ULEZ charge in 2021

[Billy_Rosewood]

braddo said:

Was the latest ULEZ expansion done too quickly? Yes. 

Agreed.

But this shouldn't be a footnote. It was rushed in before the scapegoat dissappeared through natural attrition. Had Khan waited, the problem would have disappeared on its own.. Or at least the blame could not be put on "old" cars once they were already gone.

[swisstoni]

Billy_Rosewood said:

braddo said:

Was the latest ULEZ expansion done too quickly? Yes. 

Agreed.

But this shouldn't be a footnote. It was rushed in before the scapegoat dissappeared through natural attrition. Had Khan waited, the problem would have disappeared on its own.. Or at least the blame could not be put on "old" cars once they were already gone.

Agreed. There will be no shortage of scapegoats going forward. And it will probably, once again be regressive, targeting the cars that just scraped in to conformity this time around.

Or, TfL may decide to finally be honest and charge per mile.
After all, the ones unaffected at the moment and ridiculing the affected can’t really complain when they finally have to fork out.

Edited by swisstoni on Saturday 11th November 10:41

[DonkeyApple]

swisstoni said:

Agreed. There will be no shortage of scapegoats going forward. And it will probably, once again be regressive, targeting the cars that just scraped in to conformity this time around.

Or, TfL may decide to finally be honest and charge per mile.
After all, the ones unaffected at the moment and ridiculing the affected can’t really complain when they finally have to fork out.

Edited by swisstoni on Saturday 11th November 10:41

Charging per mile tends to be regressive as all stats show that lower income households have to use their car more and cover greater distances. It'll be the same stats that have been collected for decades regarding fuel duty.

TfL have also rowed back on ppm as the technology to do it correctly doesn't exist yet and may not ever while reliant on the existing GPS network.

The logical thing to do is to levy tiered charges based on individuals personal freedom of choice. This would actually most accurately target pollution and congestion while raising huge amounts of taxation. But to do so would require treating Londoners and those who use London with some form of respect.

What you really want to target is fewer non essential journeys being made while also gently incentivising people to slowly migrate to smaller vehicles and vehicles with smaller ICE engines.

Mobility is essential for a healthy society and economy and in that regard the car needs to be embraced not pilloried. But largesse is not essential or a necessity and is free to be taxed.

A genuine left policy would be to steer the populace away from that largesse and towards a more equitable and efficient path. True left isn't about hate, victimisation, division or the worshiping even fearing of the affluent but about being all sides together together in a cohesive policy that benefits all.

Any car use in London could be set to have a base fee that is commensurate with the base cost of public transport. That would be equitable. You can then have additional tier levied on non residents, again, that would be equitable for the majority who are resident in the expanded zone. Tiers for size of car and size of engine are important as they leave everyone with the freedom of choice whether to pay or change to a smaller, more frugal vehicle. Additional tiers for frequent use help to encourage people to not use their car every day while not penalising those who may just use it once or twice a week.

The fact is that car use charging inside rhe M25 could have been a hugely positive enactment that gained the backing of the majority l, not driven social divisions, not been regressive and been a hugely positive advancement for everyone in London, creating more freedom and equality not more.

[Graveworm]

NomduJour said:

James6112 said:

Can you share the data source showing the 1% improvement?
Should be far higher than that

Was the impact assessment made up?

The issue is also that everywhere NOx from cars has already fallen over 80 percent so even a further 10 percent reduction only takes that from 80 to 80.8 percent. If dropping by 80 percent wasn't enough it seems odd 80.8 percent is the sweet spot where all ails are cured and it's still a very expensive way to get there.

[bad company]

I drive an orange BMW 3 series. Apparently while I was in Florida last month I flew home, disguised my car as a water van and drove it into London.

[CoolHands]

Looks like Khan was ripped off on spec when he preordered the £15 million+ quids worth of cameras

[Terminator X]

James6112 said:

Terminator X said:

braddo said:

Less car use in cities is a good thing. Fewer highly polluting cars/vans etc in cities is also a good thing.

But people love to ignore that so that they can get worked up about big brother and how their freedom to not give a st about anybody else is being limited.

Are you enjoying the 1% improvement in air quality?

TX.

