Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Extension of ULEZ to South Circular
Comments
-
That’s my point, make it national to start with and save a huge amount of money. Just a bit of IT work at the DVLA.Wilma said:
Lots of other areas are/have introduced emission zones and more will be coming in the future, so it will be national at some point. From memory: Portsmouth, Bristol, Bath, 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.0 -
Southampton don't begin with a B thoughWilma said:
Lots of other areas are/have introduced emission zones and more will be coming in the future, so it will be national at some point. From memory: Bortsmouth, Bristol, Bath, 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.4 -
The wholesale sell off of public services and natural resources like energy and water and the PFI projects were solely concerned with reducing the expenditure funded by taxation. Passing over the assets to be harvested for profit by investors, without any effective means of protecting consumers, was excused on the grounds that the public at large would be the shareholders able to influence the activity of private companies - that turned out well!cantersaddick said:
Yes agreed. What we need is a public owned energy company investing fully in renewables that can compete on the energy market and apply downwards pressure on prices. We also need proper regulation of the energy sector and a direct tax on excess profits in the sector.JamesSeed said:
Public ownership, or joint ownership is the way forward. Water too imho. Polling suggests that there’s a lot of support for it.cantersaddick said:
And of course the fact that renewables actually cost 20-25% of non-renewables and so moving in that direction will actually bring down peoples energy and heating bills - giving more disposable income. its only because the formula for setting energy prices is based on the marginal cost that this hasn't fed through into current prices, and that the energy companies are so powerful and lobby very successfully that has prevented governments from taking actions that might dent their 700% annual increase in profits.JamesSeed said:
Improving the environment, including the air that we breathe, as well as improving the chances that our children and grandchildren actually have a planet to live on, is probably worth ‘sacrificing [a bit of] our disposable income’. In fact there’s plenty of evidence to suggest we’ll be better off in the long run using renewable energy. All these things improve our quality of life, so how would it be ‘sacrificing our quality of life’?cafcnick1992 said:
That's fine Stig, as long as we're all able to acknowledge that we're all sacrificing our disposable income and general quality of life to make zero impact on climate change. It's one hell of a deal!Stig said:cafcnick1992 said:London could disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow and it wouldn't make a blip on global carbon emissions.
If people are serious they have to address the real polluters - not attack working class people in Biggin Hill.cafcnick1992 said:
As if punishing people living in Bromley is the goal to fixing climate change.swords_alive said:
Climate change is a bugger isn't it. If only we could roll the clock back and pretend everything is rosy.cafcnick1992 said:Weird how people cheer on a car free existence. I appreciate there are downsides but the reason so many people own cars is because they give you freedom to do the things you love (when they're not being used to commute).
We're championing policies that will ensure our future generations have less freedom than we do/did for very little gain.
Don't worry Xi Jinping and his coal burning empire are closely watching the habits of Charlton fans to understand how to proceed next.
'Don't do anything that affects my life choices. It's everyone else mate. Make them change, not me'.
Classic nimbyism and totally wrong. We all have a part to play. The Mayor of London (the clue is in the job title) as some power to make changes for the better within his city. The only power he has in China or elsewhere is the soft power to demonstrate that we are a city that takes environmental issues seriously and are doing what we can to minimise emissions. It is useless shouting at people overseas to make changes if we don't make them ourselves. We will never stop the global pollution crisis if we turn it into a them against us battle where everyone blames everyone else. We will only be successful if every city makes whatever changes they can and uses their experience to positively influence others.Anyway, why are you so obsessed with commenting on London’s mayor and our environmental controls when you live in Canada?
We really should have been going along these lines since the 80s or before. Instead of selling off our oil and gas wealth to fund current expenditure we should have taken what was clearly going to be a one off bonus from a natural resource and invested 30% in renewable and 20% in a sovereign wealth fund.
