Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
ULEZ Checker
Comments
-
Can you imagine the moaning on here about bringing in the Clean Air Act back in 1956?7
-
So that was my point. His decision to expand to outer London. It was not mandated / conditional.Friend Or Defoe said:
2021 expansion, which no one complained about, he had to do for funding, which the government had slashed.valleynick66 said:
Is this inaccurate?:Friend Or Defoe said:valleynick66 said:
No. Not to my knowledge.se9addick said:Wasn’t the expansion of ULEZ actually a condition placed on the Mayor by the Government in exchange for effectively bailing out TFL during the pandemic?
His choice alone.
It was the Mayor's proposal and his decision in 2021 to expand the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) to the North and South Circular Roads, to raise extra money for TfL and improve its finances. It was not a requirement from the government.
Sadiq Khan's subsequent decision to expand ULEZ to the whole of Greater London was also not a requirement of the TfL deal. In fact, the government explicitly told the Mayor in the final settlement letter (August 2022) that he was not allowed to use the bailout money on the ULEZ expansion
The Greater London expansion, which from that letter was his call, has caused the uproar.
Make of that what you will!
Seems most of the uproar is about some event that may happen in the future with the restrictions getting tighter rather than the current proposals. The air quality in London has massively improved since i was a kid when 1 in 8 had Asthma, it's about about 1 in 11 now. The new cars aren't perfect but they are miles better than the older cars, and a complaint one is like £500. Fuel has advanced too from the days of leaded petrol. As an asthma suffered myself walking behind a bus with its engine on used to be horrible, now with them being electric it's no issue at all. I grew up in an outer borough for the record.Very many merits in the objective. I think most feel timing, level of cost and the scrappage scheme are the issues.1 -
Can you clarify this comment? £500 seems remarkably low. Do you mean buying say a 14 year old petrol car to replace a 17 year old non-compliant one?Friend Or Defoe said:
2021 expansion, which no one complained about, he had to do for funding, which the government had slashed.valleynick66 said:
Is this inaccurate?:Friend Or Defoe said:valleynick66 said:
No. Not to my knowledge.se9addick said:Wasn’t the expansion of ULEZ actually a condition placed on the Mayor by the Government in exchange for effectively bailing out TFL during the pandemic?
His choice alone.It was the Mayor's proposal and his decision in 2021 to expand the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) to the North and South Circular Roads, to raise extra money for TfL and improve its finances. It was not a requirement from the government.
Sadiq Khan's subsequent decision to expand ULEZ to the whole of Greater London was also not a requirement of the TfL deal. In fact, the government explicitly told the Mayor in the final settlement letter (August 2022) that he was not allowed to use the bailout money on the ULEZ expansion
The Greater London expansion, which from that letter was his call, has caused the uproar.
Make of that what you will!
Seems most of the uproar is about some event that may happen in the future with the restrictions getting tighter rather than the current proposals. The air quality in London has massively improved since i was a kid when 1 in 8 had Asthma, it's about about 1 in 11 now. The new cars aren't perfect but they are miles better than the older cars, and a complaint one is like £500. Fuel has advanced too from the days of leaded petrol. As an asthma suffered myself walking behind a bus with it's engine on used to be horrible, now with them being electric it's no issue at all. I grew up in an outer borough for the record.
0 -
Missed herRothko said:
But there won’t be, as there wasn’t when the congestion charge came in, or the LEZ or the extended ULEZ.cafcnick1992 said:Maybe the mass vandalism of ULEZ cameras will become unsustainable0 -
Just annoys me that we were encouraged to buy Diesel cars not too long ago because of the lower CO2 emissions - Combined with the fact I mainly did Motorway driving, those were the main reasons was why I got my Diesel car back in 2013.
Two years later and the ULEZ was announced, and we we're now being told that Diesel cars are the devil... Was nice being mugged off, as I was equally looking at a Unleaded model of the car I purchased at the time.2 -
Another poster made the comment and another said their 20 year old focus was compliant.IdleHans said:
Can you clarify this comment? £500 seems remarkably low. Do you mean buying say a 14 year old petrol car to replace a 17 year old non-compliant one?Friend Or Defoe said:
2021 expansion, which no one complained about, he had to do for funding, which the government had slashed.valleynick66 said:
Is this inaccurate?:Friend Or Defoe said:valleynick66 said:
No. Not to my knowledge.se9addick said:Wasn’t the expansion of ULEZ actually a condition placed on the Mayor by the Government in exchange for effectively bailing out TFL during the pandemic?
