Just FYI but far more cobalt is used in the refining of petrol and diesel than ever went into EV batteries, which are trending towards cobalt-free anyway.
It's not only cobalt though is it.. and REE are to use the environmentalists favourite term non-renewable. Last time I looked the EV's like Teslas have plastics from hydrocarbons for example.
I'm not saying that's good or bad, I'm pointing out there is no meaningful equivalence scale.
However the real point is "better for the environment" is just a "marketing term" that is often misused to mislead people who don't know the correct questions to ask because it can be simultaneously good locally and bad globally or good for greater crested grebe's and bad for people.
Comparing the transport links and services between one part of the GLA and another isn’t really the point … try comparing that to anywhere in the rest of England …
if you were a hospital porter or nurse that originally worked at Epsom and ended up working at St George’s (as they are part of the same trust) starting or finishing a shift at some unholy hour you are pretty screwed
Yes, and what if they were hemiplegic? And needed to carry a slab of granite to work? And carpooled with nuns coming back from an orphanage? And it was 2am on a snowy Christmas morning? What are they supposed to do about the ULEZ then, eh? EH???
How does the money raised get used to treat people with breathing issues or is it simply a tax deterrent?
If after a year this is raising significant amounts of cash then in my opinion it will have failed. The measure of success is less air pollution not ULEZ revenue.
I use meaningless marketing terms because I am not chemist/internal combustion engine designer.
I know you aren’t and neither are most people.. yet they keep getting told “better for the environment”
My comment was in relation to pollution levels, I am aware that nitrogen dioxide is not a greenhouse gas, a point which I have previously made a few times.
It has been suggested to me that it is an indirect greenhouse gas, although I am sure what exactly that signifies.
Btw I think it is probably important not to dismiss people's opinions of pollution and climate change on the basis that they lack expertise on the issues.
Otherwise we are in serious trouble - pollution and anthropogenic climate change are very big political issues, in fact anthropogenic climate change is imo is the single most important issue humans are currently facing.
As a consequence it is hugely important that come elections people vote with that in mind, however much expertise they might lack on the subject.
If after a year this is raising significant amounts of cash then in my opinion it will have failed. The measure of success is less air pollution not ULEZ revenue.
I guess it depends what you call a 'significant amount'. Would this qualify?
I would expect the revenue from the expanded zone to be very significantly more than that. And so doubt will Sadiq Khan. That after all was what Khan insisted to central government would make TfL financially sustainable in the future.
Any net revenue raised through the ULEZ will be reinvested back into public transport, including on the expansion of bus services in outer London. The ULEZ is expected not to raise any net revenue by the 2026/2027 financial year as the percentage of compliant vehicles continues to rise.
So as per the London mayor site: https://www.london.gov.uk/Ultra%20Low%20Emission%20Zone%20expands%20London-wide%20in%20a%20landmark%20moment%20for%20the%20capital
Yup, the “it’s just a money making scheme” line is one used by dinosaurs parroting conspiracy theory nonsense. This is all about local air quality… which previously the EU, and in recent years central government, have mandated must be improved in the GLA using means such as ULEZ and public transport. The Mayor is fulfilling his duties, and has to crack on and ignore his detractors in all parties and none… including those who helped set all this in motion and yet now want to make political capital and get the dinosaurs on their side with elections on the way.
The irony of course is that the newest non compliant vehicles are at least 8 years old. In 5 years time most of these will be off the road. A huge amount of money and infrastructure has been built to slightly speed up something thats going to happen anyway. The money would have been better spent on grants to allow people tk replace non complient vehicles, grants to hell people buy EVsand grants to increase the charging and electrical infrastructure.
I suppose at some point they may tighten the definition of polluting so maybe all diesels, possibly all ICE vehicles become non compliant.
All those things are happening Jon. The ULEZ charging is just an extra bit of the whole equation. It all goes together, it’s not one or the other.
There's lots of information on the gov.uk site about registered vehicles, their type and age, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/vehicle-licensing-statistics-data-tables
There's also the 2022 report that does some analysis of this data https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/vehicle-licensing-statistics-2022/vehicle-licensing-statistics-2022
Comparing the transport links and services between one part of the GLA and another isn’t really the point … try comparing that to anywhere in the rest of England …
This. Where I live the nearest hospital is 8 minutes by car and 48 by public transport once it actually turns up
Mine is 25 minutes by car or 2 hours by public transport. Mind, that does include the 5 mile walk to the nearest bus stop. If I had regular hospital appointments, I'd probably get fit enough not to need regular hospital appointments. Which is nice 🙂
It has been suggested to me that it is an indirect greenhouse gas, although I am sure what exactly that signifies.
