---quote---
Van emission charge plan halted

Plans to extend a scheme preventing high polluting vehicles entering
London have been shelved by the city's mayor.

An expansion of London's Low Emission Zone (LEZ) would have seen
owners of heavily polluting vans and minibuses fined up to £500 a day
by October 2010.

Mayor Boris Johnson pulled the plug as he said it could damage
businesses already suffering in the recession.

Green Party London Assembly member Darren Johnson said it was
"condemning Londoners to more premature deaths".
[...]
The next phase would require owners of smaller vehicles such as vans
and minibuses to meet the same standards.
---/quote---

More from BBC News online:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7866967.stm

The press release from the Mayor's office (via the TfL website):
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/11096.aspx

Boris' public angle is that this is about providing a reprieve during
the recession. I think he should have had the guts to push on with it
- schemes like this are a stick with which change can be foisted in.
They also provide an impetus to develop and deploy less polluting
technologies - this is one of the areas that Britain really could and
should embrace - furthermore we should be aiming to become pioneering
experts in the field, and build new businesses on the back of that,
something which would in turn help to rebuild our economy.

Instead I think the Mayor has acted in a narrow and short-sighted
manner, and whilst I don't discount that there might be some
potentially adverse economic effects of phase 3 of the LEZ I think his
choice to emphasise this provides something of a smokescreen to
distract attention away from the fact that this is far more about
narrow political concerns.

Rather than just subscribing to the path of least resistance Boris
should have the balls to show some real leadership, challenge the
status quo and have a stab at changing the world. Not impressed at all
that he wimped out of this - what's more didn't his manifesto say he
was fully committed to the LEZ?

Mizter T wrote:
---quote---


Rather than just subscribing to the path of least resistance Boris
should have the balls to show some real leadership, challenge the
status quo and have a stab at changing the world. Not impressed at all
that he wimped out of this - what's more didn't his manifesto say he
was fully committed to the LEZ?

Rule #94 of blinkered commentators: 'The left don't stick to their
manifestos, even if they do. The right stick to their manifestos even
if they don't'.

I expect he'll argue that he was committed to the *current* LEZ. No,
I'm not impressed, at every single opportunity he's had to demonstrate a
break with pro-car policies he's failed, which is either because he
hasn't got the balls or because he genuinely feels the individual needs
motorists have an overriding importance over the social needs of cities.
Great qualifications for a motoring journalist, but not a 21st century
Mayor. I suspect he tunes out anything but the voice of motorists, whom
he believes are a persecuted majority. He wants to be liked by
everybody, and that psychological need prevents him standing up to
people close to him on the political side, which is a shame since
they're incompetent. Witness his mooching about the Thames Estuary -
that's not Boris's fault, it's Kit Malthouse. Likewise the anti-public
transport policies are the highly inexperienced Kulveer Ranger's doing.

It's not like he's not got good green advice on tap, his Environment
Advisor Isobel Dedring must be doing her nut by now.

On the bright side, Peter Hendy comes across very well as usual in an
article in the Standard. With any luck Andrew Gilligan might look up
from his wikipedia entry
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andrew_Gilligan) and tear the rest of
his hair out. Winds of change are blowing...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...Ken/article.do

Tom

On 3 Feb, 16:03, Tom Barry wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

Rather than just subscribing to the path of least resistance Boris
should have the balls to show some real leadership, challenge the
status quo and have a stab at changing the world. Not impressed at all
that he wimped out of this - what's more didn't his manifesto say he
was fully committed to the LEZ?

Rule #94 of blinkered commentators: 'The left don't stick to their
manifestos, even if they do. *The right stick to their manifestos even
if they don't'.

I expect he'll argue that he was committed to the *current* LEZ.

That's basically what went through my mind too. My recollection of the
manifesto commitment is that it essentially read just like that - i.e.
'committed to the LEZ' - which is vague enough to allow for plenty of
wriggle room. I've got copies of the rather threadbare mini-
manifesto's that appeared on the BackBoris website saved somewhere,
just not quite sure where! I'll try and dig them out.

