Long term though, if we know that working back at the office is required, will we see people considering where the live and take jobs?
It's fashionable to blame people for having a job in X and choosing to live miles away in Y, and whilst some people clearly take the piss it's not always that straightforward as we've discussed before.
A lot of people change jobs more often than they change houses, because they can and they often need to. Moving is expensive and difficult, and can be very disruptive if you have kids. Changing jobs much less so - and sometimes it's essential. You lose one job, or you can't stand it any more, and you have to find something else quickly. And whilst you might try to find something with public transport, it doesn't always work out.
Or perhaps they just believe that right now during a cost of living crises isn’t the best time to add further financial burdens on struggling lower income families……is that a possibility?
While I do agree - I think we will all be poorer long term if/when the full impact of climate change kicks in. And I think we are already poorer as the cost to the NHS, the environment and society is not really met through our current cost of driving....
A lot of people change jobs more often than they change houses, because they can and they often need to. Moving is expensive and difficult, and can be very disruptive if you have kids. Changing jobs much less so – and sometimes it’s essential. You lose one job, or you can’t stand it any more, and you have to find something else quickly. And whilst you might try to find something with public transport, it doesn’t always work out.
Again I hear you and agree - but also wonder if long term the serial job swapping which has been enabled by the ability to commute by car to anywhere easily will start to reduce.
With my extreme glass-half-full mode on, this is doable and in fact needed for us all and the planet.
With my glass-half-empty mode on we are all screwed financially and environmentally anyway....
And whilst you might try to find something with public transport, it doesn’t always work out.
Yup, i future proofed myself. Then they took all the buses away, so i can't even get to the station without driving/parking.
The same researchers found a squadron of pigs flying over Beachy Head.
"Yeah, well, like, you can prove anything with facts, can't you?" 🙄
As society is driven entirely by the wealthy and privileged, as they’ve moved further out of town to the nice country house but still want to retain their access to a s****y city centre office, that has been enabled via cheap/free car parking on site, the convenience and status of the car and lots of road building programmes with very limited thought or care about public transport, network integration, walking and cycling etc.
None of that is true in London and wonder where it is true. In my last 3 workplaces (total population about 7,000), there were 0, 1 and ~20 parking places available for the "wealthy and privileged".
None of that is true in London and wonder where it is true. In my last 3 workplaces (total population about 7,000), there were 0, 1 and ~20 parking places available for the “wealthy and privileged”.
Our office has 2000 spaces for 2000 people.
Oddly we actually have quite a high proportion of cycling (4%ish).
Plans are ongoing to move office which will reduce that to about 350 spaces, the collective gnashing of teeth has been a boom for the local dental industry.
Again I hear you and agree – but also wonder if long term the serial job swapping which has been enabled by the ability to commute by car to anywhere easily will start to reduce.
There's a correlation Vs causation argument I suppose.
People swap jobs, or take "better" jobs elsewhere because commuting by car is cheap.
Commuting by car is cheap because you expect to already have a car.
You're expected to already have a car because even small towns are built around them (e.g. my previous point about Reading, to get to the town center shops I have to ride past 4 miles of mostly car parks, if it wasn't for car dependency then the distances would be smaller).
If we discourage cars, then we discourage long commutes, which means we discourage big conglomerated regional offices in favor of smaller local ones. Those offices are then in smaller towns that themselves (geographically) shrink because no one needs a toy shop with 1000 car park spaces and a Burger King with 200 anymore when they can walk to a toy shop and restaurant on the high street.
Yeah, well, like, you can prove anything with facts, can’t you?”
Unfortunately the study depends upon a dubious counterfactual rather than facts.
Again I hear you and agree – but also wonder if long term the serial job swapping which has been enabled by the ability to commute by car to anywhere easily will start to reduce.
Maybe, but that ability to find work and for companies to get the workers they need has grown the economy, and if you want people to move less whilst still being able to find workers you need to come up with another solution. Like.. remote working for example.
