't near the Elizabeth line but I think there are worse boroughs. Thamesmead doesn't have a train station, neither does significant parts of Hillingdon borough, like the Heathrow villages, Hayes End, Hillingdon Heath, Yeading. The north is slightly better but still Harefield has no trains and very few buses and no more than 6bph at any time. As for buses, I'm not too familiar with the area but in terms of trains I don't think B&D is that bad, especially as it gained a new station recently A lot of places in outer London don't have great connections, like parts of Ickenham, that only have the 90 minutes U10 that doesn't even run on Sunday. If it wasn't for the 278, Ickenham would be starved of cross borough links The new station has a service every 15 minutes, and it's actually in a position where if you've just missed a train that chances are you're quicker off taking the bus into Barking if you are north of it. Yes, it's these places in the middle that I'm talking about. What about places like Dagenham East where the tube frequency falls drastically as the H&C and half the Districts turn short at Barking? Where is the 103 meant to take you that's anywhere useful apart from Romford? What about all of Barking and Dagenham at night when there's only a handful of night routes. You've got just the N15 for most of it, with the N86 just about skirting the borough. The 238 and EL1 stay within Barking as far as the borough is concerned. The Upney area and Dagenham Heathway area have pretty much no night routes. Fair enough it's the same in Hillingdon, N9 only serves a fraction of the borough, so the N207 is the only decent link into central London by night. The north is very screwed with the withdrawal of the night service on the 114, and there should be a night bus between Uxbridge and Ruislip, but unfortunately bus cuts have taken place across London. Even Charville has a lousy 2bph route 7 days a week, Khan should invest more into areas where transport is poor but unfortunately I don't think this will happen. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Feb 25, 2023 12:42:01 GMT
It will probably come as no surprise to hear that I am against ULEZ expansion. On paper it seems great, but in reality, ineffective. Let's look at maps of air pollution in London on a typical day. The most polluted areas are Heathrow, and inner London, areas already covered by the ULEZ, or contain aviation pollution. The fact inner London has higher pollution than outer London, shows the current ULEZ is severely ineffective or just not working. You then look at outer London other than Heathrow, and it is mainly a sea of the deepest blues, the best readings you can get. Central London is still the worst, outer London does not need ULEZ, it is currently better than Central London. Government stats, depending on pollutant show on average 10-12% is attributable to motoring sources. This means, that even if the ULEZ results in a 20% emissions reduction (which the current one does not), you only get a 2% overall reduction in pollution. If the current levels of pollution are going to affect someone's health, it is unlikely the changes will bring them much benefit. Most pollutants from motoring on average are about 5% of the level they were in 1990. So 1990 was 20 times as bad. Was it armagedden then? If not, why should it be now? If there are issues, the real cause is being covered up, probably because tackling would be difficult and even more unpopular. Tackling it seems to be beyond what the Mayor and the other government figures are willing to undertake at the present time. So why scapegoat motorist? The answer is easy. Love them or loathe them, in the 90s the EU started a progressive series of regulations that have cleaned up the motoring industry considerably. Year on year, these regulations have caused motoring pollution to drop as older cars naturally are replaced. There already is a path to zero emissions (no mention of the 500 tonnes of ore that needs to be mined to create the batteries for one bus), so by 2040 motoring emissions will be negligible. This is without any other political interference. By introducing policies against motoring, politicians can take credit and say their policies are working. Nothing like backing a 100% certainty. Yes, pollution is being reduced, but this is not a result of UK or London policies ... it is a legacy of EU regulations. The people that this policy hits hardest are the poorest. To me it is just another tax on the poor. And that is something I can not support. Can you? As previously stated, by 2040 motoring air pollution will be virtually eliminated. When there are still air pollution issues then, what will they do? They don't have a plan, or at least one that has been made public. Personally I am ashamed of the Mayor, the Government and the local councils to allow this ineffective greenwashing agenda be imposed of the UK public as a money making rouse! It is just another tax. We are becoming a high taxation nation, but not through traditional taxation channels. I completely agree and it’s facts like these which could see the policy open to extreme criticism in court. But the reality is Khan doesn’t care because the the people protesting live in areas that either don’t vote for him or are not a target for flipping at elections. If we are heading towards an electric and cleaner fuel future what next. Accept the ULEZ and its road pricing next, which would affect everyone. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 25, 2023 13:05:33 GMT
