That is from 2019 so a little out of date now but regardless you cant really say 'done well' - motorists pay a lot of tax.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.
That's a mistake as my browser went to shit on the train.
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.
I challenged because you originally implied polling proved there was not a fear of what ULEZ is / will evolve too.
The report clearly suggests as many (in outer London where the current debate is) that do want it extended do not in other words there is evidence it is not supported That was the point.
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.
This has been explained a thousand times on here but I'll say it again.
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.
You can post this multiple times, but some just won’t read it.
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.
That's a mistake as my browser went to shit on the train.
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.
I challenged because you originally implied polling proved there was not a fear of what ULEZ is / will evolve too.
The report clearly suggests as many (in outer London where the current debate is) that do want it extended do not in other words there is evidence it is not supported That was the point.
No I said the polling proved there was support from a plurality of Londoners, the fears seem to be restricted to a subset of outer Londoners who are buying the nonsense they are reading on facebook groups.
Genuine question: Is the air quality in Greater London really less than that of other cities in the UK - notably, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool etc... It does seem Londoners are being punished.
It’s about the same, hence why Birmingham and Manchester have government backed and funded Clean Air Zones that charge those driving high emission cars
And Bath Bristol and others are having ULEZ brought in.
The difference between those places and greater London is that the majority of the population of those city's don't actually live in the areas with the pollution problem. The problem is in a much smaller area. They live in the outskirts and travel in. Whereas in London it's very common for people to spend the majority of their time in the greater London area and very normal for people to not leave the area for months on end. The damage to people's body's is awful.
Incidence rates of non- smoking lung cancers are 1 in 5 million in the UK. Or 1 in 5,000 in greater London. Thats a horrendous difference.
Still amazed at these stats.
there are 67 million people in the UK there are 9 million people in London.
Thise numbers suggest that, in a defined timeframe, there will be 11 incidents of non smoking related lung cancer outside of London, and 1,800 in London?
What is that timeframe and where are these stats from?
Apologies I missed your earlier post as I was distracted by the cricket.
The stats are from a BBC article I saw a while ago about London Air quality because of the ULEZ and think I shared it on one of the threads on here. I can't remember the source that used but I'll try and find the post where I shared it and re-link. I'll admit I'm quoting from memory (I'm an analyst numbers are my thing) this time but that stat has stuck with me since I've seen it not least because a family member had just been diagnosed with an incredibly rare non-smoking lung cancer after living in a lower ground floor flat in Notting Hill all her life.
I'll dig out the bbc article and share again.
Hi, not sure you ever qualified the stats to back up your statement that "Incidence rates of non- smoking lung cancers are 1 in 5 million in the UK. Or 1 in 5,000 in greater London".
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.
This has been explained a thousand times on here but I'll say it again.
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.
You can post this multiple times, but some just won’t read it.
I enjoy banging my head against the wall mate!
Keep banging because Khan is using this measure to bail out Tfls finances and ultimately use the technology to roll out road pricing in London.
The report that his officials tried to silence - and I note youve not commented on that - says that the effect on introducing ulez will be minimal.
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.
This has been explained a thousand times on here but I'll say it again.
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.
You can post this multiple times, but some just won’t read it.
I enjoy banging my head against the wall mate!
Keep banging because Khan is using this measure to bail out Tfls finances and ultimately use the technology to roll out road pricing in London.
The report that his officials tried to silence - and I note youve not commented on that - says that the effect on introducing ulez will be minimal.
Road pricing is a long long way in the future but it is the future and ultimately is the fairest way of doing things. My only requirement for all of this would be that public transport improvements and expansions as well as price reductions happen alongside.
One predictive report that says it will be minimal is relevant but not the be all and end all. Evidence from the original ULEZ and the expansion to the North/south circular shows pretty large improvements. As does the evidence from similar schemes around the world. There are other reports and evidence suggesting this will have massive impacts in a lot of outer London areas (obviously some more than others). As I've said air quality in Bexley is awful due to its natural geography yet they are some of the most opposed to it.
Genuine question: Is the air quality in Greater London really less than that of other cities in the UK - notably, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool etc... It does seem Londoners are being punished.
It’s about the same, hence why Birmingham and Manchester have government backed and funded Clean Air Zones that charge those driving high emission cars
And Bath Bristol and others are having ULEZ brought in.
