Forum Topic

Great news re ULEZ

Sadiq Khan wins high court battle over London Ulez extension – UK politics liveHopefully this will get more polluting vehicles off our roads.

Steve Taylor ● 1149d117 Comments

Were there that many anyway?Supposedly 90% are already compliant and there has been, what, three years notice of ULEZ expansion.

N V Brooks ● 1149d

Well, when I walk around it seems to me that every second van or truck is spewing out diesel fumes. And that’s west London. I would think that in the east it’s far worse. Not sure where your 90% figure comes from. I don’t have any stats - just physical evidence of breathing the fumes. I would assume there are still hundreds of thousands of non compliant vehicles or there wouldn’t be such a controversy about it? If so many vehicles are compliant, what was the point of the court case?

Steve Taylor ● 1149d

The air in the London Underground tube network is 30 times more toxic than that of the air in the roads above, so why is Sadiq sending everyone down there?

Michael Brown ● 1149d

The 90% figure is from Sadiq Khan's own team at TfL. If you have an issue with the accuracy of that data, I suggest that take it up with them.https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2023/march/over-90-per-cent-of-cars-driving-in-outer-london-now-meet-the-ulez-standards

N V Brooks ● 1149d

The tube is toxic. It's at least 30 times more polluted, in terms of particulate matter, than the majority of London's roads.

N V Brooks ● 1149d

I don’t have a problem with the accuracy of the data. Don’t be so arrogant. I don’t  care about the data. I only care about the diesel fumes we breathe in every day. If it’s only 10% of vehicles in Greater London that are non compliant, it’s still too many in my book so get them off the road. The point about the London Underground is well taken. Hence I use it as little as possible. Fortunately I rarely need to use it.

Steve Taylor ● 1148d

Does that mean the the expectation of the expanded ULEZ has already actively reduced the number of highly polluting cars?

Paul Scullion ● 1148d

I pointed you to the data source, the entire ULEZ programme is predicated upon the accuracy or otherwise of this data.You should be equally (if not more) worried about PM10 and PM2.5 generated by construction and, in the colder months, wood burning fires and stoves. Wind your neck in chap.

N V Brooks ● 1148d

Labour don't you just love them.This Clown Council Hounslow  want their 400 non compliant vehicles exempted.  "The do as I say not what I do" mob

Pete Docherty ● 1148d

The more data you feed the more of a distorted result you will get.Maybe that is why the posters get it wrong as they do to much askingthus to much revolving data this distorted results

Julian Pavey ● 1148d

I suppose I'll have to ditch my very relaible old diesel that I drive fewer thaan 500 miles a year in London in,that passes with flying colours the MOT emmissions test, and buy a second hand petrol car that I can chose to drive as many miles a year as I want in London,causing much more air pollution.

Keith Iddon ● 1148d

Assuming the data is valid then in any well designed piece of research or scientific experiment then the more data you have then the more likely the result will be valid and usefulFalse claims, junk data and biased anecdotes just create confusion.As for genuine curiosity, it’s always to be welcomed.  You can’t have too much of it.

Alastair Banton ● 1148d

So if it is only 10% of cars why has he spent at least £200 million setting it up. Because he is a clown.  A tax on the poor which will do sod all for the enviroment apart from making  people with not a lot of money poorer. I think it is disgusting.

Pete Docherty ● 1148d

As Pete Docherty mentioned earlier, I find it hilarious how a Council who is all in favour of ULEZ then asks for their own vehicles to be granted exemption. Hilarious Exemption sound like the sort of band you might find on the John Peel Stage at Glastonbury.

Chris Blackwell ● 1148d

Totally agree Pete.  The science says it will make virtually no difference to air quality.

Claire Moran ● 1148d

Peter, My sentiments exactly.And more poignantly, opinions shared by Tony Blair.ULEZ and its expansion is unnecessary, a slur on the poor and small businesses.

Denis I. Fox ● 1148d

Of course it's a tax on the poor, because whilst the rich walk, cycle and take public transport, only the poor own, tax, and run cars.

