All change 2025.

[Amarillo]

That's true, but how is that relevant to my post #7, which you quoted?

That post was my comment on the proposed "Introduction of Vehicle Excise Duty for zero emission cars, vans and motorcycles from 2025".

However, referring to your response, Yes change will happen, it always has. EVs have an important part to play but they aren't the panacea to all our current woes, which is the road we are all currently being funneled down.

===

Swapping to EV use for environmental reasons is one contentious thing but anyone who thought they were onto a long term financial winner by switching to an EV was/is deluded.

===

A similar argument might have been used in the early 1900s to discourage the switch from horse to ICE.

 

[GrumpyGranddad]

The direction is well and truly set:-

“I don’t think the expansion of ULEZ will be sufficient in the longer term,” said Frank Kelly, a professor at Imperial College London who has worked on air pollution science for 30 years. “Even though it’s had a big impact in central and inner London, the concentrations of pollutants still are too high. So other measures will need to be introduced in due course if we’re going to get down to those magic WHO guidelines.”

That’s why I’m now looking for that horse.

 

[Velma's Dad]

That’s why I’m now looking for that horse.

Yeah more bloody British Horse Society greenwash. You're not factoring in the environmental emissions from the firing of forges for making and fitting horseshoes.

 

[Corradobrit]

Yeah more bloody British Horse Society greenwash. You're not factoring in the environmental emissions from the firing of forges for making and fitting horseshoes.

Or the gaseous emissions from its rear end

 

[WelshGas]

Yes, and they do. My argument is that car owners in London should contribute more than non car owners in London.

I don’t think that is unreasonable.

I think if you looked into it correctly London Car owners already do through increased Parking charges and Permits. Those from outside London contribute significantly to the GDP of London and supply many of the services used by the non-car owners.
Without the non-Londener workers and tourists London would be a ghost city. Pity there couldn't be be a boycott of the LEZ and let Khan sink into obscurity.

 

[GrumpyGranddad]

Or the gaseous emissions from its rear end

Lots of manure for my allotments though

 

[Velma's Dad]

I think if you looked into it correctly London Car owners already do through increased Parking charges and Permits. Those from outside London contribute significantly to the GDP of London and supply many of the services used by the non-car owners.
Without the non-Londener workers and tourists London would be a ghost city. Pity there couldn't be be a boycott of the LEZ and let Khan sink into obscurity.

Unless you're happy to contemplate, fairly and objectively, ALL the net contributions and costs of London versus its hinterland and the rest of the UK, it seems to me pretty pointless to sling around random 'facts' about what outsiders do for London, but not vice versa.

Actually though there was recently an interesting thought-experiment forum called "What if London Became and Independent City State". I haven't watched the whole thing but one of the take-outs was that London generates about £30-40bn a year in tax receipts that are an enormous subsidy for much the the rest of the UK. And the loss of a few national institutions wouldn't actually make much of dent in that.

I don't live or work in London by the way, neither am I a chip-bearing provincial culture warrior with a beef against the Metropolitan Eliite, so I don't feel I have a dog in this fight. But give me a minute to fetch some popcorn.

 

[Borris]

===

Swapping to EV use for environmental reasons is one contentious thing but anyone who thought they were onto a long term financial winner by switching to an EV was/is deluded.

===

A similar argument might have been used in the early 1900s to discourage the switch from horse to ICE.

I still don't understand your point. As stated my post was a comment on the proposed "Introduction of Vehicle Excise Duty for zero emission cars, vans and motorcycles from 2025".

I wasn't around in the 1900s but I do know that London (and other cities) suffered significant pollution issues from the wide spread use of horses. Horses are also costly to run, labour intensive and can't be switched off when not in use. Apart from the pollution angle I don't see the relevance of your horsey analogy

 

[Amarillo]

I think if you looked into it correctly London Car owners already do through increased Parking charges and Permits. Those from outside London contribute significantly to the GDP of London and supply many of the services used by the non-car owners.
Without the non-Londener workers and tourists London would be a ghost city. Pity there couldn't be be a boycott of the LEZ and let Khan sink into obscurity.

A Lewisham parking permit has just increased from £50 to £80 per year (14p to 22p per day). That is hardly going to make a dent in the council’s coffers.

Meanwhile, those wanting to travel by train from Grove Park (also in Lewisham) to London Bridge - a journey of 8 miles - need to fork out £6.40, each way.

And there is plenty of free on street parking available in Lewisham.

As far as I know, where parking is allowed on Red Routes (TfL roads), it is free, but time limited - usually 30m.

I agree that people from outside London make a huge contribution to the economy of the city. But their taxes and VAT goes to central government, not to the GLA. And London gets far less back than it contributes.

A Sevenoaks to Zone 1 season ticket is £480. There are about 22 working days in a month. 22 ULEZ payments is £275. And that is only paid by drivers of the most polluting vehicles.

ULEZ is a start, but if we really want to see a sea change in driving in London, much more driving needs to be charged.

