The joys of electric car ownership!

[Jacob]

....

I agree that evidence to prove ULEZ is accurate to the data, I even agree its robust enough to prove the impact of the ULEZ. What I don't agree with is that just extending the ULEZ, while good for that area, the result is its not cleaning up the environment, just relocating and redistributing emissions.
Even taking that approach of extending the ULEZ yo say all of England, while good for England, would push the issue into Wales, Scotland NI, etc.
.....

So you'd impose ULEZ over the whole country equally? Surely it'd make more sense to start with the worst areas and work out from there?
Have a look at the map in this article, though I guess you think the figures are all made up. Ulez key to tackling ‘unacceptably high’ child illness and death, doctors say

 

[Sachakins]

So you'd impose ULEZ over the whole country equally? Surely it'd make more sense to start with the worst areas and work out from there?
Have a look at the map in this article, though I guess you think the figures are all made up. Ulez key to tackling ‘unacceptably high’ child illness and death, doctors say

Don't be silly.
I've already said that the results in the ULEZ ref health are correct and accurate, you obviously don't fully read responses before you jump to conclusions.
I'll repeat it again...
"I agree that evidence to prove ULEZ is accurate to the data, I even agree its robust enough to prove the impact of the ULEZ. What I don't agree with is that just extending the ULEZ, while good for that area, the result is its not cleaning up the environment, just relocating and redistributing emissions"

So please dont be so ignorant as to rehash your same verbal diatribe without understanding or acknowledging the actual agreement I gave to you.

What I said is that a different approach to ULEZ is needed so as not to push particulate pollutants onto others.

My approach is to eliminate particulate matter that causes these illness, not just relocate it.

Surely better health for all should be the target, not solving just one area, while building up issues in another area.

ULEZ do NOT reduce the overall particulate emissions, they just remove the issue in one area, albeit significantly, however it does not reduce the overall particulate emissions into the planets atmosphere.

I'll say it again unless you missed it. Yes ULEZ affect local issues, they do NOT affect the overall particulate levels significantly in the atmospheric strata.

To have an amospheric change and EFFECT, NEEDS WIDE SCALE CHANGES, as I indicated as a possible scenario going forward.
I never once said abolish or abandon, or extend the ULEZ, I just said there is another option that we could use that would benefit everyone AND the environment. Reducing particulate emissions is the only long term solution, not the transference from one area or from local to regional emissions, as is the case for EV's unless they are purely produced and run on green energy, the result of there pollution is not local, they actual help in ULEZ, what the evidence shows is that overall their emissions through manufacture, extraction of limited rare earth elements and the transportation of materials and batteries across continents are as harmful, but not on a local basis but on a worldwide environmental impact basis.

Again another case of we're fine in the city, pipper what happens elsewhere.

We desperately need an approach to reduce emissions, not just shift them to other countries.

 

[John Brown]

Don't be silly.
I've already said that the results in the ULEZ ref health are correct and accurate, you obviously don't fully read responses before you jump to conclusions.
I'll repeat it again...
"I agree that evidence to prove ULEZ is accurate to the data, I even agree its robust enough to prove the impact of the ULEZ. What I don't agree with is that just extending the ULEZ, while good for that area, the result is its not cleaning up the environment, just relocating and redistributing emissions"

So please dont be so ignorant as to rehash your same verbal diatribe without understanding or acknowledging the actual agreement I gave to you.

What I said is that a different approach to ULEZ is needed so as not to push particulate pollutants onto others.

My approach is to eliminate particulate matter that causes these illness, not just relocate it.

Surely better health for all should be the target, not solving just one area, while building up issues in another area.

ULEZ do NOT reduce the overall particulate emissions, they just remove the issue in one area, albeit significantly, however it does not reduce the overall particulate emissions into the planets atmosphere.

I'll say it again unless you missed it. Yes ULEZ affect local issues, they do NOT affect the overall particulate levels significantly in the atmospheric strata.

To have an amospheric change and EFFECT, NEEDS WIDE SCALE CHANGES, as I indicated as a possible scenario going forward.
I never once said abolish or abandon, or extend the ULEZ, I just said there is another option that we could use that would benefit everyone AND the environment. Reducing particulate emissions is the only long term solution, not the transference from one area or from local to regional emissions, as is the case for EV's unless they are purely produced and run on green energy, the result of there pollution is not local, they actual help in ULEZ, what the evidence shows is that overall their emissions through manufacture, extraction of limited rare earth elements and the transportation of materials and batteries across continents are as harmful, but not on a local basis but on a worldwide environmental impact basis.

