Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
ULEZ Checker
Comments
-
The link is in the post0
-
I have voted Tory most of my working life, yet agree with your sentiment.colthe3rd said:
I don't disagree but I'm sure I've pointed it out in this thread it's not just LU that has lacked investment it's the whole public transport network in Britain that has for decades. Motorists have benefited from real terms cuts to the tax on motoring at the same time funding for public transport has been lacking. Now any hint of an increase to motorists costs is shouted down like it's some sort of infringement on civil liberties. Tory voters hate taxation but a lack of it just leads to the mess we're in now, public services are in such a mess all round and there doesn't seem to be any easy way out of it.R0TW said:Not too sure that TfL is underfunded as I have seen a lot of money wasted on cycle lanes. Some being completely reconfigured within 2 years (Woolwich Road being an example). What is underfunded however is London Underground.
Should you ever have the pleasure of travelling into Charing Cross whilst using it, take a look at what tourists get to see when exiting the Trafalgar Square exit, rather than the Strand (Train Station) exit. As BBW will agree, some of the main station assets are well beyond their life expectancy, and credit should be given to maintainers for keeping them going.
Sorry for moving away from the general ULEZ conversation, but LU needs serious investment.
On the flip side, there has been far too much waste/red tape.
I have worked in and around TfL for over 30 years and there is a lot of driftwood.
Whether this be from unions pushing to recruit from within (job description was based on the potential candidates experience) to the colour of your skin box ticking.
TfL carries too many people not capable, hence the reliance on consultants.1 -
I thought you were referring to some other survey.Rothko said:The link is in the postSo my observations on that.A sample survey of 1100. Don’t know if that’s a decent sample or not. It was taken on 10-12 June which was pre the by election.(Unless I have misread that)Also that analysis says:Those living in Outer London are split evenly on the ULEZ, with 39% in support and 39% opposed.
If given a choice, a plurality (37%) of Londoners would prefer to keep the ULEZ within its current boundaries, while 32% would like to see it expanded to include the entirety of London. 22% would like to see it scrapped altogether.
So on balance not overwhelming support I’d say yet.But as I say I don’t deny there is a good level of support but those against are not just a few.0 -
And you are 100% right in thinking that.valleynick66 said:
I think the fear amongst many Londoners is that the charge will be extended in some fashion once the pollutants are reduced. If you like in a similar way we still pay for the Dartford crossing.seth plum said:
Thank you. Now there is something to debate.Dansk_Red said:According to official data approx 78,000 non complainant vehicles used the extended ULEZ a day during the month of November 2022. If all those vehicles continued to use the zone and paid the £12.50 fee that would give an income of £975,000 per day without any fines, even if the number of vehicles is reduced by 75% it would still be an income of £88,000,000 per year plus the income from fines. A freind of my wife who lives in Margate and visit us about 4 times a year did not know about this new charge.
By your calculations it would take about two years to recoup costs.
I imagine that that 78,000 can be reduced by 30,000 (scrappage so far) and others will refrain from driving in the ULEZ area or change vehicles.
But as you say there is likely to be income from fines too.
I would guess that the answer as to when the ULEZ scheme starts to make a profit is somewhere between your two years and my calculation of 25 years.
Perhaps the answer about how long is yet to be pinned down with much certainty. Your calculation and mine seems to me to throw a degree of doubt as to whether Sadiq Khan has introduced this enterprise for financial gain.That is why it’s criticised as a revenue generating initiative.Be great however to think that once the job is done it can be abandoned as passage of time alone will ensure only better vehicles are on the road and it’s less needed as a disincentive.
TfL's own figures forecast that the ULEZ scheme will stop being profitable in as little as 2 or 3 years time.
The question is what will Khan do then to fill the hole in TfL's finances. The answer is he wants to use the ULEZ cameras to introduce road pricing in London.
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 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.
