A lot of people seem to be assuming that Uxbridge showed the unpopularity of ULEZ, and hence green policies. Both main parties seems to be flirting with "dump the green". But I wonder about this, chopping and changing is nor a good look. After all, this happened with diesel, good, no, but bad. Green, yes, but no.
Well yes; given the turnout
on the face of it, an equally valid narrative is that progressive voters were put off voting by the major candidates both opposing the ULEZ
Indeed. And the Lib Dems (and locally the Greens) are showing that green issues DO matter to people.
Edited to add that I don't necessarily trust the Lib Dems to do anything but 'light green' anything. Not least because they were willing to sign off on harsher benefit sanctions in order to get the supermarket plastic bag fee.
They don't matter to the 80% non-'progressive'. An American 'progressive' was on The Context (BBC24) recently saying how the masses must pay for all this. At least they were honest. As the rich, the landed, certainly won't.
What has an American got to do with ULEZ?
What's making the masses pay got to do with social justice?
So you think the NHS should stop being publicly funded, then? Because the masses pay for that too. In any case, if you live in London and can afford a car you are already pretty wealthy. Working-class people in London can't afford to drive anyway, so 'the masses' wouldn't be paying anyway.
ULEZ is about improving air quality. Why do you want more children to die from air pollution?
If they were serious about pollution and the climate, they would stop the planes.
This is a measure aimed at (reducing) pollutants for which motor vehicles as well as heating systems are the major source.
The implementation was purely liberal/centrist in nature with the idea that all that was needed was signals to the ‘market’ rather than being accompanied by the kinds of investment to actually make it work.
If they were serious about pollution and the climate, they would stop the planes.
I'm not sure that's the case. Aircraft do generate more carbon per passenger-mile than cars (or per cargo-kilogram-miles than trucks), but there is a lot less air traffic than ground traffic. For example, in the U.S. aircraft contribute about 8% of the country's transportation-related carbon emissions, whereas cars and trucks contribute 81%. Granted the U.S. is a lot more car-centric than that U.K., but I can't think these numbers would be that different. (Global numbers for transportation related carbon aren't that far off from U.S. numbers.)
I'm also dubious about the proposition that if some particular measure removes more carbon emissions than any other that all other carbon mitigation measures are unnecessary. Even if grounding aircraft would be a bigger reduction of carbon (something I'm skeptical of for the reasons above), that doesn't make other carbon reduction measures useless or unnecessary. There is no "one weird trick" to solve climate change, even if internet clickbait has conditioned us to think in those terms.
In London istm that there is ever a push for more planes and air traffic, another runway at Heathrow etc, all of which are taking off and landing in the polluted area ULEZ covers thereby surely increasing the problem of air quality.
Cars and trucks whether petrol or diesel have been cleaned up so that they say that there is hardly any pollution compared to the past - and the electricity generated to run electric cars is partly using coal, so that there is no saving planet-wise, but I suppose that as it isn’t being generated in London that’s someone else’s pollution.
And how much is it harming the planet to destroy perfectly good vehicles and to manufacture new ones?
A lot of people seem to be assuming that Uxbridge showed the unpopularity of ULEZ, and hence green policies. Both main parties seems to be flirting with "dump the green". But I wonder about this, chopping and changing is nor a good look. After all, this happened with diesel, good, no, but bad. Green, yes, but no.
Well yes; given the turnout
on the face of it, an equally valid narrative is that progressive voters were put off voting by the major candidates both opposing the ULEZ
Indeed. And the Lib Dems (and locally the Greens) are showing that green issues DO matter to people.
Edited to add that I don't necessarily trust the Lib Dems to do anything but 'light green' anything. Not least because they were willing to sign off on harsher benefit sanctions in order to get the supermarket plastic bag fee.
They don't matter to the 80% non-'progressive'. An American 'progressive' was on The Context (BBC24) recently saying how the masses must pay for all this. At least they were honest. As the rich, the landed, certainly won't.
What has an American got to do with ULEZ?
What's making the masses pay got to do with social justice?
So you think the NHS should stop being publicly funded, then? Because the masses pay for that too. In any case, if you live in London and can afford a car you are already pretty wealthy. Working-class people in London can't afford to drive anyway, so 'the masses' wouldn't be paying anyway.
ULEZ is about improving air quality. Why do you want more children to die from air pollution?
So 80% of the population aren't working class? Wowwwww, we're that rich!
In London istm that there is ever a push for more planes and air traffic, another runway at Heathrow etc, all of which are taking off and landing in the polluted area ULEZ covers thereby surely increasing the problem of air quality.
I'm afraid these are assertions without associated facts. The reality is that on the emissions from road transport is much larger than that for aviation (as @Crœsos points out above "Aircraft do generate more carbon per passenger-mile than cars (or per cargo-kilogram-miles than trucks), but there is a lot less air traffic than ground traffic."), for official figures see figure 4 here.
Cars and trucks whether petrol or diesel have been cleaned up so that they say that there is hardly any pollution compared to the past
Compare figures for 1990 vs 2019 to see that this is not true for CO2, it's true that newer cars produce less nitrogen oxides and particulates - but that's precisely the reason for the ULEZ.
- and the electricity generated to run electric cars is partly using coal
'Biomass' - which is the closest to generation 'using coal' - provides a tiny proportion of overall generated electricity.
So that there is no saving planet-wise, but I suppose that as it isn’t being generated in London that’s someone else’s pollution.
It's far from ideal but central generation offers efficiencies an allows the nastier pollutants to be cleaned up at source.
Joined-up thinking seems to be lacking?
Ultimately the solution has to involve more than merely replacing cars one by one, but until the UK gets a government that believes in investment, market based half solutions will be all that is forthcoming.
Cars and trucks whether petrol or diesel have been cleaned up so that they say that there is hardly any pollution compared to the past . . .
As @chrisstilespoints out, this is a pretty obvious falsehood when it comes to CO2. Combining a molecule of octane with an appropriate amount of oxygen will produce the same amount of CO2 today as it did twenty, fifty, or a hundred years ago. That's just basic chemistry. There are no existing source-point pollution controls that can effectively capture CO2 emissions, so while improving gas mileage will reduce CO2 per mile (or per kilometer), the amount of CO2 per gallon (or liter) of gasoline (or petrol) remains the same. Claiming otherwise is the chemical equivalent of flat eartherism.
. . . - and the electricity generated to run electric cars is partly using coal, so that there is no saving planet-wise, but I suppose that as it isn’t being generated in London that’s someone else’s pollution.
Which is one of the reasons it's such a good idea to de-carbonize the power grid. Refer to my earlier point about the lack of single point solutions to the problem of carbon emissions.
And how much is it harming the planet to destroy perfectly good vehicles and to manufacture new ones?
I'm pretty sure that the regular life cycle of the typical vehicle would take care of this. Most vehicles being replaced are being replaced via attrition. In other words, they weren't "perfectly good" when replaced.
A complaint I often hear is that it will affect the poorest people in society, but I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. Owners of petrol cars over 20 years old will have to pay, but there really aren’t many that old on the road. The people who will be affected the most are drivers of large gas guzzling diesels.
A friend of mine has a 5 year old Range Rover. He’s not poor by any stretch of the imagination, but is moaning very loudly about ULEZ in the grounds that he bought the car in “good faith”. Maybe he’s got a point, but on the other hand, why should anyone need a massive 4X4 off-road vehicle in London?
Public transport, electrified (of course). So that there are zero-emission buses, trains, trams to get people around to where they need/want to go.
Footpaths and cycle paths (and, secure places to store bikes) for those able to walk and cycle shorter distances. Also for e-bikes, e-scooters and other small electric vehicles (including mobility scooters and the like for disabled people).
Urban planning so that people don't need to travel as much - with schools, shops, cinemas, GPs and dentists etc within reasonable walking distance.
That's just some of what's needed to address the transport pollution that LEZs also address, making the impact of LEZs on people lives as small as possible. Plenty of other stuff to invest in to address the issues of CO2 pollution on the global climate.
Cars and trucks whether petrol or diesel have been cleaned up so that they say that there is hardly any pollution compared to the past
Compare figures for 1990 vs 2019 to see that this is not true for CO2, it's true that newer cars produce less nitrogen oxides and particulates - but that's precisely the reason for the ULEZ.
The intention behind LEZs is to reduce the amount of pollution (NOx, particulates) that contribute to poor respiratory health within those zones. That newer vehicles produce far fewer of these pollutants is why LEZs only ban older, more polluting, vehicles - typically 90% of vehicles are permitted. These aren't zero-emission zones where only electric vehicles are permitted.
- and the electricity generated to run electric cars is partly using coal
'Biomass' - which is the closest to generation 'using coal' - provides a tiny proportion of overall generated electricity.
UK average generation is about 1% coal and 5% biomass (most of that from Drax which destroys vast swathes of forest to provide the fuel, shipping it around the world burning fossil fuels), which produce a lot of NOx, particulates and other pollutants - but localised around the power station. 39% of generation is gas, which produces less pollution than other combustion source (though, still a lot of CO2, but that's not part of the LEZ concern). That's 45% from burning stuff, pollution free generation needs to reduce that to zero (which isn't an impossible goal for the next decade, assuming political will - in Scotland, renewables generation has been only marginally below electricity consumption for the last few years).
My mother (86) is unhappy with the ULEZ charge. She doesn't see why she should have to pay it just to drive 1 mile into the borough of Kingston once a week to go to her favourite supermarket. I'm not sympathising with her because she could use the bus for free. She has a 1999 petrol VW Polo and could afford a compliant replacement -but she wouldn't cope with any other car because of having to learning different controls etc.
But I think it could be argued that the charge is a blunt tool. For example why can't it be linked to annual mileage because data is readily available from MOT certificates on-line.
My mother (86) is unhappy with the ULEZ charge. She doesn't see why she should have to pay it just to drive 1 mile into the borough of Kingston once a week to go to her favourite supermarket. I'm not sympathising with her because she could use the bus for free. She has a 1999 petrol VW Polo and could afford a compliant replacement -but she wouldn't cope with any other car because of having to learning different controls etc.
But I think it could be argued that the charge is a blunt tool. For example why can't it be linked to annual mileage because data is readily available from MOT certificates on-line.
Well it sort of is. The more you use the car, the more often you'll have to pay the charge. And the mileage on an MOT certificate won't tell you how many of those miles were done in the ULEZ area.
A lot of people seem to be assuming that Uxbridge showed the unpopularity of ULEZ, and hence green policies. Both main parties seems to be flirting with "dump the green". But I wonder about this, chopping and changing is nor a good look. After all, this happened with diesel, good, no, but bad. Green, yes, but no.
Well yes; given the turnout
on the face of it, an equally valid narrative is that progressive voters were put off voting by the major candidates both opposing the ULEZ
Indeed. And the Lib Dems (and locally the Greens) are showing that green issues DO matter to people.
Edited to add that I don't necessarily trust the Lib Dems to do anything but 'light green' anything. Not least because they were willing to sign off on harsher benefit sanctions in order to get the supermarket plastic bag fee.
They don't matter to the 80% non-'progressive'. An American 'progressive' was on The Context (BBC24) recently saying how the masses must pay for all this. At least they were honest. As the rich, the landed, certainly won't.
What has an American got to do with ULEZ?
What's making the masses pay got to do with social justice?
So you think the NHS should stop being publicly funded, then? Because the masses pay for that too. In any case, if you live in London and can afford a car you are already pretty wealthy. Working-class people in London can't afford to drive anyway, so 'the masses' wouldn't be paying anyway.
ULEZ is about improving air quality. Why do you want more children to die from air pollution?
So 80% of the population aren't working class? Wowwwww, we're that rich!
80% of the population is living in London and driving cars? You don't even live in London! What do you know about being working-class and living in London?
My mother (86) is unhappy with the ULEZ charge. She doesn't see why she should have to pay it just to drive 1 mile into the borough of Kingston once a week to go to her favourite supermarket. I'm not sympathising with her because she could use the bus for free. She has a 1999 petrol VW Polo and could afford a compliant replacement -but she wouldn't cope with any other car because of having to learning different controls etc.
But I think it could be argued that the charge is a blunt tool. For example why can't it be linked to annual mileage because data is readily available from MOT certificates on-line.
Kingston is extremely well-connected in terms of public transport thanks to all the students (for those unaware, a lot of University of London constituent colleges have student halls of residence in Kingston, plus Kingston University itself). Surely getting the bus is just way easier? I don't understand why you would *want* the hassle of driving and parking in London, especially when you can get the bus for free!
A complaint I often hear is that it will affect the poorest people in society, but I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. Owners of petrol cars over 20 years old will have to pay, but there really aren’t many that old on the road. The people who will be affected the most are drivers of large gas guzzling diesels.
A friend of mine has a 5 year old Range Rover. He’s not poor by any stretch of the imagination, but is moaning very loudly about ULEZ in the grounds that he bought the car in “good faith”. Maybe he’s got a point, but on the other hand, why should anyone need a massive 4X4 off-road vehicle in London?
The poorest in society can't afford fuel for a car, let alone insurance or car park costs etc. It's nonsense. The poorest in society use public transport and especially the bus. That's a large part of why bus travel in particular is looked down upon. I don't mean issues with bus reliability etc but looking down at bus travel as being for pensioners and the unemployed.
Getting the bus may be easy, especially if one is lucky enough to live near a bus stop, but carrying a week's worth of shopping back may be somewhat less easy...
A very simple way to improve things for the poorest in society would be free bus travel for under-18s and people on means-tested benefits, akin to eligibility for free prescriptions, and an equivalent railcard.
It might surprise people to learn that there is absolutely no form of discount or bus pass available for people on means-tested benefits unless they specifically have been jobseekers for more than 6 months - for those of us on means-tested benefits who are not jobseekers, we have to spend far more of our income on transport than others. I live in the area with the most expensive single bus fare in the UK - a bus pass would make a huge difference to my life.
Public transport within the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg - trains, buses, and trams - is free of charge (unless you insist on first class, presumably only on the railways!).
Getting the bus may be easy, especially if one is lucky enough to live near a bus stop, but carrying a week's worth of shopping back may be somewhat less easy...
Just saying.
This is what folding shopping trolleys are for! No carrying involved. You can even get ones which can go up steps, and they are not expensive.
Getting the bus may be easy, especially if one is lucky enough to live near a bus stop, but carrying a week's worth of shopping back may be somewhat less easy...
Just saying.
This is a really interesting thing. I keep seeing decisions which don't appreciate how bad even short distances can be for people who aren't fit and mobile and not visually impaired or who have to carry things. We had a road closure nearby for an event last year that also closed bus stops and the local Greens, who I'm normally vastly in favour of, were rejoicing on Twitter about children being able to use the road on their little bikes because it was closed to all traffic. At the time I was badly mobility impaired and so was my partner, we were caught out by the road closure and in a real panic about whether we could manage to walk to get to the next bus stop and get home and it was late at night and hard to get a taxi.
I could have cheerfully battered the local Greens with the ickle bicycles, and I like kids to be able to cycle safely - but there was no thought about people with mobility difficulties. It surely can't be beyond the wit of people to come up with green 'last mile' schemes, so if you close a road or expect people to walk from a distant bus stop with shopping that there's someone with a passenger bike or an electric vehicle to get people with mobility problems where they need to go?
What do more enlightened societies which are big on active transport do about that?
Continuing in my role as Devil's Advocate, it's all very well, but walking perhaps a long way from a bus stop in the rain, with one's shopping trolley crammed full, may not be too easy for someone who is 86.
It is, of course, possible to have most things delivered and bring home yourself only a few fresh bits you want to choose yourself.
Plus, if your only need for a car is a once-a-week shopping trip then book a taxi. I find it hard to believe that tax, insurance, fuel, maintenance et al cost less than one taxi a week.
Most of these problems can be solved, but they won’t be if the response is a knee jerk rejection.
Yes, a taxi is a good idea. Those in this town are all hybrids, I think, so less emissions.
A lady I knew years ago gave up driving when she was about 80, and found that using taxis - not just for shopping trips, but for other purposes - was a good deal cheaper than running a car.
(BTW, her father, who died in 1964 aged 97, was the first person in Our Town to own a motor-car, in the very late 19thC).
It is, of course, possible to have most things delivered and bring home yourself only a few fresh bits you want to choose yourself.
Plus, if your only need for a car is a once-a-week shopping trip then book a taxi. I find it hard to believe that tax, insurance, fuel, maintenance et al cost less than one taxi a week.
If you could persuade my mother of anything sensible like this -I should be extremely grateful!
A lot of people seem to be assuming that Uxbridge showed the unpopularity of ULEZ, and hence green policies. Both main parties seems to be flirting with "dump the green". But I wonder about this, chopping and changing is nor a good look. After all, this happened with diesel, good, no, but bad. Green, yes, but no.
