ULEZ Checker

Pay per mile is the right way to go but there needs to be a differential by size - vans, lorries, Chelsea tractors cause far more damage to the roads than small cars.

cantersaddick said:

Friend Or Defoe said:

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

seth plum said:

valleynick66 said:

seth plum said:

The introduction might have had ways to improve it, but @cantersaddick has explained quite often the scheme was introduced with a lot of warning, and a scrappage scheme. What other things might have been done?
If we want an environment with cleaner air one way or another is it will cost us all financially and a change in lifestyles.
As for Sadiq Khan and road pricing he has said the GLA always keep road pricing ‘under review’, is there anything wrong with that? He has also said that whilst he is Mayor he would not introduce road pricing.
It is up to each person to decide if Khan can be believed on that.
That always brings me back to Ella’s mother Rosamund Kissi Debrah and her ongoing campaign to keep the health issue up there with the car issue.

https://www.ellaroberta.org/about-us/our-people/

It is wrong to say the latest expansion was introduced with a lot of warning. It was not. Even more so amidst a cost of living crisis. 

This should not be glossed over. Further the scrappage scheme had to be improved from the initial offering. 

So the point on pay per mile remains. it is the case he has spent significant sums to date on it and now been forced to state it wont yet be introduced. The evidence you queried is effectively there as a lesser study would surely have sufficed if the plans were not more advanced. 

Any observations on why we still await any detailed analysis on compliance / fines issued?

Well as I said above, if there is evidence about road pricing could you provide a link? Including the spending on stuff for road pricing directed by Sadiq Khan. He has made a statement, if you think it was forced out of him that is an opinion certainly, whether it is fact is open to debate. 

The warnings about the introduction of both ULEZ schemes and whether there was enough of it is down to opinion too. I personally believe it was dragged on too long before introduction, increasing the suffering of those affected by dirty air.

In terms of compliance and fines I don’t have any link to data on that. Nor do I have a link to how much cleaner the air has become.

Khan has been excellent during all this, because the car lobby is more vociferous and powerful than the concerned parent lobby, but he has walked a tricky path between the two opposing forces very well.

There is no evidence that previously Shaun Bailey, and currently Susan Hall give a damn about the pollution or the death of little Ella, or the suffering of others.

The evidence is that he has  spent on feasibility studies / recruited staff for this purpose. Posters on here with knowledge of TFL have also confirmed this. khan has not said that no money has been spent on  it. 

There was not warning that ULEZ would be extended to its latest boundary. 

You keep saying this even though its not really true. A year exactly from announcement of the final confirmation that it was happening to it being it place (plus 1 week where you got a notification but no charge). Before that there was widespread coverage of it from discussions in city hall, press coverage, public consultations etc. for a further 18 months. So between 2 and 2.5 years notice for anyone not living under a rock. How much warning do you think should have been given? 

It wasn't a years notice. Speculation is very different from confirmation.

25th November for introduction on 29th August. No one knew with certainty of any grace period either.

The point being ignored is that this was done in the midst of a cost of living 'crisis' and hence the period is too short - that is my point.

Poor timing and an immediate fee level which he (Khan) could have softened but chose not to.


18 months notice is my answer to your question on what is better / should have been given.

Question for you @cantersaddick any thoughts on the lack of MI and why its taking this long? I really think it would be interesting to see and positively show how its influenced road users. I repeat I support the objective just not the timing of the implementation.

Of course this only applies to the 10% of cars that aren't complaint and the subset of that whose owners don't drive as far as the South circular. 

Some posters complained that the fine is too light and there should be an outright ban on all non-compliant cars.

Valley Nick being one of them

I genuinely don’t recall that. Can you share where I said that in the way you imply?

Friend Or Defoe said:

valleynick66 said:

Friend Or Defoe said:

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

seth plum said:

valleynick66 said:

seth plum said:

The introduction might have had ways to improve it, but @cantersaddick has explained quite often the scheme was introduced with a lot of warning, and a scrappage scheme. What other things might have been done?
If we want an environment with cleaner air one way or another is it will cost us all financially and a change in lifestyles.
As for Sadiq Khan and road pricing he has said the GLA always keep road pricing ‘under review’, is there anything wrong with that? He has also said that whilst he is Mayor he would not introduce road pricing.
It is up to each person to decide if Khan can be believed on that.
That always brings me back to Ella’s mother Rosamund Kissi Debrah and her ongoing campaign to keep the health issue up there with the car issue.

https://www.ellaroberta.org/about-us/our-people/

It is wrong to say the latest expansion was introduced with a lot of warning. It was not. Even more so amidst a cost of living crisis. 

This should not be glossed over. Further the scrappage scheme had to be improved from the initial offering. 

So the point on pay per mile remains. it is the case he has spent significant sums to date on it and now been forced to state it wont yet be introduced. The evidence you queried is effectively there as a lesser study would surely have sufficed if the plans were not more advanced. 

Any observations on why we still await any detailed analysis on compliance / fines issued?

Well as I said above, if there is evidence about road pricing could you provide a link? Including the spending on stuff for road pricing directed by Sadiq Khan. He has made a statement, if you think it was forced out of him that is an opinion certainly, whether it is fact is open to debate. 

The warnings about the introduction of both ULEZ schemes and whether there was enough of it is down to opinion too. I personally believe it was dragged on too long before introduction, increasing the suffering of those affected by dirty air.

In terms of compliance and fines I don’t have any link to data on that. Nor do I have a link to how much cleaner the air has become.

Khan has been excellent during all this, because the car lobby is more vociferous and powerful than the concerned parent lobby, but he has walked a tricky path between the two opposing forces very well.

There is no evidence that previously Shaun Bailey, and currently Susan Hall give a damn about the pollution or the death of little Ella, or the suffering of others.

