Quiet a bit of the ULEZ money is going into improvements like Superloop
Yep. 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?
Superloop 7 has been running for years, it was known as X26 before. Same with Superloop 6 which just replaces the existing X68 route
Doesn't the superloops miss some of the stops on that route. Loop 5 Croydon to Bromley goes runs the same route as the 119 to monks orchard, but doesn't stop at all the stops
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.
This. The need to refresh the TFL coffers will no doubt see the goalposts shift where non compliant vehicles from 2006 will probably then become a rolling 12 months 2007 the next year etc to keep a continuous steady stream of cash flowing in.
Like with the Dartford crossing once the income stream is started it doesn't stop.
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.
OK but until then I am highly sceptical of the data you quote, to the point that I think its misleading (and you were rightly one of the key exponents of misleading data on the Covid thread).
You have stated that a non-smoking resident of London is 1,000 times more likely to get non-smoking related lung cancer than someone living outside of London. In the context of this thread the logical conclusion is a direct link between that statistic and vehicle emissions in London (whether those vehicles are ULEZ compliant or not).
A quick review of the term "incidents of non smoking lung cancer in the UK by region" throws up a few articles and reports covering a number of methodologies and sample sizes across different time-frames, none of which, based on my interpretation of the data or reading of the articles, concludes that someone living in London is 1,000 times more likely to get non-smoking related lung cancer, in spite of or because of vehicle emissions. Vehicle emissions are of course a factor alongside others such as age, ethnicity, family history, income, demographic, education etc etc in incidents of non smoking related lung cancer.
If the BBC article you talk about is correct in its assertion, then I'll shut up and accept that Khan's policy is the right one, as that is a remarkable statistic that I'm surprised hasn't been at the centre of the debate.
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.
This. The need to refresh the TFL coffers will no doubt see the goalposts shift where non compliant vehicles from 2006 will probably then become a rolling 12 months 2007 the next year etc to keep a continuous steady stream of cash flowing in.
Like with the Dartford crossing once the income stream is started it doesn't stop.
The year of manufacture doesn't come into the calculations. It's the vehicle emissions. 2006 is when the lower emission engines were introduced.
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.
This. The need to refresh the TFL coffers will no doubt see the goalposts shift where non compliant vehicles from 2006 will probably then become a rolling 12 months 2007 the next year etc to keep a continuous steady stream of cash flowing in.
Like with the Dartford crossing once the income stream is started it doesn't stop.
The year of manufacture doesn't come into the calculations. It's the vehicle emissions. 2006 is when the lower emission engines were introduced.
Correct yes that might be how the calculation is derived now but if/when the money dries up I'll be amazed if the method doesn't change to something like year of manufacture instead. Whatever the method once the income starts coming in it'll continue in one guise or another.
I suggested a rolling year could happen as I think one way or another it'll continue until we reach the point in the future where any non-electric car is charged.
My work colleague just made a good point that someone may have made earlier.
If the number of polluting vehicles is so small then surely many of these will drop of the radar in the next few years anyway, through people upgrading, elderly car owners with older cars sadly passing away and cars that are reaching the end of life.
This is partly backed up by the profitability of the scheme dropping.
Therefore, why is it being introduced so quickly, when there seems to be debate about its effectiveness in Outer London anyway?
My work colleague just made a good point that someone may have made earlier.
If the number of polluting vehicles is so small then surely many of these will drop of the radar in the next few years anyway, through people upgrading, elderly car owners with older cars sadly passing away and cars that are reaching the end of life.
This is partly backed up by the profitability of the scheme dropping.
Therefore, why is it being introduced so quickly, when there seems to be debate about its effectiveness in Outer London anyway?
And that is a fair challenge. My concern is timing - why now when it will be a harsh financial burden to those who can least afford to get a different car? Signpost its coming & give some leeway / space to adapt.
My work colleague just made a good point that someone may have made earlier.
