Forum Topic

Another money making scheme from the Council

We are due to have a consultation about the installation of electric vehicle charging points.On the Council's website the relevant page states that anyone wishing to have one installed on the street outside their house MUST be prepared to make a financial contribution, probably in the region of £500. You might get some of this back but you will effectively be paying for a public service.The details are here: https://www.ealing.gov.uk/info/201173/transport_and_parking/1316/electric_cars_and_charging_points/2I have asked local councillors to clarify but have met with a smug response from Labour's Paul Driscoll. He seems to think that the word must doesn't infer an obligation - he's a teacher so I've suggested he talks to someone in the English department to clarify the meaning of the word.It seems there's not actually enough funding for this project, hence the need to ask for contributions. What it will do is put a further squeeze on parking spaces in CPZ zones. You won't get guaranteed use of the charging point even if you stump up the cash.It's all very well telling us that it's for the environment but the Council is not addressing the real pollution problem, which is the vast volume of traffic that passes through the borough every day on its way somewhere else. Poor road management and interminable road works slow the pace of this traffic and increase pollution. Adding costs to residents won't make a jot of difference.

Simon Hayes ● 2560d25 Comments

There reason Ealing love developments without parking is that they can force more areas into CPZ's with the minimum of fuss to add that extra revenue stream. I did not get a car until i was 30 because i did not need it. but over the next 30 years i could not have done half the jobs i have done without a car. in my last job i had a 75 mile commute and often had to visit customers carrying equipment and course books. I could not have done that without a car. for many of us to do our job we need transport. when i lived in Rotterdam i lived in a block of flats and for some of the time i had my car over there. I also had a bike and cycled to work. but even there with fabulous transport infrastructure i needed a car on the weekend to visit friends.

Peter Chadburn ● 2553d

Why do we have to 'accept a greater density of population in the capital'?Services are finite. The powers that be won't fund any number of doctor surgeries, schools, etc, etc. In South Ealing, where there has been a rapid population growth in recent years the doctor surgeries are full to bursting, with a consequent knock-on effect on waiting times.The schools are oversubscribed, particularly secondary ones, with many parents now sweating on getting their 11 year old children into a nearby school next autumn.You can't keep building blocks of poky flats without providing the infrastructure to support them.As for parking in such developments, it's ridiculous not to have at least some allocated spaces. I know people who live in a certain block on the Uxbridge Road who find it impossible to get deliveries as the nearest parking is too far away. It affects the value of such flats when it comes to resale.Be careful not to fall into the fantasy trap of public transport being the answer to everything. It's not, as anyone who regularly uses the Tube will testify.

Simon Hayes ● 2553d

There is a lot of housing being built WITHOUT any parking.This makes good public transport even more necessary.Although flats may become a better housing solution for those with mobility problems the lack of public transport and difficulty housing mobility scooters and having enough available parking spaces for doctors and carers and other visitors can be a problem together with disabled parking.  We have to expect a greater density of population in the capital.

Philippa Bond ● 2553d

The trend is towards bigger cars. Did you read Michelin is closing its tyre factory in the uk. Why? Because it produces small tyres which are not in demand. When electric cars finally take off bigger cars still will be needed.

Nicholas Beard ● 2553d

There's not usually much flooding in London these days, apart from where they've stuck homes on flood plains alongside the river. Besides, the eye-wateringly expensive Super sewer, for which we are all paying Thames Water through our water rates, should make that a thing of the past, allegedly.Public transport is all well and good and better in London than in many cities. However, it does not answer all the needs of the individual.For example, the Piccadilly Line is well nigh impossible to board in Northfields and South Ealing during rush hour, usually because of the vast numbers of Heathrow passengers using it.Bus services are erratic. Many's the time I've waited half an hour or more for a bus supposedly 3-4 minutes away. Not ideal if you have an appointment to attend.Not every destination is served by public transport. Ironically, given a thread elsewhere on this forum, one such place is Warren Farm, which is really only accessible by car for most people in Ealing.