John Hall ● 1148d

John reset your password buddy you have been infiltrated by a nutter.

Pete Docherty ● 1148d

“You should be equally (if not more) worried about PM10 and PM2.5 generated by construction and, in the colder months, wood burning fires and stoves”Totally agree. I have been banging on about wood burning stoves for years. They should be banned in Greater London and all cities across the UK.

Steve Taylor ● 1148d

“Does that mean the the expectation of the expanded ULEZ has already actively reduced the number of highly polluting cars?”Hopefully, yes. We were warned about it last year, if not before, so assume many people would have prepared for it and got rid of their non compliant vehicles.

Steve Taylor ● 1148d

Well you could, but if you are currently driving fewer than 500 miles a year, why would you want to change your car to suddenly drive a lot more miles? If you need to drive more miles why not do it on the days you are already driving :)

Andrew Jones ● 1148d

Probably all those unlicensed and untaxed car owners who are worried about it.There are a lot of concessions - more than last time - and it is worth checking them all out before panicking.

Philippa Bond ● 1148d

Please,please ,please can we get real.  Up to £2000 if you qulaify....IF ...UP......You have an ol banger because that is all you can afford but it is YOUR ol banger  you know the ins and outs of it ,its foibles but as you still have it you probably know it runs well. In real terms the value to you is far far more  than the pittance you will get for it plus if you qualify UP to £2k  so what will you be able to afford that will not be a giant headache of trouble causing you even more stress in your life. Who in their right mind buys a cheap ,cheap car ,it has to be a liability.As for not being taxed ,there are so many cameras the chance of you not waking up to a clamp on the car is pretty low. When I had to get rid of my perfect 7 year old car putting myself in 30 months of debt for KhanT I messed up on Taxing it , one day of driving not knowing I was untaxed got me waking up to my car clamped. It is non justifiable. 

Pete Docherty ● 1148d

Judging by the large numbers of big 4x4s cruising around central London when I was there last week it won’t make a jot of difference to those who can afford it. Plenty in Chiswick will carry on as before.The real changes will happen if Khan gets a third term. The parameters will be tightened so much it will effectively kill off private vehicle ownership for many.We know the bicycle bigots wish for nothing more but it will be a disaster for small businesses and all costs will be passed on to customers.Of course Khan might get the boot next May. His incompetence is only exceeded by his arrogance. How does he get about? Why, in a diesel powered 4x4 of course. Apparently he’s a socialist....

Simon Hayes ● 1148d

It's a great pity he isn't putting as much effort into clearing air pollution in the tube!

Nicholas Beard ● 1148d

It's all air pollution, air pollution, air pollution, and nothing about violent crime and the rise in sexual assault on women in the capital.Oh sorry, forgot."SAY MAAATE TO A MATE'Great

Julian Pavey ● 1148d

I know Keith is not being entirely serious, but there are some people who say that all of these traffic measures are going to achieve is make them drive more, whether it be LTNs or ULEZ. Yet London is the only region in Great Britain where the total mileage driven is the same as it was thirty years ago, and that's despite London having the largest population growth. So in reality, people are driving less and less in London compared to the rest of the country. That relative drop in mileage has only increased since the pandemic and the associated traffic measures were brought in across much of London.

Tom Pike ● 1148d

“ and buy a second hand petrol car that I can chose to drive as many miles a year as I want in London,causing much more air pollution.”Yes you could but it would be amoral don’t you think?

Steve Taylor ● 1148d

Silly Steve..of course I am not suggesting I will chose to do that,more that it would be far more effective to charge n]by the miles driven,not the vehicle.

Keith Iddon ● 1148d

Knife crime up 16% in London, daily problems on the tube and house building slow at best, he deserves another term

Peter King ● 1148d

I’m not suggesting you would do it either. I was pulling your leg. Chill maaate.