I provided a link which explained it, https://naei.beis.gov.uk/overview/ghg-overview#:~:text=Also%20reported%20are%20four%20indirect,methane%20volatile%20organic%20compounds%20(NMVOC)
@kelvin I dont think they are, I'm directly involved with the installation of public EV chargers, theres no support for the private sector who are delivering, theres some money sloshing around councils but its being spent on studies and seminars rather than putting stuff in, the chargers they are installing are silly expensive. Subsidies for EVs seem to have disappeared and I'm not aware of any scrappage schemes?
The real kicker is the National grid, in no way is it ready for EVs, theres no where near enough local distribution capacity and the delays in getting renewables connected due to the DNOs is criminal.
@stevextc At our place there’s a shuttle bus between the sites, but even then if a nurse comes in and gets moved to another site (which I’ve not known happen for a long time) then a hospital taxi is offered, and if memory serves they have to be back at their base for the end of their shift.
@stumpyjon IIRC ULEZ = Euro6; you might say they’ll ultimately make it Euro7 but that’s not in force yet so it’s going to be a while, and in any case by that stage they’ll be more likely just to say ‘no private cars in this zone’. The French Crit’Air system is different in that there are more bands than ‘compliant’ and ‘non-compliant’ and they can vary what’s banned depending on air quality.
I’m not aware of any scrappage schemes?
In London?
The real kicker is the National grid, in no way is it ready for EVs
Agreed about the grid generally, but EV charging could actually help us here. Charge when the grid can cope… and use car battery storage to reduce peak demand on the grid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid
https://www.press.renault.co.uk/en-gb/releases/3057
I provided a link which explained it,
Yeah the link suggested a theoretical indirect link but I am not sure that it actually signifies anything. According to the Imperial College study the inner London ulez has had, quote, "insignificant effects on ozone".
So whilst in the theory nitrogen dioxide might well have an effect on tropospheric ozone concentrations this doesn't appear to be backed up by actual nonpartisan studies. Presumably this possibly reflects the fact that at surface level ozone is deeply unstable and doesn't hang around long enough to be measurable?
What the link makes clear is that nitrogen dioxide is not considered to be a greenhouse gas.
The ULEZ charging is just an extra bit of the whole equation.
What isn't clear is why when the Inner London ulez was created it didn't at the time also include the Greater London area. The vehicle technology available in Greater London was exactly the same as the vehicle technology available in Inner London.
It seems to me that Sadiq Khan is the sole arbitrator of when measures should be implemented and the correct timetable. In October 2021 he felt it was too soon to worry about nitrogen dioxide pollution in Greater London.
And yet it was absolutely imperative that the measures, which he didn't feel were necessary to implement in 2021, should be implemented in 2023, despite it actually being less of a problem now than it was a couple of years ago.
I reckon when most people stop and think about it they realise that the main driver must be financial considerations. With less non-compliant vehicles in Greater London than there were 2 years ago the significant difference between now and then is that due to the pandemic TfL is now in even greater debt than it was 2 years ago.
It seems to me that Sadiq Khan is the sole arbitrator of when measures should be implemented and the correct timetable.
That ignores… well, the whole history of introducing low emission zones in the UK, and not least London. You’re always pretty up on the politics of this stuff… just selective on what you chose to remember in order to make your point. Kahn has not been a lone politician plotting ULEZ introduction and expansion… politicians of all parties have been involved, including key players in a Tory run central government that now wants to use it to attack a Labour Mayor ahead of both Mayoral elections (that they’ve changed the rules for to try and help them win) and what will be a quite desperate General Election for them.
Sadiq Khan is mayor of all of London. He could have chosen to make all of London a ulez in 2021, not just Inner London.
Why didn't he feel that it was necessary? And why is absolutely imperative now?
He should be honest and say that he needs the money. In 2021 the financial situation wasn't that desperate so nitrogen dioxide levels in Greater London weren't quite as important as they apparently are today.
So you’re in favour of a wider ULEZ area now? And it should have been done sooner? Righto… I’m sure phasing it in makes sense to others that have been preparing for this latest stage for while. Not least because of the legal hassle gone through to get it to happen. Timing has been as much about both legal obligations set by Tory central government and legal obstructions and delays put in place by Tory councils. Khan has never had a free rein on timing.