Believe me, ULEZ is a trojan horse to introduce road pricing.1 -
A very sensible and constructive suggestionSmithy said:Why can't they make an exemption for those people who use their cars for work? And I'm talking about the people who need to drive a van for instance, not the Chislehurst Range Rover drivers who would never take public transport in a million years and are all of a sudden social justice warriors when it comes to ULEZ4 -
If only it was all the fault of the wicked Government (who incidentally I have no great love of).Billy_Mix said:
NAIL.ON.HEADRothko said:
Vast majority of the poorest Londoners don’t drive, even less in the poorest groups, the poorest Londoners are more at risk from air pollution and its effects on health.JohnnyH2 said:
Khan is the Mayor representing the economically poorest people in our society. His plan is to punish these people specifically in a cost of living crisis.JamesSeed said:I know the air has improved a lot where I live over the 20 years we’ve lived here. We’re not far from the south circ. One of my sons has asthma, and that has improved. General lowering of car emissions during that time has helped, and ULEZ continued that process. But something did need to be done, it’s easy to forget how bad it was.On our holiday to Santorini I was reminded of what London of that. Found the fumes (and heat) in built up areas difficult to cope with.Some of the vitriol aimed at Khan is OTT. He’s not an evil man trying to enrich himself (there are enough of those around) and he seems sincere in what he’s doing, to me at least. Met him a few times through work and he seemed alright. Not particularly charismatic, quite ordinary really, and no massive ego as far as I could see. But he does seem eltonengender real hatred from some. Take a peek at the replies to any of his tweets and it’s quite scary. He gets a lot of death threats apparently.I haven’t followed this very closely, but ULEZ was a policy supported, if not instigated, by Boris Johnson wasn’t it? I suspect if he’d remained Mayor he would have had plenty of funding from central government to follow it through.Politics is a dirty business, and it’s not in the Tories interests for Khan to be a success, so they’ll do everything they can to make things difficult for him (like reducing funding), aided and supported of course by papers like the Telegraph and the Daily Mail.
20 mph is more than fast enough in the residential streets around where I live. That’s nothing to do with Khan of course. Some of the bigger roads it’s hard to stick to the limit, but having just completed a speed awareness course (caught out in Nottingham on a dual carriageway) I have to. One tip they gave us on the course was to use cruise control if you have it. It’s supposed to help you get more mpg as well. 👍
But I think if there’s more evidence that 30mph on bigger roads really does reduce emissions, then maybe there’ll be changes.
That he is why he get the 'vitriol'There’s a lot of noise from a few people
the funds from expanded ULEZ are needed to fill the financial black hole Boris dug for Kahn and TfL by only lending them the cash to keep London moving through the pandemic
Boris literally used Covid to skewer his political conqueror
meanwhile his regime rubber stamped gifts of Billions to its political and commercial friends for absolutely nothing in return - Test & Trace, PPE, Baroness Mone, et al
now some of London's commuters and residents will be picking up the tab for childish spite on the grandest scale
the rabid attack dogs in the overwhelmingly tory press repeat the lies about the genesis of ULEZ's expansion which are swallowed and regurgitated by the complicit and gullible
primarily to prop up compliant neighbouring tory councils
if Kahn is deposed by a tory candidate we'll see how quickly Boris's TfL financial chicanery is restored or more likely the relatively wealthy drivers have their costs reduced and transferred to the poorest of the poor by massive price rises on inner London public transport, hmmm I wonder...
Firstly, I'm sure you know Khan was advised by senior TfL officials not to freeze fares because of the adverse impact it would have on TfL's finances. He ignored that advice and that was the start of TfL's financing difficulties.
Secondly, I could have some sympathy with your view that TfL is an impoverished organisation if only it wasn't one of the most overmanned and bloated organisations in the public sector. Anyone could go in there and cut staff by 20% and I doubt any Londoner would notice any difference (except for those who lost their jobs).
Not only is it overmanned, it pays incredibly generously. The last figures I saw (last month) showed that 766 TfL and Crossrail employees earned more than £100,000 in 2022/23, compared with 597 in 2021/22. 766? What on earth do they all do to deserve that sort of salary.
And the further good news for these people is that TfL is now the only public sector employee that retains its final salary pension. That benefit is now unheard of in the private sector and even other public sector employees have moved onto a career average pension.
Or there are the 54,000 free travel passes given to the friends of families of TfL staff. It has been estimated this free travel could be worth £160 million.
Or the failure of Khan to tackle the tube drivers' ludicrous pay demands. He even caved in recently to even talking about changing their conditions until after the next election
And finally, TfL is so impoverished that Khan could find £50 million down a settee in his office when he was forced to extend the scrappage scheme to all Londoners after the Uxbridge by-election.
Contrary to what you may think, I do have some sympathy with local authorities having their budgets squeezed. But Tfl is a completely different matter. It is a dinosaur that needs culling and dragged into the 21st century.
