ULEZ charge in 2021

[j_4m]

gavsdavs said:

London *is* overpopulated. D.A articulately posted a few pages back that London does not do the regions any favours by being so overpopulated, it draws so many people in that congestion and other resource shortages are inevitable. (Ever tried to get a GP appointment within a fortnight within Zone1/2 ?)

Do tell, what are the 25 more densely populated European cities ? What are their respective populations and sizes ?

Paris is the highest, but only has a population of 2.3m. I expect London benefits from all the green spaces, brownfield and parks we have. The highest density area is Islington with 13k per km^2, Paris average density is 21k per km^2.

It's a pointless pissing contest though, just because Paris or Amsterdam is a Universe 25 model doesn't mean London is underpopulated.

[j_4m]

C70R said:

You're both flapping unnecessarily, and sounding like you have some sort of persecution complex.

There are over 350,000 compliant petrol and diesel cars available to buy on Autotrader, with almost 10,000 available for £1500 or less. All of these cars can travel in the ULEZ free of charge. In fact, chances are that most cars already on the road (if AT is representative of the general population's cars) are already compliant.
How is this a "financial burden" or hitting "people with low incomes unfairly"?

You honestly can't see how having to shell out £1500 without any choice in the matter is unreasonable? My borough, Newham, has the lowest median household income in London at £28k. I'm sure many people are thrilled at the prospect of buying a new car not because they'd like one, but because the mayor is forcing them to.

[C70R]

PZR said:

C70R said:

Schmed said:

C70R said:

I can't disagree with any of that. However, you're missing a couple of important things:
Bordeaux population: 0.2m
Stockholm population: 0.9m
Madrid population: 3.1m
London population: 8.8m, plus one of the biggest commuting populations in Europe

Madrid subway annual ridership: 600m
London Tube annual ridership: 1.4bn

While they might be nice solutions, none deal with an issue approaching the same scale as London's.
If we're going to talk about what's better, and Madrid has some merit, it's going to need to be a city with a similar scale of issue to London. And, if we're being brutally honest, Madrid's solution is hardly perfect: https://www.citymetric.com/transport/map-shows-eve...

Tokyo.

Come on C70, I'm looking forward to seeing you argue black is white..

Tokyo is fabulous in a lot of respects - it's clean, modern and accessible for tourists. But if you've ever travelled at/around peak times (as I have), then its level of oversubscription/capacity makes London look positively spacious and relaxed by comparison. Rush hour trains are typically running at ~200% of capacity, and the operator specifically employs people to force more passengers onto the trains!

It has around 20% higher daily use, with significantly fewer trains, fewer lines, fewer stations and about half the track-length/distance of London. Having used both, I know which I'd prefer to commute on!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33qxTMA9XTA

Tokyo has "significantly fewer trains, fewer lines, fewer stations and about half the track-length of London."

What!? Are you an advisor to the Shadow Home Secretary? That's staggeringly inaccurate.

No it isn't.
Stations
Tokyo: 180
London: 270

Track length (miles)
Tokyo: 121
London: 250

Lines
Tokyo: 9
London: 11

Trains
I'm going to retract my point on this, because the data I have was comparing individual units. I can't find a reliable source, but would be glad to be pointed at something.

I wouldn't say that was "staggeringly inaccurate" on any level, unless I were trying to score points cheaply...

[C70R]

j_4m said:

C70R said:

You're both flapping unnecessarily, and sounding like you have some sort of persecution complex.

There are over 350,000 compliant petrol and diesel cars available to buy on Autotrader, with almost 10,000 available for £1500 or less. All of these cars can travel in the ULEZ free of charge. In fact, chances are that most cars already on the road (if AT is representative of the general population's cars) are already compliant.
How is this a "financial burden" or hitting "people with low incomes unfairly"?

You honestly can't see how having to shell out £1500 without any choice in the matter is unreasonable? My borough, Newham, has the lowest median household income in London at £28k. I'm sure many people are thrilled at the prospect of buying a new car not because they'd like one, but because the mayor is forcing them to.