Again another case of we're fine in the city, pipper what happens elsewhere.

We desperately need an approach to reduce emissions, not just shift them to other countries.

I don't understand this. Are you saying Phil's brother in law's employees are wantonly driving round the block in their south of London home zone, because it's prohibitively expensive to enter the ULEZ?

 

[Jacob]

....

I'll say it again unless you missed it. Yes ULEZ affect local issues, they do NOT affect the overall particulate levels significantly in the atmospheric strata.
....

It's not about atmospheric strata it's about local issues! Ground level air in Greater London! Well spotted!
It's about reducing air pollution where it is worst in the country, and nitrogen dioxides etc rather than CO2.
It's also about incentivising scrapping and hence benefits the whole world by a very tiny amount!
It relates indirectly to reducing carbon footprint but that is quite secondary as far as ULEZ is concerned - local air condition, nitrogen dioxides and other nasties, is the big issue with ULEZ.
You are not alone, a lot of people seem to miss the point and confuse/conflate these issues.
Hope that helps.

PS "Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor of London, is committed to enlarging Ulez on 29 August to all of Greater London. He said the existing Ulez scheme had already reduced toxic nitrogen dioxide air pollution levels in central and inner London by nearly half and a fifth respectively."
Well done Sadiq!!

 

[Sachakins]

It's not about atmospheric strata it's about local issues! Ground level air in Greater London! Well spotted!
It's about reducing air pollution where it is worst in the country.
It's also about incentivising scrapping and hence benefits the whole world by a very tiny amount!
It relates indirectly to reducing carbon footprint but that is quite secondary as far as ULEZ is concerned - local air condition is the big issue with ULEZ.
You are not alone, a lot of people seem to miss the point and confuse/conflate these issues.
Hope that helps.

Again you spout same diatribe, I have not once decried the medical and health benefits gained through the ULEZ.
What I have ascribed to is that ULEZ is not the only way forward, that elimination of pollutants and particulates going to be the only way to provide a national and global benefit.
You obviously refuse to acknowledge that local solutions are only that just local. While we solve one area, the national health is in deterioration. Yes the ULEZ has local benefits, but at what cost nationally and globally.
There is a massive population outside the ULEZ that are not receiving any benefits. So decentralisation is a must, not in place of the ULEZ, but as the driving factor to accelerate benefits to all, not just a few. Saving a few on the way is still important I agree, but please do not sacrifice the many on the way either.

If you went to hospital with a compound break to your leg and a scrape on your chin. Would you be crowing as a success that they stuck a plaster on your chin, but ignore the issue that your leg is bleeding out a couple of pints of blood in 15 mind.

No, I didn't think you would have a feeling of ecstacy.

 

[Fergie 307]

I too watched the recent programme on EV. Very interesting, but seemed to confirm some of my own views. I worry that with battery EV we are charging headlong down a bit of a blind alley. Big heavy and very expensive batteries that are still not very efficient. Huge environmental issues with their production, and end of life disposal. Insufficient capacity in the grid, and huge expense to create more. I have always believed hydrogen is a far more elegant solution that overcomes most of these issues. Infrastructure, it's already there, they are called petrol stations. In most cases a relatively simple job to install a hydrogen tank and pump. Certainly a lot less cost and grief than digging streets up to install chargers, and the ongoing maintenance of them, and no additional load on the grid generally. The vehicles themselves similar in performance and weight to existing ICE vehicles. The latter is important as a major contributor to particulates is tyre and braking debris, one reason why in the ULEZ you see that these figures are reduced by a lesser amount than gas emissions. Now it is true that most electric vehicles use regenerative braking at least to some extent, so their production of dust from brake wear will be less. On the other hand battery EV are much, much heavier than their ICE equivalents, are so I would imagine tyre wear, and the particulate pollution associated with it will be higher. We will have to develop hydrogen as it really is the only viable solution for HGV, aviation and marine applications. Interesting that the lady at the end of the programme stated that hydrogen was about the same price as petrol? Need to do some research on that. I suspect she will be referring to it in bang per buck terms, as in the cost of the hydrogen to power your fuel cell car for 200 miles is comparable to the cost of fuel for the same distance in an ICE vehicle. Not altogether implausible as it is more efficient so you need less of it, although I have my doubts that even on that basis costs are truly comparable, yet. Undoubtedly as sources of renewable energy improve, the cost of producing hydrogen will fall, making it more and more attractive. I wonder if in twenty years time people may be looking back at our current love affair with battery EV, and laughing their socks off.

