6 ms·

London's Ultra Low Emission Zone to cover entire city

45 points by clouddrover 4y ago

killingtime74 4y ago
12.5 GBP is a laughable sum as a pollution charge. Wonder if work was done to model public health costs as this price. Is it inflation indexed?
- matthewmacleod 4y ago
  I have no idea if you are claiming this amount is too low or too high.
  - danuker 4y ago
    Remains to be seen what happens. It depends on how pollution goes after.
    - oakesm9 4y ago
      This is just an expansion of the existing ULEZ which has had a fairly positive effect since it was introduced in 2016: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/air_quality_in_london_2016-2020_october2020final.pdf https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/air_quality_in...
  - killingtime74 4y ago
    Sry should have been clear, too low. So low it's easy to ignore
    - bbbbb5 4y ago
      Average Londoner earns something like 40k GBP/yr. If they have to pay the congestion charge every day, that'll eat up 12.5% of their annual income. But I agree, it'd be nice if the charge was 100GBP per day and I was the only person on the roads.
      - killingtime74 4y ago
        I think the hope is with the fee on an average day you don't drive and you drive only when you really need it so the proportion of income should be lower and the fee higher to compensate.
- pifm_guy 4y ago
  It's £12.50 per vehicle per day. I doubt that public health costs of a single vehicle used for a single day add up to anywhere near that much - perhaps only 1% or less of that.
paganel 4y ago
A very regressive thing to do, but it’s par for the course for the new liberal elites. The laptop class will swallow it unconditionally, after all what’s wrong with taking a bike or public transport to work? As for the workplaces which do not have decent public transportation nearby and to which it will be physical hell to commute to by bike for many non-20 something very fit people, well, those people should have learned to code when they had the chance. On a more general note, for every strong political action (which this one is) there usually is a reaction just as strong, if not more. I wonder what the reaction to stuff like this will be. A Boris 2.0? An exodus out of London? (where to? there’s where the jobs are). More petty crime?
- Yeahsureok 4y ago
  Owning a car made after 2006 isn't some massive ask, you'll probably find people driving such cars to use public transport far more often anyway.
  - vladvasiliu 4y ago
    It depends. My car was manufactured in 2005. It still works perfectly well, and for how I use it (mostly in the country, but I live in the city), it actually gets better mileage than my dad's 2021 Toyota hybrid. Even if I could afford to buy the 2022 model year of my car, it would still be quite a significant expense and I honestly doubt it would be better for the environment, since I don't drive every day.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- plextoria 4y ago
  Your comment completely disregards the existence of low-emission and EV vehicles. The article mentions that petrol cars registered after 2006 won't need to pay the emissions charge. That's cars that are 16! years old.
  - 4y ago
pifm_guy 4y ago
I support measures to phase out polluting cars, but as a driver I find the cognitive load of figuring out where I can drive and which fees are payable is getting rather high. "Drivers of cars made before 2006 must pre-pay a £12.50 fee online if they drive past this point, or an £80 fine if they forget to go online and pay" Imagine that on a roadsign... That would kinda make sense... But the actual roadsigns look like this:. https://media2.zipcar.com/drupal-presales/files/inline-images/ULEZ-1165678.jpg https://media2.zipcar.com/drupal-presales/files/inline-image... As a driver, will you understand what you have to do if you drive past that sign without lots of local knowledge?
- hankchinaski 4y ago
  Just get a compliant car so you don’t have to worry about where and when to pay
  - pifm_guy 4y ago
    But there are plenty of other unclear road signs that apply to everyone. Eg. "No left turn on school days, except permit holders, except for access". Whose school days? What kind of permit? Where do I have to be going for it to count as "access"? Do I need documentary evidence of the access, for example a receipt from a shop down that road? Left turns may not be allowed, but are u-turns allowed? How about driving 50m past, u-turning, then turning right? Am I allowed to stop the car to look up the school dates on my phone? Or would I then be stopping in a no stopping zone? Driving anywhere unfamiliar around London as a non-taxi-driver seems fraught with fines despite a driver's honest best efforts to stick to the rules.
    - dabeeeenster 4y ago
      I live in London. I've never, ever seen a sign like this. There are confusing parking signs, I will admit, but if you can provide evidence of the sign you refer to I would love to see it!
      - 4y ago
rajman187 4y ago
Interesting time to introduce a measure that effectively means needing to buy a new car for taking kids to school, getting groceries, etc. given that the economy is tanking and for all intents and purposes the country is facing a long recession