 

[GrumpyGranddad]

Interesting.
Smoke (excuse the pun) and mirrors?

 

[Velma's Dad]

Interesting.
Smoke (excuse the pun) and mirrors?

The ULEZ expansion has obviously stoked up a political spat that's far more about party politics than it is about evidence based transport and environment policy. You might find this a more comprehensive source than the partisan tabloids, you can be your own judge of whether it is balanced:

The truth about London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment

As London prepares for the expansion next week of the Ultra Low Emission Zone, Bob Ward dispels the myths around this policy, explaining its origins, the thinking behind the expansion and the links between air pollution and health.

www.lse.ac.uk

 

[WelshGas]

Unless you're happy to contemplate, fairly and objectively, ALL the net contributions and costs of London versus its hinterland and the rest of the UK, it seems to me pretty pointless to sling around random 'facts' about what outsiders do for London, but not vice versa.

Actually though there was recently an interesting thought-experiment forum called "What if London Became and Independent City State". I haven't watched the whole thing but one of the take-outs was that London generates about £30-40bn a year in tax receipts that are an enormous subsidy for much the the rest of the UK. And the loss of a few national institutions wouldn't actually make much of dent in that.

I don't live or work in London by the way, neither am I a chip-bearing provincial culture warrior with a beef against the Metropolitan Eliite, so I don't feel I have a dog in this fight. But give me a minute to fetch some popcorn.

I'm sure London Residents contribute a lot BUT a lot of the " workers " in London don't actually live within the Metropolitan area and commute everyday to the office, unless of course they are Civil " servants " , and many work in Financial Services and other white collar industries/professions.

"The majority of commuters to central London (about 80% of 1.1 million) arrive by either the Underground (400,000 daily) or by surface railway into these termini (860,000 daily)."

 

[Velma's Dad]

I'm sure London Residents contribute a lot BUT a lot of the " workers " in London don't actually live within the Metropolitan area and commute everyday to the office, unless of course they are Civil " servants " , and many work in Financial Services and other white collar industries/professions.

"The majority of commuters to central London (about 80% of 1.1 million) arrive by either the Underground (400,000 daily) or by surface railway into these termini (860,000 daily)."

Sorry I'm honestly unclear what point you are making. I don't think anyone disputes that lots of people work in London who don't live there, and a few in the outer boroughs work outside. Some use the roads, some use public transport both for work and other things. Roads, rail and buses are funded by various sources, including direct and property taxes (some but not all levied on London residents) and through tickets and charges (ditto). So...?

 

[WelshGas]

Sorry I'm honestly unclear what point you are making. I don't think anyone disputes that lots of people work in London who don't live there, and a few in the outer boroughs work outside. Some use the roads, some use public transport both for work and other things. Roads, rail and buses are funded by various sources, including direct and property taxes (some but not all levied on London residents) and through tickets and charges (ditto). So...?

Don't worry. You don't have to apologise if you don't understand my point.
@Amarillo stated that 50% of Londoners dont own a car so it is perfectly fair for others to cough up more for the Transport Infrastructure, but it is because of these " others" , the commuters and Tourists etc: that London is able to generate the significant % towards the countries GDP.
London would not be in the position it is without these " others", and TFL and Kahn would be bankrupt.

 

[Amarillo]

Don't worry. You don't have to apologise if you don't understand my point.
@Amarillo stated that 50% of Londoners dont own a car so it is perfectly fair for others to cough up more for the Transport Infrastructure, but it is because of these " others" , the commuters and Tourists etc: that London is able to generate the significant % towards the countries GDP.
London would not be in the position it is without these " others", and TFL and Kahn would be bankrupt.

TfL’s block grant from central Government ends in March 2024. This hole in TfL’s finances has to be closed. The daily ULEZ charge will do just that.

Other ways include TfL fare increases, which would encourage more people to drive, and increasing the GLA council tax precept.

As London drivers contribute so little to the cost of maintaining London’s roads, the ULEZ charge is a reasonable solution. Hopefully it will gradually spread to more vehicles, reducing car use and increasing public transport use.

There are several free or cheap options for travel in London <5 miles, including but not limited to walking, bicycle and mobility scooter. For those who can’t do any of those things, specially adapted motor vehicles, either ICE or EV, should be zero rated.

 

[GrumpyGranddad]

The ULEZ expansion has obviously stoked up a political spat that's far more about party politics than it is about evidence based transport and environment policy. You might find this a more comprehensive source than the partisan tabloids, you can be your own judge of whether it is balanced:

The truth about London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment

As London prepares for the expansion next week of the Ultra Low Emission Zone, Bob Ward dispels the myths around this policy, explaining its origins, the thinking behind the expansion and the links between air pollution and health.

www.lse.ac.uk

Hi @Velma's Dad I have absolutely no doubt that vehicle emissions cause harmful pollution and I’m all for reducing that pollution. I’m just not totally convinced that the motives for expanding the ULEZ are purely environmental. £1 billion in additional revenues for the mayor’s office have been suggested.

