Most London journeys can better be done by public transport, walking or cycling.
Unless you are carrying a weekly food shop ! But otherwise yes I agree public transport can be better.
Or you're a carer making multiple short journeys, elderly, disabled, delivery driver etc etc
Which is why I said most.
However when I was growing up very few people on my estate had cars.
Carers made home visits, I can clearly remember the nurse cycling around. Deliveries were made using trade bikes. We used to shop locally most of the time with occasional bus trips into Slough if needed.
There is a proportion of people now who have been habituated into a belief that existence without a car is impossible. I accept that without a viable public transport system it might be very hard but London is fantastically well resourced for public transport.
As I said most London journeys can better be made without a car.
It’s just going to effect those less well off the most, those that can’t afford just to buy a new car.
I’m fairly comfortable but I can’t afford to shell out for a like for like replacement of the car we have, outright, finance or leasing.
Some won’t even notice it or just buy a few car, for others it’s a pain and for those who find it hard financially, it hits the most. Fantastic.
The worst off are also hit hardest by the impacts of poor air quality. The most deprived decile have a significantly higher incidence of illnesses linked to it and a higher death rate too as well as a significantly lower life expectancy overall. Within the borough of Greenwich there is something like a 15 year difference in life expectancy between those well off and those not. There is no perfect way to do it but you have to do something.
The ULEZ scheme will hit a lot of the less well off. Nobody wants poor air quality but the planning has been far from perfect.
I don't think you understand the struggle some people have.
Lower life expectancy has many more factors than air quality as you well know.
In the long term a lot of poorer people will be driven off the road...
I'm not saying it wont. It clearly will impact on the less well off. I'm not saying that this shouldn't have been combined with a means tested scrappage scheme for those people. The point is that overall this will do a huge amount of good and something needed doing as always with policy making its a balance.
As for the bit in bold I absolutely do understand - my parents left their jobs and run a local charity for people who fall through the gaps of the system and I've volunteered for that since I was 14. I'm vary aware of the challenges these people face. But those challenges should be resolved through the welfare system, the tax system and pay legislation and should not be a reason to not proceed with other objectively good policies.
It’s just going to effect those less well off the most, those that can’t afford just to buy a new car.
I’m fairly comfortable but I can’t afford to shell out for a like for like replacement of the car we have, outright, finance or leasing.
Some won’t even notice it or just buy a few car, for others it’s a pain and for those who find it hard financially, it hits the most. Fantastic.
The worst off are also hit hardest by the impacts of poor air quality. The most deprived decile have a significantly higher incidence of illnesses linked to it and a higher death rate too as well as a significantly lower life expectancy overall. Within the borough of Greenwich there is something like a 15 year difference in life expectancy between those well off and those not. There is no perfect way to do it but you have to do something.
The ULEZ scheme will hit a lot of the less well off. Nobody wants poor air quality but the planning has been far from perfect.
I don't think you understand the struggle some people have.
Lower life expectancy has many more factors than air quality as you well know.
In the long term a lot of poorer people will be driven off the road...
Surely the majority of the poorest people in London, especially within the ULEZ, don't have cars anyway?
It’s just going to effect those less well off the most, those that can’t afford just to buy a new car.
I’m fairly comfortable but I can’t afford to shell out for a like for like replacement of the car we have, outright, finance or leasing.
Some won’t even notice it or just buy a few car, for others it’s a pain and for those who find it hard financially, it hits the most. Fantastic.
The worst off are also hit hardest by the impacts of poor air quality. The most deprived decile have a significantly higher incidence of illnesses linked to it and a higher death rate too as well as a significantly lower life expectancy overall. Within the borough of Greenwich there is something like a 15 year difference in life expectancy between those well off and those not. There is no perfect way to do it but you have to do something.
The ULEZ scheme will hit a lot of the less well off. Nobody wants poor air quality but the planning has been far from perfect.
I don't think you understand the struggle some people have.
Lower life expectancy has many more factors than air quality as you well know.
In the long term a lot of poorer people will be driven off the road...
I'm not saying it wont. It clearly will impact on the less well off. I'm not saying that this shouldn't have been combined with a means tested scrappage scheme for those people. The point is that overall this will do a huge amount of good and something needed doing as always with policy making its a balance.
