Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Steve H on July 29, 2023, 06:41:36 AM
-
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/28/ulez-key-to-tackling-unacceptably-high-child-illness-and-death-doctors-say - I should think so too! All these selfish drivers pretending to be concerned about low-income drivers who can't afford to change their car - what a load of gonads! If they can afford to drive in the first place, they can afford a low-emission vehicle.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/28/ulez-key-to-tackling-unacceptably-high-child-illness-and-death-doctors-say - I should think so too! All these selfish drivers pretending to be concerned about low-income drivers who can't afford to change their car - what a load of gonads! If they can afford to drive in the first place, they can afford a low-emission vehicle.
I know several people who can't
-
My experience is ULEZ meant I had to change a perfectly good 2013 reg new diesel car I bought because the govt were incentivising buying diesel with low car tax because it was better for the environment. (My old 1999 Petrol car had died and couldn’t be revived so had to buy another car in 2013)
Luckily when ULEZ was expanded to my area in 2021, I could afford to trade in my diesel car and buy a used approved 2017 Petrol model that was ULEZ compliant. There are lots of people who can’t afford to change cars as the trade-in value is pretty low on cars that are not ULEZ compliant.
What I wasn’t aware of is that apparently all the electronics on a lot of cars these days (parking sensors, electric seats, mirrors, aircon etc) means if you walk more and drive the car less in order to protect the environment, or if you don’t drive it at all for 3 weeks while on holiday, you end up with a flat battery. The RAC jumpstart it and tell me I have to drive it for a continuous 45 min to 1 hour drive without turning off the engine every day for the next 3 days. RAC also said the manufacturer says I have to drive it once a week for a continuous 1hr drive to keep the battery from getting flat. Apparently short journeys take more out of the battery. During Covid lockdowns and when LTNs were introduced my battery went flat a few times. Electric cars are plugged in at home to get charged overnight so don’t have this issue.
-
To me the issue here is the scrappage support scheme which is not generous enough to enable people to make the change necessary to ensure cleaner air.
As to the electronics on a car, this is not something I have noticed. I purchased a new car in 2019 with a lot of the electronic doo-dahs installed and it has been fine despite sitting in the garage for extended periods during lockdowns and only doing short journeys when I went out. Maybe I've just been lucky, or perhaps only certain makes are susceptible to this.
-
I know several people who can't
Well, tell them to get a bike!
-
To me the issue here is the scrappage support scheme which is not generous enough to enable people to make the change necessary to ensure cleaner air.
As to the electronics on a car, this is not something I have noticed. I purchased a new car in 2019 with a lot of the electronic doo-dahs installed and it has been fine despite sitting in the garage for extended periods during lockdowns and only doing short journeys when I went out. Maybe I've just been lucky, or perhaps only certain makes are susceptible to this.
Must be my make of car then that is the problem. What make do you have so I know for next time.
-
Well, tell them to get a bike!
Bikes get stolen round here so not much point buying one - police don’t even investigate.
Plus you can’t carry much on a bike - no transporting suitcases, giving elderly parents a lift, transporting family shopping, taking stuff to the recycling Centre etc
Don’t think bikes are the answer.
-
Well, tell them to get a bike!
Not practical for their needs.
-
One of the things that I find odd about the implementation of the LEZ in Glasgow is that while London has a daily cost of £12.50, which on very occasional use might work for someone, in Glasgow it starts at £60, and then doubles up to a maximum of £480.
-
Bikes get stolen round here so not much point buying one - police don’t even investigate.
Plus you can’t carry much on a bike - no transporting suitcases, giving elderly parents a lift, transporting family shopping, taking stuff to the recycling Centre etc
Don’t think bikes are the answer.
Don’t forget that 42% of households in London don’t have a car. While that doesn’t mean they have a bike they are certainly managing all the things you mention without needing to own a car.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/28/ulez-key-to-tackling-unacceptably-high-child-illness-and-death-doctors-say - I should think so too! All these selfish drivers pretending to be concerned about low-income drivers who can't afford to change their car - what a load of gonads! If they can afford to drive in the first place, they can afford a low-emission vehicle.
It doesn't have to be that low emission. My 2014 Audi S3 is compliant.
My issues with Bristol's clean air zone have nothing to do with the principle, but the way it has been implemented. You are expected to see and understand the signs when your attention should be given to the road. Then you have to Google the clean air zone, because you are not going to be writing down a URL while you are driving and then you have to pay on line. If you forget any of these, the first you'll know about it is when Bristol Council sends you a letter informing you that you have to pay a fine. It's a naked revenue grab. They should be sending you a reminder letter to pay yhr charge (£9/day) before sending you a fine.
