ULEZ charge in 2021

[anonymous-user]

C70R said:

cb1965 said:

C70R said:

cb1965 said:

C70R said:

They do a great job of moving several million people every day (in spite of their obvious limitations.

Leaving aside you being utterly in love with London and all who sail in her they really don't, you like so many others are just accepting mediocre as being acceptable which is why we are heading backwards in terms of real progress. You will no doubt post otherwise, but this isn't limited to London (although it's worse than most) so save another round of the C70R pro London rhetoric for someone who gives a st what you think!

You must be very unhappy to stalk me like this. I feel very sorry for you.

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 16th December 19:31

Replying to posts where you think the poster's statements are one sided blinkered drivel and needs putting right is not stalking. HTH

I'd say that angrily stalking and personally insulting someone across multiple threads about a subject which doesn't affect you is pretty tragic, if I'm honest.

Oh so I'm angrily stalking you now am I, you need to have a word with yourself. Oh and as I travel to London occasionally for work and as inevitably this nonsense will be rolled out elsewhere it does and will affect me, but even if it didn't unless we're in full agreement with C70R we can't have an opinion can we?

[anonymous-user]

C70R said:

cb1965 said:

Guvernator said:

j_4m said:

Yes, it is TfL's fault that my 4.8 mile commute from E7 to E1 can take over an hour.

Unfortunately I don't earn the requisite five grand a month which would let me rent a flat within walking distance to my office, but I guess that's my fault for not being a CEO.

Don't bother, C70R seems to live in some alternate dimension vastly disconnected from certain realities of life where public is transport is perfect and it's your failures in life that have lead to you having to use a crappy car in London.

Yep, it works for him (and then only because he's happy with mediocrity and has no ambition or maybe he's a masochist) so everyone else can fk off!

Still out there with the abusive stalking? Still posting argumentatively on a thread which has zero impact on your life?
How sad.

Still waiting for all the London public transport detractors to point to all these utopian cities who have perfect systems. Still not seeing any replies.

You and all like you are what is sad, turning the world into a celebration of the mediocre at best. If people like you had been in charge 200 years ago we'd still be using the horse and cart!

[C70R]

cb1965 said:

C70R said:

cb1965 said:

Guvernator said:

j_4m said:

Yes, it is TfL's fault that my 4.8 mile commute from E7 to E1 can take over an hour.

Unfortunately I don't earn the requisite five grand a month which would let me rent a flat within walking distance to my office, but I guess that's my fault for not being a CEO.

Don't bother, C70R seems to live in some alternate dimension vastly disconnected from certain realities of life where public is transport is perfect and it's your failures in life that have lead to you having to use a crappy car in London.

Yep, it works for him (and then only because he's happy with mediocrity and has no ambition or maybe he's a masochist) so everyone else can fk off!

Still out there with the abusive stalking? Still posting argumentatively on a thread which has zero impact on your life?
How sad.

Still waiting for all the London public transport detractors to point to all these utopian cities who have perfect systems. Still not seeing any replies.

You and all like you are what is sad, turning the world into a celebration of the mediocre at best. If people like you had been in charge 200 years ago we'd still be using the horse and cart!

Still waiting...

[j_4m]

C70R said:

Still out there with the abusive stalking? Still posting argumentatively on a thread which has zero impact on your life?
How sad.

Still waiting for all the London public transport detractors to point to all these utopian cities who have perfect systems. Still not seeing any replies.

Bordeaux has a very effective tramway system that connects the different residential and leisure areas as well as the centre, Madrid has some wonderful suburban Metro lines and a good peripheral line that circumnavigates the city (plus they all have AC and WIFI). Stockholm's combination of subways and boats cover the majority of the city so you're never more than a five minute walk from where you want to be, including the bits where people actually live.

I'm aware that these cities have varying degrees of anti-car measures, however they seem to be sensible enough to give residents allowances and a sliding scale (Madrid), or give bikes and mopeds a free pass (Stockholm), or actually seek to reduce air pollution by reacting to real traffic levels (France).

[C70R]

j_4m said:

C70R said:

Still out there with the abusive stalking? Still posting argumentatively on a thread which has zero impact on your life?
How sad.

Still waiting for all the London public transport detractors to point to all these utopian cities who have perfect systems. Still not seeing any replies.

Bordeaux has a very effective tramway system that connects the different residential and leisure areas as well as the centre, Madrid has some wonderful suburban Metro lines and a good peripheral line that circumnavigates the city (plus they all have AC and WIFI). Stockholm's combination of subways and boats cover the majority of the city so you're never more than a five minute walk from where you want to be, including the bits where people actually live.

I'm aware that these cities have varying degrees of anti-car measures, however they seem to be sensible enough to give residents allowances and a sliding scale (Madrid), or give bikes and mopeds a free pass (Stockholm), or actually seek to reduce air pollution by reacting to real traffic levels (France).

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...

[AC43]

Well today I did Gladstone Park => Bishopsgate => Islington => Bishopsgate => Moorgate => Home.

