Stop expanding the ULEZ to all the London boroughs in 2023

[clk320x]

Why have black cabs been given an exemption?

I agree that’s dumb, there have been some incredibly questionable decisions made.

 

[Flyinspanner]

I live in the Hillingdon borough, and wouldn’t mind so much if the public transport options were as good as those in central London.
Some journeys within the borough say Ruislip to Heathrow (where lots of residents work) would necessitate(maybe a bus initially to station) taking a train from Ruislip to Acton, and then to back out to Heathrow, (then another bus to wherever around the airport you are based.)

Trouble is the busses don’t start early enough to get you to work for an early shift …….
waiting in the cold, the dark, the rain - not really attractive.

Weekends a reduced service = more wasted time….

So maybe if they also introduced a robust system which exempted workers from any role/profession who can prove that the service is not fit for them, then I may, think it could work.

The problem is in part caused by the govt who at one stage were pushing diesel - cheaper tax etc, etc. Only to find out that the manufactures were lying about the pollution output!
(quelle suprise)

As it is it will be introduced and the people will have to suck up the cost, it won’t change driving behaviours much, and won’t improve air quality, (because everyone will still be driving)…..but will generate another revenue stream, and that’s the important bit.

Hands up if you think it will be used to improve road users experience

 

[Darrell]

I live in the Hillingdon borough, and wouldn’t mind so much if the public transport options were as good as those in central London.
Some journeys within the borough say Ruislip to Heathrow (where lots of residents work) would necessitate(maybe a bus initially to station) taking a train from Ruislip to Acton, and then to back out to Heathrow, (then another bus to wherever around the airport you are based.)

Trouble is the busses don’t start early enough to get you to work for an early shift …….
waiting in the cold, the dark, the rain - not really attractive.

Weekends a reduced service = more wasted time….

So maybe if they also introduced a robust system which exempted workers from any role/profession who can prove that the service is not fit for them, then I may, think it could work.

The problem is in part caused by the govt who at one stage were pushing diesel - cheaper tax etc, etc. Only to find out that the manufactures were lying about the pollution output!
(quelle suprise)

As it is it will be introduced and the people will have to suck up the cost, it won’t change driving behaviours much, and won’t improve air quality, (because everyone will still be driving)…..but will generate another revenue stream, and that’s the important bit.

Hands up if you think it will be used to improve road users experience

We used to live in Eastcote. Elm Avenue.

Can’t remember if we were LB of Hillingdon or Harrow.

 

[Darrell]

I was reading the Evening Standard on the tube on my journey home earlier and there was an article stating that several London boroughs will refuse to have the TFL cameras.

I’m not sure how this works but can Kahn overrule council decisions?

 

[neilrr]

We won’t put in your Ulez cameras, council tells Sadiq Khan

Mayor facing backlash against plans to expand Ulez across London in August

www.standard.co.uk

 

[markjay]

I was reading the Evening Standard on the tube on my journey home earlier and there was an article stating that several London boroughs will refuse to have the TFL cameras.

Showdown....

I’m not sure how this works but can Kahn overrule council decisions?

I guess we'll soon find out.

 

[Darrell]

Showdown....


I guess we'll soon find out.

 

[Flyinspanner]

We used to live in Eastcote. Elm Avenue.

Can’t remember if we were LB of Hillingdon or Harrow.

Hillingdon (Confusing with a HA postcode)

 

[Darrell]

Hillingdon (Confusing with a HA postcode)

According to my wife the lounge was in Harrow and the dining room was in Hillingdon (it was a double fronted bungalow) but we had a 0208 phone number.

My business partner lived in Pinner which is Middx so I kept my Gixxer 6 there cos the insurance was cheaper.

When our daughter was born we had a choice of Northwick Park or Hillingdon.

 

[Flyinspanner]

In the pic Elm Ave is pretty central, the dotted red line to the right is the boundary between Hillingdon & Harrow.

Funny I still use ‘Middx’ as part of my address - though it hasn’t existed for decades,

 

[alabbasi]

Sounds like this is a good time to lobby your MP and council members

 

[Will]

I think people worrying over surveillance relating to ULEZ is a little late. As said already there’s plenty of CCTV, ANPR (average speed cameras everywhere) and the like and have been for years now. Modern cars have telemetry factory installed, plus phone data etc etc…no point in panicking over a few extra ULEZ cameras.