There's also a problem with the area covered by the CAZ. It covers all the main north-south roads, so you can't travel from North Bristol to South Bristol without going through the zone. Bristol gets its £9 but it doesn't help the clean air.
-
Well, tell them to get a bike!
Can you imagine a plumber going to work on a bike?
-
To me the issue here is the scrappage support scheme which is not generous enough to enable people to make the change necessary to ensure cleaner air.
As to the electronics on a car, this is not something I have noticed. I purchased a new car in 2019 with a lot of the electronic doo-dahs installed and it has been fine despite sitting in the garage for extended periods during lockdowns and only doing short journeys when I went out. Maybe I've just been lucky, or perhaps only certain makes are susceptible to this.
We shouldn't be scrapping cars. Building new cars is pretty environmentally unfriendly.
-
Must be my make of car then that is the problem. What make do you have so I know for next time.
You should take your car out for a short spin maybe once a week if possible. All sorts of things can go wrong if you leave it unused for an extended period.
-
One of the things that I find odd about the implementation of the LEZ in Glasgow is that while London has a daily cost of £12.50, which on very occasional use might work for someone, in Glasgow it starts at £60, and then doubles up to a maximum of £480.
The £12.50 isn't a penalty. Non compliant vehicles can be driven in ULEZ provided they pay a charge, a bit like the congestion charge. Looking at the Glasgow scheme it seems that non compliant vehicles are banned altogether from the LEZ.
Note: my 2014 Audi S3 is also compliant with the Glasgow LEZ.
-
The £12.50 isn't a penalty. Non compliant vehicles can be driven in ULEZ provided they pay a charge, a bit like the congestion charge. Looking at the Glasgow scheme it seems that non compliant vehicles are banned altogether from the LEZ.
Note: my 2014 Audi S3 is also compliant with the Glasgow LEZ.
For the Glasgow one, it's also worth noting that it doesn't apply to the motorway which goes right through the LEZ.
-
Well, tell them to get a bike!
Or a written off car that's been put back on the road - I got a 2008 one with several dents in it and some 'decor', for £700.
-
Can you imagine a plumber going to work on a bike?
Given that the hourly rate for plumbers in London is upwards of £50 (so £400+ for an 8 hour day) I don't think they are going to blink at an additional daily £12.50 cost (less in net when you consider this will simply reduce taxable profit).
-
What I wasn’t aware of is that apparently all the electronics on a lot of cars these days (parking sensors, electric seats, mirrors, aircon etc) means if you walk more and drive the car less in order to protect the environment, or if you don’t drive it at all for 3 weeks while on holiday, you end up with a flat battery. The RAC jumpstart it and tell me I have to drive it for a continuous 45 min to 1 hour drive without turning off the engine every day for the next 3 days. RAC also said the manufacturer says I have to drive it once a week for a continuous 1hr drive to keep the battery from getting flat. Apparently short journeys take more out of the battery. During Covid lockdowns and when LTNs were introduced my battery went flat a few times. Electric cars are plugged in at home to get charged overnight so don’t have this issue.
Not my experience at all.
Years ago when I had a series of fairly old cars flat batteries were common. These days we can go for weeks hardly using the car, if at all, and with only a few short journeys of the kind that wouldn't be great for charging the battery. Never had a problem - with any of the last four cars we've had.
I don't think this is an issue of the make of the car, given that the actual components - battery, alternator, are often standard across different manufacturers. If this is happening regularly sounds as if you have an old battery which isn't holding charge any more or a faulty alternator which isn't charging properly.
-
Politics is really very grubby
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66351785
-
Speaking as someone who got a fine recently as a result of one of these LTN's (my own stupid, panicked fault) you would think I would welcome Sunak's intervention. I don't. People have to live in these areas. If it makes for a better quieter, less polluted life for them so much the better.
I only wish they'd introduce it on my street which is a 30 mph road, but because it is long and straight and leads into town motorists regularly exceed the speed limit by some margin.
-
Speaking as someone who got a fine recently as a result of one of these LTN's (my own stupid, panicked fault) you would think I would welcome Sunak's intervention. I don't. People have to live in these areas. If it makes for a better quieter, less polluted life for them so much the better.
I only wish they'd introduce it on my street which is a 30 mph road, but because it is long and straight and leads into town motorists regularly exceed the speed limit by some margin.
Given it's not clear that the review can result in anything, it is a political smokescreen, a sort of vice signalling. It has nothing to do with policy.
Meanwhile, he'll continue with the no new petrol or diesel car 2030 commitment because that's two parliaments down the road - that they are doing nothing to make it achievable doesn't matter.
-
Given it's not clear that the review can result in anything, it is a political smokescreen, a sort of vice signalling. It has nothing to do with policy.
Meanwhile, he'll continue with the no new petrol or diesel car 2030 commitment because that's two parliaments down the road - that they are doing nothing to make it achievable doesn't matter.
I agree. He is appealing to those that think freedom of action, in this regard, is absolute and without consequences. It will be interesting to see how many people it does resonate with.
-
Or a written off car that's been put back on the road - I got a 2008 one with several dents in it and some 'decor', for £700.
A car from 2008 is unlikely to be ULEZ compliant. That might be why it only cost you £700.
-
Speaking as someone who got a fine recently as a result of one of these LTN's (my own stupid, panicked fault) you would think I would welcome Sunak's intervention. I don't. People have to live in these areas. If it makes for a better quieter, less polluted life for them so much the better.
There's a balance. Here in Bristol, the retail centre of town is dying. Cars are heavily restricted both with traffic flow restrictions and the CAZ and there's a large shopping centre about five miles out just off the M5. If you live in the area outside walking distance of the centre and you were planning to do some shopping you'd now choose Cribbs Causeway every time over Bristol city centre. It's got to the point where, if you live within walking distance of the city centre, you'd drive out to Cribbs Causeway rather than waste your time going to the city centre.
Against that, the city is a more pleasant place to walk around but it's getting to the point where nobody wants to walk around it.
I do not know what the solution is.
I only wish they'd introduce it on my street which is a 30 mph road, but because it is long and straight and leads into town motorists regularly exceed the speed limit by some margin.
20mph and speed cameras might do the trick.
-
I saw this earlier on Twitter from Faisal Islam:
Rather massive elephant in room on politics of the car… is how coming Parliament will legislate to replace £28bn a year in fuel duty (given electric cars don’t use petrol/diesel, and new ones banned from 2030) with some other tax on motoring…
Much bigger than LTNs and Ulez…
Not something I'd given any thought to given my inability to plan beyond next week.
What suggestions/predictions do others have?
-
I saw this earlier on Twitter from Faisal Islam:
Rather massive elephant in room on politics of the car… is how coming Parliament will legislate to replace £28bn a year in fuel duty (given electric cars don’t use petrol/diesel, and new ones banned from 2030) with some other tax on motoring…
Much bigger than LTNs and Ulez…
Not something I'd given any thought to given my inability to plan beyond next week.
What suggestions/predictions do others have?
That the 2030 date will be rolled back in the next parliament. That car tax will quadruple.
-
That the 2030 date will be rolled back in the next parliament. That car tax will quadruple.
Oh and whatever year the measure is actually applied, the year before that will see records set for new cars bought, and that will plummet in the year it applies.
-
I saw this earlier on Twitter from Faisal Islam:
Rather massive elephant in room on politics of the car… is how coming Parliament will legislate to replace £28bn a year in fuel duty (given electric cars don’t use petrol/diesel, and new ones banned from 2030) with some other tax on motoring…
Much bigger than LTNs and Ulez…
Not something I'd given any thought to given my inability to plan beyond next week.
What suggestions/predictions do others have?
Road pricing. Cars - all cars - will be subject to tolls for roads that are commonly congested.
-
Road pricing. Cars - all cars - will be subject to tolls for roads that are commonly congested.
I'm not sure it will just be for roads meeting some particular threshold, I suspect there will be a scaled tarriff - the ability to track cars movements is approaching the point where all of them can be tracked anyway, at which point it's an automation activity to charge for that movement wherever you go.
That tracking is going to be necessary for at least some of the network-driven features of some models of self-driving vehicles which likely aren't far away - the only likely defence I can see is going to be a privacy one, but with the roads being already considered 'a public place' in most contexts that might be difficult to make stick.
O.
-
I'm not sure it will just be for roads meeting some particular threshold, I suspect there will be a scaled tarriff
I agree.
- the ability to track cars movements is approaching the point where all of them can be tracked anyway, at which point it's an automation activity to charge for that movement wherever you go.
That tracking is going to be necessary for at least some of the network-driven features of some models of self-driving vehicles which likely aren't far away - the only likely defence I can see is going to be a privacy one, but with the roads being already considered 'a public place' in most contexts that might be difficult to make stick.
O.
Self driving vehicles are years away. Road pricing will probably work through ANPR. I don't think that putting a tracking device in every car is going to fly, unless it is a device that that doesn't transmit full location data.
-
I need some furniture to be picked up and removed. First person I contacted won't do it as it's in the LEZ and their van is not compliant.
-
A car from 2008 is unlikely to be ULEZ compliant. That might be why it only cost you £700.
Have checked on gov.uk, and it is compliant, though I still have to pay the inner London congestion charge. The car looked as though it had never been cleaned inside - I think that's why it was so cheap. The paintwork had been spoiled by a lot of spots of something, cement or something, which have faded now, so its just the dents, which don't matter to me. I think the ULEZ is for cars made before 2007-ish.
-
And the cry was Uxbridge....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66388718
-
And the cry was Uxbridge....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66388718
Looking at the graph the BBC supplied, the targets were always impossible. The projected line has the same slope as our past record. The past record, though, includes all the "low hanging fruit".
-
Looking at the graph the BBC supplied, the targets were always impossible. The projected line has the same slope as our past record. The past record, though, includes all the "low hanging fruit".
In something like this with those timescales, you would expect a increasing drop over time as projects with bigger impacts were delivered.
ETA
There would likely be a long tail of the 5 - 10 % but the aim itself is not impossible. I fear that much of the preparatory work needed over the last decade or longer has not progressed sufficiciently.
Long term goals are easy for govts to announce, and failures are generally easy to blame on someone else. Uxbridge shows that failure, particularly if it is trumpeted as practicality, may be a vote winner.
-
In something like this with those timescales, you would expect a increasing drop over time as projects with bigger impacts were delivered.
No you wouldn't. You do the easy stuff first and quickly.
Long term goals are easy for govts to announce, and failures are generally easy to blame on someone else. Uxbridge shows that failure, particularly if it is trumpeted as practicality, may be a vote winner.
I think low emission zones have generally been botched in the implementation. People don't realise how low the bar is for a petrol car to be compliant and the fee collection methods make them look like council money grabbing, rather than an effective anti-emissions policy.
-
No you wouldn't. You do the easy stuff first and quickly.
I think low emission zones have generally been botched in the implementation. People don't realise how low the bar is for a petrol car to be compliant and the fee collection methods make them look like council money grabbing, rather than an effective anti-emissions policy.
And the easy stuff in something like this will be minimal.
-
Labour Ulez U-turn?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/starmer-ditches-commitment-to-ulez-style-clean-air-zones-across-country/ar-AA1fceAP
-
Just read, via Microsoft's front page, a blatantly biased anti-ULEZ piece from the Daily Hate-Mail. If it is anything to go by, it would appear that DH-M journalists have been instructed to always refer to it as "the much-hated ULEZ".
-
Just read, via Microsoft's front page, a blatantly biased anti-ULEZ piece from the Daily Hate-Mail. If it is anything to go by, it would appear that DH-M journalists have been instructed to always refer to it as "the much-hated ULEZ".
Which is kind of weird given that the majority of Londoners approve and the support is greatest in inner London, where the ULEZ is actually in operation.
But then the Mail have never been interested in evidence and accuracy, rather than plugging their own editorial line.
-
And the easy stuff in something like this will be minimal.
And why would you assume that?
-
Which is kind of weird given that the majority of Londoners approve and the support is greatest in inner London, where the ULEZ is actually in operation.
But then the Mail have never been interested in evidence and accuracy, rather than plugging their own editorial line.
London is different from a lot of places. London is a city in which having a car is not an advantage. It has very good public transport and, if you can afford to live in inner London, you can probably afford a ULEZ compliant car.
If you live a bit out of the centre of a city like most people and you have a diesel car that you depend on, you are not necessarily going to be quite so well disposed towards clean air zones.
-
London is different from a lot of places. London is a city in which having a car is not an advantage.
True
It has very good public transport
Also true
and, if you can afford to live in inner London, you can probably afford a ULEZ compliant car.
Not true at all - there are plenty of parts of inner London which have levels of deprivation as great as anywhere in the country. Many of these people can't afford a car, let alone a compliant one, but points one and two above provide mitigation.