I know that some people will reroute to avoid the zone. That rerouting will have a negative environmental impact on the affected areas. New rat runs, longer journey times, more congestion, pollution, noise, etc.

 

[Amarillo]

Don't worry. You don't have to apologise if you don't understand my point.
@Amarillo stated that 50% of Londoners dont own a car

No I didn’t.

The figure I quoted was ~50% of London households have no car.

There are an average of 2.6 people in each London household, so considerably more than 50% of Londoners have no car.

I think that the zero cars/household figure is more useful than the zero cars/person figure because it includes people who share a car, e.g. couples, and excludes people under 17 years of age who rarely form a sole household and can never legally drive a car on London’s roads.

 

[wildslammer22]

The direction is well and truly set:-

“I don’t think the expansion of ULEZ will be sufficient in the longer term,” said Frank Kelly, a professor at Imperial College London who has worked on air pollution science for 30 years. “Even though it’s had a big impact in central and inner London, the concentrations of pollutants still are too high. So other measures will need to be introduced in due course if we’re going to get down to those magic WHO guidelines.”

That’s why I’m now looking for that horse.

View attachment 113652

Pollution from horses hit crisis point in the late 19th century. Everything in life is cyclical!

“In London, where the horse-carried Hansom Cab occupied the streets, 50.000 horses produced 570.000 kilograms of horse manure and 57.000 litres of urine daily. Together with the corpses of death horses, the urine and manure started to poison the city's inhabitants”

The 57,000 litres of horse urine was clearly the precursor to Adblue…

 

[wildslammer22]

I think if you looked into it correctly London Car owners already do through increased Parking charges and Permits. Those from outside London contribute significantly to the GDP of London and supply many of the services used by the non-car owners.
Without the non-Londener workers and tourists London would be a ghost city. Pity there couldn't be be a boycott of the LEZ and let Khan sink into obscurity.

Why make it political? LEZ and ULEZ were initiatives that originated when Johnson was mayor. Surely clean air isn’t an unreasonable aspiration whatever your politic? Without a coherent public transport strategy which includes clean air and congestion reduction initiatives London would become almost unliveable like Lahore or Delhi.I think it’s fair to criticise the execution of some of these policies but not their objectives.

 

[bvddobb]

An alternative industry could flourish with the entirely green purpose of prolonging the life of an object which has already been produced and has therefore long since created it's own manufacturing carbon footprint.

And that does not only concern cars. What happened to the repair industry of TV‘s, stereo sets, dishwashers and washing machines, PC’s, bikes, furniture, etc. etc…

 

[Borris]

Pollution from horses hit crisis point in the late 19th century. Everything in life is cyclical!

“In London, where the horse-carried Hansom Cab occupied the streets, 50.000 horses produced 570.000 kilograms of horse manure and 57.000 litres of urine daily.

But the roses were magnificent.

 

[bvddobb]

I think that Climate change follows Ukraine which followed Covid - all of them tools to manipulate people with associated lies and propaganda.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!

 

[WelshGas]

Why make it political? LEZ and ULEZ were initiatives that originated when Johnson was mayor. Surely clean air isn’t an unreasonable aspiration whatever your politic? Without a coherent public transport strategy which includes clean air and congestion reduction initiatives London would become almost unliveable like Lahore or Delhi.I think it’s fair to criticise the execution of some of these policies but not their objectives.

Whose making it Political. The people significantly affected by Kahns policy have been ignored. And I'm not referring to the Tourists . Also the science Kahn and his gang are using is questionable in the extreme.

 

[wildslammer22]

And that does not only concern cars. What happened to the repair industry of TV‘s, stereo sets, dishwashers and washing machines, PC’s, bikes, furniture, etc. etc…

Agreed, we live in a disposable society and the dichotomy is that no government wants to curb consumerism as it is a key economic driver. Waste is a huge issue which isn’t really addressed politically. It’s driving emissions, clogging up our land and seas and is often lethal to much of our flora and fauna.

I’m as guilty as the next man, I checked my mesh wifi network the other day and saw that in a household of four there were 23 'smart' devices connected!

The one area where I have consciously tried to do my bit is with cars. I always walk or cycle where possible for local trips/errands and I keep my cars a long time. I had a Landrover for 13 years and now my son uses it - 200k on the clock and still going strong. I plan to keep my T6 for a similar period. Now I have to stop myself buying stuff for it that never gets used…

 

[wildslammer22]

Whose making it Political. The people significantly affected by Kahns policy have been ignored. And I'm not referring to the Tourists . Also the science Kahn and his gang are using is questionable in the extreme.

By singling out Khan (not Kahn) as one that protesters should target when his policies are just a continuation of his predecessor looks political to me. Forgive me if you were posting similar thoughts when Johnson was mayor and introduced these initiatives, I’ve only been on the forum for a year!