The evidence is that he has  spent on feasibility studies / recruited staff for this purpose. Posters on here with knowledge of TFL have also confirmed this. khan has not said that no money has been spent on  it. 

There was not warning that ULEZ would be extended to its latest boundary. 

You keep saying this even though its not really true. A year exactly from announcement of the final confirmation that it was happening to it being it place (plus 1 week where you got a notification but no charge). Before that there was widespread coverage of it from discussions in city hall, press coverage, public consultations etc. for a further 18 months. So between 2 and 2.5 years notice for anyone not living under a rock. How much warning do you think should have been given? 

It wasn't a years notice. Speculation is very different from confirmation.

25th November for introduction on 29th August. No one knew with certainty of any grace period either.

The point being ignored is that this was done in the midst of a cost of living 'crisis' and hence the period is too short - that is my point.

Poor timing and an immediate fee level which he (Khan) could have softened but chose not to.


18 months notice is my answer to your question on what is better / should have been given.

Question for you @cantersaddick any thoughts on the lack of MI and why its taking this long? I really think it would be interesting to see and positively show how its influenced road users. I repeat I support the objective just not the timing of the implementation.

Of course this only applies to the 10% of cars that aren't complaint and the subset of that whose owners don't drive as far as the South circular. 

Some posters complained that the fine is too light and there should be an outright ban on all non-compliant cars.

So the 10% did not deserve  a little more notice?

As the benefit is forecast to be marginal it should have been introduced with more leeway / time - that's my point.

I also remain concerned its going to be a cost drain all too soon - most do not agree with that.

To repeat myself and widen the point I look forward to the data analysis on compliance to see what trends emerge / behaviours have / will change for Outer London. I really think that will be interesting.

My reservation (its only that because Outer London derivers benefit from the initial introduction in inner London) is that for non compliance  we are down to a core of drivers who are ad hoc visitors and will pay relatively speaking one off fines. We wont have many cars registered within Outer London or nearby who are still not compliant and are therefore already (now) polluting less. I'm also interested in how well we actually collect the fines from foreign registered cars, commercial vehicles who see it as a cost of business, repeat offenders who disregard etc. I fear we wont improve air quality very much more with this group who don't care / accept it.

Inner London was fair game because it was the Tories idea.

Friend Or Defoe said:

valleynick66 said:

Friend Or Defoe said:

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

seth plum said:

valleynick66 said:

seth plum said:

The introduction might have had ways to improve it, but @cantersaddick has explained quite often the scheme was introduced with a lot of warning, and a scrappage scheme. What other things might have been done?
If we want an environment with cleaner air one way or another is it will cost us all financially and a change in lifestyles.
As for Sadiq Khan and road pricing he has said the GLA always keep road pricing ‘under review’, is there anything wrong with that? He has also said that whilst he is Mayor he would not introduce road pricing.
It is up to each person to decide if Khan can be believed on that.
That always brings me back to Ella’s mother Rosamund Kissi Debrah and her ongoing campaign to keep the health issue up there with the car issue.

https://www.ellaroberta.org/about-us/our-people/

It is wrong to say the latest expansion was introduced with a lot of warning. It was not. Even more so amidst a cost of living crisis. 

This should not be glossed over. Further the scrappage scheme had to be improved from the initial offering. 

So the point on pay per mile remains. it is the case he has spent significant sums to date on it and now been forced to state it wont yet be introduced. The evidence you queried is effectively there as a lesser study would surely have sufficed if the plans were not more advanced. 

Any observations on why we still await any detailed analysis on compliance / fines issued?

Well as I said above, if there is evidence about road pricing could you provide a link? Including the spending on stuff for road pricing directed by Sadiq Khan. He has made a statement, if you think it was forced out of him that is an opinion certainly, whether it is fact is open to debate. 

The warnings about the introduction of both ULEZ schemes and whether there was enough of it is down to opinion too. I personally believe it was dragged on too long before introduction, increasing the suffering of those affected by dirty air.

In terms of compliance and fines I don’t have any link to data on that. Nor do I have a link to how much cleaner the air has become.

Khan has been excellent during all this, because the car lobby is more vociferous and powerful than the concerned parent lobby, but he has walked a tricky path between the two opposing forces very well.

There is no evidence that previously Shaun Bailey, and currently Susan Hall give a damn about the pollution or the death of little Ella, or the suffering of others.

The evidence is that he has  spent on feasibility studies / recruited staff for this purpose. Posters on here with knowledge of TFL have also confirmed this. khan has not said that no money has been spent on  it. 

There was not warning that ULEZ would be extended to its latest boundary. 

You keep saying this even though its not really true. A year exactly from announcement of the final confirmation that it was happening to it being it place (plus 1 week where you got a notification but no charge). Before that there was widespread coverage of it from discussions in city hall, press coverage, public consultations etc. for a further 18 months. So between 2 and 2.5 years notice for anyone not living under a rock. How much warning do you think should have been given? 

It wasn't a years notice. Speculation is very different from confirmation.

25th November for introduction on 29th August. No one knew with certainty of any grace period either.

The point being ignored is that this was done in the midst of a cost of living 'crisis' and hence the period is too short - that is my point.

Poor timing and an immediate fee level which he (Khan) could have softened but chose not to.


18 months notice is my answer to your question on what is better / should have been given.

Question for you @cantersaddick any thoughts on the lack of MI and why its taking this long? I really think it would be interesting to see and positively show how its influenced road users. I repeat I support the objective just not the timing of the implementation.

Of course this only applies to the 10% of cars that aren't complaint and the subset of that whose owners don't drive as far as the South circular. 

Some posters complained that the fine is too light and there should be an outright ban on all non-compliant cars.

