ULEZ expansion ruled lawful by High Court

[CPR Dave]

The reason there were so many diesel cars os because the last Labour government actively encouraged people to buy diesel instead of petrol.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-diesel-vehicles-health-warnings-impact-cars-air-pollution-tony-blair-gordon-brown-2000-budget-a8062301.html

Then the Labour mayor shafted everyone who fell for that.

[Dulwich dweller]

On 17/04/2024 at 08:18, Spartacus said:

you clearly stated 5 minutes

Oh dear. My exact words were------- I rarely wait more then five minutes.

 

I have got to the Gardens stop when a 12 pulling away. I have RARELY waited more than five minutes, six or seven minutes at the very worst and never more than ten minutes, ever, You can put whatever timetable that want up but it doesn't alter facts or change personal experiences. It's not new nor a crime for busses to get to certain certain stops before time and quicker than planned. The time will be made up further down the route or if a change of driver takes place.

 

This isn't a competition where one must be right and one must be wrong. If it was i'd be winning cause you've wrongly assumed that i don't mustn't use the 12 much. I do everyday and more often than not i use it more than once. You also saisd i clearly stated five minutes when that's not the case if you read the rest of my post.

On 16/04/2024 at 19:30, Spartacus said:

every 12 to 15 minutes and this also  confirms it 

http://www.londonbusroutes.net/times/012.htm

But but but you said 12 minutes when the above shows 11 minutes wait,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

On 17/04/2024 at 08:18, Spartacus said:

Nothing magical at all... you clearly stated 5 minutes 🙄 

You don't have an opinion on this ? https://www.swlondoner.co.uk/news/14032024-tfl-journeys-nearly-half-a-billion-a-year-below-pre-pandemic-levels

[malumbu]

Government did not actively promote diesel cars.  I have had to refute this many times on this forum.  People bought diesels as they liked them.  The industry reacted by making more models.  The common rail injection system introduced in the late 90s made them much more like petrol cars than tractors to drive, with better low end torque and fuel economy.

Vehicle excise duty was rightly based on carbon emissions, as climate change is the biggest concern. Its a piffly amount compared to the savings in fuel and maintenance for high mileage/long distance drivers who drove diesels, compared to a petrol equivalent.

If you want to blame somebody blame the motor industry for not doing more to reduce emissions, gaming the standards (ie doing what they needed to meet standards knowing that this was not delivered on the road), and providing better information for purchasers.

Or the international standards organisations for getting their test procedures wrong.  Ironically the VW emissions scandal has led to far more realistic test procedures and the latest diesel cars are far cleaner than previous models.

Successive governments should have provided better consumer information but wanted to be technologically neutral.  That could be applied more to the coalition government onwards where it was known the Euro 4 and Euro 5 that were introduced in the mid 00s and early 10s to address the problem were failing to deliver cleaner air in terms of nitrogen oxides (they were successful in reducing particulate matter).

The simple messages should have been - driving up and down the motorway all day, diesel may be best, small journeys around town - petrol. 

Or drivers in urban areas who mainly did short journeys for not buying Fiat Cinequcentos (Top Gear reviewed city cars about ten years ago and finished the programme with a street parked with these as they were by far the best).

But we are where we are and well done to Johnson for proposing the ULEZ and Khan for delivering it.

[Rockets]

On 17/04/2024 at 06:39, Earl Aelfheah said:

The issue is simply that there is a cost to land use.

But this is what you said...that has nothing to do with emission standards. You're clearly advocating land use be charged so therefore you must support the same for cycle lanes.

That's not whataboutery...that's pointing out the clear flaw in a flawed argument.

[Spartacus]

Thank you @Dulwich dweller, interesting article showing that travel is almost at 90% of pre pandemic. 

However as interesting as it is, all this bus time malarkey is a distraction from my origionsl point that the £130 million generated from 6 months of revenue from the ULEZ is not being reinvested in transport as we still have a service that isn't as frequent or with as many routes as prior to the pandemic. 

@Earl Aelfheah again this rethoroc that cars are stored, yet if the council introduced a controlled parking zone where people can park their cars for a fee (BTW no one says i'm just going to store my car) or if car parks were added to areas to free up road space it would still bizarrely be called parking not storage 😉 

Obviously you are trying to change how we speak but it really isn't washing. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Spartacus The benefits of private car ownership accrue primarily to the owner. Some of the direct costs are borne privately too (such as purchasing the car, fuel etc). But many other costs are borne by the public purse. Taxes attempt to recoup some of this. This is so obvious that it doesn't really need stating, except where someone is claiming that cars are some sort of cash cow and trying to minimise, or ignore the externalised costs in their calculations.

I've mentioned land use (as just one aspect alongside many others), because land has a value. Huge amounts of public land are given over to people to store private vehicles. If you're discussing the cost of private car ownership, you can't ignore or discount some of those costs just because you've decided you want to.

But this is really just another distraction from the topic. The conversation was about ULEZ. If you don't think there are costs to air pollution which are borne by someone other than the driver of a high polluting vehicle, you're wrong. Yet again, your argument seems to be that it's outrageous for the state to try and push some of that cost back to the individual generating them. This seems massively entitled to me; "I want to use any car I choose regardless of the additional costs that choice might impose on others, and I better not be asked to pick up the bill".

9 hours ago, Rockets said:

But this is what you said...that has nothing to do with emission standards. You're clearly advocating land use be charged so therefore you must support the same for cycle lanes.

That's not whataboutery...that's pointing out the clear flaw in a flawed argument.

You've stripped my comment of context, very obviously and very cynically. It's boring. I made this comment in response to Spartacus' suggestion that cars were a massive revenue generator / cash cow. I was pointing out that actually there are lot's of externalised costs which most estimates suggest are greater than the amount raised in taxes and gave a few examples. This was just one.

My point is that car drivers constantly fight against attempts to reduce the subsidy that they receive and ULEZ is a classic example. If you choose a car with low emissions, it costs the state less (in managing the health impacts for example)  than if you choose a high polluting car. So the question is do you socialise that additional cost, or do you follow a policy of 'polluter pays'. The latter seems to be obviously fairer.

Edited April 19 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

14 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Huge amounts of public land are given over to people to store private vehicles.

In London huge swathes of public land have been dedicated to the sole use of cyclists (often to the detriment of other road and pavement users and at a massive cost to the tax payer - the overwhelming majority of whom won't ever use them).

 

Edited April 19 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

This is the definition of whataboutery. How does that relate to a rebuttal of the claim that cars are cash cows? 

You're obsessed with turning any discussion related to motor vehicles into a discussion on push bikes. It's such an obvious distraction tactic. If you can't defend a position, try and switch to a different topic. What have bike lanes got to do with ULEZ?

It's embarrassing. 

Edited April 19 by Earl Aelfheah

[malumbu]

Incidentally 360 km of cycle network in London vs 20,450 km of normal roads.

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This is the definition of whataboutery.

If it was then that would have required me to have deviated the discussion onto that particular subject but I didn't did I - you did - you started the "land given over to cars" cost narrative within the discussion did you not?

Clearly whomever dreamt up the "land given over cars" narrative (remember that wonderful graphic people were posting on the forum?!), was so blinkered that they didn't bother to think it through properly....but hey ho...not the first time we have seen this happen!

Clearly ULEZ money is not going back into public transport or maintaining roads and I think that was the point that was being raised - so it does beg the question where the money is being spent. Perhaps it goes to fund projects like the Dulwich Village £1.5m re-design of the re-design of the re-design.....

[Earl Aelfheah]

Nope, Sparticus started a discussion about the relative costs and revenues associated with car use, which is relevant to ULEZ (a charge on car use). I responded to him because I didn't agree with his point.

Your standard knee jerk response to any debate about motor vehicles of 'but what about bikes', is not relevant. You seem obsessed with some imagined, binary opposition - bikes vs cars. Bike lanes have got nothing to do with ULEZ. You're engaged in the dictionary definition of whataboutery.

It is a statutory requirement that any net revenue generated by ULEZ  is reinvested back into London’s transport network. Again, if you have evidence of law breaking you should probably share it.

Edited April 19 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

But Spartacus didn't mention the significant amounts of land being used for car storage - that was most definitely you.

 

And I am afraid when you apply your same measure to other transport uses (like cycleways and cycle lanes - Malumbu is your stat on the 360 kms of cycle network cycleways or cycle lanes?) then it most definitely is relevant for the debate.

 

Should we assume then that if all this ULEZ money and government bailout money is being poured into TFL then the system is, financially at least, broken or is it a case that the money is being mis-spent (like the DV junction project)?

 

 

[Dulwich dweller]

On 19/04/2024 at 07:52, Spartacus said:

Thank you @Dulwich dweller, interesting article showing that travel is almost at 90% of pre pandemic. 

But not busses. Supply and demand. Routes that are less frequent now will be so because the numbers tapping in are less and TFL will react accordingly.

Bus journeys held up more during the pandemic and peaked as a proportion of the total, with more than two-thirds of journeys being taken on the bus, however that number has sharply dropped in 2023/24 to just over half.