Only problem with public ownership, as epitomised by the culture revealed in the Post office scandal (I concede at the most extreme level) is that profit taking is replaced by a corrosive self serving cadre of ineffective managers with only token accountability creating wastage rather than profits. But perhaps the least worse of the alternatives if properly resourced and open to effective public scrutiny.2 -
Largely because of the levies and subsidies paid by struggling working people on their gas and electric bills.cantersaddick said:
And of course the fact that renewables actually cost 20-25% of non-renewables and so moving in that direction will actually bring down peoples energy and heating bills - giving more disposable income. its only because the formula for setting energy prices is based on the marginal cost that this hasn't fed through into current prices, and that the energy companies are so powerful and lobby very successfully that has prevented governments from taking actions that might dent their 700% annual increase in profits.JamesSeed said:
Improving the environment, including the air that we breathe, as well as improving the chances that our children and grandchildren actually have a planet to live on, is probably worth ‘sacrificing [a bit of] our disposable income’. In fact there’s plenty of evidence to suggest we’ll be better off in the long run using renewable energy. All these things improve our quality of life, so how would it be ‘sacrificing our quality of life’?cafcnick1992 said:
That's fine Stig, as long as we're all able to acknowledge that we're all sacrificing our disposable income and general quality of life to make zero impact on climate change. It's one hell of a deal!Stig said:cafcnick1992 said:London could disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow and it wouldn't make a blip on global carbon emissions.
If people are serious they have to address the real polluters - not attack working class people in Biggin Hill.cafcnick1992 said:
As if punishing people living in Bromley is the goal to fixing climate change.swords_alive said:
Climate change is a bugger isn't it. If only we could roll the clock back and pretend everything is rosy.cafcnick1992 said:Weird how people cheer on a car free existence. I appreciate there are downsides but the reason so many people own cars is because they give you freedom to do the things you love (when they're not being used to commute).
We're championing policies that will ensure our future generations have less freedom than we do/did for very little gain.
Don't worry Xi Jinping and his coal burning empire are closely watching the habits of Charlton fans to understand how to proceed next.
'Don't do anything that affects my life choices. It's everyone else mate. Make them change, not me'.
Classic nimbyism and totally wrong. We all have a part to play. The Mayor of London (the clue is in the job title) as some power to make changes for the better within his city. The only power he has in China or elsewhere is the soft power to demonstrate that we are a city that takes environmental issues seriously and are doing what we can to minimise emissions. It is useless shouting at people overseas to make changes if we don't make them ourselves. We will never stop the global pollution crisis if we turn it into a them against us battle where everyone blames everyone else. We will only be successful if every city makes whatever changes they can and uses their experience to positively influence others.Anyway, why are you so obsessed with commenting on London’s mayor and our environmental controls when you live in Canada?
In real terms, without subsidies, they are as or even more expensive.0 -
Southampton had massive road disruption near the docks some years ago when they installed new electricity mains cabling to facilitate dockside power hookup for (some) cruise ships to reduce the number of them sitting quayside with generators running 24 hrs. It took years to complete and traffic was a nightmare.Wilma said:
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-zones
In stark contrast in Greenwich when a cruise liner terminal was being argued about "research" was done that established that no such power hookup would be needed because the pollution from cruise ship generators would be insignificant while they were alongside with their generators running 24hrs for days at a time. Many of those generators running on heavy oil of course, with oily black smoke going up their funnels. That research was commissioned by RBG of course. The borough(s) on the north side of the river had a very different view.
It is impossible to interpret any of the "facts", numbers or opinions without understanding the vested interests.
London's mayor and TfL were brutally rogered by Boris over COVID public transport provision, leaving an abyss in the finances.
They have to try to fill that abyss. Whether the expanded ULEZ at current prices will ever actually wash its face will transpire years into the future.
It probably is an attempted revenue raiser as well as an environmental necessity. But the reason that revenue needs to be raised at this time must not be ignored or forgotten.
Boris the preposterous hypocrite was always for an expanded ULEZ.
Locals impacted by the change and especially those closest to the new boundary inevitably feel a measure of unfairness but that is always the case with change.
Anybody taken in by the tory hectoring of Kahn over ULEZ has probably arrived in London in the last 18 months, or has a major memory issue, or is cripplingly gullible, or is using ULEZ to hector Kahn when their motive is seriously unsavoury.
Tory slagging off of Kahn over ULEZ is right up there with Jacob Rees-Mogg and his ilk claiming that Brexit is good for UK business!!6 -
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.