So the 10% did not deserve  a little more notice?

As the benefit is forecast to be marginal it should have been introduced with more leeway / time - that's my point.

I also remain concerned its going to be a cost drain all too soon - most do not agree with that.

To repeat myself and widen the point I look forward to the data analysis on compliance to see what trends emerge / behaviours have / will change for Outer London. I really think that will be interesting.

My reservation (its only that because Outer London derivers benefit from the initial introduction in inner London) is that for non compliance  we are down to a core of drivers who are ad hoc visitors and will pay relatively speaking one off fines. We wont have many cars registered within Outer London or nearby who are still not compliant and are therefore already (now) polluting less. I'm also interested in how well we actually collect the fines from foreign registered cars, commercial vehicles who see it as a cost of business, repeat offenders who disregard etc. I fear we wont improve air quality very much more with this group who don't care / accept it.

Inner London was fair game because it was the Tories idea.

No because the air quality there much worse and they had more notice. 

JamesSeed said:

valleynick66 said:

valleynick66 said:

Bournemouth Addick said:

valleynick66 said:

Bournemouth Addick said:

valleynick66 said:

Bournemouth Addick said:

Not sure I buy into this thing about Susan Hall being a political outlier tbh. On the subject of ULEZ she's been very happy to overtly perpetuate a pack of lies she knows to be untrue, whilst who knows what's been circulating away from any sort of public scrutiny via these astroturf accounts. 

On top of other elements of her character she seems very 'on brand' for her party. 

What has she claimed about ULEZ which is untrue out of interest?

Her whole campaign is built around it, as I'm sure you know. But the constant repeating by her and her campaign of the (non-existent) plans from Khan to introduce pay-per-mile charging eventually resulted in a complaint to the CPS. So there's that.





https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyxe8vr580no.amp

To be clear I’m not a fan of her or her campaign. Indeed I think all the candidates are poor. 

BUT to your point I think you are saying the only lie in ULEZ is about pay per mile ?

Further though I thought several posters on here with inside knowledge of TFL have advised there was and is feasibility studies underway so not sure what the lie actually is?

I think when you repeat the same lie over and over and over again you're getting into semantics suggesting it's not a pattern of dishonesty tbh. If your political opponent take the (highly unusual) step of reporting the matter for investigation I suspect that any justification for the claim having any proper basis in fact is thin. To say the least.

But, despite Khan's unequivocal and frequent denial of the lie, it clearly cuts through with some of the electorate. So it's job done for her campaign I suppose but we'll have to agree to disagree on whether it's even a lie.

I think we may be at crossed purposes I thought Khan had confirmed he did have a feasibility study under way?

Perhaps its precise wording we are debating in that he might say it’s not a pre determined outcome ?

in any event isn’t the ‘complaint’ in that article about the style of the leaflet as required by electoral law and not the messages/ points being made?

Pay by the mile sounds ok to me. Much fairer than charging everyone the same, when some people hardly use their cars at all. It’s just common sense isn’t it?
You’d have to have guarantees about maximum charge limits though. 

Yes pay by mile has merits and is what the tax at the fuel pump in essence is. 

colthe3rd said:

JamesSeed said:

The whole ULEZ debate is no longer really the zinger it once was. Like the smoking ban, and the implementation of seatbelt laws, there’s always going to be a ‘heated debate’, but it eventually becomes accepted, apart from by a small minority. If there really is a huge groundswell of opinion that ULEZ is a failure, or not worth the aggro, then it’ll probably be reflected in the mayoral voting. But many of the anti ULEZ warriors on social media don't actually live in London. 🤷🏻‍♂️

I'm really hoping that if Khan wins this debate starts dying down. From the manifestos I've read nearly all the opposition are running some sort of scrapping ulez, it's an agenda being pushed by the Tories and a big chunk of people not even living in London and is detracting from real issues affecting way more than the less than 10% it impacts. 

If will die down regardless of the election outcome and which Khan I am sure will win because of time passed and changing behaviour already enforced. 

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

Friend Or Defoe said:

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

seth plum said:

valleynick66 said:

seth plum said:

The introduction might have had ways to improve it, but @cantersaddick has explained quite often the scheme was introduced with a lot of warning, and a scrappage scheme. What other things might have been done?
If we want an environment with cleaner air one way or another is it will cost us all financially and a change in lifestyles.
As for Sadiq Khan and road pricing he has said the GLA always keep road pricing ‘under review’, is there anything wrong with that? He has also said that whilst he is Mayor he would not introduce road pricing.
It is up to each person to decide if Khan can be believed on that.
That always brings me back to Ella’s mother Rosamund Kissi Debrah and her ongoing campaign to keep the health issue up there with the car issue.

https://www.ellaroberta.org/about-us/our-people/

It is wrong to say the latest expansion was introduced with a lot of warning. It was not. Even more so amidst a cost of living crisis. 

This should not be glossed over. Further the scrappage scheme had to be improved from the initial offering. 

So the point on pay per mile remains. it is the case he has spent significant sums to date on it and now been forced to state it wont yet be introduced. The evidence you queried is effectively there as a lesser study would surely have sufficed if the plans were not more advanced. 

Any observations on why we still await any detailed analysis on compliance / fines issued?

Well as I said above, if there is evidence about road pricing could you provide a link? Including the spending on stuff for road pricing directed by Sadiq Khan. He has made a statement, if you think it was forced out of him that is an opinion certainly, whether it is fact is open to debate. 

The warnings about the introduction of both ULEZ schemes and whether there was enough of it is down to opinion too. I personally believe it was dragged on too long before introduction, increasing the suffering of those affected by dirty air.

In terms of compliance and fines I don’t have any link to data on that. Nor do I have a link to how much cleaner the air has become.