As for the bit in bold I absolutely do understand - my parents left their jobs and run a local charity for people who fall through the gaps of the system and I've volunteered for that since I was 14. I'm vary aware of the challenges these people face. But those challenges should be resolved through the welfare system, the tax system and pay legislation and should not be a reason to not proceed with other objectively good policies.
A lot of things should happen but they don't and this has been poorly planned and will hit those who can least afford it - their concerns as usual will be ignored.
If you're not affected economically you can see the benefits a lot more clearly. Most politicians and planners are ultimately pretty clueless as to how much some people are struggling financially. Faux concern doesn't really help.
Those who are comfortably off will invariably be least affected.
It’s just going to effect those less well off the most, those that can’t afford just to buy a new car.
I’m fairly comfortable but I can’t afford to shell out for a like for like replacement of the car we have, outright, finance or leasing.
Some won’t even notice it or just buy a few car, for others it’s a pain and for those who find it hard financially, it hits the most. Fantastic.
The worst off are also hit hardest by the impacts of poor air quality. The most deprived decile have a significantly higher incidence of illnesses linked to it and a higher death rate too as well as a significantly lower life expectancy overall. Within the borough of Greenwich there is something like a 15 year difference in life expectancy between those well off and those not. There is no perfect way to do it but you have to do something.
The ULEZ scheme will hit a lot of the less well off. Nobody wants poor air quality but the planning has been far from perfect.
I don't think you understand the struggle some people have.
Lower life expectancy has many more factors than air quality as you well know.
In the long term a lot of poorer people will be driven off the road...
Surely the majority of the poorest people in London, especially within the ULEZ, don't have cars anyway?
I think you would be surprised. My brother manages a football team within the south circular and some of the kids that play for the team arent as lucky as some to come from a well off family and have older vehicles as thats all their parents can afford.
I guess now they have a few choices of what they can do but I doubt they will pay the 12.50. So it will be pay for public transport with a few changes and stops along the way or the kids dont go to football training or the games.
It’s just going to effect those less well off the most, those that can’t afford just to buy a new car.
I’m fairly comfortable but I can’t afford to shell out for a like for like replacement of the car we have, outright, finance or leasing.
Some won’t even notice it or just buy a few car, for others it’s a pain and for those who find it hard financially, it hits the most. Fantastic.
The worst off are also hit hardest by the impacts of poor air quality. The most deprived decile have a significantly higher incidence of illnesses linked to it and a higher death rate too as well as a significantly lower life expectancy overall. Within the borough of Greenwich there is something like a 15 year difference in life expectancy between those well off and those not. There is no perfect way to do it but you have to do something.
The ULEZ scheme will hit a lot of the less well off. Nobody wants poor air quality but the planning has been far from perfect.
I don't think you understand the struggle some people have.
Lower life expectancy has many more factors than air quality as you well know.
In the long term a lot of poorer people will be driven off the road...
Surely the majority of the poorest people in London, especially within the ULEZ, don't have cars anyway?
Hopefully we can get all the poor people off the road. Some of them even have TVs as well.
It’s just going to effect those less well off the most, those that can’t afford just to buy a new car.
I’m fairly comfortable but I can’t afford to shell out for a like for like replacement of the car we have, outright, finance or leasing.
Some won’t even notice it or just buy a few car, for others it’s a pain and for those who find it hard financially, it hits the most. Fantastic.
The worst off are also hit hardest by the impacts of poor air quality. The most deprived decile have a significantly higher incidence of illnesses linked to it and a higher death rate too as well as a significantly lower life expectancy overall. Within the borough of Greenwich there is something like a 15 year difference in life expectancy between those well off and those not. There is no perfect way to do it but you have to do something.
The ULEZ scheme will hit a lot of the less well off. Nobody wants poor air quality but the planning has been far from perfect.
I don't think you understand the struggle some people have.
Lower life expectancy has many more factors than air quality as you well know.
In the long term a lot of poorer people will be driven off the road...
Surely the majority of the poorest people in London, especially within the ULEZ, don't have cars anyway?
I think you would be surprised. My brother manages a football team within the south circular and some of the kids that play for the team arent as lucky as some to come from a well off family and have older vehicles as thats all their parents can afford.
I guess now they have a few choices of what they can do but I doubt they will pay the 12.50. So it will be pay for public transport with a few changes and stops along the way or the kids dont go to football training or the games.
As long as they have older petrol vehicles they'll be ok though
It’s just going to effect those less well off the most, those that can’t afford just to buy a new car.
I’m fairly comfortable but I can’t afford to shell out for a like for like replacement of the car we have, outright, finance or leasing.
Some won’t even notice it or just buy a few car, for others it’s a pain and for those who find it hard financially, it hits the most. Fantastic.
The worst off are also hit hardest by the impacts of poor air quality. The most deprived decile have a significantly higher incidence of illnesses linked to it and a higher death rate too as well as a significantly lower life expectancy overall. Within the borough of Greenwich there is something like a 15 year difference in life expectancy between those well off and those not. There is no perfect way to do it but you have to do something.
The ULEZ scheme will hit a lot of the less well off. Nobody wants poor air quality but the planning has been far from perfect.
I don't think you understand the struggle some people have.
Lower life expectancy has many more factors than air quality as you well know.
In the long term a lot of poorer people will be driven off the road...
Surely the majority of the poorest people in London, especially within the ULEZ, don't have cars anyway?
I think you would be surprised. My brother manages a football team within the south circular and some of the kids that play for the team arent as lucky as some to come from a well off family and have older vehicles as thats all their parents can afford.
I guess now they have a few choices of what they can do but I doubt they will pay the 12.50. So it will be pay for public transport with a few changes and stops along the way or the kids dont go to football training or the games.
As long as they have older petrol vehicles they'll be ok though
It will be interesting to see how many non compliant vehicles are still in the ULEZ zone. I'm sure there are still thousands of vehicles looking at a number of the registrations.
It’s just going to effect those less well off the most, those that can’t afford just to buy a new car.
I’m fairly comfortable but I can’t afford to shell out for a like for like replacement of the car we have, outright, finance or leasing.
Some won’t even notice it or just buy a few car, for others it’s a pain and for those who find it hard financially, it hits the most. Fantastic.
The worst off are also hit hardest by the impacts of poor air quality. The most deprived decile have a significantly higher incidence of illnesses linked to it and a higher death rate too as well as a significantly lower life expectancy overall. Within the borough of Greenwich there is something like a 15 year difference in life expectancy between those well off and those not. There is no perfect way to do it but you have to do something.
The ULEZ scheme will hit a lot of the less well off. Nobody wants poor air quality but the planning has been far from perfect.
I don't think you understand the struggle some people have.
Lower life expectancy has many more factors than air quality as you well know.
In the long term a lot of poorer people will be driven off the road...
Surely the majority of the poorest people in London, especially within the ULEZ, don't have cars anyway?
I think you would be surprised. My brother manages a football team within the south circular and some of the kids that play for the team arent as lucky as some to come from a well off family and have older vehicles as thats all their parents can afford.
I guess now they have a few choices of what they can do but I doubt they will pay the 12.50. So it will be pay for public transport with a few changes and stops along the way or the kids dont go to football training or the games.
As long as they have older petrol vehicles they'll be ok though
My 2004 VW Polo was compliant but unfortunately it failed an MOT a couple of years ago and the work required was too much to make it worthwhile.
Living just outside the south circular I bit the bullet and bought a 2016 Toyota Yaris hybrid with a 3 year maintenance package. Great decision. No road tax and it has sailed through the MOT twice now without any problems. If you get it serviced at a Toyota dealer they extend the warranty for another year.
Most London journeys can better be done by public transport, walking or cycling.
Unless you are carrying a weekly food shop ! But otherwise yes I agree public transport can be better.
Or you're a carer making multiple short journeys, elderly, disabled, delivery driver etc etc
Which is why I said most.
However when I was growing up very few people on my estate had cars.
Carers made home visits, I can clearly remember the nurse cycling around. Deliveries were made using trade bikes. We used to shop locally most of the time with occasional bus trips into Slough if needed.
There is a proportion of people now who have been habituated into a belief that existence without a car is impossible. I accept that without a viable public transport system it might be very hard but London is fantastically well resourced for public transport.
As I said most London journeys can better be made without a car.
My wife used to be a nurse. She worked with a lot of district nurses who had to go out and visit patients. If you think those journeys could be made on a bike, as in the old days, you are absolutely and utterly deluded.
Most London journeys can better be done by public transport, walking or cycling.
Unless you are carrying a weekly food shop ! But otherwise yes I agree public transport can be better.
