We haven't seen any more MI (I don't believe) yet on fines issued/ income received (not just billed) - where the non compliant cars are registered , # of repeat offenders etc.
I think this analysis will be interesting to see the impact it is having whilst we must necessarily wait longer for any material change confirmed in air quality.
There is data I saw a while back about the take up of the scrappage scheme which showed people making the choices the ULEZ is there to incentivise.
I remain nervous it wont be cash positive for very long - that's my interest - and in todays world of 'big data' I'm surprised MI isn't shared more frequently
Uptake of the scrappage scheme make it more likely that it won't be cash positive.
It's stated aims aren't around being cash positive but around air quality. That's what we should be measuring it against. If it loses money but improves air quality to safer levels then that's still a win in my view.
BUT the cost is a part of the equation given the fragile economy and cannot be ignored when measured against how much of an improvement we actually see in outer London. My cynicism says the air pollution might only be a marginal gain and which may have naturally evolved anyway as people generally adopt newer vehicles.
Regardless I still think the data will be interesting to see and don't really known why its not shared / published more often.
PS If its not about the money (at all) I assume the profit (not revenue) could be given to charity / good causes?
If one single life is saved (yes that may be tricky to prove without statistics) because of the ULEZ expansion leading to some improvement in air quality, is that a ‘marginal’ gain or a substantial worthwhile gain?
We haven't seen any more MI (I don't believe) yet on fines issued/ income received (not just billed) - where the non compliant cars are registered , # of repeat offenders etc.
I think this analysis will be interesting to see the impact it is having whilst we must necessarily wait longer for any material change confirmed in air quality.
There is data I saw a while back about the take up of the scrappage scheme which showed people making the choices the ULEZ is there to incentivise.
I remain nervous it wont be cash positive for very long - that's my interest - and in todays world of 'big data' I'm surprised MI isn't shared more frequently
Uptake of the scrappage scheme make it more likely that it won't be cash positive.
It's stated aims aren't around being cash positive but around air quality. That's what we should be measuring it against. If it loses money but improves air quality to safer levels then that's still a win in my view.
BUT the cost is a part of the equation given the fragile economy and cannot be ignored when measured against how much of an improvement we actually see in outer London. My cynicism says the air pollution might only be a marginal gain and which may have naturally evolved anyway as people generally adopt newer vehicles.
Regardless I still think the data will be interesting to see and don't really known why its not shared / published more often.
PS If its not about the money (at all) I assume the profit (not revenue) could be given to charity / good causes?
No saying it isn't about money at all but the stated aims are about air quality first and foremost. Its an interesting one where success means less revenue over time.
Just driven past the junction of Court Road and Spur Road in Orpington. Both ULEZ cameras lying in the road. Looks like someone has taken an angle grinder to them.
There's been a serious accident just down the road from there now apparently at the junction with Ramsden Road. I totally get people's anger but cutting down traffic lights is bloody ridiculous.
Just driven past the junction of Court Road and Spur Road in Orpington. Both ULEZ cameras lying in the road. Looks like someone has taken an angle grinder to them.
There's been a serious accident just down the road from there now apparently at the junction with Ramsden Road. I totally get people's anger but cutting down traffic lights is bloody ridiculous.
Totally agree with you
I never said I agreed with cutting down the cameras, mearly saying what I'd seen.
Just driven past the junction of Court Road and Spur Road in Orpington. Both ULEZ cameras lying in the road. Looks like someone has taken an angle grinder to them.
There's been a serious accident just down the road from there now apparently at the junction with Ramsden Road. I totally get people's anger but cutting down traffic lights is bloody ridiculous.
Totally agree with you
I never said I agreed with cutting down the cameras, mearly saying what I'd seen.
No problem/issue here sir
Tbh, I'm shocked that people are taking matters into their own hands.
Traffic light on the floor on the junstion of Sevenoaks Way and Poverest Road outside my shop, Chislehurst War memorial yesterday seems like they are upping the anti round here
Those who destroy the cameras seem to believe that money is more important than the lives of the people, especially children. I wonder if those camera activists hate the activity of the Just Stop Oil activists.
I'd bet a large amount those responsible for the vandalism/destruction of public property, and those that support it or are ambivalent towards it, would have a proper hissyfit if JSO started cutting down traffic lights as a tactic.