If it solely down to pollution then yes of course Greater London should have been included 2 years ago at the same time as Inner London. It was obviously more of a problem then than it is now.
It probably would have made it must simpler....try driving along the South Circular for a couple of miles without accidently straying it what was ulez - one side of the road was ulez, the other side wasn't.
People could easily accidentally stray into it without even realising it. Then bingo! instead of coughing up £12.50 the driver has a £180 fixed plenty fine.
The fixed plenty fines were a significant contribution to the £220 million that was made from ulez last year.
Ernie - ever heard the quote 'politics is the art of the possible'.
I have no idea what you want , apart from an extra £1500 for your dirty old car. What do you want?
According to the Imperial College study the inner London ulez has had, quote, “insignificant effects on ozone”.
Please refer P4 for my theory on this.
I have no idea what you want , apart from an extra £1500 for your dirty old car. What do you want?
Really? Is it really that difficult to figure out that I agree with the Labour Leader and the Mayor of Manchester that now, in the middle of a cost of living crises, isn't the right time to hit struggling families?
Why is that so difficult to understand?
The money would have been better spent on grants to allow people tk replace non complient vehicles, grants to hell people buy EVsand grants to increase the charging and electrical infrastructure.
@stumpyjohn no, the money absolutely should not be spent on maintaining the status quo. It's being put back into TFL to invest in improving transport links in the new expanded area as it should.
Public transport should receive public money, private motoring is the individuals concern. Seems fair.
You can have an argument over whether that should have come first if you like but either way it's happening and is the right thing to do.
As for National Grid being ready, maybe that's a good reason not to plough money into charger subsidies.
It’s being put back into TFL to invest in improving transport links in the new expanded area as it should.
It is far more likely to be used to help plug TfL's gaping financial hole than for investment in improved transport links.
Liberal Democrat AM and transport spokesperson Caroline Pidgeon claimed the data shows “that behind all the rhetoric, the mayor is not prioritising public transport in London”.
Ms Pidgeon continued: “This isn’t just about the physical number of buses, data uncovered by the Liberal Democrats earlier this year showed that under Sadiq Khan, bus services in London now cover 12 million fewer miles across the capital than they did in 2016.
Really? Is it really that difficult to figure out that I agree with the Labour Leader and the Mayor of Manchester that now, in the middle of a cost of living crises, isn’t the right time to hit struggling families?
Why is that so difficult to understand?
Umm because from this angle it looks like you just came into this thread to stir shit since your usual haunt was a bit quiet?
It is staggering that Labour is no longer bothered by inequality. What is it for?
I think this sums it up well…
https://capx.co/keir-starmers-only-policy-is-getting-elected
https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/sir-kier-starmer/page/479/
So SKS is absolutely fine and dandy when it suits you, namely when you're just looking to shit on another thread.
Umm because from this angle it looks like you just came into this thread to stir shit since your usual haunt was a bit quiet?
So you think I do actually support the ulez expansion and my comments are purely to "stir the shit", as you call it?
There might not be many expressing opposition to ulez expansion on stw (I wonder why?) But there is indeed widespread opposition. Which is of course precisely why ulez has been put on hold in Manchester.
As far as Starmer is concerned I am clearly opposed to his lack of offering a radical alternative to the Tories, but that doesn't lead me into a weird situation where I oppose everything he says simply because he has said it.
Politics might be an entertaining game for you where you pick a side and whether right or wrong you always without exception back that side, but it isn't for me.
I very happy indeed to fully back Keir Starmer when he takes positions which I consider benefit ordinary working people. No one, just no one, on here is a bigger fan than Keir Starmer's "10 Pledges" than me. And no one has provided a link to Starmer's website more than me. Here it is again:
https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/
Btw I find myself generally capable of making my points without having to resort to personal attacks. I assume that comments such as accusing me of "shit stirring" are based on your lack of confidence in your own argument and is being used both as a distraction and an attempt to bully me into not commenting any further.
It appears to be a reoccurring pattern, I express an opinion which doesn't necessarily fit in with the otherwise near universal consensus, people get angry and throw personal insults, and it is then apparently my fault for messing up the thread and not agreeing with everyone else who dares to express an opinion.
If don't agree with any opinion of mine try to do it without resorting to personal attacks. Apart from the fact that it is pointless it makes for a more pleasant environment 💡
As I keep saying, it's not what you say that pisses people off, it's the way you say it.