Steve Taylor ● 1148d

What a lot of pointless froth and fury to no avail to try to stop a scheme that in a year's time will not only not be controversial but will be even more popular with Londoners than it is now. Who in Chiswick is still moaning about the inner ULEZ? Nobody.And it is brilliant how any proposal to restrict cars in some way will turn even the most committed Conservative boomer into a socialist who suddenly cares passionately about the poor after 40+ years of voting for a Party that protects the interests of the rich.  Maybe their newly discovered social consciousness will compel them to vote Labour! Or maybe they are just phonies who will co-opt the interest of absolutely anybody to protect their own driving privileges.

Paul Campbell ● 1148d

Ah the smell of an ableist troll pervades the forum again.

N V Brooks ● 1148d

Julian, don't forget that under Khan we have one of the lowest rates of housing starts despite him having access to tens of thousands of square metres of released TfL brownfield sites.

N V Brooks ● 1148d

“ UK new car sales grew by 25.8% last month compared with the same period in 2022, official figures have revealed.In total, 177,266 new cars left showrooms during June. This marks an 11th consecutive month of growth following the semiconductor chip shortage, which had limited vehicle production since 2020.Plug-in hybrid sales grew by the biggest margin, with 12,770 joining the roads over the course of the month – 65.5% more than the year before. Sales of regular hybrids also increased significantly, from 14,978 last June to 20,991 in June 2023.Likewise, electric car sales increased by nearly two fifths, to 31,700, but petrol models remain most popular with UK buyers: 98,894 (including mild hybrids) were sold in June, accounting for 55.8% of total new car sales.Only diesel-powered models were less popular this June than last; 12,911 diesel (and mild hybrid diesel) cars were sold, a 13.5% reduction on June 2022.”

Steve Taylor ● 1148d

Suffer the little children at £12.50 a pop. If KhanT meant it he should have done an outright ban and confiscated if caught but no money in that. So people who er cough up brings no benefits to air whatsoever.He was on TV last night,my partner had to turn him off.

Pete Docherty ● 1148d

Yes, it would be/will be better when it is paying per mile.  That would encourage people to organise their trips more economically and to think twice before jumping in their car to go somewhere.

Philippa Bond ● 1148d

That's OK if you live within the north/south circulars I'd suggest. The beef is from people within the M25 who don't have tfl (fortunately for them)!

Peter King ● 1148d

Thanks Philippa ,I do 400 miles a week ,no other way for me.I shall pack it in and let the state ie you pay for me and my family. KhanT is already costing me £556 a month ,you really want me on my knees don't you.

Pete Docherty ● 1148d

There are clear benefits from the ULEZ expansion, as has was emphasised by the medical and scientific community yesterday. The question should be whether people put the changes in how they travel above these benefits, not whether there are any benefits. The way people answer that question is heavily dependent on age, it would appear.Yougov polled on support for ULEZ both last week and two years ago using identical questions. Nationally, 18 to 24 year-olds and 25 to 49 year-olds have seen only a minor shift in their opinion about ULEZ, and on the whole support it. In contrast the opinion of 50 to 64 year-olds and especially those over 65 has moved very strongly against ULEZ.There is an emerging blunt clash of interests, between those mostly aged 50 and over who what to maintain their current lifestyles for as long as possible and those under 50 who care most about the environment that they will be living in for many more decades. Both can be regarded as acting selfishly: people want the best future for themselves, but that best future rather depends on how far ahead you are needing to look, as well as your attitude to the future of others.

Tom Pike ● 1148d

It would be good if there was a lot more information and helpful assistance in moving into different modes of transport more suitable for you as you age.  If we managed to keep fitter and of course are also lucky then it can vary an enormous amount. The TfL website has improved a lot and now shows routes without steps:  www.tfl.gov.uk.Once upon a time we used to spend most of our time working out where we were going on an A-Z and couldn't afford a car and there were no credit cards and petrol stations weren't open 24 hrs and we had no mobile phones.  It was much harder knowing where you were and more difficult planning any journeys - local or further afield! However did we manage?!

Philippa Bond ● 1148d

The ones that oppose it are those mostly affected I would think.

Janice Evans ● 1148d

It was much safer then Philippa.

