London pollution & ULEZ

Voltar said:
I’d incentivise by putting ULEZ and other new road and vehicle taxes in place.

But, until then it’s congestion and hollow platitudes from the mayor and government and opposition.
Click to expand...

To be honest I think encouraging people back into the office has been a massive wasted opportunity in terms of reducing congestion and pollution. An efficient trip is good but no trip is better for those things than one not taken at all.
 
The expansion that almost no-one wants has been ruled as lawful.


khan-startrek.gif
 
Although it's on pause in Manchester in sure it'll happen here as well at some point. Seems inevitable, another mechanism to force people into electric cars IMO.
 
I expect Keir Starmer is leaning hard on Khan to delay the ULEZ expansion until after the next general election.

Surrounding councils that aren't directly impacted by this have been at loggerheads with Khan and TFL over the ULEZ expansion because TFL wanted to put signs up in surrounding boroughs just outside of London to tell people they were entering into a ULEZ area. The trouble is councils just on the edge of London are all Conservative run and they hate this proposal and refuse to cooperate.
 
Last edited:
Where is the idea that almost no one wants it coming from ? I live in London and most people i've spoken to about it don't seem to care either way. Granted that's not exactly a significant sample pool but having just done a quick google search for some polls it seems it's as popular as it is unpopular ? In fact some of them suggest that there are nearly twice as many people for it as those that are against it :confused:
 
Last edited:
So the ULEZ ruling in khanMings favour just means he has the power to do it - and is not a ratification that it is the most useful thing to do to reduce pollution,

to remind folks
But like the questionable survey results for Ulez expansion cited by the mayor’s office, the data on air pollution in London is contrary to its assertions. Khan’s office claims that since 2019, there has been a fall of 46% in nitrogen oxides and a 41% reduction in PM 2.5 (particulate matter smaller than 2.5 micrometres in diameter). Yet this comparison is based on questionable counterfactual modelling of what “would have occurred” if there were no Ulez in operation. Ross Clark of The Spectator “smells a rat” here and refers to a study by Imperial College which examined air pollution data for 12 weeks before and 12 weeks after the original Ulez was implemented in 2019. It found that there was no significant reduction in PM 2.5 pollution and nitrogen oxides fell by a mere 3%.
Click to expand...

citymonitor.ai

Are Londoners Really on Board with ULEZ Expansion? We examined the Polls

The ULEZ expansion continues to divide political camps, with either side arguing that the public backs them.
citymonitor.ai citymonitor.ai

still seems the whole Labour uxbridge loss is being attributed to that as opposed to people don't think much of Kiers other policies - no youguv survey to try and understand the truth ?
I can understand labour liking that narrative, and suppose the Cons don't disagree because the publics green vote intention is unclear.
 
robj20 said:
Although it's on pause in Manchester in sure it'll happen here as well at some point. Seems inevitable, another mechanism to force people into electric cars IMO.
Click to expand...

And once most people have EVs, they will start charging them to enter as well. Everyone gets caught by the Khan zone.

It's not entirely about pollution TBH. It's about forcing people on to the outsourced public transport. It's being profit driven.
 
Last edited:
imtoooldforthis said:
Where is the idea that almost no one wants it coming from ? I live in London and most people i've spoken to about it don't seem to care either way. Granted that's not exactly a significant sample pool but having just done a quick google search for some polls it seems it's as popular as it is unpopular ? In fact some of them suggest that there are nearly twice as many people for it as those that are against it :confused:
Click to expand...
Personal experience. Everyone I talk to in my area hates it. Every single one of my friends and family dislike the expansion. I haven't yet met a single person that wants it around here. Tradespeople don't want it. Shops don't want it because of the possible impact on trade. Residents don't want it because some of them have had to replace their cars. Mind you I do live in a conservative area if that makes a difference.
 
Last edited:
imtoooldforthis said:
Where is the idea that almost no one wants it coming from ? I live in London and most people i've spoken to about it don't seem to care either way. Granted that's not exactly a significant sample pool but having just done a quick google search for some polls it seems it's as popular as it is unpopular ? In fact some of them suggest that there are nearly twice as many people for it as those that are against it :confused:
Click to expand...

You mean anyone with a compliant car doesn't care about it. What about all of those people that now have to sell a perfectly good car because some mayor decided it was no longer ok.
 
sidimmu said:
Thought this was more to get road users in to cars with lower emissions?
Click to expand...
No, the reason is to generate tax for the Mayor as he has dug himself into a financial hole. Emissions is just a nice excuse to tax people. If it were genuinely about emissions then he would ban those cars rather than taxing them.
 
Last edited:
Hades said:
Personal experience. Everyone I talk to in my area hates it. Every single one of my friends and family dislike the expansion. I haven't yet met a single person that wants it around here. Tradespeople don't want it. Shops don't want it because of the possible impact on trade. Residents don't want it because some of them have had to replace their cars. Mind you I do live in a conservative area if that makes a difference.
Click to expand...

Yep, I know a few tradesman who now just don't offer their services in London anymore. It's not worth it as they get plenty of work elsewhere. The result is you'll find it harder to get work done inside London at a sensible price.
 
Hades said:
No, the reason is to generate tax for the Mayor as he has dug himself into a financial hole. Emissions is just a nice excuse to tax people. If it were genuinely about emissions then he would ban those cars rather than taxing them.
Click to expand...
yeah fine for the central of london, the outskirts of london not so much hence myself not agreeing with it.

But the sub reason for it, cleaning up the air, I dont see a problem with it.
 
sidimmu said:
But the sub reason for it, cleaning up the air, I dont see a problem with it.
Click to expand...
I think I would support it more if there was just a blanket ban. I could get behind the reason for it then and it would be genuinely to improve air quality. But just by levying a daily charge it makes it clear the motive is tax.
 
Stumble Bum said:
You mean anyone with a compliant car doesn't care about it.
Click to expand...

Yes, so an absolute minority do care, not the absolute majority that @Hades claimed

In outer London, nine out of ten cars and eight out of ten vans seen driving on an average day already meet the ULEZ standards, so their drivers will not have to pay the charge.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom