Communities that live in LTNs tend to quiet like them, less traffic, safer places for kids to play, no rat runs for Uber drivers using Waze. it's not some conspiracy to make the air worse.
Maybe some do like turning their street into a cul de sac while still being able to drive down other people's streets. Only 75% of the Islington residents in this consultation weren't happy with its ltn continuing but did the council listen to the 75% negative or the 13% positive?
or this actual stuff from Islington, instead of some weirdly redacted odd looking piece of paper
The first one of these (didn't look at seconod) doesn't list objections to the scheme, so you have no idea whether the population were in favour or against it, it simply lists the things people liked and didn't from a predetermined list.
Part of the probelm with the common space 'research'/feedback is that anyone can reply...so, for instance, in the case of the proposed LTNs in Westcombe Park that are back on the agenda, we may find ourselves (again) swamped by replies from organised groups such as 'Lewisham cyclists' who don't live in the area but who try to sway the outcome.
Again, with the proposed LTNs here, there is no opportunity to say that you are against it...you simply have a choice of two proposals...it's like being asked if you want to be kicked in the balls or in the face. It is this failure to be transparent that is angering my neighbours and I in particular at the moment, as we feel we're about to have LTNs imposed upon us thanks to a very vocal minority, with no opportunity to say that we don't want any LTN (and yes, we're organised and do have the, approx, numbers of who thinks what on our streets...but of course, Greenwich Council aren't interested...).
Khan wont only be judged on ULEZ come the mayoral elections. Knife crime is a sad statistic that will also harm his chances of re-election.
But back to ULEZ - when will we see some stats on the number of cars that are non compliant today versus pre ULEZ ? My fear is that its going to be cash negative with the huge expense on infrastructure at a time when we can least afford it. I think the 9/10 cars claim thing may prove his undoing.
They claimed knife crime would cost him the last election, but as the MET had its funding cut by central government he won and was able to try and tackle pollution and child hunger.
We are digressing but what I'm saying is both ULEZ and Knife Crime are sticks to beat him with at the time of the next mayoral election in all likelihood.
I am not sure he can turn around the 'perception' of ULEZ quickly enough.
But I ask again why no stats at this time ? The PR machine needs no doubt to interpret them in such a way it can be sold as a positive change but why the apparent delay when we know they would be available immediately if they chose to release them?
There's a stat posted on this thread claiming most Londoners are for ULEZ. I don't know how many cars are now compliant.
I wasn't suggesting you knew the stats rather questioning why they have not been released by TFL yet.
Communities that live in LTNs tend to quiet like them, less traffic, safer places for kids to play, no rat runs for Uber drivers using Waze. it's not some conspiracy to make the air worse.
Maybe some do like turning their street into a cul de sac while still being able to drive down other people's streets. Only 75% of the Islington residents in this consultation weren't happy with its ltn continuing but did the council listen to the 75% negative or the 13% positive?
or this actual stuff from Islington, instead of some weirdly redacted odd looking piece of paper
The first one of these (didn't look at seconod) doesn't list objections to the scheme, so you have no idea whether the population were in favour or against it, it simply lists the things people liked and didn't from a predetermined list.
Part of the probelm with the common space 'research'/feedback is that anyone can reply...so, for instance, in the case of the proposed LTNs in Westcombe Park that are back on the agenda, we may find ourselves (again) swamped by replies from organised groups such as 'Lewisham cyclists' who don't live in the area but who try to sway the outcome.
Again, with the proposed LTNs here, there is no opportunity to say that you are against it...you simply have a choice of two proposals...it's like being asked if you want to be kicked in the balls or in the face. It is this failure to be transparent that is angering my neighbours and I in particular at the moment, as we feel we're about to have LTNs imposed upon us thanks to a very vocal minority, with no opportunity to say that we don't want any LTN (and yes, we're organised and do have the, approx, numbers of who thinks what on our streets...but of course, Greenwich Council aren't interested...).
Not ULEZ related but there are proposals to build housing on an office complex at the back of my garden. The "Consultation" questionnaire wasnt worth the paper it was written on:-
- Do you agree that the proposed planting scheme would be beneficial to the environment? - Are you in favour of the proposal to provide play facilities for small children? - etc etc
A reasonable person, even if objecting to the scheme, can't realistically so no the the questions.
The one question that wasn't asked was "do you think this is a sensible plot on which to build houses", which for a number of reasons it isn't.
Communities that live in LTNs tend to quiet like them, less traffic, safer places for kids to play, no rat runs for Uber drivers using Waze. it's not some conspiracy to make the air worse.
Maybe some do like turning their street into a cul de sac while still being able to drive down other people's streets. Only 75% of the Islington residents in this consultation weren't happy with its ltn continuing but did the council listen to the 75% negative or the 13% positive?
whether real or not, whoever has formatted that letter should be ashamed of themselves
you say 'I wonder why this is' as you are clearly inferring it is because he is Asian or 'non white' yet I have seen zero evidence on this thread that that is the case.
Personal abuse, nice. I'm still yet to see a reason to dislike khan - he's won the popular vote over and over, because people can't drive their 4x4s into london?
you say 'I wonder why this is' as you are clearly inferring it is because he is Asian or 'non white' yet I have seen zero evidence on this thread that that is the case.
It was comments like these that led to arguments that eventually led to the HOC section getting closed down.
I think you find it was because people couldn't stop making personal insults and telling people to "just fuck off". Ie it wasn't moderated/terribly moderated.
you say 'I wonder why this is' as you are clearly inferring it is because he is Asian or 'non white' yet I have seen zero evidence on this thread that that is the case.
Personal abuse, nice. I'm still yet to see a reason to dislike khan - he's won the popular vote over and over, because people can't drive their 4x4s into london?
you say 'I wonder why this is' as you are clearly inferring it is because he is Asian or 'non white' yet I have seen zero evidence on this thread that that is the case.
It was comments like these that led to arguments that eventually led to the HOC section getting closed down.
I think you find it was because people couldn't stop making personal insults and telling people to "just fuck off". Ie it wasn't moderated/terribly moderated.
Kents - you were being deliberately provocative with your 'I wonder why' comments Like saying how can people criticize Boris when he won the popular vote
you say 'I wonder why this is' as you are clearly inferring it is because he is Asian or 'non white' yet I have seen zero evidence on this thread that that is the case.
Personal abuse, nice. I'm still yet to see a reason to dislike khan - he's won the popular vote over and over, because people can't drive their 4x4s into london?
you say 'I wonder why this is' as you are clearly inferring it is because he is Asian or 'non white' yet I have seen zero evidence on this thread that that is the case.
It was comments like these that led to arguments that eventually led to the HOC section getting closed down.
I think you find it was because people couldn't stop making personal insults and telling people to "just fuck off". Ie it wasn't moderated/terribly moderated.
Kents - you were being deliberately provocative with your 'I wonder why' comments Like saying how can people criticize Boris when he won the popular vote
Perhaps take a bit of your own advice - I’m not sure why so many minds jumped to his ethnicity or even the fact he was from Tooting (still find that strange to talk about a British person’s “origins”, but there we go!).
No need to get all angsty, as it’s been a very reasonable discussion on here, I feel.
Nothing like Twitter where Khan’s account get mercilessly trolled in a very unpleasant way. Perhaps some are reading that stuff and making unfair assumptions about the people on here who don’t like ULEZ being similarly motivated.
I think if they’d had the mayoral elections taken place at any time over the last few months Khan might have lost, but he’ll stand a much better chance next year when people are more used to the ULEZ expansion.
However, now that the Tories have made mayoral elections FPTP, that opens the door a little for Susan Hall. Labour were successful around the country with the Supplementary Vote system, so it was always likely that the Tories would switch to a different one. With the ‘left’ vote being split (rumours that Corbyn might stand) it might be very close.
Hall says she would scrap the ULEZ expansion, but would meet her statutory requirement to cut air pollution by spending £50M. She says:
‘This could be making a bus route zero emission, setting up air filtration technology, or adjusting roads to reduce congestion and idling.’
There’s something not very convincing about her imho.
She's a clown and Londoners will see right through her like they did with Zac Goldsmith.
No need to get all angsty, as it’s been a very reasonable discussion on here, I feel.
Nothing like Twitter where Khan’s account get mercilessly trolled in a very unpleasant way. Perhaps some are reading that stuff and making unfair assumptions about the people on here who don’t like ULEZ being similarly motivated.
I think if they’d had the mayoral elections taken place at any time over the last few months Khan might have lost, but he’ll stand a much better chance next year when people are more used to the ULEZ expansion.
However, now that the Tories have made mayoral elections FPTP, that opens the door a little for Susan Hall. Labour were successful around the country with the Supplementary Vote system, so it was always likely that the Tories would switch to a different one. With the ‘left’ vote being split (rumours that Corbyn might stand) it might be very close.
Hall says she would scrap the ULEZ expansion, but would meet her statutory requirement to cut air pollution by spending £50M. She says:
‘This could be making a bus route zero emission, setting up air filtration technology, or adjusting roads to reduce congestion and idling.’
There’s something not very convincing about her imho.
She's a clown and Londoners will see right through her like they did with Zac Goldsmith.
There is actually a fantastic scheme here in Vancouver which i'd love to see adopted in London. It's called Evo.
Essentially the City has invested in hundreds and hundreds of Prius's/Kia Neros and parked them all over the City. They're exempt from local parking permit restrictions and all the gasoline is free. You just pay a small rate by the minute and can pick them up and park them anywhere. You can even take them miles from Vancouver and they'll just charge you a flat fee of $110/67 quid a day (fuel still free). it's so convenient that I sometimes just leave my car at home.
The problem ULEZ has is hasn't convinced enough people that's it is necessary. Instead, people have been inconvenienced at their expense. There's no alternative to the people living in more rural locations. A scheme like this would be incredibly helpful.
There is actually a fantastic scheme here in Vancouver which i'd love to see adopted in London. It's called Evo.
Essentially the City has invested in hundreds and hundreds of Prius's/Kia Neros and parked them all over the City. They're exempt from local parking permit restrictions and all the gasoline is free. You just pay a small rate by the minute and can pick them up and park them anywhere. You can even take them miles from Vancouver and they'll just charge you a flat fee of $110/67 quid a day (fuel still free). it's so convenient that I sometimes just leave my car at home.
The problem ULEZ has is hasn't convinced enough people that's it is necessary. Instead, people have been inconvenienced at their expense. There's no alternative to the people living in more rural locations. A scheme like this would be incredibly helpful.
That's a great scheme in a great city, but people would still moan.
If you want to drive in to outer region it won't cover you, if you're carrying stuff for work you'll have to drive into the city and change cars. People will find flaws in any suggestion that isn't carry on as you were. 90% of cars are except from the charge yet people claim the charge is too low or too high. It's like they don't know why they don't like it.
Khan could provide free school meals to primary school children and build tens of thousands of council homes and still get dog abuse. Kent above has asked why, I wrote that I believe it's due to the the government's politicking and use of social media. Rishi's recent U turn suggests I'm right perhaps that's why the thread has gone quiet.
Currently in Luxembourg where public transport is free. You still see empty buses and there are plenty of cars on the road. Trams are pretty packed though.
Currently in Luxembourg where public transport is free. You still see empty buses and there are plenty of cars on the road. Trams are pretty packed though.
Ulez vehicle compliancy has reached 95% across inner and outer London, according to a new report by City Hall.
Data shows since the Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) was expanded to cover all of London, vehicle compliance in the outer boroughs rose from 85% to 95%.
Mayor Sadiq Khan said the data showed the scheme, which aimed to improve London's air quality, was working.
But the Conservative Party said based on the report's data, the expansion had earned £52.5m, making it a "tax grab".
The report, on the impact of Ulez since it was expanded on 29 August, also found:
Compliance rates across all vehicle types in outer London had nearly caught up with inner London
In outer London, 96.4% of cars were now compliant, compared with 96.9% in inner London
Transport for London (TfL) estimated there were 97,000 vehicles which were non-compliant
Van compliancy is considerably lower at 86.2%, meaning one in seven vans were still non-compliant
More than 37,200 individuals, businesses and charities, have claimed money from the scrappage scheme
So far, £100m of the £160m committed to the scrappage scheme had been allocated.
