Ulez Expansion Legal.

[Wilburrabbit]

Maybe try looking at this from a slightly different perspective Wilbur...

There will inevitably be plenty of people who simply don't have a car already... Can't afford one, don't drive, the young, the elderly etc.. It's entirely possible that increased demand for public transport links will directly benefit these people, because it ought to mean that services improve. In addition, they won't have to breath noxious fumes .. Double Good

I'd be interested to learn more about the 'noses in the trough / money making' argument, because it seems to me like a cheap one (on the fact of it). So can you provide more insight into the air quality stats and explain why they don't add up as well as some info on the revenue generated, the cost of implementation and supporting the scheme and the results in terms of how it has impacted on peoples travel arrangements and vehicle ownership etc..?

I’m not sure what knowledge you have of the areas out towards the M25 but they are in many cases rural locations. The ULEZ scheme does not discriminate and its expansion means that for many travelling a few miles from A to B will invoke a charge.

I am aware of stats from employment which justified the original scheme but air quality in the outlying areas is not the same.

As for infrastructure the position is as it has been for years that revenue generated doesn’t benefit those in outlying areas where there are poor transport links as bus routes are reduced year on year, but goes to the centre of London.

The arguments for the original scheme are very different from those for the extension I’m afraid and they don’t stack up.

 

[Wilburrabbit]

The part where you called a 110m scheme no help. End of the day that is quite literally help. If more money is needed to help then it should be given. Why hasn't the government given London the money it gave other cities to reach their own clean air targets?

This is not about the central London scheme but its expansion to rural outlying areas with poor transport links. The money will not improve the local transport infrastructure.

 

[Blackpool Are Back!]

What about the heavy air pollution on the London Underground?

Will equal measures be taken?

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

I’m not sure what knowledge you have of the areas out towards the M25 but they are in many cases rural locations. The ULEZ scheme does not discriminate and its expansion means that for many travelling a few miles from A to B will invoke a charge.

I am aware of stats from employment which justified the original scheme but air quality in the outlying areas is not the same.

As for infrastructure the position is as it has been for years that revenue generated doesn’t benefit those in outlying areas where there are poor transport links as bus routes are reduced year on year, but goes to the centre of London.

The arguments for the original scheme are very different from those for the extension I’m afraid and they don’t stack up.

Very limited knowledge is the short answer, which is why I'm interested in hearing from someone who has experience of the area.

I was interested in you being a little bit more specific than you have been though as your response above is a little bit wooly to say the least and doesn't really help me to gain much insight into the reality of the problem... In essence, it fees like an 'opinion' as opposed to something more tangible.

Typically Public Transport has been reduced due to a lack of demand, so increased demand ought to result in increased availability (from a logical perspective at least)?

Anyway maybe you could explain or offer more insight as I asked? And when you say 'Air quality in outlying areas is not the same' what do you mean? My understanding was that people in these outlying areas have suffered more adverse health consequences, which can be attributed to poor air quality?

So when you say they don't stack up... What exactly do you mean?

 

[Costero Poderoso]

Countries such as Canada have been managing this problem well for decades. In Toronto, they built massive car parks 10 or 15 miles out on the edge of the city, right next to mass transit links of double-decker trains and subway stations. There was no charge for parking and reasonable train fares cheaper than the petrol and city parking cost total. Those incentives together with drivers avoiding the city congestion made it irresistible for commuters. Carrot not stick.

However, in this country the first thing we think of is taxing people and making their lives difficult, not investing in building the infrastructure that would remove the congestion and pollution and making commuters’ lives easier. They don’t even encourage car-sharing clubs which could be excused ULEZ charges if there are 3 or more occupants. And they just say “Oh we can’t afford it, you’ll have to pay”. Stick not carrot.

Helsinki made all public transport free and did the boundary parking thing as well. Like most Nordic countries It joined up it's thinking and ensured staggered work hours by stipulating Flexi hours so that public transport wasn't jammed for four hours per day and pretty much empty the rest of the time

 

[Lost Seasider]

Excuse me? You were talking about this being a way for Khan to make money, a swipe you've made many times while continuing to ignore who came up with the scheme and the clean air targets we have. And I've pointed out the economics of it. What has that go to do with whether I qualify for it.

You're banging on about the scrappage scheme as an excuse for this thing without apparently having looked into the basic details.

It's crap, he may have "allocated" £110 million for it, but AFAICS, he could've allocated £100 billion and it'd still be crap.

 

[foggy]

You're banging on about the scrappage scheme as an excuse for this thing without apparently having looked into the basic details.

It's crap, he may have "allocated" £110 million for it, but AFAICS, he could've allocated £100 billion and it'd still be crap.

I don't really care if you think it's crap, 32m has already been spent and that's data from a few months ago. So I'll ask again how much money you think this will raise for Khan and how big of a percentage of his overall budget will that be? Because you are throwing out the accusation that it's money motivated and not the thousands of excess deaths London has a year due to air pollution and the government's own clean air targets (which you are fighting your hardest to ignore), but you don't seem to have a clue how much profit this will actually make once you add in the cost.

 

[Lost Seasider]

I don't really care if you think it's crap, 32m has already been spent and that's data from a few months ago. So I'll ask again how much money you think this will raise for Khan and how big of a percentage of his overall budget will that be? Because you are throwing out the accusation that it's money motivated and not the thousands of excess deaths London has a year due to air pollution, but you don't seem to have a clue how much profit this will actually make once you add in the cost.

Stop trying to evade my point, please, the scrappage scheme is not the panacea you claim it is, it will exclude a vast number of people, and those that do qualify will still be out of pocket as well.

 

[foggy]

Stop trying to evade my point, please, the scrappage scheme is not the panacea you claim it is, it will exclude a vast number of people, and those that do qualify will still be out of pocket as well.

I can see you are Lost. On post 6 you made another dig at this being a money making scheme, so my reply to you, the first on this thread, post 8, was about how much money has been spent and why you think this is about money and not excess deaths and the government's legal clean air targets. You've started talking about your own personal opinion of the scheme and asked me if I qualify, neither of which have anything to do with my initial reply to you. I don't care if you think it's crap, money is being spent.

 

[Mexboroseasider]

Very limited knowledge is the short answer, which is why I'm interested in hearing from someone who has experience of the area.

I was interested in you being a little bit more specific than you have been though as your response above is a little bit wooly to say the least and doesn't really help me to gain much insight into the reality of the problem... In essence, it fees like an 'opinion' as opposed to something more tangible.

Typically Public Transport has been reduced due to a lack of demand, so increased demand ought to result in increased availability (from a logical perspective at least)?

Anyway maybe you could explain or offer more insight as I asked? And when you say 'Air quality in outlying areas is not the same' what do you mean? My understanding was that people in these outlying areas have suffered more adverse health consequences, which can be attributed to poor air quality?

So when you say they don't stack up... What exactly do you mean?

I agree that the air quality in the suburbs can be awful. I’m thinking specifically of the times I’ve driven along the north orbital with houses just a few yards away.

I’m not sure about the “rural” parts to be honest. It’s certainly true that, as you leave London by train towards Bedford, London ends very abruptly a short distance after Mill Hill Broadway and there’s a lot of countryside between there and the M25. But I suspect a lot of those areas will be in Hertfordshire and other Home Counties rather than London, so wouldn’t be caught by the ULEZ expansion.

Edit to add - out of curiosity I’ve just looked at a map of Hertfordshire. From East to West the boundary with London is pretty much the M25. But continuing West from South Mimms the boundary dips a long way south of the motorway. So those areas aren’t going to be affected by ULEZ.

 

[Lost Seasider]

I can see you are Lost. On post 5 you made another dig at this being a money making scheme, so my reply to you, the first on this thread, post 8, was about how much money has been spent and why you think this is about money and not excess deaths and the government's legal clean air targets. You've started talking about your own personal opinion of the scheme and asked me if I qualify, neither of which have anything to do with my initial reply to you.

You're trying to defend ULEZ on the grounds that there is a scrappage scheme and therefore nobody will be any worse off, I'm simply pointing out that is bulls***.

In terms of how much it raises, it should be obvious to all that, over time, the scheme will be expanded to cover all vehicles, so the answer to that is "billions per year".

 

[Wizaard]

Good green policies aren't going to be universally popular but the point of being in government is to do the most good and cleaning up our air and avoiding climate catastrophes is a pretty high priority and if they worry about Uxbridge which voted without university students in term - when they are on course to win 400+ seats they are bigger idiots than I thought. You can get an old car right now that is ulez compliant that will not cost you more money with what you get in the scrappage scheme. So save your despair where it's actually warranted.

Everyone wants green policies until it affects them financially. That's why we got the Uxbridge result because the public want everyone else to pay for it.

Something like 50% of hospital admissions in big cities are respiratory related, and still we quibble about using older cars that pollute the most. It's not that long ago that people were unhappy about having to have their engines modified to take unleaded petrol. We got over it, and this transition will happen too.

Its not to make money, its to save lives and reduce the burden on the NHS through chronic illnesses directly related to traffic pollution.

 

[Wizaard]

What about the heavy air pollution on the London Underground?

Will equal measures be taken?

What air pollution is that? Electric trains aren't putting out emissions.

 

[foggy]

You're trying to defend ULEZ on the grounds that there is a scrappage scheme and therefore nobody will be any worse off, I'm simply pointing out that is bulls***.

In terms of how much it raises, it should be obvious to all that, over time, the scheme will be expanded to cover all vehicles, so the answer to that is "billions per year".

No I am trying to defend the Mayor from your claims he is motivated by money and not saving lives from air pollution and abiding by the law the Tories made surrounding clean air targets. Good to clear up you have backed down from asserting ulez as it stands will make much that money and have gone into the realms of fantasy speculation.

 

[Jaffa_The_Hut]

So are we going to see rules of MOT’s changing now because clearly vehicles that passed a current MOT can now fail this Ulez.

 

[foggy]

Everyone wants green policies until it affects them financially. That's why we got the Uxbridge result because the public want everyone else to pay for it.

Something like 50% of hospital admissions in big cities are respiratory related, and still we quibble about using older cars that pollute the most. It's not that long ago that people were unhappy about having to have their engines modified to take unleaded petrol. We got over it, and this transition will happen too.

Its not to make money, its to save lives and reduce the burden on the NHS through chronic illnesses directly related to traffic pollution.

I do get that, I would argue it's all about the comms. 45% of Uxbridge and South Ruislip voted Tory but 45% of people in that area are not affected by ULEZ. I think of it a bit like inheritance tax, polling shows about 35% of people think it affects them, when it's actually about 3%.

 

[Lost Seasider]

No I am trying to defend the Mayor from your claims he is motivated by money and not saving lives from air pollution and abiding by the law the Tories made surrounding clean air targets. Good to clear up you have backed down from asserting ulez as it stands will make much that money and have gone into the realms of fantasy speculation.

I don't think the Mayor needs you to defend him, and your defence based on the scrappage scheme is particularly weak and dishonest.

My point on the inevitable next moves is fairly obvious and unarguable, and if you genuinely believe Mr Khan is motivated by a desire to save lives then I have some magic beans you might be interested in.

 

[foggy]

I don't think the Mayor needs you to defend him, and your defence based on the scrappage scheme is particularly weak and dishonest.

My point on the inevitable next moves is fairly obvious and unarguable, and if you genuinely believe Mr Khan is motivated by a desire to save lives then I have some magic beans you might be interested in.

Ah it's unarguable. You should have said!

 

[Lost Seasider]

Ah it's obvious and unarguable. You should have said!

FTFY.

Best quality beans.

 

[Lost Seasider]

A scientific paper published by Kings College London in 2019 found the air in tube carriages is 18 times worse than roadside air above ground.

Interestingly, a certain Mr B. Johnson was in the process of ordering equipment to fix that particular problem, but that proposal was scrapped by Khan.

 

[Blackpool Are Back!]

What air pollution is that? Electric trains aren't putting out emissions.

From The Guardian:

In some places on the underground, air pollution can top 200 small particles per cubic metre.
The UK safe limit for healthy air is 25 small particles per cubic metre.

Studies have suggested that long-term exposure to fine particles could be linked to increased rates of chronic bronchitus and increased mortality from lung cancer and heart disease.

 

[fcblackpool]

Anyone else just think of the Dead Kennedy's when they see this topic?

 

[Shandypants]

Do Heathrow and Gatwick fall within the ULEZ

 

[Bennys_was_a_mob]

Let's face it they are trying to tax the poor or least well off from using the car for the sake of the environment.

My van would be compliant with ULEZ but only just in a couple of years would they change so it wasn't?
Then for anyone who has seen the price of a new van or the second hand market the prices are off the scale and I'd struggle to afford if it was brought in Blackpool this scheme and must be the case for many small business in London who use a van.

Your Euro 6 van won't be compliant by 2025 when they bring Euro 7 into the mix.

This Euro 7 spec includes tyre wear and brake wear particulates.

We are on a never ending recycling/updating merry-go-round which costs us big time, either jumping on the next expensive green horse or paying through the nose on increased taxes.

Either way if you want to continue your business, commute to work, drive the kids to school, drive on holiday etc pay up, pay up, pay up.

 

[Wizaard]

Your Euro 6 van won't be compliant by 2025 when they bring Euro 7 into the mix.

This Euro 7 spec includes tyre wear and brake wear particulates.

We are on a never ending recycling/updating merry-go-round which costs us big time, either jumping on the next expensive green horse or paying through the nose on increased taxes.

Either way if you want to continue your business, commute to work, drive the kids to school, drive on holiday etc pay up, pay up, pay up.

But maybe the kids will live longer if they walk to achool

 

[John Craven's Newsround]

Generally the idea of ULEZ is a good one. Who but a Tory would think it’s a noble idea to poison our kids?

But it’s a big, big change. And changes always hurt people. Usually those people who can least afford it.

Imagine the hospital cleaner who needs to get to work at unsociable hours. When public transport is even less reliable. And they use an old banger that’s on its last legs. And dread the MOT.

So we are in a period of transition.

It’s solvable with a bit of imagination.

What we don’t need is culture wars bollux and entrenched positions.

I assume that last sentence is an attempt at humour from the poster who loves nothing better than stirring up culture wars on here and has a more entrenched position on Brexit than his hero Naughty Nigel

 

[Newholland]

But maybe the kids will live longer if they walk to achool

....hopefully...but there again... they all seem to have various devices permanently coupled to their ear holes and won’t hear the EV plough them down from behind...

 

[CCFskiver]

Like I say I’m just not sure. So for the next few years I’ll wait & see how things pan out. Plus if I change it to something supposedly greener no doubt it will be sold to someone else. If it were to be scrapped then surely that’s more damaging environmentally as it’s still a perfectly good vehicle.

Afternoon '59, I'll be towing the caravan down to Munich in September with my 2014 VW diesel. Some French and German cities have brought in clean air zones and certain older vehicles are excluded from entering them, or risk a fine. For compliant vehicles such as mine, I need to apply for and display a clean air sticker to enter the zones. France charged me €4.50, Germany about €5.00 and they are valid for the life of the vehicle. Policing is not via camera but by employees checking windscreens.

 

[Mexboroseasider]

I assume that last sentence is an attempt at humour from the poster who loves nothing better than stirring up culture wars on here and has a more entrenched position on Brexit than his hero Naughty Nigel

Well we are now in the era where Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (aka please can we try not to run over the children) and “Fifteen Minute Cities” (aka please it’d be nice if I could walk to my local pub, bakery, butchers etc like in the 1950s rather than having to drive everywhere) is translated into ……… “THEY!!!! Are trying to lock us into GHETTOS!!!!!!!! All the better to control us!!!!!!! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!!!!!!!”

 

[glasshalffull]

....hopefully...but there again... they all seem to have various devices permanently coupled to their ear holes and won’t hear the EV plough them down from behind...

Neither will I and I don’t have any devices coupled to my ear holes .

 

[Mexboroseasider]

Neither will I and I don’t have any devices coupled to my ear holes .

Not being heard was one of the main reasons you didn’t put segs in your Docks. Back in the day.

That and the fact you were worried the soles might deflate.

 

[glasshalffull]

Not being heard was one of the main reasons you didn’t put segs in your Docks. Back in the day.

That and the fact you were worried the soles might deflate.

More chance of hearing a pair of Docks coming after me, with or without segs, than some EVs to be honest .

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

More chance of hearing a pair of Docks coming after me, with or without segs, than some EVs to be honest .

Well the silent ninja like qualities of an E.V. are certainly preferable to those ** back firing noisy exhaust pipes that seem to have infested our highways these days. I end up hitting the deck for cover every time one of them goes past me.

 

[Newholland]

Not being heard was one of the main reasons you didn’t put segs in your Docks. Back in the day.

That and the fact you were worried the soles might deflate.

Segs.....happy days..

 

[Newholland]

Well the silent ninja like qualities of an E.V. are certainly preferable to those ** back firing noisy exhaust pipes that seem to have infested our highways these days. I end up hitting the deck for cover every time one of them goes past me.

...miserable Owd git...

 

[Mexboroseasider]

I see that Sunak is now talking about curbing the ability of local councils being able to introduce 20mph speed limits and other traffic calming measures. He seems to think that being pro motorist is a vote winner. I’m not so sure.

I can see why ULEZ might be unpopular with some. The same as being forced to scrap your gas boiler and replace it with …… well I’m not too sure what. There’s a direct and immediate cost to some citizens that many simply can’t afford.

Speed limits and traffic calming are very different. What Sunak seems to forget is that while many of us are motorists, we’re also pedestrians, parents and grandparents. And we don’t want ourselves and our family members put at risk by arrogant drivers who think they should be entitled to drive where they want, as fast as they want, whenever they want.

 

[Trammo]

I'm with the London Mayor on this policy. It will save lives. Why should cars be king?

 

[Mexboroseasider]

I'm with the London Mayor on this policy. It will save lives. Why should cars be king?

I think I can see an agenda.

Is this part of your “Trams are king” campaign?

 

[Lost Seasider]

I'm with the London Mayor on this policy. It will save lives. Why should cars be king?

It won't save lives, and not everyone lives in London and can easily use public transport.

 

[Walthamstow_Seasider]

I see that Sunak is now talking about curbing the ability of local councils being able to introduce 20mph speed limits and other traffic calming measures. He seems to think that being pro motorist is a vote winner. I’m not so sure.

I can see why ULEZ might be unpopular with some. The same as being forced to scrap your gas boiler and replace it with …… well I’m not too sure what. There’s a direct and immediate cost to some citizens that many simply can’t afford.

Speed limits and traffic calming are very different. What Sunak seems to forget is that while many of us are motorists, we’re also pedestrians, parents and grandparents. And we don’t want ourselves and our family members put at risk by arrogant drivers who think they should be entitled to drive where they want, as fast as they want, whenever they want.

If he does go down this route then it should be an easy win for Labour, but given Starmer's recent record he'll probably copy it.

 

[Malced]

I see that Sunak is now talking about curbing the ability of local councils being able to introduce 20mph speed limits and other traffic calming measures. He seems to think that being pro motorist is a vote winner. I’m not so sure.

I can see why ULEZ might be unpopular with some. The same as being forced to scrap your gas boiler and replace it with …… well I’m not too sure what. There’s a direct and immediate cost to some citizens that many simply can’t afford.

Speed limits and traffic calming are very different. What Sunak seems to forget is that while many of us are motorists, we’re also pedestrians, parents and grandparents. And we don’t want ourselves and our family members put at risk by arrogant drivers who think they should be entitled to drive where they want, as fast as they want, whenever they want.

Don’t think Sunak or anyone else is against speed limits. Nor is anyone supporting arrogant drivers to drive where they want as fast as they want. Not sure why you’ve stretched it to that.

 

[Mexboroseasider]

Don’t think Sunak or anyone else is against speed limits. Nor is anyone supporting arrogant drivers to drive where they want as fast as they want. Not sure why you’ve stretched it to that.

Ministers consider curbs on councils’ use of 20mph speed limits | Transport policy | The Guardian

Exclusive: moves against what PM terms ‘anti-motorist’ policies follow order of review into low-traffic neighbourhoods

amp.theguardian.com

Sunak orders review of low traffic neighbourhoods - BBC News

Speaking to the Sunday Telegraph, the prime minister says he wants to support people to use their cars.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Wizaard]

I see that Sunak is now talking about curbing the ability of local councils being able to introduce 20mph speed limits and other traffic calming measures. He seems to think that being pro motorist is a vote winner. I’m not so sure.

I can see why ULEZ might be unpopular with some. The same as being forced to scrap your gas boiler and replace it with …… well I’m not too sure what. There’s a direct and immediate cost to some citizens that many simply can’t afford.

Speed limits and traffic calming are very different. What Sunak seems to forget is that while many of us are motorists, we’re also pedestrians, parents and grandparents. And we don’t want ourselves and our family members put at risk by arrogant drivers who think they should be entitled to drive where they want, as fast as they want, whenever they want.

Yep, pro killing kids whether running them over or through fumes from badly maintained vehicles.

 

[Sooty59]

There needs to be some joined up thinking on these pollution issues, Sunak's probably following some think tank recommendation on winning votes.

 

[Malced]

Yep, pro killing kids whether running them over or through fumes from badly maintained vehicles.