On the premise that they already own a car, which has intrinsic monetary value, they are simply replacing it as one would do normally every few years. I merely highlighted the fact that the vast majority of cars on Autotrader are already ULEZ compliant, and that there are available options for every budget.

I don't understand why you're trying to make this sound like TfL is taking the clothes off their backs...

[C70R]

gavsdavs said:

C70R said:

j_4m said:

Which to me suggests that London is grossly overpopulated and TfL is underfunded and mismanaged.

To the former, nope. It's not even in the top 25 European cities for population density.

Edited by C70R on Monday 17th December 16:06

London *is* overpopulated. D.A articulately posted a few pages back that London does not do the regions any favours by being so overpopulated, it draws so many people in that congestion and other resource shortages are inevitable. (Ever tried to get a GP appointment within a fortnight within Zone1/2 ?)

Do tell, what are the 25 more densely populated European cities ? What are their respective populations and sizes ?

Google is your friend. Be brave, and tell them I sent you.

ETA - Wiki had formatted the table oddly. London is #20, not #26 as I previously said.

Edited by C70R on Monday 17th December 17:24

[NomduJour]

C70R said:

On the premise that they already own a car, which has intrinsic monetary value, they are simply replacing it as one would do normally every few years. I merely highlighted the fact that the vast majority of cars on Autotrader are already ULEZ compliant, and that there are available options for every budget.

I don't understand why you're trying to make this sound like TfL is taking the clothes off their backs...

Err, maybe I don’t want to sell several of the cars I already have, especially for some nonsensical political posturing which won’t solve a single bit of the “problem”? But, hey, it’s only £12.50 a day and the mayor knows best (about grandstanding and very little else).

[j_4m]

C70R said:

On the premise that they already own a car, which has intrinsic monetary value, they are simply replacing it as one would do normally every few years. I merely highlighted the fact that the vast majority of cars on Autotrader are already ULEZ compliant, and that there are available options for every budget.

I don't understand why you're trying to make this sound like TfL is taking the clothes off their backs...

Because it's total bullst to say to someone "you must buy another car to satisfy our political agenda". It doesn't matter if that net cost is £500 or £5,000, it's unreasonable.

[C70R]

It's clear I'm not going to dissuade you from this weird persecution complex.
If it helps, I'm in exactly the same boat, and have chosen to buy a PHEV for the trips I need to take in/around London. Moreover, even though I don't drive inside the ULEZ much (even though I live right next to it), I don't want to be contributing to the poor air quality in Greater London any more than I can help.

As someone who cycles through the middle of the ULEZ regularly, you only need look at the colour of an anti-pollution mask's filter to tell you that the air isn't as clean as it could be.

My view is that if I earn a living from London (or any large city), then there will be inevitable sacrifices necessary for harmonious living and the good of others.
If you pair don't want to accept that, it's completely fine. But let's not dress it up as some kind of persecution.

[Killboy]

Shesh, I wonder if the banning of Asbestos was met with the same "how does the government expect me to insulate my home" and "its going to affect the poor the most".

ULEZ has been proposed for ages, is taking ages to implement, and gives residents a grace period. There are heaps and heaps of suitable replacement cars that are compliant for the cost of an modern smartphone. This is not something that has crept up overnight, its just suddenly arriving and its met with the Daily Mail style of "how does the government expect me to do xyz". It is basically 3 years to go, and by the time it kicks in the vehicles it effects will be even older.

[NomduJour]

C70R, why do you think the mayor has decided to go after private car owners, rather than focusing his attentions on, say, public transport and gas boilers (changes to both of which could make a big difference to pollution levels)?

[j_4m]

Except that the main drive behind the ULEZ is pure politicking, it's not to clean up air quality in the city centre. Why make people pay to leave the city? Why a flat fee, why not a graduated fee depending on emissions? Why not acknowledge that poor road planning has led to more stationary traffic and thus more particulates sitting in the air? Why no scrappage incentive to encourage people to buy less polluting cars?