His choice alone.It was the Mayor's proposal and his decision in 2021 to expand the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) to the North and South Circular Roads, to raise extra money for TfL and improve its finances. It was not a requirement from the government.
Sadiq Khan's subsequent decision to expand ULEZ to the whole of Greater London was also not a requirement of the TfL deal. In fact, the government explicitly told the Mayor in the final settlement letter (August 2022) that he was not allowed to use the bailout money on the ULEZ expansion
The Greater London expansion, which from that letter was his call, has caused the uproar.
Make of that what you will!
Seems most of the uproar is about some event that may happen in the future with the restrictions getting tighter rather than the current proposals. The air quality in London has massively improved since i was a kid when 1 in 8 had Asthma, it's about about 1 in 11 now. The new cars aren't perfect but they are miles better than the older cars, and a complaint one is like £500. Fuel has advanced too from the days of leaded petrol. As an asthma suffered myself walking behind a bus with it's engine on used to be horrible, now with them being electric it's no issue at all. I grew up in an outer borough for the record.1 -
Find me a reliable, non-moody, ULEZ compliant car for £500. £500 will buy you nothing but problems.
I'm calling bullshit in a big way on that
Nobody has addressed the results of the experiment in the video. That air quality per cubic metre is very, very bad on the underground but very safe above ground next to a road.
The other massive slab of conflicting bullshit in this agenda to force people to buy new vehicles yet unless you are buying something with a CO2 output of less than 108 the tax burden is huge. So if you want to not get tucked up by LA's everywhere adopting a cash generating ULEZ you have to take on the financial hit of a new vehicle and then the additional whack of the tax burden for 3 years on top of your normal vehicle excise duty/road tax.
Something else not addressed by anyone, not even people on here is the lack of alternatives. My work area is huge, I use some pretty heavy and at best, unwieldy tools, so I need a van or a big car with all the back seat and bootspace used. So riding a fucking pushbike isn't really an option, neither is getting a series of buses and trains that are expensive, unreliable and still won't get me where I need to be.
Apart from London, if I need to be there it won't be to do a physical job as it isn't my patch, it will be to go in someone's big, flashy building for a few hours to talk or god forbid be shown a shit PowerPoint presentation and have some muppet fresh off a presentation course do a degrading ice breaker about why I'd take Sofia Vergara to a desert island11 -
If it's on YouTube it must be true.0
-
Yep, me. I’ve got a 2002 Focus Saloon, 1.6 Ghia. My dad uses it now, but the ULEZ checker confirms it is compliant. Probably worth a few hundred, but maybe I should advertise it as compliant and stick a premium on it 🤷🏻♂️Friend Or Defoe said:
Another poster made the comment and another said their 20 year old focus was compliant.IdleHans said:
Can you clarify this comment? £500 seems remarkably low. Do you mean buying say a 14 year old petrol car to replace a 17 year old non-compliant one?Friend Or Defoe said:
2021 expansion, which no one complained about, he had to do for funding, which the government had slashed.valleynick66 said:
Is this inaccurate?:Friend Or Defoe said:valleynick66 said:
No. Not to my knowledge.se9addick said:Wasn’t the expansion of ULEZ actually a condition placed on the Mayor by the Government in exchange for effectively bailing out TFL during the pandemic?
His choice alone.It was the Mayor's proposal and his decision in 2021 to expand the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) to the North and South Circular Roads, to raise extra money for TfL and improve its finances. It was not a requirement from the government.
Sadiq Khan's subsequent decision to expand ULEZ to the whole of Greater London was also not a requirement of the TfL deal. In fact, the government explicitly told the Mayor in the final settlement letter (August 2022) that he was not allowed to use the bailout money on the ULEZ expansion
The Greater London expansion, which from that letter was his call, has caused the uproar.
Make of that what you will!