The current proportion has fallen from its pandemic peak to even lower than the 55.5% recorded before the first lockdown, equating to a total of over 350m fewer journeys.

 

 

[Spartacus]

I am curious dulwich dweller, as someone who claims to regularly use a bus you seem to be arguing for their reduction based on the fact that we aren't packing them in like cattle.

Maybe that's the issue, covid has made people reluctant to use packed buses and by reducing them so they are fuller, some would say over full, then it both becomes harder to find space and discourages people from using them. 🤔 

Whilst an empty bus is seen inefficient financially by some, it may well encourage more people to use it as they'll don't feel like cattle going for slaughter. 

Or do you think that we need the Japanese pushers to pack more people into buses. ? 

 

[Dulwich dweller]

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

I am curious dulwich dweller, as someone who claims to regularly use a bus you seem to be arguing for their reduction based on the fact that we aren't packing them in like cattle.

Are you a copper or just looking for an argument? You make a lot of assumptions. Also, i thought you weren't interested in passenger numbers but wanted to know where money is going?

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

you seem to be arguing for their reduction based on the fact that we aren't packing them in like cattle.

Can you point me to where i've said that? Cheers

[teddyboy23]

What if someone wants to get off at the next stop.but is in the middle of that lot. Brilliant

[Dulwich dweller]

On 16/04/2024 at 14:07, Chick said:

Wat is critical mass

I intended to answer this before but keep getting sidetracked.

 

Critical mass has been going 30 years now. An idea that people can reclaim streets and cities by outnumbering cars with their bikes.

 

https://network23.org/criticalmasslondon/

 

http://www.urban75.com/Action/critical.html

 

 

 

[malumbu]

It was a little militant when it started 30 years ago but morphed quickly into a celebration of cycling.  Very much a rebel but not sure of its cause at the beginning.  I'm putting up a separate thread on the joy of cycling as this one is to discuss ULEZ, although it feels like it's all been said.

[Earl Aelfheah]

 

Children switch to walking and cycling to school after introduction of ULEZ: 

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/children-switch-to-walking-and-cycling-to-school-after-introduction-of-londons-ultra-low-emission?utm_campaign=research&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

[Spartacus]

I read that report Earl

Interesting that the second comparison coveted the 2020 period when covid hit and we went into lockdowns. 

Not sure if it had an impact on children not using cars or not. 

Would be interesting to also see a similar comparison with last year's figures and this year's figures against the baseline to see if the reduction has been maintained or if parents have now switched to ulez compliant cars and back to their old habits. 

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

Not sure if it had an impact on children not using cars or not. 

Children weren't going into schools during large parts of lock down as they were all closed! 

[Spartacus]

That's what i would have assumed, however the report says 

"The researchers collected data from the period June 2018 to April 2019, prior to ULEZ implementation, and again in the period June 2019 to March 2020, the year after implementation of the ULEZ but prior to COVID-19-related school closures." 

Obviously there might have been some impact during the latter months, but to exclude that it would still be helpful to see comparisons against the last 3 years compared to the 2019 base line.

The danger is they are doing a one year later comparison rather than showing an ongoing trend so the report, whilst interesting, may not paint the full picture. 

[Penguin68]

Travel patterns were severely disrupted post Covid as very many continued to work from home - I'm guessing where this was so parents who might have driven children to school pre-Covid on their way to work/ station etc. might not post Covid still be doing so - or might be able to accompany younger children to walk to school without then going on to work themselves. Clearly comparing like-with-like is always difficult with time series - but as regards travel;  pre, during and post Covid were very different things. And we do know that locally the Village LTN has meant significant car diversions for East West travel such that what was an acceptable pre LTN car journey to school might now not be. Or pick-up from school.

But I had not picked up that at least the School lock-down periods were excluded!

[malumbu]

That's great news, rather than arguing against measures we should celebrate more kids walking to school.

[Spartacus]

That's a good point @Penguin68

Post covid, working patterns have changed so that may have had some impact over the past 4 years. 

Equally the implementation of LTNs may also be a factor in the 40% drop (not just the ULEZ) 

As said, it would be good to see the series from 2019btill now to see if the second year was a random result or not and what has happened since otherwise saying a 40% drop but not knowing if it was sustained is a misleading statement 

@malumbu I agree, if more kids are walking or cycling then its good for their health, but if more kids ate swapping cars for bises, not so healthy  (this is focusing on exercise and obesity) but equally a reduction in school runs isn't a bad thing environmentally