We haven't seen any more MI (I don't believe) yet on fines issued/ income received (not just billed) - where the non compliant cars are registered , # of repeat offenders etc.
I think this analysis will be interesting to see the impact it is having whilst we must necessarily wait longer for any material change confirmed in air quality.
There is data I saw a while back about the take up of the scrappage scheme which showed people making the choices the ULEZ is there to incentivise.
I remain nervous it wont be cash positive for very long - that's my interest - and in todays world of 'big data' I'm surprised MI isn't shared more frequently
Uptake of the scrappage scheme make it more likely that it won't be cash positive.
It's stated aims aren't around being cash positive but around air quality. That's what we should be measuring it against. If it loses money but improves air quality to safer levels then that's still a win in my view.
BUT the cost is a part of the equation given the fragile economy and cannot be ignored when measured against how much of an improvement we actually see in outer London. My cynicism says the air pollution might only be a marginal gain and which may have naturally evolved anyway as people generally adopt newer vehicles.
Regardless I still think the data will be interesting to see and don't really known why its not shared / published more often.
PS If it’s not about the money (at all) I assume the profit (not revenue) could be given to charity / good causes?
Any revenue is being spend on new bus routes using cleaner buses.
This isn’t a corporation where shareholders are paid dividends and where the CEO is in a profit related bonus scheme.
But I understand your cynicism, based on what’s going on elsewhere in politics.
If one single life is saved (yes that may be tricky to prove without statistics) because of the ULEZ expansion leading to some improvement in air quality, is that a ‘marginal’ gain or a substantial worthwhile gain?
Sadly we cant ignore the ongoing cost - otherwise we would not have any issues with the NHS etc.
We have to consider the financials - I am discussing the cost to the taxpayer of the ongoing infrastructure and vendor support NOT the fees paid by the motorist.
We haven't seen any more MI (I don't believe) yet on fines issued/ income received (not just billed) - where the non compliant cars are registered , # of repeat offenders etc.
I think this analysis will be interesting to see the impact it is having whilst we must necessarily wait longer for any material change confirmed in air quality.
There is data I saw a while back about the take up of the scrappage scheme which showed people making the choices the ULEZ is there to incentivise.
I remain nervous it wont be cash positive for very long - that's my interest - and in todays world of 'big data' I'm surprised MI isn't shared more frequently
Uptake of the scrappage scheme make it more likely that it won't be cash positive.
It's stated aims aren't around being cash positive but around air quality. That's what we should be measuring it against. If it loses money but improves air quality to safer levels then that's still a win in my view.
BUT the cost is a part of the equation given the fragile economy and cannot be ignored when measured against how much of an improvement we actually see in outer London. My cynicism says the air pollution might only be a marginal gain and which may have naturally evolved anyway as people generally adopt newer vehicles.
Regardless I still think the data will be interesting to see and don't really known why its not shared / published more often.
PS If it’s not about the money (at all) I assume the profit (not revenue) could be given to charity / good causes?
Any revenue is being spend on new bus routes using cleaner buses.
This isn’t a corporation where shareholders are paid dividends and where the CEO is in a profit related bonus scheme.
But I understand your cynicism, based on what’s going on elsewhere in politics.
I realise that is stated - the issue is the funding model is broken as we seemingly cant invest in maintaining 'clean' buses etc without this income.
We haven't seen any more MI (I don't believe) yet on fines issued/ income received (not just billed) - where the non compliant cars are registered , # of repeat offenders etc.
I think this analysis will be interesting to see the impact it is having whilst we must necessarily wait longer for any material change confirmed in air quality.
There is data I saw a while back about the take up of the scrappage scheme which showed people making the choices the ULEZ is there to incentivise.
I remain nervous it wont be cash positive for very long - that's my interest - and in todays world of 'big data' I'm surprised MI isn't shared more frequently
Uptake of the scrappage scheme make it more likely that it won't be cash positive.
It's stated aims aren't around being cash positive but around air quality. That's what we should be measuring it against. If it loses money but improves air quality to safer levels then that's still a win in my view.
BUT the cost is a part of the equation given the fragile economy and cannot be ignored when measured against how much of an improvement we actually see in outer London. My cynicism says the air pollution might only be a marginal gain and which may have naturally evolved anyway as people generally adopt newer vehicles.