Or you're a carer making multiple short journeys, elderly, disabled, delivery driver etc etc
Which is why I said most.
However when I was growing up very few people on my estate had cars.
Carers made home visits, I can clearly remember the nurse cycling around. Deliveries were made using trade bikes. We used to shop locally most of the time with occasional bus trips into Slough if needed.
There is a proportion of people now who have been habituated into a belief that existence without a car is impossible. I accept that without a viable public transport system it might be very hard but London is fantastically well resourced for public transport.
As I said most London journeys can better be made without a car.
My wife used to be a nurse. She worked with a lot of district nurses who had to go out and visit patients. If you think those journeys could be made on a bike, as in the old days, you are absolutely and utterly deluded.
Most London journeys can better be done by public transport, walking or cycling.
You are correct of course Iain and we hear this line a lot. What it fails to consider is the fact that public transport/walking/cycling is not always quick, or convenient, and doesn't help when you have stuff to transport (eg shopping). It also assumes that you don't have a car. If you do, the easiest option is to drive.
The income spent on green initiatives my arse. Tfl are broke and have been for many years. They have nearly 600 staff on the gravy train earning 6 figure salaries. If the air was so deadly they wouldnt allow the well off to pay the 12.50 per day to drive the deadly vehicles. Force them into paying £100 per day and see them switch then.
'Your vehicle is too deadly to drive within the south/north circular unless you can afford to pay the £12.50 then it's all good'
Then let's not forget tfl licensed another 470 vehicles in one week to drive on their roads, 300+ the week before and I'd guess another 3 to 400 this week all because they make £300 per vehicle.
You are absolutely right.
I worked in the transport world all my "proper" working life and I can assure you that TfL is one of the most profligate organisations that exists today. Jobs in it were always highly prized because of the pay and conditions and perks. For example, did you know that TfL is the only public sector organisation that still offers its staff a final salary pension?
As you say, it is broke. We can argue about why that is - and I do have some sympathy that the reduction in tube usage because of the pandemic is a cause of it to an extent - but Khan has done little to curb the excesses of the organisation and reduce its costs. Hence he needs to raise money anyway he can and the simplist way for him to do it is hit the motorist. So we have the extension of the congestion charge and propasals to increase penalty charge notices to £160. Say that again - ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY POUNDS (reduced by 50% if paid in 30 days). You get a lesser penalty for hitting someone!
And now this. Yes I'm sure Khan does want to improve air quality but have no doubt this is really about raising money for its empty coffers. If it wasn't, polluting vehicles should just be banned from the area.
Most London journeys can better be done by public transport, walking or cycling.
You are correct of course Iain and we hear this line a lot. What it fails to consider is the fact that public transport/walking/cycling is not always quick, or convenient, and doesn't help when you have stuff to transport (eg shopping). It also assumes that you don't have a car. If you do, the easiest option is to drive.
I guess it depends on what factors you include into your definition of 'easiest'? The trains, buses and tubes are already packed with people who own cars but already choose not to use them to get to work for example.
These measures are surely designed into factoring cost into any decision to drive.
I totally understand that public transport is not practical for a number of situations - but something has to be done and as the saying goes....you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
It’s just going to effect those less well off the most, those that can’t afford just to buy a new car.
I’m fairly comfortable but I can’t afford to shell out for a like for like replacement of the car we have, outright, finance or leasing.
Some won’t even notice it or just buy a few car, for others it’s a pain and for those who find it hard financially, it hits the most. Fantastic.
The worst off are also hit hardest by the impacts of poor air quality. The most deprived decile have a significantly higher incidence of illnesses linked to it and a higher death rate too as well as a significantly lower life expectancy overall. Within the borough of Greenwich there is something like a 15 year difference in life expectancy between those well off and those not. There is no perfect way to do it but you have to do something.
The ULEZ scheme will hit a lot of the less well off. Nobody wants poor air quality but the planning has been far from perfect.
I don't think you understand the struggle some people have.
Lower life expectancy has many more factors than air quality as you well know.
In the long term a lot of poorer people will be driven off the road...
Surely the majority of the poorest people in London, especially within the ULEZ, don't have cars anyway?
I think you would be surprised. My brother manages a football team within the south circular and some of the kids that play for the team arent as lucky as some to come from a well off family and have older vehicles as thats all their parents can afford.
