London pollution & ULEZ

MichaelAwkward · 30 Jul 2023 at 14:47

Richie said:
You bring up size but your numbers are incorrect. Let me show you.

Area size of Ghent - 156km²
Population of Ghent - 264,000
Density - 0.59m²/person

Area size of Cambridge - 41km²
Population of Cambridge - 146,000
Density - 0.28m²/person

So Cambridge has circa double the population density than Ghent. More people = more traffic = more parking issues

I'm not saying you're incorrect but what you what state isn't the ONLY reason. Part of the reason is ALSO population density as to why you say there was no traffic of parking issues when you went there.

Why you can't just concede that and want to argue that it doesn't is beyond me

Bit unfair to compare the municpality area of Ghent which includes several towns and suburbs, with just Cambridge city.

Richie · 30 Jul 2023 at 14:55

MichaelAwkward said:
Bit unfair to compare the municpality area of Ghent which includes several towns and suburbs, with just Cambridge city.

Happy to have my figures corrected. They came from Google so all I had to go on.

If you have different values, be my guest

bigmike20vt · 30 Jul 2023 at 14:58

Peter75 said:
No-one is forcing Khan/Labour to implement these changes. He/They have the power to stop this but they won't and people like yourself have the perfect excuse if anyone questions it. You blame the person beforehand who implemented these initiatives who as you well know is no longer in a position to walk it back. However, Khan is the current mayor of London with all the power that the position holds. No amount of finger pointing towards the former mayor will change that.

you can blame khan, I can blame him...... but the Tories can't imo, well not without looking complete and utter hypocrites anyway . but that aside whilst there may be issues with the current implementation I do support getting the worst cars off the road in principle. (even tho I had to pay ULEZ charge last time I went in the zone)

Peter75 · 30 Jul 2023 at 15:02

bigmike20vt said:
you can blame khan, I can blame him...... but the Tories can't imo, well not without looking complete and utter hypocrites anyway . but that aside whilst there may be issues with the current implementation I do support getting the worst cars off the road in principle. (even tho I had to pay ULEZ charge last time I went in the zone)

As do I mate but not at the expense of the poorest people in the country already struggling.

MichaelAwkward · 30 Jul 2023 at 15:09

Richie said:
Happy to have my figures corrected. They came from Google so all I had to go on.

If you have different values, be my guest

It's really up to you to check that you're comparing apples and apples before posting assertions like that.

At the county/arrondissement level:

Ghent
Population: 553,961
Area: 946.62 sq km
Density: 590/km2

Cambridgeshire
Population: 653,537
Area: 3046 sq km
Density: 215/km2

So, in actual fact, the complete opposite to what you posted.

I can't find the measurements for just Ghent city proper, but at least the above is consistent as the organisational levels are the same.

b0rn2sk8 · 30 Jul 2023 at 15:10

MichaelAwkward said:
Bit unfair to compare the municpality area of Ghent which includes several towns and suburbs, with just Cambridge city.

I was just going to say, there is no way the actual urban area of Gent is 156km2.

Richie said:
Happy to have my figures corrected. They came from Google so all I had to go on.

If you have different values, be my guest

Google is getting its number from its own mapping service:

Ghent · Belgium

Belgium

www.google.com

If you look at the area google is pulling from it includes a huge amount of farm land and outlying villages and the massive port area which surrounds the canal and stretches half way to the north sea as officially within the city limits of Ghent. While those areas may well fall under the administrative remit of the local government of Ghent, its not really a like for like comparison of population density of the actual city.

The Cambridge area just covers the city of Cambridge and its attached suburbs.

Cambridge

www.google.com

FoxEye · 30 Jul 2023 at 15:12

Peter75 said:
As do I mate but not at the expense of the poorest people in the country already struggling.

Don't use the poor as a shield. I'm sure plenty of poor people would rather have clean air/pedestrianisation.

Plenty of poor people don't even own cars.

If people really gave a damn about the poor, they'd fix social housing, public transport, free school meals, and a host of other things. Tories don't give two **** about the poor and neither do their voters.

b0rn2sk8 · 30 Jul 2023 at 15:14

FoxEye said:
Don't use the poor as a shield. I'm sure plenty of poor people would rather have clean air/pedestrianisation.

Plenty of poor people don't even own cars.

If people really gave a damn about the poor, they'd fix social housing, public transport, free school meals, and a host of other things. Tories don't give two **** about the poor and neither do their voters.

This basically.

Trifid · 30 Jul 2023 at 15:18

FoxEye said:
Don't use the poor as a shield. I'm sure plenty of poor people would rather have clean air/pedestrianisation.

Plenty of poor people don't even own cars.

If people really gave a damn about the poor, they'd fix social housing, public transport, free school meals, and a host of other things. Tories don't give two **** about the poor and neither do their voters.

100%. There is nothing stopping Rishi from stopping ULEZ zones if he wanted to. It is more conveniant to get Sadiq to implement them and then pretend to be the party of the people.

fez · 30 Jul 2023 at 15:27

Rishi will 100% be coming after ULEZ, just as he is coming after LTNs. They are massively popular lightning rods for a certain demographic in society who are very easy to get to vote against their own interests if you press the right buttons.

Perhaps he will also go after cyclists as well for the full trifecta.

Richie · 30 Jul 2023 at 15:33

MichaelAwkward said:
It's really up to you to check that you're comparing apples and apples before posting assertions like that.

At the county/arrondissement level:

Ghent
Population: 553,961
Area: 946.62 sq km
Density: 590/km2

Cambridgeshire
Population: 653,537
Area: 3046 sq km
Density: 215/km2

So, in actual fact, the complete opposite to what you posted.

