London pollution & ULEZ

Chuk_Chuk said:
We should scrap perfectly working cars and contribute more to the waste problem . Doesn't seem very green to me. :D
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt most Euro 4 petrol and Euro 5 diesel cars being maintained on a shoestring as cheaply as possible are “perfectly working”.

I’d bet money most are scrapped in a few years anyway without all the bleating about how unfair ULEZ is, as they’ll invariably fail an MOT for one reason or another and be uneconomical to repair.
 
Last edited:
MichaelAwkward said:
Fly from a different airport then? Heathrow wasn’t designed just for you… jeez.

The point of ULEZ is to discourage the use of older more polluting vehicles in terms of certain particulates and speed up their replacement. It should apply across the entire country ideally, not just London, so that older vehicles are phased out quicker than they would’ve otherwise been.

I’m not sure why you’re sticking on the point about Heathrow. Every road contributes to lower air quality when older more polluting vehicles are still in use.
Click to expand...

My old 2004 Saab 9-5 is far more green than any brand new EV that needs to be built and shipped across half the world. We are talking a decade before I would break even on emissions. If we kept what we have right now it would be far more green but capitalism Yo.

I did the maths actually 100,000 KM in my Saab is 22 Tonnes of Co2. It takes around 21 tonnes of Co2 to make a large EV so for arguments sake lets call it the same. Average annual mileage 7400 miles/12000km a year. It would take the average motorist 8 and a half years before the EV would break even and that is taking into account its charging came 100% from renewables.

All what is happening is that you are scrapping perfectly working cars to be replaced by brand new ones. Whilst you can argue for marginal better air quality in London on a whole you are massively increasing emissions worldwide as a result of scrapping perfectly functioning cars and replacing them just to avoid a tax that was "introduced" to save the planet. Haha.
 
Last edited:
Lima said:
So it cost £60 a month for a Paris travel pass in the 90s, 23-33 years ago? I don’t get the relevance of this at all. Also london has by far one of if not the best public transport system in the world. Paris has nothing on it. Also thinking most journeys under 3 miles should be walked is bonkers, from a time and practicality perspective.

Most of the people being hurt by this are people in zones 3, 4, 5 and 6 where the solution is not just ‘walk’ or get a bus, these areas are sprawling and for a typical family a car is the only way to realistically get about.

The sooner khan is ousted the better.
Click to expand...
The point I'm making is that the first choice of transport in a city *should* be public transport (PT).

In order for that to happen PT needs to be cheap, reliable and pleasant to use.

PT needs to step up if a 3 mile journey in London is genuinely most easily made by car.

Policies banning/restricting stuff should only be implemented when there is a properly viable alternative in place.

Would your feelings about the expanded ULEZ be different if PT was massively better and the ULEZ charges were fed back into cycle lanes, shared car use schemes etc?

If not, what would it take for you to accept the ULEZ expansion?
 
MichaelAwkward said:
Fly from a different airport then? Heathrow wasn’t designed just for you… jeez.

The point of ULEZ is to discourage the use of older more polluting vehicles in terms of certain particulates and speed up their replacement. It should apply across the entire country ideally, not just London, so that older vehicles are phased out quicker than they would’ve otherwise been.

I’m not sure why you’re sticking on the point about Heathrow. Every road contributes to lower air quality when older more polluting vehicles are still in use.
Click to expand...

Because the places I go to, they don't operate from the airports near me... Jeez

My sticking point about Heathrow is because it is touching the M25, it also is an airport...which is a pollution hub, so if they are concerned about pollution within the M25, they should really move all airports out of the M25... Jeez.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
Because the places I go to, they don't operate from the airports near me. Jeez!

My sticking point about Heathrow is because it is touching the M25, it also is a airport...which is pollution, so if they are concerned about pollution within the M25, they should really all airports out of the M25. Jeez.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because moving Heathrow outside of the M25 is totally feasible and hasn’t had years of debate and millions spent in planning and consulting wasted on it already…

Heathrow is already subject to numerous restrictions compared to other airports and airlines have to pay additional taxes and levys to operate there.

It’s also about different types of pollution.
 
adam cool dude said:
My old 2004 Saab 9-5 is far more green than any brand new EV that needs to be built and shipped across half the world. We are talking decades before I would break even on emissions. If we kept what we have right now it would be far more green but capitalism Yo.
Click to expand...
Yeah but I suspect your car is maintained to a better standard than average. This forum isn’t really representative of the average motorist.

Most 8 year old diesels on the road will be approaching the point that their owners are just running them into the ground, likely with minimum tread on the tyres and hardly any brake pads left. There are reasons apart from ULEZ to get them off the roads sooner rather than later.
 
MichaelAwkward said:
Yeah, because moving Heathrow outside of the M25 is totally feasible and hasn’t had years of debate and millions spent in planning and consulting wasted on it already…

Heathrow is already subject to numerous restrictions compared to other airports and airlines have to pay additional taxes and levys to operate there.

It’s also about different types of pollution.
Click to expand...

You clearly not getting the sarcasm about moving entire airports! Jeez.
 
adam cool dude said:
My old 2004 Saab 9-5 is far more green than any brand new EV that needs to be built and shipped across half the world. We are talking a decade before I would break even on emissions. If we kept what we have right now it would be far more green but capitalism Yo.

I did the maths actually 100,000 KM in my Saab is 22 Tonnes of Co2. It takes around 21 tonnes of Co2 to make a large EV so for arguments sake lets call it the same. Average annual mileage 7400 miles/12000km a year. It would take the average motorist 8 and a half years before the EV would break even and that is taking into account its charging came 100% from renewables.