4 -
The economically poorest in our society don’t have cars, so aren't affected at all.JohnnyH2 said:
Khan is the Mayor representing the economically poorest people in our society. His plan is to punish these people specifically in a cost of living crisis.JamesSeed said:I know the air has improved a lot where I live over the 20 years we’ve lived here. We’re not far from the south circ. One of my sons has asthma, and that has improved. General lowering of car emissions during that time has helped, and ULEZ continued that process. But something did need to be done, it’s easy to forget how bad it was.On our holiday to Santorini I was reminded of what London of that. Found the fumes (and heat) in built up areas difficult to cope with.Some of the vitriol aimed at Khan is OTT. He’s not an evil man trying to enrich himself (there are enough of those around) and he seems sincere in what he’s doing, to me at least. Met him a few times through work and he seemed alright. Not particularly charismatic, quite ordinary really, and no massive ego as far as I could see. But he does seem eltonengender real hatred from some. Take a peek at the replies to any of his tweets and it’s quite scary. He gets a lot of death threats apparently.I haven’t followed this very closely, but ULEZ was a policy supported, if not instigated, by Boris Johnson wasn’t it? I suspect if he’d remained Mayor he would have had plenty of funding from central government to follow it through.Politics is a dirty business, and it’s not in the Tories interests for Khan to be a success, so they’ll do everything they can to make things difficult for him (like reducing funding), aided and supported of course by papers like the Telegraph and the Daily Mail.
20 mph is more than fast enough in the residential streets around where I live. That’s nothing to do with Khan of course. Some of the bigger roads it’s hard to stick to the limit, but having just completed a speed awareness course (caught out in Nottingham on a dual carriageway) I have to. One tip they gave us on the course was to use cruise control if you have it. It’s supposed to help you get more mpg as well. 👍
But I think if there’s more evidence that 30mph on bigger roads really does reduce emissions, then maybe there’ll be changes.
That he is why he get the 'vitriol'1 -
It’s isn’t a cash cow.seth plum said:
Rubbish.Fortune 82nd Minute said:
Unless you have got something sensible to say on ULEZ, can you just butt out of this debate. Because, as usual, you have stirred things up by spouting your poison on here.seth plum said:
I agree that to dislike Khan for the stupid proposal to introduce tolls on the Blackwall tunnel is not unreasonable.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
I dislike Khan for being a mediocre politician who frequently spouts bollocks - being a Muslim has nothing to do with it.seth plum said:Some people have always hated Khan and the ULEZ scheme is the current vehicle with which to hate him. Previously he was hated for decisions by local councils to have low traffic neighbourhoods, and he has been hated for knife crime because of decisions by central government to restrict police funding, he has been hated for criticising the visit(s) by vulva grabbing Trump.
Of course nobody hates Sadiq Khan for coming from a Muslim background and not having a white skin, oh no it’s not that at all.
Lost any final respect for him after pushing through the Silvertown tunnel.
I notice that you intimate that at one point you had respect for him, why did you used to have any respect at all?
Some people would assert that every single thing Khan says and does is bollocks. I don’t think it is everything myself.
As I said above there is nobody on the planet that hates Sadiq Khan because he is not white skinned and comes from a Muslim background.
As someone who has worked in the transport world all his life, I find it really interesting how this scheme is being sold to the public when its real purpose is far different to the reasons given. I know not everyone shares my view, which is fair enough and I would like to debate it. This morning I have had a perfectly reasonable exchange with @Rothko and that's how it should be.
But your crap will ensure this thread gets closed, just like you have down with loads of other threads. You can see it is already getting hi-jacked and heated because of you.
So if you can't post sensibly on ULEZ, just keep quiet.
I have asked about evidence that ULEZ is a cash cow.When people are saying that you know they’ve been following the tabloid headlines rather than the facts.3 -
So is the £12.50 a charge or a fine ?0
-
I suspect it's an issue with any large publicly funded organisation, see also NHS and the BBC. Problem is (BBC aside) what's the alternative? Tories will say privatisation but we all know how well that has gone for our other public services.R0TW said:
I have voted Tory most of my working life, yet agree with your sentiment.colthe3rd said:
I don't disagree but I'm sure I've pointed it out in this thread it's not just LU that has lacked investment it's the whole public transport network in Britain that has for decades. Motorists have benefited from real terms cuts to the tax on motoring at the same time funding for public transport has been lacking. Now any hint of an increase to motorists costs is shouted down like it's some sort of infringement on civil liberties. Tory voters hate taxation but a lack of it just leads to the mess we're in now, public services are in such a mess all round and there doesn't seem to be any easy way out of it.R0TW said:Not too sure that TfL is underfunded as I have seen a lot of money wasted on cycle lanes. Some being completely reconfigured within 2 years (Woolwich Road being an example). What is underfunded however is London Underground.
