Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Extension of ULEZ to South Circular
Comments
-
Yes. More than outer London.Friend Or Defoe said:Did inner London (which people outside of the area never visit) get enough notice?But it was also the timing ie when introduced.0 -
Not saying it's anything corrupt at all, but anyone who thinks this is purely about air quality needs to give their heads a wobble. Whilst of course there is that element to it, it's also very much about building a system to collect money.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.
Just think how we could have stopped all the death threats, cameras being cut down and huge unnecessary expenditure if we'd just taxed polluting cars via the well trodden VED system as we have done for the past 20 years? Oh yer, but apparently it's a local issue not national .......
although funny how we've nationally banded cars for VED based on their Co2 emissions for donkeys years, we've even managed to do it by year of manufacture also. Funny that....... 1 -
It is principally about air quality.
Other considerations are lesser details to the point that they are quite minor.
The cleanliness of the air needs to be improved somehow, and if people have any ideas beyond giving up because of Chinese power stations then please explain those ideas.1 -
Ban those polluting cars over a periodseth plum said:It is principally about air quality.
Other considerations are lesser details to the point that they are quite minor.
The cleanliness of the air needs to be improved somehow, and if people have any ideas beyond giving up because of Chinese power stations then please explain those ideas.
Increase VED annually for those polluting cars to carrot people to change, nationally. Decrease VED for the non polluting cars to make it even more of an incentive.
Much better national scrap scheme along with either/both of the above.
Don't put up 1000's of cameras to police/catch/fine people if your goal is simply better air quality.
Don't do it piece meal.0 -
It is evident there are different approaches.
The winner will be the one that gets the most votes.0 -
You've stated that it is (in your view) equitable rather than explaining how it might be equitable.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.
I think you are mixing equity and equality. Equality is treating everyone the same whereas equity is treating everyone according to their individual needs. The element of choice in the ULEZ is key to meeting people individualised situations, which is clearly much more equitable when compared to a ban. But a ban treats everyone the same so is much more equal. But objectively not equitable.0 -
1) Come on now. In no world are they gonna ban fully electric cars or even hybrids. But they will likely continue to phase out existing petrol and diesel cars that are currently compliant. And as I said as someone likely in the next round of that I think its a good thing.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)
2) Yes I picked 2 extremes to demonstrate that there are different localised issues and places and so a national solution wouldn't work. Yes there are places outside the ULEZ that have similar issues so will likely need Clear Air Zones or ULEZ approach in their own local area. In no way does that mean ULEZ doesn't work for the areas it does cover nor does it mean we shouldn't solve one issue just because another issue exists elsewhere.0 -
So you don't agree that the air quality in London is a problem?Rob7Lee said:
Not saying it's anything corrupt at all, but anyone who thinks this is purely about air quality needs to give their heads a wobble. Whilst of course there is that element to it, it's also very much about building a system to collect money.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.
Just think how we could have stopped all the death threats, cameras being cut down and huge unnecessary expenditure if we'd just taxed polluting cars via the well trodden VED system as we have done for the past 20 years? Oh yer, but apparently it's a local issue not national ....... although funny how we've nationally banded cars for VED based on their Co2 emissions for donkeys years, we've even managed to do it by year of manufacture also. Funny that.......
Chucking a few percent on VED on older polluting cars in the middle of a cost of living crisis, how would that improve air quality in London? people would likely simply moan and pay it and then carry on as before no change in patterns or decisions, I have to pay it anyway to drive anywhere so why would it stop me driving into London?. ULEZ elicits behavioural change and so actively targets the problem. I don't have to pay ULEZ if I don't drive into London therefore I'll look into mode shift as an example.
Again 2 problems - 1) overall emissions/pollution/climate change 2) bad air quality in densely built and populated areas with high vehicle numbers.
VED for problem 1 but will have little to no impact on problem 2. ULEZ for problem 2 and will likely have some knock on improvements on problem 1 through the behavioural change.1 -
I've made no mention of banning fully electric cars? But my guess will be they will be paying the ULEZ charge at some point, much like the congestion charge from next year - the proof of all this is there to see!cantersaddick said:
1) Come on now. In no world are they gonna ban fully electric cars or even hybrids. But they will likely continue to phase out existing petrol and diesel cars that are currently compliant. And as I said as someone likely in the next round of that I think its a good thing.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)
2) Yes I picked 2 extremes to demonstrate that there are different localised issues and places and so a national solution wouldn't work. Yes there are places outside the ULEZ that have similar issues so will likely need Clear Air Zones or ULEZ approach in their own local area. In no way does that mean ULEZ doesn't work for the areas it does cover nor does it mean we shouldn't solve one issue just because another issue exists elsewhere.
