Yes, the government. They also insisted that the Cumberland Basin system, the last bridge over the Avon, and the Portway were included in the ULEZ.

The ULEZ zones are improving air quality within cities and making the government a load of cash.
If I chose to live in an inner city I would want the air as clean as possible for my children.
Public transport is 24/7 and useable but needs to be made more affordable to use for the masses.

If the money raised from emissions zones is used wisely (which I very much doubt that it is) and put towards improving the city and public transport as well as the environment then I don’t have an I issue.

Where I live public transport doesn’t exist and everyone needs a car, that is the underlying issue. Unless charging is available at home and for a reasonable cost then fossil fuel will remain the only option for most.

Martin S wrote:

Thanks for letting me know all this. I guess it will now give me an excuse to never visit any of my children - who live in London. I won’t be contributing to the economy of any of the LEZ zones and as far as I care they can all rot. I’m a pensioner and how am I supposed to afford a new vehicle that will tow my caravan - my only pleasure in life.

Martin- i agree. Why do we run Freelanders?
For me i tow (i have 2 trailers which i use). I also choose to have a freelander as its great to drive, i maintain it, safe and does what it does well. Also, i like the sound of a ICE vehicle

Can anyone point me to in depth posts about towing with EV and not just towing on the road.

Be careful about EVs...they are mot the only solution and cant you see this is another way to take our money under the name of environmental development which costs us and lots of money is being made on the back of this for others.

For those not aware, these are the words of the Transport minister during a parliamentary debate on the subject and how this corrupt mayor we are stuck with is doing as he want's and ignoring the democratic rights of those that opposed the expansion which was a majority vote against.

"The Mayor of London, however, needs no agreement from the Government to pursue his proposed expansion of ULEZ. He is doing so using powers granted to him under section 295 and schedule 23 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to implement any road schemes that charge users within greater London. He has previously used those powers to introduce the congestion charge, the low emission zone, and the current ultra low emission zone. While he has notified my Department of his intention, he is not obliged to consult us. As hon. Members will also be aware, the Department for Transport will not provide any of the £250 million that the scheme needs in order to be set up"

The debate, if you are interested is on the BBC I player I believe. 2007 TD4 XS The work horse that earns its up keep
2013 SD4 HSE The posh one for towing the caravan
1973 Triumph Stag I bought in 2009 and restored.

You have asserted that there was a majority vote against.

Can you provide details of where and how that vote was carried out, and the result? I'm pretty good at googling stuff, but I am coming up blank on this one. I can find plenty of opinion polls, typically of around 1000 people (in a city of 10 million people) but no voting. The opinion poll results vary hugely.

Based on 10M people a sample of <400 *should* give a reasonably accurate result in a yes/no poll (95% accuracy, 5% margin for error should only require a 385 sample size). Despite this, polls taken just days apart give near exact opposite results:

"Majority in favour"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/poli...97979.html

Poll details

"Majority against"
https://www.cityam.com/half-of-londoners-a...n-of-ulez/

Poll details Current driveway contents:
2021 V60 Cross Country B5
2009 FL2 dog bus and shooting wagon

On Order: 2023 Fisker Ocean Ultra - deposit paid.

My quote was based on the result of the online consultation (reported locally I think) that was set up and then duly ignored. I can't remember the exact figures but it was something like 57% against and 43% for.

The problem is that not enough people took the time to submit a response, now the has hit the fan they are all outraged. Don't get me wrong, something has to be done about the issue but this is not the answer and is just being used as a cash cow at the expense of those who can't afford it. And its not only Londoners picking up the bill for his mistakes, the TFL bail out money is from the money paid in taxes from the whole country.

This is where I copied the Transport Sectary's response from. After watching it on the BBC.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022...issionZone 2007 TD4 XS The work horse that earns its up keep
2013 SD4 HSE The posh one for towing the caravan
1973 Triumph Stag I bought in 2009 and restored.

Milo
It wasn’t a vote but public consultation that went against the proposal for expansion

excessive use of Traffic lights and bus lanes in town/city centres cause more smoke and fuel waste than a decent road through. I live in Scotland and a trip to Edinburgh involves drive to tram terminal car park, walk in rain across next car park full of disabled spaces that are rarely used , wait for tram , get on and travel stop//start , stop/start amongst other wet coats and bags until last stop above the waverly station, walk down in the rain to outside the waverly , get a taxi up to the library where i hope to get my paperwork out of my bag still dry. To return home al the same nonsense in reverse. All because of the nightmare of trying to park in Edinburgh. Then to go to Glasgow, drive in on M8 , turn off junction 16, drive down to John Lewis car park in minutes , get out of car go shopping or your business!! To travel to Glasgow Forte like a new town centre shopping job just turn off M8 two minutes later get out of car and go shopping!! Again , to go to Gaelic School in Glasgow drive in on M8 or M74 turn off junction for SECC, follow sat nav for 5 to 10 minutes depending on buslanes and traffic , pull into school and park and go do your business. Edinburgh that is full of car haters has a dying high street shopping business and just living on tourists. Glasgow that has bulldozed the M8,M74,M77 through the middle of the city keeps things moving much better and the city alive!!