- misterpurple45 4y ago
  Behavioural change is a key part of these schemes. Kids walking to school, families getting groceries delivered, or picking up groceries by foot on the walk home from the bus are all viable low-cost options in London.
- dabeeeenster 4y ago
  You don't need to buy a new car. The ULEZ standards are pretty relaxed.
- matsemann 4y ago
  Or do without a car..? I'm quite confused about how car centric one's world view must be to not even entertain the idea of not using one for all these daily things?
  - rajman187 4y ago
    You overestimate the public transportation. If you live in the middle of nowhere on the outskirts of Epsom, or deep in some residential neighborhood in Surbiton, you’d have to walk 2+ miles just to reach a bus stop, and then a long journey to get to school.
    - CalRobert 4y ago
      A good reason to build bike infra.
    - matsemann 4y ago
      Then long term people should stop living places like that and assume they still can take a car to the middle of the city for every small thing. That's kinda the point: disincentives, that will make people think twice about how they choose to live.
nbevans 4y ago
The mayor described it as step towards "Singapore-style" road pricing and went further in setting a target goal to copy the whole Singapore set-up for road pricing. Which is an interesting U-turn from the cacophony of outrage between 2016-2019 when it was suggested that the UK should adopt a Singapore-style trade and tax policy. Bit by bit...
mFixman 4y ago
I strongly support this policy, but I worry that it will be struck down in the courts. The government of London attempted to subsidise public transport in the 1980s, but that was considered illegal after the council of the London Borough of Bromley argued that a public transit tax would be unfair since the Tube doesn't reach that far. I could see a similar challenge happening today.
- knorker 4y ago
  But here the money would go to buses, right, which should go that far?
DeathArrow 4y ago
The whales swimming in Thames will thank Mr Mayor for thinking of them. Also the penguins.
gryf 4y ago
This is good news. The complainants however need to get realistic. I drive a 2014 vehicle which is exempt from this regulation entirely and there is no daily charge. I bought it in 2017 knowing full well that this was going to happen. It's a modest 1.0L 3-cyl petrol. It's comfortable, cheap to run and has a decent safety rating. The problem is really that people have got used to buying oversize, overpowered luxury vehicles when they really need to either not bother and use public transport or downsize to something with less of an environmental impact. My neighbour has a 4.8L Porsche Cayenne. No one needs one of those on this planet and wanting one is no longer an excuse to own one.
- rosnd 4y ago
  A big problem is that there are no good small cars available. I want a small car with an interior comparable with that of the S-class, does not exist. Closest thing is the 911, which is still quite wide and not all that comfortable. If I want an "appropriate" sized car for London, I'll have to drive some shitbox.
  - tromp 4y ago
    > I want a small car with an interior comparable with that of the S-class Yes, building a small car with a large interior remains a challenge...
    - rosnd 4y ago
      The interior size isn't the problem, it's the interior quality. A Toyota corolla has way more than enough interior space if you remove the rear seats.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - gryf 4y ago
    That interior adds mass and you need a bigger engine to lug it around. That's exactly what needs to go away.
mothsonasloth 4y ago
Perhaps it's me but I have been stung so many times with these controlled zones. Dartford crossing, London - forgot to pay Heathrow drop off - forgot to pay ULEZ Old Street - forgot to pay Mersey Gateway bridge, Liverpool - forgot to pay It seems like a deliberate design pattern to make revenue. I can't exactly login and pay whilst driving.
- matsemann 4y ago
  Or a design pattern to make you consider if you actually need to drive all those instances?
- knorker 4y ago
  I guess it's like turn signals: If you can't do it right, then just don't drive.
- walthamstow 4y ago
  All of the TFL ones can be paid at any point up to three days after driving into the zone. That's plenty of time. Others are probably the same.
sbuk 4y ago
Suggest changing link to https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/ulez-expansion-2023 https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/ule... which contains more information
- mellosouls 4y ago
  The BBC article I think is better; the TFL has a dog in the fight. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-63754724 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-63754724
T-zex 4y ago
It is going to bite most of the families. Chip shortage impacts new car deliveries which in turn is driving up used car prices. It is a very bad time to upgrade your car if don't want to invest in a brand new car.
- iso1631 4y ago
  It already applies inside the north/south circular, and most people do not own 15 year old cars.
- pastacacioepepe 4y ago