Where have I said I don't agree air quality in London (or elsewhere) is a problem? To the contrary.cantersaddick said:
So you don't agree that the air quality in London is a problem?Rob7Lee said:
Not saying it's anything corrupt at all, but anyone who thinks this is purely about air quality needs to give their heads a wobble. Whilst of course there is that element to it, it's also very much about building a system to collect money.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.
Just think how we could have stopped all the death threats, cameras being cut down and huge unnecessary expenditure if we'd just taxed polluting cars via the well trodden VED system as we have done for the past 20 years? Oh yer, but apparently it's a local issue not national ....... although funny how we've nationally banded cars for VED based on their Co2 emissions for donkeys years, we've even managed to do it by year of manufacture also. Funny that.......
Chucking a few percent on VED on older polluting cars in the middle of a cost of living crisis, how would that improve air quality in London? people would likely simply moan and pay it and then carry on as before no change in patterns or decisions, I have to pay it anyway to drive anywhere so why would it stop me driving into London?. ULEZ elicits behavioural change and so actively targets the problem. I don't have to pay ULEZ if I don't drive into London therefore I'll look into mode shift as an example.
Again 2 problems - 1) overall emissions/pollution/climate change 2) bad air quality in densely built and populated areas with high vehicle numbers.
VED for problem 1 but will have little to no impact on problem 2. ULEZ for problem 2 and will likely have some knock on improvements on problem 1 through the behavioural change.
Chucking a few % will make no difference I agree, hence why I never said that, interesting your now quoting cost of living crisis, don't recall mention of that about the £12.50 a day charge?
I'd triple it (VED) in year 1 and increase annually - the cars effected pay now roughly between £300 and £700 a year on VED plus £12.50 every time they drive in 'the zone'. Make that for the VED between £900 and £2,100 in year 1 and increase it annually.
that is no different to a charge per day. But is a lot cheaper to administer and would have the same desired effect, as apparently you have to hit pockets to drive change.
Lets be honest, if this is all about a carrot to get people out of polluting cars there were 101 otherways to do it much cheaper, so why ULEZ system as it stands. Wake up and smell the coffee.
If we want to reduce pollution from cars, then deal with it by over time eradicating those cars (which it will naturally as those cars age, but not quick enough). And don't leave out areas that will be as bad (or worse) as many parts of the ULEZ zone simply because they aren't a London Borough - or are Bromley residents health worth more than say Dartford?1 -
Propose something and stand for election if you can persuade the majority of voters you can do better.Otherwise deal with the consequences of those who could be bothered.
I am voting according to air quality.4 - Sponsored links:
-
Apologies I didn't mean banning i meant charging. In no world are they gonna charge fully electric cars or even hybrids the ULEZ charge. But they will likely continue to phase out what is compliant to capture existing petrol and diesel cars that are currently compliant. And as I said as someone likely in the next round of that I think its a good thing.Rob7Lee said:
I've made no mention of banning fully electric cars? But my guess will be they will be paying the ULEZ charge at some point, much like the congestion charge from next year - the proof of all this is there to see!cantersaddick said:
1) Come on now. In no world are they gonna ban fully electric cars or even hybrids. But they will likely continue to phase out existing petrol and diesel cars that are currently compliant. And as I said as someone likely in the next round of that I think its a good thing.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)
2) Yes I picked 2 extremes to demonstrate that there are different localised issues and places and so a national solution wouldn't work. Yes there are places outside the ULEZ that have similar issues so will likely need Clear Air Zones or ULEZ approach in their own local area. In no way does that mean ULEZ doesn't work for the areas it does cover nor does it mean we shouldn't solve one issue just because another issue exists elsewhere.
Where have I said I don't agree air quality in London (or elsewhere) is a problem? To the contrary.cantersaddick said:
So you don't agree that the air quality in London is a problem?Rob7Lee said:
Not saying it's anything corrupt at all, but anyone who thinks this is purely about air quality needs to give their heads a wobble. Whilst of course there is that element to it, it's also very much about building a system to collect money.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.