 

[paulrbarnard]

I too watched the recent programme on EV. Very interesting, but seemed to confirm some of my own views. I worry that with battery EV we are charging headlong down a bit of a blind alley. Big heavy and very expensive batteries that are still not very efficient. Huge environmental issues with their production, and end of life disposal. Insufficient capacity in the grid, and huge expense to create more. I have always believed hydrogen is a far more elegant solution that overcomes most of these issues. Infrastructure, it's already there, they are called petrol stations. In most cases a relatively simple job to install a hydrogen tank and pump. Certainly a lot less cost and grief than digging streets up to install chargers, and the ongoing maintenance of them, and no additional load on the grid generally. The vehicles themselves similar in performance and weight to existing ICE vehicles. The latter is important as a major contributor to particulates is tyre and braking debris, one reason why in the ULEZ you see that these figures are reduced by a lesser amount than gas emissions. Now it is true that most electric vehicles use regenerative braking at least to some extent, so their production of dust from brake wear will be less. On the other hand battery EV are much, much heavier than their ICE equivalents, are so I would imagine tyre wear, and the particulate pollution associated with it will be higher. We will have to develop hydrogen as it really is the only viable solution for HGV, aviation and marine applications. Interesting that the lady at the end of the programme stated that hydrogen was about the same price as petrol? Need to do some research on that. I suspect she will be referring to it in bang per buck terms, as in the cost of the hydrogen to power your fuel cell car for 200 miles is comparable to the cost of fuel for the same distance in an ICE vehicle. Not altogether implausible as it is more efficient so you need less of it, although I have my doubts that even on that basis costs are truly comparable, yet. Undoubtedly as sources of renewable energy improve, the cost of producing hydrogen will fall, making it more and more attractive. I wonder if in twenty years time people may be looking back at our current love affair with battery EV, and laughing their socks off.

I think in 20 years people will be looking back at the heavy, low range EV and wondering how people ever accepted them when they have access to an EV with 1000km range, that can recharge in minutes, at a fraction of the cost while sitting in the community parking lot.
Take a look back 20 years in terms of fossil fuel vehicles and compare how inefficient and dirty they were compared to the equivalent today. The look back even farther to look at the evolution of fossil fuel vehicles and you can see that there is always a technology curve with technology. EV are at the start of an evolution that has massive potential for improvement. Those adopting EV today are the equivalent of the driving pioneers who set off from their stately home in their noisy inefficient petrol car with little certainty of finding fuel along their route. The main fuel at the time was hay and oats…
Keep in mind the trajectory of battery and EV technology is now being driven by a consumer demand as well as by legislation. People should not judge what is possible in 20 years by what is available today. 20 years ago the main telephone system was wired and the big argument against mobile was a combination of coverage and battery life. Both of those issues are largely non existent today. Sound familiar?

 

[Keith Cocker]

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...s-in-england-support-action-on-climate-crisis

 

[Crazy Dave]

The way forward for EVs is to install under ground wireless charging at traffic lights and roundabouts so when you're sitting in traffic your EV is getting a charge, so every traffic congestion becomes a charge opportunity.

 

[Blackswanwood]

I think in 20 years people will be looking back at the heavy, low range EV and wondering how people ever accepted them when they have access to an EV with 1000km range, that can recharge in minutes, at a fraction of the cost while sitting in the community parking lot.
Take a look back 20 years in terms of fossil fuel vehicles and compare how inefficient and dirty they were compared to the equivalent today. The look back even farther to look at the evolution of fossil fuel vehicles and you can see that there is always a technology curve with technology. EV are at the start of an evolution that has massive potential for improvement. Those adopting EV today are the equivalent of the driving pioneers who set off from their stately home in their noisy inefficient petrol car with little certainty of finding fuel along their route. The main fuel at the time was hay and oats…
Keep in mind the trajectory of battery and EV technology is now being driven by a consumer demand as well as by legislation. People should not judge what is possible in 20 years by what is available today. 20 years ago the main telephone system was wired and the big argument against mobile was a combination of coverage and battery life. Both of those issues are largely non existent today. Sound familiar?