Sorry about that. I am however fairly certain that if I simply agreed with whatever opinions other people dared to express no one would be "pissed off".
Edit: And btw this is just another pointless distraction - instead of yet again talking about me how about actually discussing ulez?
Any comments about the points I raised, such as the cutbacks in bus services every year since 2016 and the need to encourage people to use public transport?
Really? Is it really that difficult to figure out that I agree with the Labour Leader and the Mayor of Manchester that now, in the middle of a cost of living crises, isn’t the right time to hit struggling families?
It's definitely that, and not the fact that you had to trade your BMW for a Peugeot.
Are we back to talking about me? I can only assume that challenging the points that I have made, such as why wasn't the whole of London included in the ulez in 2021, and why the lack of investment in bus services, is too difficult to do so it is just easier to move the discussion away from that and focus instead on me personally.
I am now being castigated for being disadvantaged by the ulez expansion, apparently that is the "real" reason why I am opposed to its expansion.
And yet here on stw people who aren't being disadvantaged by ulez are being ridiculed because 'it doesn't even affect them'.
Apparently the worse sort of people are those who complain about the expansion even though it doesn't affect them, and those that complain about ulez because it affects them.
Ridiculous double standards at its finest.
For the record I did take a financial hit due to the ulez expansion but because I was in a position to be able to afford to take the financial hit that it caused it was more an inconvenience than a question of going hungry or foregoing a holiday.
For some people replacing their non compliant vehicles wasn't a serious problem, for some it was more difficult, and for others it has had a profound effect.
How much it has affected people very much reflects their financial situation. As a bit of a lefty that is not something I am either very comfortable with or what I expect from a Labour administration.
ULEZ Doesn’t affect me in any way, aside better air when I visit and I’m all for it. However it dawned on me that if my local council decided it was going to happen here, I can see it’d be disastrous for the people that live in the same suburb as me.
Lots of self employed trades with older vans, cars purchased to reliably get people to work that, before the rise in used car prices would be one failed MOT from the scrap yard.
Perhaps if wages at the lower end had kept pace with the top end, the polluting cars would be gone anyway.
The elderly gardener who lives across the road has an immaculate white van which is not compliant, I'm not sure what it is but quite large for all his tools, possibly a Volkswagen.
It only has 50k on the clock. He can't afford to replace it like for like so he has told me that he will pay the ulez charge and add the cost to his customers. Luckily for him he has far more customers than he needs (he's well past retirement age) so he can afford to do that.
Are we still refusing to discuss ulez and instead employing diversionary tactics?
Squirrelking makes a comment claiming that ulez revenues will be used to improve transport links. When it is suggested that more likely it will be used to plug the huge financial hole in TfL's budget after the pandemic, that after all is what Sadiq Khan promised the Westminster government, and it is also pointed out that TfL has disinvested in bus services every year since Sadiq Khan became Mayor, the discussion concerning ulez suddenly stops as everyone focuses on attacking the person who dared to challenge a comment made by squirrelking.
Suddenly the discussion focuses on shit stirring and trolling.
Presumably no reasonable person ever questions a comment made by squirrelking?
Are we back to talking about me?
That is probably because
A) your posts are sometimes every other post in a thread (see this page as an example and
B) you are just provoking arguments with pettiness and attempted point scoring
C) you seem to put more effort into non bike related topics on an MTB forum that I do on my full time job
If a number of people are giving you the same feedback it may be worth reacting to is positively rather than not accepting it and saying it is just because they disagree with you...
I’m sure that the Manchester CAZ (for all it’s faults) was going to have grants for replacement/retrofitting of non-compliant commercial vehicles. Is there no similar scheme for the London ULEZ?
I’m sure that the Manchester CAZ (for all it’s faults) was going to have grants for replacement/retrofitting of non-compliant commercial vehicles. Is there no similar scheme for the London ULEZ?
No. There was a £2k scrappage scheme for various classes of people who have a non compliant car (disabled or unemployed for example) until 7 days before the deadline, whereby it was then extended to “everybody” at short notice.
There was a separate scheme for commercial vans…
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/scrappage-schemes/van-minibus
No. There was a £2k scrappage scheme for various classes of people who have a non compliant car (disabled or unemployed for example) until 7 days before the deadline, whereby it was then extended to “everybody” at short notice.
Has it closed? Surely not, anyone can now apply (London residents, at least; doesn’t help those that live outside but travel in to work)
