All change 2025.

[WelshGas]

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!

I have no problem with the initial Conjestion and Ulez charges as that involved Central zones, but this expansion includes areas that have had their democratic rights ignored and overridden.

 

[Velma's Dad]

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.

Absolutely. Rather than debating the underlying pros and cons of a proposed policy, it ends up being personalised and Sadiq Khan appears to be the ideal hate magnet... can't imagine why.

(To declare my own view on the ULEZ expansion, I think it's probably the right thing to do but the costs should not be loaded as heavily on the less well-off - note, not the poorest because they don't own cars anyway. There should probably be a more generous scrappage scheme, funded by the whole of society through general, ie progressive, taxation. But I couldn't give a monkey's about whether it was Mr Khan's idea or Mr Johnson's or whoever, nor what their political motives might or might not have been.)

 

[wildslammer22]

I have no problem with the initial Conjestion and Ulez charges as that involved Central zones, but this expansion includes areas that have had their democratic rights ignored and overridden.

How so? The Mayor of London is in charge of GLA policy making and is voted in by the constituents of all the London boroughs and as such is democratically accountable to all. I accept that GLA policies aren’t popular in every borough but that isn’t the same as having their democratic rights overridden? That would only be applicable if the mayor were implementing policy that is radically different to the manifesto on which they stood. Transport policy in Greater London is devolved but not to the granular level of individual boroughs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GrumpyGranddad]

Drove through Woolwich, Greenwich, Lewisham through to Lambeth recently and the traffic was absolutely horrendous. Took me over 1.5 hours to do a fairly short distance. Part of the reason was the no-go Bus Lanes reducing the available carriageway by half. I obviously get the reason for bus lanes but the consequence is more pollution from all the other vehicles. Then to reduce that pollution more and more restrictions come into play. I get that too. This is only going one way.

What’s next? Maybe like in Beijing you will only be allowed to drive in the ULEZ on certain days of the week. In Beijing it’s based on your licence plate number. Odd numbers one day, even numbers the next.

 

[GrumpyGranddad]

Drove through Woolwich, Greenwich, Lewisham through to Lambeth recently and the traffic was absolutely horrendous. Took me over 1.5 hours to do a fairly short distance. Part of the reason was the no-go Bus Lanes reducing the available carriageway by half. I obviously get the reason for bus lanes but the consequence is more pollution from all the other vehicles. Then to reduce that pollution more and more restrictions come into play. I get that too. This is only going one way.

What’s next? Maybe like in Beijing you will only be allowed to drive in the ULEZ on certain days of the week. In Beijing it’s based on your licence plate number. Odd numbers one day, even numbers the next.

Maybe we’ll go this way!!!!!!

Starting from January 1, 2012 Beijing citizens who wish to purchase passenger cars with less than five seats must follow the small passenger car purchase policy to be applicable for purchasing a passenger car. According to the policy, the individual purchaser must not already have a passenger car registered under his or her name, and must fulfill various requirements such as having a driving license and living in Beijing; if the purchaser fulfils all of the requirements, he or she could apply for a quota for a passenger by entering the information pertaining to being applicable at the 'Beijing Small Passenger Car Passenger Quota Management' website, and then wait for the monthly license plate 'lottery', where during the 26th of every month the Traffic Management Bureau would take all of the eligible quotas and select a certain amount of them randomly similar to the way of lottery where numbers are drawn randomly. Companies are also applicable to following the policy, but under a different set of rules. Car owners who scrapped their cars could produce evidence and receive a quota without going through the process of license plate 'lottery'.

 

[Velma's Dad]

Drove through Woolwich, Greenwich, Lewisham through to Lambeth recently and the traffic was absolutely horrendous. Took me over 1.5 hours to do a fairly short distance. Part of the reason was the no-go Bus Lanes reducing the available carriageway by half. I obviously get the reason for bus lanes but the consequence is more pollution from all the other vehicles. Then to reduce that pollution more and more restrictions come into play. I get that too. This is only going one way.

What’s next? Maybe like in Beijing you will only be allowed to drive in the ULEZ on certain days of the week. In Beijing it’s based on your licence plate number. Odd numbers one day, even numbers the next.

So I assume from that you'd propose that the Congestion Charge should be extended to outer London boroughs? (In the CC zone it's claimed to have reduced congestion by 30%, partly by boosting bus travel by 33%).