Simon Hayes ● 2554d

and had to be taken to Court to come up with proposed solutions, also cut LA grants and THEN passed the buck on to LAs.  So what do you expect?Surely it is a Catch 22 situation with the larger cars?  When there is flooding and poor road surfaces you are more likely to want a higher and larger car.  Remember that many cars spend a lot of time parked.  Doesn't anybody use electric vans now to deliver?  I'm sure somebody does.And when it comes to the single use plastic tax after a very big petition by the public which has changed the opinions of the manufacturers and changed the product so reducing the amount of single use plastic the Government has mentioned a tax which might start in FOUR years' time.  We needed a requirement for a percentage of recycled plastic to go into new products years ago.https://www.citytosea.org.uk/they-axed-the-plastic-tax/

Philippa Bond ● 2554d

I can  understand the desire to minimise personal and increase public transport and use public transport a lot myself. But i have a car but it is a small Citigo and runs on Petrol. The big SUV's and other tanks on our roads cause so many jams and deserve high taxation. also the Car Tax does not reflect the true environmental impact. after the VW scandal the people owning these diesels should be paying higher charges and should be compensated by VW. But here nothing has been done. I own a car because in my previous job and most of my working life i have needed one to get to work. So making the Car Tax more effective would be a good idea.

Peter Chadburn ● 2555d

And due to an increasing population and our love affair with the personal bubble (hopefully now becoming more tarnished) there isn't enough space for everybody living in an area to have one.  Why do so many still feel the need to own one when car ownership is decreasing?  Our streets are clogged with the polluting things on the roads where the intention is that they are moving. Worse than that though our residential streets have been turned into car parks and the visiting delivery vehicles for goods and people have nowhere to park.  As a result the pavements often get damaged.

Philippa Bond ● 2555d

Sadly the way that dealing with pollution is almost entirely wrong. Rather than targeting individuals the government should be putting pressure on manufacturers, so that our buying options across a range of goods are more environmentally friendly.This has already happened with things like cotton buds, where Johnson and Johnson has substituted plastic for paper in the manufacturing process in response to the outcry about plastic pollution in the oceans. The product may not be quite as good, but people have no option but to buy it.With cars, particularly private motor vehicles, there has been a steady drift towards bigger, heavier cars. They need more power to move them, thus burn more fuel.I had a long conversation with motoring journalist Tiff Needell about 10 years ago about this. His view was that it went against the prevailing wisdom of motoring. Taking Formula One as the benchmark, where it's all about making cars as light as possible, and thus more fuel efficient, and the rest of the industry should follow suit.Instead, we are pushed towards SUVs and other larger vehicles - many of which are completely unsuited to urban living and the roads in London - with the result that we have a glut of big cars burning big amounts of fuel, not to mention the wear and tear on road surfaces. Go and count the potholes in your roads this afternoon and think about where they come from.Perhaps there should be pressure brought to bear on the vehicle manufacturers that they should be building smaller and lighter vehicles.You might also want to think about the impact you have on the environment every time you buy online. Most deliveries are made by vans. According to DEFRA figures these are the second biggest contributor to Nitrous Oxide levels after diesel cars (including taxis). This is followed by HGVs and diesel powered buses. Petrol cars account for just 7 per cent of the total, despite most cars being petrol fuelled.Incidentally, supporting the Third Runway at Heathrow implicitly supports increasing pollution. Apart from massively increased air traffic, there will be higher numbers of vehicles driving to the airport, slowing road traffic and increasing emissions. Public transport as it stands is inadequate - Crossrail won't make much difference.

Simon Hayes ● 2555d

What was wrong with the trolleybuses?  Was it just the cheapness and accessibility of cars?I think there is also a lot of pollution caused by tyres on road surfaces.I couldn't agree more about VW (and all the other car manufacturers doing the same thing). More money should go into Research and Development.  I'd also like to hear more about the diesel lorries who are cheating the emissions systems and so continue to pollute our air and how that will be challenged and put a stop to.We also need to deal with the pollution caused by construction and demolition work - especially when you consider that buildings are no longer built to have a decent life-span.  Developers tend to be in it to make a quick buck.  Many refurbs have proved themselves to be very dangerous.