Should you ever have the pleasure of travelling into Charing Cross whilst using it, take a look at what tourists get to see when exiting the Trafalgar Square exit, rather than the Strand (Train Station) exit. As BBW will agree, some of the main station assets are well beyond their life expectancy, and credit should be given to maintainers for keeping them going.
Sorry for moving away from the general ULEZ conversation, but LU needs serious investment.
On the flip side, there has been far too much waste/red tape.
I have worked in and around TfL for over 30 years and there is a lot of driftwood.
Whether this be from unions pushing to recruit from within (job description was based on the potential candidates experience) to the colour of your skin box ticking.
TfL carries too many people not capable, hence the reliance on consultants.
1 - Sponsored links:
-
Yep, my old man who is a builder will be scrapping his spotless, perfectly driveable van in the coming days. His business partner who lives a couple of hundred yards outside the ulez zone has sold exactly the same van to we buy any car and got 5k for it and purchased another for 14k so Mr Khan has done him a massive favour there.stop_shouting said:
A very sensible and constructive suggestionSmithy said:Why can't they make an exemption for those people who use their cars for work? And I'm talking about the people who need to drive a van for instance, not the Chislehurst Range Rover drivers who would never take public transport in a million years and are all of a sudden social justice warriors when it comes to ULEZ0 -
Exactly. We live near the south circ, and the air has improved, and my son’s asthma has improved. That’ll do for me.Rothko said:
Polling done in the last month, post Uxbridge shows Londoners support the introduction, so yes it has support in its current guise.valleynick66 said:
Well as a resident it’s a fear I have. I also contributed to the TFL consultation.Rothko said:
But there’s isn’t fear in ‘many Londoners’ it’s just not true. There is support in polls for ULEZ, and Londoners would prefer priority is given to pedestrians and public transport over cars. https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/plurality-of-londoners-support-expanding-londons-ultra-low-emissions-zone-ulez/valleynick66 said:
I think the fear amongst many Londoners is that the charge will be extended in some fashion once the pollutants are reduced. If you like in a similar way we still pay for the Dartford crossing.seth plum said:
Thank you. Now there is something to debate.Dansk_Red said:According to official data approx 78,000 non complainant vehicles used the extended ULEZ a day during the month of November 2022. If all those vehicles continued to use the zone and paid the £12.50 fee that would give an income of £975,000 per day without any fines, even if the number of vehicles is reduced by 75% it would still be an income of £88,000,000 per year plus the income from fines. A freind of my wife who lives in Margate and visit us about 4 times a year did not know about this new charge.
By your calculations it would take about two years to recoup costs.
I imagine that that 78,000 can be reduced by 30,000 (scrappage so far) and others will refrain from driving in the ULEZ area or change vehicles.
But as you say there is likely to be income from fines too.
I would guess that the answer as to when the ULEZ scheme starts to make a profit is somewhere between your two years and my calculation of 25 years.
Perhaps the answer about how long is yet to be pinned down with much certainty. Your calculation and mine seems to me to throw a degree of doubt as to whether Sadiq Khan has introduced this enterprise for financial gain.That is why it’s criticised as a revenue generating initiative.Be great however to think that once the job is done it can be abandoned as passage of time alone will ensure only better vehicles are on the road and it’s less needed as a disincentive.