I agree. I also think the whole concept of car ownership will change as driverless cars becomes the norm.

For most people there will be no sense in having a lump of metal (or carbon fibre) sat on the drive or in a parking space when one can be summoned as required.

 

[Fergie 307]

Indeed my point is that we have a very efficient way of doing this now, hydrogen, and are largely ignoring it. Consider your charging points. To roll them out just across the UK will require tens of thousands of miles of cable. That is many thousands of tons of copper, synthetically produced plastics for insulation and steel for the armour. All very costly to produce, both in financial and environmental terms, and considerable cost in maintaining it all. Add in the costs of upgrading the grid nationally to cope with all the additional load, again both in financial and environmental terms. None of this would be necessary if we adopted hydrogen fuel cells as our go to power for EV, rather than batteries. Then look at the batteries themselves. We will need to massively increase the production of lithium and other materials, or whatever new materials may feature in future batteries. This comes at an enormous environmental cost in those areas where the materials are mined. The sad reality of course is that vast areas of South America being submerged under brine pools, and huge areas of some other countries being laid waste by open cast mining are issues people either simply haven't considered, or don't care about. There is also the consideration that in many cases these materials come from places we would rather not be reliant upon, or particularly want to do business with. Again not an issue of we adopt hydrogen. Finally what makes you do confident that battery technology will advance to the extent you describe? As far as I am aware no one is suggesting that a battery with anything like the power density of petrol or diesel is anywhere on the horizon. Current Lithium batteries are a massive advance over lead acid, for example, but in terms of power density/weight they are still pretty hopeless compared with fossil fuels. Even if their efficiency in this respect could be doubled, a pretty tall order, it would still be very poor by comparison. Many of the advances recently seem to have a lot more to do with improving charging times, rather than the actual power density of the batteries. And unless someone finds a way of making a super battery out of thin air you will always have the same issues around production, and eventual disposal.
Hydrogen is, to all intents and purposes, a limitless resource. Using green energy to power the process it can be produced locally with no reliance on materials from elsewhere, cleanly and at an ever decreasing cost. Infrastructure can be introduced at a fraction of the cost of charging points.
If it were adopted at scale then there is no reason why a fuel cell vehicle should be anymore costly to buy than its ICE equivalent, indeed it ought to be cheaper, encouraging people to make the change.

 

[clogs]

I like the idea Dave but how u gonna keep the water out, thinking cracked n damaged roads......
the system cant be too deep to work but must be able to carry the weight of 25 ton trucks.....
plus there will be the wrong kind of snow or leaves messing things up in winter...

best thing to do with the London air zone is to ban all private vehicles except m/cycles/mopeds, busses registered Taxi's and all delivery /working vehicles....even the fat cats Rolls Royces....apart from royalty....phew that was a close ommision..
then they'll have to improve the public transport system.....
doing the above would make better use of the money from HS2 and would improve things no end....

Sorry Jacob u got it wrong again......
there are no fires on Crete at the moment......
Unlike the UK, Greece is upgrading and spending more money on the fire service....without complaint....
newer trucks, renewing water mains with bigger pipes.....
out of interest,
most local areas/big villages have a least 1 huge 4x4 fire truck parked up waiting for a shout.....
Currently the island has 2 dedicated Sikorsky heavy lift fire fighting helecoptors........
flying time from one end of the island to the other is less than 30mins.....
Athens has water dumping planes on standy-by, a 30min flight away......
they reg do fly overs I assume to improve local knowledge for the pilots....

Local news, Most of the fires on Rhodes were started deliberately.....

I have also upgrade the water system on my own property complete with a petrol driven water pump.......with 80cu,m in the s/pool to go at if needed....
plus,
there are many local's including me that will turn up to help when necc......
there's a great community spirit......bit like the old days in the UK......

 

[Ozi]

If anyone watched that program about EV's the other night and saw that charging station in Essex on the A120 then he was talking about issues with the supply from the grid to the substation that supplies his banks of chargers and that it is the grid that limits his capacity and I know that he is not far from a large 400Kv substation.