I was reading on Wednesday about the 4 London borough's that are opposing the ULEZ expansion and how they could halt his plans. Its all down to who owns the roads, Khan only has about 5%, this means he has to seek their permission to install cameras, signage and road markings. 2007 TD4 XS The work horse that earns its up keep
2013 SD4 HSE The posh one for towing the caravan
1973 Triumph Stag I bought in 2009 and restored.

That’s interesting Milo, not seen that. Which boroughs are we talking about? Central ones would screw up Khans plans whereas you can imagine it they’re ones on the outskirts he’d simply attempt to re-draw the ULEZ boundary line

Although this thread started as an attack on the London Mayors, I believe that traffic congestion and the half-hearted attempts, over the last few decades, to solve it, is a national problem.
In some ways we are all to blame for the short-sightedness of our visions, as we seem to encourage politicians who promise quick, cheap fixes instead of long term plans.

Our local congestion in Bristol, and the roads around it, has always been there in my lifetime.
Unfortunately all the long term plans at channelling and controlling the traffic with new ring roads or widening the motorways have been started, worked on for some time, then scrapped either partly, or completely. As an example that this is still going on, we have a new junction on the M49 that should lead to the huge distribution warehouses next to docks. It is unusable as it seems the business park developer seems to not want to pay for their share of the linking roads.

Similarly even the local villages and towns have many half finished by-passes where the road has not been finished after the extra houses have been built by the developer.

I believe that planning for the extra traffic and off-street parking should be compulsory with all new builds, and tougher laws to make the developers complete their plans.
We, the general public, have been given the freedom to travel in this last century, and I feel we must find a solution, not ban it, or make it a privilege of the rich.

Sorry to butt into this London discussion, but this is a national problem and won't be solved by changing one man. (Your last mayors contribution to the traffic appears to include a flower covered bridge stpped after £53million spent) FL2 XS SD4 Auto 2010 2012-2017 (21k - 91k miles) (MY2011)
FL2 Metropolis SD4 Auto 2014 2017- (16k - 77k+ miles) (MY2015)
Metro in its 11th Year of (Extended) LR Warranty / Full LR Service History
(Expensive, but Trouble/Worry free - hopefully?)

Sidthecat wrote:

That’s interesting Milo, not seen that. Which boroughs are we talking about? Central ones would screw up Khans plans whereas you can imagine it they’re ones on the outskirts he’d simply attempt to re-draw the ULEZ boundary line

IanMetro wrote:

Although this thread started as an attack on the London Mayors, I believe that traffic congestion and the half-hearted attempts, over the last few decades, to solve it, is a national problem.
In some ways we are all to blame for the short-sightedness of our visions, as we seem to encourage politicians who promise quick, cheap fixes instead of long term plans.

Our local congestion in Bristol, and the roads around it, has always been there in my lifetime.
Unfortunately all the long term plans at channelling and controlling the traffic with new ring roads or widening the motorways have been started, worked on for some time, then scrapped either partly, or completely. As an example that this is still going on, we have a new junction on the M49 that should lead to the huge distribution warehouses next to docks. It is unusable as it seems the business park developer seems to not want to pay for their share of the linking roads.

Similarly even the local villages and towns have many half finished by-passes where the road has not been finished after the extra houses have been built by the developer.

I believe that planning for the extra traffic and off-street parking should be compulsory with all new builds, and tougher laws to make the developers complete their plans.
We, the general public, have been given the freedom to travel in this last century, and I feel we must find a solution, not ban it, or make it a privilege of the rich.

Sorry to butt into this London discussion, but this is a national problem and won't be solved by changing one man. (Your last mayors contribution to the traffic appears to include a flower covered bridge stpped after £53million spent)

Milothedog wrote:

Sidthecat wrote:

That’s interesting Milo, not seen that. Which boroughs are we talking about? Central ones would screw up Khans plans whereas you can imagine it they’re ones on the outskirts he’d simply attempt to re-draw the ULEZ boundary line

I think I read it in the online version of the Evening Standard Sid, the four councils are Hillingdon, Harrow, Croydon and Bexley.

simple answer,buy a classic car, like me,a 1970 mg midget.you can go sanywhere then,no charge