You hear about people not being able to find skilled workers - this is related to mobility. If we could all teleport anywhere in the country they they'd have a bigger pool of workers to choose from - and we'd have a better choices of jobs. Where I live is a good example - Cardiff's not a particularly small place but the business that employ software engineers here are small and local. They don't pay that well, and they do not do particularly big-time projects usually. It's also a small pool, so the opportunities for progression are less. And there are also very few jobs available. I've tried many times over the years of living here. However, I can get something more interesting, better paying and more suitable to my skills if I travel further.
As society is driven entirely by the wealthy and privileged, as they’ve moved further out of town to the nice country house but still want to retain their access to a s****y city centre office,
Yeah, they have, but they aren't the issue. In a typical business there are only a couple of wealthy privileged people working there. Often the people struggling across the city or from miles away are the people who had to take that job because they had nothing else and didn't have the savings to fall back on until they found something local.
People swap jobs, or take “better” jobs elsewhere because commuting by car is cheap.
Right, and without mobility, we'd be forced more to take worse jobs. Or employers could exploit us more because they'd have more power over us.
Remember I'm not advocating the status quo, I'm saying why we need mobility. Which is why governments need to provide it, or organise things better, not just let us all buy cars and get stuck in traffic jams buggering everything up.
What does Piers Corbyn have to say on the issue?
Dunno. But it looks like he was at the protests, so you and he are of the same mindset.
It does seem quite simple.
A> Poison children.
Or
B> Use a slightly newer car, a bike, your legs, a ride-share, work from home, or public transport and let the children live.
I mean, if you care about deprived children so little that you want to keep poisoning them it’s actually a very reasonable £12.50 for the privilege.
Our office has 2000 spaces for 2000 people.
Where, though?
I mean, if you care about deprived children so little that you want to keep poisoning them....
Are we back to the "you don't care about killing children"? Yeah I don't care about killing children, nor does the mayor of Manchester or the current leader of the Labour Party. Now that I agree with that claim no need to bring up again.
But it looks like he was at the protests, so you and he are of the same mindset.
I wasn't at a protest which Piers Corbyn allegedly attended so that puts me in the same mindset as him?
Edit: Can we expand on your logic and assume that anyone who drives on motorways is of the same mindset as Adolf Hitler because he was a huge fan of motorways/autobahns?
Should the country get the same per capita everywhere on public transport spending?
Yes.
Obviously this would still mean more spending and more provision in more densely populated areas. But the current approach of so little spending in the North of England isn’t working. It’s basically a “cars first” policy that is choking our roads and holding the country back economically.
Jesus. He’s gone full Godwin’s Law now. This could be an interesting thread with the removal of one poster.
He only said Hitler, not the N word.
Edit: Can we expand on your logic and assume that anyone who drives on motorways is of the same mindset as Adolf Hitler because he was a huge fan of motorways/autobahns?
Should the country get the same per capita everywhere on public transport spending?
Yes.
No, obviously not. Costs are much lower in some parts of the country, and some parts of the country are hubs through which people from all over the country pass.
Yeah the full Godwin, because claiming that anyone who doesn't support the ulez expansion under the current circumstances doesn't care about poisoning children is proper rational debating.
As is the claim that because Piers Corbyn and Lawrence Fox (I'm not sure who the **** he is) allegedly supports something it means that no right minded person should. But apparently if it has the support of the Labour mayor of Manchester that, strangely, doesn't count.
Some people don't believe that now was the time to expand ulez. It doesn't necessarily make them bigots who want to see children poisoned.
A couple of years ago Sadiq Khan chose to expand the ulez zone to cover all vehicles only within Inner London, he chose not to expand it, at that time, to Greater London, was he compared to Nigel Farage or accused of not caring about the health of children ffs?
The only reason he didn't go beyond Inner London was because he chose not to.
Edit: And btw I will repeat that a couple of weeks ago here on stw I was told that ulez was Tory policy - the brainchild of Boris Johnson and the expansion forced onto Londoners by the current Tory government. Today if you don't fully support it it makes you as bad as Nigel Farage and Piers Corbyn.
Unless apparently you are the Leader of the Labour Party or Mayor of Manchester.