I covered something like 22 miles which involved 5 miles of walking and six tubes.

Listened to a football podcast on the way in and a music one on the way back.

It was a fast, efficient and relaxing way of navigating the city.

And the cheapest way of doing it, bar cycling.

[j_4m]

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...

Which to me suggests that London is grossly overpopulated and TfL is underfunded and mismanaged. No public transport system is going to be perfect and it's going to be difficult to find an analogue to London given that it's not really a city but a bunch of large towns. It's impossible to design a public transport network to suit everyone's needs.

Again, I'm not opposed to the ULEZ in Z1. I don't like it, but I'll accept it if it can demonstrably reduce PM levels. The expanded ULEZ is wholly unnecessary and will hit people with low incomes unfairly, whilst having little positive impact on quality of life.

[DonkeyApple]

croyde said:

Another point possibly not discussed or indeed argued over.

Currently the route around the CCZ is a fugging nightmare. A ring of non moving traffic pumping out fumes all day.

So that is now going to be repeated on the already gridlocked North as well as the impossible South Circulars.

I'm about half a mile from the South Circular here in SW London and am not looking forward to the knock on effect of an absolutely jammed solid by pass of the new 2021 ULEZ.

I'd imagine pollution levels will go up by many factors, as have happened from TFL's attempts to bring central London to a standstill.

As a Londoner, you'd have to put a gun to my head to make me drive in and around the city of my birth during most times of the day. I even told the ex wife where to go last week when she suggested that I drive her to Harley St for a PET scan to see why she could barely walk.

I do realise that cars in town have to go. I'm not arguing that.

I'm not sure who is still driving 24/7 across London but if my work journey from Stratford to Acton last night via the North Circular was anything to go by, it seems that a vast majority of drivers think it's ok to sit in log jams and spend hours traveling a few miles.

After all, they can't all be working unsocial hours on a Sunday, can they?

Last year I executed an illegal right turn in Brent Cross at a junction that I hadn’t used for a few years and where you had always been able to turn right. I saw the signage and made a conscious decision to ignore it. I received a letter in the post with my photograph and an explanation of what I had done wrong but no fine, instead it was just a warning shot that I’d be clobbered if I did it again. I thought that was actually a very civilised way to behave.

Over the years I’ve forgotten to pay the CC a few times and been nobbled. Something that would go a long way to making the ULEZ a little more civilised would be to allow residents within the zone a few free passes a year. That would cover some genuine errors and also allow residents to choose to use a car for a few important/civilised journeys such as the one you mention above.

I think what annoys a lot of residents in London now living under this 24/7 camera/fine situation is that there is generally no civilised margin of error that accepts that despite best intentions sometimes people just make occasional infractions.

The lost revenue could be covered by charging people from Birmingham double and investing in getting their ULEZ up and running much sooner.

[C70R]

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.
To the latter, maybe. However, I still don't think this gets to the nub of the issue. London is a really old and really big city, with really old infrastructure - nothing can change that.
Doing public transport in any kind of passable way is fraught with issues as a result. Frankly, I think London does an astonishing job, all things considered.

Edited by C70R on Monday 17th December 16:06

[anonymous-user]

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..

[jfire]

Zone 1 - N/S Circular - M25

Where does it stop?

I've seen 4 new charging points this year but we need hundreds if we're to ban petrol and diesel cars by 2032

[C70R]

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

[Enricogto]

C70R said:

Enricogto said:

C70R said:

This really isn't the end of the world. It's a smart decision to improve the lives of people living in London.

No, it's not, and either you know it and you're blatantly lying, or you're living in Khan's utopia and therefore there's no point in arguing.

Paying an extra £12 won't improve at all the air quality (like the CCZ didn't), but will give the Mayor and TfL some extra funds to squander on pointless vanity projects. If charging for the use of a private car is going to solve the air quality issues, then i would like to see also the bus service charged for when buses are waiting and creating congestion on their own in Elephant and Castle, or Minories, or any other Z1 area you may prefer. I would like to see an efficient phasing of traffic lights and a removal of those which are not needed, a removal of the zig-zag chicanes getting into the city and a lift on the pointless 20mph limits which we all know that not only lead to more accidents, but also cause drivers to use lower gears, hence compounding on the pollution problem.

But we all know why we won't see any of the above, don't we?

Edited by Enricogto on Monday 17th December 13:52

So, you're basically saying that it's an anti-car conspiracy?

A few points:

• The CCZ wasn't intended to reduce emissions. The clue is in the name.
• Most waiting buses do so with their engines off. A quick Google will reveal TfL's plans to make buses pollute less too. This isn't a conversation about buses causing congestion - you're getting yourself confused.
• 20mph are here to stay, and are largely irrelevant in most parts of town given the congestion.
• If you think those 'zig-zag' chicanes are one of the biggest issues on London's roads, then there's not much hope of having a sensible conversation with you.

I'm not overly concerned of the sensibility of the conversation with you when you seem on a crusade to defend the indefensible.

Anyway, given we've gone down this path:

• Yes, the CCZ was meant to reduce congestion, and that means also car having to drive around in search of a parking spot or idling still in traffic. So yes, even if not in name, to reduce congestion.
• Either you've never taken a bus or you're lying. I routinely use buses and i can assure you that plenty of driver changes and waiting to regulate the service (!!) are made with the engine running, at times for 5 minutes or longer. And yes, buses causes congestion, for reference see any area (like the E&C area that i already mentioned) where there's no pull-in bay for buses but a stop that forces vehicles behind the bus to wait.
• Here to stay, whilst not making the roads any safer nor less polluted.
• Those zig-zags are an example of the idiotic, over-funnelled road design (considering that for example around Aldgate the layout was recently changed) that forces vehicles into endless queues (and quite often delays emergency vehicles!).

Ultimately you can have whatever opinion, but the reality is that, by any parameter, the track record of this mayor and TfL management around traffic and congestion is simply abysmal.

[Lexington59]

C70R said:

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's system is smaller ? Looks a lot like London in rush hour to me. When is that clip from, 1997 ?

Tokyo's population is noticeably higher than London's.

The Yamanote line alone carries more passengers per day than the entire London Underground network. 3.5 million people use Shinjuku station every day.

Japanese quietly obey? Absolutely true. No unseemly scum to board in Tokyo.

There are nine official Metro lines in Tokyo, but just about everyone would consider the network to include the overground rail lines — including the very popular and indispensable Yamanote line, which does a 21-mile circuit around the city. There are also lines run by private operators, and other lines run by the national operator. It is, in short, a mess , but it also means the system is huge. Even adding in London's suburban rail services doesn't bring it close.

AIrcon ticked as well. I know which I'd prefer, and that's before we start looking at efficiency and cancellations etc..

London is awful by comparison.

[j_4m]

C70R said:

To the former, nope. It's not even in the top 25 European cities for population density.
To the latter, maybe. However, I still don't think this gets to the nub of the issue. London is a really old and really big city, with really old infrastructure - nothing can change that.
Doing public transport in any kind of passable way is fraught with issues as a result. Frankly, I think London does an astonishing job, all things considered.

Edited by C70R on Monday 17th December 16:06

You can say they're doing an astonishing job given the centuries old infrastructure, but you've still got to admit that it's full of problems that are only made worse by an expanding population. Have we hit nine million yet? The last official census was a while ago...

Back to the point of the ULEZ, London's current public transport network cannot replace private car ownership and especially towards the edges of the 2021 ULEZ. It's wrong to tell people that they have to buy a new(er) car to conform to a piece of legislation that is just a political football.

[PZR]

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.

[danllama]

j_4m said:

Again, I'm not opposed to the ULEZ in Z1. I don't like it, but I'll accept it if it can demonstrably reduce PM levels. The expanded ULEZ is wholly unnecessary and will hit people with low incomes unfairly, whilst having little positive impact on quality of life.

This is the rub of it for me. I really don't know how we've got to a point where millions of people are going to allow TFL to do this.

Zone 1-2 6am-7pm fine. But there is absolutely no good reason for inflicting this financial burden on the working people of Greater London 24/7. It's disgusting.

[gavsdavs]

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 ?

[C70R]

Lexington59 said:

C70R said:

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's system is smaller ? Looks a lot like London in rush hour to me. When is that clip from, 1997 ?

Tokyo's population is noticeably higher than London's.

The Yamanote line alone carries more passengers per day than the entire London Underground network. 3.5 million people use Shinjuku station every day.

Japanese quietly obey? Absolutely true. No unseemly scum to board in Tokyo.

There are nine official Metro lines in Tokyo, but just about everyone would consider the network to include the overground rail lines — including the very popular and indispensable Yamanote line, which does a 21-mile circuit around the city. There are also lines run by private operators, and other lines run by the national operator. It is, in short, a mess , but it also means the system is huge. Even adding in London's suburban rail services doesn't bring it close.

AIrcon ticked as well. I know which I'd prefer, and that's before we start looking at efficiency and cancellations etc..

London is awful by comparison.

Like I said, a lot of merits to Tokyo's system. I'm comparing London's tube with the Tokyo metro, rather than considering Overground trains (which complicates things).
But it is smaller, and has many fewer trains, yet carries more people daily. Hence the major issues with over-capacity and congestion.
Here are a couple of more recent videos - no idea how you can say this is preferable to London...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXFRO89hVRE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h8_Cs6bGrE

[C70R]

danllama said:

j_4m said:

Again, I'm not opposed to the ULEZ in Z1. I don't like it, but I'll accept it if it can demonstrably reduce PM levels. The expanded ULEZ is wholly unnecessary and will hit people with low incomes unfairly, whilst having little positive impact on quality of life.

This is the rub of it for me. I really don't know how we've got to a point where millions of people are going to allow TFL to do this.

Zone 1-2 6am-7pm fine. But there is absolutely no good reason for inflicting this financial burden on the working people of Greater London 24/7. It's disgusting.

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"?