Seems most of the uproar is about some event that may happen in the future with the restrictions getting tighter rather than the current proposals. The air quality in London has massively improved since i was a kid when 1 in 8 had Asthma, it's about about 1 in 11 now. The new cars aren't perfect but they are miles better than the older cars, and a complaint one is like £500. Fuel has advanced too from the days of leaded petrol. As an asthma suffered myself walking behind a bus with it's engine on used to be horrible, now with them being electric it's no issue at all. I grew up in an outer borough for the record.2 -
Yea but i can guarantee the people on the other side of your argument work from home while having online shopping dropped at their door all day. They couldn't give a shit about you or the carer that has to now get rid of their car to get to work.Carter said:Find me a reliable, non-moody, ULEZ compliant car for £500. £500 will buy you nothing but problems.
I'm calling bullshit in a big way on that
Nobody has addressed the results of the experiment in the video. That air quality per cubic metre is very, very bad on the underground but very safe above ground next to a road.
The other massive slab of conflicting bullshit in this agenda to force people to buy new vehicles yet unless you are buying something with a CO2 output of less than 108 the tax burden is huge. So if you want to not get tucked up by LA's everywhere adopting a cash generating ULEZ you have to take on the financial hit of a new vehicle and then the additional whack of the tax burden for 3 years on top of your normal vehicle excise duty/road tax.
Something else not addressed by anyone, not even people on here is the lack of alternatives. My work area is huge, I use some pretty heavy and at best, unwieldy tools, so I need a van or a big car with all the back seat and bootspace used. So riding a fucking pushbike isn't really an option, neither is getting a series of buses and trains that are expensive, unreliable and still won't get me where I need to be.
Apart from London, if I need to be there it won't be to do a physical job as it isn't my patch, it will be to go in someone's big, flashy building for a few hours to talk or god forbid be shown a shit PowerPoint presentation and have some muppet fresh off a presentation course do a degrading ice breaker about why I'd take Sofia Vergara to a desert island7 - Sponsored links:
-
Yeah, there are loads of 10 year old+ petrol cars selling for 500.IdleHans said:
Can you clarify this comment? £500 seems remarkably low. Do you mean buying say a 14 year old petrol car to replace a 17 year old non-compliant one?Friend Or Defoe said:
2021 expansion, which no one complained about, he had to do for funding, which the government had slashed.valleynick66 said:
Is this inaccurate?:Friend Or Defoe said:valleynick66 said:
No. Not to my knowledge.se9addick said:Wasn’t the expansion of ULEZ actually a condition placed on the Mayor by the Government in exchange for effectively bailing out TFL during the pandemic?
His choice alone.It was the Mayor's proposal and his decision in 2021 to expand the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) to the North and South Circular Roads, to raise extra money for TfL and improve its finances. It was not a requirement from the government.
Sadiq Khan's subsequent decision to expand ULEZ to the whole of Greater London was also not a requirement of the TfL deal. In fact, the government explicitly told the Mayor in the final settlement letter (August 2022) that he was not allowed to use the bailout money on the ULEZ expansion
The Greater London expansion, which from that letter was his call, has caused the uproar.
Make of that what you will!
Seems most of the uproar is about some event that may happen in the future with the restrictions getting tighter rather than the current proposals. The air quality in London has massively improved since i was a kid when 1 in 8 had Asthma, it's about about 1 in 11 now. The new cars aren't perfect but they are miles better than the older cars, and a complaint one is like £500. Fuel has advanced too from the days of leaded petrol. As an asthma suffered myself walking behind a bus with it's engine on used to be horrible, now with them being electric it's no issue at all. I grew up in an outer borough for the record.
Anyone earning less than £30k or any family eligible for child benefit has access to the scrappage scheme which give £2,0002 -
There's also a separate scheme for diesel cars due to the giant fuck up stated above.Jints said:
Yeah, there are loads of 10 year old+ petrol cars selling for 500.IdleHans said:
Can you clarify this comment? £500 seems remarkably low. Do you mean buying say a 14 year old petrol car to replace a 17 year old non-compliant one?Friend Or Defoe said:
2021 expansion, which no one complained about, he had to do for funding, which the government had slashed.valleynick66 said:
Is this inaccurate?:Friend Or Defoe said:valleynick66 said:
No. Not to my knowledge.se9addick said:Wasn’t the expansion of ULEZ actually a condition placed on the Mayor by the Government in exchange for effectively bailing out TFL during the pandemic?
His choice alone.It was the Mayor's proposal and his decision in 2021 to expand the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) to the North and South Circular Roads, to raise extra money for TfL and improve its finances. It was not a requirement from the government.