Philippa Bond ● 2556d

Car build technology has lead to cars easily lasting 25 years if reasonably looked after.In reality very few cars are looked after properly and as cars are as much a fashion accessory to many, perfectly good vehicles often fall way short of their useable  life.This is itself is a huge waste of resources. Whilst vehicles even over 30 years old are now very recyclable in almost every component, energy is still required to recycle back to raw material, but at least this happens and the automotive industry does use a lot of recycled materials in new components.But cars pollute less and less and there is no comparison to what 10,000 cars emit now to what 1000 cars emitted just 40 years ago.The exception is diesels where one problem was solved but another created and R&D has not caught up with politically set mileposts.  The Volkswagen debacle was caused by that and quite frankly, every penny of the huge fines imposed should have been made to go in to Research and development for solving those issues.  Penalising cars of just 6 years of age on pollution grounds is plain bonkers. They are barely any different to brand new cars and still meet all the vosa MOT emission requirements annually.All that is happening is a divide and rule exercise which will simply shift problems, not solve them. And hand the roads over those with ample funds.Unfortunately electric and hybrid cars do pollute. All Electric motors pollute. Copper and carbon do emit toxins. Electricity has to be generated somewhere and by what? Batteries use a host of nasty chemicals, they have to be extracted and manufactured somewhere too. Even the laptop I'm writing this on contains components that created toxic pollution in their creation.It simply shifts the problem, but does not eliminate it.Hydrogen works but the manufacture of Hydrogen currently uses more energy and resources than the end quantity. So that's not yet sorted.Pollution is a problem for the whole planet,  London is way, way cleaner than it was 50 years ago, as is much of the UK. But people seem to have rather short memories. The underlying problem is overdensification and over population and if we are serious about reducing pollution, over consumption and waste then that needs to be tackled in the same gamut.

Mark Kehoe ● 2556d

I think there will be more different alternatives to electrically powered cars in time.  We need to reduce pollution now. How long a life does a car - any car - have?(In general I mean I do know there are vintage cars!)  Has anybody tried one of the electric car share cars?

Philippa Bond ● 2557d

What surprised me when walking past a free standing charging bollard recently was the whirring noise it was making.  I suppose there must be something in there that generates the electricity to charge the plugged-in car's batteries or maybe it's a cooling fan.  I also read that many plugged-in electric cars hum or whirr when they're being charging. This might be OK in the privacy of someone's garage, but dozens of electric cars lining our streets, noisily charging overnight, might not be the environmental utopia we've been led to expect.

Peter Evans ● 2558d

You do not have to look far for the references to emissions from car chargers. The instruction manual for the Vauxhall Ampera which I have trialled recently carries it.And in the US all charging points carry a warning to stay well clear if you have a pacemaker or implant.Look a bit deeper and there is a lot more, which I am currently wading through.It's not an unsolvable problem, but the health risks are quite real. And the new fleet of Crossrail trains suffer an issue or two on this front. Lack of shielding in a lightweight construction. Again solvable, but should have been picked up at the design and prototype stage.Like the pollution scares of fake news ( most of which is pedalled from authorities and was previously known a spin, There are virtually no independent surveys or research published widely.  But issues have been found and one big project suspended until a solution is found.But the problem is hard to solve. Adding enough charging bollards to lampposts and trees in streets will make something as simple as opening a vehicle door very difficult and especially for older people for whom a vehicle is about the only viable means of transportation in many predicaments.Driveways are really the only practicable means of recharging an electric car and range is still not solved.  The Nissan Leaf I tried in the summer managed just 47 miles from a full charge in a hilly part of Kent and ran low 20 miles short of the nearest charging point.  It had to be towed and took 5 hours out of the day.  That's not really practicable for most who use a vehicle for work.It's worrying too that bus services are being quietly cut and reduced whilst at the same time, restrictions that will be a form of Berlin wall will carve through this very borough.There is just no wholistic and practical thinking which has to take the whole gamut of pollution and energy resource and increasing population demands into the mix and too much vote pulling showboating.

Mark Kehoe ● 2558d

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jan/30/bp-charging-points-electric-cars-uk-petrol-stationshttps://www.shell.co.uk/motorist/welcome-to-shell-recharge.htmlhttps://www.zap-map.com/charge-points/charging-work/https://pod-point.com/landing-pages/workplace-charging-schemeHere are just a few more links - you can see that the options are increasing for this.What we need to do now is to increase the insulation in our housing stock - there are so many buildings still with single glazing and when it gets cold there are other things like thermal linings for curtains and just closing the curtains which will reduce our use of electricity for heating.

Philippa Bond ● 2559d

I tend to use the bus and train locally but when i worked every day i needed my car and i am sure that had i had this system in place i would have missed work at least 2 days a week given that when i got home i would rarely park in front of my house. so maybe in 4 years from now i will consider electric cars but if your car is important then electric may not be a good idea at the moment. my commute was around 75 miles each day. I am seeing more facilities for electric vehicles but this idea i think is not realistic.

