Earl Aelfheah

No, you’re speculating / making assumptions. I’m using figures which come from research by the RAC Foundation The issue is simply that there is a cost to land use. Sparticus wants to talk about costs and revenues. It is a statutory requirement that any net revenue generated by ULEZ is reinvested back into London’s transport network. If you have evidence of law breaking you should probably share it.

According to research by the RAC Foundation, there are about 25 billion car trips per year, and some 27 million cars, suggesting an average of just under 18 trips per car every. Since the duration of the average car trip is about 20 minutes, the typical car is only on the move for 6 hours in the week: for the remaining 162 hours it is stationary – parked. Since there are 168 hours in a week, the typical UK car is parked 96.5% of the time. In London I suspect there are many cars which fail to move from one week to the next. So it's difficult to see how anyone can really argue that significant amounts of land are not given over to car storage. It is undeniably true that this is the case. What is not true is that motoring is a net positive revenue generator. It may be if you completely ignore the substantial externalities of motoring, but this is clearly naïve economics. All serious attempts to estimate the true cost of motoring conclude that it is subsidised (although by exactly how much may reasonably be debated). As for the £130m - it is all reinvested in transport. It. You're suggesting that it's fairly for the marginal costs of high polluting vehicles should be borne by the tax payer, not the polluter. That is wild imo.

They don’t pay the full cost of driving though, despite the moaning. Private cars are effectively subsidised. The amount of land given over to cars, the cost of deaths, injuries, air pollution, greenhouse gasses, congestion etc., these costs are largely externalised and when added to investments in road building and maintenance outweigh the revenues obtained by motorists, probably very substantially.

Well we wouldn’t want to increase investment at all then Best to follow a principle of polluter doesn’t pay and socialise the costs.

At least a small part of the externalised costs are being pushed back to the polluters, and more money can be invested in public transport.

This is tin foil hat stuff. The climate crisis is very real and governments have to take action. ULEZ isn't primarily about climate change, but air quality. The pro-high emission vehicle gang want to argue that drivers of the most polluting cars are being priced off the road, and also that the ULEZ is having no impact on removing older, dirtier vehicles from the road. Can't really be both. And yes, at the least, it also helps raise money. Pollution does costs money. Why should the bill (as well as the terrible health costs to individuals) of private car pollution be entirely externalised? In London, 9,400 premature deaths are attributed to poor air quality and are estimated to cost between £1.4 and £3.7 billion a year to the health service. The evidence shows that even small improvements in air quality can have health benefits.

I don't get the point in them nowadays. They've been replaced by streaming I would have thought.

There isn’t. Perhaps you don’t understand what modal share is. I don’t know and I’m not that interested. Your statement that ‘cycling modal share in London’s is decreasing’, is wrong. More interesting (or perhaps not) is why you want it to be true.

I’m not posting graphs. That’s you. I have linked to the latest TfL report. Cycling modal share in London’s is not decreasing as you have claimed, it’s increased. People can read the report themselves. I have also posted the table from the report for those who can’t be bothered reading the whole report. It shows modal share specifically, by year:

No Rocks. People travelling by bike account for 4.5 percent of all journeys made daily (‘mode share’) up from 3.6 percent in 2019 and the number of “stages” cycled has risen too, despite lower levels of commuting post pandemic. The 1.26m stages cycled daily is the equivalent of about a third of the trips on the entire tube network happening daily, or about a quarter of trips done on the bus network. This is an average for all of London. It’s almost certainly higher on Central London. I know you don’t approve of cycle lanes or any other active travel measures. But please take it to your roads and transport section. You can pursue your crusade there and will no doubt enjoy the echo. You don’t need to spread this nonsense across the rest of the forum.

Sorry Rockets, just to be clear. Are you still claiming that Because nothing you've posted above proves that statement. It all feels like a desperate attempt to obfuscate. Cycling modal share in London is not decreasing.

You said that: This is nonsense. Latest TfL report shows mode share for cycling consistently rising year on year over more than a decade: TfL travel in London -latest report Like I said above, this is a thread about Sadiq Khan's mayoralty. Maybe pick up your anti bike infrastructure crusade over on the transport section.

This is disingenuous nonsense. Despite fewer workers commuting daily into central London, cycling is up on pre-pandemic levels, which is not true for other modes of transport. The number of people cycling in central London has more than doubled since 2000 and cyclists now out number motorists in the City.

It came from a school surveys undertaken by Southwark. With regards CPZ around schools to further reduce school drop offs - It seems to make sense to me. Kind of depends whether you think an increase in the number of kids walking and cycling to school is a sign to stop making improvements. Personally I think you need a bit of stick and carrot - making it both easier / safer for kids to walk and cycle, and more difficult for people to drive and park outside of schools.

What will be instructive, is how many of those posting concerned pictures on social media of rush hour congestion on Streatham High Road, will continue to do so now that they've been successful in ensuring there is also traffic on side streets. In other neighbourhoods where LTNs have been removed and main road traffic congestion has remained high (such as Tooting), all the 'anti-LTN' people who claimed to be desperately concerned about it, oddly disappeared (leaving congestion on main roads and on residential side streets, with no new answers).