Well yes; given the turnout
on the face of it, an equally valid narrative is that progressive voters were put off voting by the major candidates both opposing the ULEZ
Indeed. And the Lib Dems (and locally the Greens) are showing that green issues DO matter to people.
Edited to add that I don't necessarily trust the Lib Dems to do anything but 'light green' anything. Not least because they were willing to sign off on harsher benefit sanctions in order to get the supermarket plastic bag fee.
They don't matter to the 80% non-'progressive'. An American 'progressive' was on The Context (BBC24) recently saying how the masses must pay for all this. At least they were honest. As the rich, the landed, certainly won't.
What has an American got to do with ULEZ?
What's making the masses pay got to do with social justice?
So you think the NHS should stop being publicly funded, then? Because the masses pay for that too. In any case, if you live in London and can afford a car you are already pretty wealthy. Working-class people in London can't afford to drive anyway, so 'the masses' wouldn't be paying anyway.
ULEZ is about improving air quality. Why do you want more children to die from air pollution?
So 80% of the population aren't working class? Wowwwww, we're that rich!
80% of the population is living in London and driving cars? You don't even live in London! What do you know about being working-class and living in London?
I was a lab technician at the Royal London (walked) and a progress chaser in Cricklewood (cycled). You?
A complaint I often hear is that it will affect the poorest people in society, but I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. Owners of petrol cars over 20 years old will have to pay, but there really aren’t many that old on the road. The people who will be affected the most are drivers of large gas guzzling diesels.
A friend of mine has a 5 year old Range Rover. He’s not poor by any stretch of the imagination, but is moaning very loudly about ULEZ in the grounds that he bought the car in “good faith”. Maybe he’s got a point, but on the other hand, why should anyone need a massive 4X4 off-road vehicle in London?
My wot abart the workers refrain is therefore invalid, so why wasn't the outer ULEZ sold better? It should have been sold as a utilitarian benefit at the expense of the rich.
Public transport, electrified (of course). So that there are zero-emission buses, trains, trams to get people around to where they need/want to go.
Footpaths and cycle paths (and, secure places to store bikes) for those able to walk and cycle shorter distances. Also for e-bikes, e-scooters and other small electric vehicles (including mobility scooters and the like for disabled people).
Urban planning so that people don't need to travel as much - with schools, shops, cinemas, GPs and dentists etc within reasonable walking distance.
That's just some of what's needed to address the transport pollution that LEZs also address, making the impact of LEZs on people lives as small as possible. Plenty of other stuff to invest in to address the issues of CO2 pollution on the global climate.
That's the in what. Totally agreed. Where's the of what?
As for the expert opinion that followed, in my Geoist fanaticism I would see the restored commons paved for solar and wind power, especially moorland, while it reforests. (Put the solar on single, pivotable, telescopic stands).
A very simple way to improve things for the poorest in society would be free bus travel for under-18s and people on means-tested benefits, akin to eligibility for free prescriptions, and an equivalent railcard.
It might surprise people to learn that there is absolutely no form of discount or bus pass available for people on means-tested benefits unless they specifically have been jobseekers for more than 6 months - for those of us on means-tested benefits who are not jobseekers, we have to spend far more of our income on transport than others. I live in the area with the most expensive single bus fare in the UK - a bus pass would make a huge difference to my life.
Public transport within the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg - trains, buses, and trams - is free of charge (unless you insist on first class, presumably only on the railways!).
Public transport, electrified (of course). So that there are zero-emission buses, trains, trams to get people around to where they need/want to go.
Footpaths and cycle paths (and, secure places to store bikes) for those able to walk and cycle shorter distances. Also for e-bikes, e-scooters and other small electric vehicles (including mobility scooters and the like for disabled people).
Urban planning so that people don't need to travel as much - with schools, shops, cinemas, GPs and dentists etc within reasonable walking distance.
That's just some of what's needed to address the transport pollution that LEZs also address, making the impact of LEZs on people lives as small as possible. Plenty of other stuff to invest in to address the issues of CO2 pollution on the global climate.
That's the in what. Totally agreed. Where's the of what?
What else will you invest? Money, of course. It's an investment, will boost the economy and raise tax revenue, so no problem borrowing that if needed. But, redirecting the subsidies the government pays to the burning of oil and gas would cover a lot of it, as would income for LEZs and other sticks for motorists (eg: parking fees, congestion charging, VED, taxes on fuel).
A lady I knew years ago gave up driving when she was about 80, and found that using taxis - not just for shopping trips, but for other purposes - was a good deal cheaper than running a car.
A gentleman I knew gave us his car but refused to get a taxi for his weekly shopping trip because that would be "extravagant" when compared to the bus. I could not convince them that he was saving money when compared to the fixed costs of having a car - and he was not poor anyway!
BTW - and at the risk of derailing this thread - I perceive Sunak's "review" of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods as a way of deliberately clouding the ULEZ issue. I'm sure many people conflate the two in their minds.
Public transport, electrified (of course). So that there are zero-emission buses, trains, trams to get people around to where they need/want to go.
Footpaths and cycle paths (and, secure places to store bikes) for those able to walk and cycle shorter distances. Also for e-bikes, e-scooters and other small electric vehicles (including mobility scooters and the like for disabled people).
Urban planning so that people don't need to travel as much - with schools, shops, cinemas, GPs and dentists etc within reasonable walking distance.
That's just some of what's needed to address the transport pollution that LEZs also address, making the impact of LEZs on people lives as small as possible. Plenty of other stuff to invest in to address the issues of CO2 pollution on the global climate.
That's the in what. Totally agreed. Where's the of what?
What else will you invest? Money, of course. It's an investment, will boost the economy and raise tax revenue, so no problem borrowing that if needed. But, redirecting the subsidies the government pays to the burning of oil and gas would cover a lot of it, as would income for LEZs and other sticks for motorists (eg: parking fees, congestion charging, VED, taxes on fuel).
Borrow?!
Shtewpid question, what subsidies?
Googlin' on the above. Fuck me! Over £40bn in 23 months, much of it (£6bn in a decade) abroad!? On production. Of 1/6th of the UK's carbon. Again. Clean energy gets less than £30bn.
Public transport within the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg - trains, buses, and trams - is free of charge (unless you insist on first class, presumably only on the railways!).
There may well be other places where free transport is available to all .
Ones that have more money than they know what to do with.
Perhaps, but one could argue that there are countries (such as Luxembourg) which spend their money more wisely than those who insist on useless vanity projects which are, in the end, unachievable - such as our lovely HS2.
Luxembourg is, as enny fule kno, a small, compact country, with a sensibly integrated transport system. The UK is not such a country (apart from the *small* bit), so it might not be feasible here. However, providing free bus passes for many more categories of people is a feasible proposition, and it might also be feasible to make the whole of a bus network in an urban area free of charge.
Alas! it's all too late - the planet is burning, and the gas-guzzling drivers of Uxbridge must save their £12.50 per day for the essentials of life...
Perhaps, but one could argue that there are countries (such as Luxembourg) which spend their money more wisely than those who insist on useless vanity projects which are, in the end, unachievable - such as our lovely HS2.
HS2 isn't a useless vanity project, it's a vital infrastructure upgrade that should have been done decades ago. Especially in the context of moving traffic from road to rail.
It really bothers me when the same people who keep going on about how we need more eco-friendly and sustainable public transport solutions then turn round and attack the one significant public transport infrastructure improvement that's happening right now. Do you want to reduce car and lorry mileage or don't you?
Perhaps, but one could argue that there are countries (such as Luxembourg) which spend their money more wisely than those who insist on useless vanity projects which are, in the end, unachievable - such as our lovely HS2.
HS2 isn't a useless vanity project, it's a vital infrastructure upgrade that should have been done decades ago. Especially in the context of moving traffic from road to rail.
It really bothers me when the same people who keep going on about how we need more eco-friendly and sustainable public transport solutions then turn round and attack the one significant public transport infrastructure improvement that's happening right now. Do you want to reduce car and lorry mileage or don't you?
You're assuming it will achieve that aim. If people's thought processes were "this will achieve the aims I want but I'm opposing it anyway" your annoyance would be justified.
If on the other hand people do not believe it will have those effects while spending the money in other ways would, then their opposition is entirely rational.
HS2 isn't a useless vanity project, it's a vital infrastructure upgrade that should have been done decades ago.
In my opinion it's the wrong project - or, at least, it's been presented in the wrong way. It's not about shaving 15 minutes (or whatever) off journeys between Brummagem and The Smoke, it's about increasing capacity, especially for freight, on the most intensively used rail corridor in Britain.
However I think it is the wrong project to have started with: a Newcastle-Liverpool HS line via Woodhead would have been best, then building southwards towards London.
HS2 isn't a useless vanity project, it's a vital infrastructure upgrade that should have been done decades ago.
In my opinion it's the wrong project - or, at least, it's been presented in the wrong way. It's not about shaving 15 minutes (or whatever) off journeys between Brummagem and The Smoke, it's about increasing capacity, especially for freight, on the most intensively used rail corridor in Britain.
However I think it is the wrong project to have started with: a Newcastle-Liverpool HS line via Woodhead would have been best, then building southwards towards London.
Unfortunately that doesn't deal with the fact that the inter-city and freight capacity issues are all either in Birmingham or south of it.
Your Newcastle-Liverpool line would be a good thing in itself, but given how long things seem to take in this country it's entirely possible the rest of the network would collapse in the meantime while they waited for the southern end that actually addressed the problems.
Allegedly certain ministers and bits of the DfT right back to the start of the project tried very hard to do it the way round you suggest, but ran up every time against the reality that the numbers just don't stack up for it, and it really did come down to a trade-off between building a new (and needed) east west link in the north, or pretty well severing the West Coast Main Line, with all the knock on effects to the actual economy we've got now, rather than the economy we'd like to build if only we had more east west rail links.
Essentially in time it would pay off, but it would throw a lot of people and business under the train in the meantime. In reality, London to Birmingham will make sense and address the north south capacity issues even if that's all that ever gets built, whereas building any other part of it doesn't address the problems of the existing network. Hard headedly, the bit we're getting is the logical one to do first.
As you say, HS2 is a capacity issue (in terms of actual trains, not numbers using them) dressed up somewhat idiotically by Mr Blair as being about speed.
Oh, and obviously Woodhead should never have closed in the first place. Unfortunately the same can't be said for the Great Central Main Line (London to Sheffield and Manchester via Leicester and Nottingham for the uninitiated), which was always going to be a casualty - had it survived it would now be coming into its own, but 60 years of pointlessly maintained existence to get to that point is a big ask for any country.
I agree that extra capacity from London to Birmingham is needed, but it's not at all clear that the extra challenges associated with making it high speed were remotely worth the associated costs.
I agree that extra capacity from London to Birmingham is needed, but it's not at all clear that the extra challenges associated with making it high speed were remotely worth the associated costs.
On the other hand, building a new, non-high-speed inter-city mainline in the 21st century would be very on brand for the UK in terms of determination to learn nothing from what pretty well every other developed country that has built new mainlines has built in the past 50 years!
If we were France, never mind China (thank God), HS2 would have been built by now thanks to Paris' tendency to just get on and do stuff and tell the people in the way to shut up and move.
'Shut Up and Get Out of the Way, We're Building It' - great title for a history of TGV (and the French nuclear industry while we're looking across the channel)...