this seems to really annoy people in boroughs who still cling to their pre 1967 county, or those in the Home Counties who want all that London offers as long as long as they don’t pay for it (Hi Dartford council)There is support and there is also fear and reservations.You cannot suggest in its current guise it has the support of the majority I don’t think. The mayoral vote will tell us I suspect.My view is yes it’s a good concept but the cost right now seems very poor timing. Introduce it when people have more capacity to adapt. Maybe introduce now with a more modest penalty fee and gradually ramp up for example.It will go the same as the Congestion Charge, the Johnson Low emissions zone, the south/notth circular extension, that there is a LOT of noise, misplaced fear, and then nothing bad happens, the air gets a cleaner, and London goes its merry way.1 -
Those £70k+ Chiselhurst Ranges are probably ULEZ compliant. so they can continue to avoid public transportSmithy said:Why can't they make an exemption for those people who use their cars for work? And I'm talking about the people who need to drive a van for instance, not the Chislehurst Range Rover drivers who would never take public transport in a million years and are all of a sudden social justice warriors when it comes to ULEZ2 -
Could you not of moved out of London to the countryside years ago, to improve your sons health?JamesSeed said:
Exactly. We live near the south circ, and the air has improved, and my son’s asthma has improved. That’ll do for me.Rothko said:
Polling done in the last month, post Uxbridge shows Londoners support the introduction, so yes it has support in its current guise.valleynick66 said:
Well as a resident it’s a fear I have. I also contributed to the TFL consultation.Rothko said:
But there’s isn’t fear in ‘many Londoners’ it’s just not true. There is support in polls for ULEZ, and Londoners would prefer priority is given to pedestrians and public transport over cars. https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/plurality-of-londoners-support-expanding-londons-ultra-low-emissions-zone-ulez/valleynick66 said:
I think the fear amongst many Londoners is that the charge will be extended in some fashion once the pollutants are reduced. If you like in a similar way we still pay for the Dartford crossing.seth plum said:
Thank you. Now there is something to debate.Dansk_Red said:According to official data approx 78,000 non complainant vehicles used the extended ULEZ a day during the month of November 2022. If all those vehicles continued to use the zone and paid the £12.50 fee that would give an income of £975,000 per day without any fines, even if the number of vehicles is reduced by 75% it would still be an income of £88,000,000 per year plus the income from fines. A freind of my wife who lives in Margate and visit us about 4 times a year did not know about this new charge.
By your calculations it would take about two years to recoup costs.
I imagine that that 78,000 can be reduced by 30,000 (scrappage so far) and others will refrain from driving in the ULEZ area or change vehicles.
But as you say there is likely to be income from fines too.
I would guess that the answer as to when the ULEZ scheme starts to make a profit is somewhere between your two years and my calculation of 25 years.
Perhaps the answer about how long is yet to be pinned down with much certainty. Your calculation and mine seems to me to throw a degree of doubt as to whether Sadiq Khan has introduced this enterprise for financial gain.That is why it’s criticised as a revenue generating initiative.Be great however to think that once the job is done it can be abandoned as passage of time alone will ensure only better vehicles are on the road and it’s less needed as a disincentive.
this seems to really annoy people in boroughs who still cling to their pre 1967 county, or those in the Home Counties who want all that London offers as long as long as they don’t pay for it (Hi Dartford council)There is support and there is also fear and reservations.You cannot suggest in its current guise it has the support of the majority I don’t think. The mayoral vote will tell us I suspect.My view is yes it’s a good concept but the cost right now seems very poor timing. Introduce it when people have more capacity to adapt. Maybe introduce now with a more modest penalty fee and gradually ramp up for example.It will go the same as the Congestion Charge, the Johnson Low emissions zone, the south/notth circular extension, that there is a LOT of noise, misplaced fear, and then nothing bad happens, the air gets a cleaner, and London goes its merry way.8 -
There's a huge difference between living next to the south circular, and living in leafy Bromley.0
-
We all want cleaner air so I agree to an extent.
However the speed that both inner and outer have been introduced, especially the outer in the current financial climate, I don’t agree with.
When we purchased our three year old diesel in 2014, we also looked at a petrol version. It was a little more expensive as it was at a main dealer and the diesel was at car giant. You would have thought that by then, the dealer would have been shoving Ulez down out throats shouting ‘buy our petrol car’. I wish they would have.
Fast forward to Ulez outer and we still have the same diesel. To get a similar sized car at about three years old, costs nearly double what it did in 2014, as used cars are really expensive (regardless of the ‘you can get a compliant car for £500’ comments earlier on this thread). Funnily enough, my wages haven’t doubled in the time.
Fortunately, we have had help in replacing ours but not everyone will be so fortunate.
From what I understand (not from the media), the expansion’s main aim is to raise funds..
1 -
If it was purely about cleaner air, the vehicles would be banned. The fact you can pay to still pollute says it all really.
Just like the congestion charge, once income drops the goal posts will move.10 -
There are a lot of old diesel vans still in use in London which are serious polluters.stop_shouting said:
A very sensible and constructive suggestionSmithy said:Why can't they make an exemption for those people who use their cars for work? And I'm talking about the people who need to drive a van for instance, not the Chislehurst Range Rover drivers who would never take public transport in a million years and are all of a sudden social justice warriors when it comes to ULEZ
0 -
If the press are to be believed here, we need a ULEZ checker for the Matilda's.