And all of this to do what, increase average life expectancy by two months? Awesome, so I'll get another two months sitting in a care home being abused by staff.

[PZR]

C70R said:

PZR said:

C70R said:

Schmed said:

C70R said:

I can't disagree with any of that. However, you're missing a couple of important things:
Bordeaux population: 0.2m
Stockholm population: 0.9m
Madrid population: 3.1m
London population: 8.8m, plus one of the biggest commuting populations in Europe

Madrid subway annual ridership: 600m
London Tube annual ridership: 1.4bn

While they might be nice solutions, none deal with an issue approaching the same scale as London's.
If we're going to talk about what's better, and Madrid has some merit, it's going to need to be a city with a similar scale of issue to London. And, if we're being brutally honest, Madrid's solution is hardly perfect: https://www.citymetric.com/transport/map-shows-eve...

Tokyo.

Come on C70, I'm looking forward to seeing you argue black is white..

Tokyo is fabulous in a lot of respects - it's clean, modern and accessible for tourists. But if you've ever travelled at/around peak times (as I have), then its level of oversubscription/capacity makes London look positively spacious and relaxed by comparison. Rush hour trains are typically running at ~200% of capacity, and the operator specifically employs people to force more passengers onto the trains!

It has around 20% higher daily use, with significantly fewer trains, fewer lines, fewer stations and about half the track-length/distance of London. Having used both, I know which I'd prefer to commute on!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33qxTMA9XTA

Tokyo has "significantly fewer trains, fewer lines, fewer stations and about half the track-length of London."

What!? Are you an advisor to the Shadow Home Secretary? That's staggeringly inaccurate.

No it isn't.
Stations
Tokyo: 180
London: 270

Track length (miles)
Tokyo: 121
London: 250

Lines
Tokyo: 9
London: 11

Trains
I'm going to retract my point on this, because the data I have was comparing individual units. I can't find a reliable source, but would be glad to be pointed at something.

I wouldn't say that was "staggeringly inaccurate" on any level, unless I were trying to score points cheaply...

Wait, so you're only comparing London TUBE lines and stations with (presumably) Tokyo's Metro Subway system?

Anybody who knows anything about the greater Tokyo metropolitan area's transport system knows that it is a very complex and well-knitted combination of far more than just the Subway system. I used to travel from home in suburban Tokyo to my workplace in Shibuya on a combination of two overground trains - one on the private Tobu Tojo line and one on the (wonderful!) JR Yamanote Line. Didn't need to use the Subway for work. The point being that there were almost always alternatives and ways-round to get to the same place either above or below ground, and that the Subway system - without having to even change trains - often transforms into suburbia-serving overland trains at at least one end, like the Hanzomon Metro Line being the Tobu Skytree Line at one end and the Tokyu Den-En-Toshi Line at the other end. Works wonderfully!

I'm a Londoner born and bred and will stick up for it by default, by Greater Tokyo's transports system makes London's look like Jools Holland's model railway. You're simply not comparing like with like. If we had Tokyo's integrated transport system here in London then the ULEZ extension would not be such an issue.

[Killboy]

j_4m said:

Except that the main drive behind the ULEZ is pure politicking, it's not to clean up air quality in the city centre.

Why? Doesn't sound like this is doing Kahn any favors. (Except with me, because I'd like cleaner air).

[heebeegeetee]

C70R said:

As someone who cycles through the middle of the ULEZ regularly, you only need look at the colour of an anti-pollution mask's filter to tell you that the air isn't as clean as it could be.

Well, replacing current cars with the 10,000 £1500 bangers that you mentioned isn't going to change that, it really isn't. I've had a google today based on what donkey apple has said about studies on cyclists deep breathing the pollution in, and I think the results are fairly clear: Thge benefits outweigh the negatives, and active transport is to be encouraged.