Banning cars would require changes to the law that would never get through parliament.0 -
Wilma said:
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-zones
Are cameras getting destroyed in cities other than London?
Last week people were complaining about areas like Biggin Hill being in the zone, now there are complaints about it not covering the whole country, both from the anti-ulez posters.1 -
After all this time I still don't get why some are still anti ULEZ. Genuinely. I have kids, so I always think of things that will benefit them in the future.5
-
I support the clean air scheme however flawed on the basis that something is better than nothing at all.1
- Sponsored links:
-
Because of the way it was introduced in outer London.JamesSeed said:After all this time I still don't get why some are still anti ULEZ. Genuinely. I have kids, so I always think of things that will benefit them in the future.Insufficient notice post Covid mid cost of living crisis.Defer or reduce level of fines initially were options not followed through on.0 -
I've literally explained a few posts above how a ban would be the opposite of equitable. and how Ulez is the most efficient way to achieve the targeted improvement in air qualityTellyTubby 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.
2 -
I'm not arguing there aren't localised problems with air quality in other areas but this is a solution to the problem in a specific area that has been targeted. Much like the original scheme and first expansion. I'm sure down the line there may well be conversations about further expanding the London ULEZ or introducing similar in other local areas and town centres as there have been in Bath and Bristol to name 2 that I know of.Rob7Lee said:
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.
That a similar problem exists elsewhere doesn't mean that this is a national issue nor does it mean we shouldn't try and solve the problem in London.2 -
I think people are mixing up emissions with Localised air quality issues.Wilma said:
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-zones
ULEZ's will pop up in lots of town centres and busy areas to solve localised air quality issues but will never be national because localised air quality isnt a problem in many smaller towns and countryside places, many roads don't have this problem.
There may well be other measures that are national e.g. VED or even regulations on cars emissions to overall tackle greenhouse gas and emissions issues in the move towards net zero.4 -
I’m not anti ULEZ as such, just the way it’s been implemented, the cost and the lack of real support for some.JamesSeed said:After all this time I still don't get why some are still anti ULEZ. Genuinely. I have kids, so I always think of things that will benefit them in the future.
i still believe there is a larger reason for all of this, there’s no way once there’s minimal to no cars paying the charge happens (as people keep telling me will) the cameras won’t be used to collect revenue another way.
as for localised problems, if a car is too polluting it’s too polluting, shouldn’t simply be in busier areas or the worst effected areas. A very simple national target would have worked quite easily through VED.
the lines are drawn where they are due to the mayors responsibility, nothing to do with the worst polluting areas.1 -
We worry about things when it suits us.JamesSeed said:After all this time I still don't get why some are still anti ULEZ. Genuinely. I have kids, so I always think of things that will benefit them in the future.
I would of thought it would be healthier for your kids if there was hardly any cars on the roads whatsoever.
I don't think I've seen you calling for a ban on cars though.2 -
1) I have no doubt that over time as production cars become more efficient then the rules for being compliant will shift to incorporate some cars. This is continuous improvement and I support this even as someone who expects that this will push my 15 year old petrol car into non-compliance.Rob7Lee said:
I’m not anti ULEZ as such, just the way it’s been implemented, the cost and the lack of real support for some.JamesSeed said:After all this time I still don't get why some are still anti ULEZ. Genuinely. I have kids, so I always think of things that will benefit them in the future.
i still believe there is a larger reason for all of this, there’s no way once there’s minimal to no cars paying the charge happens (as people keep telling me will) the cameras won’t be used to collect revenue another way.
as for localised problems, if a car is too polluting it’s too polluting, shouldn’t simply be in busier areas or the worst effected areas. A very simple national target would have worked quite easily through VED.
the lines are drawn where they are due to the mayors responsibility, nothing to do with the worst polluting areas.
2) So you don't think where a car is polluting matters? If its polluting on a road with fields either side and few other cars where the emissions can disperse then there clearly isnt a localised air quality issue there. Whereas polluting in London with millions of cars, buildings lots of concrete and lack of green space to disperse or absorb the emissions clearly that is going to have a bigger impact on air quality.