I'll get my coat!0 - Sponsored links:
-
If he’d had the same level of asthma as my niece then we would have done. His was manageable with inhalers. He doesn’t need to use them anymore. Of course it could be that he grew out of it, but there is evidence the lower pollution levels reduces asthma levels. 👍clb74 said:
Could you not of moved out of London to the countryside years ago, to improve your sons health?JamesSeed said:
Exactly. We live near the south circ, and the air has improved, and my son’s asthma has improved. That’ll do for me.Rothko said:
Polling done in the last month, post Uxbridge shows Londoners support the introduction, so yes it has support in its current guise.valleynick66 said:
Well as a resident it’s a fear I have. I also contributed to the TFL consultation.Rothko said:
But there’s isn’t fear in ‘many Londoners’ it’s just not true. There is support in polls for ULEZ, and Londoners would prefer priority is given to pedestrians and public transport over cars. https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/plurality-of-londoners-support-expanding-londons-ultra-low-emissions-zone-ulez/valleynick66 said:
I think the fear amongst many Londoners is that the charge will be extended in some fashion once the pollutants are reduced. If you like in a similar way we still pay for the Dartford crossing.seth plum said:
Thank you. Now there is something to debate.Dansk_Red said:According to official data approx 78,000 non complainant vehicles used the extended ULEZ a day during the month of November 2022. If all those vehicles continued to use the zone and paid the £12.50 fee that would give an income of £975,000 per day without any fines, even if the number of vehicles is reduced by 75% it would still be an income of £88,000,000 per year plus the income from fines. A freind of my wife who lives in Margate and visit us about 4 times a year did not know about this new charge.
By your calculations it would take about two years to recoup costs.
I imagine that that 78,000 can be reduced by 30,000 (scrappage so far) and others will refrain from driving in the ULEZ area or change vehicles.
But as you say there is likely to be income from fines too.
I would guess that the answer as to when the ULEZ scheme starts to make a profit is somewhere between your two years and my calculation of 25 years.
Perhaps the answer about how long is yet to be pinned down with much certainty. Your calculation and mine seems to me to throw a degree of doubt as to whether Sadiq Khan has introduced this enterprise for financial gain.That is why it’s criticised as a revenue generating initiative.Be great however to think that once the job is done it can be abandoned as passage of time alone will ensure only better vehicles are on the road and it’s less needed as a disincentive.
this seems to really annoy people in boroughs who still cling to their pre 1967 county, or those in the Home Counties who want all that London offers as long as long as they don’t pay for it (Hi Dartford council)There is support and there is also fear and reservations.You cannot suggest in its current guise it has the support of the majority I don’t think. The mayoral vote will tell us I suspect.My view is yes it’s a good concept but the cost right now seems very poor timing. Introduce it when people have more capacity to adapt. Maybe introduce now with a more modest penalty fee and gradually ramp up for example.It will go the same as the Congestion Charge, the Johnson Low emissions zone, the south/notth circular extension, that there is a LOT of noise, misplaced fear, and then nothing bad happens, the air gets a cleaner, and London goes its merry way.2 -
All the research shows that the charge does encourage the majority to change their cars over time. That’s why it’s worked in central London. But banning every non compliant vehicle iwoukd have been way too draconian.Rob7Lee said:If it was purely about cleaner air, the vehicles would be banned. The fact you can pay to still pollute says it all really.
Just like the congestion charge, once income drops the goal posts will move.The congestion charge worked well, reducing journey times, and also improving pollution levels.My 50 minute drive to Grays Inn Rd from Clapham Common (I had to allow an hour to be on the safe side) dropped to about twenty minutes in the days immediately after the charge was introduced. Heaven, if a short lived heaven. Up til then we’d been close to gridlock on occasions. It was becoming hard to assign crews to news stories because of the time it was taking to get to the location from the office. I can remember trying to use the tube, which was very difficult with all the equipment.A week or so after the charge was introduced my commute time went up to around 35 mins, as more drivers stumped up the charge, but still much quicker than it was before. Before I retired in 2017 it was around 40 minutes. I’m not sure what the official stats are, but that was my personal experience. As a private motorist I have never once paid the congestion charge, although I got fined once for driving through the edge of the zone one Saturday without realising it.1 -
That’s true, and if you’re a plumber or an electrician working in London, the £12.50 can easily be passed on to your customers.Crusty54 said:
There are a lot of old diesel vans still in use in London which are serious polluters.stop_shouting said:
A very sensible and constructive suggestionSmithy said:Why can't they make an exemption for those people who use their cars for work? And I'm talking about the people who need to drive a van for instance, not the Chislehurst Range Rover drivers who would never take public transport in a million years and are all of a sudden social justice warriors when it comes to ULEZWhat do you think they should do about the old diesel vans issue btw?0 -
Motorists have done well considering to other tax payers in the last 15 years, costing the hundred billions
https://ifs.org.uk/news/revenue-fuel-duties-down-nearly-1-national-income-ps19bn-2000-ps28bn-still-be-lost-if-we-dont#:~:text=Prime Minister Boris Johnson is,in line with CPI inflation.
0 -
Rothko said:Motorists have done well considering to other tax payers in the last 15 years, costing the hundred billions
https://ifs.org.uk/news/revenue-fuel-duties-down-nearly-1-national-income-ps19bn-2000-ps28bn-still-be-lost-if-we-dont#:~:text=Prime Minister Boris Johnson is,in line with CPI inflation.
That is from 2019 so a little out of date now but regardless you cant really say 'done well' - motorists pay a lot of tax. It also says £5b lost since 2010 not hundred billions.
The point is surely that motorists do contribute a lot of tax already - why must it reach a high to be acceptable? A new way of taxing will need to evolve as once the majority are on electric (not paying the ULEZ) then revenues will need to be gathered by other means and presumably that will ultimately be pay per mile in some form.
Incidentally you didn't respond on the alternative conclusion in the 'polling' you shared nor that it seemed to be pre & not post Uxbridge - unless I am still misreading it.0 -
Correct on the fare freezes, but otherwise I think you're conflating London Underground with TfL. LU staff have massively inflated salaries and get their frequent pay rises at the expense of other TfL staff. If you work in an office based job (jobs that are required to keep the system working) you will potentially be one of those who didn't even get a pay rise for 10 years while LU were striking over 6%. The people on 100K are probably highly trained engineers working unsociable hours, service controllers etc.Fortune 82nd Minute said:
If only it was all the fault of the wicked Government (who incidentally I have no great love of).
Firstly, I'm sure you know Khan was advised by senior TfL officials not to freeze fares because of the adverse impact it would have on TfL's finances. He ignored that advice and that was the start of TfL's financing difficulties.
Secondly, I could have some sympathy with your view that TfL is an impoverished organisation if only it wasn't one of the most overmanned and bloated organisations in the public sector. Anyone could go in there and cut staff by 20% and I doubt any Londoner would notice any difference (except for those who lost their jobs).
Not only is it overmanned, it pays incredibly generously. The last figures I saw (last month) showed that 766 TfL and Crossrail employees earned more than £100,000 in 2022/23, compared with 597 in 2021/22. 766? What on earth do they all do to deserve that sort of salary.
And the further good news for these people is that TfL is now the only public sector employee that retains its final salary pension. That benefit is now unheard of in the private sector and even other public sector employees have moved onto a career average pension.
Or there are the 54,000 free travel passes given to the friends of families of TfL staff. It has been estimated this free travel could be worth £160 million.
Or the failure of Khan to tackle the tube drivers' ludicrous pay demands. He even caved in recently to even talking about changing their conditions until after the next election
And finally, TfL is so impoverished that Khan could find £50 million down a settee in his office when he was forced to extend the scrappage scheme to all Londoners after the Uxbridge by-election.
Contrary to what you may think, I do have some sympathy with local authorities having their budgets squeezed. But Tfl is a completely different matter. It is a dinosaur that needs culling and dragged into the 21st century.
I have worked for multiple public bodies and I can assure you that TfL is the shortest staffed and one of the worst paid public sector employers going. Despite all that, it needs more cash.2 -
Get a new one. There's schemes to compensate for buying a diesel due to the government's mistake and the ULEZ scrappage scheme. A lot easier than relocating to the country.JamesSeed said:
That’s true, and if you’re a plumber or an electrician working in London, the £12.50 can easily be passed on to your customers.Crusty54 said:
There are a lot of old diesel vans still in use in London which are serious polluters.stop_shouting said:
A very sensible and constructive suggestionSmithy said:Why can't they make an exemption for those people who use their cars for work? And I'm talking about the people who need to drive a van for instance, not the Chislehurst Range Rover drivers who would never take public transport in a million years and are all of a sudden social justice warriors when it comes to ULEZWhat do you think they should do about the old diesel vans issue btw?