All what is happening is that you are scrapping perfectly working cars to be replaced by brand new ones. Whilst you can argue for marginal better air quality in London on a whole you are massively increasing emissions worldwide as a result or scrapping perfectly functioning cars and replacing them just to avoid a tax that was "introduced" to save the planet. Haha.
Click to expand...

ULEZ isn’t about carbon emissions…
 
MichaelAwkward said:
I don’t see it as a sarcastic suggestion - plenty of cities have done exactly that; Hong Kong, Osaka, Denver.

Boris Island wasn’t as far fetched as made out.

It just has no bearing on expanding the ULEZ zone.
Click to expand...

The reason Hong Kong and Osaka moved the airport was because of the size and expansion, they don't move because of policy changes for air pollution.

Different goal posts.
 
Last edited:
Hodders said:
The point I'm making is that the first choice of transport in a city *should* be public transport (PT).

In order for that to happen PT needs to be cheap, reliable and pleasant to use.

PT needs to step up if a 3 mile journey in London is genuinely most easily made by car.

Policies banning/restricting stuff should only be implemented when there is a properly viable alternative in place.

Would your feelings about the expanded ULEZ be different if PT was massively better and the ULEZ charges were fed back into cycle lanes, shared car use schemes etc?

If not, what would it take for you to accept the ULEZ expansion?
Click to expand...

Because buses and trains are limited to routes, the only true alternative to the car is a bike. Whether pedal powered or electric, hybrid, cargo or race the choice is yours.
I expect even a geriatric like me could race a car three miles in a city.
 
Hagar said:
Because buses and trains are limited to routes, the only true alternative to the car is a bike. Whether pedal powered or electric, hybrid, cargo or race the choice is yours.
I expect even a geriatric like me could race a car three miles in a city.
Click to expand...

Well no, the alternative to the car is to increase density along the public transport routes so you can walk/cycle to almost everywhere you need to in conjunction with using public transport options.

The UK has an obsession with every family needing its own private garden and driveway for some reason though.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
The reason Hong Kong and Osaka moved the airport was because of the size and expansion, they don't move because of policy changes for air pollution.

Different goal posts.
Click to expand...

...and Boris Island wasn't scrapped because of 'the environment' it was scrapped because the runway would be littered with large sea birds which ware rather hazardous to aircraft because someone built an airport in the middle of their usual habitat.

All the nonsense about Heathrow also ignores the literal elephant in the room - London City Airport

Just think how much affordable and non-affordable housing you could build on the site the size of London City airport, literally in the heart of London at the cost of an airport which is literally not needed and its passengers are typically short haul business day trippers and private jets.
 
MichaelAwkward said:
Fly from a different airport then? Heathrow wasn’t designed just for you… jeez.

The point of ULEZ is to discourage the use of older more polluting vehicles in terms of certain particulates and speed up their replacement. It should apply across the entire country ideally, not just London, so that older vehicles are phased out quicker than they would’ve otherwise been.

I’m not sure why you’re sticking on the point about Heathrow. Every road contributes to lower air quality when older more polluting vehicles are still in use.
Click to expand...
Give up bro. Checkmate. He got you
 
MichaelAwkward said:
Lolwut

He still hasn’t really explained why he’s confused about ULEZ expanding to include Heathrow. The pollution of the airport isn’t a factor in ULEZ expansion.
Click to expand...

The M25 is an arbitrary line, why is it drawn within the M25 anyway? Heathrow is included because it is inside the M25, that's the reason. The whole thing isn't about pollution, because if it is, they would need to move both airports outside of London. Heathrow is literally touching the M25, it could easily be something this.

sHVmVtV.png
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
The M25 is an arbitrary line, why is it drawn within the M25 anyway? Heathrow is included because it is inside the M25, that's the reason. The whole thing isn't about pollution, because if it is, they would need to move both airports outside of London. Heathrow is literally touching the M25, it could easily be something this.

sHVmVtV.png
Click to expand...

But why? There are lots of other sources of non-road vehicle pollution inside the M25, the ULEZ doesn't exclude any of them either. London City isn't excluded.

They're targeting different sources of pollution... I don't see what's so difficult to understand.

ULEZ isn't about plane emissions and it isn't about carbon emissions. Expanding to the M25 but excluding Heathrow would make no sense at all.

There are alternative ways to get to Heathrow if you happen to own a Euro 4 petrol or Euro 5 diesel vehicle. However I suspect if you're one of those people, you probably aren't jetting off that often... and probably not from Heathrow either. Everyone else is unaffected.

Even if ULEZ was about pollution from any source, planes would still be massively less polluting on a per capita basis than those older vehicles so would likely be excluded anyway.
 
Last edited:
MichaelAwkward said:
I seriously doubt most Euro 4 petrol and Euro 5 diesel cars being maintained on a shoestring as cheaply as possible are “perfectly working”.

I’d bet money most are scrapped in a few years anyway without all the bleating about how unfair ULEZ is, as they’ll invariably fail an MOT for one reason or another and be uneconomical to repair.
Click to expand...
Nonsense, there are still perfectly good 30 year old cars on the road pe4rfectly working.

Euro 4 and 5 are no different apart from the fact the government want them off the road.

Its political, to do with emissions which is fair enough but its nonsense to think they are not perfectly good and well maintained cars.

Of course there a many on their last legs but you cant tar them all with the same brush.

Euro 6 cars will get old soon enough and then those too will be targeted.

Its not all about the cars, its also an easy money making scheme because the government knows not everyone can upgrade their cars every two or three years, so they get free cash from drivers who need to buy second hand older cars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom