ULEZ charge in 2021

[C70R]

kiethton said:

There is fk all point in us doing anything when years worth of effort (and significant cost) is negated by either natural disasters or other countries. Look at the level of emissions in other cities - Istanbul, Shanghai, Nairobi, New York - we as a country are far better but all it takes is a change in wind direction and you're now experiencing the fumes from elsewhere whilst making your own population less economically competitive globally....

As has also been said, other sources of this pollution continue to be ignored - because the motorist is an easy cashcow.....try following a "low emission" bus in London, on a pushbike and see if they are actually any different - they're in such a state maintenance wise that they continue to pump far more out than almost every other type of vehicle in the city.

All or nothing (globally) IMO and that's not happening any time soon

That's probably the most ridiculous thing I'm going to read all day. You're effectively saying that because we're better than other cities, we shouldn't try to improve (at the expense of the ICE user)? Can you see how silly that sounds?
Should we not try to lead the way? Try to be the least-polluted major city in the world? Make concessions to bring wider health benefits, and show how others how it can be achieved?
Or should we not bother because, y'know, "the wind might change".

As a one-time daily cycle-commuter, the low-emissions and hybrid buses are a MASSIVE step on from the old ICE-only buses. It's not practical to have zero-polluting buses in London because of battery technology limitations, so this is a step in the right direction (as is the ULEZ) for now.
A single bus can be moving 50+ people at rush-hour in the footprint of two private cars, which are probably driver-only. I can guarantee that the equivalent 'per head' pollution is minuscule by comparison. Get some perspective.

[Thankyou4calling]

This is a genuine question, not looking to be controversial.

Is Londons air actually that polluted?

Are officials measuring things that we didn't used to measure, looking for things we know we will find lots of.

I ask this as I've lived in London all (most) my life and can remember some real filth being belched out of cars and taxis in the 80's and 90's, Gas works, planes like VC10's flying over (I'm 49 now to give some context)

Lots of houses used to have chimnies burning coal and wood and people had a lot more bonfires in their gardens.

Plus we used a lot of aerosols that I think prince Charles was involved in cleaning up.

I wasn't around in the 50's but those smogs were way worse too I'm sure.

I don't see or feel the air being any worse than when I was a kid or young adult and as for congestion, i actually find it quite easy to drive around london as opposed to other cities I've been to worldwide where it's hell.

Are people actually dying from this poor air, i'm not seeing it.

Just my thoughts.

[C70R]

Thankyou4calling said:

This is a genuine question, not looking to be controversial.

Is Londons air actually that polluted?

Are officials measuring things that we didn't used to measure, looking for things we know we will find lots of.

I ask this as I've lived in London all (most) my life and can remember some real filth being belched out of cars and taxis in the 80's and 90's, Gas works, planes like VC10's flying over (I'm 49 now to give some context)

Lots of houses used to have chimnies burning coal and wood and people had a lot more bonfires in their gardens.

Plus we used a lot of aerosols that I think prince Charles was involved in cleaning up.

I wasn't around in the 50's but those smogs were way worse too I'm sure.

I don't see or feel the air being any worse than when I was a kid or young adult and as for congestion, i actually find it quite easy to drive around london as opposed to other cities I've been to worldwide where it's hell.

Are people actually dying from this poor air, i'm not seeing it.

Just my thoughts.

People aren't dropping dead, that's true. However, by contrast with the rest of the UK, London's air is highly polluted, and its roads are hugely congested.
It's the most densely-populated city in Western Europe, and ignoring the problem isn't going to help anyone in the long-run as London grows. I'd be much happier if we addressed this now, rather than waiting until the air quality gets worse.

The AQI (Air Quality Index) in London right now is ~70, which puts it at better-than-average in the context of the entire world. However, you only need go a few miles West, to near Heathrow, to see this improve significantly to ~20.
Not only does this demonstrate the delta caused by highly congested roads, but it also completely shuts down the argument about airports/planes.
"Bad" in the context of Europe is currently ~170 in Istanbul.

Edited by C70R on Tuesday 24th October 11:15

[CABC]

Thankyou4calling said:

This is a genuine question, not looking to be controversial.

Is Londons air actually that polluted?

Are officials measuring things that we didn't used to measure, looking for things we know we will find lots of.

I ask this as I've lived in London all (most) my life and can remember some real filth being belched out of cars and taxis in the 80's and 90's, Gas works, planes like VC10's flying over (I'm 49 now to give some context)

Lots of houses used to have chimnies burning coal and wood and people had a lot more bonfires in their gardens.

Plus we used a lot of aerosols that I think prince Charles was involved in cleaning up.

I wasn't around in the 50's but those smogs were way worse too I'm sure.

I don't see or feel the air being any worse than when I was a kid or young adult and as for congestion, i actually find it quite easy to drive around london as opposed to other cities I've been to worldwide where it's hell.

Are people actually dying from this poor air, i'm not seeing it.

Just my thoughts.

the much quoted figures of thousands of deaths per year is a statistical twist of the facts. Lives may be shortened by weeks and some people will suffer discomfort. Others will suffer secondary effects, which in turn may become serious. The case for clean air is good, but some of the arguments are disingenuous.

Evidence is strong that pollution is particularly bad very close to busy roads, ie much more localised than first thought. Best to walk your kids along side streets.

We also need to differentiate between cfcs, particulates and nox. otherwise the debate falls down the brexit route.

[Thankyou4calling]

You say London is the most densely populated city in Western europe but from what i can see it doesn't even rank in the top 10.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Uni...

If you fly over London it's quite remarkable how much parkland and open space there is from what I've seen.

[NomduJour]

It’s basic playing-to-the-crowd politics. T-Charge is apparently expected to make less than 1% difference in pollution in the zone, any changes will most likely not even attributable.

Making efforts to ease congestion and traffic flow (and incentivising electric local deliveries etc.) would be a far more pragmatic policy, but that’s not going to keep the right-on metro elite happy.

[C70R]

Thankyou4calling said:

You say London is the most densely populated city in Western europe but from what i can see it doesn't even rank in the top 10.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Uni...

If you fly over London it's quite remarkable how much parkland and open space there is from what I've seen.

Wikipedia said:

This section does not cite any sources.

Wikipedia is a dangerous source...
(Plus, London's population is almost the sum of all 9 of those 'cities')

I don't propose to be the de facto source, but at this appears to show something slightly different.
http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-citie...

[swisstoni]

There can't be many people who will not agree that getting the air cleaner is a good thing.

However, 'sexing up' statistics and overstating the facts to get the results they want are the reason why politicians and pressure groups are so poorly regarded across the board.

They can't blame folks for not believing a thing they are told as facts any more and why the electorate as a whole are so darn hard to predict these days.

[C70R]

NomduJour said:

It’s basic playing-to-the-crowd politics. T-Charge is apparently expected to make less than 1% difference in pollution in the zone, any changes will most likely not even attributable.

Making efforts to ease congestion and traffic flow (and incentivising electric local deliveries etc.) would be a far more pragmatic policy, but that’s not going to keep the right-on metro elite happy.

Interested to see your source on the 1%, because I haven't come across this in my travels.
Surely you can see that the ULEZ is likely to result in a decline in vehicle usage, and an increase in non-ICE usage among the most frequent visitors? It might not be the perfect solution, but I can't see anything better being proposed (either in this thread or the wider world).

[Thankyou4calling]

C70R said:

Wikipedia is a dangerous source...
(Plus, London's population is almost the sum of all 9 of those 'cities')

I don't propose to be the de facto source, but at this appears to show something slightly different.
http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-citie...

Your list is interesting but London is still well down it with European cities above.

British people love to moan, it's a national trait.

We moan about the weather and the traffic but if you actually go to another country and try and drive around a city or breath the air you soon wonder what you are moaning about, at least i do.

[C70R]

Thankyou4calling said:

C70R said:

Wikipedia is a dangerous source...
(Plus, London's population is almost the sum of all 9 of those 'cities')

I don't propose to be the de facto source, but at this appears to show something slightly different.
http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-citie...

Your list is interesting but London is still well down it with European cities above.

British people love to moan, it's a national trait.

We moan about the weather and the traffic but if you actually go to another country and try and drive around a city or breath the air you soon wonder what you are moaning about, at least i do.

There are only three European cities (directly) above London, and almost every other city above those is in a developing country. For a first-world city, we are ridiculously densely-populated, and there's no getting away from that.

As for the moaning thing, the point I made above about the AQI shows that Central London is demonstrably more polluted than the areas immediately outside it.
Should we Londoners "stop moaning" because it's not as bad as it is in Mumbai?
Or, should we recognise that it is a function of population density, and try to address it?

[gavsdavs]

Thankyou4calling said:

This is a genuine question, not looking to be controversial.

Is Londons air actually that polluted?

Are officials measuring things that we didn't used to measure, looking for things we know we will find lots of.

I ask this as I've lived in London all (most) my life and can remember some real filth being belched out of cars and taxis in the 80's and 90's, Gas works, planes like VC10's flying over (I'm 49 now to give some context)

Lots of houses used to have chimnies burning coal and wood and people had a lot more bonfires in their gardens.

Plus we used a lot of aerosols that I think prince Charles was involved in cleaning up.

I wasn't around in the 50's but those smogs were way worse too I'm sure.

I don't see or feel the air being any worse than when I was a kid or young adult and as for congestion, i actually find it quite easy to drive around london as opposed to other cities I've been to worldwide where it's hell.

Are people actually dying from this poor air, i'm not seeing it.

Just my thoughts.

Go and take a walk between London Bridge and Rotherhithe roundabout betwen 4 and 8pm, most days or just get out at bermondsey station and take a look. It's pretty stationary as people are queuing for the rotherhithe tunnel. Roads in Bermondsey are all within 500m of jamaica road and it's nasty because of the standing traffic.

I think elephant and castle is bad too - and those are just two of the example artertial roads just outside the perimeter of the CCZ. Isligton/upper street/city road is probably just as bad.

[NomduJour]

C70R - Reference to % change was in a newspaper I think - will look later.

Many, many better ways of effecting the desired solution other than targeting private cars which aren’t the problem. Congestion causes pollution, and poor road layout decisions etc. have massively increased congestion - see the INRIX report I referenced. Same report shows private cars aren’t the problem - numbers reducing, also overall road journeys are reducing.

Local delivery vehicles (of which numbers have boomed) and truck refrigeration units would be far more effective targets if pollution was the real driver. Policies like that won’t be vote winners for Citizen Khan though...

[C70R]

NomduJour said:

C70R - Reference to % change was in a newspaper I think - will look later.

Many, many better ways of effecting the desired solution other than targeting private cars which aren’t the problem. Congestion causes pollution, and poor road layout decisions etc. have massively increased congestion - see the INRIX report I referenced. Same report shows private cars aren’t the problem - numbers reducing, also overall road journeys are reducing.

Local delivery vehicles (of which numbers have boomed) and truck refrigeration units would be far more effective targets if pollution was the real driver. Policies like that won’t be vote winners for Citizen Khan though...

Both the T-Charge and ULEZ affect all vehicles, not just private cars. So delivery vehicles will be targeted as a consequence - or am I missing something obvious?

[Stick Legs]

Thankyou4calling said:

...planes like VC10's flying over

How dare you bring the Queen of the Skies into this!

[Wuzzle]

NomduJour said:

It’s basic playing-to-the-crowd politics.

How utterly unexpected from the man who came up with the U-Lez, Boris Johnson.

[C70R]

Wuzzle said:

NomduJour said:

It’s basic playing-to-the-crowd politics.

How utterly unexpected from the man who came up with the U-Lez, Boris Johnson.

Wait - I've lost track. Are we angry at BoJo or Sadiq?
Some people just can't miss an opportunity for a political cheap-shot.

[Wuzzle]

Thankyou4calling said:

This is a genuine question, not looking to be controversial.

Is Londons air actually that polluted?

Bad enough for Boris to have gone to the trouble of "covering up" how bad it actually was...


www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-fac...

[swisstoni]

C70R said:

Wuzzle said:

NomduJour said:

It’s basic playing-to-the-crowd politics.

How utterly unexpected from the man who came up with the U-Lez, Boris Johnson.

Wait - I've lost track. Are we angry at BoJo or Sadiq?
Some people just can't miss an opportunity for a political cheap-shot.

Pollution is a fairly low hanging fruit for a Mayor of any persuasion to have a go at.
Campaigning for clean air is hard to argue with (stymies your opponents) and it makes you look useful.

[NomduJour]

C70R said:

Both the T-Charge and ULEZ affect all vehicles, not just private cars. So delivery vehicles will be targeted as a consequence - or am I missing something obvious?

Introduce major incentives for electric local delivery vehicles, maybe, instead of pointlessly punishing private owners of cars which are by comparison barely used in the T-Charge or proposed ULEZ zones? Legislate for pollution controls on truck refrigeration units (removal of which would be the equivalent of 350,000 diesel cars)?

Net pollution contribution of the majority of cars which will be effectively outlawed by the ULEZ must be insignificant - generally a few miles on the odd weekend.

Edited by NomduJour on Tuesday 24th October 12:37