As opposed to 'Mind that Newt - Would You Like Another 6 Month Window to Respond to the 4th Public Enquiry on the 98th Iteration of the Plan? Or Why HS2 Still Isn't Finished' By the British Government.
Obviously I'm a fan of newts, and not trying to minimise the effect of large-scale infrastructure on the natural environment, but even so....
Luxembourg has roughly the same population as Sheffield and makes most of its money through being a tax haven. It's not a valid comparison in any way.
If you had read my post properly, you would have seen that I was not comparing us with Luxembourg - merely mentioning that country as a place where public transport is free to all. I specifically said that the UK is not such a place where that would be feasible, however desirable it might be. There are, as others have mentioned, lots of ways in which public transport could be made more accessible, and those would be good ways of spending money IMHO.
As to HS2, here's an item from yesterday's Guardian (similar reports are to be found at other news outlets):
I agree that extra capacity from London to Birmingham is needed, but it's not at all clear that the extra challenges associated with making it high speed were remotely worth the associated costs.
On the other hand, building a new, non-high-speed inter-city mainline in the 21st century would be very on brand for the UK in terms of determination to learn nothing from what pretty well every other developed country that has built new mainlines has built in the past 50 years!
I tend to agree. To get economies of scale matter when it comes to this kind of infrastructure, and it's better to start somewhere than let the best be the enemy of the good. Of course, the danger is that rather than this being the first of type the PTB will decide that investing in infrastructure is all too difficult and let the skills needed to do so to further atrophy.
There are a few white elephants on the Spanish and Chinese network, but a lot of those lines that ran 'to nowhere' actually go somewhere these days (building ahead of time is not the witchcraft that much of the press seemed to think it was).
Continuing in my role as Devil's Advocate, it's all very well, but walking perhaps a long way from a bus stop in the rain, with one's shopping trolley crammed full, may not be too easy for someone who is 86.
IOW, one size doesn't fit all.
It equally may not be easy for a disabled 25yo. I realise that you are talking about your own experience here, but please don't conflate age with disability status. Many physically disabled people are young - being told that "you're too young to be disabled" is not a fun experience. There are many 86yos who are significantly less disabled than I am!
Speaking as a disabled person I'm talking from my own experiences, not assumptions. In my own experience this is when I would shop less often and buy a large enough shop that would (for me) justify getting a taxi home. Or shop online - certainly things like less common spice mixes or international products are likely to be easier to find online anyway. Utilising things like frozen vegetables so I would have to shop less often, and so on.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/28/london-ulez-court-dismisses-challenge-by-five-councils-over-expansion
It is.
Even if 'they' were serious (and why wouldn't 'they' be?), 'they' couldn't possibly do that under any circumstances but the sky falling.
They've been predicting that for forty years. Over for whom?
2025 is being mentioned as a possible date.
So you think the NHS should stop being publicly funded, then? Because the masses pay for that too. In any case, if you live in London and can afford a car you are already pretty wealthy. Working-class people in London can't afford to drive anyway, so 'the masses' wouldn't be paying anyway.
ULEZ is about improving air quality. Why do you want more children to die from air pollution?
Who is 'they'? Do you think the Mayor of London controls the aeronautical industry? That makes a change from 'the Jews run Hollywood' at least.
This is a measure aimed at (reducing) pollutants for which motor vehicles as well as heating systems are the major source.
The implementation was purely liberal/centrist in nature with the idea that all that was needed was signals to the ‘market’ rather than being accompanied by the kinds of investment to actually make it work.
I'm not sure that's the case. Aircraft do generate more carbon per passenger-mile than cars (or per cargo-kilogram-miles than trucks), but there is a lot less air traffic than ground traffic. For example, in the U.S. aircraft contribute about 8% of the country's transportation-related carbon emissions, whereas cars and trucks contribute 81%. Granted the U.S. is a lot more car-centric than that U.K., but I can't think these numbers would be that different. (Global numbers for transportation related carbon aren't that far off from U.S. numbers.)
I'm also dubious about the proposition that if some particular measure removes more carbon emissions than any other that all other carbon mitigation measures are unnecessary. Even if grounding aircraft would be a bigger reduction of carbon (something I'm skeptical of for the reasons above), that doesn't make other carbon reduction measures useless or unnecessary. There is no "one weird trick" to solve climate change, even if internet clickbait has conditioned us to think in those terms.
In London istm that there is ever a push for more planes and air traffic, another runway at Heathrow etc, all of which are taking off and landing in the polluted area ULEZ covers thereby surely increasing the problem of air quality.
Cars and trucks whether petrol or diesel have been cleaned up so that they say that there is hardly any pollution compared to the past - and the electricity generated to run electric cars is partly using coal, so that there is no saving planet-wise, but I suppose that as it isn’t being generated in London that’s someone else’s pollution.
And how much is it harming the planet to destroy perfectly good vehicles and to manufacture new ones?
Joined-up thinking seems to be lacking?
So 80% of the population aren't working class? Wowwwww, we're that rich!
Uh huh. So in 2 years we're Newfoundland eh? Henny Penny...
I'm afraid these are assertions without associated facts. The reality is that on the emissions from road transport is much larger than that for aviation (as @Crœsos points out above "Aircraft do generate more carbon per passenger-mile than cars (or per cargo-kilogram-miles than trucks), but there is a lot less air traffic than ground traffic."), for official figures see figure 4 here.
Compare figures for 1990 vs 2019 to see that this is not true for CO2, it's true that newer cars produce less nitrogen oxides and particulates - but that's precisely the reason for the ULEZ.
'Biomass' - which is the closest to generation 'using coal' - provides a tiny proportion of overall generated electricity.