If you live a bit out of the centre of a city like most people and you have a diesel car that you depend on, you are not necessarily going to be quite so well disposed towards clean air zones.
Depends on whether your diesel car is compliant - most are.
-
If you live a bit out of the centre of a city like most people and you have a diesel car that you depend on, you are not necessarily going to be quite so well disposed towards clean air zones.
Worth noting that even if your car isn't compliant there is nothing to stop you flogging it. While the market for non compliant vehicles in London isn't going to be strong, there is nothing preventing these cars being perfectly saleable in parts of the country where ULEZ compliance isn't an issue - i.e. virtually all of the country. Given that the second hand car market has been particularly bouyant over the past couple of years there is no reason why someone selling won't get a good price for their non compliant car, either as trade-in or private sale.
Just for a laugh I checked out the valuation of my most recent non compliant car - a 2011 Citroen diesel - had retained 70% of the price I got for it when I sold it 6 years ago.
-
Worth noting that even if your car isn't compliant there is nothing to stop you flogging it.
Non compliant cars are losing value. Buying a compliant car will inevitably cost you money.
Buying cars is generally bad for the environment because making a new car has quite an impact. The government should be encouraging us to keep our cars for longer.
-
Non compliant cars are losing value.
Are they? Evidence please.
I was rather surprised at the market value of the non compliant diesel car that I got rid of in 2016 when it was already 6 years old. Seems to be holding its value rather well. Don't forget that the market value of a car is complicated and ULEZ compliance will be one of many, many factors and will only be of the slightest relevance to a small proportion of the potential buyers across the UK.
Buying a compliant car will inevitably cost you money.
Not really the right question - the question is whether, and to what extent, trading in a nominally non-compliant car for a compliant car will cost you more than it would have done without the ULEZ.
Buying cars is generally bad for the environment because making a new car has quite an impact.
Who said anything about trading in an old non-compliant car for a new compliant one? Certainly not me. Likely most people will be trading in an used non-compliant car for a used compliant one. So the environmental cost of manufacture is already baked in.
The government should be encouraging us to keep our cars for longer.
That is already happening, not through government edict, but because cars are more reliable and last longer than they used to. Apparently the average age of cars on the road now is greater than its ever been.
But this is classic 'nudge' policy - put in place something which encourages people to do something now that they would have done in any case in the near(ish) future.
-
... the fee collection methods make them look like council money grabbing, rather than an effective anti-emissions policy.
In the case of the ULEZ expansion this does seem to be a major factor, albeit not for councils.
The ULEZ expansion was required by central government, specifically the Department for Transport under Grant Shapps, as a condition of the bail-out of TFL required because of the pandemic.
So it was explicitly designed as a money raising, as well as emission cutting, initiative.
-
Are they? Evidence please.
You'll have to accept my brother's word for it who had to recently dispose of a non compliant car.
I was rather surprised at the market value of the non compliant diesel car that I got rid of in 2016 when it was already 6 years old. Seems to be holding its value rather well.
2016 is hardly current.
Who said anything about trading in an old non-compliant car for a new compliant one?
Nobody.
Certainly not me. Likely most people will be trading in a used non-compliant car for a used compliant one. So the environmental cost of manufacture is already baked in.
No. Because the person you bought the newer car off has to buy themselves a new car (or newer car) and so forth.
I live in Bristol and any cursory examination of its city centre is that it is dying. This is in part due to the council's insistence on banishing cars from it. The CAZ is only the latest initiative in this respect. I suspect it will be the final nail in the coffin.
I live within walking distance of the city centre. I could shop there using only the transport of my own legs. But because the choice of shops is becoming more limited every day - unless you want a coffee or to donate to a charity - my expeditions are more likely to be successful if I go to Cribbs Causeway, which is a massive out of town centre to the North West and is importantly just off the M5. Naturally, I have to drive there. Bristol Council's policies have made the city centre more car free which is great for people on foot but they haven't reduced overall car usage at all. In fact, in my case, they increase my car usage.
-
You'll have to accept my brother's word for it who had to recently dispose of a non compliant car.
Nope doesn't cut it as evidence - merely unverified anecdote.
2016 is hardly current.
Nope you are missing the point.
