Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Extension of ULEZ to South Circular
Comments
-
My point really is, is this about cleaner air or collecting money (or both)?Stig said:
I don't know if the mayor has the power to ban someone from owning a particular type of vehicle. Even if he has, he'd still need some way of controlling traffic coming into the city from outside. I bet the number of vehicles coming in daily from places in the home counties is in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Unless you're going to physically set up road blocks (just imagine how that would go down), cameras are probably the simplest most cost effective control method.Rob7Lee said:If this was only about pollution, and 10% or less of vehicles are non compliant, then why didn't we simply ban non compliant cars and give a much greater scrap scheme, the cost of all the cameras, outsourcing etc must come to a tidy sum that would have been better used helping the poorer out of non compliant vehicles for everyone's benefit.
If it was truly about cleaner air then rather than allowing pay per play for polluting vehicles they could have just been banned from being in the zone (appreciate you would still need some form of cameras to catch them if travelling from outside in). Greater help getting people out of the vehicles would also help everyone.
Never been convinced the Euro classification is a good way anyway, so if my 2000 year car is uber efficient and would in reality fall within Euro 5, it won't be exempt simply because of when it was built (unless of course it's pre 1983 then all are exempt no matter how polluting).0 -
Katrien would have been proud of the speed of his negotiating skillsRizzo said:
I constantly see this being thrown at Khan but most of the strikes that have occurred over the last year or so have cost the country more than the wage settlement would have done. So what exactly is so wrong about negotiating with the unions to come to an acceptable pay offer and avoid disruptive strikes when the alternative is to waste even more money whilst still having the strikes and still needing to eventually come to the table and negotiate a settlement?cafc999 said:
Depends how you want to see it.JamesSeed said:
Yes, but fully supported by Khan when he was made mayor. That’s not bowing down, it’s just common sense.cafc999 said:JamesSeed said:
He was talking about the 4x4. It’s actually the Met police who insist on the armour plated Range Rover because of all the death threads he received.cafc999 said:
Sounds like Labour are just Tory puppets?seth plum said:Sadiq Khan is acting under instructions from a Conservative government on this, not Labour. He is also on board with international agreements and efforts to tackle emissions and global warming.
There is no evidence that the expansion of ULEZ is part of a Labour Party attack on people with personal transport.
Mind you, the Labour decision to downgrade the Green initiative they have been promising is a very bad move.
Worth noting that he is very quick to blame the Tory's but yet he bows down to them and carries out there dirty work then?When has Khan ‘bowed down to the Tories’?
Isn't ULEZ a Tory policy first brough around by eberyone's favorite grifter Boris?
For me, for someone that is so quick to blame the Tories for abslolutley everything he wasn't half quick to implement there policy. Also very quick to moan about the cost of living brought on by this shameful government, yet hikes prices on a whim and then finds £30m to give to unions to shut them up
He is just another grifter0 -
So you're pissed off that he negotiated speedily rather than dragging it out like, say, the transport secretary who hasn't met with the unions in over a year, during which time there have been umpteen strikes costing billions?cafc999 said:
Katrien would have been proud of the speed of his negotiating skillsRizzo said:
I constantly see this being thrown at Khan but most of the strikes that have occurred over the last year or so have cost the country more than the wage settlement would have done. So what exactly is so wrong about negotiating with the unions to come to an acceptable pay offer and avoid disruptive strikes when the alternative is to waste even more money whilst still having the strikes and still needing to eventually come to the table and negotiate a settlement?cafc999 said:
Depends how you want to see it.JamesSeed said:
Yes, but fully supported by Khan when he was made mayor. That’s not bowing down, it’s just common sense.cafc999 said:JamesSeed said:
He was talking about the 4x4. It’s actually the Met police who insist on the armour plated Range Rover because of all the death threads he received.cafc999 said:
Sounds like Labour are just Tory puppets?seth plum said:Sadiq Khan is acting under instructions from a Conservative government on this, not Labour. He is also on board with international agreements and efforts to tackle emissions and global warming.
There is no evidence that the expansion of ULEZ is part of a Labour Party attack on people with personal transport.
Mind you, the Labour decision to downgrade the Green initiative they have been promising is a very bad move.
Worth noting that he is very quick to blame the Tory's but yet he bows down to them and carries out there dirty work then?When has Khan ‘bowed down to the Tories’?
Isn't ULEZ a Tory policy first brough around by eberyone's favorite grifter Boris?
For me, for someone that is so quick to blame the Tories for abslolutley everything he wasn't half quick to implement there policy. Also very quick to moan about the cost of living brought on by this shameful government, yet hikes prices on a whim and then finds £30m to give to unions to shut them up
He is just another grifter1 -
We all know that he gave in and handed over the dosh very quickly.Rizzo said:
So you're pissed off that he negotiated speedily rather than dragging it out like, say, the transport secretary who hasn't met with the unions in over a year, during which time there have been umpteen strikes costing billions?cafc999 said:
Katrien would have been proud of the speed of his negotiating skillsRizzo said:
I constantly see this being thrown at Khan but most of the strikes that have occurred over the last year or so have cost the country more than the wage settlement would have done. So what exactly is so wrong about negotiating with the unions to come to an acceptable pay offer and avoid disruptive strikes when the alternative is to waste even more money whilst still having the strikes and still needing to eventually come to the table and negotiate a settlement?cafc999 said:
Depends how you want to see it.JamesSeed said:
Yes, but fully supported by Khan when he was made mayor. That’s not bowing down, it’s just common sense.cafc999 said:JamesSeed said:
He was talking about the 4x4. It’s actually the Met police who insist on the armour plated Range Rover because of all the death threads he received.cafc999 said:
Sounds like Labour are just Tory puppets?seth plum said:Sadiq Khan is acting under instructions from a Conservative government on this, not Labour. He is also on board with international agreements and efforts to tackle emissions and global warming.
There is no evidence that the expansion of ULEZ is part of a Labour Party attack on people with personal transport.
Mind you, the Labour decision to downgrade the Green initiative they have been promising is a very bad move.
Worth noting that he is very quick to blame the Tory's but yet he bows down to them and carries out there dirty work then?When has Khan ‘bowed down to the Tories’?
Isn't ULEZ a Tory policy first brough around by eberyone's favorite grifter Boris?
For me, for someone that is so quick to blame the Tories for abslolutley everything he wasn't half quick to implement there policy. Also very quick to moan about the cost of living brought on by this shameful government, yet hikes prices on a whim and then finds £30m to give to unions to shut them up
He is just another grifter
As for me being pissed off? Not at all @Rizzo LOL
Just makes me laugh that so many people cannot see that they are all grifters.
2 -
No, we don't all know that. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that both of us know the square root of sod all about what actually happened. It just seems to be an excuse to trot out the good old 'They're all the same" argument as an excuse to stick with the Tories.cafc999 said:
We all know that he gave in and handed over the dosh very quickly.Rizzo said:
So you're pissed off that he negotiated speedily rather than dragging it out like, say, the transport secretary who hasn't met with the unions in over a year, during which time there have been umpteen strikes costing billions?cafc999 said:
Katrien would have been proud of the speed of his negotiating skillsRizzo said:
I constantly see this being thrown at Khan but most of the strikes that have occurred over the last year or so have cost the country more than the wage settlement would have done. So what exactly is so wrong about negotiating with the unions to come to an acceptable pay offer and avoid disruptive strikes when the alternative is to waste even more money whilst still having the strikes and still needing to eventually come to the table and negotiate a settlement?cafc999 said:
Depends how you want to see it.JamesSeed said:
Yes, but fully supported by Khan when he was made mayor. That’s not bowing down, it’s just common sense.cafc999 said:JamesSeed said:
He was talking about the 4x4. It’s actually the Met police who insist on the armour plated Range Rover because of all the death threads he received.cafc999 said:
Sounds like Labour are just Tory puppets?seth plum said:Sadiq Khan is acting under instructions from a Conservative government on this, not Labour. He is also on board with international agreements and efforts to tackle emissions and global warming.
There is no evidence that the expansion of ULEZ is part of a Labour Party attack on people with personal transport.
Mind you, the Labour decision to downgrade the Green initiative they have been promising is a very bad move.
Worth noting that he is very quick to blame the Tory's but yet he bows down to them and carries out there dirty work then?When has Khan ‘bowed down to the Tories’?
Isn't ULEZ a Tory policy first brough around by eberyone's favorite grifter Boris?
For me, for someone that is so quick to blame the Tories for abslolutley everything he wasn't half quick to implement there policy. Also very quick to moan about the cost of living brought on by this shameful government, yet hikes prices on a whim and then finds £30m to give to unions to shut them up
He is just another grifter
As for me being pissed off? Not at all @Rizzo LOL
Just makes me laugh that so many people cannot see that they are all grifters.5 -
The good old excuse of 'They're all the same' argument LOLRizzo said:
No, we don't all know that. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that both of us know the square root of sod all about what actually happened. It just seems to be an excuse to trot out the good old 'They're all the same" argument as an excuse to stick with the Tories.cafc999 said:
We all know that he gave in and handed over the dosh very quickly.Rizzo said:
So you're pissed off that he negotiated speedily rather than dragging it out like, say, the transport secretary who hasn't met with the unions in over a year, during which time there have been umpteen strikes costing billions?cafc999 said:
Katrien would have been proud of the speed of his negotiating skillsRizzo said:
I constantly see this being thrown at Khan but most of the strikes that have occurred over the last year or so have cost the country more than the wage settlement would have done. So what exactly is so wrong about negotiating with the unions to come to an acceptable pay offer and avoid disruptive strikes when the alternative is to waste even more money whilst still having the strikes and still needing to eventually come to the table and negotiate a settlement?cafc999 said:
Depends how you want to see it.JamesSeed said:
Yes, but fully supported by Khan when he was made mayor. That’s not bowing down, it’s just common sense.cafc999 said:JamesSeed said:
He was talking about the 4x4. It’s actually the Met police who insist on the armour plated Range Rover because of all the death threads he received.cafc999 said:
Sounds like Labour are just Tory puppets?seth plum said:Sadiq Khan is acting under instructions from a Conservative government on this, not Labour. He is also on board with international agreements and efforts to tackle emissions and global warming.
There is no evidence that the expansion of ULEZ is part of a Labour Party attack on people with personal transport.
Mind you, the Labour decision to downgrade the Green initiative they have been promising is a very bad move.
Worth noting that he is very quick to blame the Tory's but yet he bows down to them and carries out there dirty work then?When has Khan ‘bowed down to the Tories’?
Isn't ULEZ a Tory policy first brough around by eberyone's favorite grifter Boris?
For me, for someone that is so quick to blame the Tories for abslolutley everything he wasn't half quick to implement there policy. Also very quick to moan about the cost of living brought on by this shameful government, yet hikes prices on a whim and then finds £30m to give to unions to shut them up
He is just another grifter
As for me being pissed off? Not at all @Rizzo LOL
Just makes me laugh that so many people cannot see that they are all grifters.
My view is that both main parties rob you, the only difference is that one is more blatant than the other.