Janice Evans ● 1148d

Violence against the elderly if rife, the over 65s and assaults have soaredto 260 percent over the last 10 years. And why they are less likely to go outand use transport.

Janice Evans ● 1148d

It cuts both ways. Those who oppose ULEZ are on the whole those who are concerned about affordability of an increase in their transport costs. Those who support it are on the whole those who value the improvement to their environment.That plays out as fall off in support of ULEZ with increasing age, and that fall off has grown steeper over the last couple of years.  I think the growing age dependence of what people see as their own interests is an inevitable outcome of a growing realisation of the environmental threats we face.  The longer you are going to be around to face those threats, the more likely you are to support measures to counter them.  But as older people see these measures threatening their lifestyles, the more they will oppose those measures. Of course some older people will place a higher value on the outcomes for their descendants, but not enough to  reverse the overall trend.

Tom Pike ● 1148d

Tom, I'm sure if the elderly could afford to they would do all they can tohelp the environment, sadly their dependence on vehicles leads to stressful objections, they are desperate.

Janice Evans ● 1148d

I do what I can to help neighbours but there is a limit.

Janice Evans ● 1148d

Driving large distances to shop is not an act of desperation, but one of lifestyle choice. As I said, it’s a balance of priorities.

Tom Pike ● 1148d

They have to go places where the walking is less distance for them, I havesometimes just driven around until I can pick them up again, you will beelderly one day god willing hey ho.

Janice Evans ● 1148d

I'm so surprised at how little people know about others needs, did they have parents, do they have grandparents, or do they just not get involvedin helping out any more.

Janice Evans ● 1148d

Of course people do, but you’re avoiding the issue that most driving is not about supporting our elderly parents and neighbours but simply lifestyle choices where there are alternatives, driving long distances to shop being an example. That’s why the mileage driven is so dependent on household income.

Tom Pike ● 1147d

The arbitrary Euro5 standard demarcation for ULEZ  is fundamentally flawed in that there are many cars and light goods vehicles which do not meet Euro 5 but which have low NOx and CO2 emissions. If the intent is to remove particulate matter and CO2 from the environment then surely, as I suggested to TfL over five years ago, the last MOT test NOx emissions figure should be used and they should be a progressive, and indeed prohibitive, level of daily charge for any vehicle emitting more than 250 grams per kilometer of CO2. This would force most of the Chelsea tractors off of the road in London.  As ICE get progressively cleaner then the 250g figure can be reduced each, say, couple of years.

N V Brooks ● 1147d

And imposed on them by a lousy transport system that fails more often that not.TFL 2015"Points failures will be much less frequent, meaning fewer delays to customers and more reliable journeys through Ealing and Chiswick"TFL |(2023)  No improvementId love to know how many times the district line to richmond fails each month due to the same point just outside the station that switched the train to relevant platform.Years and years on and that point still fails.Useless,so no wonder people get in the car rather than ponsing around with a bus

Julian Pavey ● 1147d

Tom, there are no alternatives for many, cabs perhaps but how is that animprovement.

Janice Evans ● 1147d

And hospitals tell them not to use cabs....Doh

Janice Evans ● 1147d

Ah Tom's poll that showingg the young are soooo concerned,the same group that leave festivals, outside concerts,beach parties lo9king like landfill.... so concerned as long as it does not effect them or their entitlement.....

Pete Docherty ● 1147d

Julian, “fails more often than not”: you exaggerate! The District line has a 94% service recorded so far this year. Complaining that people need cars in Chiswick because of failed District line is a pretty weak excuse. And the age profile of tube users doesn’t match that of those who object to ULEZ, either. Most are under 44. Access to public transport doesn’t explain why opposition to ULEZ is so heavily weighted to older people. How far you are looking ahead does.

Tom Pike ● 1147d

Pete, you have rather overlooked that I didn’t claim any particular altruism for younger people. Everyone is acting in their best interests, but with rather different time horizons. Some people feel they are entitled to maintain their current lifestyle, others that they are entitled to a future environment that is less damaged. It’s not the sense of entitlement that makes the difference.

Tom Pike ● 1147d

Fair enough Tom, until they sort out India and China,I would like to be counted out of this load of cobblers.Sadly I am not.

Pete Docherty ● 1147d

It all needs to be sorted out, Pete. Anyone can claim it's other people's responsibility, but then nothing gets done. You can't claim a special exemption simply on the basis that other people aren't pulling their weight. Any primary school teacher knows where that leads!

Tom Pike ● 1147d

We cannot all be up in arms about global warming and see those terrible fires across Europe and North America, and then complain about a comparatively small measure like ULEZ. It's all part and parcel of the same thing. I would though have thought that rolling it out over a longer period might have been more acceptable, and given people a chance to be able to change their car, but set against others who could lose their lives because of bad air quality - there's no argument really. What is not right is allowing people who can afford it to carry on polluting, an outright ban on vehicles that are not compliant would really bring the message home. And as this was originally a government policy pushed originally by one Boris Johnson - they should be contributing to the scrappage fund to help people out. They won't because they are playing politics, and we have a Labour Mayor, pathetic.

Vanessa Smith ● 1147d

Rhodes fires ,could be arson says officialsOnly a labour person could blame someone else.All KhanT had to do was say no.Small man syndrome.I am down in Worthing right now,such a relief to be away from that Clowns thiefdom and the Chiswick Bubble Sadly still getting wound up

Pete Docherty ● 1147d

Pete, you think you're getting wound up?Spare a thought for me then. I find myself agreeing with Tom and Vanessa. Gulp!Time for a lie down in a darken room me thinks.

Adrian Irving ● 1147d

Julian, “fails more often than not”: you exaggerate! Yes,exaggerated for a reason,and that 6% failure over 7 months and likely to be earls court,acton,ealing and richmond is a big failure.How do you make 6% of a service failing not a failure. Get your stats head on tom,that will be a lot of trains unable to run over 7 months and huge ammounts of people effected.

Julian Pavey ● 1147d

A genuine well meant question. All you ULEZ lovers bearing in mind you could fib no one would know how much has this nonsense cost you financially? Come on straight question,or how much will it cost you going forward,anything?Has it cost your family? ....Please don't scroll past.If it has cost you say £26k or something like that I will hold my hands up and say fair play.

Pete Docherty ● 1147d

I thought ULEZ was to reduce air pollution here in London and has no connection with the climate change reducing efforts in China. But trying to change behaviour by taxing it is rarely a good solution, as it bears more oppressively on the poor while the richer will gladly pay that little bit extra for the convenience. Same with the congestion charge. If we really don’t want motor vehicles in central London, or even using Fishers Lane, then we should put up gates to stop them.  Otherwise we could suspect it’s all a cynical fund-raising scheme.

Peter Evans ● 1147d

It's not trains unable to run, it's the reduction in the scheduled frequency below the working timetable. So if you were expected a train every 3 minutes, it will take 6% longer, so 11 s more.

Tom Pike ● 1147d

This is a Chiswick forum. We’ve been living inside ULEZ for nearly two years and everybody has already adapted to it. I changed my vehicle and yes it cost me quite a bit to do so although I could have picked up a complaint petrol car very cheaply. And I still could do that if I lived in the outer ULEZ zone. ULEZ is not a current issue for Chiswick residents. Roll forward a year and the same will be true for everybody else in London. Conservative voters labelling this a tax on the poor are pretty shameless really and are ignoring the far greater iniquities of health inequality in the capital. Why are people living outside the existing ULEZ zone coming onto a Chiswick forum to bleat about it? Just get a complaint car, move on and be happy you’re not harming the children in your boring outer suburb.

Paul Campbell ● 1147d

Buses are using Fishers Lane! And I doubt even some of the richer residents of Bedford Park are willing to regularly incur a fine to save 30 seconds on their drive to Sainsbury’s. Put a bollard in and the whining will be about buses and emergency services, which are now no longer hindered by the section under the bridge being blocked by cars. If an immediate ban on vehicles had been introduced instead there would have been more uproar. The charge is designed to give an off ramp for people who choose to pay it until they are ready to change vehicles. And then in the future the cameras will be used for road pricing - again quite rightly as a deterrent for use of private vehicles in London.

