Finally got around to watching a C5 program about the state of britains
railways. One section was measuring pollution on the tube. The pm2.5 levels
were 32x higher ion one part of the victoria line than the WHO recommended
amount.

I wonder why we haven't seen Ickle Sadiq commenting on that when he talks about
how air pollution and his amazing ULEZ.

In message <uvir8e$6uel$1@dont-email.me>, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes
>Finally got around to watching a C5 program about the state of britains
>railways. One section was measuring pollution on the tube. The pm2.5 levels
>were 32x higher ion one part of the victoria line than the WHO recommended
>amount.
>
>I wonder why we haven't seen Ickle Sadiq commenting on that when he talks about
>how air pollution and his amazing ULEZ.
>
One of the London mayoral candidates, if elected, promises to scrap ULEZ
(maybe only the extended part?). Apparently measurements indicate a
significant reduction in pollution (which will justify its
implementation), but are not being released until after the elections.
--
Ian
Aims and ambitions are neither attainments nor achievements

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 15:53:39 +0100
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <uvir8e$6uel$1@dont-email.me>, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes
>>Finally got around to watching a C5 program about the state of britains
>>railways. One section was measuring pollution on the tube. The pm2.5 levels
>>were 32x higher ion one part of the victoria line than the WHO recommended
>>amount.
>>
>>I wonder why we haven't seen Ickle Sadiq commenting on that when he talks
>about
>>how air pollution and his amazing ULEZ.
>>
>One of the London mayoral candidates, if elected, promises to scrap ULEZ
>(maybe only the extended part?). Apparently measurements indicate a
>significant reduction in pollution (which will justify its
>implementation), but are not being released until after the elections.

Its a win-win for Sadiq as older more polluting cars are naturally disappearing
from the roads anyway with diesel numbers plummeting so even if the ULEZ hasn't
actually done much it'll look like it has.

The thing that pisses me off is he bangs on about air pollution but when anyone
mentions the horrendous air pollution in the tube - so bad you can actually
see the haze in the lights of the trains on some deep level lines - he just
gives some stock response and bats the question away.

In message <uvm3r5$10k2j$1@dont-email.me>, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
writes
>On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 15:53:39 +0100
>Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <uvir8e$6uel$1@dont-email.me>, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes
>>>Finally got around to watching a C5 program about the state of britains
>>>railways. One section was measuring pollution on the tube. The pm2.5 levels
>>>were 32x higher ion one part of the victoria line than the WHO recommended
>>>amount.
>>>
>>>I wonder why we haven't seen Ickle Sadiq commenting on that when he talks
>>about
>>>how air pollution and his amazing ULEZ.
>>>
>>One of the London mayoral candidates, if elected, promises to scrap ULEZ
>>(maybe only the extended part?). Apparently measurements indicate a
>>significant reduction in pollution (which will justify its
>>implementation), but are not being released until after the elections.
>
>Its a win-win for Sadiq as older more polluting cars are naturally disappearing
>from the roads anyway with diesel numbers plummeting so even if the ULEZ hasn't
>actually done much it'll look like it has.

I wonder what they are going to tax when essentially every vehicle is
compliant?
>
>The thing that pisses me off is he bangs on about air pollution but when anyone
>mentions the horrendous air pollution in the tube - so bad you can actually
>see the haze in the lights of the trains on some deep level lines - he just
>gives some stock response and bats the question away.
>
Before the expansion of ULEZ, one of the pollution websites usually
rated most of Greater London as '2' (with, on some days, a very
occasional '3' where you might sometimes expect it to be a bit higher -
eg under he flightpaths for Heathrow). However, most of the rest of the
UK was also usually '2' - even the outer Hebrides and Shetland.
--
Ian
Aims and ambitions are neither attainments nor achievements

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 16:29:32 +0100
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <uvm3r5$10k2j$1@dont-email.me>, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>writes
>>Its a win-win for Sadiq as older more polluting cars are naturally
>disappearing
>>from the roads anyway with diesel numbers plummeting so even if the ULEZ
>hasn't
>>actually done much it'll look like it has.
>
>I wonder what they are going to tax when essentially every vehicle is
>compliant?

Pay to use road charging. He's already discussed it a few times.

>>The thing that pisses me off is he bangs on about air pollution but when
>anyone
>>mentions the horrendous air pollution in the tube - so bad you can actually
>>see the haze in the lights of the trains on some deep level lines - he just
>>gives some stock response and bats the question away.
>>
>Before the expansion of ULEZ, one of the pollution websites usually
>rated most of Greater London as '2' (with, on some days, a very
>occasional '3' where you might sometimes expect it to be a bit higher -
>eg under he flightpaths for Heathrow). However, most of the rest of the
>UK was also usually '2' - even the outer Hebrides and Shetland.

No one apart from the most deluded green zealots believes ULEZ is anything other
than a revenue raising system to help fill in the financial black hole at TfL.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 15:53:39 +0100
> Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <uvir8e$6uel$1@dont-email.me>, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes
>>> Finally got around to watching a C5 program about the state of britains
>>> railways. One section was measuring pollution on the tube. The pm2.5 levels
>>> were 32x higher ion one part of the victoria line than the WHO recommended
>>> amount.
>>>
>>> I wonder why we haven't seen Ickle Sadiq commenting on that when he talks
>> about
>>> how air pollution and his amazing ULEZ.
>>>
>> One of the London mayoral candidates, if elected, promises to scrap ULEZ
>> (maybe only the extended part?). Apparently measurements indicate a
>> significant reduction in pollution (which will justify its
>> implementation), but are not being released until after the elections.
>
> Its a win-win for Sadiq as older more polluting cars are naturally disappearing
> from the roads anyway with diesel numbers plummeting so even if the ULEZ hasn't
> actually done much it'll look like it has.

I suspect that you're one of the people who replaced his polluting old car
because of the expanded ULEZ, so his scheme is working.

>
> The thing that pisses me off is he bangs on about air pollution but when anyone
> mentions the horrendous air pollution in the tube - so bad you can actually
> see the haze in the lights of the trains on some deep level lines - he just
> gives some stock response and bats the question away.

So what do you suggest he does about Tube tunnel pollution levels?

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 16:29:32 +0100
> Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <uvm3r5$10k2j$1@dont-email.me>, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>> writes
>>> Its a win-win for Sadiq as older more polluting cars are naturally
>> disappearing
>>> from the roads anyway with diesel numbers plummeting so even if the ULEZ
>> hasn't
>>> actually done much it'll look like it has.
>>
>> I wonder what they are going to tax when essentially every vehicle is
>> compliant?
>
> Pay to use road charging. He's already discussed it a few times.

He's also said he's instructed TfL that he won't be implementing it. But,
sooner or later, the government will have to do it.

>
>>> The thing that pisses me off is he bangs on about air pollution but when
>> anyone
>>> mentions the horrendous air pollution in the tube - so bad you can actually
>>> see the haze in the lights of the trains on some deep level lines - he just
>>> gives some stock response and bats the question away.
>>>
>> Before the expansion of ULEZ, one of the pollution websites usually
>> rated most of Greater London as '2' (with, on some days, a very
>> occasional '3' where you might sometimes expect it to be a bit higher -
>> eg under he flightpaths for Heathrow). However, most of the rest of the
>> UK was also usually '2' - even the outer Hebrides and Shetland.
>
> No one apart from the most deluded green zealots believes ULEZ is anything other
> than a revenue raising system to help fill in the financial black hole at TfL.

Make your mind up: you've just said that the old, polluting vehicles are
rapidly being replaced by cleaner, new ones. How does that fill the TfL's
financial black hole?

In message <EG1MRJJclpHmFwrY@brattleho.plus.com>, at 16:29:32 on Tue, 16
Apr 2024, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> remarked:

>>>One of the London mayoral candidates, if elected, promises to scrap ULEZ
>>>(maybe only the extended part?). Apparently measurements indicate a
>>>significant reduction in pollution (which will justify its
>>>implementation), but are not being released until after the elections.
>>
>>Its a win-win for Sadiq as older more polluting cars are naturally disappearing
>>from the roads anyway with diesel numbers plummeting so even if the ULEZ hasn't
>>actually done much it'll look like it has.
>
>I wonder what they are going to tax when essentially every vehicle is
>compliant?

Simply being there: aka Congestion Charge.

I have to admit I took my previous non-ULEZ compliant car right into the
centre (parked it at London Bridge) and while paying the ULEZ fee, its
presence didn't register on their cameras and hence trigger a Congestion
Charge - which I'd have paid had they deemed it necessary.
--
Roland Perry