Khan has been excellent during all this, because the car lobby is more vociferous and powerful than the concerned parent lobby, but he has walked a tricky path between the two opposing forces very well.

There is no evidence that previously Shaun Bailey, and currently Susan Hall give a damn about the pollution or the death of little Ella, or the suffering of others.

The evidence is that he has  spent on feasibility studies / recruited staff for this purpose. Posters on here with knowledge of TFL have also confirmed this. khan has not said that no money has been spent on  it. 

There was not warning that ULEZ would be extended to its latest boundary. 

You keep saying this even though its not really true. A year exactly from announcement of the final confirmation that it was happening to it being it place (plus 1 week where you got a notification but no charge). Before that there was widespread coverage of it from discussions in city hall, press coverage, public consultations etc. for a further 18 months. So between 2 and 2.5 years notice for anyone not living under a rock. How much warning do you think should have been given? 

It wasn't a years notice. Speculation is very different from confirmation.

25th November for introduction on 29th August. No one knew with certainty of any grace period either.

The point being ignored is that this was done in the midst of a cost of living 'crisis' and hence the period is too short - that is my point.

Poor timing and an immediate fee level which he (Khan) could have softened but chose not to.


18 months notice is my answer to your question on what is better / should have been given.

Question for you @cantersaddick any thoughts on the lack of MI and why its taking this long? I really think it would be interesting to see and positively show how its influenced road users. I repeat I support the objective just not the timing of the implementation.

Of course this only applies to the 10% of cars that aren't complaint and the subset of that whose owners don't drive as far as the South circular. 

Some posters complained that the fine is too light and there should be an outright ban on all non-compliant cars.

Valley Nick being one of them

I genuinely don’t recall that. Can you share where I said that in the way you imply?

I'll do that when you admit that you were wrong in constantly saying there was only 9 months notice when it was actually a year (much longer from earlier consultations) even when its been pointed out to you a number of times.

valleynick66 said:

colthe3rd said:

JamesSeed said:

The whole ULEZ debate is no longer really the zinger it once was. Like the smoking ban, and the implementation of seatbelt laws, there’s always going to be a ‘heated debate’, but it eventually becomes accepted, apart from by a small minority. If there really is a huge groundswell of opinion that ULEZ is a failure, or not worth the aggro, then it’ll probably be reflected in the mayoral voting. But many of the anti ULEZ warriors on social media don't actually live in London. 🤷🏻‍♂️

I'm really hoping that if Khan wins this debate starts dying down. From the manifestos I've read nearly all the opposition are running some sort of scrapping ulez, it's an agenda being pushed by the Tories and a big chunk of people not even living in London and is detracting from real issues affecting way more than the less than 10% it impacts. 

If will die down regardless of the election outcome and which Khan I am sure will win because of time passed and changing behaviour already enforced. 

Right now it’s the plank of Susan Hall campaign as she like all the candidates are so uninspiring and it’s relatively all she has. 

But to me that’s not the point. 

I thought we were discussing the broader ULEZ project and it’s pros and cons. 

But as is shown by this thread the merits of ulez aren't the big debating points. It's all the arguments that are brought up around time for implementation, it leads to pay per mile, 15 minutes cities etc

Like I said it's one big distraction for something that impacts relatively few people. 

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

Friend Or Defoe said:

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

seth plum said:

valleynick66 said:

seth plum said:

The introduction might have had ways to improve it, but @cantersaddick has explained quite often the scheme was introduced with a lot of warning, and a scrappage scheme. What other things might have been done?
If we want an environment with cleaner air one way or another is it will cost us all financially and a change in lifestyles.
As for Sadiq Khan and road pricing he has said the GLA always keep road pricing ‘under review’, is there anything wrong with that? He has also said that whilst he is Mayor he would not introduce road pricing.
It is up to each person to decide if Khan can be believed on that.
That always brings me back to Ella’s mother Rosamund Kissi Debrah and her ongoing campaign to keep the health issue up there with the car issue.

https://www.ellaroberta.org/about-us/our-people/

It is wrong to say the latest expansion was introduced with a lot of warning. It was not. Even more so amidst a cost of living crisis. 

This should not be glossed over. Further the scrappage scheme had to be improved from the initial offering. 

So the point on pay per mile remains. it is the case he has spent significant sums to date on it and now been forced to state it wont yet be introduced. The evidence you queried is effectively there as a lesser study would surely have sufficed if the plans were not more advanced. 

Any observations on why we still await any detailed analysis on compliance / fines issued?

Well as I said above, if there is evidence about road pricing could you provide a link? Including the spending on stuff for road pricing directed by Sadiq Khan. He has made a statement, if you think it was forced out of him that is an opinion certainly, whether it is fact is open to debate. 

The warnings about the introduction of both ULEZ schemes and whether there was enough of it is down to opinion too. I personally believe it was dragged on too long before introduction, increasing the suffering of those affected by dirty air.

In terms of compliance and fines I don’t have any link to data on that. Nor do I have a link to how much cleaner the air has become.

Khan has been excellent during all this, because the car lobby is more vociferous and powerful than the concerned parent lobby, but he has walked a tricky path between the two opposing forces very well.

There is no evidence that previously Shaun Bailey, and currently Susan Hall give a damn about the pollution or the death of little Ella, or the suffering of others.

The evidence is that he has  spent on feasibility studies / recruited staff for this purpose. Posters on here with knowledge of TFL have also confirmed this. khan has not said that no money has been spent on  it. 

There was not warning that ULEZ would be extended to its latest boundary. 

You keep saying this even though its not really true. A year exactly from announcement of the final confirmation that it was happening to it being it place (plus 1 week where you got a notification but no charge). Before that there was widespread coverage of it from discussions in city hall, press coverage, public consultations etc. for a further 18 months. So between 2 and 2.5 years notice for anyone not living under a rock. How much warning do you think should have been given? 

