The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)

kingstongraham

If it's not the introduction of restrictions on those cars, I wouldn't expect it to make any great difference. Don't think that report shows anything either way.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

A bit better than here, but with the high pressure this week it's going to be worse for a few days. (I know you don't live in Sevenoaks but assuming it's fairly near there). We're both forecast to hit 64 on Wednesday.

Probably depends which way the wind is blowing - pollution doesn't stop at ULEZ borders. In the end you can argue that you are just pushing the 'problem' elsewhere, in which case what's the point? Other than raising money.

Also not sure what a score of 64 means. Could it show that your air quality is as good as out of town so you don't need a ULEZ to make some very marginal improvements?

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

If it's not the introduction of restrictions on those cars, I wouldn't expect it to make any great difference. Don't think that report shows anything either way.

The statement sounds pretty fair.

"this study implies that the ULEZ on its own is not an effective strategy in the sense that the marginal causal effects were small. On the other hand, the ULEZ is one of many policies implemented to tackle air pollution in London, and in combination these have led to improvements in air quality that are clearly observable."

Not sure that is arguing against the ULEZ as some seem to think. Another interpretation would be that the limits are set too low to have a significant effect.

pangolin

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

A bit better than here, but with the high pressure this week it's going to be worse for a few days. (I know you don't live in Sevenoaks but assuming it's fairly near there). We're both forecast to hit 64 on Wednesday.

Probably depends which way the wind is blowing - pollution doesn't stop at ULEZ borders. In the end you can argue that you are just pushing the 'problem' elsewhere, in which case what's the point? Other than raising money.

Also not sure what a score of 64 means. Could it show that your air quality is as good as out of town so you don't need a ULEZ to make some very marginal improvements?

This assumes nobody changes to a compliant car, or cycles, or takes a bus, or takes a train, or skips a trip, or carshares, or.... you get the point.

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

A bit better than here, but with the high pressure this week it's going to be worse for a few days. (I know you don't live in Sevenoaks but assuming it's fairly near there). We're both forecast to hit 64 on Wednesday.

Probably depends which way the wind is blowing - pollution doesn't stop at ULEZ borders. In the end you can argue that you are just pushing the 'problem' elsewhere, in which case what's the point? Other than raising money.

Also not sure what a score of 64 means. Could it show that your air quality is as good as out of town so you don't need a ULEZ to make some very marginal improvements?

This assumes nobody changes to a compliant car, or cycles, or takes a bus, or takes a train, or skips a trip, or carshares, or.... you get the point.

And yet somewhere approaching 95% of cars in outer London are already compliant without having ULEZ to 'force' the change - if you really want to improve air quality then ban cars as even the compliant ones emit stuff. Or if you are convinced that non-compliant cars are the biggest issue we face, ban them entirely rather than charging a fee to drive them. That would also show that it is not mainly about revenue.

As it is, ULEZ is a sledgehammer to crack a nut and as FA rightly says above, the money and effort could easily yield better results on the health front if spent elsewhere.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

A bit better than here, but with the high pressure this week it's going to be worse for a few days. (I know you don't live in Sevenoaks but assuming it's fairly near there). We're both forecast to hit 64 on Wednesday.

Probably depends which way the wind is blowing - pollution doesn't stop at ULEZ borders. In the end you can argue that you are just pushing the 'problem' elsewhere, in which case what's the point? Other than raising money.

Also not sure what a score of 64 means. Could it show that your air quality is as good as out of town so you don't need a ULEZ to make some very marginal improvements?

CAQI - Combined Air Quality Index. It's combining levels of NO2, PM2.5, PM10 and O3.





PM2.5 is currently fairly high which tends to happen when there is high pressure and low winds. Best figure this year is a CAQI of 8; average is 20. Anything above about 50 and I start to get respiratory symptoms. Nothing major, but as I say I've already been for one chest x-ray to check it wasn't something more serious.

pangolin

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

A bit better than here, but with the high pressure this week it's going to be worse for a few days. (I know you don't live in Sevenoaks but assuming it's fairly near there). We're both forecast to hit 64 on Wednesday.

Probably depends which way the wind is blowing - pollution doesn't stop at ULEZ borders. In the end you can argue that you are just pushing the 'problem' elsewhere, in which case what's the point? Other than raising money.

Also not sure what a score of 64 means. Could it show that your air quality is as good as out of town so you don't need a ULEZ to make some very marginal improvements?