I imagine those supporting can claim the threat of ULEZ has seen people change/ upgrade vehicles they might not have otherwise done. Its a high level of compliance already (in my opinion) so not sure how much further it will move in future.
I wonder if the analysis will be extended to show though where the cars triggering fines are registered to i.e. travelling in to London on are mainly local residents.
I assume but don't know the additional fines (if paid) at least cover the infrastructure costs for now.
the do nothing scenario would have also seen an improvement.
Just a shame the mayor had to have a pop at working class people. Hopefully it will cost him the election.
I tend to agree. I’d like to see some proper analysis to see when compliant cars were registered to outer London addresses relative to the date when ULEZ was confirmed to see if this was happening anyway.
The fact that the scrappage scheme has not been fully spent might suggest the upgrades were happening anyway or might only point to the limitations of the scheme.
I also want to see some figures that show fines in outer London and revenue collected (not just ‘invoiced’) versus the costs of adopting the scheme.
Comments
- Do you agree that the proposed planting scheme would be beneficial to the environment?
- Are you in favour of the proposal to provide play facilities for small children?
- etc etc
A reasonable person, even if objecting to the scheme, can't realistically so no the the questions.
The one question that wasn't asked was "do you think this is a sensible plot on which to build houses", which for a number of reasons it isn't.
I think you find it was because people couldn't stop making personal insults and telling people to "just fuck off". Ie it wasn't moderated/terribly moderated.
Like saying how can people criticize Boris when he won the popular vote
me thinks he doth protest too much.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/15/conservative-london-mayor-candidate-susan-hall-liked-tweets-praising-enoch-powell
https://x.com/BestForBritain/status/1706951117265940714?s=20
Essentially the City has invested in hundreds and hundreds of Prius's/Kia Neros and parked them all over the City. They're exempt from local parking permit restrictions and all the gasoline is free. You just pay a small rate by the minute and can pick them up and park them anywhere. You can even take them miles from Vancouver and they'll just charge you a flat fee of $110/67 quid a day (fuel still free).
it's so convenient that I sometimes just leave my car at home.
The problem ULEZ has is hasn't convinced enough people that's it is necessary. Instead, people have been inconvenienced at their expense. There's no alternative to the people living in more rural locations. A scheme like this would be incredibly helpful.
If you want to drive in to outer region it won't cover you, if you're carrying stuff for work you'll have to drive into the city and change cars. People will find flaws in any suggestion that isn't carry on as you were. 90% of cars are except from the charge yet people claim the charge is too low or too high. It's like they don't know why they don't like it.
Khan could provide free school meals to primary school children and build tens of thousands of council homes and still get dog abuse. Kent above has asked why, I wrote that I believe it's due to the the government's politicking and use of social media. Rishi's recent U turn suggests I'm right perhaps that's why the thread has gone quiet.
https://order-order.com/2023/10/04/khan-humiliated-as-ulez-camera-wrongly-fines-927-drivers/
Ulez camera van fined £110 for illegal pavement parking
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67146762https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67266241
Ulez vehicle compliancy has reached 95% across inner and outer London, according to a new report by City Hall.
Data shows since the Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) was expanded to cover all of London, vehicle compliance in the outer boroughs rose from 85% to 95%.
Mayor Sadiq Khan said the data showed the scheme, which aimed to improve London's air quality, was working.
But the Conservative Party said based on the report's data, the expansion had earned £52.5m, making it a "tax grab".
The report, on the impact of Ulez since it was expanded on 29 August, also found:
I imagine those supporting can claim the threat of ULEZ has seen people change/ upgrade vehicles they might not have otherwise done. Its a high level of compliance already (in my opinion) so not sure how much further it will move in future.
I wonder if the analysis will be extended to show though where the cars triggering fines are registered to i.e. travelling in to London on are mainly local residents.
I assume but don't know the additional fines (if paid) at least cover the infrastructure costs for now.
Just a shame the mayor had to have a pop at working class people. Hopefully it will cost him the election.