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

Well this person won't be giving business to about 35 businesses. Everything from farm shops to deli's, cinemas, cafes, garden centres as well as BIG name retailers and fast food outlets. Won't be attending funerals when they come up. Won't be attending children's sports events when inside the ULEZ Zone.
Won't be dating anyone either if they fall in the zone and I won't be going into London by any other means and partaking of concerts or theatres or tourist destinations like museums etc.
I don't want a new car and I don't want the scappage scheme. So fuck em.

I look forward to you all complaining about the cost of your renovations as all your tradespeople will have to pass on the horrific costs of compliance onto you their customers.

I didn't support the smoking ban and I was wrong. Really wrong.

History will be the judge.

The smoking ban didn’t impact the livelihoods of the poorest in society.

@dutysuite that's not a reason for it not to be introduced though

Yes i do. But I can also see that it's
problematic. I have no idea what the solution is. But what pissed me off electorally is that somehow it's been spun to be a Labour initiative when it absolutely wasn't.

Why are people saying the effect is negligible when the research says differently? Eg

www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/03/london-low-emissions-zone-pollution/

How would that affect air quality in the outer boroughs?

Mrandmrsrobinson - you do know you can walk, cycle and take public transport into the ulez zone, just in case you did need to date someone there

We live just outside the zone and go shopping in an area that will now be inside the zone on a semi-regular basis. I've just checked and it looks like it'd be cheaper to pay the charge than for the 4 of us who usually go to get the bus.
The public transport here is v expensive and pretty unreliable, certainly nothing like it is in central London.
The expansion has been very badly managed.

This is what’s known as cutting off one’s own nose to spite one’s face.

I don’t support it at all. It penalises people for working, having limited mobility, even just for wanting to do a big shop ffs. It will move traffic into other directions, creating congestion and forcing cars to produce more emissions than they would have done otherwise. It makes no sense.

Definitely not

I don't drive, just cycle everywhere, and I'm supporting it for the sake of my lungs & others'. Why does one person's money trump another's health?

Cyclists won’t be safe for long. Charges all in the pipeline.

Ellebellwell - surely the fact that motor vehicles in the UK have been allowed to double to 41 million in the last 30 years, is far more frightening and dystopian

Duty suite, and how exactly does one charge a non registered vehicle such as a bicycle, and why, given its zero impact on air quality

That has already been debunked. The ait quality is fine. Its a tactic to use an emotive subject (children's lungs) to divide the public and sit back and watch the squabble. Are they stopping so many planes over London and fuel dumping? No!

If Khan is so worried over children's health, why is there poverty, homelessness and child sex trafficking? He does nothing about that as it doesn't generate revenue quick and easy like ULEZ

No

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/08/19/khan-tried-silence-scientists-questioned-ulez-claims/

The way it stands, yes I'm against it. There's not been enough time for people to change their cars. We're in a time where everything is expensive and people cannot afford this.

Then what is the point? Just displace the pollution but still emit it?

Ellebellwell, you do realise thousands of londoners don't own a car so sadiq is not getting money out of every one

I don't support it

From that article which you can read if you put it into 12ft

In private emails seen by The Telegraph, Shirley Rodrigues, the London Mayor’s deputy for environment and energy, told Prof Frank Kelly she was “really disappointed” that Imperial College had publicised findings <a class="break-all" href="https://12ft.io/proxy?ref=&q=www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2021/11/16/londons-ultra-low-emission-zone-has-made-marginal-difference/" rel="nofollow" target="blank">questioning the effectiveness of Ulezez.*

Prof Kelly, a director of Imperial’s Environmental Research Group, which has been paid more than £800,000 by Mr Khan’s office since 2021, agreed to issue a statement – partly written by Ms Rodrigues – saying Ulez had helped to “dramatically reduce <a class="break-all" href="https://12ft.io/proxy?ref=&q=www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/0/deaths-caused-pollution-clean-air-initiatives-ulez/" rel="nofollow" target="blank">air pollutionon”.*

The study from the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in 2021, found that <a class="break-all" href="https://12ft.io/proxy?ref=&q=www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/advice/ultra-low-emission-zone-londons-new-pollution-charge-everything/" rel="nofollow" target="blank">the introduction of Ulez in 201919 cut nitrogen dioxide by less than three per cent and had insignificant effects on ozone and particulate matter.*

Imperial’s Environmental Research Group has been paid at least £802,958 by Mr Khan’s office since 2021, including a payment of £45,958 for a report on the “future health benefits of mayoral air quality policies” which has been widely cited by the Mayor despite not being peer reviewed.

Khan is a crook who is using dodgy data to support his own ideological position which has very little evidence to back it up

I think it's great, bring it on