Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2013 13:40:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Feb 16, 2013 13:54:21 GMT
I don't think there's anyone in London who wouldn't want cleaner air to breathe. I know I do. But as this idea stands at the moment, there are too many people who would lose out, and economically it's a problem. Boris needs to tell us a lot more about the plans, and he and the GLA need to talk a lot more with potentially affected parties.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2013 13:56:51 GMT
I don't think there's anyone in London who wouldn't want cleaner air to breathe. I know I do. But as this idea stands at the moment, there are too many people who would lose out, and economically it's a problem. Boris needs to tell us a lot more about the plans, and he and the GLA need to talk a lot more with potentially affected parties. The easy thing is to make all Central London serving routes to have Hybrid, Electric or Hydrogen buses. (Except for Heritage RM's) There are people who dont pay for the Congestion Charge and LEZ but does not pay the fine...
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Feb 16, 2013 14:27:20 GMT
So all the curry shops in brick lane will close then? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 16, 2013 14:31:06 GMT
There are far better things to worrying about than another ridiculous LEZ zone - during these times, the environment has to take back seat anyways, I mean we've still a financial mess to sort out!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2013 14:36:48 GMT
There are far better things to worrying about than another ridiculous LEZ zone - during these times, the environment has to take back seat anyways, I mean we've still a financial mess to sort out! I think the view that "the environment is not important" is a slippery slope and a bad route to take if you ask me. But then I'm obviously biased.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 16, 2013 16:03:27 GMT
There are far better things to worrying about than another ridiculous LEZ zone - during these times, the environment has to take back seat anyways, I mean we've still a financial mess to sort out! I think the view that "the environment is not important" is a slippery slope and a bad route to take if you ask me. But then I'm obviously biased. So am I but in the opposite direction ;D
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Feb 16, 2013 16:46:26 GMT
Bojo has to find cash for these 600 NB4Ls, and those fancy new black n white Tyvek blinds Sent from my GT-I9100 using proboards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2013 17:28:52 GMT
Bojo has to find cash for these 600 NB4Ls, and those fancy new black n white Tyvek blinds Sent from my GT-I9100 using proboards Don't forget finding cash to convert every Central London route to hybrids by 2020. (I personally welcome the decision, mainly because it means hybrids on the 171/172 and 25/205!)
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Feb 16, 2013 18:09:15 GMT
If city routes like the 133 is affected it could mean that TC may lose their night allocation on the N133 if this is also to be run with hybrids.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2013 18:33:17 GMT
If city routes like the 133 is affected it could mean that TC may lose their night allocation on the N133 if this is also to be run with hybrids. Imagine all routes in Central London will probably end up affected, possibly even those that only touch the edges of Central London like the 343 and 381. It does also raise the question about what would happen with single deck routes that serve Central London, even if they are few in number (46, 100 etc.). Allocations on night routes might end up being defined just by where has hybrids...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2013 18:35:12 GMT
If city routes like the 133 is affected it could mean that TC may lose their night allocation on the N133 if this is also to be run with hybrids. No because it is only proposed for "working hours"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2013 19:27:38 GMT
If city routes like the 133 is affected it could mean that TC may lose their night allocation on the N133 if this is also to be run with hybrids. No because it is only proposed for "working hours" Makes sense really, it's the time when the most vehicles are out. Night time air quality can't be too much of a problem. I wasn't aware that it was a limited time thing though, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 16, 2013 20:46:33 GMT