Just think how we could have stopped all the death threats, cameras being cut down and huge unnecessary expenditure if we'd just taxed polluting cars via the well trodden VED system as we have done for the past 20 years? Oh yer, but apparently it's a local issue not national ....... although funny how we've nationally banded cars for VED based on their Co2 emissions for donkeys years, we've even managed to do it by year of manufacture also. Funny that.......
Chucking a few percent on VED on older polluting cars in the middle of a cost of living crisis, how would that improve air quality in London? people would likely simply moan and pay it and then carry on as before no change in patterns or decisions, I have to pay it anyway to drive anywhere so why would it stop me driving into London?. ULEZ elicits behavioural change and so actively targets the problem. I don't have to pay ULEZ if I don't drive into London therefore I'll look into mode shift as an example.
Again 2 problems - 1) overall emissions/pollution/climate change 2) bad air quality in densely built and populated areas with high vehicle numbers.
VED for problem 1 but will have little to no impact on problem 2. ULEZ for problem 2 and will likely have some knock on improvements on problem 1 through the behavioural change.
Chucking a few % will make no difference I agree, hence why I never said that, interesting your now quoting cost of living crisis, don't recall mention of that about the £12.50 a day charge?
I'd triple it (VED) in year 1 and increase annually - the cars effected pay now roughly between £300 and £700 a year on VED plus £12.50 every time they drive in 'the zone'. Make that for the VED between £900 and £2,100 in year 1 and increase it annually.
that is no different to a charge per day. But is a lot cheaper to administer and would have the same desired effect, as apparently you have to hit pockets to drive change.
Lets be honest, if this is all about a carrot to get people out of polluting cars there were 101 otherways to do it much cheaper, so why ULEZ system as it stands. Wake up and smell the coffee.
If we want to reduce pollution from cars, then deal with it by over time eradicating those cars (which it will naturally as those cars age, but not quick enough). And don't leave out areas that will be as bad (or worse) as many parts of the ULEZ zone simply because they aren't a London Borough - or are Bromley residents health worth more than say Dartford?
The reason I mention the cost of living crisis in this context because a hike in VED offers no choice, no way to avoid it (beyond changing car) and so hits everyone unfairly even though some may never drive in the areas with poor air quality. Whereas ULEZ offers choice, people can mode shift (its in the part of the country with the best public transport), people can try to minimise the number of times they go into the zone (Combine different things into one journey/day), car sharing has massively grown since original ULEZ. It causes people to change their behaviour - A blanket tax rise will not do that.
I dont believe your proposal would have the desired effect at all, in fact I think it would be worse for London. Once people have paid the massively hiked VED they will have no reason not to drive into the area of poor air quality as much as they want and so they will do so.
So yes it is significantly different from a charge per day for going into the zone. That is unless you only care about money because it would cost less and still raise cash but wouldn't actually solve the problem.
It all goes back to the 2 separate problems of Emissions/climate change vs localised air quality which you don't seem to be able to disentangle .0 -
seth plum said:Propose something and stand for election if you can persuade the majority of voters you can do better.Otherwise deal with the consequences of those who could be bothered.
I am voting according to air quality.
So you believe that if someone objects to the outcome of a majority vote, they should keep quiet and deal with the consequences or stand for election if they think they can do better...just checking
3 -
It likely won't be called ULEZ by then, but my strong belief is all cars will sooner or later be charged to drive in London and other cities. We still have the congestion charge, soon to be for all vehicles including electric. No doubt we'll have that widened over the coming years (will probably replace ULEZ).cantersaddick said:
Apologies I didn't mean banning i meant charging. In no world are they gonna charge fully electric cars or even hybrids the ULEZ charge. But they will likely continue to phase out what is compliant to capture existing petrol and diesel cars that are currently compliant. And as I said as someone likely in the next round of that I think its a good thing.Rob7Lee said:
I've made no mention of banning fully electric cars? But my guess will be they will be paying the ULEZ charge at some point, much like the congestion charge from next year - the proof of all this is there to see!cantersaddick said:
1) Come on now. In no world are they gonna ban fully electric cars or even hybrids. But they will likely continue to phase out existing petrol and diesel cars that are currently compliant. And as I said as someone likely in the next round of that I think its a good thing.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)
2) Yes I picked 2 extremes to demonstrate that there are different localised issues and places and so a national solution wouldn't work. Yes there are places outside the ULEZ that have similar issues so will likely need Clear Air Zones or ULEZ approach in their own local area. In no way does that mean ULEZ doesn't work for the areas it does cover nor does it mean we shouldn't solve one issue just because another issue exists elsewhere.