Can’t you express your views any better than that? Seriously, it’s not a good look.

 

[Malced]

Ministers consider curbs on councils’ use of 20mph speed limits | Transport policy | The Guardian

Exclusive: moves against what PM terms ‘anti-motorist’ policies follow order of review into low-traffic neighbourhoods

amp.theguardian.com

Sunak orders review of low traffic neighbourhoods - BBC News

Speaking to the Sunday Telegraph, the prime minister says he wants to support people to use their cars.

www.bbc.co.uk

So what we know is that Sunak has asked for a review of low traffic neighbourhoods. He hasn’t asked for speed limits to be removed or even reviewed.

The Guardian ‘understands’ that some unnamed minister(s) are looking at the powers for the 20mph speed limit. They don’t name a source. It’s unofficial. It’s not government policy.
Sometimes newspapers get wind of things through good journalism. Sometimes they make things up. Let’s see what emerges. But as of now, it’s wrong to suggest Sunak is for policies which would make our streets more dangerous.

There’s a balance between car use and safety. That’s always been the case. We need to get the balance right. There’s no problem looking at that if that’s what ensues.

 

[Lost Seasider]

Can’t you express your views any better than that? Seriously, it’s not a good look.

Same ol' Wizzard, making s*** up.

 

[Mexboroseasider]

So what we know is that Sunak has asked for a review of low traffic neighbourhoods. He hasn’t asked for speed limits to be removed or even reviewed.

The Guardian ‘understands’ that some unnamed minister(s) are looking at the powers for the 20mph speed limit. They don’t name a source. It’s unofficial. It’s not government policy.
Sometimes newspapers get wind of things through good journalism. Sometimes they make things up. Let’s see what emerges. But as of now, it’s wrong to suggest Sunak is for policies which would make our streets more dangerous.

There’s a balance between car use and safety. That’s always been the case. We need to get the balance right. There’s no problem looking at that if that’s what ensues.

Well there’s no doubt that, off the back of Uxbridge and under pressure from certain elements in the Tory party, Sunak is exploring whether there are any votes in pursuing an anti green agenda as part of the wider culture wars campaign.

The point I was trying to make is that I can see why ULEZ might be unpopular with some people who are directly affected, especially those who can’t afford a replacement vehicle. I think however Sunak would be making a mistake if he assumed this translated into a wider opposition to traffic calming/safety measures generally. I appreciate that some people regard LTNs and 15 minute cities as a Marxist conspiracy to turn us all into serfs but I’d suggest that is a view held by a very, very small minority.

I suppose what I was asking was whether I was right to hold that view? Or are there lots of people who regard what I see as sensible traffic calming measures as part of a much more sinister conspiracy?

 

[Malced]

Well there’s no doubt that, off the back of Uxbridge and under pressure from certain elements in the Tory party, Sunak is exploring whether there are any votes in pursuing an anti green agenda as part of the wider culture wars campaign.

The point I was trying to make is that I can see why ULEZ might be unpopular with some people who are directly affected, especially those who can’t afford a replacement vehicle. I think however Sunak would be making a mistake if he assumed this translated into a wider opposition to traffic calming/safety measures generally. I appreciate that some people regard LTNs and 15 minute cities as a Marxist conspiracy to turn us all into serfs but I’d suggest that is a view held by a very, very small minority.

I suppose what I was asking was whether I was right to hold that view? Or are there lots of people who regard what I see as sensible traffic calming measures as part of a much more sinister conspiracy?

I don’t hold any conspiracy theory views about this. I am for traffic calming. But I don’t live in one of these communities where they’ve banned cars from entering various streets. Some of the local residents and business owners say it’s too restrictive. I saw some being interviewed on sky news. Others were in support of the calming measures though.

What often happens is that councils introduce something without sufficient consultation and without a post implementation review to see how it’s gone.
If the community have some involvement in things that affect them, rather than feeling shut out and ignored, then it should take care of itself.

 

[foggy]

It won't save lives, and not everyone lives in London and can easily use public transport.

Do you dispute the peer-reviewed scientific data using publicly available air quality checks that ULEZ has contributed to the significant reduction of carbon and nitrogen dioxide in London's air and do you dispute that doing so, along with other policies existing and hopefully more to be implemented, has clear health benefits including reducing the tens of thousands of annual deaths due to pollution?