Again pollution/emissions are not the same as localised air quality. ULEZ isn't about climate change per se but about the quality of air we breathe in London. The issues and solutions you are proposing are focusing on emissions/climate change. They are good solutions to that problem and I have no doubt similar will come into place in time to support things like the regulations banning sale of new petrol cars post 2030. That doesn't mean we shouldn't also try and solve the air quality issues in cities and town centres.1 -
One is viable as a solution one is not.clb74 said:
We worry about things when it suits us.JamesSeed said:After all this time I still don't get why some are still anti ULEZ. Genuinely. I have kids, so I always think of things that will benefit them in the future.
I would of thought it would be healthier for your kids if there was hardly any cars on the roads whatsoever.
I don't think I've seen you calling for a ban on cars though.
So we don't have a perfect solutions so lets do nothing is that what you're saying? Or we can do an imperfect solution that is proven to have an impact.4 -
There are arguments that would support banning cars in certain circumstances.
There are even roads like Oxford Street that are car free, although not buses and taxis.
The communal travelling spaces, especially roads, are dominated by cars and other vehicles, and without decent safe alternatives people probably use cars on an 'if you can't beat them join them' basis.
Judging unscientifically by the explosion of people using those electric scooters there is a demand for the opportunity to travel safely around on them, but the sheer danger and brutality of mixing with general traffic puts a lot of people off.
I think there is a case to be made for the 'right of way' concept to be revisited and possibly changed. You can wait in the rain on a traffic island for ages for a driver in a slow but not stationary queue of traffic to pause for a moment to let you cross the road.
In a situation such as that for example of course the driver can say they have the right of way to sail on and ignore the rights, such as they may be, of the pedestrian to cross the road. There are not a huge number of formal crossings compared with the humble hopeful traffic islands people are expected to take their chances with.
When the people spill out of the Valley and walk up Charlton Lane and Lansdown they often walk in the middle of the road, and it leads to a lot of angst all round as drivers appear with a 'right of way' mindset and expect the people to clear a path.
So there are situations where I believe there ought to be a ban on cars.2 -
Of course it'd be better for my kids if there was no cars on the roads, but that would be impractical, and also unnecessary.clb74 said:
We worry about things when it suits us.JamesSeed said:After all this time I still don't get why some are still anti ULEZ. Genuinely. I have kids, so I always think of things that will benefit them in the future.
I would of thought it would be healthier for your kids if there was hardly any cars on the roads whatsoever.
I don't think I've seen you calling for a ban on cars though.
How far do you go, and how far do you need to go? There would probably be civil unrest if anyone tried that.
No, you have to be sensible about these things, and accept that gradual progress is better than no progress at all. It took three acts of parliament to get rid of smog for example.
The air is getting down towards acceptable limits, in terms of health outcomes, and I don't believe in a ban on cars anyway - I have one myself, although thinking of going electric. My kids certainly don't want a ban on cars!ULEZ has already cut pollution by 46 per cent in central London and 21 per cent in inner London, according to Imperial College London.'The health benefits of the central and inner London ULEZ are predicted to be significant. It is projected to help avoid one million air pollution-related hospital admissions and save the NHS and social care sector £5bn by 2050.' In other words, these things pay for themselves in the long run.
Apparently the reduction in pollution since 2019 is the equivalent of have zero pollution from the capital's airports, or its river and rail transport combined.
Anyway, the arguments against ULEZ are easily negated by the benefits it brings, and will bring in the future, imho.0 - Sponsored links:
-
All these are very valid and cogent arguments, but I doubt any of the anti ULEZ guys minds will be changed, unfortunately.cantersaddick said:
1) I have no doubt that over time as production cars become more efficient then the rules for being compliant will shift to incorporate some cars. This is continuous improvement and I support this even as someone who expects that this will push my 15 year old petrol car into non-compliance.Rob7Lee said:
I’m not anti ULEZ as such, just the way it’s been implemented, the cost and the lack of real support for some.JamesSeed said:After all this time I still don't get why some are still anti ULEZ. Genuinely. I have kids, so I always think of things that will benefit them in the future.
i still believe there is a larger reason for all of this, there’s no way once there’s minimal to no cars paying the charge happens (as people keep telling me will) the cameras won’t be used to collect revenue another way.
as for localised problems, if a car is too polluting it’s too polluting, shouldn’t simply be in busier areas or the worst effected areas. A very simple national target would have worked quite easily through VED.
the lines are drawn where they are due to the mayors responsibility, nothing to do with the worst polluting areas.