It will probably come as no surprise to hear that I am against ULEZ expansion. On paper it seems great, but in reality, ineffective. Let's look at maps of air pollution in London on a typical day. The most polluted areas are Heathrow, and inner London, areas already covered by the ULEZ, or contain aviation pollution. The fact inner London has higher pollution than outer London, shows the current ULEZ is severely ineffective or just not working. You then look at outer London other than Heathrow, and it is mainly a sea of the deepest blues, the best readings you can get. Central London is still the worst, outer London does not need ULEZ, it is currently better than Central London. Government stats, depending on pollutant show on average 10-12% is attributable to motoring sources. This means, that even if the ULEZ results in a 20% emissions reduction (which the current one does not), you only get a 2% overall reduction in pollution. If the current levels of pollution are going to affect someone's health, it is unlikely the changes will bring them much benefit. Most pollutants from motoring on average are about 5% of the level they were in 1990. So 1990 was 20 times as bad. Was it armagedden then? If not, why should it be now? If there are issues, the real cause is being covered up, probably because tackling would be difficult and even more unpopular. Tackling it seems to be beyond what the Mayor and the other government figures are willing to undertake at the present time. So why scapegoat motorist? The answer is easy. Love them or loathe them, in the 90s the EU started a progressive series of regulations that have cleaned up the motoring industry considerably. Year on year, these regulations have caused motoring pollution to drop as older cars naturally are replaced. There already is a path to zero emissions (no mention of the 500 tonnes of ore that needs to be mined to create the batteries for one bus), so by 2040 motoring emissions will be negligible. This is without any other political interference. By introducing policies against motoring, politicians can take credit and say their policies are working. Nothing like backing a 100% certainty. Yes, pollution is being reduced, but this is not a result of UK or London policies ... it is a legacy of EU regulations. The people that this policy hits hardest are the poorest. To me it is just another tax on the poor. And that is something I can not support. Can you? As previously stated, by 2040 motoring air pollution will be virtually eliminated. When there are still air pollution issues then, what will they do? They don't have a plan, or at least one that has been made public. Personally I am ashamed of the Mayor, the Government and the local councils to allow this ineffective greenwashing agenda be imposed of the UK public as a money making rouse! It is just another tax. We are becoming a high taxation nation, but not through traditional taxation channels. I completely agree and it’s facts like these which could see the policy open to extreme criticism in court. But the reality is Khan doesn’t care because the the people protesting live in areas that either don’t vote for him or are not a target for flipping at elections. If we are heading towards an electric and cleaner fuel future what next. Accept the ULEZ and its road pricing next, which would affect everyone. So ignore congestion and implement pro car decisions whilst public transport continues to be bottom of the pile behind motorists and cyclists alike |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Feb 25, 2023 13:15:01 GMT
I completely agree and it’s facts like these which could see the policy open to extreme criticism in court. But the reality is Khan doesn’t care because the the people protesting live in areas that either don’t vote for him or are not a target for flipping at elections. If we are heading towards an electric and cleaner fuel future what next. Accept the ULEZ and its road pricing next, which would affect everyone. So ignore congestion and implement pro car decisions whilst public transport continues to be bottom of the pile behind motorists and cyclists alike Pollution is the Mayors driver for the ULEZ, not reducing congestion. If this was about tackling congestion, there would be a charge for everyone, a la the congestion charge. He and the councils implement policies to increase congestion, so is obviously not seen as a major issue. If everyone was to drive a compliant car, congestion would not be impacted by ULEZ, so is totally a irrelevant argument for this policy. Not saying congestion is not a problem, but ULEZ is not about tackling it. He even has an ineffective scrapage policy to incentivise you to replace your vehicles. You live within the current ULEZ, so is it congestion free now? **EDIT** How is this pro-car anything. The policy is anti-motoring. It will just add costs to anything that gets delivered, or force companies to reduce workforces/close. We can do without more things fueling inflation. When was last time any pro-car policy was implemented in London? Levels of pollution are worse in ULEZ areas than non-ULEZ areas (excluding aviation pollution). Why should we aspire to reach levels that are worse than we currently have? |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 25, 2023 14:40:53 GMT
So ignore congestion and implement pro car decisions whilst public transport continues to be bottom of the pile behind motorists and cyclists alike Pollution is the Mayors driver for the ULEZ, not reducing congestion. He and the councils implement policies to increase congestion, so is obviously not seen as a major issue. If everyone was to drive a compliant car, congestion would not be impacted by ULEZ, so is totally a irrelevant argument for this policy. Not saying congestion is not a problem, but ULEZ is not about tackling it. He even has an ineffective scrapage policy to incentivise you to replace your vehicles. You live within the current ULEZ, so is it congestion free now? **EDIT** How is this pro-car anything. The policy is anti-motoring ... Will just add costs to anything that gets delivered, or force companies to reduce workforces/close. We can do without more things fueling inflation. When was last time any pro-car policy was implemented in London? Levels of pollution are worse in ULEZ areas than non-ULEZ areas (excluding aviation pollution). Why should we aspire to reach levels that are worse