Couldn't give a toss who gets in next GE either1 -
And yet you support the government that were behind the PPE scandal. They epitomise the term grifter: Where is this evidence that you must have that Khan is lining his own pockets. I'll wait...cafc999 said:
We all know that he gave in and handed over the dosh very quickly.Rizzo said:
So you're pissed off that he negotiated speedily rather than dragging it out like, say, the transport secretary who hasn't met with the unions in over a year, during which time there have been umpteen strikes costing billions?cafc999 said:
Katrien would have been proud of the speed of his negotiating skillsRizzo said:
I constantly see this being thrown at Khan but most of the strikes that have occurred over the last year or so have cost the country more than the wage settlement would have done. So what exactly is so wrong about negotiating with the unions to come to an acceptable pay offer and avoid disruptive strikes when the alternative is to waste even more money whilst still having the strikes and still needing to eventually come to the table and negotiate a settlement?cafc999 said:
Depends how you want to see it.JamesSeed said:
Yes, but fully supported by Khan when he was made mayor. That’s not bowing down, it’s just common sense.cafc999 said:JamesSeed said:
He was talking about the 4x4. It’s actually the Met police who insist on the armour plated Range Rover because of all the death threads he received.cafc999 said:
Sounds like Labour are just Tory puppets?seth plum said:Sadiq Khan is acting under instructions from a Conservative government on this, not Labour. He is also on board with international agreements and efforts to tackle emissions and global warming.
There is no evidence that the expansion of ULEZ is part of a Labour Party attack on people with personal transport.
Mind you, the Labour decision to downgrade the Green initiative they have been promising is a very bad move.
Worth noting that he is very quick to blame the Tory's but yet he bows down to them and carries out there dirty work then?When has Khan ‘bowed down to the Tories’?
Isn't ULEZ a Tory policy first brough around by eberyone's favorite grifter Boris?
For me, for someone that is so quick to blame the Tories for abslolutley everything he wasn't half quick to implement there policy. Also very quick to moan about the cost of living brought on by this shameful government, yet hikes prices on a whim and then finds £30m to give to unions to shut them up
He is just another grifter
As for me being pissed off? Not at all @Rizzo LOL
Just makes me laugh that so many people cannot see that they are all grifters.
You're a wum.2 -
When did I say that James?JamesSeed said:
And yet you support the government that were behind the PPE scandal. They epitomise the term grifter: Where is this evidence that you must have that Khan is lining his own pockets. I'll wait...cafc999 said:
We all know that he gave in and handed over the dosh very quickly.Rizzo said:
So you're pissed off that he negotiated speedily rather than dragging it out like, say, the transport secretary who hasn't met with the unions in over a year, during which time there have been umpteen strikes costing billions?cafc999 said:
Katrien would have been proud of the speed of his negotiating skillsRizzo said:
I constantly see this being thrown at Khan but most of the strikes that have occurred over the last year or so have cost the country more than the wage settlement would have done. So what exactly is so wrong about negotiating with the unions to come to an acceptable pay offer and avoid disruptive strikes when the alternative is to waste even more money whilst still having the strikes and still needing to eventually come to the table and negotiate a settlement?cafc999 said:
Depends how you want to see it.JamesSeed said:
Yes, but fully supported by Khan when he was made mayor. That’s not bowing down, it’s just common sense.cafc999 said:JamesSeed said:
He was talking about the 4x4. It’s actually the Met police who insist on the armour plated Range Rover because of all the death threads he received.cafc999 said:
Sounds like Labour are just Tory puppets?seth plum said:Sadiq Khan is acting under instructions from a Conservative government on this, not Labour. He is also on board with international agreements and efforts to tackle emissions and global warming.
There is no evidence that the expansion of ULEZ is part of a Labour Party attack on people with personal transport.
Mind you, the Labour decision to downgrade the Green initiative they have been promising is a very bad move.
Worth noting that he is very quick to blame the Tory's but yet he bows down to them and carries out there dirty work then?When has Khan ‘bowed down to the Tories’?
Isn't ULEZ a Tory policy first brough around by eberyone's favorite grifter Boris?
For me, for someone that is so quick to blame the Tories for abslolutley everything he wasn't half quick to implement there policy. Also very quick to moan about the cost of living brought on by this shameful government, yet hikes prices on a whim and then finds £30m to give to unions to shut them up
He is just another grifter
As for me being pissed off? Not at all @Rizzo LOL
Just makes me laugh that so many people cannot see that they are all grifters.
You're a wum.
My view is that they are all grifters, not just Khan
WUM? Sorry for expressing my opinions on a disscussion board.
4 -
This has been explained many times before on this thread and the other one but I'll have one more go.Rob7Lee said:
My point really is, is this about cleaner air or collecting money (or both)?Stig said:
I don't know if the mayor has the power to ban someone from owning a particular type of vehicle. Even if he has, he'd still need some way of controlling traffic coming into the city from outside. I bet the number of vehicles coming in daily from places in the home counties is in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Unless you're going to physically set up road blocks (just imagine how that would go down), cameras are probably the simplest most cost effective control method.Rob7Lee said:If this was only about pollution, and 10% or less of vehicles are non compliant, then why didn't we simply ban non compliant cars and give a much greater scrap scheme, the cost of all the cameras, outsourcing etc must come to a tidy sum that would have been better used helping the poorer out of non compliant vehicles for everyone's benefit.
If it was truly about cleaner air then rather than allowing pay per play for polluting vehicles they could have just been banned from being in the zone (appreciate you would still need some form of cameras to catch them if travelling from outside in). Greater help getting people out of the vehicles would also help everyone.
Never been convinced the Euro classification is a good way anyway, so if my 2000 year car is uber efficient and would in reality fall within Euro 5, it won't be exempt simply because of when it was built (unless of course it's pre 1983 then all are exempt no matter how polluting).
They aren't trying to remove all pollution as that would be unrealised rather get pollution down closer to "safe" levels. A ban on polluting vehicles would be a ridiculous blunt instrument. Imagine the outcry. Instead this uses incentives and market forces to achieve a targeted reduction in pollution in an economically efficient way.
There is a lot of economic theory and behavioural science behind this scheme and others like it. It's based on the polluter pays principle (essentially pay for the pollution you create) which has been used around the world for decades in factories/manufacturing, air freight, shipping and more recently in driving in cities around the world. It's essentially an emissions tax on the worst polluters in concentrated areas of high pollution. A target level of air quality is agreed upon and the scheme is designed to meet that. The key element to making it efficient is the choice part. You can choose to scrap your car and upgrade, you can choose to switch modes to avoid the charge, you can choose to continue driving and pay the charge but likely drive into the zone less. This is what makes it efficient whilst also meeting a targeted reduction in pollution. Its much fairer and less costly than a blunt instrument ban. It incentivises those on the margin to make the move to a more efficient car sooner and those not on the margin will simply pay a price for their emissions. Logic is there. It's market forces giving people choices in the same way emissions permits for polluting factories work (you either cut pollution or buy permits for your pollution that pay towards the cost of that pollution) you end up with the most economically efficient outcome. The scrappage scheme helped speed up that shift.
The economics and behavioural science on this show that it works. Not only does it work but it's the most cost effective and economically effective way of doing it.
The only flaw with this is that we aren't getting significant improvements and expansions in public transport to go with it. Which should be a requirement of the plan. In fact should just be a given across the country. Cheaper and better public transport required.
3 -
Can you upgrade though? Someone on a low income with a 20 year old car probably doesn't have the luxury of upgrading their car as financially they are unable to. Same may apply to some sole traders/businesses etc.cantersaddick said:
This has been explained many times before on this thread and the other one but I'll have one more go.Rob7Lee said:
My point really is, is this about cleaner air or collecting money (or both)?Stig said:
I don't know if the mayor has the power to ban someone from owning a particular type of vehicle. Even if he has, he'd still need some way of controlling traffic coming into the city from outside. I bet the number of vehicles coming in daily from places in the home counties is in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Unless you're going to physically set up road blocks (just imagine how that would go down), cameras are probably the simplest most cost effective control method.Rob7Lee said:If this was only about pollution, and 10% or less of vehicles are non compliant, then why didn't we simply ban non compliant cars and give a much greater scrap scheme, the cost of all the cameras, outsourcing etc must come to a tidy sum that would have been better used helping the poorer out of non compliant vehicles for everyone's benefit.
If it was truly about cleaner air then rather than allowing pay per play for polluting vehicles they could have just been banned from being in the zone (appreciate you would still need some form of cameras to catch them if travelling from outside in). Greater help getting people out of the vehicles would also help everyone.
Never been convinced the Euro classification is a good way anyway, so if my 2000 year car is uber efficient and would in reality fall within Euro 5, it won't be exempt simply because of when it was built (unless of course it's pre 1983 then all are exempt no matter how polluting).
They aren't trying to remove all pollution as that would be unrealised rather get pollution down closer to "safe" levels. A ban on polluting vehicles would be a ridiculous blunt instrument. Imagine the outcry. Instead this uses incentives and market forces to achieve a targeted reduction in pollution in an economically efficient way.
There is a lot of economic theory and behavioural science behind this scheme and others like it. It's based on the polluter pays principle (essentially pay for the pollution you create) which has been used around the world for decades in factories/manufacturing, air freight, shipping and more recently in driving in cities around the world. It's essentially an emissions tax on the worst polluters in concentrated areas of high pollution. A target level of air quality is agreed upon and the scheme is designed to meet that. The key element to making it efficient is the choice part. You can choose to scrap your car and upgrade, you can choose to switch modes to avoid the charge, you can choose to continue driving and pay the charge but likely drive into the zone less. This is what makes it efficient whilst also meeting a targeted reduction in pollution. Its much fairer and less costly than a blunt instrument ban. It incentivises those on the margin to make the move to a more efficient car sooner and those not on the margin will simply pay a price for their emissions. Logic is there. It's market forces giving people choices in the same way emissions permits for polluting factories work (you either cut pollution or buy permits for your pollution that pay towards the cost of that pollution) you end up with the most economically efficient outcome. The scrappage scheme helped speed up that shift.
The economics and behavioural science on this show that it works. Not only does it work but it's the most cost effective and economically effective way of doing it.
The only flaw with this is that we aren't getting significant improvements and expansions in public transport to go with it. Which should be a requirement of the plan. In fact should just be a given across the country. Cheaper and better public transport required.
What about those who say live in Dartford or Swanley but work in the zone or schooling? No scrappage scheme for them, nor for those attending London hospital appointments.
What do you think would happen if everyone who drove in the zone 'upgraded' and no fines were collected?
Between 29th August and 18th October 2023 121,000 fines were issued (but only 34,000 paid). In the same period £35m of charge payments was collected (about 3m journeys) - that's in 7 weeks.
Before the expansion so Jan to August 2023 944,000 fines were issued and nearly 74m of fees collected in the same period.
Doesn't sound to me that it's doing much to change habits but it's certainly collecting a lot of money..............
4 - Sponsored links:
-
But that's the point. its about flexibility, to fit everyone's circumstances. There is also the mode shift option. Imagine if they went with your suggestion and banned those people from diving into the area completely. How much worse that would be.Rob7Lee said:
Can you upgrade though? Someone on a low income with a 20 year old car probably doesn't have the luxury of upgrading their car as financially they are unable to. Same may apply to some sole traders/businesses etc.cantersaddick said:
This has been explained many times before on this thread and the other one but I'll have one more go.Rob7Lee said:
My point really is, is this about cleaner air or collecting money (or both)?Stig said:
I don't know if the mayor has the power to ban someone from owning a particular type of vehicle. Even if he has, he'd still need some way of controlling traffic coming into the city from outside. I bet the number of vehicles coming in daily from places in the home counties is in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Unless you're going to physically set up road blocks (just imagine how that would go down), cameras are probably the simplest most cost effective control method.Rob7Lee said:If this was only about pollution, and 10% or less of vehicles are non compliant, then why didn't we simply ban non compliant cars and give a much greater scrap scheme, the cost of all the cameras, outsourcing etc must come to a tidy sum that would have been better used helping the poorer out of non compliant vehicles for everyone's benefit.
If it was truly about cleaner air then rather than allowing pay per play for polluting vehicles they could have just been banned from being in the zone (appreciate you would still need some form of cameras to catch them if travelling from outside in). Greater help getting people out of the vehicles would also help everyone.
Never been convinced the Euro classification is a good way anyway, so if my 2000 year car is uber efficient and would in reality fall within Euro 5, it won't be exempt simply because of when it was built (unless of course it's pre 1983 then all are exempt no matter how polluting).
They aren't trying to remove all pollution as that would be unrealised rather get pollution down closer to "safe" levels. A ban on polluting vehicles would be a ridiculous blunt instrument. Imagine the outcry. Instead this uses incentives and market forces to achieve a targeted reduction in pollution in an economically efficient way.
There is a lot of economic theory and behavioural science behind this scheme and others like it. It's based on the polluter pays principle (essentially pay for the pollution you create) which has been used around the world for decades in factories/manufacturing, air freight, shipping and more recently in driving in cities around the world. It's essentially an emissions tax on the worst polluters in concentrated areas of high pollution. A target level of air quality is agreed upon and the scheme is designed to meet that. The key element to making it efficient is the choice part. You can choose to scrap your car and upgrade, you can choose to switch modes to avoid the charge, you can choose to continue driving and pay the charge but likely drive into the zone less. This is what makes it efficient whilst also meeting a targeted reduction in pollution. Its much fairer and less costly than a blunt instrument ban. It incentivises those on the margin to make the move to a more efficient car sooner and those not on the margin will simply pay a price for their emissions. Logic is there. It's market forces giving people choices in the same way emissions permits for polluting factories work (you either cut pollution or buy permits for your pollution that pay towards the cost of that pollution) you end up with the most economically efficient outcome. The scrappage scheme helped speed up that shift.
The economics and behavioural science on this show that it works. Not only does it work but it's the most cost effective and economically effective way of doing it.
The only flaw with this is that we aren't getting significant improvements and expansions in public transport to go with it. Which should be a requirement of the plan. In fact should just be a given across the country. Cheaper and better public transport required.
What about those who say live in Dartford or Swanley but work in the zone or schooling? No scrappage scheme for them, nor for those attending London hospital appointments.
What do you think would happen if everyone who drove in the zone 'upgraded' and no fines were collected?
Between 29th August and 18th October 2023 121,000 fines were issued (but only 34,000 paid). In the same period £35m of charge payments was collected (about 3m journeys) - that's in 7 weeks.
Before the expansion so Jan to August 2023 944,000 fines were issued and nearly 74m of fees collected in the same period.
Doesn't sound to me that it's doing much to change habits but it's certainly collecting a lot of money..............
Choice and flexibility is always better.
Take up of the scrappage scheme show that this is making choices. Also see all the information on the other thread showing this may not actually make profit and certainly wont in the medium term - because its working and behaviour is changing.2 -
With all that in mind perhaps an outright ban on non-compliant cars is a bad idea? A bomb has already been planted due to a £10 daily fine.Rob7Lee said:
Can you upgrade though? Someone on a low income with a 20 year old car probably doesn't have the luxury of upgrading their car as financially they are unable to. Same may apply to some sole traders/businesses etc.cantersaddick said:
This has been explained many times before on this thread and the other one but I'll have one more go.Rob7Lee said:
My point really is, is this about cleaner air or collecting money (or both)?Stig said:
I don't know if the mayor has the power to ban someone from owning a particular type of vehicle. Even if he has, he'd still need some way of controlling traffic coming into the city from outside. I bet the number of vehicles coming in daily from places in the home counties is in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Unless you're going to physically set up road blocks (just imagine how that would go down), cameras are probably the simplest most cost effective control method.Rob7Lee said:If this was only about pollution, and 10% or less of vehicles are non compliant, then why didn't we simply ban non compliant cars and give a much greater scrap scheme, the cost of all the cameras, outsourcing etc must come to a tidy sum that would have been better used helping the poorer out of non compliant vehicles for everyone's benefit.
If it was truly about cleaner air then rather than allowing pay per play for polluting vehicles they could have just been banned from being in the zone (appreciate you would still need some form of cameras to catch them if travelling from outside in). Greater help getting people out of the vehicles would also help everyone.
Never been convinced the Euro classification is a good way anyway, so if my 2000 year car is uber efficient and would in reality fall within Euro 5, it won't be exempt simply because of when it was built (unless of course it's pre 1983 then all are exempt no matter how polluting).
They aren't trying to remove all pollution as that would be unrealised rather get pollution down closer to "safe" levels. A ban on polluting vehicles would be a ridiculous blunt instrument. Imagine the outcry. Instead this uses incentives and market forces to achieve a targeted reduction in pollution in an economically efficient way.
There is a lot of economic theory and behavioural science behind this scheme and others like it. It's based on the polluter pays principle (essentially pay for the pollution you create) which has been used around the world for decades in factories/manufacturing, air freight, shipping and more recently in driving in cities around the world. It's essentially an emissions tax on the worst polluters in concentrated areas of high pollution. A target level of air quality is agreed upon and the scheme is designed to meet that. The key element to making it efficient is the choice part. You can choose to scrap your car and upgrade, you can choose to switch modes to avoid the charge, you can choose to continue driving and pay the charge but likely drive into the zone less. This is what makes it efficient whilst also meeting a targeted reduction in pollution. Its much fairer and less costly than a blunt instrument ban. It incentivises those on the margin to make the move to a more efficient car sooner and those not on the margin will simply pay a price for their emissions. Logic is there. It's market forces giving people choices in the same way emissions permits for polluting factories work (you either cut pollution or buy permits for your pollution that pay towards the cost of that pollution) you end up with the most economically efficient outcome. The scrappage scheme helped speed up that shift.
The economics and behavioural science on this show that it works. Not only does it work but it's the most cost effective and economically effective way of doing it.
The only flaw with this is that we aren't getting significant improvements and expansions in public transport to go with it. Which should be a requirement of the plan. In fact should just be a given across the country. Cheaper and better public transport required.
What about those who say live in Dartford or Swanley but work in the zone or schooling? No scrappage scheme for them, nor for those attending London hospital appointments.
What do you think would happen if everyone who drove in the zone 'upgraded' and no fines were collected?
Between 29th August and 18th October 2023 121,000 fines were issued (but only 34,000 paid). In the same period £35m of charge payments was collected (about 3m journeys) - that's in 7 weeks.
Before the expansion so Jan to August 2023 944,000 fines were issued and nearly 74m of fees collected in the same period.
Doesn't sound to me that it's doing much to change habits but it's certainly collecting a lot of money..............1 -
I posted ages ago on this thread that it took me about two minutes online to find a cheap ULEZ compliant car.
Better cars are available.There’s also the scrappage scheme.And if that’s a hassle, then there are companies like Redcorn https://www.redcorn.co.uk who will collect your car, recycle it, give you a certificate of destruction, and pay you £300 on top of the scrappage scheme. Or £330 if you drop the vehicle off with them.Or you can sell the vehicle privately.
My local council actually gives an extra £1000 if you are on any benefits at all, or are a carer, or a small business owner.
I think the personal attacks on Khan are a bit OTT. He’s not benefitting personally from this scheme which some people seem to be implying when calling him a ‘grifter’..Neither was Boris grifting when he introduced ULEZ.He’s clearly well meaning, in that he’s promoting a policy that will lose him some votes, and receives multiple death threats for his trouble. The armoured 4x4 vehicle has been raised time and time again by his knockers, despite it being explained that he’s acting on the advice of the Met. It’s getting tedious having to explain this stuff over and over again.The Tories saw the Uxbridge bye-election as a sign that there are votes in being anti ULEZ expansion.
But I don’t think there are enough. Khan will probably win again quite easily, despite the Tories changing the voting system back to first past the post to favour their candidate, Susan Hall, who says she’ll scrap the expansion on day one if she wins. I don’t think enough people are negatively affected to change the result, particularly as more people realise they’re not affected, or used the scrappage scheme.As Canters said above, ‘This has been explained many times before on this thread and the other one but I'll have one more go.’
And a reminder, the poorest people are nowhere near being able to afford to buy, tax and insure a car, and pay for petrol - so this policy doesn't affect them at all, except for the fact that they tend to live in the areas of London most affected by pollution.
PS £1000 doesn't sound much if you're scrapping a van, but more is available for certain vehicles:
The changes came in on Auf 4 2023:- grants for scrapping a non-compliant van will increase from £5,000 to £7,000
- grants for wheelchair accessible vehicles will increase from £5,000 to £10,000
- grants for scrapping minibuses will increase from £7,000 to £9,000
- grants to replace a non-compliant van with electric van increase from £7,500 to £9,500
- grants to replace a non-compliant minibus with an electric minibus increase from £9,500 to £11,500
- retrofit grants increase from £5k to £6k, typically enough to cover the whole cost of retrofitting.
1 -
.Friend Or Defoe said:
Realistically some say a total ban would be difficult, but what if the fine was £1000 if you did drive in the zone in one? Be a matter of weeks before the air was crystal clean. But it's pitched at a level to tempt some to change and for others for TFL to collect literally millions of pounds a week.
With all that in mind perhaps an outright ban on non-compliant cars is a bad idea? A bomb has already been planted due to a £10 daily fine.Rob7Lee said:
Can you upgrade though? Someone on a low income with a 20 year old car probably doesn't have the luxury of upgrading their car as financially they are unable to. Same may apply to some sole traders/businesses etc.cantersaddick said:
This has been explained many times before on this thread and the other one but I'll have one more go.Rob7Lee said:
My point really is, is this about cleaner air or collecting money (or both)?Stig said:
I don't know if the mayor has the power to ban someone from owning a particular type of vehicle. Even if he has, he'd still need some way of controlling traffic coming into the city from outside. I bet the number of vehicles coming in daily from places in the home counties is in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Unless you're going to physically set up road blocks (just imagine how that would go down), cameras are probably the simplest most cost effective control method.Rob7Lee said:If this was only about pollution, and 10% or less of vehicles are non compliant, then why didn't we simply ban non compliant cars and give a much greater scrap scheme, the cost of all the cameras, outsourcing etc must come to a tidy sum that would have been better used helping the poorer out of non compliant vehicles for everyone's benefit.
If it was truly about cleaner air then rather than allowing pay per play for polluting vehicles they could have just been banned from being in the zone (appreciate you would still need some form of cameras to catch them if travelling from outside in). Greater help getting people out of the vehicles would also help everyone.
Never been convinced the Euro classification is a good way anyway, so if my 2000 year car is uber efficient and would in reality fall within Euro 5, it won't be exempt simply because of when it was built (unless of course it's pre 1983 then all are exempt no matter how polluting).
They aren't trying to remove all pollution as that would be unrealised rather get pollution down closer to "safe" levels. A ban on polluting vehicles would be a ridiculous blunt instrument. Imagine the outcry. Instead this uses incentives and market forces to achieve a targeted reduction in pollution in an economically efficient way.