My last non compliant car was a 2011 diesel citroen, which I sold in 2016 for £5,800. Using one of the many car market value checkers I put in this car's registration number and assumptions that mileage continues as when I owned it and it remained in good condition for its age. This provided a current market value (i.e. in Aug 2023) of a smidge over £4,100. That car has held its second hand value very well, despite being non compliant. And that makes sense as for mot people, in most parts of the country ULEZ compliance when buying car is irrelevant. Also the types of car most likely to be non compliant - old, fairly large diesel cars - are actually rather attractive second hand as they tend to be difficult to replicate with more modern cars in terms of available room and are cheap to run.
So as long as ULEZ compliance isn't an issue - which it wouldn't be for most people - then the upsides are sufficient to ensure that market value of those cars is highly competitive.
-
Nope doesn't cut it as evidence - merely unverified anecdote.
Nope you are missing the point.
My last non compliant car was a 2011 diesel citroen, which I sold in 2016 for £5,800. Using one of the many car market value checkers I put in this car's registration number and assumptions that mileage continues as when I owned it and it remained in good condition for its age. This provided a current market value (i.e. in Aug 2023) of a smidge over £4,100. That car has held its second hand value very well, despite being non compliant. And that makes sense as for mot people, in most parts of the country ULEZ compliance when buying car is irrelevant. Also the types of car most likely to be non compliant - old, fairly large diesel cars - are actually rather attractive second hand as they tend to be difficult to replicate with more modern cars in terms of available room and are cheap to run.
So as long as ULEZ compliance isn't an issue - which it wouldn't be for most people - then the upsides are sufficient to ensure that market value of those cars is highly competitive.
Aren't you just contrasting one anecdote with another?
-
Meanwhile in Glasgow
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-66567690
-
Nope doesn't cut it as evidence - merely unverified anecdote.
As is what you brought up.
So as long as ULEZ compliance isn't an issue - which it wouldn't be for most people - then the upsides are sufficient to ensure that market value of those cars is highly competitive.
Maybe you should talk to shop owners in Bristol about the upsides of our CAZ and other anti car policies. Be quick though, they are all going bankrupt.
-
Meanwhile in Glasgow
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-66567690
Apart from the specialist vehicles like the cherry picker, I'm surprised that Glasgow Council has any vehicles that old.
-
Apart from the specialist vehicles like the cherry picker, I'm surprised that Glasgow Council has any vehicles that old.
Given their financial circumstances, I'm surprised they had any that complied.
-
I live in Bristol and any cursory examination of its city centre is that it is dying. This is in part due to the council's insistence on banishing cars from it. The CAZ is only the latest initiative in this respect. I suspect it will be the final nail in the coffin.
I live within walking distance of the city centre. I could shop there using only the transport of my own legs. But because the choice of shops is becoming more limited every day - unless you want a coffee or to donate to a charity - my expeditions are more likely to be successful if I go to Cribbs Causeway, which is a massive out of town centre to the North West and is importantly just off the M5.
Yup sounds exactly like the City centre where I live - once upon a time it used to be a thriving retail hub, now all you can buy is coffee. Retail outlets come and then fail at the drop of the hat, charity shops and boarded up premises abound. The once landmark stores one by one are disappearing - Woolies, long gone, BHS - no more, Top Shop - gone. Wilko, likely gone in months.
So yup, you are right - it must be all down to the low emission zone and other 'anti car' measures the council have put in place.
Oh, hold on - that's not right. My city has no low emission zone, nor does it have low traffic neighbourhood initiatives. Nor any meaningful bus lanes and cycle infrastructure. In fact the whole notion of what you might call the 'anti car' agenda seems to have completely passed it by.
So maybe if your city centre and local high streets are in trouble, just as mine are, you might want to think a bit more broadly about why that is. And frankly it likely has little or nothing to do with the measures you describe. Indeed I think the key issues are:
1: On line shopping
2: Business rates
3: The ongoing covid legacy
High streets have been shifting from being predominantly retail and 'functional' (banks, building societies, post offices) to social and leisure destinations for decades - long before ULEZ (or equivalents) were a twinkle in some metro-mayors eyes.
So perhaps the CEZ in Bristol or the ULEZ in London has had a minor impact on the high street - but actually evidence from the analysis of such schemes across a whole range of european cities with LEZs suggest that the impact is actually positive, not negative. Here is some actual evidence rather than your anecdote about Bristol vs my anecdote about St Albans.
https://cleancitiescampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Clean-Cities-briefing_-Why-fewer-polluting-cars-in-cities-are-good-news-for-local-shops_1.pdf
'The analysis therefore demonstrates that low emission zones can be a win-win-win solution for clean air, the climate and the local economy:
● Low emission zones and similar policies that reduce car use have generally had positive effects on the turnover of the retail sector in cities,
● Retail vacancy (the number of empty shops) can be reduced.
