|
Post by mangetout on May 20, 2023 17:55:36 GMT 1
Two Mayors of major European cities. Both trying to improve the health of the citizens by reducing traffic flow. What do you think of what they're trying to achieve. Are they 'nasty little people' as I've seen quoted elsewhere, or just trying to do their best for others.
|
|
Aardvark
Non-gamer
Living in soggy 22 and still wondering what's going on.
Posts: 2,173
|
Post by Aardvark on May 20, 2023 18:05:03 GMT 1
I don't know anything about ms. Hidalgo but Khan is milking the motorist (as usual). It wouldn't be so bad if the money he was raising was spent to provide heavy subsidies for public transport but I suspect there are other priorities for the windfall cash. People will move out of London and attempt to make a life elsewhere. The rich will remain and buzz around in their electric time bombs.
|
|
|
Post by mangetout on May 20, 2023 18:06:31 GMT 1
I think he is restricted in how much, ie what %, of revenue he can spend.
|
|
|
Post by jackie on May 20, 2023 18:59:12 GMT 1
Trying their best for others. The car has reigned supreme in cities for too long. At the expense of public health and pedestrians. No doubt I’ll get pounced on by any petrolheads on here 😆
|
|
Aardvark
Non-gamer
Living in soggy 22 and still wondering what's going on.
Posts: 2,173
|
Post by Aardvark on May 20, 2023 20:09:26 GMT 1
I'm a self confessed petrol head but I see the argument for cleaner air in cities. I just don't agree with the methods used to solve the problem. A governement that is in place to do its best for the people would have provided cheap or free public transport long ago. I think other european cities have managed it.
|
|
garbo
Non-gamer
Posts: 119
|
Post by garbo on May 20, 2023 20:23:29 GMT 1
Nasty little man. I don’t know about the other one. He has the gall to claim he has PTSD because of Grenfell & Covid. What about the families directly affected by it? No it’s all about how it affected him. ULEZ extension is only to raise cash and penalises the people who can least afford to pay it. To use his fellow party members words he is Labourite “Sc*m” not a word I normally use but richly deserved for this little self centred man.
|
|
|
Post by jackie on May 20, 2023 20:47:43 GMT 1
Nasty little man. I don’t know about the other one. He has the gall to claim he has PTSD because of Grenfell & Covid. What about the families directly affected by it? No it’s all about how it affected him. ULEZ extension is only to raise cash and penalises the people who can least afford to pay it. To use his fellow party members words he is Labourite “Sc*m” not a word I normally use but richly deserved for this little self centred man. Why exactly is he nasty garbo? You defend one of the most corrupt governments in history so what makes him worse?
|
|
|
Post by omegal on May 20, 2023 23:11:22 GMT 1
The NHS say the fumes for cars/lorries etc are causing premature deaths in London, so instead of building a bridge at a cost of millions (Johnson) which never came to fruition, Khan has taking note and is acting on advice. The only part I can't agree on is that friends of ours in Sunbury on Thames have found themselves in the ULEZ area, which really is pushing it and it will cost people who live there and who's cars do not meet the standard, a lot of money. Our friend has two vans, he is a plumber and neither meet ULEZ standards and using either will be too costly. He can't afford to buy replacements, so his income will be severely hit.
|
|
|
Post by mangetout on May 21, 2023 6:41:10 GMT 1
The ULEZ was created by Johnson. Announced with much fanfare in 2015 whilst he was Major of London. Khan just put it into action. I do wonder what response there would be if a white, upper class, thrice married, proven liar with the morals of an alley cat had actually got around to delivering the policy. No doubt it would have been praised to the hilt.
|
|
|
Post by lapourtaider on May 21, 2023 8:02:34 GMT 1
Both are definitely trying to improve the health of their citizens. Public transport is the future and in cities like London and Paris generally well provided. There has to be provision for people like omegal's plumber friend.
|
|
exile
Member
Massif Central
Posts: 2,765
|
Post by exile on May 21, 2023 8:04:54 GMT 1
The problem is that we are wedded to our petroleum based cars and any change forced upon us is going to be unpopular and for some very painful. So as already suggested, alternatives need to be made available - and at all levels of society.
There has to be a weaning process and you could argue that Khan has gone too fast - and perhaps too far. However the urgency is there and although we may not like it we do need to quickly change how we live and get around.
There will be those who say, but I have done this, and this, and this so I should still be allowed to drive around in my polluting car. In reality it os good that you have done this, and this, and this but you also need to do something about your mode of transport as well.
The real problem though is that our society has been built around a system that we now find is unsustainable long term. The problem is multifaceted: Concentration of the population into ever larger and more densely populated towns and cities Destruction of public transport in the name of healthy competition Out of town shopping centres and the destruction of many high streets.
|
|
|
Post by omegal on May 21, 2023 11:20:27 GMT 1
Both are definitely trying to improve the health of their citizens. Public transport is the future and in cities like London and Paris generally well provided. There has to be provision for people like omegal's plumber friend. Our friend, even if he worked away from the ULEZ area (towards London) he still has to drive home and he therefore enters the ULEZ area, which if anyone knows Sunbury on Thames it is quite a way from the area that needs to be "protected". So yes provision should be made for those outlying areas that even if the person drives out of the ULEZ area to work but has to return to their home that is "just" inside the ULEZ area. I believe it is £12 a day times two vans, so £120 per 5 day week but often one, or both vans are out on a Saturday as well. There is a petition that is growing to appeal against his area being within the area.
|
|
|
Post by mangetout on May 21, 2023 13:05:51 GMT 1
Looks like your friend lives in the LEZ, not the ULEZ? His vans must be older than 6 years as those made since then meet the emissions criteria. So I presume they will be changed soon and then he will no longer be charged. Or have I misunderstood the rules? I think there are scrappage grants available, but not sure how much.
|
|
|
Post by omegal on May 21, 2023 13:56:29 GMT 1
Looks like your friend lives in the LEZ, not the ULEZ? His vans must be older than 6 years as those made since then meet the emissions criteria. So I presume they will be changed soon and then he will no longer be charged. Or have I misunderstood the rules? I think there are scrappage grants available, but not sure how much. Yes that is true but the residents off LEZ areas refer to it all as ULEZ, rightly or wrongly. The scrappage grants for vans he said, stands at around £1000-5000, so as you can probably work out, that is going to cost an awful lot against buying a new transit and a slightly smaller van using the scrappage grants. I know no more, it is not my want to know more but last Xmas we had to get back to the UK quickly for my wife to see her Father for the last time and just as passed Sunbury heading towards Twickenham & then Isleworth the signs were up with warnings about fines and I thought then, goodness how far out of London this ULEZ rule was going to start and how costly was it going to be for people who lived outside the zone (s) to visit elderly parents or children within the zone and if money was tight, then what?.
|
|
|
Post by mangetout on May 21, 2023 14:17:37 GMT 1
I hear what you say omegal. But if what your friend is paying is correct it would be much better for him to bite the bullet and replace the vehicles. It's the carrot and the stick in reverse.
|
|