It's far from ideal but central generation offers efficiencies an allows the nastier pollutants to be cleaned up at source.
Ultimately the solution has to involve more than merely replacing cars one by one, but until the UK gets a government that believes in investment, market based half solutions will be all that is forthcoming.
As @chrisstiles points out, this is a pretty obvious falsehood when it comes to CO2. Combining a molecule of octane with an appropriate amount of oxygen will produce the same amount of CO2 today as it did twenty, fifty, or a hundred years ago. That's just basic chemistry. There are no existing source-point pollution controls that can effectively capture CO2 emissions, so while improving gas mileage will reduce CO2 per mile (or per kilometer), the amount of CO2 per gallon (or liter) of gasoline (or petrol) remains the same. Claiming otherwise is the chemical equivalent of flat eartherism.
Which is one of the reasons it's such a good idea to de-carbonize the power grid. Refer to my earlier point about the lack of single point solutions to the problem of carbon emissions.
I'm pretty sure that the regular life cycle of the typical vehicle would take care of this. Most vehicles being replaced are being replaced via attrition. In other words, they weren't "perfectly good" when replaced.
A friend of mine has a 5 year old Range Rover. He’s not poor by any stretch of the imagination, but is moaning very loudly about ULEZ in the grounds that he bought the car in “good faith”. Maybe he’s got a point, but on the other hand, why should anyone need a massive 4X4 off-road vehicle in London?
Footpaths and cycle paths (and, secure places to store bikes) for those able to walk and cycle shorter distances. Also for e-bikes, e-scooters and other small electric vehicles (including mobility scooters and the like for disabled people).
Urban planning so that people don't need to travel as much - with schools, shops, cinemas, GPs and dentists etc within reasonable walking distance.
That's just some of what's needed to address the transport pollution that LEZs also address, making the impact of LEZs on people lives as small as possible. Plenty of other stuff to invest in to address the issues of CO2 pollution on the global climate.
UK average generation is about 1% coal and 5% biomass (most of that from Drax which destroys vast swathes of forest to provide the fuel, shipping it around the world burning fossil fuels), which produce a lot of NOx, particulates and other pollutants - but localised around the power station. 39% of generation is gas, which produces less pollution than other combustion source (though, still a lot of CO2, but that's not part of the LEZ concern). That's 45% from burning stuff, pollution free generation needs to reduce that to zero (which isn't an impossible goal for the next decade, assuming political will - in Scotland, renewables generation has been only marginally below electricity consumption for the last few years).
But I think it could be argued that the charge is a blunt tool. For example why can't it be linked to annual mileage because data is readily available from MOT certificates on-line.
Well it sort of is. The more you use the car, the more often you'll have to pay the charge. And the mileage on an MOT certificate won't tell you how many of those miles were done in the ULEZ area.
80% of the population is living in London and driving cars? You don't even live in London! What do you know about being working-class and living in London?
Kingston is extremely well-connected in terms of public transport thanks to all the students (for those unaware, a lot of University of London constituent colleges have student halls of residence in Kingston, plus Kingston University itself). Surely getting the bus is just way easier? I don't understand why you would *want* the hassle of driving and parking in London, especially when you can get the bus for free!
The poorest in society can't afford fuel for a car, let alone insurance or car park costs etc. It's nonsense. The poorest in society use public transport and especially the bus. That's a large part of why bus travel in particular is looked down upon. I don't mean issues with bus reliability etc but looking down at bus travel as being for pensioners and the unemployed.
Just saying.
It might surprise people to learn that there is absolutely no form of discount or bus pass available for people on means-tested benefits unless they specifically have been jobseekers for more than 6 months - for those of us on means-tested benefits who are not jobseekers, we have to spend far more of our income on transport than others. I live in the area with the most expensive single bus fare in the UK - a bus pass would make a huge difference to my life.
https://luxembourg.public.lu/en/living/mobility/public-transport.html
There may well be other places where free transport is available to all .
This is what folding shopping trolleys are for! No carrying involved. You can even get ones which can go up steps, and they are not expensive.
This is a really interesting thing. I keep seeing decisions which don't appreciate how bad even short distances can be for people who aren't fit and mobile and not visually impaired or who have to carry things. We had a road closure nearby for an event last year that also closed bus stops and the local Greens, who I'm normally vastly in favour of, were rejoicing on Twitter about children being able to use the road on their little bikes because it was closed to all traffic. At the time I was badly mobility impaired and so was my partner, we were caught out by the road closure and in a real panic about whether we could manage to walk to get to the next bus stop and get home and it was late at night and hard to get a taxi.
I could have cheerfully battered the local Greens with the ickle bicycles, and I like kids to be able to cycle safely - but there was no thought about people with mobility difficulties. It surely can't be beyond the wit of people to come up with green 'last mile' schemes, so if you close a road or expect people to walk from a distant bus stop with shopping that there's someone with a passenger bike or an electric vehicle to get people with mobility problems where they need to go?
What do more enlightened societies which are big on active transport do about that?
IOW, one size doesn't fit all.
Plus, if your only need for a car is a once-a-week shopping trip then book a taxi. I find it hard to believe that tax, insurance, fuel, maintenance et al cost less than one taxi a week.
Most of these problems can be solved, but they won’t be if the response is a knee jerk rejection.
A lady I knew years ago gave up driving when she was about 80, and found that using taxis - not just for shopping trips, but for other purposes - was a good deal cheaper than running a car.
(BTW, her father, who died in 1964 aged 97, was the first person in Our Town to own a motor-car, in the very late 19thC).
If you could persuade my mother of anything sensible like this -I should be extremely grateful!
I was a lab technician at the Royal London (walked) and a progress chaser in Cricklewood (cycled). You?