2) So you don't think where a car is polluting matters? If its polluting on a road with fields either side and few other cars where the emissions can disperse then there clearly isnt a localised air quality issue there. Whereas polluting in London with millions of cars, buildings lots of concrete and lack of green space to disperse or absorb the emissions clearly that is going to have a bigger impact on air quality.
Again pollution/emissions are not the same as localised air quality. ULEZ isn't about climate change per se but about the quality of air we breathe in London. The issues and solutions you are proposing are focusing on emissions/climate change. They are good solutions to that problem and I have no doubt similar will come into place in time to support things like the regulations banning sale of new petrol cars post 2030. That doesn't mean we shouldn't also try and solve the air quality issues in cities and town centres.1 -
99% wouldn't want a ban on cars, because it doesn't suit us.
Air quality would reduce a lot further, meaning a healthier Country.
Am I anti Ulez?
Not really, I would just like to of seen a fair system.
How can someone driving a non compliant car 2000 miles a year pay the same charges as someone 15000 miles a year in a non compliant car?0 -
And I've literally explained how I believe that a ban is equitable. It doesn't make either of us right, just a difference of opinion.cantersaddick said:
I've literally explained a few posts above how a ban would be the opposite of equitable. and how Ulez is the most efficient way to achieve the targeted improvement in air qualityTellyTubby 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 have a number of classic motorbikes, a couple of which a regularly tour abroad on. I can no longer ride in Paris as any over 15yrs old is banned. I don't like it and think it's ridiculous, but it's equitable.3 -
Fossil fuels are also subsidised and renewables are becoming cheaper.LenGlover said:
Largely because of the levies and subsidies paid by struggling working people on their gas and electric bills.cantersaddick said:
And of course the fact that renewables actually cost 20-25% of non-renewables and so moving in that direction will actually bring down peoples energy and heating bills - giving more disposable income. its only because the formula for setting energy prices is based on the marginal cost that this hasn't fed through into current prices, and that the energy companies are so powerful and lobby very successfully that has prevented governments from taking actions that might dent their 700% annual increase in profits.JamesSeed said:
Improving the environment, including the air that we breathe, as well as improving the chances that our children and grandchildren actually have a planet to live on, is probably worth ‘sacrificing [a bit of] our disposable income’. In fact there’s plenty of evidence to suggest we’ll be better off in the long run using renewable energy. All these things improve our quality of life, so how would it be ‘sacrificing our quality of life’?cafcnick1992 said:
That's fine Stig, as long as we're all able to acknowledge that we're all sacrificing our disposable income and general quality of life to make zero impact on climate change. It's one hell of a deal!Stig said:cafcnick1992 said:London could disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow and it wouldn't make a blip on global carbon emissions.
If people are serious they have to address the real polluters - not attack working class people in Biggin Hill.cafcnick1992 said:
As if punishing people living in Bromley is the goal to fixing climate change.swords_alive said:
Climate change is a bugger isn't it. If only we could roll the clock back and pretend everything is rosy.cafcnick1992 said:Weird how people cheer on a car free existence. I appreciate there are downsides but the reason so many people own cars is because they give you freedom to do the things you love (when they're not being used to commute).
We're championing policies that will ensure our future generations have less freedom than we do/did for very little gain.
Don't worry Xi Jinping and his coal burning empire are closely watching the habits of Charlton fans to understand how to proceed next.
'Don't do anything that affects my life choices. It's everyone else mate. Make them change, not me'.
Classic nimbyism and totally wrong. We all have a part to play. The Mayor of London (the clue is in the job title) as some power to make changes for the better within his city. The only power he has in China or elsewhere is the soft power to demonstrate that we are a city that takes environmental issues seriously and are doing what we can to minimise emissions. It is useless shouting at people overseas to make changes if we don't make them ourselves. We will never stop the global pollution crisis if we turn it into a them against us battle where everyone blames everyone else. We will only be successful if every city makes whatever changes they can and uses their experience to positively influence others.Anyway, why are you so obsessed with commenting on London’s mayor and our environmental controls when you live in Canada?