Where have I said I don't agree air quality in London (or elsewhere) is a problem? To the contrary.cantersaddick said:
So you don't agree that the air quality in London is a problem?Rob7Lee said:
Not saying it's anything corrupt at all, but anyone who thinks this is purely about air quality needs to give their heads a wobble. Whilst of course there is that element to it, it's also very much about building a system to collect money.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.
Just think how we could have stopped all the death threats, cameras being cut down and huge unnecessary expenditure if we'd just taxed polluting cars via the well trodden VED system as we have done for the past 20 years? Oh yer, but apparently it's a local issue not national ....... although funny how we've nationally banded cars for VED based on their Co2 emissions for donkeys years, we've even managed to do it by year of manufacture also. Funny that.......
Chucking a few percent on VED on older polluting cars in the middle of a cost of living crisis, how would that improve air quality in London? people would likely simply moan and pay it and then carry on as before no change in patterns or decisions, I have to pay it anyway to drive anywhere so why would it stop me driving into London?. ULEZ elicits behavioural change and so actively targets the problem. I don't have to pay ULEZ if I don't drive into London therefore I'll look into mode shift as an example.
Again 2 problems - 1) overall emissions/pollution/climate change 2) bad air quality in densely built and populated areas with high vehicle numbers.
VED for problem 1 but will have little to no impact on problem 2. ULEZ for problem 2 and will likely have some knock on improvements on problem 1 through the behavioural change.
Chucking a few % will make no difference I agree, hence why I never said that, interesting your now quoting cost of living crisis, don't recall mention of that about the £12.50 a day charge?
I'd triple it (VED) in year 1 and increase annually - the cars effected pay now roughly between £300 and £700 a year on VED plus £12.50 every time they drive in 'the zone'. Make that for the VED between £900 and £2,100 in year 1 and increase it annually.
that is no different to a charge per day. But is a lot cheaper to administer and would have the same desired effect, as apparently you have to hit pockets to drive change.
Lets be honest, if this is all about a carrot to get people out of polluting cars there were 101 otherways to do it much cheaper, so why ULEZ system as it stands. Wake up and smell the coffee.
If we want to reduce pollution from cars, then deal with it by over time eradicating those cars (which it will naturally as those cars age, but not quick enough). And don't leave out areas that will be as bad (or worse) as many parts of the ULEZ zone simply because they aren't a London Borough - or are Bromley residents health worth more than say Dartford?
The reason I mention the cost of living crisis in this context because a hike in VED offers no choice, no way to avoid it (beyond changing car) and so hits everyone unfairly even though some may never drive in the areas with poor air quality. Whereas ULEZ offers choice, people can mode shift (its in the part of the country with the best public transport), people can try to minimise the number of times they go into the zone (Combine different things into one journey/day), car sharing has massively grown since original ULEZ. It causes people to change their behaviour - A blanket tax rise will not do that.
I dont believe your proposal would have the desired effect at all, in fact I think it would be worse for London. Once people have paid the massively hiked VED they will have no reason not to drive into the area of poor air quality as much as they want and so they will do so.
So yes it is significantly different from a charge per day for going into the zone. That is unless you only care about money because it would cost less and still raise cash but wouldn't actually solve the problem.
It all goes back to the 2 separate problems of Emissions/climate change vs localised air quality which you don't seem to be able to disentangle .
A £12.50 a day charge offers no choice if you have to drive!2 -
Still no published MI on compliance that I am aware of.Really think that will be interesting to see impact on drivers behaviour. Wonder when we will get that?0
-
Not at all. Certainly don't keep quiet. Criticise away. It is fine to object to a majority victory, what one has to do whilst objecting is endure.SporadicAddick said:seth plum said:Propose something and stand for election if you can persuade the majority of voters you can do better.Otherwise deal with the consequences of those who could be bothered.
I am voting according to air quality.