The difference between those places and greater London is that the majority of the population of those city's don't actually live in the areas with the pollution problem. The problem is in a much smaller area. They live in the outskirts and travel in. Whereas in London it's very common for people to spend the majority of their time in the greater London area and very normal for people to not leave the area for months on end. The damage to people's body's is awful.
Incidence rates of non- smoking lung cancers are 1 in 5 million in the UK. Or 1 in 5,000 in greater London. Thats a horrendous difference.
Still amazed at these stats.
there are 67 million people in the UK there are 9 million people in London.
Thise numbers suggest that, in a defined timeframe, there will be 11 incidents of non smoking related lung cancer outside of London, and 1,800 in London?
What is that timeframe and where are these stats from?
Apologies I missed your earlier post as I was distracted by the cricket.
The stats are from a BBC article I saw a while ago about London Air quality because of the ULEZ and think I shared it on one of the threads on here. I can't remember the source that used but I'll try and find the post where I shared it and re-link. I'll admit I'm quoting from memory (I'm an analyst numbers are my thing) this time but that stat has stuck with me since I've seen it not least because a family member had just been diagnosed with an incredibly rare non-smoking lung cancer after living in a lower ground floor flat in Notting Hill all her life.
I'll dig out the bbc article and share again.
Hi, not sure you ever qualified the stats to back up your statement that "Incidence rates of non- smoking lung cancers are 1 in 5 million in the UK. Or 1 in 5,000 in greater London".
I posted the link to the bbc article much much further up this thread (or maybe it was a previous iteration of this thread) I tried to go back and look for it but I got bored. Will try again when I get time.
Genuine question: Is the air quality in Greater London really less than that of other cities in the UK - notably, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool etc... It does seem Londoners are being punished.
It’s about the same, hence why Birmingham and Manchester have government backed and funded Clean Air Zones that charge those driving high emission cars
And Bath Bristol and others are having ULEZ brought in.
The difference between those places and greater London is that the majority of the population of those city's don't actually live in the areas with the pollution problem. The problem is in a much smaller area. They live in the outskirts and travel in. Whereas in London it's very common for people to spend the majority of their time in the greater London area and very normal for people to not leave the area for months on end. The damage to people's body's is awful.
Incidence rates of non- smoking lung cancers are 1 in 5 million in the UK. Or 1 in 5,000 in greater London. Thats a horrendous difference.
Still amazed at these stats.
there are 67 million people in the UK there are 9 million people in London.
Thise numbers suggest that, in a defined timeframe, there will be 11 incidents of non smoking related lung cancer outside of London, and 1,800 in London?
What is that timeframe and where are these stats from?
Apologies I missed your earlier post as I was distracted by the cricket.
The stats are from a BBC article I saw a while ago about London Air quality because of the ULEZ and think I shared it on one of the threads on here. I can't remember the source that used but I'll try and find the post where I shared it and re-link. I'll admit I'm quoting from memory (I'm an analyst numbers are my thing) this time but that stat has stuck with me since I've seen it not least because a family member had just been diagnosed with an incredibly rare non-smoking lung cancer after living in a lower ground floor flat in Notting Hill all her life.
I'll dig out the bbc article and share again.
Hi, not sure you ever qualified the stats to back up your statement that "Incidence rates of non- smoking lung cancers are 1 in 5 million in the UK. Or 1 in 5,000 in greater London".
From 2019 as I believe it's the latest figures available that give the highest and lowest cancer incidences by sex and region:
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.
That's a mistake as my browser went to shit on the train.
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.
I challenged because you originally implied polling proved there was not a fear of what ULEZ is / will evolve too.
The report clearly suggests as many (in outer London where the current debate is) that do want it extended do not in other words there is evidence it is not supported That was the point.
No I said the polling proved there was support from a plurality of Londoners, the fears seem to be restricted to a subset of outer Londoners who are buying the nonsense they are reading on facebook groups.
But it is outer London this debate is mostly about i.e. NIMBY !
You said "But there’s isn’t fear in ‘many Londoners’ it’s just not true. " - that's the bit I'm challenging i.e. there is considerable concern/reservation. Not fair to suggest the majority are all ok with it.
People do understand why TfL finances were knackered by the pandemic, and why they were ok before?
to be fair, a lot of companies/sectors finances were knackered by the pandemic - what makes TFL so special ?