My wot abart the workers refrain is therefore invalid, so why wasn't the outer ULEZ sold better? It should have been sold as a utilitarian benefit at the expense of the rich.
That's the in what. Totally agreed. Where's the of what?
As for the expert opinion that followed, in my Geoist fanaticism I would see the restored commons paved for solar and wind power, especially moorland, while it reforests. (Put the solar on single, pivotable, telescopic stands).
That is appalling.
Ones that have more money than they know what to do with.
And as many say: taxis. And Deliveroo.
BTW - and at the risk of derailing this thread - I perceive Sunak's "review" of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods as a way of deliberately clouding the ULEZ issue. I'm sure many people conflate the two in their minds.
Cynic, moi?
Borrow?!
Shtewpid question, what subsidies?
Googlin' on the above. Fuck me! Over £40bn in 23 months, much of it (£6bn in a decade) abroad!? On production. Of 1/6th of the UK's carbon. Again. Clean energy gets less than £30bn.
Perhaps, but one could argue that there are countries (such as Luxembourg) which spend their money more wisely than those who insist on useless vanity projects which are, in the end, unachievable - such as our lovely HS2.
Luxembourg is, as enny fule kno, a small, compact country, with a sensibly integrated transport system. The UK is not such a country (apart from the *small* bit), so it might not be feasible here. However, providing free bus passes for many more categories of people is a feasible proposition, and it might also be feasible to make the whole of a bus network in an urban area free of charge.
Alas! it's all too late - the planet is burning, and the gas-guzzling drivers of Uxbridge must save their £12.50 per day for the essentials of life...
HS2 isn't a useless vanity project, it's a vital infrastructure upgrade that should have been done decades ago. Especially in the context of moving traffic from road to rail.
It really bothers me when the same people who keep going on about how we need more eco-friendly and sustainable public transport solutions then turn round and attack the one significant public transport infrastructure improvement that's happening right now. Do you want to reduce car and lorry mileage or don't you?
You're assuming it will achieve that aim. If people's thought processes were "this will achieve the aims I want but I'm opposing it anyway" your annoyance would be justified.
If on the other hand people do not believe it will have those effects while spending the money in other ways would, then their opposition is entirely rational.
However I think it is the wrong project to have started with: a Newcastle-Liverpool HS line via Woodhead would have been best, then building southwards towards London.
Unfortunately that doesn't deal with the fact that the inter-city and freight capacity issues are all either in Birmingham or south of it.
Your Newcastle-Liverpool line would be a good thing in itself, but given how long things seem to take in this country it's entirely possible the rest of the network would collapse in the meantime while they waited for the southern end that actually addressed the problems.
Allegedly certain ministers and bits of the DfT right back to the start of the project tried very hard to do it the way round you suggest, but ran up every time against the reality that the numbers just don't stack up for it, and it really did come down to a trade-off between building a new (and needed) east west link in the north, or pretty well severing the West Coast Main Line, with all the knock on effects to the actual economy we've got now, rather than the economy we'd like to build if only we had more east west rail links.
Essentially in time it would pay off, but it would throw a lot of people and business under the train in the meantime. In reality, London to Birmingham will make sense and address the north south capacity issues even if that's all that ever gets built, whereas building any other part of it doesn't address the problems of the existing network. Hard headedly, the bit we're getting is the logical one to do first.
As you say, HS2 is a capacity issue (in terms of actual trains, not numbers using them) dressed up somewhat idiotically by Mr Blair as being about speed.
On the other hand, building a new, non-high-speed inter-city mainline in the 21st century would be very on brand for the UK in terms of determination to learn nothing from what pretty well every other developed country that has built new mainlines has built in the past 50 years!
If we were France, never mind China (thank God), HS2 would have been built by now thanks to Paris' tendency to just get on and do stuff and tell the people in the way to shut up and move.
'Shut Up and Get Out of the Way, We're Building It' - great title for a history of TGV (and the French nuclear industry while we're looking across the channel)...
As opposed to 'Mind that Newt - Would You Like Another 6 Month Window to Respond to the 4th Public Enquiry on the 98th Iteration of the Plan? Or Why HS2 Still Isn't Finished' By the British Government.
Obviously I'm a fan of newts, and not trying to minimise the effect of large-scale infrastructure on the natural environment, but even so....
If you had read my post properly, you would have seen that I was not comparing us with Luxembourg - merely mentioning that country as a place where public transport is free to all. I specifically said that the UK is not such a place where that would be feasible, however desirable it might be. There are, as others have mentioned, lots of ways in which public transport could be made more accessible, and those would be good ways of spending money IMHO.
As to HS2, here's an item from yesterday's Guardian (similar reports are to be found at other news outlets):
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/30/hs2-officially-unachievable-red-rating-problems-london-birmingham
I tend to agree. To get economies of scale matter when it comes to this kind of infrastructure, and it's better to start somewhere than let the best be the enemy of the good. Of course, the danger is that rather than this being the first of type the PTB will decide that investing in infrastructure is all too difficult and let the skills needed to do so to further atrophy.
There are a few white elephants on the Spanish and Chinese network, but a lot of those lines that ran 'to nowhere' actually go somewhere these days (building ahead of time is not the witchcraft that much of the press seemed to think it was).
It equally may not be easy for a disabled 25yo. I realise that you are talking about your own experience here, but please don't conflate age with disability status. Many physically disabled people are young - being told that "you're too young to be disabled" is not a fun experience. There are many 86yos who are significantly less disabled than I am!
Speaking as a disabled person I'm talking from my own experiences, not assumptions. In my own experience this is when I would shop less often and buy a large enough shop that would (for me) justify getting a taxi home. Or shop online - certainly things like less common spice mixes or international products are likely to be easier to find online anyway. Utilising things like frozen vegetables so I would have to shop less often, and so on.