Can you share the data source showing the 1% improvement?
Should be far higher than that.
ThanX

Edited by James6112 on Friday 10th November 14:19

"City Hall Conservatives have highlighted an independent assessment that says the Ulez expansion will result in a "minor" reduction in NO2 pollution exposure, of 1.3%"

Report is by Jacobs, Google will find it for you.

TX.

[NomduJour]

[James6112]

Terminator X said:

James6112 said:

Terminator X said:

braddo said:

Less car use in cities is a good thing. Fewer highly polluting cars/vans etc in cities is also a good thing.

But people love to ignore that so that they can get worked up about big brother and how their freedom to not give a st about anybody else is being limited.

Are you enjoying the 1% improvement in air quality?

TX.

Can you share the data source showing the 1% improvement?
Should be far higher than that.
ThanX

Edited by James6112 on Friday 10th November 14:19

"City Hall Conservatives have highlighted an independent assessment that says the Ulez expansion will result in a "minor" reduction in NO2 pollution exposure, of 1.3%"

Report is by Jacobs, Google will find it for you.

TX.

Google finds far better results
The one that City Hall Conservatives found isn’t high up on the list, which isn’t surprising
ThanX

Ulez is yesterdays news

[Billy_Rosewood]

James6112 said:

Google finds far better results
The one that City Hall Conservatives found isn’t high up on the list, which isn’t surprising
ThanX

Ulez is yesterdays news

Interestingly the report is commissioned by the Mayor and TFL. It's hosted somewhere on the tfl website but almost unsearchable.

It's as though they want to bury the independant study. Like you say, it isn't surprising

[groomi]

swisstoni said:

Billy_Rosewood said:

braddo said:

Was the latest ULEZ expansion done too quickly? Yes. 

Agreed.

But this shouldn't be a footnote. It was rushed in before the scapegoat dissappeared through natural attrition. Had Khan waited, the problem would have disappeared on its own.. Or at least the blame could not be put on "old" cars once they were already gone.

Agreed. There will be no shortage of scapegoats going forward. And it will probably, once again be regressive, targeting the cars that just scraped in to conformity this time around.

Edited by swisstoni on Saturday 11th November 10:41

Which, of course, are precisely the cars which those who are struggling to change cars right now are being forced into...

[andy43]

groomi said:

swisstoni said:

Billy_Rosewood said:

braddo said:

Was the latest ULEZ expansion done too quickly? Yes. 

Agreed.

But this shouldn't be a footnote. It was rushed in before the scapegoat dissappeared through natural attrition. Had Khan waited, the problem would have disappeared on its own.. Or at least the blame could not be put on "old" cars once they were already gone.

Agreed. There will be no shortage of scapegoats going forward. And it will probably, once again be regressive, targeting the cars that just scraped in to conformity this time around.

Edited by swisstoni on Saturday 11th November 10:41

Which, of course, are precisely the cars which those who are struggling to change cars right now are being forced into...

Damn. You spotted it.

[turbobloke]

andy43 said:

groomi said:

swisstoni said:

Billy_Rosewood said:

braddo said:

Was the latest ULEZ expansion done too quickly? Yes. 

Agreed.

But this shouldn't be a footnote. It was rushed in before the scapegoat dissappeared through natural attrition. Had Khan waited, the problem would have disappeared on its own.. Or at least the blame could not be put on "old" cars once they were already gone.

Agreed. There will be no shortage of scapegoats going forward. And it will probably, once again be regressive, targeting the cars that just scraped in to conformity this time around.

Edited by swisstoni on Saturday 11th November 10:41

Which, of course, are precisely the cars which those who are struggling to change cars right now are being forced into...

Damn. You spotted it.

All hail Khan The Regressive.

[braddo]

DonkeyApple said:

...
Any car use in London could be set to have a base fee that is commensurate with the base cost of public transport. That would be equitable. You can then have additional tier levied on non residents, again, that would be equitable for the majority who are resident in the expanded zone. Tiers for size of car and size of engine are important as they leave everyone with the freedom of choice whether to pay or change to a smaller, more frugal vehicle. Additional tiers for frequent use help to encourage people to not use their car every day while not penalising those who may just use it once or twice a week.