So you believe that if someone objects to the outcome of a majority vote, they should keep quiet and deal with the consequences or stand for election if they think they can do better...just checking0 -
Bull- all about money from that weasel Khanseth plum said:It is principally about air quality.
Other considerations are lesser details to the point that they are quite minor.
The cleanliness of the air needs to be improved somehow, and if people have any ideas beyond giving up because of Chinese power stations then please explain those ideas.2 -
I take it we disagree.Davynix said:
Bull- all about money from that weasel Khanseth plum said:It is principally about air quality.
Other considerations are lesser details to the point that they are quite minor.
The cleanliness of the air needs to be improved somehow, and if people have any ideas beyond giving up because of Chinese power stations then please explain those ideas.
Elections coming up in May.0 -
100% -I'm gonna leave my engine running whilst nipping in and votingseth plum said:
I take it we disagree.Davynix said:
Bull- all about money from that weasel Khanseth plum said:It is principally about air quality.
Other considerations are lesser details to the point that they are quite minor.
The cleanliness of the air needs to be improved somehow, and if people have any ideas beyond giving up because of Chinese power stations then please explain those ideas.
Elections coming up in May.1 -
Don't forget the correct ID.1
- Sponsored links:
-
My bus pass.0
-
See that I would disagree with. It would clearly be just a money grab. There would be no justification for it. What problem would it be solving? Congestion charge works because of the viable alternative of public transport in the areas it covers. It'd possible to live and work in those areas without needing a car. For outer London the public transport sholst better than the test of the country it simply isn't good enough to remove the need for the car completely. So it gives a lack of choice and flexibility. I opposed the proposal of expanding this to the south circular for those reasons.Rob7Lee said:
It likely won't be called ULEZ by then, but my strong belief is all cars will sooner or later be charged to drive in London and other cities. We still have the congestion charge, soon to be for all vehicles including electric. No doubt we'll have that widened over the coming years (will probably replace ULEZ).cantersaddick said:
Apologies I didn't mean banning i meant charging. In no world are they gonna charge fully electric cars or even hybrids the ULEZ charge. But they will likely continue to phase out what is compliant to capture existing petrol and diesel cars that are currently compliant. And as I said as someone likely in the next round of that I think its a good thing.Rob7Lee said:
I've made no mention of banning fully electric cars? But my guess will be they will be paying the ULEZ charge at some point, much like the congestion charge from next year - the proof of all this is there to see!cantersaddick said:
1) Come on now. In no world are they gonna ban fully electric cars or even hybrids. But they will likely continue to phase out existing petrol and diesel cars that are currently compliant. And as I said as someone likely in the next round of that I think its a good thing.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)
2) Yes I picked 2 extremes to demonstrate that there are different localised issues and places and so a national solution wouldn't work. Yes there are places outside the ULEZ that have similar issues so will likely need Clear Air Zones or ULEZ approach in their own local area. In no way does that mean ULEZ doesn't work for the areas it does cover nor does it mean we shouldn't solve one issue just because another issue exists elsewhere.
Where have I said I don't agree air quality in London (or elsewhere) is a problem? To the contrary.cantersaddick said:
So you don't agree that the air quality in London is a problem?Rob7Lee said:
Not saying it's anything corrupt at all, but anyone who thinks this is purely about air quality needs to give their heads a wobble. Whilst of course there is that element to it, it's also very much about building a system to collect money.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.
Just think how we could have stopped all the death threats, cameras being cut down and huge unnecessary expenditure if we'd just taxed polluting cars via the well trodden VED system as we have done for the past 20 years? Oh yer, but apparently it's a local issue not national ....... although funny how we've nationally banded cars for VED based on their Co2 emissions for donkeys years, we've even managed to do it by year of manufacture also. Funny that.......
Chucking a few percent on VED on older polluting cars in the middle of a cost of living crisis, how would that improve air quality in London? people would likely simply moan and pay it and then carry on as before no change in patterns or decisions, I have to pay it anyway to drive anywhere so why would it stop me driving into London?. ULEZ elicits behavioural change and so actively targets the problem. I don't have to pay ULEZ if I don't drive into London therefore I'll look into mode shift as an example.
Again 2 problems - 1) overall emissions/pollution/climate change 2) bad air quality in densely built and populated areas with high vehicle numbers.
VED for problem 1 but will have little to no impact on problem 2. ULEZ for problem 2 and will likely have some knock on improvements on problem 1 through the behavioural change.