If the number of polluting vehicles is so small then surely many of these will drop of the radar in the next few years anyway, through people upgrading, elderly car owners with older cars sadly passing away and cars that are reaching the end of life.
This is partly backed up by the profitability of the scheme dropping.
Therefore, why is it being introduced so quickly, when there seems to be debate about its effectiveness in Outer London anyway?
See my post above.
Khan is using ULEZ as a stepping stone to introducing road pricing - you pay for every mile you drive - in London.
My work colleague just made a good point that someone may have made earlier.
If the number of polluting vehicles is so small then surely many of these will drop of the radar in the next few years anyway, through people upgrading, elderly car owners with older cars sadly passing away and cars that are reaching the end of life.
This is partly backed up by the profitability of the scheme dropping.
Therefore, why is it being introduced so quickly, when there seems to be debate about its effectiveness in Outer London anyway?
See my post above.
Khan is using ULEZ as a stepping stone to introducing road pricing - you pay for every mile you drive - in London.
Seems like a good idea to me especially if it depends on the time of day you travel.
You can't do road pricing properly with cameras, it doesn't work, you need a national system linked to in car tracking.
So the big change will be when HM Gov decides to move away from the current model of duty
Having an app on your phone that you would switch on when driving in london is one system being considered by Khan's officials.
Cameras would be used on the enforcement side.
You should see the list of tech people consider and then don't proceed with, the same thinking is going on in the Treasury and DVLA, as the current system isn't sustainable long term.
There needs to be a solution both on fuel (although charging at public charging attracts 20% VAT) and VED come 2035, otherwise, you have a hole in budgets.
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.
This. The need to refresh the TFL coffers will no doubt see the goalposts shift where non compliant vehicles from 2006 will probably then become a rolling 12 months 2007 the next year etc to keep a continuous steady stream of cash flowing in.
Like with the Dartford crossing once the income stream is started it doesn't stop.
The year of manufacture doesn't come into the calculations. It's the vehicle emissions. 2006 is when the lower emission engines were introduced.
Correct yes that might be how the calculation is derived now but if/when the money dries up I'll be amazed if the method doesn't change to something like year of manufacture instead. Whatever the method once the income starts coming in it'll continue in one guise or another.
I suggested a rolling year could happen as I think one way or another it'll continue until we reach the point in the future where any non-electric car is charged.
Hopefully all the electric cars will be charged too. Otherwise the streets will be littered with them.
If it ceases to be profitable it doesn't bale out TfL's finances.
Correct to an extent.
When ULEZ ceases to be profitable, do you think all the cameras and infrastructure around it will simply be abandoned?
Of course not. Those cameras will then form the bedrock of a road pricing scheme Khan is intending to bring in.
Just remember those charges will be additional to the VED and Fuel Duty motorists already pay.
I’d be happy with a road pricing scheme if the ‘road tax/vehicle emissions tax’ was abolished. But only if, and it’s a big IF, the charge per mile was very small, so that the average motorist would end up paying roughly the same as they do now.
I’ve always though it was an unfair system, charging motorists exactly the same, no matter how much or how little, they use their car. Plenty of old people who hardly use their cars at all paying the same as people who uses their cars every day doesn’t make sense.
Don’t shoot the messenger, but I suspect it’ll be the norm around the world in ten years or so.
Quiet a bit of the ULEZ money is going into improvements like Superloop
Yep. 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?
Superloop 7 has been running for years, it was known as X26 before. Same with Superloop 6 which just replaces the existing X68 route
Doesn't the superloops miss some of the stops on that route. Loop 5 Croydon to Bromley goes runs the same route as the 119 to monks orchard, but doesn't stop at all the stops
Think its staying the same, i've never been on it but its i believe the longest bus route in London, even longer than the N89, which feels like a whole nights travel
If it ceases to be profitable it doesn't bale out TfL's finances.
Correct to an extent.
When ULEZ ceases to be profitable, do you think all the cameras and infrastructure around it will simply be abandoned?
