Ultra low emissions zone

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

bobbsy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'll help dogkennelhillbilly out...

>

> Walk - which many people cannot do for any

> appreciable distance

> Cycle - as above

> Bus - slow and polluting

> Tube - oh there isn't any

> Train - slow and expensive.

>

> So yes, losds of viable options in SE London...

driving in SE London is not cheap and reliable. The vast majority of SE Londoners take the vast majority of their journeys without the highly polluting vehicles that will be taxed further.

[rodneybewes]

bil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't understand this method of penalising

> people without first providing viable

> alternatives. Perhaps Southwark can install more

> electric charging points on residential roads?

> Hopefully electric/hybrids will become cheaper but

> those with flats, terraced homes and front

> gardens that don't have OSP (I think, the majority

> of the SE22) won't be able to charge the vehicles.

> Could the Mayor hurry up and improve SE22's public

> transport connections into London e.g.local bike

> scheme, a rail/tube service that delivers a

> frequent reliable service; basic stuff that exists

> elsewhere (albeit costly). If we have good

> alternatives we shouldn't need cars but our

> options are inadequate. Yes we want to prevent

> avoidable deaths! If the Mayor and TFL are really

> committed to this then they have to invest first

> (yeah that would make sense!)

I agree that they should do all they can to reduce the effects of pollution in London so I agree with this policy. And all the arguments against here were brought originally against the congestion charge years ago and that has improved central London no end. But you are absolutely right, they should invest in decent mass transit as well. It's all stick - where is the carrot?

[James Barber]

Hi uncle glen,

We already have legislation around the area being smoke free zone. I guess if it's persistent enough council officials would enforce these laws.

With 10,000 premature deaths each year we can't have an ULEZ quickly enough. Even better if people supported financially to accelerate these changes. And I don't think Euro 6 Diesels are clean enough let alone Euro 4.

[kford]

Black cabs have only this year started using 2.8L Euro6 diesels, so, pretty much all of them are running older tech. Their own website says the Euro6 is 71% more efficient than Euro5. All old cabs, plus the 13-year-old million-mile 53-plate buses I pedal behind up Dog Kennel Hill, spewing out visible particulates, should be addressed ASAP. Lead by example.

[stephent]

I fully support the UlEZ extension, but it's not very helpful to quote the 10k deaths number whilst debating an extension to the south circular. The 10k number covers 2 emission types and covers the whole of London, so the extension would impact only a fraction of these 'years lost'.

Also it doesn't seem like a very sensible policy to extend the ULEZ whilst also building a new runway at Heathrow...

[rendelharris]

stephent Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I fully support the UlEZ extension, but it's not

> very helpful to quote the 10k deaths number whilst

> debating an extension to the south circular. The

> 10k number covers 2 emission types and covers the

> whole of London, so the extension would impact

> only a fraction of these 'years lost'.

>

> Also it doesn't seem like a very sensible policy

> to extend the ULEZ whilst also building a new

> runway at Heathrow...

Totally agree about Heathrow (though I don't really know how much influence Khan can have on this, nobody listened to Boris, did they?), but "only a fraction" does represent some parents or grandparents not dying early, doesn't it? Also, the deaths figure is often quoted as the most dramatic, but there are also the figures for childhood bronchial diseases, asthma etc (if that's not a tautology), and the extension of the ULEZ will have a direct impact on the number of high-polluting vehicles passing/stuck outside schools. So the impact's going to be pretty positive, even though you're right about the figures not being as focussed into one area as some imply.

[stephent]

I believe drivers/passengers in the cars themselves are actually the worst affected by NOX, rather than pedestrians, but still yes - any additional lifespan has to be a positive.