Jump to content

Recommended Posts

bobbsy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'll help dogkennelhillbilly out...

>

> Walk - which many people cannot do for any

> appreciable distance

> Cycle - as above

> Bus - slow and polluting

> Tube - oh there isn't any

> Train - slow and expensive.

>

> So yes, losds of viable options in SE London...


driving in SE London is not cheap and reliable. The vast majority of SE Londoners take the vast majority of their journeys without the highly polluting vehicles that will be taxed further.

bil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't understand this method of penalising

> people without first providing viable

> alternatives. Perhaps Southwark can install more

> electric charging points on residential roads?

> Hopefully electric/hybrids will become cheaper but

> those with flats, terraced homes and front

> gardens that don't have OSP (I think, the majority

> of the SE22) won't be able to charge the vehicles.

> Could the Mayor hurry up and improve SE22's public

> transport connections into London e.g.local bike

> scheme, a rail/tube service that delivers a

> frequent reliable service; basic stuff that exists

> elsewhere (albeit costly). If we have good

> alternatives we shouldn't need cars but our

> options are inadequate. Yes we want to prevent

> avoidable deaths! If the Mayor and TFL are really

> committed to this then they have to invest first

> (yeah that would make sense!)


I agree that they should do all they can to reduce the effects of pollution in London so I agree with this policy. And all the arguments against here were brought originally against the congestion charge years ago and that has improved central London no end. But you are absolutely right, they should invest in decent mass transit as well. It's all stick - where is the carrot?

Hi uncle glen,

We already have legislation around the area being smoke free zone. I guess if it's persistent enough council officials would enforce these laws.


With 10,000 premature deaths each year we can't have an ULEZ quickly enough. Even better if people supported financially to accelerate these changes. And I don't think Euro 6 Diesels are clean enough let alone Euro 4.

Black cabs have only this year started using 2.8L Euro6 diesels, so, pretty much all of them are running older tech. Their own website says the Euro6 is 71% more efficient than Euro5. All old cabs, plus the 13-year-old million-mile 53-plate buses I pedal behind up Dog Kennel Hill, spewing out visible particulates, should be addressed ASAP. Lead by example.

I fully support the UlEZ extension, but it's not very helpful to quote the 10k deaths number whilst debating an extension to the south circular. The 10k number covers 2 emission types and covers the whole of London, so the extension would impact only a fraction of these 'years lost'.


Also it doesn't seem like a very sensible policy to extend the ULEZ whilst also building a new runway at Heathrow...

stephent Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I fully support the UlEZ extension, but it's not

> very helpful to quote the 10k deaths number whilst

> debating an extension to the south circular. The

> 10k number covers 2 emission types and covers the

> whole of London, so the extension would impact

> only a fraction of these 'years lost'.

>

> Also it doesn't seem like a very sensible policy

> to extend the ULEZ whilst also building a new

> runway at Heathrow...


Totally agree about Heathrow (though I don't really know how much influence Khan can have on this, nobody listened to Boris, did they?), but "only a fraction" does represent some parents or grandparents not dying early, doesn't it? Also, the deaths figure is often quoted as the most dramatic, but there are also the figures for childhood bronchial diseases, asthma etc (if that's not a tautology), and the extension of the ULEZ will have a direct impact on the number of high-polluting vehicles passing/stuck outside schools. So the impact's going to be pretty positive, even though you're right about the figures not being as focussed into one area as some imply.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I am looking for somebody that can attach curtain tape to the top. It’s the part that the hooks go into. I need it stitched on willing to pay if anybody can do it please message me thank you.
    • Agree with @Sue the Dog is awful-nice building awful food. We like The Rossendale and Watsons
    • There are so many variables. Good chefs can having bad nights, post-Brexit staff shortages, your dish might be brilliant, your friend might order something that's inedible. In the end I think the best option is just to go to the restaurant which has the best overall reviews. If all the reviews are bad then avoid, but even if all the reviews are good that's not a cast iron gaurantee. 
    • The trouble is that pub management and chefs are constantly changing, so what might be fantastic on one occasion  becomes terrible a short time later, and vice versa. Two of the worst pub lunches I've had locally were at the Dog in the village and the Plough, but both those were some time ago. We had an absolutely appalling Christmas lunch on Christmas Day at The Cherry Tree, which was also exorbitantly expensive, so unless their chef (I use the term loosely) has changed, I wouldn't advise eating there. The menu looked amazing. We thought we would treat ourselves. Never again 😭
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...