There are far better things to worrying about than another ridiculous LEZ zone - during these times, the environment has to take back seat anyways, I mean we've still a financial mess to sort out! So it is perfectly OK that we live under a permanent cloud of exhaust gases, that thousands of people die prematurely and, to quote Boris from the other day, have babies who do not have fully developed lungs because they are damaged by pollution? You only have to look at China and India to see what happens when business interests are allowed to overrule environmental considerations. There are alternatives to businesses using smelly vans and lorries and there is little need for cars to be choking large parts of the city. Many journeys in cities are perfectly feasible by walking, cycling or using public transport. London has a very good public transport network which is a good starting point. It can be improved further and much more electric transport would help in reducing the "at vehicle" pollution and I don't mean hybrid buses. Trams and trolleybuses are the answer but they would be very expensive to put back into London. I do not believe any politician likely to become Mayor would ever have the necessary commitment to make such a fundamental investment. Thankfully we do have some investment in walking and cycling. I don't buy all this "can't do it because of a recession" argument. If you believe the forecasts we are lumbered with next to no growth and higher than predicted inflation for years. Making investments in cleaner technology might just generate some economic activity and new jobs in new sectors. We have to bare the pain of adjusting to environmental costs and the sooner we start the better. Other countries are years ahead of us in making these adjustments.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2013 21:27:16 GMT
There are far better things to worrying about than another ridiculous LEZ zone - during these times, the environment has to take back seat anyways, I mean we've still a financial mess to sort out! So it is perfectly OK that we live under a permanent cloud of exhaust gases, that thousands of people die prematurely and, to quote Boris from the other day, have babies who do not have fully developed lungs because they are damaged by pollution? You only have to look at China and India to see what happens when business interests are allowed to overrule environmental considerations. There are alternatives to businesses using smelly vans and lorries and there is little need for cars to be choking large parts of the city. Many journeys in cities are perfectly feasible by walking, cycling or using public transport. London has a very good public transport network which is a good starting point. It can be improved further and much more electric transport would help in reducing the "at vehicle" pollution and I don't mean hybrid buses. Trams and trolleybuses are the answer but they would be very expensive to put back into London. I do not believe any politician likely to become Mayor would ever have the necessary commitment to make such a fundamental investment. Thankfully we do have some investment in walking and cycling. I don't buy all this "can't do it because of a recession" argument. If you believe the forecasts we are lumbered with next to no growth and higher than predicted inflation for years. Making investments in cleaner technology might just generate some economic activity and new jobs in new sectors. We have to bare the pain of adjusting to environmental costs and the sooner we start the better. Other countries are years ahead of us in making these adjustments. Completely agree. There's a variety of reasons why we should care for the environment, and very few why we shouldn't. The only reasons I can see against are "lack of money" and self-interest, and as far as I and everyone else are concerned, they're both irrelevant. Not only have we done huge amounts of damage to the environmental already in the form of various types of pollution, the pollutants are detrimental to our health (they manifest themselves in the form of asthma, heart problems and in some cases lung cancer - some of the worst cases in China have very high rates of lung cancer) and also they will eventually be detrimental to our economy. Problems with acid rain from our pollution can damage rivers, forests, and soils - we still have a significant employment sector in agriculture. It's never an irrelevant problem whether we want it to be one or not. Acid rain also ruins some types of stone building. It's also important to make the distinction between the local problem of air quality and national/global problem of global warming. The effect of such control measures on the latter will be a drop in the ocean. The latter are also where the effects are more indirect and where people come to think of such things as irrelevant ("who cares if the temperature rises by 1 degree" and such arguments). The former, air quality, can have direct impacts on health and that's why the EU are so interested in improving it. China is the epitomical case of air quality gone seriously wrong - San Fransicso and other US cities also suffer photochemical smog which can be so bad in the summer people don't leave their homes. There's more enough investment floating around to cover improvements to air quality. The Green Bus Fund and other such schemes dish out millions to cover things like hybrid buses. Projects in "green technology" can also provide hundreds of jobs in infrastructure creation, and with enough renewables in place energy bills will eventually drop. Norway produces so much energy through hydroelectric that bills have stayed low there. The short term pain will nearly always bring a long term gain - infrastructure projects and improvements to energy prices are two of the biggest drivers of economic growth. If hybrid technology can be developed to cover a wider variety of vehicles affordably then transport costs can be reduced and economic activity improved. Again, economic growth and long term gain.
|
|