Chucking a few % will make no difference I agree, hence why I never said that, interesting your now quoting cost of living crisis, don't recall mention of that about the £12.50 a day charge?
I'd triple it (VED) in year 1 and increase annually - the cars effected pay now roughly between £300 and £700 a year on VED plus £12.50 every time they drive in 'the zone'. Make that for the VED between £900 and £2,100 in year 1 and increase it annually.
that is no different to a charge per day. But is a lot cheaper to administer and would have the same desired effect, as apparently you have to hit pockets to drive change.
Lets be honest, if this is all about a carrot to get people out of polluting cars there were 101 otherways to do it much cheaper, so why ULEZ system as it stands. Wake up and smell the coffee.
If we want to reduce pollution from cars, then deal with it by over time eradicating those cars (which it will naturally as those cars age, but not quick enough). And don't leave out areas that will be as bad (or worse) as many parts of the ULEZ zone simply because they aren't a London Borough - or are Bromley residents health worth more than say Dartford?
The reason I mention the cost of living crisis in this context because a hike in VED offers no choice, no way to avoid it (beyond changing car) and so hits everyone unfairly even though some may never drive in the areas with poor air quality. Whereas ULEZ offers choice, people can mode shift (its in the part of the country with the best public transport), people can try to minimise the number of times they go into the zone (Combine different things into one journey/day), car sharing has massively grown since original ULEZ. It causes people to change their behaviour - A blanket tax rise will not do that.
I dont believe your proposal would have the desired effect at all, in fact I think it would be worse for London. Once people have paid the massively hiked VED they will have no reason not to drive into the area of poor air quality as much as they want and so they will do so.
So yes it is significantly different from a charge per day for going into the zone. That is unless you only care about money because it would cost less and still raise cash but wouldn't actually solve the problem.
It all goes back to the 2 separate problems of Emissions/climate change vs localised air quality which you don't seem to be able to disentangle .
A £12.50 a day charge offers no choice if you have to drive!
£12.50 a day still offers you choice even if you "have to drive" (so ignoring the massive choice of mode shift which I'll admit in some select circumstances may not apply), you have the choice to cut down how regularly you drive into the area, combining multiple trips into one and car pooling/sharing is growing massively. Or you have the choice to pay a little towards the cost of the pollution you create. All of these on top of the choice tonupgrade your car which is the only choice given under your proposed massive VED hike. The more choice you have the more it fits people's circumstances and the more efficient the outcome.0 -
How do we know car pooling is growing?cantersaddick said:
See that I would disagree with. It would clearly be just a money grab. There would be no justification for it. What problem would it be solving? Congestion charge works because of the viable alternative of public transport in the areas it covers. It'd possible to live and work in those areas without needing a car. For outer London the public transport sholst better than the test of the country it simply isn't good enough to remove the need for the car completely. So it gives a lack of choice and flexibility. I opposed the proposal of expanding this to the south circular for those reasons.Rob7Lee said:
It likely won't be called ULEZ by then, but my strong belief is all cars will sooner or later be charged to drive in London and other cities. We still have the congestion charge, soon to be for all vehicles including electric. No doubt we'll have that widened over the coming years (will probably replace ULEZ).cantersaddick said:
Apologies I didn't mean banning i meant charging. In no world are they gonna charge fully electric cars or even hybrids the ULEZ charge. But they will likely continue to phase out what is compliant to capture existing petrol and diesel cars that are currently compliant. And as I said as someone likely in the next round of that I think its a good thing.Rob7Lee said:
I've made no mention of banning fully electric cars? But my guess will be they will be paying the ULEZ charge at some point, much like the congestion charge from next year - the proof of all this is there to see!cantersaddick said:
1) Come on now. In no world are they gonna ban fully electric cars or even hybrids. But they will likely continue to phase out existing petrol and diesel cars that are currently compliant. And as I said as someone likely in the next round of that I think its a good thing.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)
2) Yes I picked 2 extremes to demonstrate that there are different localised issues and places and so a national solution wouldn't work. Yes there are places outside the ULEZ that have similar issues so will likely need Clear Air Zones or ULEZ approach in their own local area. In no way does that mean ULEZ doesn't work for the areas it does cover nor does it mean we shouldn't solve one issue just because another issue exists elsewhere.