 

[GrumpyGranddad]

So I assume from that you'd propose that the Congestion Charge should be extended to outer London boroughs? (In the CC zone it's claimed to have reduced congestion by 30%, partly by boosting bus travel by 33%).

Not sure why you think I would suggest that?
I think the congestion I got stuck in was partly due to people avoiding the previous boundary of the zone. That’s a point I made earlier in this thread. Introduce restrictions and you just move the problem.

 

[Velma's Dad]

Maybe we’ll go this way!!!!!!

Starting from January 1, 2012 Beijing citizens who wish to purchase passenger cars with less than five seats must follow the small passenger car purchase policy to be applicable for purchasing a passenger car. According to the policy, the individual purchaser must not already have a passenger car registered under his or her name, and must fulfill various requirements such as having a driving license and living in Beijing; if the purchaser fulfils all of the requirements, he or she could apply for a quota for a passenger by entering the information pertaining to being applicable at the 'Beijing Small Passenger Car Passenger Quota Management' website, and then wait for the monthly license plate 'lottery', where during the 26th of every month the Traffic Management Bureau would take all of the eligible quotas and select a certain amount of them randomly similar to the way of lottery where numbers are drawn randomly. Companies are also applicable to following the policy, but under a different set of rules. Car owners who scrapped their cars could produce evidence and receive a quota without going through the process of license plate 'lottery'.

In Japan for many years you have been legally banned from buying a car unless you can show proof that you have a parking space that you own or rent within 2km of your home.

At the risk of generalising, Asian notions of individual versus collective rights and responsibilities are radically different from those in the West. For that reason I have long suspected that China and other Asian polities will get to grips with pollution and climate challenges way before we do, despite their relatively slow start in some areas.

 

[WelshGas]

How so? The Mayor of London is in charge of GLA policy making and is voted in by the constituents of all the London boroughs and as such is democratically accountable to all. I accept that GLA policies aren’t popular in every borough but that isn’t the same as having their democratic rights overridden? That would only be applicable if the mayor were implementing policy that is radically different to the manifesto on which they stood. Transport policy in Greater London is devolved but not to the granular level of individual boroughs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

. The London Boroughs vote for the Major and it’s upto them to agree/disagree with his policies.
However, those that live in the surrounding Counties who supply services to London or depend on London based services such as the NHS, who will be heavily impacted , have had their democratic rights ignored. They do not have the transport infrastructure that London has, they do not have access to the Scrappage scheme etc. Hopefully all the small business supplying services to Londoners will implement a Post Code price increase to compensate .

 

[Amarillo]

Absolutely. Rather than debating the underlying pros and cons of a proposed policy, it ends up being personalised and Sadiq Khan appears to be the ideal hate magnet... can't imagine why.

(To declare my own view on the ULEZ expansion, I think it's probably the right thing to do but the costs should not be loaded as heavily on the less well-off - note, not the poorest because they don't own cars anyway. There should probably be a more generous scrappage scheme, funded by the whole of society through general, ie progressive, taxation. But I couldn't give a monkey's about whether it was Mr Khan's idea or Mr Johnson's or whoever, nor what their political motives might or might not have been.)

I think that’s more or less correct. Except I believe all (with exceptions of specially adapted cars for the disabled) should pay something for driving in London.

Perhaps a sliding scale based on VED bands.

But that may come. ULEZ in its current form is a start.

The next big change should be on street parking. The road I live on is wide enough for four lanes of cars. Two lanes are permanently knocked out of action by parked cars. Far better to have wide footways, cycle lanes, and an inner two way carriageway for motor vehicles.

 

[flying banana]

I understand you might be cross about clean air zones in principle, but it seems to me that has to be a decision in the end for the people who actually live in the cities in question (in this case Sheffield), who've elected a local authority that puts priority on their health and/or raising money to fund better public transport.

As you have a T6 (ie Euro 6) van, surely you personally can continue to commute in it to work in Sheffield with no extra costs or inconvenience? (Forgive me if I've misunderstood the setup.)

My car is 15 years old. So no. Inwould agree with you if they provided public transport. But they don't do they.

 

[flying banana]

London’s ULEZ doesn’t extend as far north as Sheffield, so I think you are safe from the London ULEZ charge for the foreseeable future.

Clean air zones in Sheffield now. Assume its the same thing? An extra tax on workers?

 

[Amarillo]

Some useful information on ULEZ here from the independent thinking London School of Economics.