This assumes nobody changes to a compliant car, or cycles, or takes a bus, or takes a train, or skips a trip, or carshares, or.... you get the point.

And yet somewhere approaching 95% of cars in outer London are already compliant without having ULEZ to 'force' the change - if you really want to improve air quality then ban cars as even the compliant ones emit stuff. Or if you are convinced that non-compliant cars are the biggest issue we face, ban them entirely rather than charging a fee to drive them. That would also show that it is not mainly about revenue.

As it is, ULEZ is a sledgehammer to crack a nut and as FA rightly says above, the money and effort could easily yield better results on the health front if spent elsewhere.

You'd expect it to impact far more than 5% of cars based on the uproar. Strange.

rick_chasey

£12.50 isn’t even that much.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

A bit better than here, but with the high pressure this week it's going to be worse for a few days. (I know you don't live in Sevenoaks but assuming it's fairly near there). We're both forecast to hit 64 on Wednesday.

Probably depends which way the wind is blowing - pollution doesn't stop at ULEZ borders. In the end you can argue that you are just pushing the 'problem' elsewhere, in which case what's the point? Other than raising money.

Also not sure what a score of 64 means. Could it show that your air quality is as good as out of town so you don't need a ULEZ to make some very marginal improvements?

This assumes nobody changes to a compliant car, or cycles, or takes a bus, or takes a train, or skips a trip, or carshares, or.... you get the point.

And yet somewhere approaching 95% of cars in outer London are already compliant without having ULEZ to 'force' the change - if you really want to improve air quality then ban cars as even the compliant ones emit stuff. Or if you are convinced that non-compliant cars are the biggest issue we face, ban them entirely rather than charging a fee to drive them. That would also show that it is not mainly about revenue.

As it is, ULEZ is a sledgehammer to crack a nut and as FA rightly says above, the money and effort could easily yield better results on the health front if spent elsewhere.

Would certainly simplify things if they just extended the congestion charge and probably much more effective. Would be happy with that.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

A bit better than here, but with the high pressure this week it's going to be worse for a few days. (I know you don't live in Sevenoaks but assuming it's fairly near there). We're both forecast to hit 64 on Wednesday.

Probably depends which way the wind is blowing - pollution doesn't stop at ULEZ borders. In the end you can argue that you are just pushing the 'problem' elsewhere, in which case what's the point? Other than raising money.

Also not sure what a score of 64 means. Could it show that your air quality is as good as out of town so you don't need a ULEZ to make some very marginal improvements?

This assumes nobody changes to a compliant car, or cycles, or takes a bus, or takes a train, or skips a trip, or carshares, or.... you get the point.

And yet somewhere approaching 95% of cars in outer London are already compliant without having ULEZ to 'force' the change - if you really want to improve air quality then ban cars as even the compliant ones emit stuff. Or if you are convinced that non-compliant cars are the biggest issue we face, ban them entirely rather than charging a fee to drive them. That would also show that it is not mainly about revenue.

As it is, ULEZ is a sledgehammer to crack a nut and as FA rightly says above, the money and effort could easily yield better results on the health front if spent elsewhere.

It's a balance. If you allow people to drive but put a charge to discourage it, then it should reduce usage to only those who genuinely need to.

I'd be happy with that applying to all cars as a congestion charge. If it was also graduated according to the pollution emitted, as a additional emissions charge, fine too.

I disagree with your suggestion of banning all cars from the whole of London, I think you've gone too far there.

pblakeney

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

A bit better than here, but with the high pressure this week it's going to be worse for a few days. (I know you don't live in Sevenoaks but assuming it's fairly near there). We're both forecast to hit 64 on Wednesday.

Probably depends which way the wind is blowing - pollution doesn't stop at ULEZ borders. In the end you can argue that you are just pushing the 'problem' elsewhere, in which case what's the point? Other than raising money.

Also not sure what a score of 64 means. Could it show that your air quality is as good as out of town so you don't need a ULEZ to make some very marginal improvements?

This assumes nobody changes to a compliant car, or cycles, or takes a bus, or takes a train, or skips a trip, or carshares, or.... you get the point.

And yet somewhere approaching 95% of cars in outer London are already compliant without having ULEZ to 'force' the change - if you really want to improve air quality then ban cars as even the compliant ones emit stuff. Or if you are convinced that non-compliant cars are the biggest issue we face, ban them entirely rather than charging a fee to drive them. That would also show that it is not mainly about revenue.

