Expanded ULEZ

[motorbiking]

So the two alternatives to ULEZ you put forward don't have the effect of reducing pollution.

I proposed from the outset that vehicle pollution in the UK was already on the right curve, with a rapid move to zero emission vehicles. But this has to take time, so that we do not build the infrastructure ahead of the technology curve. In the UK we do not have a pollution problem on the same scale as the rest of Europe. That has nothing to do with our policies, but everything to do with our weather. South-westerlies are prevalent, in late spring - early autumn and Northerlies are prevalent at other times. That means we get clean air from the Atlantic mostly. Khan's tax on motorist with older vehicles is because he wont have an excuse in 2-5 years and he needs the money. The data shows the expansion will do nothing to reduce pollution ahead of the curve we were already on.

This is his best way to tax people outside of London for living near London, people who cannot vote him out.

As I said earlier, today's pollution is coming from Africa, due to the series of cyclonics in the North Atlantic. Expanding ULEZ will have zero difference to air quality.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Expanding ULEZ will have zero difference to air quality.

A bold statement. Any proof ?

 

[motorbiking]

Huh?
Have you got data to match that statement?

There is plenty of posted analysis that says - once you adjust for meteorological normalisation, ULEZ delivered the square root of nothing. This is partly because (according to the mayor) compliance was already high and the pollution from Euro5 engines (the main target) is insignificant.

The problem is the mayor has sponsored a lot of scientific research to argue otherwise. But it's pretty clear. London has followed the same track as other similar locations.

The biggest contributor to reducing pollution has been post-covid working approaches. Many, many more days spent working from home than before. That has resulted in significant loss of income for TfL.. hence the new tax.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

The biggest contributor to reducing pollution has been post-covid working approaches. Many, many more days spent working from home than before. That has resulted in significant loss of income for TfL.. hence the new tax.

Which concurs with, less traffic is better for pollution.

Forcing cars via a big stick not to enter is aiming to do exactly that.

 

[motorbiking]

A bold statement. Any proof ?

According to the mayor’s own impact assessment, widening ULEZ to outer London will only have “minor” and “negligible” benefits in terms of nitrogen dioxide and carbon particulates exposure, which are two key measures of air quality.

 

[securespark]

the pollution from Euro5 engines (the main target) is insignificant.

Euro 5 is exempt, surely?

 

[motorbiking]

Euro5 Diesels that should say.

 

[Brigadier]

Which concurs with, less traffic is better for pollution.

So why not just ban them, rather than charge them?

Does £12.50 per day make the "pollution" go away?

 

[motorbiking]

Which concurs with, less traffic is better for pollution.

Forcing cars via a big stick not to enter is aiming to do exactly that.

And the economy suffers.

Meanwhile air quality today in the uk is impacted by people burning stuff in Africa.

 

[johnny2007]

According to the mayor’s own impact assessment, widening ULEZ to outer London will only have “minor” and “negligible” benefits in terms of nitrogen dioxide and carbon particulates exposure, which are two key measures of air quality.

Let's make this clear: this is the study that the Emperor has paid for to go in his favour and the best they could do was exactly the above.
ULEZ is just a money making scam.

 

[JohnD]

I proposed from the outset that vehicle pollution in the UK was already on the right curve,

So you withdraw your earlier suggestion that your two alternative proposals do any good

 

[gant]

It's beyond belief people think governments give a sh*te whether you die or not from pollution.
There's a far bigger killer seeing a good percentage of the population off and that's the food we it.
Have a look at the kids these days coming out and weep at how overweight they are.

 

[motorbiking]

So you withdraw your earlier suggestion that your two alternative proposals do any good

To encourage people on a national scale to choose (at the point of purchase) fuel efficient cars which pollute less . No it makes good sense.
It doesn't make good sense to tax those people who purchased economical and clean vehicles 8 years later, based on information that was not available to them at the time.

 

[SirGalahad]

And the economy suffers.

Meanwhile air quality today in the uk is impacted by people burning stuff in Africa.

Like you gave a damn about the economy with Brexit and voting Tory.

Sorry that's rubbish coming from you.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

So why not just ban them, rather than charge them?

Does £12.50 per day make the "pollution" go away?

I have already said I would prefer every vehicle charged to enter, which would reduce the amount of vehicles

Do you think anywhere could cope with zero traffic ? I don't.

There is a difference between doing nothing and trying to reduce the impact.