No,
I'm not impressed, at every single opportunity he's had to demonstrate
a break with pro-car policies he's failed, which is either because he
hasn't got the balls or because he genuinely feels the individual needs
motorists have an overriding importance over the social needs of cities.
* Great qualifications for a motoring journalist, but not a 21st century
Mayor. *I suspect he tunes out anything but the voice of motorists, whom
he believes are a persecuted majority. *He wants to be liked by
everybody, and that psychological need prevents him standing up to
people close to him on the political side, which is a shame since
they're incompetent. *Witness his mooching about the Thames Estuary -
that's not Boris's fault, it's Kit Malthouse. *Likewise the anti-public
transport policies are the highly inexperienced Kulveer Ranger's doing.

It's not like he's not got good green advice on tap, his Environment
Advisor Isobel Dedring must be doing her nut by now.

Indeed, I can't help but think this is the work of 'Team Boris' as
opposed to Boris himself - and Team Boris seems to be a rather
politically timid animal.


On the bright side, Peter Hendy comes across very well as usual in an
article in the Standard. *With any luck Andrew Gilligan might look up
from his wikipedia entry
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andrew_Gilligan) and tear the rest of
his hair out. *Winds of change are blowing...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...-details/I+do+...

Interesting piece, almost feel as though he might said a bit too much
though! The Standard managed to make a headline out of a definitive
statement that Hendy didn't quite make, but hey that's how newspapers
work. Lots I could pick up on there, but the comments regarding both
the upcoming £60 million gap in the budget caused by the scrapping of
the western extension of the congestion charge, along with his widely
known annoyance with ex-Mayor Ken for freezing fares that led to an
£80 million gap in the budget perhaps demonstrate a somewhat plain
speaking manner. Anyway I won't do some deep analysis of everything he
apparently said, instead I'll just say that like others I'm very glad
he's still the top man at TfL. I've a feeling that had Peter Parker
become Chair of TfL things might have worked out rather differently -
and for 'differently' read worse!

Oh, and the Gilligan wikipedia sockpuppeting stuff all looks rather
involved! I take it that there seems to be a fair chance that Mr
Gilligan has been changing his own entry and pretending he's someone
else. Can't say I find it that surprising, but I guess it would also
serve to show the make of the man. Gilligan does seem like a somewhat
slippery character.

But I digress from the matter in hand - and let us not loose sight of
that through the smog - which is the LEZ, and the promise of cleaner
air for London.

"Mizter T" wrote:

---quote---
Van emission charge plan halted

Plans to extend a scheme preventing high polluting vehicles entering
London have been shelved by the city's mayor.

An expansion of London's Low Emission Zone (LEZ) would have seen
owners of heavily polluting vans and minibuses fined up to £500 a day
by October 2010.

Mayor Boris Johnson pulled the plug as he said it could damage
businesses already suffering in the recession.

Green Party London Assembly member Darren Johnson said it was
"condemning Londoners to more premature deaths".
[...]
The next phase would require owners of smaller vehicles such as vans
and minibuses to meet the same standards.

Good news. Small businesses don't need further financial burdens at this
time.

Presumably Darren Johnson is unconcerned with the emissions caused by the
vehicle manufacturing industry, and the 'premature deaths' this causes.

The best way to reduce pollution is to reduce consumption. You don't do that
by (effectively) condemning serviceable vehicles to the automotive graveyard
and insisting struggling businesses buy new ones.

Chris

On 3 Feb, 20:29, "Chris Read" wrote:

"Mizter T" wrote:

---quote---
Van emission charge plan halted
Plans to extend a scheme preventing high polluting vehicles entering
London have been shelved by the city's mayor.
An expansion of London's Low Emission Zone (LEZ) would have seen
owners of heavily polluting vans and minibuses fined up to £500 a day
by October 2010.
Mayor Boris Johnson pulled the plug as he said it could damage
businesses already suffering in the recession.
Green Party London Assembly member Darren Johnson said it was
"condemning Londoners to more premature deaths".
[...]
The next phase would require owners of smaller vehicles such as vans
and minibuses to meet the same standards.

Good news. Small businesses don't need further financial burdens at this
time.

Presumably Darren Johnson is unconcerned with the emissions caused by the
vehicle manufacturing industry, and the 'premature deaths' this causes.