Sadiq Khan's subsequent decision to expand ULEZ to the whole of Greater London was also not a requirement of the TfL deal. In fact, the government explicitly told the Mayor in the final settlement letter (August 2022) that he was not allowed to use the bailout money on the ULEZ expansion
The Greater London expansion, which from that letter was his call, has caused the uproar.
Make of that what you will!
Seems most of the uproar is about some event that may happen in the future with the restrictions getting tighter rather than the current proposals. The air quality in London has massively improved since i was a kid when 1 in 8 had Asthma, it's about about 1 in 11 now. The new cars aren't perfect but they are miles better than the older cars, and a complaint one is like £500. Fuel has advanced too from the days of leaded petrol. As an asthma suffered myself walking behind a bus with it's engine on used to be horrible, now with them being electric it's no issue at all. I grew up in an outer borough for the record.
Anyone earning less than £30k or any family eligible for child benefit has access to the scrappage scheme which give £2,0000 -
My 2013 diesel Fiesta is road tax exempt due to the emissions being within the low range, but isn’t ULEZ compliant. However, my mate’s M3 which is £500 a year road tax due to the emissions being too high is ULEZ compliant. How?!3
-
If it doesn't fit my bias it must be a lieFriend Or Defoe said:If it's on YouTube it must be true.The London Underground is polluted with ultrafine metallic particles small enough to end up in the human bloodstream, according to University of Cambridge researchers. These particles are so small that they are likely being underestimated in surveys of pollution in the world’s oldest metro system.
4 -
Good thing no one lives underground then.Dippenhall said:
If it doesn't fit my bias it must be a lieFriend Or Defoe said:If it's on YouTube it must be true.The London Underground is polluted with ultrafine metallic particles small enough to end up in the human bloodstream, according to University of Cambridge researchers. These particles are so small that they are likely being underestimated in surveys of pollution in the world’s oldest metro system.
3 -
Do you have to live in dangerous environments to be affected by them then? People spend hours and hours on the tube. We have to wear breathing apparatus when air quality hits a certain level below ground
I'm happy for that video to be completely disproved, I don't know the people who made it, it was the first video that came up when I searched for dangerous air in London but the lack of acknowledgement especially considering the volume of knowledge and opinion on this thread I was expecting someone to scientifically take it apart
1 -
But isn’t the ULEZ trying to force more people to use the underground?Friend Or Defoe said:
Good thing no one lives underground then.Dippenhall said:
If it doesn't fit my bias it must be a lieFriend Or Defoe said:If it's on YouTube it must be true.The London Underground is polluted with ultrafine metallic particles small enough to end up in the human bloodstream, according to University of Cambridge researchers. These particles are so small that they are likely being underestimated in surveys of pollution in the world’s oldest metro system.
0 -
I think TfL are very aware of the massive issue in air quality on the underground, look on the platforms where they still have projection, the projector itself is tiny and inside a box big enough for about six of the things with all the extra space taken up with air handling and filtration.They’re very mindful that they don’t want the super poor air damaging any of their assets, it’s just they’re less fussed about their passengers.But yeah you’re right if the ULEZ gets more people to use the underground then they’re not really getting any gain from the fresh air upstairs…0
-
Fair enough.Carter said:Do you have to live in dangerous environments to be affected by them then? People spend hours and hours on the tube. We have to wear breathing apparatus when air quality hits a certain level below ground
I'm happy for that video to be completely disproved, I don't know the people who made it, it was the first video that came up when I searched for dangerous air in London but the lack of acknowledgement especially considering the volume of knowledge and opinion on this thread I was expecting someone to scientifically take it apart
No, they are providing grants to get people to drive cars that have lower emissions.MrOneLung said:
But isn’t the ULEZ trying to force more people to use the underground?Friend Or Defoe said:
Good thing no one lives underground then.Dippenhall said:
If it doesn't fit my bias it must be a lieFriend Or Defoe said:If it's on YouTube it must be true.The London Underground is polluted with ultrafine metallic particles small enough to end up in the human bloodstream, according to University of Cambridge researchers. These particles are so small that they are likely being underestimated in surveys of pollution in the world’s oldest metro system.
0 -
Are there many people on this thread who are personally affected by the latest expansion?0
- Sponsored links:
-
I am.ThreadKiller said:Are there many people on this thread who are personally affected by the latest expansion?