I guess now they have a few choices of what they can do but I doubt they will pay the 12.50. So it will be pay for public transport with a few changes and stops along the way or the kids dont go to football training or the games.
As long as they have older petrol vehicles they'll be ok though
My 2004 VW Polo was compliant but unfortunately it failed an MOT a couple of years ago and the work required was too much to make it worthwhile.
Living just outside the south circular I bit the bullet and bought a 2016 Toyota Yaris hybrid with a 3 year maintenance package. Great decision. No road tax and it has sailed through the MOT twice now without any problems. If you get it serviced at a Toyota dealer they extend the warranty for another year.
Most London journeys can better be done by public transport, walking or cycling.
Unless you are carrying a weekly food shop ! But otherwise yes I agree public transport can be better.
Or you're a carer making multiple short journeys, elderly, disabled, delivery driver etc etc
Which is why I said most.
However when I was growing up very few people on my estate had cars.
Carers made home visits, I can clearly remember the nurse cycling around. Deliveries were made using trade bikes. We used to shop locally most of the time with occasional bus trips into Slough if needed.
There is a proportion of people now who have been habituated into a belief that existence without a car is impossible. I accept that without a viable public transport system it might be very hard but London is fantastically well resourced for public transport.
As I said most London journeys can better be made without a car.
Saying that does not make it a fact
I say every journey is better in the comfort and safety of your own car and that is before even taking into account the benefits of avoiding mixing with people during a pandemic
Most London journeys can better be done by public transport, walking or cycling.
Unless you are carrying a weekly food shop ! But otherwise yes I agree public transport can be better.
Or you're a carer making multiple short journeys, elderly, disabled, delivery driver etc etc
Which is why I said most.
However when I was growing up very few people on my estate had cars.
Carers made home visits, I can clearly remember the nurse cycling around. Deliveries were made using trade bikes. We used to shop locally most of the time with occasional bus trips into Slough if needed.
There is a proportion of people now who have been habituated into a belief that existence without a car is impossible. I accept that without a viable public transport system it might be very hard but London is fantastically well resourced for public transport.
As I said most London journeys can better be made without a car.
My wife used to be a nurse. She worked with a lot of district nurses who had to go out and visit patients. If you think those journeys could be made on a bike, as in the old days, you are absolutely and utterly deluded.
Why?
Are you serious?
Firstly, distance. The days of everyone living in a locality having their own local district nurse are over. The borough my wife worked in was 42 sq miles - staff in the north of it often had to go to the far southern tip. Nursing is actually an exhausting occupation and cycling 10 miles home after a 12 hour shift is not to be recommended.
Secondly, time. Any idea how many appointments a district nurse has to fit in each day? Less time spent travelling, more patients can be seen.
Thirdly, equipment. You surely don't think a nurse in the 1950s carried as much equipment as a modern nurse does?
Most London journeys can better be done by public transport, walking or cycling.
Unless you are carrying a weekly food shop ! But otherwise yes I agree public transport can be better.
Or you're a carer making multiple short journeys, elderly, disabled, delivery driver etc etc
Which is why I said most.
However when I was growing up very few people on my estate had cars.
Carers made home visits, I can clearly remember the nurse cycling around. Deliveries were made using trade bikes. We used to shop locally most of the time with occasional bus trips into Slough if needed.
There is a proportion of people now who have been habituated into a belief that existence without a car is impossible. I accept that without a viable public transport system it might be very hard but London is fantastically well resourced for public transport.
As I said most London journeys can better be made without a car.
My wife used to be a nurse. She worked with a lot of district nurses who had to go out and visit patients. If you think those journeys could be made on a bike, as in the old days, you are absolutely and utterly deluded.
Why?
Are you serious?
Firstly, distance. The days of everyone living in a locality having their own local district nurse are over. The borough my wife worked in was 42 sq miles - staff in the north of it often had to go to the far southern tip. Nursing is actually an exhausting occupation and cycling 10 miles home after a 12 hour shift is not to be recommended.
Secondly, time. Any idea how many appointments a district nurse has to fit in each day? Less time spent travelling, more patients can be seen.
Thirdly, equipment. You surely don't think a nurse in the 1950s carried as much equipment as a modern nurse does?