I can't find the measurements for just Ghent city proper, but at least the above is consistent as the organisational levels are the same.

Sure, but @b0rn2sk8 was comparing the city centres and your comparisons takes into account the whole of Cambridgeshire so as equally bad in the confines of the argument.

When I posted the figures, I wasn't aware Ghent was an "area" and wrongly understood it to be a city the same as I understood Cambridge to be a city.

I mean, we could extend it to the whole of Belgium Vs the whole of the UK if we want to get silly.

Edit - I thought I had found a report but it's a similar area it's talking about

Peter75 · 30 Jul 2023 at 15:37

FoxEye said:
If people really gave a damn about the poor, they'd fix social housing, public transport, free school meals, and a host of other things. Tories don't give two **** about the poor and neither do their voters.

And Labour do? You're as deluded as the rest. The suggestions you made are all fine ones. It doesn't change the fact that it can't happen over night yet the ULEZ fiasco can be stopped right now to protect vulnerable people.

Peter75 · 30 Jul 2023 at 15:37

b0rn2sk8 said:
This basically.

Nope

FoxEye · 30 Jul 2023 at 15:39

fez said:
Rishi will 100% be coming after ULEZ, just as he is coming after LTNs. They are massively popular lightning rods for a certain demographic in society who are very easy to get to vote against their own interests if you press the right buttons.

Perhaps he will also go after cyclists as well for the full trifecta.

Rishi and Starmer would both campaign on a platform of "climate science is a lie" if they thought it would pick them up votes.

It's quite impressive to see how quicky Rishi has thrown the entire green movement under the bus, because it might win him more seats (he thinks).

Peter75 said:
And Labour do? You're as deluded as the rest. The suggestions you made are all fine ones. It doesn't change the fact that it can't happen over night yet the ULEZ fiasco can be stopped right now to protect vulnerable people.

I wouldn't vote for Labour under Starmer if you paid me. The Starmer Party is a Tory tribute act.

MichaelAwkward · 30 Jul 2023 at 15:39

Richie said:
Sure, but @b0rn2sk8 was comparing the city centres and your comparisons takes into account the whole of Cambridgeshire so as equally bad in the confines of the argument.

When I posted the figures, I wasn't aware Ghent was an "area" and wrongly understood it to be a city the same as I understood Cambridge to be a city.

I mean, we could extend it to the whole of Belgium Vs the whole of the UK if we want to get silly.

I did a little digging and found a Ghent report for the EU Regional Development Fund from 2020 so pretty recent.

Link

Giving 1655/km² for Ghent Vs 3,560/km² for Cambridge or, over twice more people in Cambridge per km² than Ghent.

The arrondissement of Ghent is equivalent to Cambridgeshire though. It's not a silly comparison to compare the same administrative levels.

That report you've linked to is talking about the same municipality of Ghent, not just the city proper - it's the same density you originally posted. You're still not comparing the same things.

Richie · 30 Jul 2023 at 15:41

MichaelAwkward said:
The arrondissement of Ghent is equivalent to Cambridgeshire though. It's not a silly comparison to compare the same administrative levels.

That report you've linked to is talking about the same municipality of Ghent - it's the same density you originally posted. You're still not comparing the same things.

Yeah I seen that. I'm working off my phone so, when they showed the image with the city centre in red and used the wording "City of Ghent", I had assumed that's what they were referring to much like "City of Cambridge"

My bad... Hence the edit

Lightnix · 30 Jul 2023 at 15:43

FoxEye said:
Don't use the poor as a shield. I'm sure plenty of poor people would rather have clean air/pedestrianisation.

Plenty of poor people don't even own cars.

If people really gave a damn about the poor, they'd fix social housing, public transport, free school meals, and a host of other things. Tories don't give two **** about the poor and neither do their voters.

Yep this. It could be justified with some kind of redistributive policy to mitigate the effect on poorer households but that's communist or something. So instead we'll just adopt libertarian filth wallowing.

MichaelAwkward · 30 Jul 2023 at 15:51

Richie said:
Yeah I seen that. I'm working off my phone so, when they showed the image with the city centre in red and used the wording "City of Ghent", I had assumed that's what they were referring to much like "City of Cambridge"

My bad... Hence the edit

I've managed to find something:

https://www.city-facts.com/gent/population

Under neighborhoods and areas, there are population densities listed. Ghent proper is listed as several areas unfortunately, but adding up all of the ones clearly within the city gives the following:

Area: 48.03 sq km
Population: 112,632
Density: 2345/sq km

So not as dense as Cambridge, but not as different as the other comparisons. 2/3s as dense. But the accuracy of the data may not be totally reliable.

Trifid · 30 Jul 2023 at 15:53

fez said:
Rishi will 100% be coming after ULEZ, just as he is coming after LTNs. They are massively popular lightning rods for a certain demographic in society who are very easy to get to vote against their own interests if you press the right buttons.

Perhaps he will also go after cyclists as well for the full trifecta.

He's going after LTNs because he think it will win him some working class votes and it won't cost him any money. It is essentially a free policy from his point of view.

Peter75 · 30 Jul 2023 at 15:57

Lightnix said:
Yep this. It could be justified with some kind of redistributive policy to mitigate the effect on poorer households but that's communist or something. So instead we'll just adopt libertarian filth wallowing.

As I have previously mentioned, FoxEye's suggestions are all fantastic ideas but we can't just magic up 180k social housing overnight. The ULEZ however, can be stopped/amended right now to protect the most vulnerable.