In real terms, without subsidies, they are as or even more expensive.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/09/fossil-fuels-more-support-uk-than-renewables-since-2015
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/renewable-energy-is-now-the-cheapest-option-even-without-subsidies/
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2022/jan/opinion-renewables-are-cheaper-ever-so-why-are-household-energy-bills-only-going
3 -
Would you like London to bring in a similar ban?TellyTubby said:
And I've literally explained how I believe that a ban is equitable. It doesn't make either of us right, just a difference of opinion.cantersaddick said:
I've literally explained a few posts above how a ban would be the opposite of equitable. and how Ulez is the most efficient way to achieve the targeted improvement in air qualityTellyTubby 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 have a number of classic motorbikes, a couple of which a regularly tour abroad on. I can no longer ride in Paris as any over 15yrs old is banned. I don't like it and think it's ridiculous, but it's equitable.0 -
1) Not sure I badge that as continuous improvement, if they start charging fully electric cars to enter the zone that's not an improvement, it will just show that it's about raising money.cantersaddick said:
1) I have no doubt that over time as production cars become more efficient then the rules for being compliant will shift to incorporate some cars. This is continuous improvement and I support this even as someone who expects that this will push my 15 year old petrol car into non-compliance.Rob7Lee said:
I’m not anti ULEZ as such, just the way it’s been implemented, the cost and the lack of real support for some.JamesSeed said:After all this time I still don't get why some are still anti ULEZ. Genuinely. I have kids, so I always think of things that will benefit them in the future.
i still believe there is a larger reason for all of this, there’s no way once there’s minimal to no cars paying the charge happens (as people keep telling me will) the cameras won’t be used to collect revenue another way.
as for localised problems, if a car is too polluting it’s too polluting, shouldn’t simply be in busier areas or the worst effected areas. A very simple national target would have worked quite easily through VED.
the lines are drawn where they are due to the mayors responsibility, nothing to do with the worst polluting areas.
2) So you don't think where a car is polluting matters? If its polluting on a road with fields either side and few other cars where the emissions can disperse then there clearly isnt a localised air quality issue there. Whereas polluting in London with millions of cars, buildings lots of concrete and lack of green space to disperse or absorb the emissions clearly that is going to have a bigger impact on air quality.
Again pollution/emissions are not the same as localised air quality. ULEZ isn't about climate change per se but about the quality of air we breathe in London. The issues and solutions you are proposing are focusing on emissions/climate change. They are good solutions to that problem and I have no doubt similar will come into place in time to support things like the regulations banning sale of new petrol cars post 2030. That doesn't mean we shouldn't also try and solve the air quality issues in cities and town centres.
2) Not sure that really applies, plenty of green spaces in the ULEZ and you've picked one extreme (few other cars, lot of fields) but there are huge areas not like that, not in a ULEZ zone, I named two - why?
As already mentioned places like Paris have banned cars by age in the name of clean air (just weekdays mind I think), why can't we? Anything to do with money by chance? If we ban there's no money being collected (or substantially less)1 -
You’re making it sound almost corrupt, as if people are enriching themselves through ULEZ. They’re not.Rob7Lee said:
1) Not sure I badge that as continuous improvement, if they start charging fully electric cars to enter the zone that's not an improvement, it will just show that it's about raising money.cantersaddick said:
1) I have no doubt that over time as production cars become more efficient then the rules for being compliant will shift to incorporate some cars. This is continuous improvement and I support this even as someone who expects that this will push my 15 year old petrol car into non-compliance.Rob7Lee said:
I’m not anti ULEZ as such, just the way it’s been implemented, the cost and the lack of real support for some.JamesSeed said:After all this time I still don't get why some are still anti ULEZ. Genuinely. I have kids, so I always think of things that will benefit them in the future.
i still believe there is a larger reason for all of this, there’s no way once there’s minimal to no cars paying the charge happens (as people keep telling me will) the cameras won’t be used to collect revenue another way.
as for localised problems, if a car is too polluting it’s too polluting, shouldn’t simply be in busier areas or the worst effected areas. A very simple national target would have worked quite easily through VED.
the lines are drawn where they are due to the mayors responsibility, nothing to do with the worst polluting areas.
2) So you don't think where a car is polluting matters? If its polluting on a road with fields either side and few other cars where the emissions can disperse then there clearly isnt a localised air quality issue there. Whereas polluting in London with millions of cars, buildings lots of concrete and lack of green space to disperse or absorb the emissions clearly that is going to have a bigger impact on air quality.
Again pollution/emissions are not the same as localised air quality. ULEZ isn't about climate change per se but about the quality of air we breathe in London. The issues and solutions you are proposing are focusing on emissions/climate change. They are good solutions to that problem and I have no doubt similar will come into place in time to support things like the regulations banning sale of new petrol cars post 2030. That doesn't mean we shouldn't also try and solve the air quality issues in cities and town centres.
2) Not sure that really applies, plenty of green spaces in the ULEZ and you've picked one extreme (few other cars, lot of fields) but there are huge areas not like that, not in a ULEZ zone, I named two - why?
As already mentioned places like Paris have banned cars by age in the name of clean air (just weekdays mind I think), why can't we? Anything to do with money by chance? If we ban there's no money being collected (or substantially less)Yes, banning old cars would be effective, but it would also be very unpopular at a time when the mayor already receives death threats, and when people are taking angle grinders to the traffic cameras. Personal I prefer the carrot and stick approach to the stick and stick approach.0 -
So the timing and short notice and high level of fine for outer London is carrot and stick ?JamesSeed said:
You’re making it sound almost corrupt, as if people are enriching themselves through ULEZ. They’re not.Rob7Lee said:
1) Not sure I badge that as continuous improvement, if they start charging fully electric cars to enter the zone that's not an improvement, it will just show that it's about raising money.cantersaddick said:
1) I have no doubt that over time as production cars become more efficient then the rules for being compliant will shift to incorporate some cars. This is continuous improvement and I support this even as someone who expects that this will push my 15 year old petrol car into non-compliance.Rob7Lee said:
I’m not anti ULEZ as such, just the way it’s been implemented, the cost and the lack of real support for some.JamesSeed said:After all this time I still don't get why some are still anti ULEZ. Genuinely. I have kids, so I always think of things that will benefit them in the future.
i still believe there is a larger reason for all of this, there’s no way once there’s minimal to no cars paying the charge happens (as people keep telling me will) the cameras won’t be used to collect revenue another way.
as for localised problems, if a car is too polluting it’s too polluting, shouldn’t simply be in busier areas or the worst effected areas. A very simple national target would have worked quite easily through VED.
the lines are drawn where they are due to the mayors responsibility, nothing to do with the worst polluting areas.
2) So you don't think where a car is polluting matters? If its polluting on a road with fields either side and few other cars where the emissions can disperse then there clearly isnt a localised air quality issue there. Whereas polluting in London with millions of cars, buildings lots of concrete and lack of green space to disperse or absorb the emissions clearly that is going to have a bigger impact on air quality.
Again pollution/emissions are not the same as localised air quality. ULEZ isn't about climate change per se but about the quality of air we breathe in London. The issues and solutions you are proposing are focusing on emissions/climate change. They are good solutions to that problem and I have no doubt similar will come into place in time to support things like the regulations banning sale of new petrol cars post 2030. That doesn't mean we shouldn't also try and solve the air quality issues in cities and town centres.
2) Not sure that really applies, plenty of green spaces in the ULEZ and you've picked one extreme (few other cars, lot of fields) but there are huge areas not like that, not in a ULEZ zone, I named two - why?
As already mentioned places like Paris have banned cars by age in the name of clean air (just weekdays mind I think), why can't we? Anything to do with money by chance? If we ban there's no money being collected (or substantially less)Yes, banning old cars would be effective, but it would also be very unpopular at a time when the mayor already receives death threats, and when people are taking angle grinders to the traffic cameras. Personal I prefer the carrot and stick approach to the stick and stick approach.
Do you not concede it was poor timing when introduced and perhaps could have been a softer introduction for fines?0 -
Did inner London (which people outside of the area never visit) get enough notice?0
-
How about all revenue from ULEZ goes to Central Government rather than to the coffers for the Mayor to use ?
Will stop the claims of a Khan cash grab.2