It wasn't a years notice. Speculation is very different from confirmation.

25th November for introduction on 29th August. No one knew with certainty of any grace period either.

The point being ignored is that this was done in the midst of a cost of living 'crisis' and hence the period is too short - that is my point.

Poor timing and an immediate fee level which he (Khan) could have softened but chose not to.


18 months notice is my answer to your question on what is better / should have been given.

Question for you @cantersaddick any thoughts on the lack of MI and why its taking this long? I really think it would be interesting to see and positively show how its influenced road users. I repeat I support the objective just not the timing of the implementation.

Of course this only applies to the 10% of cars that aren't complaint and the subset of that whose owners don't drive as far as the South circular. 

Some posters complained that the fine is too light and there should be an outright ban on all non-compliant cars.

Valley Nick being one of them

I genuinely don’t recall that. Can you share where I said that in the way you imply?

I'll do that when you admit that you were wrong in constantly saying there was only 9 months notice when it was actually a year (much longer from earlier consultations) even when its been pointed out to you a number of times.

But it wasn’t to my understanding and recollection. 

Where is an official TFL or mayoral notice that is substantially longer. 

I’m not sure when the consultation was but I suspect not a huge amount of time before and I foolishly assumed it was a consultation and not a tick box to satisfy the process. 

Regardless please point me to my previous post you seem to recall as I don’t see it as contingent. 

Further do you have any thoughts on the MI point I made? I seem to recall you are a data person and might agree we could have seen sone interesting analysis  by now?

You seem to have missed my earlier post.

cantersaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

seth plum said:

valleynick66 said:

seth plum said:

The introduction might have had ways to improve it, but @cantersaddick has explained quite often the scheme was introduced with a lot of warning, and a scrappage scheme. What other things might have been done?
If we want an environment with cleaner air one way or another is it will cost us all financially and a change in lifestyles.
As for Sadiq Khan and road pricing he has said the GLA always keep road pricing ‘under review’, is there anything wrong with that? He has also said that whilst he is Mayor he would not introduce road pricing.
It is up to each person to decide if Khan can be believed on that.
That always brings me back to Ella’s mother Rosamund Kissi Debrah and her ongoing campaign to keep the health issue up there with the car issue.

https://www.ellaroberta.org/about-us/our-people/

It is wrong to say the latest expansion was introduced with a lot of warning. It was not. Even more so amidst a cost of living crisis. 

This should not be glossed over. Further the scrappage scheme had to be improved from the initial offering. 

So the point on pay per mile remains. it is the case he has spent significant sums to date on it and now been forced to state it wont yet be introduced. The evidence you queried is effectively there as a lesser study would surely have sufficed if the plans were not more advanced. 

Any observations on why we still await any detailed analysis on compliance / fines issued?

Well as I said above, if there is evidence about road pricing could you provide a link? Including the spending on stuff for road pricing directed by Sadiq Khan. He has made a statement, if you think it was forced out of him that is an opinion certainly, whether it is fact is open to debate. 

The warnings about the introduction of both ULEZ schemes and whether there was enough of it is down to opinion too. I personally believe it was dragged on too long before introduction, increasing the suffering of those affected by dirty air.

In terms of compliance and fines I don’t have any link to data on that. Nor do I have a link to how much cleaner the air has become.

Khan has been excellent during all this, because the car lobby is more vociferous and powerful than the concerned parent lobby, but he has walked a tricky path between the two opposing forces very well.

There is no evidence that previously Shaun Bailey, and currently Susan Hall give a damn about the pollution or the death of little Ella, or the suffering of others.

The evidence is that he has  spent on feasibility studies / recruited staff for this purpose. Posters on here with knowledge of TFL have also confirmed this. khan has not said that no money has been spent on  it. 

There was not warning that ULEZ would be extended to its latest boundary. 

You keep saying this even though its not really true. A year exactly from announcement of the final confirmation that it was happening to it being it place (plus 1 week where you got a notification but no charge). Before that there was widespread coverage of it from discussions in city hall, press coverage, public consultations etc. for a further 18 months. So between 2 and 2.5 years notice for anyone not living under a rock. How much warning do you think should have been given? 

It wasn't a years notice. Speculation is very different from confirmation.

25th November for introduction on 29th August. No one knew with certainty of any grace period either.

The point being ignored is that this was done in the midst of a cost of living 'crisis' and hence the period is too short - that is my point.

Poor timing and an immediate fee level which he (Khan) could have softened but chose not to.


18 months notice is my answer to your question on what is better / should have been given.

Question for you @cantersaddick any thoughts on the lack of MI and why its taking this long? I really think it would be interesting to see and positively show how its influenced road users. I repeat I support the objective just not the timing of the implementation.

Again you've made that claim before but its not actually true. Introduction was delayed until 31st October with a further week where you got a notification but no charge. So a year. or close enough.  So 18 months notice is enough you say? well the first public consultation on this was more than 2 years in advance of it coming into place. The first debate at the GLA more than 30 months in advance. Both of these received massive media coverage including in national news outlets and that remained the case throughout the whole period leading up to it being in place. So anyone paying the slightest bit of attention would have has well more than your 18 months notice.

I agree the timing wasn't great but TFL's hands were tied financially. 