ULEZ are just another smack in the face for the repressed hardworking British motorist. Too long have we been sidelined and troddon on, our already highly vulnerable rights undermined. I applaud those brave heros who dismantle the infrastructure of our oppression. Like 20mph urban speed limits, seat belts, and the appalling LTNs, ULEZ are just the beginning of an outrageous and sustained attack on the Great British motorist. We must resist people or soon we will wake up and find ourselves in some sort of socialist nightmare.
e.g. my previous point about Reading, to get to the town center shops
The cycle lanes are particularly hilariously done in Reading aren’t they?
As is the claim that because Piers Corbyn and Lawrence Fox (I’m not sure who the **** he is) allegedly supports something it means that no right minded person should.
That is a case of whose side are you one. No it doesn't mean anything by default but if a load of horrible ****ers are in favour of or are against something it is quite telling. They may be on the 'right' side on this one but all that has gone before would suggest otherwise.
anyone who drives on motorways is of the same mindset as Adolf Hitler because he was a huge fan of motorways/autobahns?
I was always suspicious of people who liked motorways and now I know why, those Nazi bastards.
Not just motorways - anyone remember watching Heimat (if not, then do - best thing ever on the telly). An Operation Todt road building team turns up in the village in the 1934 episode (Edward, dein lung!). The road they built is real, a rather enjoyable "A road" standard.
Autobahns were developed under the Weimar Republic, so it's actually democracy that's poisoning children.
Makes you think. And cough.
Heimat - best thing ever on the telly
Yep 👍
Well if I am to use that as a basis of I should stand with regards to ulez expansion kerley then I have been assured on stw that the whole ulez idea was Boris Johnson's, a man who I am also assured on here has never had a good idea.
I have also been told on here that the ulez expansion was forced onto the Mayor of London by the current Tory government which made it a condition of financial support for TfL. A Tory government which I am assured on stw is extreme, right-wing, racist, and bigoted.
Is this not therefore sufficient reason to oppose the ulez expansion?
The problem of course is that people choose to be extremely selective. Piers Corbyn, a totally inconsequential conspiracy theorist is trotted out because apparently he is opposed to the ulez expansion, whilst the views of the man who will very likely be UK prime minister in a couple of years time are totally dismissed as being unimportant.
And all the more surprising when you consider there is one individual on here who appears to believe that every position that Keir Starmer takes is the correct one.
Even the veiws of the current Mayor of London are dismissed as being of no relevance if they don't sit comfortably into their preferred narrative.
In October 2021 Sadiq Khan decided that ulez should not be expanded into the outer London boroughs, despite the fact that exactly the same vehicles were available to those living in outer London as to those living in inner London. At no time do I recall people claiming that he didn't care about the health of children in outer London,
And yet now almost two years later, when there are even less non compliant vehicles in outer London, if you don't think it is the right time to expand ulez you are labelled as someone who doesn't care about children dying.
Or perhaps they just believe that right now during a cost of living crises isn’t the best time to add further financial burdens on struggling lower income families……is that a possibility?
More likely they will say whatever they believe to be politically convenient.
More likely they will say whatever they believe to be politically convenient.
Are you suggesting that an ulez would be unpopular in Manchester? It would have to be extremely unpopular as Andy Burnham received more than three times the votes of his nearest political rival last mayoral election.
Don't the people of Manchester care about the health of their children? Don't they care that Piers Corbyn is opposed to ulez?
Don’t the people of Manchester care about the health of their children? Don’t they care that Piers Corbyn is opposed to ulez?
Don't know why you're talking about Piers Corbyn. I was talking about Keir Starmer, leader of the Labour Party, who has form for abandoning commitments when it's politically advantageous. Still, as you say, it could be because of a genuinely held concern about ULEZ and not that it could cost him a few votes.
Where, though?
Reading, London commuter belt.
The cycle lanes are particularly hilariously done in Reading aren’t they?
There are some absolute f****** jokes.
It's like Reading (Lab) and Wokingham (Con for the last few centuries, now a Lib lead coalition as of this year) are having a competition to see who can spaff the most money on the worst cycle path.