The other interesting thing was the plug in street chargers for outside your house where you cannot get a cable to your car, only 7kW available so not a quick charge and this firm is fitting 500 in the area but I think they currently are using diversity factors that may be unrealistic. These 500 chargers if all used simultanously would need 3.5 mW and that would be a big shock to the system but they assume only a few chargers will be in use at the same time out of the total they put in and therefore the supply is adequate, if a lot of people suddenly buy an EV and a lot more charge them when they get home from work it is then probable that it will shutdown due to overload.

The problem needs solving but it's not beyond our capabilities particularly if we stick to the three Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle) and firstly reduce the size of the cars we plan to charge. It's going to need a lot of joined up thinking which is something we have historically been very bad at. In this instance the chargers probably need to be smart enough to limit output when demand is high. Being close to the substation doesn't necessarily mean the infrastructure is in place to get enough power to the street or that locally there is enough capacity to do so but we do have a lot of spare capacity in the system.

At present we all take what we can afford and so price some people out, the only instance I can think of where this country did naything differently is food rationing in WW2. I would far rather we all try to get our acts together now than end up in a situation where something has to be imposed on us

 

[Jacob]

I think in 20 years people will be looking back .....

I don't think we've got 20 years. We need to stop all fossil fuel use now.
A big threat to the UK is the breakdown of the food supply chain - 46% imported. Becoming more self sufficient barely gets a mention whilst people burble on about EVs - probably the least of our problems!
Sea level rise is another.
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/celebs-tv/sir-david-attenborough-warns-just-8325236I think the science community are now making a last desperate effort to turn things around with strong announcements and discussions every day. They have understated it in the past and the CC sceptics have dominated the dialogue, helped by massive propaganda from the fossil fuel industry who were well aware of the CC threat many years ago but did nothing
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...nal documents,earlier, from around the 1950s.

 

[Ozi]

would you care to show the alternative picture of scrap cars all piled up that the average person can't fix (e.g a simple ECU problem on your old car and it's a write off). The difference is that that pile of bikes is mostly metal that can be recycled. Cars are full of plastic, plastic bumpers, plastic lights, plastic dashboards, plastic fabric on the seats, foam on the seats, plastic carpet, all the trim and boot linings. There is more metal and plastic/rubber in the 4 tires of a car than a single bike.

As for vacuums, I bought a new AEG vac the other day (75% recycled plastic) that is 500watts on max. I run it on the min setting and it still sucks my rugs off the floor! and is the quietest vac I've ever owned. The legislation has forced manufacturers to create more efficient machines rather than just give us over powered machines to compensate for poor design.

Cars do have to meet regulations regarding the percentage of materials used which can be recovered and the percentage recycled, both in the 90s, sorry I can't remember the exact figures but they go up on a regular basis.

Can be and are are ofcorse two different things.

 

[Ozi]

Just at the moment our national consumption is fairly low compared to weekday usage, as ranges improve a lot of us could end up charging once a week with chargers that run during cheep rate times, solid state electrolytes make the possibility of interchangeable batteries for small cars more feasible

 

[John Brown]

In my(very small sample size) experience, it seems to be the "petrol heads" who are the strongest advocates of hydrogen powered cars. Whether this is because they imagine hydrogen cars will be ICE(as I understand things they'll actually be EVs with fuel cells), or whether they just want anything but EVs, or whether it's some other reason, I can't guess. What I do know is that the much despised "experts" seem to think hydrogen cars are a non starter. I don't know enough about it to argue with the experts, and I strongly suspect forum members don't either, so it's probably down to where you get your news from.
The idea of being able to convert your gas boiler to hydrogen, and use cheap renewable energy to electrolyse water does sound very attractive, so I have to assume that the drawbacks are immense. Also, I think it's important to remember that where there are vested interests there will be misinformation. We already know that the fossil fuel giants have used the same PR/whitewashing firms as the tobacco firms did.

Lastly, I have to say that under road charging at bottlenecks seems like a crazy idea to me. Surely you want people to avoid bottlenecks?