There is a lot of economic theory and behavioural science behind this scheme and others like it. It's based on the polluter pays principle (essentially pay for the pollution you create) which has been used around the world for decades in factories/manufacturing, air freight, shipping and more recently in driving in cities around the world. It's essentially an emissions tax on the worst polluters in concentrated areas of high pollution. A target level of air quality is agreed upon and the scheme is designed to meet that. The key element to making it efficient is the choice part. You can choose to scrap your car and upgrade, you can choose to switch modes to avoid the charge, you can choose to continue driving and pay the charge but likely drive into the zone less. This is what makes it efficient whilst also meeting a targeted reduction in pollution. Its much fairer and less costly than a blunt instrument ban. It incentivises those on the margin to make the move to a more efficient car sooner and those not on the margin will simply pay a price for their emissions. Logic is there. It's market forces giving people choices in the same way emissions permits for polluting factories work (you either cut pollution or buy permits for your pollution that pay towards the cost of that pollution) you end up with the most economically efficient outcome. The scrappage scheme helped speed up that shift.
The economics and behavioural science on this show that it works. Not only does it work but it's the most cost effective and economically effective way of doing it.
The only flaw with this is that we aren't getting significant improvements and expansions in public transport to go with it. Which should be a requirement of the plan. In fact should just be a given across the country. Cheaper and better public transport required.
What about those who say live in Dartford or Swanley but work in the zone or schooling? No scrappage scheme for them, nor for those attending London hospital appointments.
What do you think would happen if everyone who drove in the zone 'upgraded' and no fines were collected?
Between 29th August and 18th October 2023 121,000 fines were issued (but only 34,000 paid). In the same period £35m of charge payments was collected (about 3m journeys) - that's in 7 weeks.
Before the expansion so Jan to August 2023 944,000 fines were issued and nearly 74m of fees collected in the same period.
Doesn't sound to me that it's doing much to change habits but it's certainly collecting a lot of money..............
I'm not saying for one moment cleaning up the air is a bad thing, far from it, but I'm yet to be convinced this isn't also related to money.
@Jamesseed if the scrappage scheme is so wonderful and it's so easy to change to a compliant car, why are TFL collecting millions a week in fee's? (before fines for those who drove but didn't pay the fee).
3 -
Then the number of people that dismiss ULEZ as 'just money making' would be far greater. Meanwhile, there would be people who accidentally got caught up in it because they turned the wrong way off one of the circulars who would literally lose their motors. The idea is very much a non starter.Rob7Lee said:.Friend Or Defoe said:
Realistically some say a total ban would be difficult, but what if the fine was £1000 if you did drive in the zone in one? Be a matter of weeks before the air was crystal clean. But it's pitched at a level to tempt some to change and for others for TFL to collect literally millions of pounds a week.
With all that in mind perhaps an outright ban on non-compliant cars is a bad idea? A bomb has already been planted due to a £10 daily fine.Rob7Lee said:
Can you upgrade though? Someone on a low income with a 20 year old car probably doesn't have the luxury of upgrading their car as financially they are unable to. Same may apply to some sole traders/businesses etc.cantersaddick said:
This has been explained many times before on this thread and the other one but I'll have one more go.Rob7Lee said:
My point really is, is this about cleaner air or collecting money (or both)?Stig said:
I don't know if the mayor has the power to ban someone from owning a particular type of vehicle. Even if he has, he'd still need some way of controlling traffic coming into the city from outside. I bet the number of vehicles coming in daily from places in the home counties is in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Unless you're going to physically set up road blocks (just imagine how that would go down), cameras are probably the simplest most cost effective control method.Rob7Lee said:If this was only about pollution, and 10% or less of vehicles are non compliant, then why didn't we simply ban non compliant cars and give a much greater scrap scheme, the cost of all the cameras, outsourcing etc must come to a tidy sum that would have been better used helping the poorer out of non compliant vehicles for everyone's benefit.
If it was truly about cleaner air then rather than allowing pay per play for polluting vehicles they could have just been banned from being in the zone (appreciate you would still need some form of cameras to catch them if travelling from outside in). Greater help getting people out of the vehicles would also help everyone.
Never been convinced the Euro classification is a good way anyway, so if my 2000 year car is uber efficient and would in reality fall within Euro 5, it won't be exempt simply because of when it was built (unless of course it's pre 1983 then all are exempt no matter how polluting).
They aren't trying to remove all pollution as that would be unrealised rather get pollution down closer to "safe" levels. A ban on polluting vehicles would be a ridiculous blunt instrument. Imagine the outcry. Instead this uses incentives and market forces to achieve a targeted reduction in pollution in an economically efficient way.
There is a lot of economic theory and behavioural science behind this scheme and others like it. It's based on the polluter pays principle (essentially pay for the pollution you create) which has been used around the world for decades in factories/manufacturing, air freight, shipping and more recently in driving in cities around the world. It's essentially an emissions tax on the worst polluters in concentrated areas of high pollution. A target level of air quality is agreed upon and the scheme is designed to meet that. The key element to making it efficient is the choice part. You can choose to scrap your car and upgrade, you can choose to switch modes to avoid the charge, you can choose to continue driving and pay the charge but likely drive into the zone less. This is what makes it efficient whilst also meeting a targeted reduction in pollution. Its much fairer and less costly than a blunt instrument ban. It incentivises those on the margin to make the move to a more efficient car sooner and those not on the margin will simply pay a price for their emissions. Logic is there. It's market forces giving people choices in the same way emissions permits for polluting factories work (you either cut pollution or buy permits for your pollution that pay towards the cost of that pollution) you end up with the most economically efficient outcome. The scrappage scheme helped speed up that shift.
The economics and behavioural science on this show that it works. Not only does it work but it's the most cost effective and economically effective way of doing it.
The only flaw with this is that we aren't getting significant improvements and expansions in public transport to go with it. Which should be a requirement of the plan. In fact should just be a given across the country. Cheaper and better public transport required.
What about those who say live in Dartford or Swanley but work in the zone or schooling? No scrappage scheme for them, nor for those attending London hospital appointments.
What do you think would happen if everyone who drove in the zone 'upgraded' and no fines were collected?
Between 29th August and 18th October 2023 121,000 fines were issued (but only 34,000 paid). In the same period £35m of charge payments was collected (about 3m journeys) - that's in 7 weeks.
Before the expansion so Jan to August 2023 944,000 fines were issued and nearly 74m of fees collected in the same period.
Doesn't sound to me that it's doing much to change habits but it's certainly collecting a lot of money..............
I'm not saying for one moment cleaning up the air is a bad thing, far from it, but I'm yet to be convinced this isn't also related to money.
@Jamesseed if the scrappage scheme is so wonderful and it's so easy to change to a compliant car, why are TFL collecting millions a week in fee's? (before fines for those who drove but didn't pay the fee).3 -
I've not said it's just money making, but in may view that plays a part.Stig said:
Then the number of people that dismiss ULEZ as 'just money making' would be far greater. Meanwhile, there would be people who accidentally got caught up in it because they accidentally turned the wrong way off one of the circulars who would literally lose their motors. The idea is very much a non starter.Rob7Lee said:.Friend Or Defoe said:
Realistically some say a total ban would be difficult, but what if the fine was £1000 if you did drive in the zone in one? Be a matter of weeks before the air was crystal clean. But it's pitched at a level to tempt some to change and for others for TFL to collect literally millions of pounds a week.
With all that in mind perhaps an outright ban on non-compliant cars is a bad idea? A bomb has already been planted due to a £10 daily fine.Rob7Lee said:
Can you upgrade though? Someone on a low income with a 20 year old car probably doesn't have the luxury of upgrading their car as financially they are unable to. Same may apply to some sole traders/businesses etc.cantersaddick said:
This has been explained many times before on this thread and the other one but I'll have one more go.Rob7Lee said:
My point really is, is this about cleaner air or collecting money (or both)?Stig said:
I don't know if the mayor has the power to ban someone from owning a particular type of vehicle. Even if he has, he'd still need some way of controlling traffic coming into the city from outside. I bet the number of vehicles coming in daily from places in the home counties is in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Unless you're going to physically set up road blocks (just imagine how that would go down), cameras are probably the simplest most cost effective control method.Rob7Lee said:If this was only about pollution, and 10% or less of vehicles are non compliant, then why didn't we simply ban non compliant cars and give a much greater scrap scheme, the cost of all the cameras, outsourcing etc must come to a tidy sum that would have been better used helping the poorer out of non compliant vehicles for everyone's benefit.
If it was truly about cleaner air then rather than allowing pay per play for polluting vehicles they could have just been banned from being in the zone (appreciate you would still need some form of cameras to catch them if travelling from outside in). Greater help getting people out of the vehicles would also help everyone.
Never been convinced the Euro classification is a good way anyway, so if my 2000 year car is uber efficient and would in reality fall within Euro 5, it won't be exempt simply because of when it was built (unless of course it's pre 1983 then all are exempt no matter how polluting).
They aren't trying to remove all pollution as that would be unrealised rather get pollution down closer to "safe" levels. A ban on polluting vehicles would be a ridiculous blunt instrument. Imagine the outcry. Instead this uses incentives and market forces to achieve a targeted reduction in pollution in an economically efficient way.
There is a lot of economic theory and behavioural science behind this scheme and others like it. It's based on the polluter pays principle (essentially pay for the pollution you create) which has been used around the world for decades in factories/manufacturing, air freight, shipping and more recently in driving in cities around the world. It's essentially an emissions tax on the worst polluters in concentrated areas of high pollution. A target level of air quality is agreed upon and the scheme is designed to meet that. The key element to making it efficient is the choice part. You can choose to scrap your car and upgrade, you can choose to switch modes to avoid the charge, you can choose to continue driving and pay the charge but likely drive into the zone less. This is what makes it efficient whilst also meeting a targeted reduction in pollution. Its much fairer and less costly than a blunt instrument ban. It incentivises those on the margin to make the move to a more efficient car sooner and those not on the margin will simply pay a price for their emissions. Logic is there. It's market forces giving people choices in the same way emissions permits for polluting factories work (you either cut pollution or buy permits for your pollution that pay towards the cost of that pollution) you end up with the most economically efficient outcome. The scrappage scheme helped speed up that shift.
The economics and behavioural science on this show that it works. Not only does it work but it's the most cost effective and economically effective way of doing it.
The only flaw with this is that we aren't getting significant improvements and expansions in public transport to go with it. Which should be a requirement of the plan. In fact should just be a given across the country. Cheaper and better public transport required.
What about those who say live in Dartford or Swanley but work in the zone or schooling? No scrappage scheme for them, nor for those attending London hospital appointments.
What do you think would happen if everyone who drove in the zone 'upgraded' and no fines were collected?
Between 29th August and 18th October 2023 121,000 fines were issued (but only 34,000 paid). In the same period £35m of charge payments was collected (about 3m journeys) - that's in 7 weeks.
Before the expansion so Jan to August 2023 944,000 fines were issued and nearly 74m of fees collected in the same period.
Doesn't sound to me that it's doing much to change habits but it's certainly collecting a lot of money..............
I'm not saying for one moment cleaning up the air is a bad thing, far from it, but I'm yet to be convinced this isn't also related to money.
@Jamesseed if the scrappage scheme is so wonderful and it's so easy to change to a compliant car, why are TFL collecting millions a week in fee's? (before fines for those who drove but didn't pay the fee).