On the MI I have no idea about publication plans. We got numbers on the take up of the scrappage scheme which was far higher than expected which is a much better indication of whether its impacting behaviour than charges. I don't really know what you would take from it if you did get this MI. Number of charges means nothing, as I've said before someone who only drives in the zone occasionally it is still economically efficient for them to not upgrade their car so a charge for them isn't a bad thing. Its data on mode shift and car sharing that would make a difference. TBH i think your obsession with this shows that you don't really understand how the scheme is designed to work and the interactions of the behavioural science and the economic incentives of what is essentially a pollution permits scheme. If there were no charges you'd say it was pointless as everyone is compliant anyway and its just gonna lose money. If there were charges you'd say its not impacting behaviours.

I can't vote in the London Mayor election but I know who would get my vote

https://www.countbinface.com/

Dansk_Red said:

SK has dropped his promise not to build on Green Belt land from his manifesto, as it conflicts with the Labour Party policy. So much for a greener London.

Politician in breaking a promise shocker.

Never!

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

Friend Or Defoe said:

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

seth plum said:

valleynick66 said:

seth plum said:

The introduction might have had ways to improve it, but @cantersaddick has explained quite often the scheme was introduced with a lot of warning, and a scrappage scheme. What other things might have been done?
If we want an environment with cleaner air one way or another is it will cost us all financially and a change in lifestyles.
As for Sadiq Khan and road pricing he has said the GLA always keep road pricing ‘under review’, is there anything wrong with that? He has also said that whilst he is Mayor he would not introduce road pricing.
It is up to each person to decide if Khan can be believed on that.
That always brings me back to Ella’s mother Rosamund Kissi Debrah and her ongoing campaign to keep the health issue up there with the car issue.

https://www.ellaroberta.org/about-us/our-people/

It is wrong to say the latest expansion was introduced with a lot of warning. It was not. Even more so amidst a cost of living crisis. 

This should not be glossed over. Further the scrappage scheme had to be improved from the initial offering. 

So the point on pay per mile remains. it is the case he has spent significant sums to date on it and now been forced to state it wont yet be introduced. The evidence you queried is effectively there as a lesser study would surely have sufficed if the plans were not more advanced. 

Any observations on why we still await any detailed analysis on compliance / fines issued?

Well as I said above, if there is evidence about road pricing could you provide a link? Including the spending on stuff for road pricing directed by Sadiq Khan. He has made a statement, if you think it was forced out of him that is an opinion certainly, whether it is fact is open to debate. 

The warnings about the introduction of both ULEZ schemes and whether there was enough of it is down to opinion too. I personally believe it was dragged on too long before introduction, increasing the suffering of those affected by dirty air.

In terms of compliance and fines I don’t have any link to data on that. Nor do I have a link to how much cleaner the air has become.

Khan has been excellent during all this, because the car lobby is more vociferous and powerful than the concerned parent lobby, but he has walked a tricky path between the two opposing forces very well.

There is no evidence that previously Shaun Bailey, and currently Susan Hall give a damn about the pollution or the death of little Ella, or the suffering of others.

The evidence is that he has  spent on feasibility studies / recruited staff for this purpose. Posters on here with knowledge of TFL have also confirmed this. khan has not said that no money has been spent on  it. 

There was not warning that ULEZ would be extended to its latest boundary. 

You keep saying this even though its not really true. A year exactly from announcement of the final confirmation that it was happening to it being it place (plus 1 week where you got a notification but no charge). Before that there was widespread coverage of it from discussions in city hall, press coverage, public consultations etc. for a further 18 months. So between 2 and 2.5 years notice for anyone not living under a rock. How much warning do you think should have been given? 

It wasn't a years notice. Speculation is very different from confirmation.

25th November for introduction on 29th August. No one knew with certainty of any grace period either.

The point being ignored is that this was done in the midst of a cost of living 'crisis' and hence the period is too short - that is my point.

Poor timing and an immediate fee level which he (Khan) could have softened but chose not to.


18 months notice is my answer to your question on what is better / should have been given.

Question for you @cantersaddick any thoughts on the lack of MI and why its taking this long? I really think it would be interesting to see and positively show how its influenced road users. I repeat I support the objective just not the timing of the implementation.

Of course this only applies to the 10% of cars that aren't complaint and the subset of that whose owners don't drive as far as the South circular. 

Some posters complained that the fine is too light and there should be an outright ban on all non-compliant cars.

Valley Nick being one of them

I genuinely don’t recall that. Can you share where I said that in the way you imply?

I'll do that when you admit that you were wrong in constantly saying there was only 9 months notice when it was actually a year (much longer from earlier consultations) even when its been pointed out to you a number of times.

But it wasn’t to my understanding and recollection. 

Where is an official TFL or mayoral notice that is substantially longer. 

I’m not sure when the consultation was but I suspect not a huge amount of time before and I foolishly assumed it was a consultation and not a tick box to satisfy the process. 

Regardless please point me to my previous post you seem to recall as I don’t see it as contingent. 

Further do you have any thoughts on the MI point I made? I seem to recall you are a data person and might agree we could have seen sone interesting analysis  by now?

Not really sure how this is up for debate. The expanded ULEZ was announced (By Khan) on the 22nd November 2022, so 277 days/9 Months before implementation. Of course there was knowledge that it was likely, that it ws being looked into, that there was a form of consultation. But the 22nd November was when it was officially announced.

https://www.london.gov.uk/ultra-low-emission-zone-will-be-expanded-london-wide

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has today announced that he will expand the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) London-wide to tackle the triple threats of air pollution, the climate emergency and congestion.........

https://www.rcaoseducation.org.uk/sadiq-khan-visits-bonus-pastor-catholic-college/

On Friday 25th November, Bonus Pastor Catholic College were privileged to host Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, as he announced the extension of the ULEZ Zone.

I'd have thought some here would have known about this.