I found a New York page interesting. Would it be a fair assumption to say that New York does not have diesel cars, and possibly not all of its lighter commercials and passenger transport may not be diesel? Yet it still comes up with similar statement as we do:

>> In New York City alone, health officials estimate that fine particulate matter (known as PM2.5) contributes to nearly 2,000 premature deaths and more than 6,000 hospital visits per year. The young and old are particularly susceptible, as are people who suffer from asthma and other respiratory disorders or heart disease.

“We have internal combustion engines that emit particles, we put them out a tailpipe, and then we drive along our sidewalks. And we sort of emit this stuff right into our breathing zones,” says Arden Pope, a professor of economics and an epidemiologist at Brigham Young University who is not involved in the Columbia study.<<

But it goes on to say: >>It is generally thought that the benefits of exercise outweigh the hazard of air pollutants, and a recent study suggests this is true in "the vast majority of settings.” In a city like New York, with background PM2.5 concentrations below the global average, a healthy person without heart or lung problems would need to cycle for hours and hours a day before the adverse impacts of pollution outweigh the health benefits of exercise. At that point, the only health effect you’re likely to suffer is a sore bum from riding all day.<<
https://www.nationalgeographic.com.au/science/does...

>>Researchers from the London School of Medicine looked into this issue in 2011. According to their findings, bicycle commuters inhale more than twice the amount of black carbon particles as pedestrians making a comparable trip... As a cyclist, the stink of petrol fumes as you sit in traffic behind a lorry can be deeply off-putting, but it’s worth putting the issue in perspective. A recent study by Cambridge University found that the health benefits of cycling – as well as walking – outweigh the risks caused by air pollution in 99 per cent of cities.<<
https://ig.ft.com/sites/urban-cycling/



On a cycling page: >>Decades’ worth of data from cities all around the world was fed into the computer programmes. Tainio says that the analysis showed that in any European city, people can cycle for as long as they wish and the benefits of the physical activity would always outweigh the risks of air pollution.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/fuming-air-pollu...

There are links to lots of studies, such as >>Can air pollution negate the health benefits of cycling and walking?<< https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC48930...

and they all seem to come with the same or similar conclusions: >>The benefits from active travel generally outweigh health risks from air pollution and therefore should be further encouraged. When weighing long-term health benefits from PA against possible risks from increased exposure to air pollution, our calculations show that promoting cycling and walking is justified in the vast majority of settings, and only in a small number of cities with the highest PM2.5 concentration in the world cycling could lead to increase in risk.<<

There are lots of scary headlines out there, but when the question is asked if people should stop cycling or find some other form of exercise the answer is generally "no".

So I absolutely stay with my previous post

heebeegeetee said:

So I completely dismiss any notion that cyclists or anyone else, is in any material danger from air pollution here in the UK by exercising outdoors.

I stress: "in any material danger". I think it's yourself a one or two others who are being somewhat hysterical over this.

The air quality really isn't as bad as the scary headlines portray.

AND: The air is the cleanest it's ever been since records began.

AND: It's going to get ever cleaner with some truly significant and exciting changes happening right now and in the immediate future.

We DON'T need to penalise poor people even more. In Birmingham the poorer people are going to get a double whammy of either having to pay to go into the city centre or replace their old ice-powered bangers with other, slightly younger ice-powered bangers, and yet still get the pollution from millions of vehicle movements in and out of the city centre,especially with the building for HS2 and the forthcoming Commonwealth Games.

[NomduJour]

Killboy said:

Why? Doesn't sound like this is doing Kahn any favors

Your average right-thinking metro-liberal will lap up this gesture-politics anti-car rhetoric like it’s an oat milk flat white.

[DonkeyApple]

NomduJour said:

Your average right-thinking metro-liberal will lap up this gesture-politics anti-car rhetoric like it’s an oat milk flat white.

I think it has more to do with getting one’s name down in history, securing lucrative future employment contracts and not having to worry about any form of electoral challenge in the mean time.