That's a fair few million journeys making wrong turns! (although to be balanced I know a lot of people got caught out at McDonalds Yorkshire Grey where you weren't in the zone entering but were on the way out!)0 -
Who mentioned millions of wrong turns? I just said it would happen. I didn't quantify it at all.2
-
They’ll be collecting less each month as people switch to compliant cars. They estimate it’ll be zero by 2027, and in the meantime ALL of the revenue is spent on improving transport infrastructure, in particular in areas where there are too few buses etc. I see it as a win win, especially as I live just outside the south circular, and the air here has improved a great deal since 2016. 👍Rob7Lee said:.Friend Or Defoe said:
Realistically some say a total ban would be difficult, but what if the fine was £1000 if you did drive in the zone in one? Be a matter of weeks before the air was crystal clean. But it's pitched at a level to tempt some to change and for others for TFL to collect literally millions of pounds a week.
With all that in mind perhaps an outright ban on non-compliant cars is a bad idea? A bomb has already been planted due to a £10 daily fine.Rob7Lee said:
Can you upgrade though? Someone on a low income with a 20 year old car probably doesn't have the luxury of upgrading their car as financially they are unable to. Same may apply to some sole traders/businesses etc.cantersaddick said:
This has been explained many times before on this thread and the other one but I'll have one more go.Rob7Lee said:
My point really is, is this about cleaner air or collecting money (or both)?Stig said:
I don't know if the mayor has the power to ban someone from owning a particular type of vehicle. Even if he has, he'd still need some way of controlling traffic coming into the city from outside. I bet the number of vehicles coming in daily from places in the home counties is in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Unless you're going to physically set up road blocks (just imagine how that would go down), cameras are probably the simplest most cost effective control method.Rob7Lee said:If this was only about pollution, and 10% or less of vehicles are non compliant, then why didn't we simply ban non compliant cars and give a much greater scrap scheme, the cost of all the cameras, outsourcing etc must come to a tidy sum that would have been better used helping the poorer out of non compliant vehicles for everyone's benefit.
If it was truly about cleaner air then rather than allowing pay per play for polluting vehicles they could have just been banned from being in the zone (appreciate you would still need some form of cameras to catch them if travelling from outside in). Greater help getting people out of the vehicles would also help everyone.
Never been convinced the Euro classification is a good way anyway, so if my 2000 year car is uber efficient and would in reality fall within Euro 5, it won't be exempt simply because of when it was built (unless of course it's pre 1983 then all are exempt no matter how polluting).
They aren't trying to remove all pollution as that would be unrealised rather get pollution down closer to "safe" levels. A ban on polluting vehicles would be a ridiculous blunt instrument. Imagine the outcry. Instead this uses incentives and market forces to achieve a targeted reduction in pollution in an economically efficient way.
There is a lot of economic theory and behavioural science behind this scheme and others like it. It's based on the polluter pays principle (essentially pay for the pollution you create) which has been used around the world for decades in factories/manufacturing, air freight, shipping and more recently in driving in cities around the world. It's essentially an emissions tax on the worst polluters in concentrated areas of high pollution. A target level of air quality is agreed upon and the scheme is designed to meet that. The key element to making it efficient is the choice part. You can choose to scrap your car and upgrade, you can choose to switch modes to avoid the charge, you can choose to continue driving and pay the charge but likely drive into the zone less. This is what makes it efficient whilst also meeting a targeted reduction in pollution. Its much fairer and less costly than a blunt instrument ban. It incentivises those on the margin to make the move to a more efficient car sooner and those not on the margin will simply pay a price for their emissions. Logic is there. It's market forces giving people choices in the same way emissions permits for polluting factories work (you either cut pollution or buy permits for your pollution that pay towards the cost of that pollution) you end up with the most economically efficient outcome. The scrappage scheme helped speed up that shift.
The economics and behavioural science on this show that it works. Not only does it work but it's the most cost effective and economically effective way of doing it.
The only flaw with this is that we aren't getting significant improvements and expansions in public transport to go with it. Which should be a requirement of the plan. In fact should just be a given across the country. Cheaper and better public transport required.
What about those who say live in Dartford or Swanley but work in the zone or schooling? No scrappage scheme for them, nor for those attending London hospital appointments.
What do you think would happen if everyone who drove in the zone 'upgraded' and no fines were collected?
Between 29th August and 18th October 2023 121,000 fines were issued (but only 34,000 paid). In the same period £35m of charge payments was collected (about 3m journeys) - that's in 7 weeks.
Before the expansion so Jan to August 2023 944,000 fines were issued and nearly 74m of fees collected in the same period.
Doesn't sound to me that it's doing much to change habits but it's certainly collecting a lot of money..............
I'm not saying for one moment cleaning up the air is a bad thing, far from it, but I'm yet to be convinced this isn't also related to money.
@Jamesseed if the scrappage scheme is so wonderful and it's so easy to change to a compliant car, why are TFL collecting millions a week in fee's? (before fines for those who drove but didn't pay the fee).2 -
My fear is it will be cash negative much soonerJamesSeed said:
They’ll be collecting less each month as people switch to compliant cars. They estimate it’ll be zero by 2027, and in the meantime ALL of the revenue is spent on improving transport infrastructure, in particular in areas where there are too few buses etc. I see it as a win win, especially as I live just outside the south circular, and the air here has improved a great deal since 2016. 👍Rob7Lee said:.Friend Or Defoe said:
Realistically some say a total ban would be difficult, but what if the fine was £1000 if you did drive in the zone in one? Be a matter of weeks before the air was crystal clean. But it's pitched at a level to tempt some to change and for others for TFL to collect literally millions of pounds a week.
With all that in mind perhaps an outright ban on non-compliant cars is a bad idea? A bomb has already been planted due to a £10 daily fine.Rob7Lee said:
Can you upgrade though? Someone on a low income with a 20 year old car probably doesn't have the luxury of upgrading their car as financially they are unable to. Same may apply to some sole traders/businesses etc.cantersaddick said:
This has been explained many times before on this thread and the other one but I'll have one more go.Rob7Lee said:
My point really is, is this about cleaner air or collecting money (or both)?Stig said:
I don't know if the mayor has the power to ban someone from owning a particular type of vehicle. Even if he has, he'd still need some way of controlling traffic coming into the city from outside. I bet the number of vehicles coming in daily from places in the home counties is in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Unless you're going to physically set up road blocks (just imagine how that would go down), cameras are probably the simplest most cost effective control method.Rob7Lee said:If this was only about pollution, and 10% or less of vehicles are non compliant, then why didn't we simply ban non compliant cars and give a much greater scrap scheme, the cost of all the cameras, outsourcing etc must come to a tidy sum that would have been better used helping the poorer out of non compliant vehicles for everyone's benefit.
If it was truly about cleaner air then rather than allowing pay per play for polluting vehicles they could have just been banned from being in the zone (appreciate you would still need some form of cameras to catch them if travelling from outside in). Greater help getting people out of the vehicles would also help everyone.
Never been convinced the Euro classification is a good way anyway, so if my 2000 year car is uber efficient and would in reality fall within Euro 5, it won't be exempt simply because of when it was built (unless of course it's pre 1983 then all are exempt no matter how polluting).
They aren't trying to remove all pollution as that would be unrealised rather get pollution down closer to "safe" levels. A ban on polluting vehicles would be a ridiculous blunt instrument. Imagine the outcry. Instead this uses incentives and market forces to achieve a targeted reduction in pollution in an economically efficient way.
There is a lot of economic theory and behavioural science behind this scheme and others like it. It's based on the polluter pays principle (essentially pay for the pollution you create) which has been used around the world for decades in factories/manufacturing, air freight, shipping and more recently in driving in cities around the world. It's essentially an emissions tax on the worst polluters in concentrated areas of high pollution. A target level of air quality is agreed upon and the scheme is designed to meet that. The key element to making it efficient is the choice part. You can choose to scrap your car and upgrade, you can choose to switch modes to avoid the charge, you can choose to continue driving and pay the charge but likely drive into the zone less. This is what makes it efficient whilst also meeting a targeted reduction in pollution. Its much fairer and less costly than a blunt instrument ban. It incentivises those on the margin to make the move to a more efficient car sooner and those not on the margin will simply pay a price for their emissions. Logic is there. It's market forces giving people choices in the same way emissions permits for polluting factories work (you either cut pollution or buy permits for your pollution that pay towards the cost of that pollution) you end up with the most economically efficient outcome. The scrappage scheme helped speed up that shift.
The economics and behavioural science on this show that it works. Not only does it work but it's the most cost effective and economically effective way of doing it.
The only flaw with this is that we aren't getting significant improvements and expansions in public transport to go with it. Which should be a requirement of the plan. In fact should just be a given across the country. Cheaper and better public transport required.
What about those who say live in Dartford or Swanley but work in the zone or schooling? No scrappage scheme for them, nor for those attending London hospital appointments.
What do you think would happen if everyone who drove in the zone 'upgraded' and no fines were collected?
Between 29th August and 18th October 2023 121,000 fines were issued (but only 34,000 paid). In the same period £35m of charge payments was collected (about 3m journeys) - that's in 7 weeks.
Before the expansion so Jan to August 2023 944,000 fines were issued and nearly 74m of fees collected in the same period.
Doesn't sound to me that it's doing much to change habits but it's certainly collecting a lot of money..............
I'm not saying for one moment cleaning up the air is a bad thing, far from it, but I'm yet to be convinced this isn't also related to money.
@Jamesseed if the scrappage scheme is so wonderful and it's so easy to change to a compliant car, why are TFL collecting millions a week in fee's? (before fines for those who drove but didn't pay the fee).0 - Sponsored links:
-
Where's the money being spent on infrastructure? And is it really ALL? How was the cameras and installation funded, how is the collection of fines being funded and how are the constant repairs and replacements being funded?JamesSeed said:
They’ll be collecting less each month as people switch to compliant cars. They estimate it’ll be zero by 2027, and in the meantime ALL of the revenue is spent on improving transport infrastructure, in particular in areas where there are too few buses etc. I see it as a win win, especially as I live just outside the south circular, and the air here has improved a great deal since 2016. 👍Rob7Lee said:.Friend Or Defoe said:
Realistically some say a total ban would be difficult, but what if the fine was £1000 if you did drive in the zone in one? Be a matter of weeks before the air was crystal clean. But it's pitched at a level to tempt some to change and for others for TFL to collect literally millions of pounds a week.
With all that in mind perhaps an outright ban on non-compliant cars is a bad idea? A bomb has already been planted due to a £10 daily fine.Rob7Lee said:
Can you upgrade though? Someone on a low income with a 20 year old car probably doesn't have the luxury of upgrading their car as financially they are unable to. Same may apply to some sole traders/businesses etc.cantersaddick said:
This has been explained many times before on this thread and the other one but I'll have one more go.Rob7Lee said:
My point really is, is this about cleaner air or collecting money (or both)?Stig said:
I don't know if the mayor has the power to ban someone from owning a particular type of vehicle. Even if he has, he'd still need some way of controlling traffic coming into the city from outside. I bet the number of vehicles coming in daily from places in the home counties is in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Unless you're going to physically set up road blocks (just imagine how that would go down), cameras are probably the simplest most cost effective control method.Rob7Lee said:If this was only about pollution, and 10% or less of vehicles are non compliant, then why didn't we simply ban non compliant cars and give a much greater scrap scheme, the cost of all the cameras, outsourcing etc must come to a tidy sum that would have been better used helping the poorer out of non compliant vehicles for everyone's benefit.