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

 

[Amarillo]

Clean air zones in Sheffield now. Assume its the same thing? An extra tax on workers?

I know nothing about the Sheffield ULEZ, but if anything like the London ULEZ it will be trivial to avoid.

 

[GrumpyGranddad]

I think that’s more or less correct. Except I believe all (with exceptions of specially adapted cars for the disabled) should pay something for driving in London.

Perhaps a sliding scale based on VED bands.

But that may come. ULEZ in its current form is a start.

The next big change should be on street parking. The road I live on is wide enough for four lanes of cars. Two lanes are permanently knocked out of action by parked cars. Far better to have wide footways, cycle lanes, and an inner two way carriageway for motor vehicles.

Really! In an ideal world maybe, but where would the residents of say Southfields park their vehicles Tom? It’s ALL street parking there. Also if they’ve all moved to running an EV and can’t park outside there own house where on earth would hundreds of residents park their cars overnight with charging facilities.

 

[Velma's Dad]

. The London Boroughs vote for the Major and it’s upto them to agree/disagree with his policies.
However, those that live in the surrounding Counties who supply services to London or depend on London based services such as the NHS, who will be heavily impacted , have had their democratic rights ignored. They do not have the transport infrastructure that London has, they do not have access to the Scrappage scheme etc. Hopefully all the small business supplying services to Londoners will implement a Post Code price increase to compensate

That sort of thing will always surely be an issue in countries that don't have universal/monolithic tax and other laws but which instead allow regions/cities to have locally elected enties with tax raising and other powers (eg planning). The UK has actually ended up with very centralised government compared to many other G8 states, but there are bound to be winners and losers when people's day to day lives don't map neatly onto political boundaries and their election franchises. One person's "locally accountable government" is the next person's "postcode lottery".

I'm sure you're correct that some businesses outside ULEZ will choose, or at least try, to adjust their pricing to cover extra costs of ULEZ charges. That's no different to businesses in the US that operate different pricing when selling to customers in higher-tax US states, or those continental European businesses that have chosen to adjust their pricing to UK customers to accommodate post-Brexit tariff and non-tariff costs.

 

[wildslammer22]

. The London Boroughs vote for the Major and it’s upto them to agree/disagree with his policies.
However, those that live in the surrounding Counties who supply services to London or depend on London based services such as the NHS, who will be heavily impacted , have had their democratic rights ignored. They do not have the transport infrastructure that London has, they do not have access to the Scrappage scheme etc. Hopefully all the small business supplying services to Londoners will implement a Post Code price increase to compensate .

Residents and workers in London already pay a cost of living premium it’s why London weighting on salaries exists. I don’t live in London but have worked there for many years, I pay to commute in. It’s a choice I’ve made and I don’t feel my democratic rights have been impinged in making that choice. How is it different for small businesses who want to trade in London? It’s a bigger more lucrative market with consequentially a higher access premium. That premium is invariably passed on in any case. You’ll pay a lot more for a plumber in London than you will in Cardiff for example.

Your point about access to healthcare is a good one but one which most local authorities address in one way or another for those that need help financially or for access reasons. That said the biggest driver for ULEZ is the health benefits from breathing cleaner air and the poorest are also the most impacted by pollution related health issues. It becomes a bit of a circular argument.

 

[Amarillo]

Really! In an ideal world maybe, but where would the residents of say Southfields park their vehicles Tom? It’s ALL street parking there. Also if they’ve all moved to running an EV and can’t park outside there own house where on earth would hundreds of residents park their cars overnight with charging facilities.

My local Sainsbury’s has hundreds of parking spaces barely used overnight. It could easily be converted into a large EV charging facility, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there are 10,000 homes within a ten minute cycle ride radius of the Superstore.

Likewise the local large Tesco, with the added bonus of it being located next to Lewisham railway station, Lewisham DLR Station and Lewisham bus stand.

I really don’t think it is the duty of London’s Local Authorities to provide the 50% of households with cars with on street parking, perhaps with exceptions made for specially adapted vehicles for the disabled.

 

[Velma's Dad]

My local Sainsbury’s has hundreds of parking spaces barely used overnight. It could easily be converted into a large EV charging facility, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there are 10,000 homes within a ten minute cycle ride radius of the Superstore.

Likewise the local large Tesco, with the added bonus of it being located next to Lewisham railway station, Lewisham DLR Station and Lewisham bus stand.