than we currently have? Once again, you presume I’m talking about solely ULEZ - I’m talking about any scheme of this nature be it ULEZ or road pricing or something else which was mentioned in the final sentence of the post I quoted. The only reason why the ULEZ as it stands hasn’t led to lower congestion is because a decent to good transport policy hasn’t been implemented alongside due to a combination of mayoral and governmental incompetence. Your own solution, let’s be frank, is build more roads which is hilariously flawed as this will only attract more cars and do nothing for congestion as has been proved several times in the past. Maybe pro car is wrong choice of words but the way you talk is if your bottom of the pecking order. Us transport users get almost next to nothing. Levels are worse in Inner London because as studies have shown, more traffic is in Inner London than Outer presumably because of density and where people are going. A study in Lambeth showed the bulk of people who drive in the borough don’t actually live there which makes sense as Lambeth has one of the lowest car ownership rates in the UK, let alone London so whilst I get why you would be against it for some other reasons mentioned, to argue levels would increase in Outer London because of the scheme is scare mongering and interpreting information incorrectly |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Feb 25, 2023 15:12:01 GMT
Pollution is the Mayors driver for the ULEZ, not reducing congestion. He and the councils implement policies to increase congestion, so is obviously not seen as a major issue. If everyone was to drive a compliant car, congestion would not be impacted by ULEZ, so is totally a irrelevant argument for this policy. Not saying congestion is not a problem, but ULEZ is not about tackling it. He even has an ineffective scrapage policy to incentivise you to replace your vehicles. You live within the current ULEZ, so is it congestion free now? **EDIT** How is this pro-car anything. The policy is anti-motoring ... Will just add costs to anything that gets delivered, or force companies to reduce workforces/close. We can do without more things fueling inflation. When was last time any pro-car policy was implemented in London? Levels of pollution are worse in ULEZ areas than non-ULEZ areas (excluding aviation pollution). Why should we aspire to reach levels that are worse than we currently have? Once again, you presume I’m talking about solely ULEZ - I’m talking about any scheme of this nature be it ULEZ or road pricing or something else which was mentioned in the final sentence of the post I quoted. The only reason why the ULEZ as it stands hasn’t led to lower congestion is because a decent to good transport policy hasn’t been implemented alongside due to a combination of mayoral and governmental incompetence. Your own solution, let’s be frank, is build more roads which is hilariously flawed as this will only attract more cars and do nothing for congestion as has been proved several times in the past. Maybe pro car is wrong choice of words but the way you talk is if your bottom of the pecking order. Us transport users get almost next to nothing. Levels are worse in Inner London because as studies have shown, more traffic is in Inner London than Outer presumably because of density and where people are going. A study in Lambeth showed the bulk of people who drive in the borough don’t actually live there which makes sense as Lambeth has one of the lowest car ownership rates in the UK, let alone London so whilst I get why you would be against it for some other reasons mentioned, to argue levels would increase in Outer London because of the scheme is scare mongering and interpreting information incorrectly The ULEZ expansion is the title of this thread, so is the natural presumption to make unless it is clearly indicated otherwise Surely if we can get traffic flowing reducing congestion, this will benefit all road users including bus users, and benefit everyone by reducing pollution, however negligible, as well as giving people back time for other uses, which is probably a greater benefit. Noone wants to be stuck in traffic, even more so, artificially made traffic. So from your last paragraph, you seem to suggest the ULEZ has not got rid of congestion. Even if it was one of the stated aims, it has not worked, so seems to make your previous statement irrelevant. So we have proved ULEZ does not get rid of congestion, still has higher levels of pollution than non-ULEZ London, but we are still going to roll this scheme out to the rest of London. The pilot has failed, abolishing the ULEZ seems to have more logic than expansion. Reduce the unnecessary burden placed on Londoners. Additionally, outer London boroughs do not have the benefit of an expansive TfL public transport network ... when we reach parity, maybe inner London can dictate what happens in Outer London, but that is centuries away. Until then Outer London, is not inner London, and should not be treated the same. ULEZ is incompatible with outer London living ... you can decide if it is good or not for Inner London. If the mayor wants to introduce road pricing, why does he not come out and say it, instead of hiding behind a wall of LCC greenwashing lies. But this will open up a complete separate debate how motorists pay ... you pay for road pricing then the tax per mile on your fuel and road tax needs to go. So if it goes to London or National budgets is another debate. The London population has increased by about 1.7m (roughly 23% increase) in the past 20 years. How we should facilitate the infrastructure to ensure all of those additional people can travel as they are required to has been debated many time before, and something I don't intend repeating now. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Feb 26, 2023 4:48:34 GMT
I just had a thought could Sadiq use the ULEZ expansion as some sort of bargaining tool to help TfL get more funding?
