• The Forums are now open to new registrations, adverts are also being de-tuned.

Stop expanding the ULEZ to all the London boroughs in 2023

Swotty said:
Seems the ULEZ charge will be the least of your worries in Khan's Kingdom:

dailysceptic.org

Sadiq Khan's £150m Pay-Per-Mile Road Charging Scheme is Straight Out of the C40 Cities Playbook That Sets London Target of ZERO Private Vehicles by 2030 – The Daily Sceptic

Don't be surprised Sadiq Khan is spending £150 million developing pay-per-mile road charging for London. It's all part of the C40 Cities plan, which states the ambitious target of zero private vehicle ownership by 2030.
dailysceptic.org dailysceptic.org
Click to expand...
You may well be right. Citizen Khan is certainly following the advice of the C40 Clan as per this section
  • Integrate the relevant top pollution-reducing actions that are within our city and under our control into city Climate Action Plans. For example, by rapidly expanding zero emission public transport; creating low or zero emission areas; supporting walking/cycling; implementing vehicle restrictions or financial incentives/disincentives, such as road-use or parking charges; reducing truck, non-road machinery and city-owned vehicle emissions; cleaning up construction sites and equipment; reducing industrial emissions; reducing emissions from wood burning; expanding affordable access to clean energy for cooking and heating; restricting pollution from solid waste burning; and expanding greening.
 
Harrythedog said:
You may well be right. Citizen Khan is certainly following the advice of the C40 Clan as per this section
  • Integrate the relevant top pollution-reducing actions that are within our city and under our control into city Climate Action Plans. For example, by rapidly expanding zero emission public transport; creating low or zero emission areas; supporting walking/cycling; implementing vehicle restrictions or financial incentives/disincentives, such as road-use or parking charges; reducing truck, non-road machinery and city-owned vehicle emissions; cleaning up construction sites and equipment; reducing industrial emissions; reducing emissions from wood burning; expanding affordable access to clean energy for cooking and heating; restricting pollution from solid waste burning; and expanding greening.
Click to expand...
So basically he knows that Londoners love their vehicles because they’re convenient, safe and reliable despite the traffic. Armed with this information he will not improve buses, the roads, or the underground but he will shaft you where it hurts.

He is happy for you to ride in a polluting taxi yet he penalises other polluting vehicles and then he stands by while the suppliers of public transport hold the commuters to ransom by going on strike.

You couldn’t make it up.
 
Darrell said:
So basically he knows that Londoners love their vehicles because they’re convenient, safe and reliable despite the traffic. Armed with this information he will not improve buses, the roads, or the underground but he will shaft you where it hurts.

He is happy for you to ride in a polluting taxi yet he penalises other polluting vehicles and then he stands by while the suppliers of public transport hold the commuters to ransom by going on strike.

You couldn’t make it up.
Click to expand...

And those polluting vehicles choking everyone with their CO2 are immediately rendered safe by the payment of £12.50. It's a miracle, I tell you.

Follow the science.
 
Swotty said:
And those polluting vehicles choking everyone with their CO2 are immediately rendered safe by the payment of £12.50. It's a miracle, I tell you.

Follow the science.
Click to expand...

The £12.50 ULEZ charge is meant to be significant enough to discourage owners of older Diesel cars from driving them inside the Zone. If the ULEZ charge isn't a significant enough cost to constitute a deterrent, as your post appears to be suggesting, then why are people up-in-arms about it? Well, that answer is that they are upset because it IS a deterrent and it does stop them from driving their old Diesel cars into the Zone. Hence it works as intended by reduces NOx pollution.
 
markjay said:
The £12.50 ULEZ charge is meant to be significant enough to discourage owners of older Diesel cars from driving them inside the Zone. If the ULEZ charge isn't a significant enough cost to constitute a deterrent, as your post appears to be suggesting, then why are people up-in-arms about it? Well, that answer is that they are upset because it IS a deterrent and it does stop them from driving their old Diesel cars into the Zone. Hence it works as intended by reduces NOx pollution.
Click to expand...
Except that it doesn’t reduce pollution, at best it simply transfers it to the edge of the zone, while providing local government with a tax income from non-residents who are therefore not voters and some extra public transport revenue which still isn’t enough to cover the cost of buses and trains which spend most of their time running empty.