This can be explained by several factors:
● Car use plays a less important role for customers than shop owners think,
● Customers that walk, cycle, wheel or use public transport spend more overall
as they visit local shops more frequently and represent a higher proportion of all customers.'
Amazingly in a part of outer London (exactly where the 'battle' over ULEZ expansion is taking place) retailer thought that over 60% of their customers got there by car - the reality was only 20%.
Having provided evidence, back to anecdote - I was visiting various parts of East London last week (I work there but was actually not just going from home to office and back) - thriving, busy, full of vitality, packed full of local independent retail outlets of all types. Guess what - the various places I was visiting are all smack in the current ULEZ.
Oh and by the way the lungs and neural development of our children are more important, in my opinion, than the 'so-called' freedoms of the pro-car lobby to drive whatever car they like where-ever they want, regardless of the consequences to health.
-
Very interesting submission, Prof.
A factor that I have thought important is a change which has been taking place (probably over decades) and that is retail premises ownership. I recall a conversation a very long time ago with a teaching colleague who had been a Marks & Spencer retail manager. He said that M&S (then) owned most of its retain property and was frequently criticised for wasting its time and talent in property management rather than selling things to the public.
Could one reason for the state of our town centres be that retail companies do not own the the shops they operate and that their landlords are charging rents that make it difficult for their tenants to operate profitably? Hence town centres have become a patchwork of empty shops and coffee bars.
-
Very interesting submission, Prof.
A factor that I have thought important is a change which has been taking place (probably over decades) and that is retail premises ownership. I recall a conversation a very long time ago with a teaching colleague who had been a Marks & Spencer retail manager. He said that M&S (then) owned most of its retain property and was frequently criticised for wasting its time and talent in property management rather than selling things to the public.
Could one reason for the state of our town centres be that retail companies do not own the the shops they operate and that their landlords are charging rents that make it difficult for their tenants to operate profitably? Hence town centres have become a patchwork of empty shops and coffee bars.
Yes rents are definitely an issue, which is of course also coupled to business rates. And I think you are probably right that historically there would have been far more shops that owned their own premises rather than rented.
But I think there is a broader issue that the reason why people head to town and city centres has changed completely from a few decades ago. Once you went because you needed to, as that was the only place you could get all sorts of things you needed. But now with out of town and on-line shopping far fewer people feel they need to go to town and city centres (they can get pretty well everything they need in a few clicks on Amazon).
Now people go because they want to go - it is a kind of event/leisure destination, where people might do a bit of non-necessary shopping, but also meet others for a coffee or a meal etc. And for that to be an attractive destination the place needs to be inviting - not just in the selection of retail outlets (shops/cafes/restaurants) available but also in the broader ambiance and environment.
This shift has nothing to do with ULEZ or similar schemes and I suspect these schemes have very limited impact on footfall. Indeed I can see (as the research seems to suggest) that reducing traffic into town and city centres creates are rather more inviting place for people to want to go to. However I think the big issue is that many town and city centres haven't really adapted well to the shift from visiting out of need to visiting out of want, and the business models still seem set up on the basis of a need-type model.
-
I wonder how many people doing the vandalism here will be vituoerative and climate change activists protests.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66675787
-
I wonder how many people doing the vandalism here will be vituoerative and climate change activists protests.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66675787
vituoerative?
Explain please.
-
vituoerative?
Explain please.
Tyoo
Vituperative
And and should be about. Been a long day
-
Indeed I think the key issues are:
1: On line shopping
2: Business rates
3: The ongoing covid legacy
And yet the big out of town shopping centre is thriving.
Back to the drawing board for you.
-
And yet the big out of town shopping centre is thriving.
Back to the drawing board for you.
Except they aren't:
https://www.drapersonline.com/news/footfall-cools-in-june-despite-heatwave
"We saw fewer visits to shopping centres and retail parks than last year. But high street locations were busier and footfall in major cities also improved ...”
So the places doing the best are high street locations and major cities - you know the places most likely to have low emission zones. Certainly consistent with the previous data I linked to suggesting that low emission zones and similar policies that reduce car use generally had positive effects on the turnover of the retail sector in cities.
Back to the drawing board for you.
