Do you support the ULEZ expansion?

[icecream99]

Just curious as it is due to start at midnight tonight and could potentially cause a lot of chaos. I don't support it.

YANBU - I DON'T support ULEZ expansion

YABU - I DO support ULEZ expansion

YANBU

My friend is a taxi driver and he does runs to Heathrow from Basingstoke. His taxi is not compliant and he is desperately trying to get the money for another but it is very hard. He has 3 children and his wife doesn’t work and they are struggling.
It is another tax on the poor and £12.50 per day is very high.

I 100% support ULEZ expansion. I support anything that can help improve our environment and reduce our risk of ill health that’s directly caused by pollution.

Is this justification for the level of racism and death threats he receives?

ULEZ was Boris Johnson’s baby in any case.

my neighbour was up in arms about ULEZ, calling Khan every name under the sun. His car (and my old car) are both compliant ffs. Most are.

We bought our diesel car in 2008, when all the advice was that they were better for the environment. The Labour government at the time positively encouraged people to buy diesels.

There is nothing wrong with our car. It drives beautifully. But, as we live half a mile inside the zone, we will either have to pay £12.50 each time we take it out, or spend £££ buying a new one.

It all feels very nimby-ish: I'm not sure how much pollution will be created to manufacture a new car to replace our perfectly good car. I'm guessing a lot, the equivalent of many years of driving our car, probably. But that's apparently OK, because it doesn't affect London 🤷‍♀️

Our nearest train station is a mile away. Trains run every 30mins (if we are lucky...). No tube service as we are south of the river. Nearest bus stop about half a mile away and not a great service. No night buses or 24 hour trains. There are fields at the end of our road! Not all of Greater London is the same and it's certainly not like central London.

Sadiq Khan changes his message every few minutes. On one hand, pollution is so bad in Greater London that children are literally dying every second, and so it is vital to expand the ULEZ. On the other hand, 90% of vehicles are already compliant and so it's not a big deal for most people. So which is true? I can't believe the 10% non-compliant vehicles will make a significant difference. You can't have it both ways.

No, we're supporting it from the position of having to breathe the air.

I don't think the ULEZ scheme goes far enough. 90% of vehicles are still compliant. After the extreme weather conditions we've had recently it's all the more important to take strong action to clean up our emissions. I say this as someone who has had to replace a vehicle as a result of the introduction of ULEZ.

There does seem to be a certain type of person that revels in directing disgusting and mindless abuse towards Khan. Good on him for keeping the moral high ground and sticking to what is right for the environment we all live in and will benefit from.

They are sorting out one issue, and then sorting out another one. That’s kind of how government works.

If they decided to start with the wood burning stoves and do that first (instead of the cars), the immediate response would be “Such hypocrisy to ban the stoves! I’ll support a can on the stoves once you’ve done something about those awful diesel cars!”

Just constant buck-passing and whataboutery, and while this discussion is going on, nothing gets done about either issue.

It won’t reduce traffic when we have LTNs, planters, dubious road works, closed bridges, 20mph, and empty bike lanes everywhere. A compliant car today won’t be compliant for long. When Khan requires more money he’ll move the goal posts, he already has pay per mile for all motorists in the pipeline. He’ll come for the cyclists too at some point. The man is part of C40 and I don’t trust him one bit. Hopefully he’ll be voted out in May.

@VaccineSticker So do you support rich people being able to continue polluting then by just paying £12.50?

What does he drive?

I’m surprised his car isn’t compliant, surely as a taxi driver it would be more economical for him to drive a car under 15 (petrol) 8 (diesel) years old?

And cars even older than that are compliant?

ULEZ was Boris Johnson’s baby in any case.

Indeed and its reintroduction following Covid was required by Grant Shapps along with changes to scope and levels in order to bailout Tfl.

No idea why people think it’s solely a Sadiq Khan decision.

@whathaveiforgottentoday You live a 10 min walk from the M25?

Bloody hell, I would have thought you’d support anti-pollution measures I dread to think of the air quality near your house.

I didn’t even know you could live a 10min walk from it.
Is that safe?

Rich people aren’t driving non-compliant cars so that’s a non point

I do not support it. It’s class divisive. Only the rich will have no issue with it, not the worker on a low wage with an old car who won’t be able to pay it.

Easy to say you support a charge when it doesn't affect your income. Do report back when pay-per-mile starts for all vehicles, won't you?

Yes, I fully support ULEZ. It’s made a hugely positive difference for my family in my borough in London. I also live on a boundary road between two Lower Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs), which I also fully support.

I agree with the policy, but implementation has been awful. The incentives are wrongly aligned.

For example, we did the sums.

10 years or more to break even if we buy a new car, given we only use our (diesel, bought secondhand when we were told that was the eco option) car a couple of days a week for trips that are impossible or more than double the time by public transport. That’s assuming we replace like for like with a petrol version, longer if we try and upgrade to a hybrid. Fully electric doesn’t work as we have no drive and few local chargers.

Apart from the money, I’ve looked at the environmental cost of scrapping a working car, and just can’t see that it makes sense to do so. Air quality isn’t an issue locally, from what I can find out.

This

My own old, small and very economical car would be charged while DH's ridiculous 5L monster is welcomed for free.

I support the theory while consider the London implementation such nonsense.

@LittleBearPad So you're confirming it is exclusively to target poor people then? Nice.

According to Khan he made the decision to expand ULEZ.

Something like 75% of flights from Heathrow are for business, no one wants those flights to be reduced. Of course aeroplanes don't cause any pollution at all and funny how you now have to pay ULEZ (Ultra low my butt)to drive from the west into Heathrow.
I live on the edge of 4 different counties so public transport is dire. Oh and I bet the 3rd runaway with be given the go ahead because aeroplanes seem to have special air cleaning qualities.

@LittleBearPad because people are panicking and falling hook line and sinker for the scrappage scheme. I think it's immoral to scrap a perfectly good car. How do you think Cars become collectors or classic's?
By being 40 years old or more, well looked after and not succumbing to some stupid scrap scheme

I support it, but it doesn’t affect me here in rural Devon. It affects my Dad who sometimes drives into London, but he supports it too. Unfortunately reducing CO2 emissions means inconveniencing people, making our easy careless lives harder and more expensive.

This is not a drill, this is the fire. The world is already burning and very few politicians are prepared to be as unpopular as this global crisis requires of them. We face extinction, along with most other species.