It's handy really though.
I've worked out I'm better off getting rid of the car and going on the dole.
With all the handouts I'll have more disposal income.0 -
I see you chose to leave out this part:Dippenhall said:
If it doesn't fit my bias it must be a lieFriend Or Defoe said:If it's on YouTube it must be true.The London Underground is polluted with ultrafine metallic particles small enough to end up in the human bloodstream, according to University of Cambridge researchers. These particles are so small that they are likely being underestimated in surveys of pollution in the world’s oldest metro system.
However, it is not clear whether these particles pose a health risk.
Presumably because it doesn't fit your bias?2 -
I'm amazed that anyone really thinks that this ULEZ scheme is about tackling pollution - if it was, all non-compliant cars would simply be banned, none of this pay £12.50 nonsense and carry on driving.
No the scheme is all about trying to restore TfL's finances that Khan has trashed and much more importantly, using the ULEZ technology as a trojan horse to bring in a pay to drive scheme in London.
It is estimated that the ULEZ scheme will cease to cover its costs in only 2 or 3 years time. So what will Khan do then to cover the money he has lost?
The answer is introduce a pay to drive scheme which uses the ULEZ cameras to enforce.
Khan may deny it but I can tell you for a fact his officials are already working on such a scheme. One technology under consideration is requiring everyone to have an app on their phone which will need to be turned on when driving in London.
In fairness, many in the transport world (in which i have worked all my life) view pay per drive as the way forward as the Chancellor faces losing almost a third of the revenue he gets from fuel duty from cars before the end of the decade because of the move to green motoring. But when I worked on this issue, the deal was that Fuel Duty would be reduced as pay per mile charges were introduced. Khan, of course, can't do this as he has no control over Treasury taxes so any pay per drive charges he introduces will be additional to current motoring taxes.
So it's pretty clear. If you want to pay every time you want to drive in London, vote for Khan. If not, vote for a party that will scrap the ULEZ.
17 -
I sympathise. In the early 2000s, I attended loads of meetings in which the motor industry was told categorically that Gordon Brown wanted to encourage the take up of diesel vehicles because they had lower CO2 emissions and that's where the industry should focus their efforts.ForeverAddickted said:Just annoys me that we were encouraged to buy Diesel cars not too long ago because of the lower CO2 emissions - Combined with the fact I mainly did Motorway driving, those were the main reasons was why I got my Diesel car back in 2013.
Two years later and the ULEZ was announced, and we we're now being told that Diesel cars are the devil... Was nice being mugged off, as I was equally looking at a Unleaded model of the car I purchased at the time.
I just wonder whether we are going to be in a similar situation in a few years time with electric cars?8 -
You are right to think that, we've used batteries the generation before and the current generation of battery that is used for EVs, solar power banking, and remote power generation. They cost a prohibitive amount compared to fuel generators but we've committed to net zero so rare swallowing the cost. The bit that always sticks unpleasantly with me is the human cost of obtaining the precious metals and minerals necessary for them to be made then the environmental cost of disposing of them, and the financial cost which is big, again prohibitively big.Fortune 82nd Minute said:
I sympathise. In the early 2000s, I attended loads of meetings in which the motor industry was told categorically that Gordon Brown wanted to encourage the take up of diesel vehicles because they had lower CO2 emissions and that's where the industry should focus their efforts.ForeverAddickted said:Just annoys me that we were encouraged to buy Diesel cars not too long ago because of the lower CO2 emissions - Combined with the fact I mainly did Motorway driving, those were the main reasons was why I got my Diesel car back in 2013.
Two years later and the ULEZ was announced, and we we're now being told that Diesel cars are the devil... Was nice being mugged off, as I was equally looking at a Unleaded model of the car I purchased at the time.
I just wonder whether we are going to be in a similar situation in a few years time with electric cars?
Electric vehicles won't all of a sudden surge down in price as they get better, the car industry doesn't and has never worked like that. Currently you can buy a very decent used car for 10k and it will be about 8 years old. It will have low CO2 emissions because cars have been improving in this area for a long time. But you try picking up an EV that is capable of doing what you need it to do, 2nd hand which is the pond most people will be shopping in unless they want to be sacked into the racket of PCP and HP on a factory basic brand new EV.