I was thinking mainly about domestic carers. Of course the answer to the problems you mention is to actually have enough people to do the job without running people into the ground with unrealistic expectations. Climate change will require all parts of our society to reassess how we do things and how we think about things.
The worship of the car is a real existential problem for the world.
The income spent on green initiatives my arse. Tfl are broke and have been for many years. They have nearly 600 staff on the gravy train earning 6 figure salaries. If the air was so deadly they wouldnt allow the well off to pay the 12.50 per day to drive the deadly vehicles. Force them into paying £100 per day and see them switch then.
'Your vehicle is too deadly to drive within the south/north circular unless you can afford to pay the £12.50 then it's all good'
Then let's not forget tfl licensed another 470 vehicles in one week to drive on their roads, 300+ the week before and I'd guess another 3 to 400 this week all because they make £300 per vehicle.
You are absolutely right.
I worked in the transport world all my "proper" working life and I can assure you that TfL is one of the most profligate organisations that exists today. Jobs in it were always highly prized because of the pay and conditions and perks. For example, did you know that TfL is the only public sector organisation that still offers its staff a final salary pension?
As you say, it is broke. We can argue about why that is - and I do have some sympathy that the reduction in tube usage because of the pandemic is a cause of it to an extent - but Khan has done little to curb the excesses of the organisation and reduce its costs. Hence he needs to raise money anyway he can and the simplist way for him to do it is hit the motorist. So we have the extension of the congestion charge and propasals to increase penalty charge notices to £160. Say that again - ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY POUNDS (reduced by 50% if paid in 30 days). You get a lesser penalty for hitting someone!
And now this. Yes I'm sure Khan does want to improve air quality but have no doubt this is really about raising money for its empty coffers. If it wasn't, polluting vehicles should just be banned from the area.
Thanks. I'm glad someone else can see it.
Re Iains comments,
I'd love to tell the young ladies I pick up at midnight from their offices they should be walking down the quiet streets of London to a tube station or waiting for a bus. Very safe in todays London.
The income spent on green initiatives my arse. Tfl are broke and have been for many years. They have nearly 600 staff on the gravy train earning 6 figure salaries. If the air was so deadly they wouldnt allow the well off to pay the 12.50 per day to drive the deadly vehicles. Force them into paying £100 per day and see them switch then.
'Your vehicle is too deadly to drive within the south/north circular unless you can afford to pay the £12.50 then it's all good'
Then let's not forget tfl licensed another 470 vehicles in one week to drive on their roads, 300+ the week before and I'd guess another 3 to 400 this week all because they make £300 per vehicle.
You are absolutely right.
I worked in the transport world all my "proper" working life and I can assure you that TfL is one of the most profligate organisations that exists today. Jobs in it were always highly prized because of the pay and conditions and perks. For example, did you know that TfL is the only public sector organisation that still offers its staff a final salary pension?
As you say, it is broke. We can argue about why that is - and I do have some sympathy that the reduction in tube usage because of the pandemic is a cause of it to an extent - but Khan has done little to curb the excesses of the organisation and reduce its costs. Hence he needs to raise money anyway he can and the simplist way for him to do it is hit the motorist. So we have the extension of the congestion charge and propasals to increase penalty charge notices to £160. Say that again - ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY POUNDS (reduced by 50% if paid in 30 days). You get a lesser penalty for hitting someone!
And now this. Yes I'm sure Khan does want to improve air quality but have no doubt this is really about raising money for its empty coffers. If it wasn't, polluting vehicles should just be banned from the area.
Thanks. I'm glad someone else can see it.
Re Iains comments,
I'd love to tell the young ladies I pick up at midnight from their offices they should be walking down the quiet streets of London to a tube station or waiting for a bus. Very safe in todays London.
Most London journeys can better be done by public transport, walking or cycling.
Unless you are carrying a weekly food shop ! But otherwise yes I agree public transport can be better.
Or you're a carer making multiple short journeys, elderly, disabled, delivery driver etc etc
Which is why I said most.
However when I was growing up very few people on my estate had cars.
Carers made home visits, I can clearly remember the nurse cycling around. Deliveries were made using trade bikes. We used to shop locally most of the time with occasional bus trips into Slough if needed.
There is a proportion of people now who have been habituated into a belief that existence without a car is impossible. I accept that without a viable public transport system it might be very hard but London is fantastically well resourced for public transport.
As I said most London journeys can better be made without a car.