Paul Campbell ● 1147d

Pete, maybe you could explain how the current Mayor is costing you £556 a month? Even if you're paying £12.50 a day every day, that doesn't add up to £556 a month.

Tom Pike ● 1147d

" And then in the future the cameras will be used for road pricing - again quite rightly as a deterrent for use of private vehicles in London. "More ableist troll bleating.Can't wait to see some private sector bunch of clowns like Crapita or Shitie working with the equally hopeless TfL to try and deliver road pricing.

N V Brooks ● 1147d

"It's not trains unable to run, it's the reduction in the scheduled frequency below the working timetable"Which is less trains.And less trains because of points failure. Do you ever get a district line train of a weekday. Clearly not

Julian Pavey ● 1147d

I’ve caught thousands of weekday District Line trains. I can assure you that people haven’t switched to driving because the District line runs 11s slower than it should. People haven’t switched to driving in London at all. In fact as I said above, London is the only region of GB where total driven miles haven’t increased in thirty years.

Tom Pike ● 1147d

When the DL isn’t working normal people use the buses. Sounds like another excuse for the car addicts to justify their harmful habit.

Paul Campbell ● 1147d

Whats normal people ? Ive said it in the past and i will say it again. When electric cars become cheaper to buy and the 2nd hand market is flooded with electric and batteries are not 5k the roads will be more busy than ever with cars. Is your point no cars,or just a air quality issue because you may have a bigger shock in years to come if its the first option

Julian Pavey ● 1147d

Tiny Singapore has been trialling and trying to introduce pay per mile since 1988 (just 35 years).  They considered toll booths (restrictive to traffic flow) roadside beacons (inaccurate) in-vehicle data capture devices (also inaccurate).After 35 years of planning in Singapore, the price for driving on the roads depends on the time and location, with the charge for using a particularly busy section of road during peak times being higher than on a less used section during the middle of the day.  The system only operates on 'trunk' roads and the effect has been to extend the rush hour with only a 1.9% reduction in overall traffic counts (source: Sigapore Ministry of Transport ) while actual mileage covered per vehicle has actually increased. Hardly a modal shift despite Singapore have a low-cost Mass Transit System with most commuter fars around Sg$1.50 (about £0.90).No other nation has successfully implemented pay per mile motoring although athre are VERY limited trials underway.

N V Brooks ● 1147d

"I can assure you that people haven’t switched to driving because the District line runs 11s slower than it should." I never said people have,i said the transport system is not good,it lets you down to much and the idea of people switching to cars was a not surprised option,not a people do option

Julian Pavey ● 1147d

All the normal people who use PT every day to get to work, take kids to school, go shopping etc. it’s rubbish that is bad in Chiswick. It’s brilliant. The vast majority of people using their cars in this part of London for those everyday activities are the privileged and entitled minority who don’t care about the harm they cause society with their poor choices. You think that somebody who spends great deal of time campaigning to make it harder and more expensive to drive private vehicles in the city and easier not to doesn’t understand that EVs are not the solution to congestion and road safety?  Hence LTNs, cycle lanes, pedestrianised shopping streets, removal of parking, road pricing etc.

Paul Campbell ● 1147d

N V Brooks ● 1147d

It's all directed towards the elderly who are unable to make the changes,very cruel.

Janice Evans ● 1147d

The fires were caused by humans, wonder why ?

Janice Evans ● 1147d

Whoever brings in or supports pricing per mile will wave good bye to every election.For that reason it will never happen.It will effect so many people it will be like a pole tax rebuff.Just a policy that will never happen

Julian Pavey ● 1147d

Fortunately most people don't expect you to arrive on time anymore.