Regardless I still think the data will be interesting to see and don't really known why its not shared / published more often.
PS If it’s not about the money (at all) I assume the profit (not revenue) could be given to charity / good causes?
Any revenue is being spend on new bus routes using cleaner buses.
This isn’t a corporation where shareholders are paid dividends and where the CEO is in a profit related bonus scheme.
But I understand your cynicism, based on what’s going on elsewhere in politics.
I realise that is stated - the issue is the funding model is broken as we seemingly cant invest in maintaining 'clean' buses etc without this income.
Seems like quite a good way of funding them to me, after central government cut funding to London.
We haven't seen any more MI (I don't believe) yet on fines issued/ income received (not just billed) - where the non compliant cars are registered , # of repeat offenders etc.
I think this analysis will be interesting to see the impact it is having whilst we must necessarily wait longer for any material change confirmed in air quality.
There is data I saw a while back about the take up of the scrappage scheme which showed people making the choices the ULEZ is there to incentivise.
I remain nervous it wont be cash positive for very long - that's my interest - and in todays world of 'big data' I'm surprised MI isn't shared more frequently
Uptake of the scrappage scheme make it more likely that it won't be cash positive.
It's stated aims aren't around being cash positive but around air quality. That's what we should be measuring it against. If it loses money but improves air quality to safer levels then that's still a win in my view.
BUT the cost is a part of the equation given the fragile economy and cannot be ignored when measured against how much of an improvement we actually see in outer London. My cynicism says the air pollution might only be a marginal gain and which may have naturally evolved anyway as people generally adopt newer vehicles.
Regardless I still think the data will be interesting to see and don't really known why its not shared / published more often.
PS If it’s not about the money (at all) I assume the profit (not revenue) could be given to charity / good causes?
Any revenue is being spend on new bus routes using cleaner buses.
This isn’t a corporation where shareholders are paid dividends and where the CEO is in a profit related bonus scheme.
But I understand your cynicism, based on what’s going on elsewhere in politics.
I realise that is stated - the issue is the funding model is broken as we seemingly cant invest in maintaining 'clean' buses etc without this income.
Seems like quite a good way of funding them to me, after central government cut funding to London.
I agree in most part - its the less than honest statements around it that annoy. Just be claer and say we want to improve air quality AND we want (need?) the income.
BUT we digress - I still wonder when we see some more MI around the fines / # of cars, repeat offenders, revenue actually collected etc.?
If one single life is saved (yes that may be tricky to prove without statistics) because of the ULEZ expansion leading to some improvement in air quality, is that a ‘marginal’ gain or a substantial worthwhile gain?
Sadly we cant ignore the ongoing cost - otherwise we would not have any issues with the NHS etc.
We have to consider the financials - I am discussing the cost to the taxpayer of the ongoing infrastructure and vendor support NOT the fees paid by the motorist.
If it is about cost/benefit analysis is there a point where either costs are too high or deaths are too high?
Those who destroy the cameras seem to believe that money is more important than the lives of the people, especially children. I wonder if those camera activists hate the activity of the Just Stop Oil activists.
I'd bet a large amount those responsible for the vandalism/destruction of public property, and those that support it or are ambivalent towards it, would have a proper hissyfit if JSO started cutting down traffic lights as a tactic.
Absolutely, but as most threads with any form of political basis will show you, we are all hypocrites to a degree. The issue seems to be self awareness!
Camera outside Orpington Station has been cut down It appears Orpington was targeted last night. While I don't really have an option on ULEZ one way or the other, one thing I would like to see is when the people responsible for cutting the cameras down are caught they should have to pay the cost of replacing them as well as a fine. Why should the cost of replacing them be passed onto TFL. Then the cost passed on to the general public. Heavy fines alone are not enough.
If one single life is saved (yes that may be tricky to prove without statistics) because of the ULEZ expansion leading to some improvement in air quality, is that a ‘marginal’ gain or a substantial worthwhile gain?
There's over 1600 car related deaths a year. Should we do away with cars altogether?
If one single life is saved (yes that may be tricky to prove without statistics) because of the ULEZ expansion leading to some improvement in air quality, is that a ‘marginal’ gain or a substantial worthwhile gain?