Where have I said I don't agree air quality in London (or elsewhere) is a problem? To the contrary.cantersaddick said:
So you don't agree that the air quality in London is a problem?Rob7Lee said:
Not saying it's anything corrupt at all, but anyone who thinks this is purely about air quality needs to give their heads a wobble. Whilst of course there is that element to it, it's also very much about building a system to collect money.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.
Just think how we could have stopped all the death threats, cameras being cut down and huge unnecessary expenditure if we'd just taxed polluting cars via the well trodden VED system as we have done for the past 20 years? Oh yer, but apparently it's a local issue not national ....... although funny how we've nationally banded cars for VED based on their Co2 emissions for donkeys years, we've even managed to do it by year of manufacture also. Funny that.......
Chucking a few percent on VED on older polluting cars in the middle of a cost of living crisis, how would that improve air quality in London? people would likely simply moan and pay it and then carry on as before no change in patterns or decisions, I have to pay it anyway to drive anywhere so why would it stop me driving into London?. ULEZ elicits behavioural change and so actively targets the problem. I don't have to pay ULEZ if I don't drive into London therefore I'll look into mode shift as an example.
Again 2 problems - 1) overall emissions/pollution/climate change 2) bad air quality in densely built and populated areas with high vehicle numbers.
VED for problem 1 but will have little to no impact on problem 2. ULEZ for problem 2 and will likely have some knock on improvements on problem 1 through the behavioural change.
Chucking a few % will make no difference I agree, hence why I never said that, interesting your now quoting cost of living crisis, don't recall mention of that about the £12.50 a day charge?
I'd triple it (VED) in year 1 and increase annually - the cars effected pay now roughly between £300 and £700 a year on VED plus £12.50 every time they drive in 'the zone'. Make that for the VED between £900 and £2,100 in year 1 and increase it annually.
that is no different to a charge per day. But is a lot cheaper to administer and would have the same desired effect, as apparently you have to hit pockets to drive change.
Lets be honest, if this is all about a carrot to get people out of polluting cars there were 101 otherways to do it much cheaper, so why ULEZ system as it stands. Wake up and smell the coffee.
If we want to reduce pollution from cars, then deal with it by over time eradicating those cars (which it will naturally as those cars age, but not quick enough). And don't leave out areas that will be as bad (or worse) as many parts of the ULEZ zone simply because they aren't a London Borough - or are Bromley residents health worth more than say Dartford?
The reason I mention the cost of living crisis in this context because a hike in VED offers no choice, no way to avoid it (beyond changing car) and so hits everyone unfairly even though some may never drive in the areas with poor air quality. Whereas ULEZ offers choice, people can mode shift (its in the part of the country with the best public transport), people can try to minimise the number of times they go into the zone (Combine different things into one journey/day), car sharing has massively grown since original ULEZ. It causes people to change their behaviour - A blanket tax rise will not do that.
I dont believe your proposal would have the desired effect at all, in fact I think it would be worse for London. Once people have paid the massively hiked VED they will have no reason not to drive into the area of poor air quality as much as they want and so they will do so.
So yes it is significantly different from a charge per day for going into the zone. That is unless you only care about money because it would cost less and still raise cash but wouldn't actually solve the problem.
It all goes back to the 2 separate problems of Emissions/climate change vs localised air quality which you don't seem to be able to disentangle .
A £12.50 a day charge offers no choice if you have to drive!
£12.50 a day still offers you choice even if you "have to drive" (so ignoring the massive choice of mode shift which I'll admit in some select circumstances may not apply), you have the choice to cut down how regularly you drive into the area, combining multiple trips into one and car pooling/sharing is growing massively. Or you have the choice to pay a little towards the cost of the pollution you create. All of these on top of the choice tonupgrade your car which is the only choice given under your proposed massive VED hike. The more choice you have the more it fits people's circumstances and the more efficient the outcome.
What is that based upon or just anecdotal for now?
Im unaware of any formal schemes so curious.0 -
It is just about air quality. If they ever move to a pay per mile system it won’t be done using cameras, it’ll be done using trackers in the cars & gps.Rob7Lee said:
Not saying it's anything corrupt at all, but anyone who thinks this is purely about air quality needs to give their heads a wobble. Whilst of course there is that element to it, it's also very much about building a system to collect money.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.