TfL used to have a central government grant / subsidy, until Mayor Johnson decided it was no longer necessary and got rid. Prior to Covid, use of the underground, at least, was at a record high, although the start of the working from home movement saw the rate of increase begin to stagnate and even fall. So with no grant, a massive reduction in journeys due to more people working from home during and beyond the Covid lockdowns, made worse by the government advising people not to use public transport, TfL's finances were bound to suffer. Political games by the government with regard to bailing TfL out post pandemic also didn't help to get TfL back on track. Currently most investment in upgrading the TfL networks has been halted, with the exception of projects where funding from developers is present.
Not rocket science to get people out the cars. Fast , reliable ,public transport system.
Public transport will never be as fast or reliable as private transport for the vast majority of the population in the context of modern lives. The solution is the technical advance in engine technology, not trying to get people out of cars.
Public transport is part of the solution for a part of the population.
Couple of weeks ago walked from Bickley to West Wickham, 3.5 miles. A couple of weeks later , with the Wife same journey on the bus requiring a change at Bromley the bus would of beaten me by 5 minutes. Herne bay to West Wickham 2hrs 20 on public transport, just over an hour driving and the petrol would've been cheaper. Mate last Saturday Charlton to herne bay on train 2hrs 50. Oxford blown out because of the train strike. Peterborough away came home an hour early because the 7.30pm train cancelled and I'd be dammed if I'm waiting for the 8.30pm and taking a chance on that.
Not rocket science to get people out the cars. Fast , reliable ,public transport system.
Public transport will never be as fast or reliable as private transport for the vast majority of the population in the context of modern lives. The solution is the technical advance in engine technology, not trying to get people out of cars.
Public transport is part of the solution for a part of the population.
Not rocket science to get people out the cars. Fast , reliable ,public transport system.
Public transport will never be as fast or reliable as private transport for the vast majority of the population in the context of modern lives. The solution is the technical advance in engine technology, not trying to get people out of cars.
Public transport is part of the solution for a part of the population.
Genuine question: Is the air quality in Greater London really less than that of other cities in the UK - notably, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool etc... It does seem Londoners are being punished.
It’s about the same, hence why Birmingham and Manchester have government backed and funded Clean Air Zones that charge those driving high emission cars
And Bath Bristol and others are having ULEZ brought in.
The difference between those places and greater London is that the majority of the population of those city's don't actually live in the areas with the pollution problem. The problem is in a much smaller area. They live in the outskirts and travel in. Whereas in London it's very common for people to spend the majority of their time in the greater London area and very normal for people to not leave the area for months on end. The damage to people's body's is awful.
Incidence rates of non- smoking lung cancers are 1 in 5 million in the UK. Or 1 in 5,000 in greater London. Thats a horrendous difference.
Still amazed at these stats.
there are 67 million people in the UK there are 9 million people in London.
Thise numbers suggest that, in a defined timeframe, there will be 11 incidents of non smoking related lung cancer outside of London, and 1,800 in London?
What is that timeframe and where are these stats from?
Apologies I missed your earlier post as I was distracted by the cricket.
The stats are from a BBC article I saw a while ago about London Air quality because of the ULEZ and think I shared it on one of the threads on here. I can't remember the source that used but I'll try and find the post where I shared it and re-link. I'll admit I'm quoting from memory (I'm an analyst numbers are my thing) this time but that stat has stuck with me since I've seen it not least because a family member had just been diagnosed with an incredibly rare non-smoking lung cancer after living in a lower ground floor flat in Notting Hill all her life.
I'll dig out the bbc article and share again.
Hi, not sure you ever qualified the stats to back up your statement that "Incidence rates of non- smoking lung cancers are 1 in 5 million in the UK. Or 1 in 5,000 in greater London".
I posted the link to the bbc article much much further up this thread (or maybe it was a previous iteration of this thread) I tried to go back and look for it but I got bored. Will try again when I get time.
The stats from the NHS link posted by BBW for lung cancer are:-
For lung cancer, the North East had the highest rate for males and females at 108 and 96 per 100,000 people. The South East had the lowest rate for males at 74 per 100,000 people, whereas the South West had the lowest rate for females at 53 per 100,000 people.
Your stats which you recalled from a BBC article are:-
"Incidence rates of non- smoking lung cancers are 1 in 5 million in the UK. Or 1 in 5,000 in greater London".
You'd be the first to agree for the need on sharing accurate statistics in the context of public health policy...
Not rocket science to get people out the cars. Fast , reliable ,public transport system.