If it was truly about cleaner air then rather than allowing pay per play for polluting vehicles they could have just been banned from being in the zone (appreciate you would still need some form of cameras to catch them if travelling from outside in). Greater help getting people out of the vehicles would also help everyone.
Never been convinced the Euro classification is a good way anyway, so if my 2000 year car is uber efficient and would in reality fall within Euro 5, it won't be exempt simply because of when it was built (unless of course it's pre 1983 then all are exempt no matter how polluting).
They aren't trying to remove all pollution as that would be unrealised rather get pollution down closer to "safe" levels. A ban on polluting vehicles would be a ridiculous blunt instrument. Imagine the outcry. Instead this uses incentives and market forces to achieve a targeted reduction in pollution in an economically efficient way.
There is a lot of economic theory and behavioural science behind this scheme and others like it. It's based on the polluter pays principle (essentially pay for the pollution you create) which has been used around the world for decades in factories/manufacturing, air freight, shipping and more recently in driving in cities around the world. It's essentially an emissions tax on the worst polluters in concentrated areas of high pollution. A target level of air quality is agreed upon and the scheme is designed to meet that. The key element to making it efficient is the choice part. You can choose to scrap your car and upgrade, you can choose to switch modes to avoid the charge, you can choose to continue driving and pay the charge but likely drive into the zone less. This is what makes it efficient whilst also meeting a targeted reduction in pollution. Its much fairer and less costly than a blunt instrument ban. It incentivises those on the margin to make the move to a more efficient car sooner and those not on the margin will simply pay a price for their emissions. Logic is there. It's market forces giving people choices in the same way emissions permits for polluting factories work (you either cut pollution or buy permits for your pollution that pay towards the cost of that pollution) you end up with the most economically efficient outcome. The scrappage scheme helped speed up that shift.
The economics and behavioural science on this show that it works. Not only does it work but it's the most cost effective and economically effective way of doing it.
The only flaw with this is that we aren't getting significant improvements and expansions in public transport to go with it. Which should be a requirement of the plan. In fact should just be a given across the country. Cheaper and better public transport required.
What about those who say live in Dartford or Swanley but work in the zone or schooling? No scrappage scheme for them, nor for those attending London hospital appointments.
What do you think would happen if everyone who drove in the zone 'upgraded' and no fines were collected?
Between 29th August and 18th October 2023 121,000 fines were issued (but only 34,000 paid). In the same period £35m of charge payments was collected (about 3m journeys) - that's in 7 weeks.
Before the expansion so Jan to August 2023 944,000 fines were issued and nearly 74m of fees collected in the same period.
Doesn't sound to me that it's doing much to change habits but it's certainly collecting a lot of money..............
I'm not saying for one moment cleaning up the air is a bad thing, far from it, but I'm yet to be convinced this isn't also related to money.
@Jamesseed if the scrappage scheme is so wonderful and it's so easy to change to a compliant car, why are TFL collecting millions a week in fee's? (before fines for those who drove but didn't pay the fee).
Sorry, I simply do not believe ALL revenue is spent on improving transport, if it was then who's paying for the running of it all?0 -
I think all your question are answered on the mayor of London website. All their accounts are very heavily scrutinised.Rob7Lee said:
Where's the money being spent on infrastructure? And is it really ALL? How was the cameras and installation funded, how is the collection of fines being funded and how are the constant repairs and replacements being funded?JamesSeed said:
They’ll be collecting less each month as people switch to compliant cars. They estimate it’ll be zero by 2027, and in the meantime ALL of the revenue is spent on improving transport infrastructure, in particular in areas where there are too few buses etc. I see it as a win win, especially as I live just outside the south circular, and the air here has improved a great deal since 2016. 👍Rob7Lee said:.Friend Or Defoe said:
Realistically some say a total ban would be difficult, but what if the fine was £1000 if you did drive in the zone in one? Be a matter of weeks before the air was crystal clean. But it's pitched at a level to tempt some to change and for others for TFL to collect literally millions of pounds a week.
With all that in mind perhaps an outright ban on non-compliant cars is a bad idea? A bomb has already been planted due to a £10 daily fine.Rob7Lee said:
Can you upgrade though? Someone on a low income with a 20 year old car probably doesn't have the luxury of upgrading their car as financially they are unable to. Same may apply to some sole traders/businesses etc.cantersaddick said:
This has been explained many times before on this thread and the other one but I'll have one more go.Rob7Lee said:
My point really is, is this about cleaner air or collecting money (or both)?Stig said:
I don't know if the mayor has the power to ban someone from owning a particular type of vehicle. Even if he has, he'd still need some way of controlling traffic coming into the city from outside. I bet the number of vehicles coming in daily from places in the home counties is in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Unless you're going to physically set up road blocks (just imagine how that would go down), cameras are probably the simplest most cost effective control method.Rob7Lee said:If this was only about pollution, and 10% or less of vehicles are non compliant, then why didn't we simply ban non compliant cars and give a much greater scrap scheme, the cost of all the cameras, outsourcing etc must come to a tidy sum that would have been better used helping the poorer out of non compliant vehicles for everyone's benefit.
If it was truly about cleaner air then rather than allowing pay per play for polluting vehicles they could have just been banned from being in the zone (appreciate you would still need some form of cameras to catch them if travelling from outside in). Greater help getting people out of the vehicles would also help everyone.
Never been convinced the Euro classification is a good way anyway, so if my 2000 year car is uber efficient and would in reality fall within Euro 5, it won't be exempt simply because of when it was built (unless of course it's pre 1983 then all are exempt no matter how polluting).
They aren't trying to remove all pollution as that would be unrealised rather get pollution down closer to "safe" levels. A ban on polluting vehicles would be a ridiculous blunt instrument. Imagine the outcry. Instead this uses incentives and market forces to achieve a targeted reduction in pollution in an economically efficient way.
There is a lot of economic theory and behavioural science behind this scheme and others like it. It's based on the polluter pays principle (essentially pay for the pollution you create) which has been used around the world for decades in factories/manufacturing, air freight, shipping and more recently in driving in cities around the world. It's essentially an emissions tax on the worst polluters in concentrated areas of high pollution. A target level of air quality is agreed upon and the scheme is designed to meet that. The key element to making it efficient is the choice part. You can choose to scrap your car and upgrade, you can choose to switch modes to avoid the charge, you can choose to continue driving and pay the charge but likely drive into the zone less. This is what makes it efficient whilst also meeting a targeted reduction in pollution. Its much fairer and less costly than a blunt instrument ban. It incentivises those on the margin to make the move to a more efficient car sooner and those not on the margin will simply pay a price for their emissions. Logic is there. It's market forces giving people choices in the same way emissions permits for polluting factories work (you either cut pollution or buy permits for your pollution that pay towards the cost of that pollution) you end up with the most economically efficient outcome. The scrappage scheme helped speed up that shift.
The economics and behavioural science on this show that it works. Not only does it work but it's the most cost effective and economically effective way of doing it.
The only flaw with this is that we aren't getting significant improvements and expansions in public transport to go with it. Which should be a requirement of the plan. In fact should just be a given across the country. Cheaper and better public transport required.
What about those who say live in Dartford or Swanley but work in the zone or schooling? No scrappage scheme for them, nor for those attending London hospital appointments.
What do you think would happen if everyone who drove in the zone 'upgraded' and no fines were collected?
Between 29th August and 18th October 2023 121,000 fines were issued (but only 34,000 paid). In the same period £35m of charge payments was collected (about 3m journeys) - that's in 7 weeks.
Before the expansion so Jan to August 2023 944,000 fines were issued and nearly 74m of fees collected in the same period.
Doesn't sound to me that it's doing much to change habits but it's certainly collecting a lot of money..............
I'm not saying for one moment cleaning up the air is a bad thing, far from it, but I'm yet to be convinced this isn't also related to money.
@Jamesseed if the scrappage scheme is so wonderful and it's so easy to change to a compliant car, why are TFL collecting millions a week in fee's? (before fines for those who drove but didn't pay the fee).
Sorry, I simply do not believe ALL revenue is spent on improving transport, if it was then who's paying for the running of it all?
I don’t really understand why you’re so worried. It’s not like PPE where OUR money (billions!) disappeared in the accounts of people like Michelle Mone. Do you think we’ll ever get that back?5 -
What on earth does PPE have to do with Ulez!?!JamesSeed said:
I think all your question are answered on the mayor of London website. All their accounts are very heavily scrutinised.Rob7Lee said:
Where's the money being spent on infrastructure? And is it really ALL? How was the cameras and installation funded, how is the collection of fines being funded and how are the constant repairs and replacements being funded?JamesSeed said:
They’ll be collecting less each month as people switch to compliant cars. They estimate it’ll be zero by 2027, and in the meantime ALL of the revenue is spent on improving transport infrastructure, in particular in areas where there are too few buses etc. I see it as a win win, especially as I live just outside the south circular, and the air here has improved a great deal since 2016. 👍Rob7Lee said:.Friend Or Defoe said:
Realistically some say a total ban would be difficult, but what if the fine was £1000 if you did drive in the zone in one? Be a matter of weeks before the air was crystal clean. But it's pitched at a level to tempt some to change and for others for TFL to collect literally millions of pounds a week.
With all that in mind perhaps an outright ban on non-compliant cars is a bad idea? A bomb has already been planted due to a £10 daily fine.Rob7Lee said:
Can you upgrade though? Someone on a low income with a 20 year old car probably doesn't have the luxury of upgrading their car as financially they are unable to. Same may apply to some sole traders/businesses etc.cantersaddick said:
This has been explained many times before on this thread and the other one but I'll have one more go.Rob7Lee said:
My point really is, is this about cleaner air or collecting money (or both)?Stig said:
I don't know if the mayor has the power to ban someone from owning a particular type of vehicle. Even if he has, he'd still need some way of controlling traffic coming into the city from outside. I bet the number of vehicles coming in daily from places in the home counties is in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Unless you're going to physically set up road blocks (just imagine how that would go down), cameras are probably the simplest most cost effective control method.Rob7Lee said:If this was only about pollution, and 10% or less of vehicles are non compliant, then why didn't we simply ban non compliant cars and give a much greater scrap scheme, the cost of all the cameras, outsourcing etc must come to a tidy sum that would have been better used helping the poorer out of non compliant vehicles for everyone's benefit.
If it was truly about cleaner air then rather than allowing pay per play for polluting vehicles they could have just been banned from being in the zone (appreciate you would still need some form of cameras to catch them if travelling from outside in). Greater help getting people out of the vehicles would also help everyone.
Never been convinced the Euro classification is a good way anyway, so if my 2000 year car is uber efficient and would in reality fall within Euro 5, it won't be exempt simply because of when it was built (unless of course it's pre 1983 then all are exempt no matter how polluting).
They aren't trying to remove all pollution as that would be unrealised rather get pollution down closer to "safe" levels. A ban on polluting vehicles would be a ridiculous blunt instrument. Imagine the outcry. Instead this uses incentives and market forces to achieve a targeted reduction in pollution in an economically efficient way.