Rob7Lee said:

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

Friend Or Defoe said:

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

seth plum said:

valleynick66 said:

seth plum said:

The introduction might have had ways to improve it, but @cantersaddick has explained quite often the scheme was introduced with a lot of warning, and a scrappage scheme. What other things might have been done?
If we want an environment with cleaner air one way or another is it will cost us all financially and a change in lifestyles.
As for Sadiq Khan and road pricing he has said the GLA always keep road pricing ‘under review’, is there anything wrong with that? He has also said that whilst he is Mayor he would not introduce road pricing.
It is up to each person to decide if Khan can be believed on that.
That always brings me back to Ella’s mother Rosamund Kissi Debrah and her ongoing campaign to keep the health issue up there with the car issue.

https://www.ellaroberta.org/about-us/our-people/

It is wrong to say the latest expansion was introduced with a lot of warning. It was not. Even more so amidst a cost of living crisis. 

This should not be glossed over. Further the scrappage scheme had to be improved from the initial offering. 

So the point on pay per mile remains. it is the case he has spent significant sums to date on it and now been forced to state it wont yet be introduced. The evidence you queried is effectively there as a lesser study would surely have sufficed if the plans were not more advanced. 

Any observations on why we still await any detailed analysis on compliance / fines issued?

Well as I said above, if there is evidence about road pricing could you provide a link? Including the spending on stuff for road pricing directed by Sadiq Khan. He has made a statement, if you think it was forced out of him that is an opinion certainly, whether it is fact is open to debate. 

The warnings about the introduction of both ULEZ schemes and whether there was enough of it is down to opinion too. I personally believe it was dragged on too long before introduction, increasing the suffering of those affected by dirty air.

In terms of compliance and fines I don’t have any link to data on that. Nor do I have a link to how much cleaner the air has become.

Khan has been excellent during all this, because the car lobby is more vociferous and powerful than the concerned parent lobby, but he has walked a tricky path between the two opposing forces very well.

There is no evidence that previously Shaun Bailey, and currently Susan Hall give a damn about the pollution or the death of little Ella, or the suffering of others.

The evidence is that he has  spent on feasibility studies / recruited staff for this purpose. Posters on here with knowledge of TFL have also confirmed this. khan has not said that no money has been spent on  it. 

There was not warning that ULEZ would be extended to its latest boundary. 

You keep saying this even though its not really true. A year exactly from announcement of the final confirmation that it was happening to it being it place (plus 1 week where you got a notification but no charge). Before that there was widespread coverage of it from discussions in city hall, press coverage, public consultations etc. for a further 18 months. So between 2 and 2.5 years notice for anyone not living under a rock. How much warning do you think should have been given? 

It wasn't a years notice. Speculation is very different from confirmation.

25th November for introduction on 29th August. No one knew with certainty of any grace period either.

The point being ignored is that this was done in the midst of a cost of living 'crisis' and hence the period is too short - that is my point.

Poor timing and an immediate fee level which he (Khan) could have softened but chose not to.


18 months notice is my answer to your question on what is better / should have been given.

Question for you @cantersaddick any thoughts on the lack of MI and why its taking this long? I really think it would be interesting to see and positively show how its influenced road users. I repeat I support the objective just not the timing of the implementation.

Of course this only applies to the 10% of cars that aren't complaint and the subset of that whose owners don't drive as far as the South circular. 

Some posters complained that the fine is too light and there should be an outright ban on all non-compliant cars.

Valley Nick being one of them

I genuinely don’t recall that. Can you share where I said that in the way you imply?

I'll do that when you admit that you were wrong in constantly saying there was only 9 months notice when it was actually a year (much longer from earlier consultations) even when its been pointed out to you a number of times.

But it wasn’t to my understanding and recollection. 

Where is an official TFL or mayoral notice that is substantially longer. 

I’m not sure when the consultation was but I suspect not a huge amount of time before and I foolishly assumed it was a consultation and not a tick box to satisfy the process. 

Regardless please point me to my previous post you seem to recall as I don’t see it as contingent. 

Further do you have any thoughts on the MI point I made? I seem to recall you are a data person and might agree we could have seen sone interesting analysis  by now?

Not really sure how this is up for debate. The expanded ULEZ was announced (By Khan) on the 22nd November 2022, so 277 days/9 Months before implementation. Of course there was knowledge that it was likely, that it ws being looked into, that there was a form of consultation. But the 22nd November was when it was officially announced.

https://www.london.gov.uk/ultra-low-emission-zone-will-be-expanded-london-wide

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has today announced that he will expand the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) London-wide to tackle the triple threats of air pollution, the climate emergency and congestion.........

https://www.rcaoseducation.org.uk/sadiq-khan-visits-bonus-pastor-catholic-college/

On Friday 25th November, Bonus Pastor Catholic College were privileged to host Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, as he announced the extension of the ULEZ Zone.

I'd have thought some here would have known about this.

And yet I’m told I’m wrong to quote these dates 😞

valleynick66 said:

Rob7Lee said:

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

Friend Or Defoe said:

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

seth plum said:

valleynick66 said:

seth plum said:

The introduction might have had ways to improve it, but @cantersaddick has explained quite often the scheme was introduced with a lot of warning, and a scrappage scheme. What other things might have been done?
If we want an environment with cleaner air one way or another is it will cost us all financially and a change in lifestyles.
As for Sadiq Khan and road pricing he has said the GLA always keep road pricing ‘under review’, is there anything wrong with that? He has also said that whilst he is Mayor he would not introduce road pricing.
It is up to each person to decide if Khan can be believed on that.
That always brings me back to Ella’s mother Rosamund Kissi Debrah and her ongoing campaign to keep the health issue up there with the car issue.

https://www.ellaroberta.org/about-us/our-people/

It is wrong to say the latest expansion was introduced with a lot of warning. It was not. Even more so amidst a cost of living crisis. 