This thread has evolved into a very nice distraction from Facebook. (More specifically, the "Dull Men's Club" FB group, of which I am a regular reader and contributor.)

 

[GrumpyGranddad]

My local Sainsbury’s has hundreds of parking spaces barely used overnight. It could easily be converted into a large EV charging facility, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there are 10,000 homes within a ten minute cycle ride radius of the Superstore.

Likewise the local large Tesco, with the added bonus of it being located next to Lewisham railway station, Lewisham DLR Station and Lewisham bus stand.

I really don’t think it is the duty of London’s Local Authorities to provide the 50% of households with cars with on street parking, perhaps with exceptions made for specially adapted vehicles for the disabled.

Sorry, it doesn’t stack up for me.
So, a resident would need to buy a Brompton or fit a cycle rack to their car just so they can cycle to the nearest Sainsbury or Tesco! Won’t happen IMO.
Would the Supermarkets be happy providing overnight parking for free? Doubt it.
Insurance costs might increase as the car is left overnight away from home. A tea leaf’s paradise.

 

[Velma's Dad]

Sorry, it doesn’t stack up for me.
So, a resident would need to buy a Brompton or fit a cycle rack to their car just so they can cycle to the nearest Sainsbury or Tesco! Won’t happen IMO.
Would the Supermarkets be happy providing overnight parking for free? Doubt it.
Insurance costs might increase as the car is left overnight away from home. A tea leaf’s paradise.

It wouldn't work for me either, but that's because we're both old farts and don't want to change anything about our lives. Fortunately meanwhile younger people just get on with figuring out new ways of living - in fact a growing proportion of them have no interest in owning a car, or even learning to drive one. Of course supermarkets aren't going to offer free parking unless there's a business case for it, but why should it be free? At the moment they're generating zero revenue for those huge parking space assets. If opportunities exist, businesses will innovate.

Just sayin'.

 

[GrumpyGranddad]

It wouldn't work for me either, but that's because we're both old farts and don't want to change anything about our lives. Fortunately meanwhile younger people just get on with figuring out new ways of living - in fact a growing proportion of them have no interest in owning a car, or even learning to drive one. Of course supermarkets aren't going to offer free parking unless there's a business case for it, but why should it be free? At the moment they're generating zero revenue for those huge parking space assets. If opportunities exist, businesses will innovate.

Just sayin'.

Agree with what you say apart from as an old fart not wanting any change. Quite happy with change and have seen lots during my life. ‘Change is the only constant’ was a regular message I gave to my team when I was a working man (yes I read a few management books ** ). Having said that, not ALL change is good change.

** ‘Who moved my cheese’ was a good one.

 

[Amarillo]

Sorry, it doesn’t stack up for me.
So, a resident would need to buy a Brompton or fit a cycle rack to their car just so they can cycle to the nearest Sainsbury or Tesco! Won’t happen IMO.
Would the Supermarkets be happy providing overnight parking for free? Doubt it.
Insurance costs might increase as the car is left overnight away from home. A tea leaf’s paradise.

I made no suggestion that parking and/or charging at Sainsbury’s or Tesco overnight should be free. Indeed, I think all large supermarkets should have to charge for parking. Instead of which, the costs of the supermarket parking facility is carried by all, irrespective of whether they drive, cycle, walk or arrive by public transport.

Sainsbury’s in Eltham take this one step further, giving motorists a discount of up to 10% on their shopping while those who cycle, walk or use public transport get nothing.

 

[GrumpyGranddad]

I made no suggestion that parking and/or charging at Sainsbury’s or Tesco overnight should be free. Indeed, I think all large supermarkets should have to charge for parking. Instead of which, the costs of the supermarket parking facility is carried by all, irrespective of whether they drive, cycle, walk or arrive by public transport.

Sainsbury’s in Eltham take this one step further, giving motorists a discount of up to 10% on their shopping while those who cycle, walk or use public transport get nothing.

Sainsbury’s in Eltham take this one step further, giving motorists a discount of up to 10% on their shopping while those who cycle, walk or use public transport get nothing.

What a strange policy.

 

[flying banana]

Sainsbury’s in Eltham take this one step further, giving motorists a discount of up to 10% on their shopping while those who cycle, walk or use public transport get nothing.

What a strange policy.

Reminds me of this condom machine I spotted in norfolk. Surely it's the wrong way around?