  It's a very good time to drop your car altogheter though. You'll save lots of money, have an healthier and more active lifestyle, plus there are plenty of cheap last-mile vehicles available to supplement lacking public transportation.
verisimi 4y ago
The government used our taxes to build all the roads. Now they are using our taxes to get drivers off them. What wheeze will they come up with next?
walthamstow 4y ago
If you're not from London, please be aware before commenting that poor Londoners do not drive cars. In Hackney, for example, which is already in the zone and has been for at least a few years, >70% of households do not have a car.
- blowski 4y ago
  I imagine car ownership is lower amongst poorer groups in London, but there are still many poor Londoners who drive. Some need it for work (cleaners, carers), others for special requirements, such as those with reduced mobility.
  - walthamstow 4y ago
    Blue badge holders with a disabled tax status are exempt from the ULEZ until 2027
plodman 4y ago
With the cost of living crisis, this isn't going to help anyone. How does taking more money away from those with un-environmentally friendly cars help them afford to replace them? What does this money go towards in terms of offsetting the environmental damage done by these cars? How would people feel if the money paid into these schemes went towards money off newer, more environmentally friendly cars? I believe there was a government scheme for this, but I think it ended earlier this year.
- CalRobert 4y ago
  Considering the location perhaps they could use public transport instead.
- pastacacioepepe 4y ago
  I dont think replacing cars with newer models is the solution. Even EVs are unsustainable to mass produce. Given our world population, there is no sustainable future where people can privately own cars, period. The sooner we accept it and we start working on alternatives, the Better.
IanOzsvald 4y ago
I did some checking and found it hard to get clear numbers. It seems that the majority of cars in London will be compliant but the majority of vans will not be, so business is affected over private households. The scrappage ("upgrade") scheme applies to non compliant cars and vans, with a focus on low incomes, charity and small businesses, it starts in January and feels reasonably generous: https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/scrappage-schemes https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/scrappage-schemes The scheme pays more if you replace an ICE with an EV or take a public transport pass which further supports the goal of improving London's air. As a London resident, parent and driver I'm strongly supportive of improving our air.
DeathArrow 4y ago
I don't know the laws in UK, but I'm amazed a mayor can announce a measure affecting millions of people without even a public consultation of those affected.
- matthewmacleod 4y ago
  Like with all TFL operations, there was a pretty extensive public consultation with lots of supporting material. Why would you assume otherwise? https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/cleanair https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/cleanair
- mellosouls 4y ago
  There was a public consultation which was apparently ignored - up to 80% voted against the measures, according to the BBC, linked in my other comment. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33763291 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33763291
mellosouls 4y ago
From the BBC article, this seems like an extraordinarily undemocratic decision: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-63754724 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-63754724 "Some 60% of those who responded to the public consultation into the expansion plans were opposed to it, with 70% of residents in Outer London against the idea, and 80% of workers in Outer London opposed."
- walthamstow 4y ago
  Khan won his re-election by 10 points on a platform that included extending the ULEZ.
  - mellosouls 4y ago
    "that included" The consultation was on the ULEZ expansion only. Without more context justifying the dismissal of the consultation, this is clearly an undemocratic move.
    - walthamstow 4y ago
      What's so democratic about a consultation? They suffer from self selection bias and are easily gamed by orgs like the LTDA. Elections are how we decide how to run the city. Khan said he was going to extend it, he won handsomely, and now he's extending it. I don't know how you can call that "extraordinarily undemocratic" unless you have an agenda.
      - mellosouls 4y ago
        unless you have an agenda. Please assume good faith - I could obviously have made the same accusation to you. Given you've thrown the first stone though I think you should consider your own possible biases. For mine: I support extending the ULEZ but not when it is done in such an arrogant, undemocratic way. My bias is for reducing pollution but against the undermining of the voices of people involved in local decisions - especially when, as here, they are explicitly asked. My questioning of the decision therefore seems consistent with the context and free of "agenda"; your response rather less so.