Recent highlights include:
Shinfield road, with a tarmac surface so rough it'll take your fillings out, convenient as I cant get a dentist. Kerbs at acute angles to crash you, and it literally just ends at a junction/pinch point meaning you'll get smushed by a car if you use it as intended. Terifyingly they seem very proud of it and this is just phase 1 of doing the entire Shinfield road which could have, if done well, actually been a really useful arterial cycle route.
Wokingham Road (Reading), 90% useless shared path with a million driveways and side roads, 10% downright dangerous magic paint past parked cars.
Reading Road (Wokingham), magic paint in all the wrong places, no help around junctions.
Reading Bridge, it's so narrow they can't even fit the bike symbols in it.
London Road (Wokingham), I rode it once and actually got nauseous as the shared path undulates up and down past a million driveways. It's set back from the road so far that they could have made it flat, but they didn't.
The only good bit they've done is they accidentally made Reading Road (Arborfield) a nice place to cycle when they made it an LTN-lite by adding give-way chicanes on blind bends making it outright terrifying to drive so people would use the new bypass.
Are you suggesting that an ulez would be unpopular in Manchester? It would have to be extremely unpopular as Andy Burnham received more than three times the votes of his nearest political rival last mayoral election.
Don’t the people of Manchester care about the health of their children? Don’t they care that Piers Corbyn is opposed to ulez?
As someone has pointed out above AB is beholden to the GM council leaders to get anything done though (as he has far less power than Khan) and in places like Bolton a bit of CAZ backlash might be enough to turn the council from Lab to Con.
The absence of any meaningful plan is poor though, and frankly if he's so sure a non-charging zone is going to work, why won't he trial it in the two boroughs with the worst air quality (and coincidentally unassailable Lab majorities) ie. Manchester and Salford?
While I do agree – I think we will all be poorer long term if/when the full impact of climate change kicks in.
Exactly why we shouldn't be doing ULEZ... as it has nothing to do with climate change. (at least not in any good way)
Molgrips
A lot of people change jobs more often than they change houses, because they can and they often need to. Moving is expensive and difficult, and can be very disruptive if you have kids. Changing jobs much less so – and sometimes it’s essential. You lose one job, or you can’t stand it any more, and you have to find something else quickly. And whilst you might try to find something with public transport, it doesn’t always work out.
Ultimately the poorest change jobs mostly because they have to.
ULEZ specifically targets the poorest in and around outer London.
ULEZ claims a very high percentage of cars are already exempt... (like the 3.5L landrover Khan drives) so its fairly obviously those who are driving older cars who can't afford anything else to drive to their minimum wage job who are going to be hit most.
As an exercise take a look at the map and note how many hospitals they managed to include.
It's not going to make any difference to the consultant driving their Tesla in from their garage but the nurses and porters who already get charged to park at work for the pleasure of anti-social shifts without public transport.
ratherbeintobago Andy Burnham appears to prefer the carrot approach to the stick approach, which is precisely what I would expect to differentiate a Labour politician from a Tory politician. IE instead of financially penalising those struggling during a cost of living crises helping them by giving them financial support.
An incoming Labour government should make a commitment to provide assistance, nationwide, to those who voluntarily scrap their older non compliant vehicles. If it is deemed that waiting for natural scrappage is not an option. That should be part of a "meaningful plan". Why did the Labour leadership say nothing beyond that Sadiq Khan "should think again"?
TBF after Uxbridge Sadiq Khan accepted that there should be an element of the carrot. Although by making it compulsory there is still a strong stick element as people will still be financially worse off if the value of their vehicles and the cost to replace them exceeds the compensation which they receive. And of course Sadiq Khan will still be relying on the revenue which he will be receiving from non compliant vehicles which every now and again enter the zone from the Home Counties.
While I do agree – I think we will all be poorer long term if/when the full impact of climate change kicks in.
Exactly why we shouldn’t be doing ULEZ… as it has nothing to do with climate change. (at least not in any good way)
I don’t understand how encouraging people to scrap perfectly good cars and buy a new one to avoid paying the ULEZ charge is supposed to be good for the environment.
I don’t understand how encouraging people to scrap perfectly good cars and buy a new one to avoid paying the ULEZ charge is supposed to be good for the environment.
It's a little more complex. Cars get scrapped all the time, this could be just ensuring the worst ones get scrapped. Or maybe decent cars that are non compliant will just get sold to people who don't live in ULEZ zones.
I don’t understand how encouraging people to scrap perfectly good cars and buy a new one to avoid paying the ULEZ charge is supposed to be good for the environment.
good for the environment is a marketing term... it means nothing or whatever someone wants it to mean.
Specifically though what is good for air quality is not the same as good for climate change.
It’s a little more complex. Cars get scrapped all the time, this could be just ensuring the worst ones get scrapped. Or maybe decent cars that are non compliant will just get sold to people who don’t live in ULEZ zones.
Thats a lot of could, ifs and maybes for an allegedly well thought out environmental policy.
Or maybe decent cars that are non compliant will just get sold to people who don’t live in ULEZ zones.
I had a perfectly decent but non compliant diesel euro 5 BMW 320 estate. I bought, privately, for £6.1k a diesel euro 6 Peugeot 308 estate to replace it from a guy in Hemel Hempstead, the seller needed the cash.
I sold my car to him for £1.5k, it was easily worth £3k before ulez. The guy wanted it because it was a very decent car for very little money and he has no intention of driving it into the London zone.
Nothing much has changed, both cars are being driven daily as they were before. The only significant difference is that I am a few thousand pounds worse off and some geezer in Hemel Hempstead is a few thousand pounds better off.
I sold my car to him for £1.5k, it was easily worth £3k
before ulezin the past when it was less old.
Fixed that for you. Cars depreciate. If there is now faster localised deprecation on those cars not suitable for driving in densely populated areas because of their emissions... well...
You haven't fixed anything for me. The £3k wasn't it's value when it was new, but thanks for the lesson deprecation anyway. The car was spotless, and a BMW diesel with 14k on the clock is worth a lot more than £1.5k. Well it would have been if it wasn't because of ulez.
Think of the wider society, the kids of working class families growing up with the pollution in outer London. Policy should be set to help them, not everything should be about protecting the wealth of retired folk.
Thats a lot of could, ifs and maybes for an allegedly well thought out environmental policy.
Which have nothing to do with said policy.
Once again, for the hard of thinking - ULEZ is concerned with local air quality ie. Nitrogen oxides, unburnt hydrocarbons and particulate emissions. Not global greenhouse emissions.
Ernie, you were perfectly free to sell that car elsewhere and get more money for it. That you chose not to is neither here nor there, same as folk who live in butt****, nowhere and won't post bike parts don't get a good price. If you want to make good money you need to sell it to the right market. If you're too lazy then that's on you.
Also not sure how many poverty trap victims are swanning around in 14 plate BMWs.
If my diesel were just a few months older it would have been ULEZ compliant, it must be one of the last models to come without SCR. However, apparently someone's made an aftermarket upgrade in Germany, which has been approved, and Mercedes are allegedly offering a grant to cover the cost - but only in Germany.
Could be a pain if I want to drive to Heathrow...
the kids of working class families growing up with the pollution in outer London.
What about the kids of working class families growing up in Hemel Hempstead? My previous car is now being driven around their manor. Don't their health matter?
Also not sure how many poverty trap victims are swanning around in 14 plate BMWs.
Are you suggesting that no one driving around in a second hand BMW is struggling financially?? If so Croydon must be one of the most affluent areas of London!
My car wasn't registered in 2014 btw, I have no idea why you mention "14 plate BMWs"
Edit: Ah, having re-read my post I see that you mistook the milage for the year that the car was registered.
I sold my car to him for £1.5k, it was easily worth £3k before ulez.
Now we get to the real reason...
Now we get to the real reason…
What do you mean "real reason"? I have always pointed out that ulez has significantly reduced the value of peoples cars, which often represents a big investment.
Did you assume that I was only speaking on behalf of other people and not myself?
Perhaps it will come as a shock to you to discover that I am also actually working class?