Surprise posters think Khan is going to light and should ban the cars and force everyone to buy a new one.1 -
That's a mistake as my browser went to shit on the train.valleynick66 said:Rothko said:Motorists have done well considering to other tax payers in the last 15 years, costing the hundred billions
https://ifs.org.uk/news/revenue-fuel-duties-down-nearly-1-national-income-ps19bn-2000-ps28bn-still-be-lost-if-we-dont#:~:text=Prime Minister Boris Johnson is,in line with CPI inflation.
That is from 2019 so a little out of date now but regardless you cant really say 'done well' - motorists pay a lot of tax. It also says £5b lost since 2010 not hundred billions.
The point is surely that motorists do contribute a lot of tax already - why must it reach a high to be acceptable? A new way of taxing will need to evolve as once the majority are on electric (not paying the ULEZ) then revenues will need to be gathered by other means and presumably that will ultimately be pay per mile in some form.
Incidentally you didn't respond on the alternative conclusion in the 'polling' you shared nor that it seemed to be pre & not post Uxbridge - unless I am still misreading it.
The polling is pretty clear, the plurality of Londoners are for it, outer London is balanced, which considering the nonsense pumped out in outer London it's extraordinary that it's so balanced.
As for motorists being taxed, the cost of motoring has stayed pretty flat considering, and hasn't even raised to normal levels, let alone 'high', compared to other means of transport.1 -
This has been explained a thousand times on here but I'll say it again.Rob7Lee said:If it was purely about cleaner air, the vehicles would be banned. The fact you can pay to still pollute says it all really.
Just like the congestion charge, once income drops the goal posts will move.
The economics and behavioural science on this show that it works. Not only does it work but it's the most cost effective and economically effective way of doing it.
It's based on the polluter pays principle (essentially pay for the pollution you create) what has been used around the world for decades in factories/manufacturing, air freight, shipping and more recently in driving in cities around the world. A target level of air quality is agreed upon and the scheme is designed to meet that. The key element to making it efficient is the choice part. You can choose to scrap your car and upgrade, you can choose to switch modes to avoid the charge, you can choose to continue driving and pay the charge but likely drive into the zone less. This is what makes it efficient whilst also meeting a targeted reduction in pollution. Its much fairer and less costly than a blunt instrument ban.
The only flaw with this is that we aren't getting significant improvements and expansions in public transport to go with it. Which should be a requirement of the plan. In fact should just be a given across the country. Cheaper and better public transport required.
I'm particularly baffled that Bexley Borough has put up such a fight. Given its unique geography being in a natural dip where polluted air from central London gathers it has always had a higher than usual incidence of asthma/excema and other air quality related diseases amongst children born and grow up there. 3 of 4 kids in my family have one or both and the doctors explained the reason at the time. Bexley will gain massively from this.10 -
You can post this multiple times, but some just won’t read it.cantersaddick said:
This has been explained a thousand times on here but I'll say it again.Rob7Lee said:If it was purely about cleaner air, the vehicles would be banned. The fact you can pay to still pollute says it all really.
Just like the congestion charge, once income drops the goal posts will move.
The economics and behavioural science on this show that it works. Not only does it work but it's the most cost effective and economically effective way of doing it.
It's based on the polluter pays principle (essentially pay for the pollution you create) what has been used around the world for decades in factories/manufacturing, air freight, shipping and more recently in driving in cities around the world. A target level of air quality is agreed upon and the scheme is designed to meet that. The key element to making it efficient is the choice part. You can choose to scrap your car and upgrade, you can choose to switch modes to avoid the charge, you can choose to continue driving and pay the charge but likely drive into the zone less. This is what makes it efficient whilst also meeting a targeted reduction in pollution. Its much fairer and less costly than a blunt instrument ban.
The only flaw with this is that we aren't getting significant improvements and expansions in public transport to go with it. Which should be a requirement of the plan. In fact should just be a given across the country. Cheaper and better public transport required.
I'm particularly baffled that Bexley Borough has put up such a fight. Given its unique geography being in a natural dip where polluted air from central London gathers it has always had a higher than usual incidence of asthma/excema and other air quality related diseases amongst children born and grow up there. 3 of 4 kids in my family have one or both and the doctors explained the reason at the time. Bexley will gain massively from this.3