45 points by clouddrover 4y ago

12.5 GBP is a laughable sum as a pollution charge. Wonder if work was done to model public health costs as this price. Is it inflation indexed?

matthewmacleod 4y ago
I have no idea if you are claiming this amount is too low or too high.
- danuker 4y ago
  Remains to be seen what happens. It depends on how pollution goes after.
  - oakesm9 4y ago
    This is just an expansion of the existing ULEZ which has had a fairly positive effect since it was introduced in 2016: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/air_quality_in_london_2016-2020_october2020final.pdf https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/air_quality_in...
- killingtime74 4y ago
  Sry should have been clear, too low. So low it's easy to ignore
  - bbbbb5 4y ago
    Average Londoner earns something like 40k GBP/yr. If they have to pay the congestion charge every day, that'll eat up 12.5% of their annual income. But I agree, it'd be nice if the charge was 100GBP per day and I was the only person on the roads.
    - killingtime74 4y ago
      I think the hope is with the fee on an average day you don't drive and you drive only when you really need it so the proportion of income should be lower and the fee higher to compensate.
pifm_guy 4y ago
It's £12.50 per vehicle per day. I doubt that public health costs of a single vehicle used for a single day add up to anywhere near that much - perhaps only 1% or less of that.

paganel 4y ago

A very regressive thing to do, but it’s par for the course for the new liberal elites. The laptop class will swallow it unconditionally, after all what’s wrong with taking a bike or public transport to work? As for the workplaces which do not have decent public transportation nearby and to which it will be physical hell to commute to by bike for many non-20 something very fit people, well, those people should have learned to code when they had the chance. On a more general note, for every strong political action (which this one is) there usually is a reaction just as strong, if not more. I wonder what the reaction to stuff like this will be. A Boris 2.0? An exodus out of London? (where to? there’s where the jobs are). More petty crime?

Yeahsureok 4y ago
Owning a car made after 2006 isn't some massive ask, you'll probably find people driving such cars to use public transport far more often anyway.
- vladvasiliu 4y ago
  It depends. My car was manufactured in 2005. It still works perfectly well, and for how I use it (mostly in the country, but I live in the city), it actually gets better mileage than my dad's 2021 Toyota hybrid. Even if I could afford to buy the 2022 model year of my car, it would still be quite a significant expense and I honestly doubt it would be better for the environment, since I don't drive every day.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
plextoria 4y ago
Your comment completely disregards the existence of low-emission and EV vehicles. The article mentions that petrol cars registered after 2006 won't need to pay the emissions charge. That's cars that are 16! years old.
- 4y ago

pifm_guy 4y ago

I support measures to phase out polluting cars, but as a driver I find the cognitive load of figuring out where I can drive and which fees are payable is getting rather high. "Drivers of cars made before 2006 must pre-pay a £12.50 fee online if they drive past this point, or an £80 fine if they forget to go online and pay" Imagine that on a roadsign... That would kinda make sense... But the actual roadsigns look like this:. https://media2.zipcar.com/drupal-presales/files/inline-images/ULEZ-1165678.jpg https://media2.zipcar.com/drupal-presales/files/inline-image... As a driver, will you understand what you have to do if you drive past that sign without lots of local knowledge?

hankchinaski 4y ago
Just get a compliant car so you don’t have to worry about where and when to pay
- pifm_guy 4y ago
  But there are plenty of other unclear road signs that apply to everyone. Eg. "No left turn on school days, except permit holders, except for access". Whose school days? What kind of permit? Where do I have to be going for it to count as "access"? Do I need documentary evidence of the access, for example a receipt from a shop down that road? Left turns may not be allowed, but are u-turns allowed? How about driving 50m past, u-turning, then turning right? Am I allowed to stop the car to look up the school dates on my phone? Or would I then be stopping in a no stopping zone? Driving anywhere unfamiliar around London as a non-taxi-driver seems fraught with fines despite a driver's honest best efforts to stick to the rules.
  - dabeeeenster 4y ago
    I live in London. I've never, ever seen a sign like this. There are confusing parking signs, I will admit, but if you can provide evidence of the sign you refer to I would love to see it!
    - 4y ago