Just think how we could have stopped all the death threats, cameras being cut down and huge unnecessary expenditure if we'd just taxed polluting cars via the well trodden VED system as we have done for the past 20 years? Oh yer, but apparently it's a local issue not national ....... although funny how we've nationally banded cars for VED based on their Co2 emissions for donkeys years, we've even managed to do it by year of manufacture also. Funny that.......I see it as a local issue because London is a massive city with an air problem. I don’t expect people living in Margate or Whitley Bay to have to pay to improve the air that I breathe.Can’t see why people won’t just accept that this really isn’t an issue any more. ULEZ is working pretty well, and most Londoners support it. If they don’t then there’s an election in May.The arguments about adopting national systems or banning polluting cars altogether are moot anyway, because they ain’t gonna happen.I’d let it go chaps, because it’s done and dusted.
Genuinely, hats off to Boris Johnson for implementing it, possibly the only positive legacy achievement of his career.1 -
Surely pay per mile will be a combination of cameras AND trackers?JamesSeed said:
It is just about air quality. If they ever move to a pay per mile system it won’t be done using cameras, it’ll be done using trackers in the cars & gps.Rob7Lee said:
Not saying it's anything corrupt at all, but anyone who thinks this is purely about air quality needs to give their heads a wobble. Whilst of course there is that element to it, it's also very much about building a system to collect money.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.
Just think how we could have stopped all the death threats, cameras being cut down and huge unnecessary expenditure if we'd just taxed polluting cars via the well trodden VED system as we have done for the past 20 years? Oh yer, but apparently it's a local issue not national ....... although funny how we've nationally banded cars for VED based on their Co2 emissions for donkeys years, we've even managed to do it by year of manufacture also. Funny that.......I see it as a local issue because London is a massive city with an air problem. I don’t expect people living in Margate or Whitley Bay to have to pay to improve the air that I breathe.Can’t see why people won’t just accept that this really isn’t an issue any more. ULEZ is working pretty well, and most Londoners support it. If they don’t then there’s an election in May.The arguments about adopting national systems or banning polluting cars altogether are moot anyway, because they ain’t gonna happen.I’d let it go chaps, because it’s done and dusted.
Genuinely, hats off to Boris Johnson for implementing it, possibly the only positive legacy achievement of his career.
I thought some posters on here with inside knowledge of TFL were aware of project activity to investigate this?0 -
All of that is your opinion, there's certainly no facts yet to say the new ULEZ zone has done much at all, except cost a hell of a lot of money. Based on the amount of fees collected plus the fines issued it seems to me that it's not yet having much of an effect.JamesSeed said:
It is just about air quality. If they ever move to a pay per mile system it won’t be done using cameras, it’ll be done using trackers in the cars & gps.Rob7Lee said:
Not saying it's anything corrupt at all, but anyone who thinks this is purely about air quality needs to give their heads a wobble. Whilst of course there is that element to it, it's also very much about building a system to collect money.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.
Just think how we could have stopped all the death threats, cameras being cut down and huge unnecessary expenditure if we'd just taxed polluting cars via the well trodden VED system as we have done for the past 20 years? Oh yer, but apparently it's a local issue not national ....... although funny how we've nationally banded cars for VED based on their Co2 emissions for donkeys years, we've even managed to do it by year of manufacture also. Funny that.......I see it as a local issue because London is a massive city with an air problem. I don’t expect people living in Margate or Whitley Bay to have to pay to improve the air that I breathe.Can’t see why people won’t just accept that this really isn’t an issue any more. ULEZ is working pretty well, and most Londoners support it. If they don’t then there’s an election in May.The arguments about adopting national systems or banning polluting cars altogether are moot anyway, because they ain’t gonna happen.I’d let it go chaps, because it’s done and dusted.
Genuinely, hats off to Boris Johnson for implementing it, possibly the only positive legacy achievement of his career.
An awful lot of things are done and dusted (remember leaving the Valley?), doesn't stop people having an opinion on them though or believing there are better alternative ways. At 4:45pm on a Saturday the game ends, but we all still have an opinion after right?
I don't personally expect anything to change as generally once these things are in they aren't going anywhere, but I still think it's been very poorly thought out and implemented and there were and are better alternatives.0 -
Certainly not, motorbikes are part of the solution, much less of a problem.Friend Or Defoe said:
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