There's over 1600 car related deaths a year. Should we do away with cars altogether?
People driving cars take a calculated risk, and that’s fine. You can always choose not to drive if you want to reduce that risk to zero.
If one single life is saved (yes that may be tricky to prove without statistics) because of the ULEZ expansion leading to some improvement in air quality, is that a ‘marginal’ gain or a substantial worthwhile gain?
There's over 1600 car related deaths a year. Should we do away with cars altogether?
People driving cars take a calculated risk, and that’s fine. You can always choose not to drive if you want to reduce that risk to zero.
People breathing don’t have that choice.
What about pedestrians...?
We could also spend billions making all tube stations like the jubilee line ones with glass frontage, would reduce suicides on tube lines significantly.
Anyone who pretends there isn't a cost benefit analysis involved, is either willfully (or in many more cases) actually stupid.
Yes, I agree that there will be evidence of improvement. If that happens it can be peer reviewed to assess how much improvement there has been. It might even turn out to have reduced fatalities due to polluted air.
We heard the explosion from Welling. Drove past the van in that video a few days later after the road had reopened and it was proper fucked. If that van hadn't been there and anyone had been in the path of the debris they would be dead. Whoever is responsible is an absolute moron and needs to be locked up.
They arrested a couple of men from miles away, 60 & 61 years old. They must be seriously unhinged, assuming they did it. At their age, if convicted they are never going to pay a congestion or ULEZ charge again in their lives. Causing explosions you normally quite righty have the keys thrown away.
There should be some legal repercussions for whoever 'radicalised' these scumbags too.
Loaded phrase or not, men in their early 60's don't suddenly decide, off their own back, to start making IED's and using them on our streets.
If one single life is saved (yes that may be tricky to prove without statistics) because of the ULEZ expansion leading to some improvement in air quality, is that a ‘marginal’ gain or a substantial worthwhile gain?
Sadly we cant ignore the ongoing cost - otherwise we would not have any issues with the NHS etc.
We have to consider the financials - I am discussing the cost to the taxpayer of the ongoing infrastructure and vendor support NOT the fees paid by the motorist.
If it is about cost/benefit analysis is there a point where either costs are too high or deaths are too high?
If anybody is really interested in cost benefit analysis consider the case of the Ford Pinto. In short something like a ten dollar retrofit, or fit on all the dangerous cars they made was thought not to be worth it because only a few families would be wiped out and the compensation would work out cheaper.
Comments
Put up dummy cameras and conceal the real ones if possible.
Regardless I still think the data will be interesting to see and don't really known why its not shared / published more often.
PS If its not about the money (at all) I assume the profit (not revenue) could be given to charity / good causes?
The view from Shooters Hill on Tuesday. In the past the buildings would have been covered in a haze. Tell me ULEZ isn't working.
I totally get people's anger but cutting down traffic lights is bloody ridiculous.
I never said I agreed with cutting down the cameras, mearly saying what I'd seen.
Tbh, I'm shocked that people are taking matters into their own hands.
We have to consider the financials - I am discussing the cost to the taxpayer of the ongoing infrastructure and vendor support NOT the fees paid by the motorist.
The view from Plumstead this afternoon, tell me that ULEZ is working.
BUT we digress - I still wonder when we see some more MI around the fines / # of cars, repeat offenders, revenue actually collected etc.?
It appears Orpington was targeted last night.
While I don't really have an option on ULEZ one way or the other, one thing I would like to see is when the people responsible for cutting the cameras down are caught they should have to pay the cost of replacing them as well as a fine.
Why should the cost of replacing them be passed onto TFL.
Then the cost passed on to the general public.
Heavy fines alone are not enough.
Should we do away with cars altogether?
We could also spend billions making all tube stations like the jubilee line ones with glass frontage, would reduce suicides on tube lines significantly.
Anyone who pretends there isn't a cost benefit analysis involved, is either willfully (or in many more cases) actually stupid.
In short something like a ten dollar retrofit, or fit on all the dangerous cars they made was thought not to be worth it because only a few families would be wiped out and the compensation would work out cheaper.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto
Cost benefit considerations should also be wrapped up in moral considerations.
Anybody who only focuses on cost benefit analysis is either wilfully immoral or actually deeply nasty.