The best way to reduce pollution is to reduce consumption. You don't do that
by (effectively) condemning serviceable vehicles to the automotive graveyard
and insisting struggling businesses buy new ones.

Chris

As I'm sure you either know or are capable of guessing Darren Johnson
is concerned with the whole horizon of emissions (to coin a rather
terrible phrase), including those from the vehicle manufacturing
industry.

It's a good point of course, but some of the I've come across about
replacing old equipment for new, more efficient and less emitting kit
is rather surprising in the way it often comes down in favour of the
new - taking into account so many years of the old kit continuing to
be used in its less efficient and more emitting glory. Sorry to be so
unspecific but I'm talking in a broad brush way about many fields.

The way you put 'premature deaths' in inverted commas as opposed to
full quotation could suggest you doubt the logic behind that statement
- do you?

Nonetheless, good to have a different take on this, particularly
regarding the small businesses. I obviously don't agree that it's
"good news", but I can see that it could be something of a burden on
small businesses. I just think I would prioritise it over these
concerns - harsh perhaps, but there you go - likewise I think it's
harsh that Londoners could have had cleaner air were it not for the
extension of this scheme being scrapped.

"Mizter T" wrote :
Nonetheless, good to have a different take on this, particularly
regarding the small businesses. I obviously don't agree that it's
"good news", but I can see that it could be something of a burden on
small businesses. I just think I would prioritise it over these
concerns - harsh perhaps, but there you go - likewise I think it's
harsh that Londoners could have had cleaner air were it not for the
extension of this scheme being scrapped.

I wouldn't worry too much either way; while California wants to cut
emissions by 30% within eight years, the UK aim is about that in 50 years,
and almost certainly the targets will be reduced and extended (again).

With or without small vehicle participation, UK efforts are a bad joke at
best, and planetary suicide at worst.

And, of course, Boris' contempt for green issues should be a salutary
warning for anyone who still believes a word that Cameron says on the issue.
Let's face it, the Tories are no more green than Blair was, and just as good
at making false promises.

The best thing Boris has done for the planet is to scrap the western
extension of the CC zone - once total gridlock sets in, some drivers might
consider turning off their engines. But don't hold your breath.
--
Andrew


If you stand up and be counted,
From time to time you may get yourself knocked down.
But remember this:
A man flattened by an opponent can get up again.
A man flattened by conformity stays down for good.
- Thomas J. Watson Jr.

"Andrew Heenan" wrote:

And, of course, Boris' contempt for green issues should be a salutary
warning for anyone who still believes a word that Cameron says on the
issue. Let's face it, the Tories are no more green than Blair was, and
just as good at making false promises.

Again, good.

I don't want a green Government, where this amounts to stopping poorer
people flying on holiday, and forcing self-employed tradesmen (or voluntary
groups) out of business because they can't afford new vehicles.

How about reducing the rate of population growth in the UK? That would be
more effective at dealing with green issues.

Chris

Mizter T wrote:
It's a good point of course, but some of the I've come across about
replacing old equipment for new, more efficient and less emitting kit
is rather surprising in the way it often comes down in favour of the
new - taking into account so many years of the old kit continuing to
be used in its less efficient and more emitting glory. Sorry to be so
unspecific but I'm talking in a broad brush way about many fields.

This is true, but it depends rather on usage. The problem I have with the
LEZ is that it's a very blunt instrument. The daily charges are very high,
so they're only worthwhile if you're using your vehicle all day. If you're
a delivery driver, for example.

If you're, say, a part-time builder who drives a van from your house to the
builder's yard to the job and home again, 200 pounds is a very steep burden
on a job where you might be earning 20 pounds an hour. Actually there might
be only an hour's driving per day. If I were in that situation, I'd give
up.

And then there are people driving vans, minibuses or motorhomes for
recreational purposes, who make no profit at all. How many community
projects have a minibus for occasional use? Will it really cost 200 quid to
drive the old ladies to church once a week?

Of course, some of this can be adjusted by changes in behaviour (eg use
three MPVs instead of the church minibus) but they'll probably increase
costs and the resulting pollution may not be reduced.

If the costs of conversion were also reasonable then I'd have less of an
objection (TfL's website makes no indication at all of how much this would
be).

Theo