 

[Jacob]

In my(very small sample size) experience, it seems to be the "petrol heads" who are the strongest advocates of hydrogen powered cars. Whether this is because they imagine hydrogen cars will be ICE(as I understand things they'll actually be EVs with fuel cells), or whether they just want anything but EVs, or whether it's some other reason, I can't guess. What I do know is that the much despised "experts" seem to think hydrogen cars are a non starter. I don't know enough about it to argue with the experts, and I strongly suspect forum members don't either, so it's probably down to where you get your news from.
The idea of being able to convert your gas boiler to hydrogen, and use cheap renewable energy to electrolyse water does sound very attractive, so I have to assume that the drawbacks are immense. Also, I think it's important to remember that where there are vested interests there will be misinformation. We already know that the fossil fuel giants have used the same PR/whitewashing firms as the tobacco firms did.

Lastly, I have to say that under road charging at bottlenecks seems like a crazy idea to me. Surely you want people to avoid bottlenecks?

There's little discussion at all about the easy EV option which is the well established use of overhead or ground level electric pick up, as used in public transport for well over 100 years. No batteries, no recharging, vehicles half the weight using less energy. Carrying a huge heavy battery around is the worst option. Imagine all those petrol heads faced with having to use public transport!

 

[paulrbarnard]

Indeed my point is that we have a very efficient way of doing this now, hydrogen, and are largely ignoring it. Consider your charging points. To roll them out just across the UK will require tens of thousands of miles of cable. That is many thousands of tons of copper, synthetically produced plastics for insulation and steel for the armour. All very costly to produce, both in financial and environmental terms, and considerable cost in maintaining it all. Add in the costs of upgrading the grid nationally to cope with all the additional load, again both in financial and environmental terms. None of this would be necessary if we adopted hydrogen fuel cells as our go to power for EV, rather than batteries. Then look at the batteries themselves. We will need to massively increase the production of lithium and other materials, or whatever new materials may feature in future batteries. This comes at an enormous environmental cost in those areas where the materials are mined. The sad reality of course is that vast areas of South America being submerged under brine pools, and huge areas of some other countries being laid waste by open cast mining are issues people either simply haven't considered, or don't care about. There is also the consideration that in many cases these materials come from places we would rather not be reliant upon, or particularly want to do business with. Again not an issue of we adopt hydrogen. Finally what makes you do confident that battery technology will advance to the extent you describe? As far as I am aware no one is suggesting that a battery with anything like the power density of petrol or diesel is anywhere on the horizon. Current Lithium batteries are a massive advance over lead acid, for example, but in terms of power density/weight they are still pretty hopeless compared with fossil fuels. Even if their efficiency in this respect could be doubled, a pretty tall order, it would still be very poor by comparison. Many of the advances recently seem to have a lot more to do with improving charging times, rather than the actual power density of the batteries. And unless someone finds a way of making a super battery out of thin air you will always have the same issues around production, and eventual disposal.
Hydrogen is, to all intents and purposes, a limitless resource. Using green energy to power the process it can be produced locally with no reliance on materials from elsewhere, cleanly and at an ever decreasing cost. Infrastructure can be introduced at a fraction of the cost of charging points.
If it were adopted at scale then there is no reason why a fuel cell vehicle should be anymore costly to buy than its ICE equivalent, indeed it ought to be cheaper, encouraging people to make the change.

I’m was not saying there is no place for hydrogen. I think it is a great technology and indeed there will also remain a place for fossil fuels. I’m not sure why people think that advocating for one solution means they are discounting others. Hydrogen has its advantages and challenges which will also be realised or met. For example heavy vehicles are likely to benefit more from hydrogen power, busses, trucks etc. I remember Honda very strongly aligning behind hydrogen quite a few years back including deploying a number of hydrogen refuelling initiatives. Those initiatives largely went away for exactly the availability reasons people are arguing against electricity. The difference today is that electricity is ubiquitous, albeit not with sufficient current for fast charging, which does open many more possibilities for the wider adoption of EV. Couple this with a photovoltaic system at home and it all begins to make a degree of economic sense.

 

[John Brown]

There's little discussion at all about the easy EV option which is the well established use of overhead or ground level electric pick up, as used in public transport for well over 100 years. No batteries, no recharging, vehicles half the weight using less energy. Carrying a huge heavy battery around is the worst option. Imagine all those petrol heads faced with having to use public transport!

I don't think the average Joe(or Jolene) will buy public transport as an alternative. Especially since what we do have seems to be so bl00dy awful, and if it won't get votes it won't happen, as we're seeing now with the ULEZ dithering.