The fact is that car use charging inside rhe M25 could have been a hugely positive enactment that gained the backing of the majority l, not driven social divisions, not been regressive and been a hugely positive advancement for everyone in London, creating more freedom and equality not more.

What you seem to be suggesting is a London wide congestion charge. Implementing that is utter fantasy, politically, until pay-per-mile starts to become more mainstream with the transition to EVs.

There is already tiered pricing on VED and car parking permits; people can already buy frugal cheap cars that are ULEZ compliant; if someone needs or wants to drive a non-compliant car into the ULEZ they still can, but at a cost. And guess what, that cost is enough to change behaviour without resorting to draconian outright bans.

The idea that the ULEZ was designed to be targeted at a specific demographic is just silly. As is the notion that natural car/van buying habits would get all those old diesels off our roads any time soon - we would nowhere close today to the near-elimination of those vehicles inside the circulars which was achieved during 2016-2021.

People here seems to keep forgetting how dirty pre-euro6 diesels are. Euro 5 diesel Nox limits - 0.18, with real world emission usually 10x that = 1.8g/km, which is 22 times more NOx emissions than Euro4 petrols (0.08g/km).

[braddo]

turbobloke said:

All hail Khan The Regressive.

All you guys using the work 'regressive' must really care about those less fortunate than you. You must be fuming at how Tory governments of the past 13 years have squeezed the working class with decimated public services, cuts to benefits, pathetic investment in council housing, nothing done about rent controls and tenant rights etc. I expect you're all ready to place more tax burden on the broadest shoulders to help level-up British society.

You'll all be enthusiastic voters for Labour at the next election, right?

[NomduJour]

braddo said:

People here seems to keep forgetting how dirty pre-euro6 diesels are. Euro 5 diesel Nox limits - 0.18, with real world emission usually 10x that = 1.8g/km, which is 22 times more NOx emissions than Euro4 petrols (0.08g/km)

Can’t wait to experience that 1% benefit.

[swisstoni]

braddo said:

turbobloke said:

All hail Khan The Regressive.

All you guys using the work 'regressive' must really care about those less fortunate than you. You must be fuming at how Tory governments of the past 13 years have squeezed the working class with decimated public services, cuts to benefits, pathetic investment in council housing, nothing done about rent controls and tenant rights etc. I expect you're all ready to place more tax burden on the broadest shoulders to help level-up British society.

You'll all be enthusiastic voters for Labour at the next election, right?

Clearly they are the wrong type of ‘less fortunate’ for you to give a toss about.

[braddo]

swisstoni said:

Clearly they are the wrong type of ‘less fortunate’ for you to give a toss about.

You object to the ULEZ because it affects you personally (which expensive sports car you can drive/own), not because you care for the welfare of those less fortunate than you. It's not the ULEZ which has caused a decade-long cost of living crisis for millions of people in the UK.

And if the Tory UK government wasn't using TFL funding as a poison pill to try to oust a Labour London mayor, we wouldn't be in the current situation (there would either be no ULEZ expansion or there would have been a properly funded scrappage scheme). So when you pretend to have sympathy for the people who are struggling with the impact of the ULEZ, remember it's the Tories who are giving them the kicking, and for the sole reason of the Tories' self interest in the London mayoral race.

[andy43]

swisstoni said:

braddo said:

turbobloke said:

All hail Khan The Regressive.

All you guys using the work 'regressive' must really care about those less fortunate than you. You must be fuming at how Tory governments of the past 13 years have squeezed the working class with decimated public services, cuts to benefits, pathetic investment in council housing, nothing done about rent controls and tenant rights etc. I expect you're all ready to place more tax burden on the broadest shoulders to help level-up British society.

You'll all be enthusiastic voters for Labour at the next election, right?

Clearly they are the wrong type of ‘less fortunate’ for you to give a toss about.

I've been practising my cock and balls drawing skills for months now.
Do we have a date for the election yet?

[NomduJour]

braddo said:

So when you pretend to have sympathy for the people who are struggling with the impact of the ULEZ, remember it's the Tories who are giving them the kicking, and for the sole reason of the Tories' self interest in the London mayoral race

Itz da toreez wot dunnit innit.

We’ve looked at funding arrangements for mass transit systems in this thread - they’re all different, but the one similarity is that none of the major ones are funded by government bungs.

Also, rent controls - really?