There is a saying "help me or make me" the ULEZ is doing neither. It won't make me stop driving my van inside the M25 because my job necessitates that I do, it isn't helping me. I did that years ago when I bought a car with such low Co2 emissions it costs 20 quid a year to tax, tax that is calculated on the carbon emissions of the vehicle, and all the help it will give my employers is an excuse to ramp up prices for the end user. The sort of person who has been thinking for the last 3 years "I cant sell my car now, the used car market is so falsely inflated, I will get tucked up buying another one".
In London i understand it, I assumed I always come home feeling shit because of the air quality, the proximity to other humans and their own microbe-laden fumes but maybe the air quality on the tube had more to do with it. Ultimately if I go up town I can get exactly where I need to be without too much arseache using exclusively public transport and I'm talking one end of London to the other not just . Nowhere else in the UK can I do that.
I dont think anyone drives in London through choice, for humans as cargo its easy, with cargo as cargo its an expensive pain in the anus0 -
But why can't it be both? TfL desperately requires more funding and they have to find different ways of doing so as constantly hiking fares for tube is unsustainable hence this and scrapping things like travel cards. At the same time air pollution in London is a serious issue and needs to be tackled so clearly expanding ulez is a start but we need more.Fortune 82nd Minute said:I'm amazed that anyone really thinks that this ULEZ scheme is about tackling pollution - if it was, all non-compliant cars would simply be banned, none of this pay £12.50 nonsense and carry on driving.
No the scheme is all about trying to restore TfL's finances that Khan has trashed and much more importantly, using the ULEZ technology as a trojan horse to bring in a pay to drive scheme in London.
It is estimated that the ULEZ scheme will cease to cover its costs in only 2 or 3 years time. So what will Khan do then to cover the money he has lost?
The answer is introduce a pay to drive scheme which uses the ULEZ cameras to enforce.
Khan may deny it but I can tell you for a fact his officials are already working on such a scheme. One technology under consideration is requiring everyone to have an app on their phone which will need to be turned on when driving in London.
In fairness, many in the transport world (in which i have worked all my life) view pay per drive as the way forward as the Chancellor faces losing almost a third of the revenue he gets from fuel duty from cars before the end of the decade because of the move to green motoring. But when I worked on this issue, the deal was that Fuel Duty would be reduced as pay per mile charges were introduced. Khan, of course, can't do this as he has no control over Treasury taxes so any pay per drive charges he introduces will be additional to current motoring taxes.
So it's pretty clear. If you want to pay every time you want to drive in London, vote for Khan. If not, vote for a party that will scrap the ULEZ.
As with most things it isn't black and white. What you propose though is voting for a party that over the past decade has run public services even further into the ground. No doubt their aim would be to fully privatise public transport within London and we all know how well privatisation has been elsewhere in the country.
It's interesting you mention fuel duty because for far too long this country has pandered to the motorist, taxation on motoring has fallen in real terms over the past decade whilst public transportation charges have sky rocketed yet we arguably have a worse public transportation infrastructure over that time yet even more cars on the road. So yes maybe we do need to start charging more for cars coming in to London.
I also say this as someone living inside the south circular who owns a car. It's ridiculous at times trying to drive anywhere and anecdotally you only have to go and stand on the SC for 10 minutes to see how many single occupancy cars there are. We need to change our habits and asking people nicely doesn't work. And what definitely doesn't work is voting for a party with a history of lowering taxation and selling off public assets.7 -
Exactly. The idea that if the Mayor really cared he would ‘simply ban’ your car. Think about that scenario for 10 seconds and you’ll probably realise how unworkable it is, and how much more you’d be kicking off about it.colthe3rd said:
But why can't it be both? TfL desperately requires more funding and they have to find different ways of doing so as constantly hiking fares for tube is unsustainable hence this and scrapping things like travel cards. At the same time air pollution in London is a serious issue and needs to be tackled so clearly expanding ulez is a start but we need more.Fortune 82nd Minute said:I'm amazed that anyone really thinks that this ULEZ scheme is about tackling pollution - if it was, all non-compliant cars would simply be banned, none of this pay £12.50 nonsense and carry on driving.
No the scheme is all about trying to restore TfL's finances that Khan has trashed and much more importantly, using the ULEZ technology as a trojan horse to bring in a pay to drive scheme in London.