This should not be glossed over. Further the scrappage scheme had to be improved from the initial offering. 

So the point on pay per mile remains. it is the case he has spent significant sums to date on it and now been forced to state it wont yet be introduced. The evidence you queried is effectively there as a lesser study would surely have sufficed if the plans were not more advanced. 

Any observations on why we still await any detailed analysis on compliance / fines issued?

Well as I said above, if there is evidence about road pricing could you provide a link? Including the spending on stuff for road pricing directed by Sadiq Khan. He has made a statement, if you think it was forced out of him that is an opinion certainly, whether it is fact is open to debate. 

The warnings about the introduction of both ULEZ schemes and whether there was enough of it is down to opinion too. I personally believe it was dragged on too long before introduction, increasing the suffering of those affected by dirty air.

In terms of compliance and fines I don’t have any link to data on that. Nor do I have a link to how much cleaner the air has become.

Khan has been excellent during all this, because the car lobby is more vociferous and powerful than the concerned parent lobby, but he has walked a tricky path between the two opposing forces very well.

There is no evidence that previously Shaun Bailey, and currently Susan Hall give a damn about the pollution or the death of little Ella, or the suffering of others.

The evidence is that he has  spent on feasibility studies / recruited staff for this purpose. Posters on here with knowledge of TFL have also confirmed this. khan has not said that no money has been spent on  it. 

There was not warning that ULEZ would be extended to its latest boundary. 

You keep saying this even though its not really true. A year exactly from announcement of the final confirmation that it was happening to it being it place (plus 1 week where you got a notification but no charge). Before that there was widespread coverage of it from discussions in city hall, press coverage, public consultations etc. for a further 18 months. So between 2 and 2.5 years notice for anyone not living under a rock. How much warning do you think should have been given? 

It wasn't a years notice. Speculation is very different from confirmation.

25th November for introduction on 29th August. No one knew with certainty of any grace period either.

The point being ignored is that this was done in the midst of a cost of living 'crisis' and hence the period is too short - that is my point.

Poor timing and an immediate fee level which he (Khan) could have softened but chose not to.


18 months notice is my answer to your question on what is better / should have been given.

Question for you @cantersaddick any thoughts on the lack of MI and why its taking this long? I really think it would be interesting to see and positively show how its influenced road users. I repeat I support the objective just not the timing of the implementation.

Of course this only applies to the 10% of cars that aren't complaint and the subset of that whose owners don't drive as far as the South circular. 

Some posters complained that the fine is too light and there should be an outright ban on all non-compliant cars.

Valley Nick being one of them

I genuinely don’t recall that. Can you share where I said that in the way you imply?

I'll do that when you admit that you were wrong in constantly saying there was only 9 months notice when it was actually a year (much longer from earlier consultations) even when its been pointed out to you a number of times.

But it wasn’t to my understanding and recollection. 

Where is an official TFL or mayoral notice that is substantially longer. 

I’m not sure when the consultation was but I suspect not a huge amount of time before and I foolishly assumed it was a consultation and not a tick box to satisfy the process. 

Regardless please point me to my previous post you seem to recall as I don’t see it as contingent. 

Further do you have any thoughts on the MI point I made? I seem to recall you are a data person and might agree we could have seen sone interesting analysis  by now?

Not really sure how this is up for debate. The expanded ULEZ was announced (By Khan) on the 22nd November 2022, so 277 days/9 Months before implementation. Of course there was knowledge that it was likely, that it ws being looked into, that there was a form of consultation. But the 22nd November was when it was officially announced.

https://www.london.gov.uk/ultra-low-emission-zone-will-be-expanded-london-wide

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has today announced that he will expand the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) London-wide to tackle the triple threats of air pollution, the climate emergency and congestion.........

https://www.rcaoseducation.org.uk/sadiq-khan-visits-bonus-pastor-catholic-college/

On Friday 25th November, Bonus Pastor Catholic College were privileged to host Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, as he announced the extension of the ULEZ Zone.

I'd have thought some here would have known about this.

And yet I’m told I’m wrong to quote these dates 😞

I think it's just semantics.

Yes the possibility and proposal of an expanded ULEZ was known for a while before the official announcement. The consultation was back in May 2022 with all London boroughs, that ended at the end of the July 2022. There was also a Poll in July 2022 (a huge 1,245 responses). In November 2022 a new proposal to the Mayor was produced following the consultation (predominantly about some exemptions until 2027) which was then announced later that month with the dates etc and full details.

I'm not sure if we were supposed to pre-empt anything, double guess what may or may not happen and when, were people supposed to be changing their cars pre November 2022 on the possibility of something coming in, at some point, despite not knowing the details of what, where, when or how, if anything, was going to change, officially?

Ultimately there were 9 months notice, anyone saying otherwise is just being obtuse or arguing for the sake of it.

The previous expansion to the N/S circular had a much longer lead in. It was announced in June 2018, implemented October 2021, so over 3 years. I certainly changed my car in 2019 partly as I knew my Cayenne wasn't compliant from 2021 when that expansion would have come to within a few hundred yards or my then home. I'd have likely changed it before 2021 anyway, but it did speed up the process, not an issue for me as I could afford it.

Bt whatever we all think, ULEZ type schemes are here to stay and will no doubt develop over time as we adapt and change, much like the congestion charge where those who are exempt has reduced considerably over time. Pay to travel is a likely scenario when the use of petrol/diesel fuel is highly reduced and the tax collected on that is no more, but only time will tell. You can see the direction of travel (pardon the pun), just look at VED, the top rate now is almost £2,800 a year. It's all got a bit silly, not sure why my 2.5l 2017 car is the same as my wife's 2022 1.5l car when my CO2 etc is over 50% higher and I can see the fuel gauge reduce every time I accelerate.......