Back to the ULEZ charge, I don’t really see the big issue. The outrage seems to be mostly from a minority of people, and from conversations I’ve witnessed many are not likely to be affected (or much) anyway. The vast majority of people who drive in/around London regularly tend to drive modern (compliant) vehicles anyway. Older (non compliant) vehicles typically wouldn’t cost that much to change with a less polluting/compliant equivalent either, plus there’s the scrappage scheme as well. And if you’ve owned that non compliant vehicle for many years (eg bought new or nearly new), chances are you can either afford the charge on the occasions you use it or can afford to change it for a compliant one.

It’s not as though 70% of Londoners drive old bangers and are being forced to replace them with £40/50k+ EVs or brand new ones or something. Even twenty year old petrol cars are compliant, it’s just the dirty diesels and the like really.

My own thoughts are it would be nice if any money generated was used for something productive and worthwhile.

Hammersmith bridge perhaps? That’s been closed a few years now and TfL have a stake in that already. Would ease some congestion and reduce journey times/miles driven in the surrounding areas hence better air quality..now there’s an idea

Does anyone remember the smoking ban years back? Seems strange to think that people would light up indoors in cinemas, restaurants, outside hospital entrances etc, even on planes and buses etc before that. Catalytic converters were frowned on back in the day too.

I’m no fan of Khan and/or the way he goes about things, but if you take a step back and think about this change, it’s not really a bad idea. Unpopular maybe, but you need to twist arms to initiate change sometimes.

 

[TeddyRuxpin]

This thread is 14 pages long and as far as I can tell from following from the beginning, not one person has changed from their position/mind...

 

[ALFAitalia]

I'm being offered dozens of motorhomes from ULEZ and potential future ULEZ areas. Most are commercial vehicle based too. Although many are expensive and I'm sure their owners could afford it, it's the principle of being charged every time the vehicle leaves the drive for what is effectively a toy that is annoying them....especially as many of them weight over 3.5 ton so can cost over £100 per day!

 

[markjay]

This thread is 14 pages long and as far as I can tell from following from the beginning, not one person has changed from their position/mind...

So just like any other OT thread on MBclub then....

 

[alabbasi]

This thread is 14 pages long and as far as I can tell from following from the beginning, not one person has changed from their position/mind...

I think that learning that they need permission from councils to put up cameras and that there is a legal challenge is informative because it gives people who don't want this tax a means to oppose it.

My father was a medical student in the 60's, he used to tell me that doctors prescribed cigarettes to patients to calm their nerves,and that only one carriage on the tube was non smoking. He said that pollution was so bad, that people had to walk in front of cars with a paraffin lamp to guide them through streets because visibility was so bad. When I was a kid in the 80's, my old primary school overlooked the white city estates. and I would see chimney's burning coal all the time. The smog had gone though and there was only one smoking carriage on the train. As I grew up, many houses were converted to run central heating and people did away with coal. Carbureted cars were replaced with fuel injection which measured 02 to get optimal burn, and catalysts introduced in 1993 meant that the exhaust gases were cleaner than the air being sucked in. By 2000 leaded fuel was off the market.

Anyone living in London 30 years ago or 50 years ago will tell you that it's now a much less polluted city. It's been getting better every year for the last 30 years. Suggesting that Ulez will make a difference makes about as much sense as suggesting Ulez is the reason the sun will rise tomorrow. Correlation is not causation and there can be no credit given for something that's already happening. It's a money grab, to help recoup the costs of keeping the buses and trains running and paying full salaries to TFL workers when it was illegal for anyone to leave the house. Madness.

 

[Dickster]

I think people worrying over surveillance relating to ULEZ is a little late. As said already there’s plenty of CCTV, ANPR (average speed cameras everywhere) and the like and have been for years now. Modern cars have telemetry factory installed, plus phone data etc etc…no point in panicking over a few extra ULEZ cameras.

Back to the ULEZ charge, I don’t really see the big issue. The outrage seems to be mostly from a minority of people, and from conversations I’ve witnessed many are not likely to be affected (or much) anyway. The vast majority of people who drive in/around London regularly tend to drive modern (compliant) vehicles anyway. Older (non compliant) vehicles typically wouldn’t cost that much to change with a less polluting/compliant equivalent either, plus there’s the scrappage scheme as well. And if you’ve owned that non compliant vehicle for many years (eg bought new or nearly new), chances are you can either afford the charge on the occasions you use it or can afford to change it for a compliant one.