It is estimated that the ULEZ scheme will cease to cover its costs in only 2 or 3 years time. So what will Khan do then to cover the money he has lost?
The answer is introduce a pay to drive scheme which uses the ULEZ cameras to enforce.
Khan may deny it but I can tell you for a fact his officials are already working on such a scheme. One technology under consideration is requiring everyone to have an app on their phone which will need to be turned on when driving in London.
In fairness, many in the transport world (in which i have worked all my life) view pay per drive as the way forward as the Chancellor faces losing almost a third of the revenue he gets from fuel duty from cars before the end of the decade because of the move to green motoring. But when I worked on this issue, the deal was that Fuel Duty would be reduced as pay per mile charges were introduced. Khan, of course, can't do this as he has no control over Treasury taxes so any pay per drive charges he introduces will be additional to current motoring taxes.
So it's pretty clear. If you want to pay every time you want to drive in London, vote for Khan. If not, vote for a party that will scrap the ULEZ.
As with most things it isn't black and white. What you propose though is voting for a party that over the past decade has run public services even further into the ground. No doubt their aim would be to fully privatise public transport within London and we all know how well privatisation has been elsewhere in the country.
It's interesting you mention fuel duty because for far too long this country has pandered to the motorist, taxation on motoring has fallen in real terms over the past decade whilst public transportation charges have sky rocketed yet we arguably have a worse public transportation infrastructure over that time yet even more cars on the road. So yes maybe we do need to start charging more for cars coming in to London.
I also say this as someone living inside the south circular who owns a car. It's ridiculous at times trying to drive anywhere and anecdotally you only have to go and stand on the SC for 10 minutes to see how many single occupancy cars there are. We need to change our habits and asking people nicely doesn't work. And what definitely doesn't work is voting for a party with a history of lowering taxation and selling off public assets.4 -
All this thread has told me is that I really don't want to travel on the underground anymore...1
-
Of course its going to be a similar situation in a few years with Electric Cars - Like you say, the £12.50 isn't to tackle pollution, its a little bit extra in the pockets.Fortune 82nd Minute said:
I sympathise. In the early 2000s, I attended loads of meetings in which the motor industry was told categorically that Gordon Brown wanted to encourage the take up of diesel vehicles because they had lower CO2 emissions and that's where the industry should focus their efforts.ForeverAddickted said:Just annoys me that we were encouraged to buy Diesel cars not too long ago because of the lower CO2 emissions - Combined with the fact I mainly did Motorway driving, those were the main reasons was why I got my Diesel car back in 2013.
Two years later and the ULEZ was announced, and we we're now being told that Diesel cars are the devil... Was nice being mugged off, as I was equally looking at a Unleaded model of the car I purchased at the time.
I just wonder whether we are going to be in a similar situation in a few years time with electric cars?
What does the TFL do when all cars are compliant, and they're suddenly missing out on funds generated by ULEZ - Of course they'll move the goal posts as a result.
In X number of cars the current Electric ones will be non-compliant because they dont have the right battery no doubt.1 -
Come on...Fortune 82nd Minute said:I'm amazed that anyone really thinks that this ULEZ scheme is about tackling pollution - if it was, all non-compliant cars would simply be banned, none of this pay £12.50 nonsense and carry on driving.
No the scheme is all about trying to restore TfL's finances that Khan has trashed and much more importantly, using the ULEZ technology as a trojan horse to bring in a pay to drive scheme in London.
It is estimated that the ULEZ scheme will cease to cover its costs in only 2 or 3 years time. So what will Khan do then to cover the money he has lost?
The answer is introduce a pay to drive scheme which uses the ULEZ cameras to enforce.
Khan may deny it but I can tell you for a fact his officials are already working on such a scheme. One technology under consideration is requiring everyone to have an app on their phone which will need to be turned on when driving in London.
In fairness, many in the transport world (in which i have worked all my life) view pay per drive as the way forward as the Chancellor faces losing almost a third of the revenue he gets from fuel duty from cars before the end of the decade because of the move to green motoring. But when I worked on this issue, the deal was that Fuel Duty would be reduced as pay per mile charges were introduced. Khan, of course, can't do this as he has no control over Treasury taxes so any pay per drive charges he introduces will be additional to current motoring taxes.
So it's pretty clear. If you want to pay every time you want to drive in London, vote for Khan. If not, vote for a party that will scrap the ULEZ.0