As it is, ULEZ is a sledgehammer to crack a nut and as FA rightly says above, the money and effort could easily yield better results on the health front if spent elsewhere.

You'd expect it to impact far more than 5% of cars based on the uproar. Strange.

That’s cos it is a mountain range out of a molehill used mainly as a political football. It does not warrant the level of attention that it is getting.

kingstongraham

People are worried about it being used for more extensive charging in the future, and I hope they are right.

focuszing723

I still find it amusing that if a car is forty or more years old "classic" you pay no road tax and don't have to get an MOT.

Future transport bliss is to find a cool classic of this age and get it up to scratch.

It would make a good thread.

briantrumpet

focuszing723 said:

I still find it amusing that if a car is forty or more years old "classic" you pay no road tax and don't have to get an MOT.

Future transport bliss is to find a cool classic of this age and get it up to scratch.

It would make a good thread.

No, please put it in some random thread, as @pinno would like you to... maybe food or photography, just to wind me up.

pblakeney

Nice idea in principle but you wouldn’t want it to be a daily driver that you have to rely on.

kingstongraham

That classic car exemption is fine as long as it is only ever driven at 10mph. Otherwise it's mad.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

If it's not the introduction of restrictions on those cars, I wouldn't expect it to make any great difference. Don't think that report shows anything either way.

The statement sounds pretty fair.

"this study implies that the ULEZ on its own is not an effective strategy in the sense that the marginal causal effects were small. On the other hand, the ULEZ is one of many policies implemented to tackle air pollution in London, and in combination these have led to improvements in air quality that are clearly observable."

Not sure that is arguing against the ULEZ as some seem to think. Another interpretation would be that the limits are set too low to have a significant effect.

It isn't arguing for of against anything.

I'm not sure I see the difference between "the limits are set too low to have a significant effect" and, "ULEZ doesn't have a signifi ant effect."

Anyone?

Stevo_666

Levels of pollutants have been dropping steadily over the last few decades and have made massive progress without ULEZ. See graph in this link:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/03/glasgow-lez-low-emission-zone-nitrogen-dioxide-pollution/

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

A bit better than here, but with the high pressure this week it's going to be worse for a few days. (I know you don't live in Sevenoaks but assuming it's fairly near there). We're both forecast to hit 64 on Wednesday.

Probably depends which way the wind is blowing - pollution doesn't stop at ULEZ borders. In the end you can argue that you are just pushing the 'problem' elsewhere, in which case what's the point? Other than raising money.

Also not sure what a score of 64 means. Could it show that your air quality is as good as out of town so you don't need a ULEZ to make some very marginal improvements?

This assumes nobody changes to a compliant car, or cycles, or takes a bus, or takes a train, or skips a trip, or carshares, or.... you get the point.

And yet somewhere approaching 95% of cars in outer London are already compliant without having ULEZ to 'force' the change - if you really want to improve air quality then ban cars as even the compliant ones emit stuff. Or if you are convinced that non-compliant cars are the biggest issue we face, ban them entirely rather than charging a fee to drive them. That would also show that it is not mainly about revenue.

As it is, ULEZ is a sledgehammer to crack a nut and as FA rightly says above, the money and effort could easily yield better results on the health front if spent elsewhere.

You'd expect it to impact far more than 5% of cars based on the uproar. Strange.

But that's not the point here, is it.

Stevo_666

focuszing723 said:

I still find it amusing that if a car is forty or more years old "classic" you pay no road tax and don't have to get an MOT.

Future transport bliss is to find a cool classic of this age and get it up to scratch.

It would make a good thread.

Might have to buy a 205gti soon.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

A bit better than here, but with the high pressure this week it's going to be worse for a few days. (I know you don't live in Sevenoaks but assuming it's fairly near there). We're both forecast to hit 64 on Wednesday.

Probably depends which way the wind is blowing - pollution doesn't stop at ULEZ borders. In the end you can argue that you are just pushing the 'problem' elsewhere, in which case what's the point? Other than raising money.

Also not sure what a score of 64 means. Could it show that your air quality is as good as out of town so you don't need a ULEZ to make some very marginal improvements?

This assumes nobody changes to a compliant car, or cycles, or takes a bus, or takes a train, or skips a trip, or carshares, or.... you get the point.