|
|
|
|
Post by rugbyref on Feb 26, 2023 9:32:52 GMT
While I'm usually supportive of Labour, Khan seems to be going off on one completely. www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/council-ulez-expansion-free-town-centre-car-parking-harrow-b1062910.htmlPeople need to realise that cars are still very much the preferred mode of transport for people in outer London. A relatively poor Borough in Barking and Dagenham has a car parked outside almost every single house because of the terrible transport connections in the area. Barking is the only place you might see it slightly lower, but even then you often see cars outside every house that has a car parking spot for one. Why would anyone on the planet rely on an every 15 minute bus on a Sunday to do the weekly shop, when you can just carry a lot more in a car and go where you want when you want. In inner London it's a totally different story as you often have multiple bus routes running at far greater frequencies. The promise of various schemes is an empty promise completely. You need to put the improvements in first, not the other way around. I sincerely hope the ULEZ expansion gets blocked in the courts until improvements like this exist and are delivered in a timely manner. I'm in support of ULEZ on the principle of it but it's fair to say the current proposal has some shortcomings. And I blame central government for those mostly - TfL funding deals mandating revenue-raising schemes like ULEZ and unlike provincial cities (who've received £10s of millions for their ULEZ-equivalent CAZs) making not a penny available for mitigations, hence a small scrappage scheme, no help for affected Home Counties residents and very little in the way of extra bus mileage. I don't think the scheme should be scrapped because of these issues, I think government needs to pull their finger out and support London. Air pollution is costing the NHS too much and outer London is not immune to this. I also disagree with Conservative councils spending taxpayer money, in challenging economic times, on litigation for what is, quite clearly, political stunts against a Labour Mayor. Some Labour councils in East London have expressed concern with the scheme but have done so in a collegiate manner, how it should be. The 5 councils are spending money wisely to protect their constituents. You obviously fail to understand how deeply and widely this stunt by Khan is detested on both sides of the London borough borders. Consider the people in Halstead, Kent, who rely on post office, doctor, pharmacy and dentists in the Bromley / Orpington area. During the week there is 1 bph, on Sundays no service at all. Consider the thousands of workers in the health service and at Heathrrow who would be impacted, But WITH NO REPRESENTATION. for this tax! |
|
|
|
Post by rugbyref on Feb 26, 2023 17:19:09 GMT
If the Assembly will sell Khan’s car, I will offer to pay for his cycle clips.
|
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Feb 26, 2023 17:27:48 GMT
If the Assembly will sell Khan’s car, I will offer to pay for his cycle clips. And presumably his security/bodyguards. He is in the car as he has been advised by the security services to do so. There is a lot of hatred expressed towards Khan on this forum, mainly for screwing up the bus service. Usually that goes no further than calling for his resignation, or defeat at the ballot box. Take that hatred further along the spectrum, and there are those who believe that the mere fact that a Muslim man is the leader of a major Western city is sufficient reason to assassinate him. These threats are real and credible, and are taken very seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Feb 26, 2023 17:47:46 GMT
If the Assembly will sell Khan’s car, I will offer to pay for his cycle clips. And presumably his security/bodyguards. He is in the car as he has been advised by the security services to do so. Can't everyone else lock themselves in their car for their own personal security ... most of us are environmentally friendly enough, not to travel in a cavalcade ... what is good for the goose .... The Mayor is a big polluter, using his evidence, which he says is killing people. If that is the case, he has blood on his hands. |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Feb 26, 2023 18:05:22 GMT
And presumably his security/bodyguards. He is in the car as he has been advised by the security services to do so. Can't everyone else lock themselves in their car for their own personal security ... most of us are environmentally friendly enough, not to travel in a cavalcade ... what is good for the goose .... The Mayor is a big polluter, using his evidence, which he says is killing people. If that is the case, he has blood on his hands. Nice idea, if you have a car you can lock yourself into. However if there were daily threats on my life, I doubt locking myself into our elderly Citroen C3 would afford me much protection against a determined assassin. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Feb 26, 2023 18:07:46 GMT
If the Assembly will sell Khan’s car, I will offer to pay for his cycle clips. And presumably his security/bodyguards. He is in the car as he has been advised by the security services to do so. There is a lot of hatred expressed towards Khan on this forum, mainly for screwing up the bus service. Usually that goes no further than calling for his resignation, or defeat at the ballot box. Take that hatred further along the spectrum, and there are those who believe that the mere fact that a Muslim man is the leader of a major Western city is sufficient reason to assassinate him. These threats are real and credible, and are taken very seriously. Doesn’t change the fact that the man is a no nothing entirely out of his depth in a job far beyond his intelligence level. To put it simply he’s a moron and that has nothing to do with his religious choices. I couldn’t care less if we had a mayor who wanted to paint themselves blue and worship Jediism, they have to be competent at the job and Khan isn’t. He cares far more about his public image, as evidenced by his offices inflated PR budgets, than about Londoners. |
|