Peter Chadburn ● 2559d

Perhaps the LBH&F bollard type chargers are better?  Who manages to park outside their own house?  Many people don't have gardens to desecrate or drives to leave their cars on.  People who live on red routes eg the main roads are also going to park within a CPZ but won't be allowed to park outside their homes.  Houses are being divided into flats, grown-up children are returning home to live.  There just ARE too many cars. This is why we have to make sure that we have good public transport, good and safe cycle lanes, share vehicles etc.It won't happen if we just argue negatively about change.You can see easily why the young found Uber so good. They have smartphones and they will be able to check where the nearest free electric charger is by using an app.Many people now cycle as well as drive a car, use public transport and walk.  You can get a free electric bike trial from lots of cycle shops. 

Philippa Bond ● 2559d

Hmmm...I think you are falling into the familiar trap of utopian thinking, shared with our Labour overlords.I know plenty of my neighbours but I still need to use a car for work and family stuff. My neighbours are in the same situation - one of them is an elderly gentleman with mobility problems and he needs his car for hospital appointments and the like.There simply aren't enough lamp posts in most roads to meet the likely demand. In my street there are 13 lamp posts. There are well over 100 cars parked, with the peak parking time being overnight. A proportion of these vehicles are not owned by people who live in my street, but park there because it's preferable to the busy main road on which they live.According to the Council's transport strategy the charging time on lamp post chargers is between 4-8 hours. So assuming all 13 posts are taken and someone comes along who needs to plug in, what do they do? End up miles away? If you don't know who's car it is that's using the charging point most convenient to you, how are you supposed to ask them.I raised this point with Cllr Driscoll some time ago. He is under the impression that we can simply ask our neighbours to accommodate our wishes, but the reality is a lot, lot more complex than that. Or do you think we all live in Albert Square?

Simon Hayes ● 2559d

We spend far too much time rushing out of our houses and getting into our cars and driving off never walking down the street and getting to know our neighbours.  Just living life in our own hedonistic bubble.We might be able to reduce our stress levels and enjoy ourselves more and share the chargers better if we got to know our neighbours during this period of transition.

Philippa Bond ● 2559d

I can only find study results to the contrary.  What's your source for this?

Paul Scullion ● 2559d

There is also another issue with on street chargers and TfL have also clammed up about a similar issue with chargeable bus points.Anyone with a pacemaker or inductive or conductive implants will be at risk from these devices as they can emit inductive currents.  They have the potential to cause severe damage to anyone with such from up to 40m and just a few metres for the lower output.They also emit a noise which affects mobile phones and hearing aids and a constant noise that is hugely irritating if outside your home.Needless to say, all this is being kept below radar and the potential risks not being openly explained to the public.I'm sure it will all get solved but so far it has not.

Mark Kehoe ● 2559d

https://twitter.com/EalingNewsExtra/status/1058041020024283136/photo/1

Philippa Bond ● 2560d

I think you missed my point Dennis.This is something the Council chose to do as part of its Transport Strategy. There was no mention of a substantial fee for installing charging points falling on residents. As such it will only be affordable for a few.My point is that you would effectively be subsidising the charging point for everyone else to use. That's fine if you have an altruistic outlook on life, but in my experience there aren't many people like that about.Parking your electric car elsewhere in the zone doesn't mean you would actually be able to charge it when required, since you may have no access to a charging point. How does that work if you have urgent need to use your car?According to the Council's own published figures the existing lampposts would take between 4-8 hours to charge, so you would need access to a point for some considerable time.

Simon Hayes ● 2560d

It doesn't seem unreasonable that the Council looks to offset the cost of providing this service. Imposing a fee also means that you won't end up with an unnecessary proliferation of charging points. If it was free someone who knew they were likely to move house within the year may apply and then a parking space would effectively be lost when they depart. Putting some of the cost on to the user means that utilisation of these spaces would be much higher. The Council aren't charging the user for the space just the cost of installation and even if it is occupied you would still be free to park your electric car anywhere else in the zone.

Dennis O'Shea ● 2560d

In one way it sounds a good idea but unless you get an allocated parking space it would be about as useful as a chocolate teapot. For anyone living in a CPZ the myth about being able to park in front of your house is so true. So pay £500 and find that the night before an important journey you cant get the car charged up. I for one will be sticking to my petrol engine for a few years to come. Eventually the battery efficiency will improve and electric cars will be a viable alternative but for the moment are a novelty luxury.

Peter Chadburn ● 2560d