My wife used to be a nurse. She worked with a lot of district nurses who had to go out and visit patients. If you think those journeys could be made on a bike, as in the old days, you are absolutely and utterly deluded.
Why?
I don’t think it’s realistic to expect district nurses and similar to not travel by car. In fact it’s not realistic at all. We’re not living in a “call the midwife” esque world you know. The reasons are multiple but to highlight even just two kills the idea dead. The amount of equipment that a visiting nurse now needs to carry. Massively different from even the seventies. The weather. I know this hasn’t changed to make a difference but it’s unreasonable to expect a nurse to turn up to her patients soaking wet and then remain wet for the rest of her visits.
Most London journeys can better be done by public transport, walking or cycling.
Unless you are carrying a weekly food shop ! But otherwise yes I agree public transport can be better.
Or you're a carer making multiple short journeys, elderly, disabled, delivery driver etc etc
Which is why I said most.
However when I was growing up very few people on my estate had cars.
Carers made home visits, I can clearly remember the nurse cycling around. Deliveries were made using trade bikes. We used to shop locally most of the time with occasional bus trips into Slough if needed.
There is a proportion of people now who have been habituated into a belief that existence without a car is impossible. I accept that without a viable public transport system it might be very hard but London is fantastically well resourced for public transport.
As I said most London journeys can better be made without a car.
My wife used to be a nurse. She worked with a lot of district nurses who had to go out and visit patients. If you think those journeys could be made on a bike, as in the old days, you are absolutely and utterly deluded.
Why?
I don’t think it’s realistic to expect district nurses and similar to not travel by car. In fact it’s not realistic at all. We’re not living in a “call the midwife” esque world you know. The reasons are multiple but to highlight even just two kills the idea dead. The amount of equipment that a visiting nurse now needs to carry. Massively different from even the seventies. The weather. I know this hasn’t changed to make a difference but it’s unreasonable to expect a nurse to turn up to her patients soaking wet and then remain wet for the rest of her visits.
The income spent on green initiatives my arse. Tfl are broke and have been for many years. They have nearly 600 staff on the gravy train earning 6 figure salaries. If the air was so deadly they wouldnt allow the well off to pay the 12.50 per day to drive the deadly vehicles. Force them into paying £100 per day and see them switch then.
'Your vehicle is too deadly to drive within the south/north circular unless you can afford to pay the £12.50 then it's all good'
Then let's not forget tfl licensed another 470 vehicles in one week to drive on their roads, 300+ the week before and I'd guess another 3 to 400 this week all because they make £300 per vehicle.
You are absolutely right.
I worked in the transport world all my "proper" working life and I can assure you that TfL is one of the most profligate organisations that exists today. Jobs in it were always highly prized because of the pay and conditions and perks. For example, did you know that TfL is the only public sector organisation that still offers its staff a final salary pension?
As you say, it is broke. We can argue about why that is - and I do have some sympathy that the reduction in tube usage because of the pandemic is a cause of it to an extent - but Khan has done little to curb the excesses of the organisation and reduce its costs. Hence he needs to raise money anyway he can and the simplist way for him to do it is hit the motorist. So we have the extension of the congestion charge and propasals to increase penalty charge notices to £160. Say that again - ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY POUNDS (reduced by 50% if paid in 30 days). You get a lesser penalty for hitting someone!
And now this. Yes I'm sure Khan does want to improve air quality but have no doubt this is really about raising money for its empty coffers. If it wasn't, polluting vehicles should just be banned from the area.
Thanks. I'm glad someone else can see it.
Re Iains comments,
I'd love to tell the young ladies I pick up at midnight from their offices they should be walking down the quiet streets of London to a tube station or waiting for a bus. Very safe in todays London.
My car fails the standard and i've decided not to replace it. What i'd really like is small electric vehicle that doesn't cost the earth, with 4 wheels and covered, so not a scooter but something between a scooter and a golf buggy. And since i live in a flat it would be nice if was foldable so i can get it indoors to recharge it. Suspect i'll be waiting a while for the technology to catch up with my needs.
My car fails the standard and i've decided not to replace it. What i'd really like is small electric vehicle that doesn't cost the earth, with 4 wheels and covered, so not a scooter but something between a scooter and a golf buggy. And since i live in a flat it would be nice if was foldable so i can get it indoors to recharge it. Suspect i'll be waiting a while for the technology to catch up with my needs.