Public transport will never be as fast or reliable as private transport for the vast majority of the population in the context of modern lives. The solution is the technical advance in engine technology, not trying to get people out of cars.
Public transport is part of the solution for a part of the population.
Really.
when I lived near Woolwich Common and worked on Old Street, I had a choice to drive, cycle or public transport. Drive was by far the slowest, and that was 1989-1993. It was cheaper, but that’s because the company paid for the car and the petrol, but I’d still only do it if I had to, and it was only cheaper if I could find street parking in Hoxton. If I need to use a car park, it was the most expensive.
Fast, efficient and cheap public transport is the only way to move people about in cities. But the first step if for everyone to accept the reality that public transportation can’t be run to profit, or, in my opinion, breakeven.
What descriptive words do we use for Sunak’s MINUS 38 or the fact that 57% of Londoners haven’t a clue about Susan Hall? Sadly, I do know about Susan Hall! The 57% are a very lucky group.
Genuine question: Is the air quality in Greater London really less than that of other cities in the UK - notably, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool etc... It does seem Londoners are being punished.
It’s about the same, hence why Birmingham and Manchester have government backed and funded Clean Air Zones that charge those driving high emission cars
And Bath Bristol and others are having ULEZ brought in.
The difference between those places and greater London is that the majority of the population of those city's don't actually live in the areas with the pollution problem. The problem is in a much smaller area. They live in the outskirts and travel in. Whereas in London it's very common for people to spend the majority of their time in the greater London area and very normal for people to not leave the area for months on end. The damage to people's body's is awful.
Incidence rates of non- smoking lung cancers are 1 in 5 million in the UK. Or 1 in 5,000 in greater London. Thats a horrendous difference.
Still amazed at these stats.
there are 67 million people in the UK there are 9 million people in London.
Thise numbers suggest that, in a defined timeframe, there will be 11 incidents of non smoking related lung cancer outside of London, and 1,800 in London?
What is that timeframe and where are these stats from?
Apologies I missed your earlier post as I was distracted by the cricket.
The stats are from a BBC article I saw a while ago about London Air quality because of the ULEZ and think I shared it on one of the threads on here. I can't remember the source that used but I'll try and find the post where I shared it and re-link. I'll admit I'm quoting from memory (I'm an analyst numbers are my thing) this time but that stat has stuck with me since I've seen it not least because a family member had just been diagnosed with an incredibly rare non-smoking lung cancer after living in a lower ground floor flat in Notting Hill all her life.
I'll dig out the bbc article and share again.
Hi, not sure you ever qualified the stats to back up your statement that "Incidence rates of non- smoking lung cancers are 1 in 5 million in the UK. Or 1 in 5,000 in greater London".
I posted the link to the bbc article much much further up this thread (or maybe it was a previous iteration of this thread) I tried to go back and look for it but I got bored. Will try again when I get time.
The stats from the NHS link posted by BBW for lung cancer are:-
For lung cancer, the North East had the highest rate for males and females at 108 and 96 per 100,000 people. The South East had the lowest rate for males at 74 per 100,000 people, whereas the South West had the lowest rate for females at 53 per 100,000 people.
Your stats which you recalled from a BBC article are:-
"Incidence rates of non- smoking lung cancers are 1 in 5 million in the UK. Or 1 in 5,000 in greater London".
You'd be the first to agree for the need on sharing accurate statistics in the context of public health policy...
You're conflating lung cancer generally and rare non-smoking lung cancers whixh is what i was talking about. As I said I've posted the article on here before. To satisfy you I'll go back and find it and repost when I get time but right now I have other draws on my time like renovating a house whilst being in the final month of wedding planning and looking after my niece 3 tines a week as my sister in law is ill. Searching though my old posts is not my top priority right now.
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.
This has been explained a thousand times on here but I'll say it again.
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.
You can post this multiple times, but some just won’t read it.
I enjoy banging my head against the wall mate!
Keep banging because Khan is using this measure to bail out Tfls finances and ultimately use the technology to roll out road pricing in London.
The report that his officials tried to silence - and I note youve not commented on that - says that the effect on introducing ulez will be minimal.
It doesn't bale out TfL's finances. It costs a lot of money to implement and as more people change their cars the amount paid daily will decrease significantly.
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.
This has been explained a thousand times on here but I'll say it again.
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.
You can post this multiple times, but some just won’t read it.