Of course not. Those cameras will then form the bedrock of a road pricing scheme Khan is intending to bring in.
Just remember those charges will be additional to the VED and Fuel Duty motorists already pay.
I’d be happy with a road pricing scheme if the ‘road tax/vehicle emissions tax’ was abolished. But only if, and it’s a big IF, the charge per mile was very small, so that the average motorist would end up paying roughly the same as they do now.
I’ve always though it was an unfair system, charging motorists exactly the same, no matter how much or how little, they use their car. Plenty of old people who hardly use their cars at all paying the same as people who uses their cars every day doesn’t make sense.
Don’t shoot the messenger, but I suspect it’ll be the norm around the world in ten years or so.
Will technology evolve so that the fuel duty can be appended to the electricity tariff for both charge at home and street / car park charging points?
I'm pretty sure my smart meter / app already seeks to categorise what I'm using electric on for example - lighting v cooking so imagine that could detect car charging potentially?
So I've worked it out today and my polluting vehicle that I won't be driving from Tuesday. Has racked up a high polluting 2000 miles over the last 2 years. Me breaking wind has probably had more effect on the environment than the car.
So I've worked it out today and my polluting vehicle that I won't be driving from Tuesday. Has racked up a high polluting 2000 miles over the last 2 years. Me breaking wind has probably had more effect on the environment than the car.
If you really cared about the environment you'd buy a V8 Range Rover like Khan.
So I've worked it out today and my polluting vehicle that I won't be driving from Tuesday. Has racked up a high polluting 2000 miles over the last 2 years. Me breaking wind has probably had more effect on the environment than the car.
If you really cared about the environment you'd buy a V8 Range Rover like Khan.
Ain't all bad. If I use the car 5 times a week. With the ulez charge it will cost me £3.25 a mile.
I’d be happy with a road pricing scheme if the ‘road tax/vehicle emissions tax’ was abolished. But only if, and it’s a big IF, the charge per mile was very small, so that the average motorist would end up paying roughly the same as they do now.
I’ve always though it was an unfair system, charging motorists exactly the same, no matter how much or how little, they use their car. Plenty of old people who hardly use their cars at all paying the same as people who uses their cars every day doesn’t make sense.
Don’t shoot the messenger, but I suspect it’ll be the norm around the world in ten years or so.
I definately think a road pricing system is the way ahead once the technology is there. If sophisticated enough charges would vary depending on congestion of the road, emissions and the weight of the vehicle (SUVs damage road sufaces way more than superminis)
I’d be happy with a road pricing scheme if the ‘road tax/vehicle emissions tax’ was abolished. But only if, and it’s a big IF, the charge per mile was very small, so that the average motorist would end up paying roughly the same as they do now.
I’ve always though it was an unfair system, charging motorists exactly the same, no matter how much or how little, they use their car. Plenty of old people who hardly use their cars at all paying the same as people who uses their cars every day doesn’t make sense.
Don’t shoot the messenger, but I suspect it’ll be the norm around the world in ten years or so.
I definately think a road pricing system is the way ahead once the technology is there. If sophisticated enough charges would vary depending on congestion of the road, emissions and the weight of the vehicle (SUVs damage road sufaces way more than superminis)
But electric vehicles are way heavier than the equivalent ICE vehicle. For example, the Folgore version of the Maserati GranTurismo is 305kg heavier than the petrol version.
This will be rolled out Nationwide eventually (and made much more stringent). When you can no longer buy New petrol cars, people will be taxed/charged/forced out of their "old" petrol/diesel cars (which otherwise people will hold on to) and on to electric/public transport).
My old diesel van doesn’t comply. I go to Ilford once a week and have only just twigged that it will be in the new zone! No worries, Mr Tatters’ smoke blowing ‘historic vehicle’ (1972 Land Rover) is exempt.