I believe you can contact the council and request a charger to be installed. I think they also hook them up to lampposts. I don't know if that spot would get given to you though or you will come home with a low battery and find someone else using it.
My car fails the standard and i've decided not to replace it. What i'd really like is small electric vehicle that doesn't cost the earth, with 4 wheels and covered, so not a scooter but something between a scooter and a golf buggy. And since i live in a flat it would be nice if was foldable so i can get it indoors to recharge it. Suspect i'll be waiting a while for the technology to catch up with my needs.
Are any other major uk cities having similar schemes? there must surely be air quality issues in and around Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow etc. Why couldn’t an equation using a vehicles mot emmisions test and mileage travelled be used nationwide to put annual charges on the most polluting vehicles?
Comments
At least MPs can claim the charges on expenses - brilliant!
Carers made home visits, I can clearly remember the nurse cycling around. Deliveries were made using trade bikes. We used to shop locally most of the time with occasional bus trips into Slough if needed.
There is a proportion of people now who have been habituated into a belief that existence without a car is impossible. I accept that without a viable public transport system it might be very hard but London is fantastically well resourced for public transport.
As for the bit in bold I absolutely do understand - my parents left their jobs and run a local charity for people who fall through the gaps of the system and I've volunteered for that since I was 14. I'm vary aware of the challenges these people face. But those challenges should be resolved through the welfare system, the tax system and pay legislation and should not be a reason to not proceed with other objectively good policies.
If you're not affected economically you can see the benefits a lot more clearly. Most politicians and planners are ultimately pretty clueless as to how much some people are struggling financially. Faux concern doesn't really help.
Those who are comfortably off will invariably be least affected.
I guess now they have a few choices of what they can do but I doubt they will pay the 12.50. So it will be pay for public transport with a few changes and stops along the way or the kids dont go to football training or the games.
Living just outside the south circular I bit the bullet and bought a 2016 Toyota Yaris hybrid with a 3 year maintenance package. Great decision. No road tax and it has sailed through the MOT twice now without any problems. If you get it serviced at a Toyota dealer they extend the warranty for another year.
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/car-and-motorcycle-scrappage-scheme
I worked in the transport world all my "proper" working life and I can assure you that TfL is one of the most profligate organisations that exists today. Jobs in it were always highly prized because of the pay and conditions and perks. For example, did you know that TfL is the only public sector organisation that still offers its staff a final salary pension?
As you say, it is broke. We can argue about why that is - and I do have some sympathy that the reduction in tube usage because of the pandemic is a cause of it to an extent - but Khan has done little to curb the excesses of the organisation and reduce its costs. Hence he needs to raise money anyway he can and the simplist way for him to do it is hit the motorist. So we have the extension of the congestion charge and propasals to increase penalty charge notices to £160. Say that again - ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY POUNDS (reduced by 50% if paid in 30 days). You get a lesser penalty for hitting someone!
And now this. Yes I'm sure Khan does want to improve air quality but have no doubt this is really about raising money for its empty coffers. If it wasn't, polluting vehicles should just be banned from the area.
These measures are surely designed into factoring cost into any decision to drive.
I totally understand that public transport is not practical for a number of situations - but something has to be done and as the saying goes....you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
I say every journey is better in the comfort and safety of your own car and that is before even taking into account the benefits of avoiding mixing with people during a pandemic
Firstly, distance. The days of everyone living in a locality having their own local district nurse are over. The borough my wife worked in was 42 sq miles - staff in the north of it often had to go to the far southern tip. Nursing is actually an exhausting occupation and cycling 10 miles home after a 12 hour shift is not to be recommended.
Secondly, time. Any idea how many appointments a district nurse has to fit in each day? Less time spent travelling, more patients can be seen.
Thirdly, equipment. You surely don't think a nurse in the 1950s carried as much equipment as a modern nurse does?
The worship of the car is a real existential problem for the world.
Re Iains comments,
I'd love to tell the young ladies I pick up at midnight from their offices they should be walking down the quiet streets of London to a tube station or waiting for a bus. Very safe in todays London.
there must surely be air quality issues in and around Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow etc.
Why couldn’t an equation using a vehicles mot emmisions test and mileage travelled be used nationwide to put annual charges on the most polluting vehicles?