rajman187 4y ago

Interesting time to introduce a measure that effectively means needing to buy a new car for taking kids to school, getting groceries, etc. given that the economy is tanking and for all intents and purposes the country is facing a long recession

misterpurple45 4y ago
Behavioural change is a key part of these schemes. Kids walking to school, families getting groceries delivered, or picking up groceries by foot on the walk home from the bus are all viable low-cost options in London.
dabeeeenster 4y ago
You don't need to buy a new car. The ULEZ standards are pretty relaxed.
matsemann 4y ago
Or do without a car..? I'm quite confused about how car centric one's world view must be to not even entertain the idea of not using one for all these daily things?
- rajman187 4y ago
  You overestimate the public transportation. If you live in the middle of nowhere on the outskirts of Epsom, or deep in some residential neighborhood in Surbiton, you’d have to walk 2+ miles just to reach a bus stop, and then a long journey to get to school.
  - CalRobert 4y ago
    A good reason to build bike infra.
  - matsemann 4y ago
    Then long term people should stop living places like that and assume they still can take a car to the middle of the city for every small thing. That's kinda the point: disincentives, that will make people think twice about how they choose to live.

nbevans 4y ago

The mayor described it as step towards "Singapore-style" road pricing and went further in setting a target goal to copy the whole Singapore set-up for road pricing. Which is an interesting U-turn from the cacophony of outrage between 2016-2019 when it was suggested that the UK should adopt a Singapore-style trade and tax policy. Bit by bit...

mFixman 4y ago

I strongly support this policy, but I worry that it will be struck down in the courts. The government of London attempted to subsidise public transport in the 1980s, but that was considered illegal after the council of the London Borough of Bromley argued that a public transit tax would be unfair since the Tube doesn't reach that far. I could see a similar challenge happening today.

knorker 4y ago
But here the money would go to buses, right, which should go that far?

DeathArrow 4y ago

The whales swimming in Thames will thank Mr Mayor for thinking of them. Also the penguins.

gryf 4y ago

This is good news. The complainants however need to get realistic. I drive a 2014 vehicle which is exempt from this regulation entirely and there is no daily charge. I bought it in 2017 knowing full well that this was going to happen. It's a modest 1.0L 3-cyl petrol. It's comfortable, cheap to run and has a decent safety rating. The problem is really that people have got used to buying oversize, overpowered luxury vehicles when they really need to either not bother and use public transport or downsize to something with less of an environmental impact. My neighbour has a 4.8L Porsche Cayenne. No one needs one of those on this planet and wanting one is no longer an excuse to own one.

rosnd 4y ago
A big problem is that there are no good small cars available. I want a small car with an interior comparable with that of the S-class, does not exist. Closest thing is the 911, which is still quite wide and not all that comfortable. If I want an "appropriate" sized car for London, I'll have to drive some shitbox.
- tromp 4y ago
  > I want a small car with an interior comparable with that of the S-class Yes, building a small car with a large interior remains a challenge...
  - rosnd 4y ago
    The interior size isn't the problem, it's the interior quality. A Toyota corolla has way more than enough interior space if you remove the rear seats.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- gryf 4y ago
  That interior adds mass and you need a bigger engine to lug it around. That's exactly what needs to go away.

mothsonasloth 4y ago

Perhaps it's me but I have been stung so many times with these controlled zones. Dartford crossing, London - forgot to pay Heathrow drop off - forgot to pay ULEZ Old Street - forgot to pay Mersey Gateway bridge, Liverpool - forgot to pay It seems like a deliberate design pattern to make revenue. I can't exactly login and pay whilst driving.

matsemann 4y ago
Or a design pattern to make you consider if you actually need to drive all those instances?
knorker 4y ago
I guess it's like turn signals: If you can't do it right, then just don't drive.
walthamstow 4y ago
All of the TFL ones can be paid at any point up to three days after driving into the zone. That's plenty of time. Others are probably the same.

sbuk 4y ago

Suggest changing link to https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/ulez-expansion-2023 https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/ule... which contains more information

mellosouls 4y ago
The BBC article I think is better; the TFL has a dog in the fight. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-63754724 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-63754724