It’s not as though 70% of Londoners drive old bangers and are being forced to replace them with £40/50k+ EVs or brand new ones or something. Even twenty year old petrol cars are compliant, it’s just the dirty diesels and the like really.

My own thoughts are it would be nice if any money generated was used for something productive and worthwhile.

Hammersmith bridge perhaps? That’s been closed a few years now and TfL have a stake in that already. Would ease some congestion and reduce journey times/miles driven in the surrounding areas hence better air quality..now there’s an idea

Does anyone remember the smoking ban years back? Seems strange to think that people would light up indoors in cinemas, restaurants, outside hospital entrances etc, even on planes and buses etc before that. Catalytic converters were frowned on back in the day too.

I’m no fan of Khan and/or the way he goes about things, but if you take a step back and think about this change, it’s not really a bad idea. Unpopular maybe, but you need to twist arms to initiate change sometimes.

I don’t think it is from a minority. I originally thought these charges applied only if you drive in and out of the zones. Like if I drive into London from Kent. That would make more sense.

I’m in Kent and barely outside the zone! A friend of mine lives in Sidcup (a few miles from me) and he’s caught by this and not happy at all - he’ll have to change his car.

Khan is a ****.

 

[Will]

I don’t think it is from a minority. I originally thought these charges applied only if you drive in and out of the zones. Like if I drive into London from Kent. That would make more sense.

I’m in Kent and barely outside the zone! A friend of mine lives in Sidcup (a few miles from me) and he’s caught by this and not happy at all - he’ll have to change his car.

Khan is a ****.

I’d be surprised if it’s a majority of people who are outraged.

I understand that Khan’s consultation didn’t show support for the expansion of ULEZ but it was 27k people who opposed it out of a population of several million.

The majority of cars are not affected.

I don’t like the guy (Khan!) but I do see the need for change. Alabassi gives some good examples of past practice that we wouldn’t dream of today.

It’s widely accepted that older diesels and some older petrol cars are not particularly clean. This is the nudge to move on and change habits that people need. It wouldn’t be a very good tax scheme if it was so easy to avoid, and if the scheme was run differently (eg outright ban with hefty fines) then it wouldn’t be fair.

On balance, I’m not sure that there’s a better solution but I guess those with a vested interest (motoring enthusiasts who drive older cars) will never be likely to agree.

 

[alabbasi]

but it was 27k people who opposed it out of a population of several million

In fairness, if you're suggesting that if they didn't oppose then they supported, that would be incorrect to assume. Only 1.2m people voted for Khan, would that mean the remaining 7.7m opposed him?

The nudge is not necessary, MOT takes most of those cars off the road and if the goal was to prevent pollution, a usage tax is more appropriate. In fact the most environmentally friendly thing you can do is keep your car longer, and repair it with recycled parts as manufacturing has a big environmental impact.

 

[Dickster]

I’d be surprised if it’s a majority of people who are outraged.

I understand that Khan’s consultation didn’t show support for the expansion of ULEZ but it was 27k people who opposed it out of a population of several million.

The majority of cars are not affected.

I don’t like the guy (Khan!) but I do see the need for change. Alabassi gives some good examples of past practice that we wouldn’t dream of today.

It’s widely accepted that older diesels and some older petrol cars are not particularly clean. This is the nudge to move on and change habits that people need. It wouldn’t be a very good tax scheme if it was so easy to avoid, and if the scheme was run differently (eg outright ban with hefty fines) then it wouldn’t be fair.

On balance, I’m not sure that there’s a better solution but I guess those with a vested interest (motoring enthusiasts who drive older cars) will never be likely to agree.

We’ll have to agree to disagree.

I’ve worked in central London for over 30 years and this issue is the least of its problems. It’s a problem that doesn’t exist. Khan is a cyclist and wants people out of cars. There may be pollution hot spots but they should be dealt with individually.

I guess supporters of this scheme would be in favour of the ridiculous 20mph zones (not all of them), and the nonsensical change to EVs.