Kahn is no different from Boris or Ken or the next overly ambitious, fundamentally dishonest schmuck that follows. To take the office of Mayor and to not bring in a global headline grabbing change is to throw away the reason for going for the job and making all the key promises in the first instance.

All Kahn has done is dust off Ken’s plans, the plans that Boris knew he couldn’t use because of the type of person it does directly impact. That is the other point, you and I know that many of the old cars directly targeted are not in possession of those who would typically vote for a Kahn or a Ken. Most of those people live via lease deals and the never never.

Ironically, it was that tool Boris who presided over the total collapse of central London traffic flow with his moronic vanity projects. It was bad enough under Ken.

[anonymous-user]

j_4m said:

C70R said:

On the premise that they already own a car, which has intrinsic monetary value, they are simply replacing it as one would do normally every few years. I merely highlighted the fact that the vast majority of cars on Autotrader are already ULEZ compliant, and that there are available options for every budget.

I don't understand why you're trying to make this sound like TfL is taking the clothes off their backs...

Because it's total bullst to say to someone "you must buy another car to satisfy our political agenda". It doesn't matter if that net cost is £500 or £5,000, it's unreasonable.

Exactly and it is just political agenda. If pollution was the main issue here there'd be a massive long term strategy to get freight out of London build relief routes, not have a third runway at Heathrow, encourage the medium to long term move of jobs and people out of the city, genuinely improve public transport in terms of infrastructure and green energy usage, properly build and encourage electric vehicle rental and ownership rather than paying lip service to it and so on. But no, instead we get a punitive emission zone which is a further stick with which to extract monies from ordinary people and sadly some utter fking muppets seem to have fallen for it.

[jfire]

Yes I should have done my research before buying a Euro 5 diesel but this really highlights the arbitrary limits and dodgy figures behind a massive part of transport policy.

"Worst new diesel cars emit toxic fumes 11 times the pollution limit"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/worst-new-...

In hindsight the nudges to get people cycling, which later manifested in underused and disruptive Cycle Superhighways seem a great idea.

[Guvernator]

The area I live in has over the last several years had cycle lanes put in on most of the major roads at god knows how much expense which is very admirable indeed, except hardly anyone uses them. They are empty, in one 20min driving stint I counted the grand total of two bicycles using them. So the adage of build it and they will come just isn't true, we just aren't a cycling nation and I'm not sure if we ever will be.

So not only have the councils spent a lot of money on something that isn't being used, they've increased congestion by reducing the width of the roads to make way for empty cycle lanes. Add in all the various other extra pinch points, extended islands, traffic calming measures humps and other road addenda that seems to be all the rage these days and traffic flow has been drastically reduced, the consequence of which is increased pollution.

It really does make me wonder what the thinking is behind all this, the measures they are implementing certainly aren't reducing pollution, quite the opposite so what is the actual agenda here?

[jfire]

Guvernator said:

The area I live in has over the last several years had cycle lanes put in on most of the major roads at god knows how much expense which is very admirable indeed, except hardly anyone uses them. They are empty, in one 20min driving stint I counted the grand total of two bicycles using them. So the adage of build it and they will come just isn't true, we just aren't a cycling nation and I'm not sure if we ever will be.

So not only have the councils spent a lot of money on something that isn't being used, they've increased congestion by reducing the width of the roads to make way for empty cycle lanes. Add in all the various other extra pinch points, extended islands, traffic calming measures humps and other road addenda that seems to be all the rage these days and traffic flow has been drastically reduced, the consequence of which is increased pollution.

It really does make me wonder what the thinking is behind all this, the measures they are implementing certainly aren't reducing pollution, quite the opposite so what is the actual agenda here?

Probably the sort of good intentions that on the surface negate the need for any cost / benefit analysis. Knock-on effects are unavoidable, even paper straws are killing the planet, but I'm amazed such projects are carried out at such expense to yield such poor results.