There is a lot of economic theory and behavioural science behind this scheme and others like it. It's based on the polluter pays principle (essentially pay for the pollution you create) which has been used around the world for decades in factories/manufacturing, air freight, shipping and more recently in driving in cities around the world. It's essentially an emissions tax on the worst polluters in concentrated areas of high pollution. A target level of air quality is agreed upon and the scheme is designed to meet that. The key element to making it efficient is the choice part. You can choose to scrap your car and upgrade, you can choose to switch modes to avoid the charge, you can choose to continue driving and pay the charge but likely drive into the zone less. This is what makes it efficient whilst also meeting a targeted reduction in pollution. Its much fairer and less costly than a blunt instrument ban. It incentivises those on the margin to make the move to a more efficient car sooner and those not on the margin will simply pay a price for their emissions. Logic is there. It's market forces giving people choices in the same way emissions permits for polluting factories work (you either cut pollution or buy permits for your pollution that pay towards the cost of that pollution) you end up with the most economically efficient outcome. The scrappage scheme helped speed up that shift.
The economics and behavioural science on this show that it works. Not only does it work but it's the most cost effective and economically effective way of doing it.
The only flaw with this is that we aren't getting significant improvements and expansions in public transport to go with it. Which should be a requirement of the plan. In fact should just be a given across the country. Cheaper and better public transport required.
What about those who say live in Dartford or Swanley but work in the zone or schooling? No scrappage scheme for them, nor for those attending London hospital appointments.
What do you think would happen if everyone who drove in the zone 'upgraded' and no fines were collected?
Between 29th August and 18th October 2023 121,000 fines were issued (but only 34,000 paid). In the same period £35m of charge payments was collected (about 3m journeys) - that's in 7 weeks.
Before the expansion so Jan to August 2023 944,000 fines were issued and nearly 74m of fees collected in the same period.
Doesn't sound to me that it's doing much to change habits but it's certainly collecting a lot of money..............
I'm not saying for one moment cleaning up the air is a bad thing, far from it, but I'm yet to be convinced this isn't also related to money.
@Jamesseed if the scrappage scheme is so wonderful and it's so easy to change to a compliant car, why are TFL collecting millions a week in fee's? (before fines for those who drove but didn't pay the fee).
Sorry, I simply do not believe ALL revenue is spent on improving transport, if it was then who's paying for the running of it all?
I don’t really understand why you’re so worried. It’s not like PPE where OUR money (billions!) disappeared in the accounts of people like Michelle Mone. Do you think we’ll ever get that back?
Something like this should have been at a national level, not it's OK to pollute Dartford but not Bexley.
At a national level it would've been very simple and benefitted everyone and cost very little money if any, just increase VED on non compliant vehicles, year 1 an extra £250, year 2 an extra £750, year 3 an extra £1,250........ and so on, job done.5 -
But this isn't a national problem. The problem is localised air quality. Why would a national tax do anything to improve this? It needs a local solution to solve a local problem.Rob7Lee said:
What on earth does PPE have to do with Ulez!?!JamesSeed said:
I think all your question are answered on the mayor of London website. All their accounts are very heavily scrutinised.Rob7Lee said:
Where's the money being spent on infrastructure? And is it really ALL? How was the cameras and installation funded, how is the collection of fines being funded and how are the constant repairs and replacements being funded?JamesSeed said:
They’ll be collecting less each month as people switch to compliant cars. They estimate it’ll be zero by 2027, and in the meantime ALL of the revenue is spent on improving transport infrastructure, in particular in areas where there are too few buses etc. I see it as a win win, especially as I live just outside the south circular, and the air here has improved a great deal since 2016. 👍Rob7Lee said:.Friend Or Defoe said:
Realistically some say a total ban would be difficult, but what if the fine was £1000 if you did drive in the zone in one? Be a matter of weeks before the air was crystal clean. But it's pitched at a level to tempt some to change and for others for TFL to collect literally millions of pounds a week.
With all that in mind perhaps an outright ban on non-compliant cars is a bad idea? A bomb has already been planted due to a £10 daily fine.Rob7Lee said:
Can you upgrade though? Someone on a low income with a 20 year old car probably doesn't have the luxury of upgrading their car as financially they are unable to. Same may apply to some sole traders/businesses etc.cantersaddick said:
This has been explained many times before on this thread and the other one but I'll have one more go.Rob7Lee said:
My point really is, is this about cleaner air or collecting money (or both)?Stig said:
I don't know if the mayor has the power to ban someone from owning a particular type of vehicle. Even if he has, he'd still need some way of controlling traffic coming into the city from outside. I bet the number of vehicles coming in daily from places in the home counties is in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Unless you're going to physically set up road blocks (just imagine how that would go down), cameras are probably the simplest most cost effective control method.Rob7Lee said:If this was only about pollution, and 10% or less of vehicles are non compliant, then why didn't we simply ban non compliant cars and give a much greater scrap scheme, the cost of all the cameras, outsourcing etc must come to a tidy sum that would have been better used helping the poorer out of non compliant vehicles for everyone's benefit.
If it was truly about cleaner air then rather than allowing pay per play for polluting vehicles they could have just been banned from being in the zone (appreciate you would still need some form of cameras to catch them if travelling from outside in). Greater help getting people out of the vehicles would also help everyone.
Never been convinced the Euro classification is a good way anyway, so if my 2000 year car is uber efficient and would in reality fall within Euro 5, it won't be exempt simply because of when it was built (unless of course it's pre 1983 then all are exempt no matter how polluting).
They aren't trying to remove all pollution as that would be unrealised rather get pollution down closer to "safe" levels. A ban on polluting vehicles would be a ridiculous blunt instrument. Imagine the outcry. Instead this uses incentives and market forces to achieve a targeted reduction in pollution in an economically efficient way.
There is a lot of economic theory and behavioural science behind this scheme and others like it. It's based on the polluter pays principle (essentially pay for the pollution you create) which has been used around the world for decades in factories/manufacturing, air freight, shipping and more recently in driving in cities around the world. It's essentially an emissions tax on the worst polluters in concentrated areas of high pollution. A target level of air quality is agreed upon and the scheme is designed to meet that. The key element to making it efficient is the choice part. You can choose to scrap your car and upgrade, you can choose to switch modes to avoid the charge, you can choose to continue driving and pay the charge but likely drive into the zone less. This is what makes it efficient whilst also meeting a targeted reduction in pollution. Its much fairer and less costly than a blunt instrument ban. It incentivises those on the margin to make the move to a more efficient car sooner and those not on the margin will simply pay a price for their emissions. Logic is there. It's market forces giving people choices in the same way emissions permits for polluting factories work (you either cut pollution or buy permits for your pollution that pay towards the cost of that pollution) you end up with the most economically efficient outcome. The scrappage scheme helped speed up that shift.
The economics and behavioural science on this show that it works. Not only does it work but it's the most cost effective and economically effective way of doing it.
The only flaw with this is that we aren't getting significant improvements and expansions in public transport to go with it. Which should be a requirement of the plan. In fact should just be a given across the country. Cheaper and better public transport required.
What about those who say live in Dartford or Swanley but work in the zone or schooling? No scrappage scheme for them, nor for those attending London hospital appointments.
What do you think would happen if everyone who drove in the zone 'upgraded' and no fines were collected?
Between 29th August and 18th October 2023 121,000 fines were issued (but only 34,000 paid). In the same period £35m of charge payments was collected (about 3m journeys) - that's in 7 weeks.
Before the expansion so Jan to August 2023 944,000 fines were issued and nearly 74m of fees collected in the same period.
Doesn't sound to me that it's doing much to change habits but it's certainly collecting a lot of money..............
I'm not saying for one moment cleaning up the air is a bad thing, far from it, but I'm yet to be convinced this isn't also related to money.
@Jamesseed if the scrappage scheme is so wonderful and it's so easy to change to a compliant car, why are TFL collecting millions a week in fee's? (before fines for those who drove but didn't pay the fee).
Sorry, I simply do not believe ALL revenue is spent on improving transport, if it was then who's paying for the running of it all?
I don’t really understand why you’re so worried. It’s not like PPE where OUR money (billions!) disappeared in the accounts of people like Michelle Mone. Do you think we’ll ever get that back?
Something like this should have been at a national level, not it's OK to pollute Dartford but not Bexley.
At a national level it would've been very simple and benefitted everyone and cost very little money if any, just increase VED on non compliant vehicles, year 1 an extra £250, year 2 an extra £750, year 3 an extra £1,250........ and so on, job done.4 -
So Dartford (think where it is!) is breathing very clean air is it? As is Swanley? Or is it that isn't under the remit of the London Mayor and TFL? How would you suggest they (Dartford & Sevenoaks councils) go about implementing anything?cantersaddick said:
But this isn't a national problem. The problem is localised air quality. Why would a national tax do anything to improve this? It needs a local solution to solve a local problem.Rob7Lee said:
What on earth does PPE have to do with Ulez!?!JamesSeed said:
I think all your question are answered on the mayor of London website. All their accounts are very heavily scrutinised.Rob7Lee said:
Where's the money being spent on infrastructure? And is it really ALL? How was the cameras and installation funded, how is the collection of fines being funded and how are the constant repairs and replacements being funded?JamesSeed said:
They’ll be collecting less each month as people switch to compliant cars. They estimate it’ll be zero by 2027, and in the meantime ALL of the revenue is spent on improving transport infrastructure, in particular in areas where there are too few buses etc. I see it as a win win, especially as I live just outside the south circular, and the air here has improved a great deal since 2016. 👍Rob7Lee said:.Friend Or Defoe said:
Realistically some say a total ban would be difficult, but what if the fine was £1000 if you did drive in the zone in one? Be a matter of weeks before the air was crystal clean. But it's pitched at a level to tempt some to change and for others for TFL to collect literally millions of pounds a week.
With all that in mind perhaps an outright ban on non-compliant cars is a bad idea? A bomb has already been planted due to a £10 daily fine.Rob7Lee said:
Can you upgrade though? Someone on a low income with a 20 year old car probably doesn't have the luxury of upgrading their car as financially they are unable to. Same may apply to some sole traders/businesses etc.cantersaddick said:
This has been explained many times before on this thread and the other one but I'll have one more go.Rob7Lee said:
My point really is, is this about cleaner air or collecting money (or both)?Stig said:
I don't know if the mayor has the power to ban someone from owning a particular type of vehicle. Even if he has, he'd still need some way of controlling traffic coming into the city from outside. I bet the number of vehicles coming in daily from places in the home counties is in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Unless you're going to physically set up road blocks (just imagine how that would go down), cameras are probably the simplest most cost effective control method.Rob7Lee said:If this was only about pollution, and 10% or less of vehicles are non compliant, then why didn't we simply ban non compliant cars and give a much greater scrap scheme, the cost of all the cameras, outsourcing etc must come to a tidy sum that would have been better used helping the poorer out of non compliant vehicles for everyone's benefit.
If it was truly about cleaner air then rather than allowing pay per play for polluting vehicles they could have just been banned from being in the zone (appreciate you would still need some form of cameras to catch them if travelling from outside in). Greater help getting people out of the vehicles would also help everyone.
Never been convinced the Euro classification is a good way anyway, so if my 2000 year car is uber efficient and would in reality fall within Euro 5, it won't be exempt simply because of when it was built (unless of course it's pre 1983 then all are exempt no matter how polluting).
They aren't trying to remove all pollution as that would be unrealised rather get pollution down closer to "safe" levels. A ban on polluting vehicles would be a ridiculous blunt instrument. Imagine the outcry. Instead this uses incentives and market forces to achieve a targeted reduction in pollution in an economically efficient way.