Ah, but pollution has reduced in the centre, you cry. Yes, but that’s not due to Zulez but other improvements like Euro 4, 5 and 6, and changes to pollutants across the whole environment.
www.imperial.ac.uk

London pollution has improved with evidence for small initial ULEZ effect: study | Imperial News | Imperial College London

London’s ULEZ reduced the city’s nitrogen dioxide levels by a few per cent during the first few weeks of its implementation.
www.imperial.ac.uk www.imperial.ac.uk

Ulez is simply a greenwashed tax on non-voters

IMG_2533.jpeg
 
Last edited:
markjay said:
The £12.50 ULEZ charge is meant to be significant enough to discourage owners of older Diesel cars from driving them inside the Zone. If the ULEZ charge isn't a significant enough cost to constitute a deterrent, as your post appears to be suggesting, then why are people up-in-arms about it? Well, that answer is that they are upset because it IS a deterrent and it does stop them from driving their old Diesel cars into the Zone. Hence it works as intended by reduces NOx pollution.
Click to expand...
Why aren’t the dirty polluting vehicles just banned completely?
 
markjay said:
The £12.50 ULEZ charge is meant to be significant enough to discourage owners of older Diesel cars from driving them inside the Zone. If the ULEZ charge isn't a significant enough cost to constitute a deterrent, as your post appears to be suggesting, then why are people up-in-arms about it? Well, that answer is that they are upset because it IS a deterrent and it does stop them from driving their old Diesel cars into the Zone. Hence it works as intended by reduces NOx pollution.
Click to expand...
Khan knows there will always be a certain amount of drivers more than willing to pay the £12.50.

I know a lot of drivers that have simply factored the payment into their family budget but unfortunately it means other aspects of their life will suffer.

Kahn needs these people. Without these people he is screwed.
 
Swotty said:
You could argue that tax on fuel is already a pay-per-mile strategy.

So, when the public are forced off the road, who is going to pay the lost revenue?
Click to expand...
Would forcing cars off the road be a net loss in revenue? Less cars means less damage to the roads, so lower maintenance costs.

£11 billion was spent on the UK’s roads in 2022/23. During the same period, VED raised £7 billion. (Of course that income doesn’t include the £25 billion from fuel duty.)
 
TC350 said:
Would forcing cars off the road be a net loss in revenue? Less cars means less damage to the roads, so lower maintenance costs.

£11 billion was spent on the UK’s roads in 2022/23. During the same period, VED raised £7 billion. (Of course that income doesn’t include the £25 billion from fuel duty.)
Click to expand...
But is £11 Billion spent every year??
 
TC350 said:
Would forcing cars off the road be a net loss in revenue? Less cars means less damage to the roads, so lower maintenance costs.

£11 billion was spent on the UK’s roads in 2022/23. During the same period, VED raised £7 billion. (Of course that income doesn’t include the £25 billion from fuel duty.)
Click to expand...

Plus the continuing stream of taxes on new car sales.
 
MikeInWimbledon said:
Except that it [ULEZ] doesn’t reduce pollution, at best it simply transfers it to the edge of the zone …
Click to expand...
Let’s not forget that the point of ULEZ is to reduce pollution in a concentrated area for the benefit of those people who live and/or work in London. Those people who previously would have driven their non-compliant vehicles into London aren’t now instead going to be driving round and round the Chilterns to do the same mileage.

Yes, there will be some who take a longer route to get to their desired destination, rather than cutting straight across a corner of the zone. But I would think that there will be more who are incentivised by the charge to make changes; whether that be eventually getting round to changing their car, using public transport more, or some other means of avoiding the excessive payment.

Even if there was no overall reduction in pollution, with it all being transferred to the edge of the zone, by being spread over a greater area it becomes a less intrusive problem. In total, less people will be inhaling lower concentrations of NOx and small particulates.
 
Darrell said:
But is £11 Billion spent every year??
Click to expand...
Not every year. It was up to £13 billion not long ago.

IMG_1442.jpeg

www.statista.com

UK road spending 2024 | Statista

Public sector spending on roads in the United Kingdom was over 12.17 billion British pounds in 2023/24, a slight decrease when compared with the previous year.
www.statista.com www.statista.com
 
TC350 said:
Would forcing cars off the road be a net loss in revenue? Less cars means less damage to the roads, so lower maintenance costs.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t that argument miss the economic benefit of the car journey itself?

The vast majority of car journeys are not for recreational purposes, but rather either directly for or an enabler for economic activity. As such, forcing those journeys “off the road” would reduce economic activity and thus be a net cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

T
London ULEZ stops Mercedes W202 entering in 2023.
3 4 5
Replies
82
Views
13K
TC350
TC350
Back
Top Bottom