-
Except they aren't:
https://www.drapersonline.com/news/footfall-cools-in-june-despite-heatwave
"We saw fewer visits to shopping centres and retail parks than last year. But high street locations were busier and footfall in major cities also improved ...”
So the places doing the best are high street locations and major cities - you know the places most likely to have low emission zones. Certainly consistent with the previous data I linked to suggesting that low emission zones and similar policies that reduce car use generally had positive effects on the turnover of the retail sector in cities.
Back to the drawing board for you.
I was talking about my local area, not retail generally.
-
I was talking about my local area, not retail generally.
Oh Bristol you mean - well here is some local information.
https://www.redcliffeandtemplebid.co.uk/news/bristol-city-centre-sees-strong-quarterly-growth/
Looks like Bristol city centre is in robust health - not much evidence of the CAZ negatively impacting the city centre. Indeed, quite the reverse - for example footfall in Victoria Street (smack in the middle of the CAZ) is up 25% on this time last year which was, of course, before the CAZ was launched.
So it seems that Bristol is following other places, in that the low emission zones appears to be having a positive effects on the turnover of the retail and leisure sectors in cities.
-
Oh Bristol you mean - well here is some local information.
https://www.redcliffeandtemplebid.co.uk/news/bristol-city-centre-sees-strong-quarterly-growth/
Looks like Bristol city centre is in robust health
With respect, you don't live there. It's dying.
-
With respect, you don't live there. It's dying.
With respect, the opinion of one person (even if that person lives in Bristol) is simply the opinion of a single person. It carries no more weight than the opinion of any of the other approx. 500k individual people who live in Bristol. And, of course, it carries far less weight than actual data on the high street, specifically looking at footfall and spending.
Sure high streets have changed over the past decades (one opinion might be that they are dying), but I cannot see any evidence that low emission zones have contributed detrimentally to high streets and the evidence seems to suggest that if there is an effect then it is mildly positive (and that evidence includes data specifically on Bristol, which carries far greater weight than your opinion Jeremy).
-
Hugh Muir in the Garudnia. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/in-times-that-cry-out-for-leadership-we-get-followship-sadiq-khan-is-bucking-that-trend-with-ulez/ar-AA1gc8RR
-
Hugh Muir in the Garudnia. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/in-times-that-cry-out-for-leadership-we-get-followship-sadiq-khan-is-bucking-that-trend-with-ulez/ar-AA1gc8RR
An interesting article - much of which I agree with.
On the politics, the worst possible thing Khan could have done would have been to have delayed and allowed the implementation to still be a live issue at the time of next year's election. For all the 'direct action' (also known as vandalism) the implementation has punctured the key message of the opponents - namely let's stop the ULEZ expansion. With its implementation, firstly the vast, vast majority of people will have now realised that it hasn't impacted them at all (well other than the positive impacts of lower pollution and possible slightly reduce congestion). They either don't own a car (like about half of Londoners) or they own a compliant car (like at least 90% of that 50% car owners). So for all the sound and fury their response will likely be 'so what on earth was all the fuss about'.
But politically the actual implementation puts opponents in a really difficult position. It is one thing to oppose something before it has been implemented, quite another to oppose it after implementation, which would require campaigning to scrap the scheme. That would surely be political suicide - firstly you'd be saying to most of the electorate that they'll have to suffer worse air quality despite them not being impacted directly by the ULEZ as their cars are either compliant or non-existent. But even for those who have non compliant cars - most of these people will have taken action by the time an election rolls around, which would likely be replacing their cars with compliant models. I suspect many people have already done this. So these people might have been your political friends pre-implementation but having taken action they are hardly going to take kindly to being told they didn't need to change their cars (which they will already have done) after all.
-
The 'ULEZ martyrs'. ::)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66752082
-
Court case about Glasgow's scheme started. Don't see it being successful.
https://archive.vn/G0qYH
-
Court case about Glasgow's scheme started. Don't see it being successful.
https://archive.vn/G0qYH
And it wasn't
https://www.glasgowworld.com/news/glasgows-lez-deemed-lawful-and-proportionate-following-judicial-review-4393206
-
And it wasn't
https://www.glasgowworld.com/news/glasgows-lez-deemed-lawful-and-proportionate-following-judicial-review-4393206
They are appealing it. Seems mad other than hoping for publicity.
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/scottish-news/24001120.garage-boss-launches-appeal-bid-overturn-unlawful-glasgow-lez/
-
If they had a scheme in the Netherlands, would it be ULEZ Holland?