And yet somewhere approaching 95% of cars in outer London are already compliant without having ULEZ to 'force' the change - if you really want to improve air quality then ban cars as even the compliant ones emit stuff. Or if you are convinced that non-compliant cars are the biggest issue we face, ban them entirely rather than charging a fee to drive them. That would also show that it is not mainly about revenue.

As it is, ULEZ is a sledgehammer to crack a nut and as FA rightly says above, the money and effort could easily yield better results on the health front if spent elsewhere.

It's a balance. If you allow people to drive but put a charge to discourage it, then it should reduce usage to only those who genuinely need to.

I'd be happy with that applying to all cars as a congestion charge. If it was also graduated according to the pollution emitted, as a additional emissions charge, fine too.

I disagree with your suggestion of banning all cars from the whole of London, I think you've gone too far there.

You're right it is a balance and in my view, Khan has got the balance wrong. Quite badly.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

A bit better than here, but with the high pressure this week it's going to be worse for a few days. (I know you don't live in Sevenoaks but assuming it's fairly near there). We're both forecast to hit 64 on Wednesday.

Probably depends which way the wind is blowing - pollution doesn't stop at ULEZ borders. In the end you can argue that you are just pushing the 'problem' elsewhere, in which case what's the point? Other than raising money.

Also not sure what a score of 64 means. Could it show that your air quality is as good as out of town so you don't need a ULEZ to make some very marginal improvements?

This assumes nobody changes to a compliant car, or cycles, or takes a bus, or takes a train, or skips a trip, or carshares, or.... you get the point.

And yet somewhere approaching 95% of cars in outer London are already compliant without having ULEZ to 'force' the change - if you really want to improve air quality then ban cars as even the compliant ones emit stuff. Or if you are convinced that non-compliant cars are the biggest issue we face, ban them entirely rather than charging a fee to drive them. That would also show that it is not mainly about revenue.

As it is, ULEZ is a sledgehammer to crack a nut and as FA rightly says above, the money and effort could easily yield better results on the health front if spent elsewhere.

It's a balance. If you allow people to drive but put a charge to discourage it, then it should reduce usage to only those who genuinely need to.

I'd be happy with that applying to all cars as a congestion charge. If it was also graduated according to the pollution emitted, as a additional emissions charge, fine too.

I disagree with your suggestion of banning all cars from the whole of London, I think you've gone too far there.

You're right it is a balance and in my view, Khan has got the balance wrong. Quite badly.

Yeah, but he'll extend it further when he can. Baby steps.

focuszing723

Yep, the transition is happening anyway. It's just so the types who fly into COP26 can do a bit of eco grandstanding. I bet the fookers still use jets to go on holiday.

Annoys me.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

A bit better than here, but with the high pressure this week it's going to be worse for a few days. (I know you don't live in Sevenoaks but assuming it's fairly near there). We're both forecast to hit 64 on Wednesday.

Probably depends which way the wind is blowing - pollution doesn't stop at ULEZ borders. In the end you can argue that you are just pushing the 'problem' elsewhere, in which case what's the point? Other than raising money.

Also not sure what a score of 64 means. Could it show that your air quality is as good as out of town so you don't need a ULEZ to make some very marginal improvements?

This assumes nobody changes to a compliant car, or cycles, or takes a bus, or takes a train, or skips a trip, or carshares, or.... you get the point.

And yet somewhere approaching 95% of cars in outer London are already compliant without having ULEZ to 'force' the change - if you really want to improve air quality then ban cars as even the compliant ones emit stuff. Or if you are convinced that non-compliant cars are the biggest issue we face, ban them entirely rather than charging a fee to drive them. That would also show that it is not mainly about revenue.

As it is, ULEZ is a sledgehammer to crack a nut and as FA rightly says above, the money and effort could easily yield better results on the health front if spent elsewhere.

Would certainly simplify things if they just extended the congestion charge and probably much more effective. Would be happy with that.

After the reaction to the ULEZ expansion, I doubt any politician would be stupid enough to try something that applies to all cars. I was talking about other initiatives altogether such as those FA mentioned upthread.

pangolin

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

A bit better than here, but with the high pressure this week it's going to be worse for a few days. (I know you don't live in Sevenoaks but assuming it's fairly near there). We're both forecast to hit 64 on Wednesday.

Probably depends which way the wind is blowing - pollution doesn't stop at ULEZ borders. In the end you can argue that you are just pushing the 'problem' elsewhere, in which case what's the point? Other than raising money.