Janice Evans ● 1147d

Julian, you said:"no wonder people get in the car rather than ponsing around with a bus." You were claiming you were unsurprised that people were actually driving more, not that they might be thinking about it. But rereading it, maybe they just wanted to get into their car to sit in the front seat for a while rather than drive anywhere and I misunderstood your point!The fact is that, contrary to your most probable claim and uniquely for all of the regions of Great Britain, there's been no increase in the mileage driven on the roads of London since 1993.

Tom Pike ● 1147d

it seems people are using their cars less often but going further afield.

Janice Evans ● 1147d

Try to connect your comment on the future proliferation of EVs with your comment that road pricing will not happen. How much does fuel duty contribute to the exchequer every year? The OBR expects fuel duties to raise £24.3bn in the 23/24 tax year. It will quickly become a categorical imperative for a government to introduce road pricing and this is well understood by the DfT. The welcome impact on people's awareness of the true costs of driving every journey are a welcome ancillary benefit for society.

Paul Campbell ● 1147d

Is that true in stats.

Janice Evans ● 1147d

Just my thoughts.

Janice Evans ● 1147d

Come on Tom you are excellent at answering questions can you tell me is that true in stats.

Janice Evans ● 1147d

The problem is you take everything said as fact.The point being the other option is not great either

Julian Pavey ● 1147d

About eighteen months ago on Newsnight a Tory MP was discussing road pricing and said that it would come in as soon as the technology had been arrived at. Now doubt if it was to come in during this Government's term  a no mark like Grant Shapps , if he was still transport minister would blame Sadiq Kahn just like he has done with the LTNs and ULEZ which he forced on Kahn in order to get TFL properly funded. If you think road pricing  isn't coming in you're whistling dixie.

David Burke ● 1147d

It is very 2023 Tory to say that instead of restrictions on cars we need to e enable EVs and then deny that road pricing will be a thing. They live in fairy unicorn land.

Paul Campbell ● 1147d

Unfortunately Nigel your piece on Singapore is nonsense because you fail to mention that the car ownership percentage is 11%. Everyone is on public transport and the effective policy has been to make car ownership phenomenally expensive, to the extent that the road pricing is irrelevant in comparison. 

John Hall ● 1147d

Shame. Nigel spent quite a while Googling this afternoon. He should Google "confirmation bias".

Paul Campbell ● 1147d

Thank you for yor 'considered opinion' which helpfully supports my post.  If a nation with such low ownership struggles to make the pricing model work then London, in isolation and the wider UK has little chance. California, hardly short of technical expertise, has been unable to even get a viable trial started despite trying since 2008.

N V Brooks ● 1147d

No accompanying text but perhaps Rishi Sunak on a Fred Flinstone bike to show his stone age policies on net zero.

David Burke ● 1147d

You only need to ask once, Janice! Both trips and mileage are down. But you’ve never come clean, the long distances you drive just to shop are a lifestyle choice, not a necessity.

Tom Pike ● 1147d

Ok there's a lot of ignorant blather on here. Let's put it to a democratic test. Susan Hall (no relation) is the Tory candidate for London mayor and has said if elected she'll scrap the ULEZ on day one. Here's the deal. I say she'll lose. Add your name below if you say she'll win. Whoever is wrong will have to run naked across the Old Market Place. Can't say fairer than that. 

John Hall ● 1147d

Hi Janice, you really need to specify what the ‘that’ in ‘is that true in stats’ is?E.g. are you asking if fewer miles in total are driven by all private cars within some boundary that is considered to be ‘London’, or are you asking whether the average mileage per driver who drives in London is lower or something else.And even the word average isn’t as straightforward as someone might assume.PS Not saying Tom is right or wrong, just that it’s not clear enough what you are actually asking.

Andrew Jones ● 1147d

Good one but do you want to see some of these old timers hobbling around with all thèir bits hanging out? Yes !

David Burke ● 1147d

Thanks Tom, I use my car much less but do travel further and wondered if others were doing the same, so both trips and mileage are down, my car is eco friendly so not much pollution I hope, down to two days a week whereas it was almost every day at one time so have made changes. I'm not totally against ULEZ but do have concerns for the elderly, I think thingsshould be less stressful for people in later life.