There is a lot of economic theory and behavioural science behind this scheme and others like it. It's based on the polluter pays principle (essentially pay for the pollution you create) which has been used around the world for decades in factories/manufacturing, air freight, shipping and more recently in driving in cities around the world. It's essentially an emissions tax on the worst polluters in concentrated areas of high pollution. A target level of air quality is agreed upon and the scheme is designed to meet that. The key element to making it efficient is the choice part. You can choose to scrap your car and upgrade, you can choose to switch modes to avoid the charge, you can choose to continue driving and pay the charge but likely drive into the zone less. This is what makes it efficient whilst also meeting a targeted reduction in pollution. Its much fairer and less costly than a blunt instrument ban. It incentivises those on the margin to make the move to a more efficient car sooner and those not on the margin will simply pay a price for their emissions. Logic is there. It's market forces giving people choices in the same way emissions permits for polluting factories work (you either cut pollution or buy permits for your pollution that pay towards the cost of that pollution) you end up with the most economically efficient outcome. The scrappage scheme helped speed up that shift.
The economics and behavioural science on this show that it works. Not only does it work but it's the most cost effective and economically effective way of doing it.
The only flaw with this is that we aren't getting significant improvements and expansions in public transport to go with it. Which should be a requirement of the plan. In fact should just be a given across the country. Cheaper and better public transport required.
What about those who say live in Dartford or Swanley but work in the zone or schooling? No scrappage scheme for them, nor for those attending London hospital appointments.
What do you think would happen if everyone who drove in the zone 'upgraded' and no fines were collected?
Between 29th August and 18th October 2023 121,000 fines were issued (but only 34,000 paid). In the same period £35m of charge payments was collected (about 3m journeys) - that's in 7 weeks.
Before the expansion so Jan to August 2023 944,000 fines were issued and nearly 74m of fees collected in the same period.
Doesn't sound to me that it's doing much to change habits but it's certainly collecting a lot of money..............
I'm not saying for one moment cleaning up the air is a bad thing, far from it, but I'm yet to be convinced this isn't also related to money.
@Jamesseed if the scrappage scheme is so wonderful and it's so easy to change to a compliant car, why are TFL collecting millions a week in fee's? (before fines for those who drove but didn't pay the fee).
Sorry, I simply do not believe ALL revenue is spent on improving transport, if it was then who's paying for the running of it all?
I don’t really understand why you’re so worried. It’s not like PPE where OUR money (billions!) disappeared in the accounts of people like Michelle Mone. Do you think we’ll ever get that back?
Something like this should have been at a national level, not it's OK to pollute Dartford but not Bexley.
At a national level it would've been very simple and benefitted everyone and cost very little money if any, just increase VED on non compliant vehicles, year 1 an extra £250, year 2 an extra £750, year 3 an extra £1,250........ and so on, job done.
Whilst the big cities would clearly have the higher levels of polluting cars based on numbers to exclude elsewhere is short sighted. When we are forced to go electric I assume that'll only be for people in the big cities, petrol & Diesel cars can still be sold in Kent for instance as not a problem there?
A national solution such as VED would have been very simple, very cheap and helped everyone.2 -
I don't get the Supporters of this scheme and don't get why you can't see that an outright ban would be honest, equitable and very effective at reducing air pollution. Far more effective than the current situation.
The only possible reason I can see that this route has been chosen is because it raises a shit load of money and allows the 'haves' to keep their cars because they have the means to do so.
Why do you think that people are so pissed off with this to such an extent that they have said enough is enough and committing criminal damage? They see the ULEZ expansion for what it is.1 -
You don't like it because it's not strict enough? An outright ban would be better for the have nots?TellyTubby said:I don't get the Supporters of this scheme and don't get why you can't see that an outright ban would be honest, equitable and very effective at reducing air pollution. Far more effective than the current situation.
The only possible reason I can see that this route has been chosen is because it raises a shit load of money and allows the 'haves' to keep their cars because they have the means to do so.
Why do you think that people are so pissed off with this to such an extent that they have said enough is enough and committing criminal damage? They see the ULEZ expansion for what it is.
I assume Dartford is outside the mayor's remit.0 -
I dislike it because it is dishonest, inefficient, inequitable money grabbing scheme dressed up in a green cloak that has fooled too many people.Friend Or Defoe said:
You don't like it because it's not strict enough? An outright ban would be better for the have nots?TellyTubby said:I don't get the Supporters of this scheme and don't get why you can't see that an outright ban would be honest, equitable and very effective at reducing air pollution. Far more effective than the current situation.
The only possible reason I can see that this route has been chosen is because it raises a shit load of money and allows the 'haves' to keep their cars because they have the means to do so.
Why do you think that people are so pissed off with this to such an extent that they have said enough is enough and committing criminal damage? They see the ULEZ expansion for what it is.
I assume Dartford is outside the mayor's remit.2 -
How on earth would an outright ban be more equitable than the current situation? Anyone travelling into the ULEZ zone on an occasional basis would be totally unable to do so. Anyone unable to replace their polluting vehicle would be totally unable to even drive. Surely it's the 'have nots' who would be screwed over more by that.TellyTubby said:I don't get the Supporters of this scheme and don't get why you can't see that an outright ban would be honest, equitable and very effective at reducing air pollution. Far more effective than the current situation.
The only possible reason I can see that this route has been chosen is because it raises a shit load of money and allows the 'haves' to keep their cars because they have the means to do so.3 -
Lots of other areas have introduced emission zones and more will be coming in the future, so it will be national at some point. From memory: Portsmouth, Bristol, Birmingham have some sort of system in place. Wish they'd do something in Southampton but it would have to target cruise ships and their passengers to make any real difference!Rob7Lee said:
What on earth does PPE have to do with Ulez!?!JamesSeed said:
I think all your question are answered on the mayor of London website. All their accounts are very heavily scrutinised.Rob7Lee said:
Where's the money being spent on infrastructure? And is it really ALL? How was the cameras and installation funded, how is the collection of fines being funded and how are the constant repairs and replacements being funded?JamesSeed said:
They’ll be collecting less each month as people switch to compliant cars. They estimate it’ll be zero by 2027, and in the meantime ALL of the revenue is spent on improving transport infrastructure, in particular in areas where there are too few buses etc. I see it as a win win, especially as I live just outside the south circular, and the air here has improved a great deal since 2016. 👍Rob7Lee said:.Friend Or Defoe said:
Realistically some say a total ban would be difficult, but what if the fine was £1000 if you did drive in the zone in one? Be a matter of weeks before the air was crystal clean. But it's pitched at a level to tempt some to change and for others for TFL to collect literally millions of pounds a week.
With all that in mind perhaps an outright ban on non-compliant cars is a bad idea? A bomb has already been planted due to a £10 daily fine.Rob7Lee said:
Can you upgrade though? Someone on a low income with a 20 year old car probably doesn't have the luxury of upgrading their car as financially they are unable to. Same may apply to some sole traders/businesses etc.cantersaddick said:
This has been explained many times before on this thread and the other one but I'll have one more go.Rob7Lee said:
My point really is, is this about cleaner air or collecting money (or both)?Stig said:
I don't know if the mayor has the power to ban someone from owning a particular type of vehicle. Even if he has, he'd still need some way of controlling traffic coming into the city from outside. I bet the number of vehicles coming in daily from places in the home counties is in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Unless you're going to physically set up road blocks (just imagine how that would go down), cameras are probably the simplest most cost effective control method.Rob7Lee said:If this was only about pollution, and 10% or less of vehicles are non compliant, then why didn't we simply ban non compliant cars and give a much greater scrap scheme, the cost of all the cameras, outsourcing etc must come to a tidy sum that would have been better used helping the poorer out of non compliant vehicles for everyone's benefit.
If it was truly about cleaner air then rather than allowing pay per play for polluting vehicles they could have just been banned from being in the zone (appreciate you would still need some form of cameras to catch them if travelling from outside in). Greater help getting people out of the vehicles would also help everyone.
Never been convinced the Euro classification is a good way anyway, so if my 2000 year car is uber efficient and would in reality fall within Euro 5, it won't be exempt simply because of when it was built (unless of course it's pre 1983 then all are exempt no matter how polluting).
They aren't trying to remove all pollution as that would be unrealised rather get pollution down closer to "safe" levels. A ban on polluting vehicles would be a ridiculous blunt instrument. Imagine the outcry. Instead this uses incentives and market forces to achieve a targeted reduction in pollution in an economically efficient way.
There is a lot of economic theory and behavioural science behind this scheme and others like it. It's based on the polluter pays principle (essentially pay for the pollution you create) which has been used around the world for decades in factories/manufacturing, air freight, shipping and more recently in driving in cities around the world. It's essentially an emissions tax on the worst polluters in concentrated areas of high pollution. A target level of air quality is agreed upon and the scheme is designed to meet that. The key element to making it efficient is the choice part. You can choose to scrap your car and upgrade, you can choose to switch modes to avoid the charge, you can choose to continue driving and pay the charge but likely drive into the zone less. This is what makes it efficient whilst also meeting a targeted reduction in pollution. Its much fairer and less costly than a blunt instrument ban. It incentivises those on the margin to make the move to a more efficient car sooner and those not on the margin will simply pay a price for their emissions. Logic is there. It's market forces giving people choices in the same way emissions permits for polluting factories work (you either cut pollution or buy permits for your pollution that pay towards the cost of that pollution) you end up with the most economically efficient outcome. The scrappage scheme helped speed up that shift.
The economics and behavioural science on this show that it works. Not only does it work but it's the most cost effective and economically effective way of doing it.
The only flaw with this is that we aren't getting significant improvements and expansions in public transport to go with it. Which should be a requirement of the plan. In fact should just be a given across the country. Cheaper and better public transport required.
What about those who say live in Dartford or Swanley but work in the zone or schooling? No scrappage scheme for them, nor for those attending London hospital appointments.
What do you think would happen if everyone who drove in the zone 'upgraded' and no fines were collected?
Between 29th August and 18th October 2023 121,000 fines were issued (but only 34,000 paid). In the same period £35m of charge payments was collected (about 3m journeys) - that's in 7 weeks.
Before the expansion so Jan to August 2023 944,000 fines were issued and nearly 74m of fees collected in the same period.
Doesn't sound to me that it's doing much to change habits but it's certainly collecting a lot of money..............
I'm not saying for one moment cleaning up the air is a bad thing, far from it, but I'm yet to be convinced this isn't also related to money.
@Jamesseed if the scrappage scheme is so wonderful and it's so easy to change to a compliant car, why are TFL collecting millions a week in fee's? (before fines for those who drove but didn't pay the fee).
Sorry, I simply do not believe ALL revenue is spent on improving transport, if it was then who's paying for the running of it all?
I don’t really understand why you’re so worried. It’s not like PPE where OUR money (billions!) disappeared in the accounts of people like Michelle Mone. Do you think we’ll ever get that back?
Something like this should have been at a national level, not it's OK to pollute Dartford but not Bexley.
At a national level it would've been very simple and benefitted everyone and cost very little money if any, just increase VED on non compliant vehicles, year 1 an extra £250, year 2 an extra £750, year 3 an extra £1,250........ and so on, job done.
EDIT Info here on clean air zones in the UK https://motorway.co.uk/sell-my-car/guides/uk-clean-air-zones0
