Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Extension of ULEZ to South Circular
Comments
-
Wilma said:Rob7Lee said:JamesSeed said:Rob7Lee said:JamesSeed said:Rob7Lee said:.Friend Or Defoe said:Rob7Lee said:cantersaddick said:Rob7Lee said:Stig said: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 -
Wilma said:Rob7Lee said:JamesSeed said:Rob7Lee said:JamesSeed said:Rob7Lee said:.Friend Or Defoe said:Rob7Lee said:cantersaddick said:Rob7Lee said:Stig said: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 -
cantersaddick said:JamesSeed said:cantersaddick said:JamesSeed said:cafcnick1992 said: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:swords_alive said: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 -
cantersaddick said:JamesSeed said:cafcnick1992 said: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:swords_alive said: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 -
Wilma said:Rob7Lee said:JamesSeed said:Rob7Lee said:JamesSeed said:Rob7Lee said:.Friend Or Defoe said:Rob7Lee said:cantersaddick said:Rob7Lee said:Stig said: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:Rob7Lee said:JamesSeed said:Rob7Lee said:JamesSeed said:Rob7Lee said:.Friend Or Defoe said:Rob7Lee said:cantersaddick said:Rob7Lee said:Stig said: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:
-
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
-
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.
2 -
Rob7Lee said:cantersaddick said:Rob7Lee said:JamesSeed said:Rob7Lee said:JamesSeed said:Rob7Lee said:.Friend Or Defoe said:Rob7Lee said:cantersaddick said:Rob7Lee said:Stig said: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 -
Wilma said:Rob7Lee said:JamesSeed said:Rob7Lee said:JamesSeed said:Rob7Lee said:.Friend Or Defoe said:Rob7Lee said:cantersaddick said:Rob7Lee said:Stig said: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 -
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 -
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 -
Rob7Lee said: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 -
clb74 said: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 -
clb74 said: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:
-
cantersaddick said:Rob7Lee said: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 -
cantersaddick said: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 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 -
LenGlover said:cantersaddick said:JamesSeed said:cafcnick1992 said: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:swords_alive said: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 -
TellyTubby said:cantersaddick said: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 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 -
cantersaddick said:Rob7Lee said: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 -
Rob7Lee said:cantersaddick said:Rob7Lee said: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 -
JamesSeed said:Rob7Lee said:cantersaddick said:Rob7Lee said: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