Thats right - comparatively, no one at all can drive through a larger area in Melbourne's city center and its been that way for 20 odd years. Sky not exactly falling I reckon.You might be right about EVs and the traffic filters. But they are exempt from the zero emission zone, which is proposed to cover the city centre. Which in conjunction with the traffic filters cuts the city into segments. A person with an EV could access any zone without charge, by going through the city centre. Anyone else either has to pay the charge for entering the ZEZ or go the long way around.
Riiiiight, the Reuters article is pure spin but the claim its specifically addressing isn'tThe reuters article is pure spin, it's a simple 'this 93% figure is false' without giving any context. It is just a blanket statement when they could have given reasoning for it. They could have said 'the 93% figure is false, it is only 85%' but that is just as bad isn't it?
It most certainly provides the context, displaying the tweet its addressing and from which this 93% nonsense seems to have grown legs;
The tweet claims "93% said no". This is a patently false 'blanket statement', exactly what you accuse Reuters of doing. Pretty clear I would have thought.
And no, they could not have said "its only 85%". If I'm understanding the table correctly, the remaining 85% is a range of opinions about the proposal, some even -gasp- positive. For the ones that you could say fall into the negative, they are still not saying "no I don't want it". They are expressing concerns about specific factors or wanting to see more information/research.
Does it? Link me up.The Oxford plan does include plans for new amenities, 15 minute city and 15/20 minute neighbourhood are the same thing.
Last edited: