Ulez expanded to include whole of outer London

[lancon]

And this is exactly why it’s a load of ****!

why is that ?

And pray thee answer to the !. request, please.

 

[Benfleet Brewery]

why is that ?

And pray thee answer to the !. request, please.

Why? Because it isn’t stopping vehicles polluting the air of course?

https://www.essexhighways.org/highw.../highway-schemes/basildon-schemes/air-quality

 

[lancon]

Why? Because it isn’t stopping vehicles polluting the air of course?

https://www.essexhighways.org/highw.../highway-schemes/basildon-schemes/air-quality

1. I see no motorway
2. I see good reason for speed restrictions
3. It was people's feedback that raised this air quality speed limit
4. from your point (it isn't stopping vehicles polluting...) I can only surmise that you wish for no non EV vehicles to be on the road or death rates from air pollution to be acceptable.

 

[Benfleet Brewery]

1. I see no motorway
2. I see good reason for speed restrictions
3. It was people's feedback that raised this air quality speed limit
4. from your point (it isn't stopping vehicles polluting...) I can only surmise that you wish for no non EV vehicles to be on the road or death rates from air pollution to be acceptable.

1,2 & 3. I didn’t mention motorway. I said I have an EV and still have my speed restricted to reduce emissions which it doesn’t in my case

4. Not at all. I just don’t agree with slapping a tax on those who can’t afford to buy a newer car and allowing the more well off to carry on polluting free of charge

 

[Rodcx500z]

I am a bit pis-ed at the moment so will not comment

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Not at all. I just don’t agree with slapping a tax on those who can’t afford to buy a newer car and allowing the more well off to carry on polluting free of charge

Small edit - I just don’t agree with slapping a tax on those who can’t afford to buy a newer car and allowing the more well off to carry on polluting free of charge because they can afford to pay £250 a month to drive in the zone.

 

[lancon]

Small edit - I just don’t agree with slapping a tax on those who can’t afford to buy a newer car and allowing the more well off to carry on polluting free of charge because they can afford to pay £250 a month to drive in the zone.

So surely the answer is to ban all non ULEZ cars from London (& all large cities/towns) as the first step and then all non EV as the second step.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

So surely the answer is to ban all non ULEZ cars from London (& all large cities/towns) as the first step and then all non EV as the second step.

This thread keeps going round in circles this has been discussed several times.

Banning all polluting vehicles would obviously be the answer to air quality in London but its never going to happen for the foreseeable future for several reasons -

There wouldn't be enough room on public transport for all those Londoners who's cars were banned to move around the city if there was a blanket ban.

The scrappage scheme would help some but there is not an unlimited number of £2000 cars that would be allowed in the zone and you can bet prices would rise as soon as dealers realise there is extra demand.

They would be crucified by their own voters at the next election and that is why they are allowing those that can afford £250 a month to carry on pollution the streets of London and those that cannot to find another means of travelling in the city.

 

[Rodcx500z]

Interesting MSN

 

[The Baron]

I agree Chippy I am fed up of reading the same old same old this thread is past its sell by date to me just "he said she said"
Just a thought

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Interesting MSN

That is interesting Rod i had never given rat runs a thought obviously people are going to learn where the cameras are and are going to avoid them, soon sat-navs will have ULEZ camera warnings and it'll get worse.

Newcastle City Council has abandoned its Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) scheme after a review found that the limitations had made traffic worse.

The trial 18-month scheme began in March 2022 and closed off several streets in an attempt to reduce the number of vehicles using local streets, as well as encouraging more residents to cycle or walk.

Yet data collected from the trial showed that traffic increased, as vehicles were forced to used surrounding roads instead, resulting in congestion.

The council also said that the LTNs had not encouraged people to walk or cycle instead.

 

[lancon]

This thread keeps going round in circles this has been discussed several times.

Banning all polluting vehicles would obviously be the answer to air quality in London but its never going to happen for the foreseeable future for several reasons -

There wouldn't be enough room on public transport for all those Londoners who's cars were banned to move around the city if there was a blanket ban.

The scrappage scheme would help some but there is not an unlimited number of £2000 cars that would be allowed in the zone and you can bet prices would rise as soon as dealers realise there is extra demand.

They would be crucified by their own voters at the next election and that is why they are allowing those that can afford £250 a month to carry on pollution the streets of London and those that cannot to find another means of travelling in the city.

As in the cyclical discussion, (I) increase public transport, (ii) I haven't mentioned scrappage scheme, and (iii) if it is done after a general election then there will be little against, save from the libertarians and conspiracy theorists, who by their own admission often decry the electoral system.

 

[Brew_DD2]

Interesting MSN

GBeebies

 

[lancon]

If you delve further into the the removal of the LTN scheme in Newcastle you would note that the council are putting in a different LTN next year.
And having good knowledge of the area I know that the removed LTN was not going to work, it's far too small an area to make a difference with relatively few houses compared to LTN areas in London.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

(I) increase public transport,

There is no way they could increase public transport by the amount needed to cover a blanket ban so again its not going to happen.

(ii) I haven't mentioned scrappage scheme,

I never said you did i said "This thread keeps going round in circles this has been discussed several times"

(iii) if it is done after a general election then there will be little against, save from the libertarians and conspiracy theorists, who by their own admission often decry the electoral system.

They have already introduced the £250 charge they are not going to introduce a blanket ban anytime soon its all about making money (to go round in another circle) as was posted earlier -

enfleet Brewery said:
Not at all. I just don’t agree with slapping a tax on those who can’t afford to buy a newer car and allowing the more well off to carry on polluting free of charge

Small edit - I just don’t agree with slapping a tax on those who can’t afford to buy a newer car and allowing the more well off to carry on polluting free of charge because they can afford to pay £250 a month to drive in the zone.

 

[Rodcx500z]

Another slap round the chops for Mr Kahn

 

[lancon]

The argument that they can't sort out public transport is just more naysaying. remove the cars and plenty of room to have enough public transport running efficiently.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

This would have been a much better solution why didn't they think of that? (video cut to start at the relevant part)

 

[Benfleet Brewery]

Levels of Harmful air pollutant nitrogen dioxide increase since the introduction of Scotlands first low-emission zone

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...e-increases-Scotlands-low-emissions-zone.html

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Levels of Harmful air pollutant nitrogen dioxide increase since the introduction of Scotlands first low-emission zone

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...e-increases-Scotlands-low-emissions-zone.html

An interesting read -