Janice Evans ● 1147d

Not at all, my dear friend Gok Tan who used to post here and on the Ealing forum as Gerry Tan (much missed) was Singaporean and we used to spend many hours over coffee in the Café Grove. He could never get a parking space and we must have first addressed all matter car related well over twenty years ago. Paul, you may want to look up the word friend as it may be unfamiliar to you.

N V Brooks ● 1147d

Tom understood what I meant.

Janice Evans ● 1147d

She will lose John 😉

Janice Evans ● 1147d

That did make me laugh David.

Janice Evans ● 1147d

She will loose.BUT AND A BIG BUT. Does JC put his name to the list.If he does,it could slightly change things but its a big IF.

Julian Pavey ● 1147d

Sounds like he was out of date. I lives in Singapore until 2017 and never had a problem getting a parking space as 90% of the population were priced off the roads. 

John Hall ● 1147d

“Out of date” yep that’s Nigel

Paul Campbell ● 1147d

Crossed wires, the parking issue was in Ealing and he compared it to 'back home' when we started talking of the cost of owning and running a car there.

N V Brooks ● 1147d

Ah bless. The Ableist troll captured in his ecomobile on the Grove Park ANPR earlier today.

N V Brooks ● 1147d

“When electric cars become cheaper to buy and the 2nd hand market is flooded with electric and batteries are not 5k the roads will be more busy than ever with cars.“Petrol car sales have already increased dramatically.  You can’t rely on trains and tubes. Too many strikes, to many failures. We tried to do the ‘right thing’ and use the rail network from Richmond to the Dulwich Art Gallery last month and it was a total disaster. Cancelled trains, late trains, uncouth noisy passengers etc etc.  We arrived so late we missed our booked entry slot and had to beg to be allowed late entry. Next time it’s a half hour journey by car on the south circular and PLENTY of free parking in Dulwich right outside the gallery.  For stress free, comfortable journeys the car is the answer. You can’t rely in TfL or the rail network.

Steve Taylor ● 1147d

“I’ve caught thousands of weekday District Line trains. I can assure you that people haven’t switched to driving because the District line runs 11s slower than it should.”Obviously you haven’t tried to catch them to or from Richmond!

Steve Taylor ● 1147d

Steve, my tube commuting has been from both Gunnersbury and more recently Turnham Green.  I don’t miss waiting for a Richmond train, but having Overground from Gunnersbury was great. Not very convinced by the latest argument against ULEZ:“In fact, the air in the inner London zone is still far worse than the air quality in the outer boroughs, despite ULEZ. That is why some people have concluded that the new expansion is just another tax by the current Mayor.”Quite the opposite is true, as shown by the analysis by Imperial College. NO2 in central London fell by 46% and in inner London by 21%; NO2 in both areas is much closer to that of outer London, certainly not “far worse” as claimed. Those who are arguing that expansion is not justified because the existing ULEZ has not made a significant difference are simply ignoring the evidence.

Tom Pike ● 1147d

I don't think the Conservatives are going to let the facts get in the way of their campaigning for pollution, global warming and roads deaths. The whole Party has now gone full OneChiswick loopy.

Paul Campbell ● 1147d

I am 100% for ULEZ but I don’t see using trains as a viable alternative. I believe that non compliant vehicles should be scrapped and people should replace them with compliant vehicles. Lots of cheap petrol vehicles available which are compliant to travel in London.

Steve Taylor ● 1147d

More evidence that Rishi will stand up for the masses and show the selfish, self centred elitists who is the boss! Making millions suffer for the benefit of a few selfish people living in LTNs is abhorrent!“ Rishi Sunak has ordered a review into the rollout of low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs), saying he is on the side of drivers.The prime minister said in an interview with the Sunday Telegraph he had ordered the Department for Transport to review LTNs policies”

Steve Taylor ● 1147d

....also states that diverting traffic on to the outer areas DID NOT increase pollution in those areas. ....statistics,schtischtiks

Pete Docherty ● 1147d