I’d be happy with a road pricing scheme if the ‘road tax/vehicle emissions tax’ was abolished. But only if, and it’s a big IF, the charge per mile was very small, so that the average motorist would end up paying roughly the same as they do now.
I’ve always though it was an unfair system, charging motorists exactly the same, no matter how much or how little, they use their car. Plenty of old people who hardly use their cars at all paying the same as people who uses their cars every day doesn’t make sense.
Don’t shoot the messenger, but I suspect it’ll be the norm around the world in ten years or so.
I definately think a road pricing system is the way ahead once the technology is there. If sophisticated enough charges would vary depending on congestion of the road, emissions and the weight of the vehicle (SUVs damage road sufaces way more than superminis)
But electric vehicles are way heavier than the equivalent ICE vehicle. For example, the Folgore version of the Maserati GranTurismo is 305kg heavier than the petrol version.
I think the future of taxation on vehicles will be some form of per mile and by weight of vehicle which isn't unreasonable. As for electric cars and how much damage they do as far as I know there's not been any serious research conducted so far, they are definitely heavier than ICE equivalents but that weight is much more evenly distributed so I don't think it's simply twice as heavy = twice as damaging.
Comments
Loop 5 Croydon to Bromley goes runs the same route as the 119 to monks orchard, but doesn't stop at all the stops
The same with Superloop 8 - The existing 607 route
Like with the Dartford crossing once the income stream is started it doesn't stop.
You have stated that a non-smoking resident of London is 1,000 times more likely to get non-smoking related lung cancer than someone living outside of London. In the context of this thread the logical conclusion is a direct link between that statistic and vehicle emissions in London (whether those vehicles are ULEZ compliant or not).
A quick review of the term "incidents of non smoking lung cancer in the UK by region" throws up a few articles and reports covering a number of methodologies and sample sizes across different time-frames, none of which, based on my interpretation of the data or reading of the articles, concludes that someone living in London is 1,000 times more likely to get non-smoking related lung cancer, in spite of or because of vehicle emissions. Vehicle emissions are of course a factor alongside others such as age, ethnicity, family history, income, demographic, education etc etc in incidents of non smoking related lung cancer.
If the BBC article you talk about is correct in its assertion, then I'll shut up and accept that Khan's policy is the right one, as that is a remarkable statistic that I'm surprised hasn't been at the centre of the debate.
I suggested a rolling year could happen as I think one way or another it'll continue until we reach the point in the future where any non-electric car is charged.
If the number of polluting vehicles is so small then surely many of these will drop of the radar in the next few years anyway, through people upgrading, elderly car owners with older cars sadly passing away and cars that are reaching the end of life.
This is partly backed up by the profitability of the scheme dropping.
Therefore, why is it being introduced so quickly, when there seems to be debate about its effectiveness in Outer London anyway?
When ULEZ ceases to be profitable, do you think all the cameras and infrastructure around it will simply be abandoned?
Of course not. Those cameras will then form the bedrock of a road pricing scheme Khan is intending to bring in.
Just remember those charges will be additional to the VED and Fuel Duty motorists already pay.
Khan is using ULEZ as a stepping stone to introducing road pricing - you pay for every mile you drive - in London.
Like just about everything else in life!
So the big change will be when HM Gov decides to move away from the current model of duty
Cameras would be used on the enforcement side.
There needs to be a solution both on fuel (although charging at public charging attracts 20% VAT) and VED come 2035, otherwise, you have a hole in budgets.
Otherwise the streets will be littered with them.
I'm pretty sure my smart meter / app already seeks to categorise what I'm using electric on for example - lighting v cooking so imagine that could detect car charging potentially?
Has racked up a high polluting 2000 miles over the last 2 years.
Me breaking wind has probably had more effect on the environment than the car.
If I use the car 5 times a week.
With the ulez charge it will cost me £3.25 a mile.
But electric vehicles are way heavier than the equivalent ICE vehicle. For example, the Folgore version of the Maserati GranTurismo is 305kg heavier than the petrol version.