I enjoy banging my head against the wall mate!
Keep banging because Khan is using this measure to bail out Tfls finances and ultimately use the technology to roll out road pricing in London.
The report that his officials tried to silence - and I note youve not commented on that - says that the effect on introducing ulez will be minimal.
It doesn't bale out TfL's finances. It costs a lot of money to implement and as more people change their cars the amount paid daily will decrease significantly.
Sorry but that is just plain wrong.
Tfl's own figures show that Ulez will raise money for its first 2 or 3 years of implementation. (It does, as you say, depends on how quickly people change their non-compliant vehicles).
After that, it is forecast to cease being "profitable".
That's when TfL need to refresh their coffers and is the reason Khan's officials are already working on introducing a road pricing scheme in London which will use the ULEZ cameras.
Comments
The report clearly suggests as many (in outer London where the current debate is) that do want it extended do not in other words there is evidence it is not supported That was the point.
The report that his officials tried to silence - and I note youve not commented on that - says that the effect on introducing ulez will be minimal.
One predictive report that says it will be minimal is relevant but not the be all and end all. Evidence from the original ULEZ and the expansion to the North/south circular shows pretty large improvements. As does the evidence from similar schemes around the world. There are other reports and evidence suggesting this will have massive impacts in a lot of outer London areas (obviously some more than others). As I've said air quality in Bexley is awful due to its natural geography yet they are some of the most opposed to it.
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/cancer-registration-statistics/england-2019/north-east-had-the-highest-rate-of-cancer-incidence-for-males-and-females#:~:text=For lung cancer, the North,at 53 per 100,000 people.
You said "But there’s isn’t fear in ‘many Londoners’ it’s just not true. " - that's the bit I'm challenging i.e. there is considerable concern/reservation. Not fair to suggest the majority are all ok with it.
Prior to Covid, use of the underground, at least, was at a record high, although the start of the working from home movement saw the rate of increase begin to stagnate and even fall.
So with no grant, a massive reduction in journeys due to more people working from home during and beyond the Covid lockdowns, made worse by the government advising people not to use public transport, TfL's finances were bound to suffer.
Political games by the government with regard to bailing TfL out post pandemic also didn't help to get TfL back on track.
Currently most investment in upgrading the TfL networks has been halted, with the exception of projects where funding from developers is present.
Fast , reliable ,public transport system.
Public transport is part of the solution for a part of the population.
A couple of weeks later , with the Wife same journey on the bus requiring a change at Bromley the bus would of beaten me by 5 minutes.
Herne bay to West Wickham 2hrs 20 on public transport, just over an hour driving and the petrol would've been cheaper.
Mate last Saturday Charlton to herne bay on train 2hrs 50.
Oxford blown out because of the train strike.
Peterborough away came home an hour early because the 7.30pm train cancelled and I'd be dammed if I'm waiting for the 8.30pm and taking a chance on that.
Sadiq Khan’s popularity languishing in outer London a week before Ulez expansion
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/sadiq-khan-popularity-poll-outer-london-ulez-expansion-susan-hall-b1102187.html- For lung cancer, the North East had the highest rate for males and females at 108 and 96 per 100,000 people. The South East had the lowest rate for males at 74 per 100,000 people, whereas the South West had the lowest rate for females at 53 per 100,000 people.
Your stats which you recalled from a BBC article are:-"Incidence rates of non- smoking lung cancers are 1 in 5 million in the UK. Or 1 in 5,000 in greater London".
You'd be the first to agree for the need on sharing accurate statistics in the context of public health policy...
when I lived near Woolwich Common and worked on Old Street, I had a choice to drive, cycle or public transport. Drive was by far the slowest, and that was 1989-1993. It was cheaper, but that’s because the company paid for the car and the petrol, but I’d still only do it if I had to, and it was only cheaper if I could find street parking in Hoxton. If I need to use a car park, it was the most expensive.
Tfl's own figures show that Ulez will raise money for its first 2 or 3 years of implementation. (It does, as you say, depends on how quickly people change their non-compliant vehicles).
After that, it is forecast to cease being "profitable".
That's when TfL need to refresh their coffers and is the reason Khan's officials are already working on introducing a road pricing scheme in London which will use the ULEZ cameras.
Just emailed tfl, about superloop 5.
Was looking at superloop 7, is someone really going to spend nearly 2 hrs getting from Croydon to Heathrow?