Also not sure what a score of 64 means. Could it show that your air quality is as good as out of town so you don't need a ULEZ to make some very marginal improvements?

This assumes nobody changes to a compliant car, or cycles, or takes a bus, or takes a train, or skips a trip, or carshares, or.... you get the point.

And yet somewhere approaching 95% of cars in outer London are already compliant without having ULEZ to 'force' the change - if you really want to improve air quality then ban cars as even the compliant ones emit stuff. Or if you are convinced that non-compliant cars are the biggest issue we face, ban them entirely rather than charging a fee to drive them. That would also show that it is not mainly about revenue.

As it is, ULEZ is a sledgehammer to crack a nut and as FA rightly says above, the money and effort could easily yield better results on the health front if spent elsewhere.

You'd expect it to impact far more than 5% of cars based on the uproar. Strange.

But that's not the point here, is it.

I can make whatever point I like Stevo.

Your point seems to waver between it being a massive problem affecting masses of the poor working classes, and a tiny problem that hardly affects many cars anyway.

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

A bit better than here, but with the high pressure this week it's going to be worse for a few days. (I know you don't live in Sevenoaks but assuming it's fairly near there). We're both forecast to hit 64 on Wednesday.

Probably depends which way the wind is blowing - pollution doesn't stop at ULEZ borders. In the end you can argue that you are just pushing the 'problem' elsewhere, in which case what's the point? Other than raising money.

Also not sure what a score of 64 means. Could it show that your air quality is as good as out of town so you don't need a ULEZ to make some very marginal improvements?

This assumes nobody changes to a compliant car, or cycles, or takes a bus, or takes a train, or skips a trip, or carshares, or.... you get the point.

And yet somewhere approaching 95% of cars in outer London are already compliant without having ULEZ to 'force' the change - if you really want to improve air quality then ban cars as even the compliant ones emit stuff. Or if you are convinced that non-compliant cars are the biggest issue we face, ban them entirely rather than charging a fee to drive them. That would also show that it is not mainly about revenue.

As it is, ULEZ is a sledgehammer to crack a nut and as FA rightly says above, the money and effort could easily yield better results on the health front if spent elsewhere.

You'd expect it to impact far more than 5% of cars based on the uproar. Strange.

But that's not the point here, is it.

I can make whatever point I like Stevo.

Your point seems to waver between it being a massive problem affecting masses of the poor working classes, and a tiny problem that hardly affects many cars anyway.

I know you can, but you seem to have missed my point judging by your reply above. Have another read.

focuszing723

I bet ordinary people pollute less than half the amount of eco granstanders, they're always travelling about to get to something to glue themselves to.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

A bit better than here, but with the high pressure this week it's going to be worse for a few days. (I know you don't live in Sevenoaks but assuming it's fairly near there). We're both forecast to hit 64 on Wednesday.

Probably depends which way the wind is blowing - pollution doesn't stop at ULEZ borders. In the end you can argue that you are just pushing the 'problem' elsewhere, in which case what's the point? Other than raising money.

Also not sure what a score of 64 means. Could it show that your air quality is as good as out of town so you don't need a ULEZ to make some very marginal improvements?

This assumes nobody changes to a compliant car, or cycles, or takes a bus, or takes a train, or skips a trip, or carshares, or.... you get the point.

And yet somewhere approaching 95% of cars in outer London are already compliant without having ULEZ to 'force' the change - if you really want to improve air quality then ban cars as even the compliant ones emit stuff. Or if you are convinced that non-compliant cars are the biggest issue we face, ban them entirely rather than charging a fee to drive them. That would also show that it is not mainly about revenue.

As it is, ULEZ is a sledgehammer to crack a nut and as FA rightly says above, the money and effort could easily yield better results on the health front if spent elsewhere.

Would certainly simplify things if they just extended the congestion charge and probably much more effective. Would be happy with that.

After the reaction to the ULEZ expansion, I doubt any politician would be stupid enough to try something that applies to all cars. I was talking about other initiatives altogether such as those FA mentioned upthread.

https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/plurality-of-londoners-support-expanding-londons-ultra-low-emissions-zone-ulez/

Polling finds net support for extending the congestion charge to the whole of inner London. Net in favour among inner London residents is +31%

focuszing723

Ah yes.

kingstongraham

Daily Mail have found another way to "dodge" the hated charge.