T-zex 4y ago

It is going to bite most of the families. Chip shortage impacts new car deliveries which in turn is driving up used car prices. It is a very bad time to upgrade your car if don't want to invest in a brand new car.

iso1631 4y ago
It already applies inside the north/south circular, and most people do not own 15 year old cars.
pastacacioepepe 4y ago
It's a very good time to drop your car altogheter though. You'll save lots of money, have an healthier and more active lifestyle, plus there are plenty of cheap last-mile vehicles available to supplement lacking public transportation.

verisimi 4y ago

The government used our taxes to build all the roads. Now they are using our taxes to get drivers off them. What wheeze will they come up with next?

walthamstow 4y ago

If you're not from London, please be aware before commenting that poor Londoners do not drive cars. In Hackney, for example, which is already in the zone and has been for at least a few years, >70% of households do not have a car.

blowski 4y ago
I imagine car ownership is lower amongst poorer groups in London, but there are still many poor Londoners who drive. Some need it for work (cleaners, carers), others for special requirements, such as those with reduced mobility.
- walthamstow 4y ago
  Blue badge holders with a disabled tax status are exempt from the ULEZ until 2027

plodman 4y ago

With the cost of living crisis, this isn't going to help anyone. How does taking more money away from those with un-environmentally friendly cars help them afford to replace them? What does this money go towards in terms of offsetting the environmental damage done by these cars? How would people feel if the money paid into these schemes went towards money off newer, more environmentally friendly cars? I believe there was a government scheme for this, but I think it ended earlier this year.

CalRobert 4y ago
Considering the location perhaps they could use public transport instead.
pastacacioepepe 4y ago
I dont think replacing cars with newer models is the solution. Even EVs are unsustainable to mass produce. Given our world population, there is no sustainable future where people can privately own cars, period. The sooner we accept it and we start working on alternatives, the Better.

IanOzsvald 4y ago

I did some checking and found it hard to get clear numbers. It seems that the majority of cars in London will be compliant but the majority of vans will not be, so business is affected over private households. The scrappage ("upgrade") scheme applies to non compliant cars and vans, with a focus on low incomes, charity and small businesses, it starts in January and feels reasonably generous: https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/scrappage-schemes https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/scrappage-schemes The scheme pays more if you replace an ICE with an EV or take a public transport pass which further supports the goal of improving London's air. As a London resident, parent and driver I'm strongly supportive of improving our air.

DeathArrow 4y ago

I don't know the laws in UK, but I'm amazed a mayor can announce a measure affecting millions of people without even a public consultation of those affected.

matthewmacleod 4y ago
Like with all TFL operations, there was a pretty extensive public consultation with lots of supporting material. Why would you assume otherwise? https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/cleanair https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/cleanair
mellosouls 4y ago
There was a public consultation which was apparently ignored - up to 80% voted against the measures, according to the BBC, linked in my other comment. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33763291 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33763291

mellosouls 4y ago

From the BBC article, this seems like an extraordinarily undemocratic decision: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-63754724 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-63754724 "Some 60% of those who responded to the public consultation into the expansion plans were opposed to it, with 70% of residents in Outer London against the idea, and 80% of workers in Outer London opposed."

walthamstow 4y ago
Khan won his re-election by 10 points on a platform that included extending the ULEZ.
- mellosouls 4y ago
  "that included" The consultation was on the ULEZ expansion only. Without more context justifying the dismissal of the consultation, this is clearly an undemocratic move.
  - walthamstow 4y ago
    What's so democratic about a consultation? They suffer from self selection bias and are easily gamed by orgs like the LTDA. Elections are how we decide how to run the city. Khan said he was going to extend it, he won handsomely, and now he's extending it. I don't know how you can call that "extraordinarily undemocratic" unless you have an agenda.
    - mellosouls 4y ago
      unless you have an agenda. Please assume good faith - I could obviously have made the same accusation to you. Given you've thrown the first stone though I think you should consider your own possible biases. For mine: I support extending the ULEZ but not when it is done in such an arrogant, undemocratic way. My bias is for reducing pollution but against the undermining of the voices of people involved in local decisions - especially when, as here, they are explicitly asked. My questioning of the decision therefore seems consistent with the context and free of "agenda"; your response rather less so.