Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
ULEZ Checker
Comments
-
Like getting 95% in an exam and claiming it's a failure. Expect pictures of Biggin Hill Wildlife if the report states it's reduced pollution in outer London. For some no explanation is possible.JamesSeed said:
Yes apparently that particular LTN never worked, which is why it's been scrapped.clive said:JamesSeed said:Not ULEZ, but sort of related?Rishi Sunak’s report finds low-traffic neighbourhoods work and are popularhttps://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/08/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-generally-popular-report-ordered-by-sunak-findsLTN scrapped after three-mile bus journey took two hours
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/07/ltn-scrapped-lambeth-london-bus-journey-hours/
Delays in low-traffic zones ‘could be risking lives’
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/#section-news
A low traffic neighbourhood (LTN) scheme is to be scrapped after being blamed for causing horrendous congestion on a main road in south London.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/low-traffic-neighbourhood-lambeth-bus-sadiq-khan-b1143732.htmlStreatham LTN trial suspended after lengthy bus delays
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68511760
That doesn't mean Sunak's report into LTN's was flawed. With a scheme like this there are always likely to be one or two that don't work, but the report finds that overall they do work, and are popular.1 -
I am only referring to the latest extension.JamesSeed said:
Outer London. I live near Clapham Common, outside the original ULEZ zone, a hundred yards or so from the South Circular. I'm now in the new ULEZ zone and the air, while still not perfect, seems quite a bit better than it used to, and a lot better than it was pre the original ULEZ.valleynick66 said:
Yes but how it was done in outer London is my point.seth plum said:Perhaps it is a naive assumption but isn’t the aim to try and get cleaner air everywhere?
The journey of 1000 miles starting with a single step as it were.Minimal notice, very expensive at the wrong time - post Covid , mid cost of living pressures. That’s it really.
I think the argument is done and dusted really, and while they could have delayed it to
a) give more notice (I thought there was enough notice myself)
b) make it less post Covid,
c) allow timefor cost of living pressures ease, there's always a danger that those pressures don't ease, and endless delays would have led to increasing costs.
And like with LTNs, I suspect a report further down the line will find that ULEZ is genarally popular with the public, the silent majority who have been drowned out by the very vocal anti ULEZ lobby, some of whom are now resorting to violence and vandalism. It's almost like they've been brainwashed.Also regarding ‘notice’ look at Vapes in this weeks budget. Some considerable lead in time there for people (retailers?) to prepare / adjust even though we likely both agree these should be controlled more strongly than they are today.0 -
-
Interesting. It remains my fear the expanded ULEZ will become a cash negative all too quickly.shirty5 said:0 -
Let's get this straightvalleynick66 said:
Interesting. It remains my fear the expanded ULEZ will become a cash negative all too quickly.shirty5 said:
You've criticised it for being only a money raising exercise.
You've criticised it for being too strict but also for not being a blanket ban on polluting vehicles
You've criticised it for being implemented too quickly (despite the first city hall discussions and press coverage starting 2 and a half years before implementation, formal announcement more than a year before and a delay to implementation to allow more to use the scrappage scheme).
And now you're criticising it for not making enough money? Which us also an indicator its working
Me thinks you're just looking for reasons not to like it!4 -
The timing is a direct result of Boris's childish political revenge buggering of TfL's finances because he lost the London Mayoral gravy train position in a straight fight with Sadiqvalleynick66 said:
Yes but how it was done in outer London is my point.seth plum said:Perhaps it is a naive assumption but isn’t the aim to try and get cleaner air everywhere?
The journey of 1000 miles starting with a single step as it were.Minimal notice, very expensive at the wrong time - post Covid , mid cost of living pressures. That’s it really.
No ULEZ expansion meant no TfL cos Boris only loaned the money to keep TfL afloat when Covid collapsed the daily revenue, at the same time No.10 was literally bulldozing billions into the pockets of business owners large and small - TfL has to give back all the covid 'support'. A 21st century gun to the head bargain.4 -
Suspect TfL are also looking at getting through 1) the mayoral election and 2) the general election, if as I expect Khan wins, and their is a Labour Government, I suspect the financial pain will be made less worseBilly_Mix said:
The timing is a direct result of Boris's childish political revenge buggering of TfL's finances because he lost the London Mayoral gravy train position in a straight fight with Sadiqvalleynick66 said:
Yes but how it was done in outer London is my point.seth plum said:Perhaps it is a naive assumption but isn’t the aim to try and get cleaner air everywhere?
The journey of 1000 miles starting with a single step as it were.Minimal notice, very expensive at the wrong time - post Covid , mid cost of living pressures. That’s it really.
No ULEZ expansion meant no TfL cos Boris only loaned the money to keep TfL afloat when Covid collapsed the daily revenue, at the same time No.10 was literally bulldozing billions into the pockets of business owners large and small - TfL has to give back all the covid 'support'. A 21st century gun to the head bargain.0 -
Didnt Khan beat Zac Goldsmith in this 1st election win?Billy_Mix said:
The timing is a direct result of Boris's childish political revenge buggering of TfL's finances because he lost the London Mayoral gravy train position in a straight fight with Sadiqvalleynick66 said:
Yes but how it was done in outer London is my point.seth plum said:Perhaps it is a naive assumption but isn’t the aim to try and get cleaner air everywhere?
The journey of 1000 miles starting with a single step as it were.Minimal notice, very expensive at the wrong time - post Covid , mid cost of living pressures. That’s it really.
No ULEZ expansion meant no TfL cos Boris only loaned the money to keep TfL afloat when Covid collapsed the daily revenue, at the same time No.10 was literally bulldozing billions into the pockets of business owners large and small - TfL has to give back all the covid 'support'. A 21st century gun to the head bargain.0 -
Incorrect summary.cantersaddick said:
Let's get this straightvalleynick66 said:
Interesting. It remains my fear the expanded ULEZ will become a cash negative all too quickly.shirty5 said:
You've criticised it for being only a money raising exercise.
You've criticised it for being too strict but also for not being a blanket ban on polluting vehicles
You've criticised it for being implemented too quickly (despite the first city hall discussions and press coverage starting 2 and a half years before implementation, formal announcement more than a year before and a delay to implementation to allow more to use the scrappage scheme).
And now you're criticising it for not making enough money? Which us also an indicator its working
Me thinks you're just looking for reasons not to like it!I do believe it may end up
being cost negative too soon and have said that more than once. My fear is it will too soon be a cost as drivers change behaviour quickly or we will fail to actually get the fines levied relative to the costs of implementation and outsourcing (I assume) the maintenance of the associated processes.I do believe it was introduced in the wrong way at the wrong time. Outer London did not get much notice and a time of a cost of living ‘crisis’. It was announced in November 22 and Implemented in august 23. I’m not aware of any delay for the scrappage scheme.
I do believe it must have some impact on air quality (how can it not?) but I think it may end up being marginal as natural churn of vehicles and the trickle down benefit of existing ULEZ boundaries brings that to a degree.I don’t think I’ve ever said it should be a blanket ban.If I originally said it’s a revenue generating scheme that’s because I think that is the real driver (for outer London) by this current leadership . That is not the same as my fear it may end up being cost negative all too soon.1 -
Billy_Mix said:
The timing is a direct result of Boris's childish political revenge buggering of TfL's finances because he lost the London Mayoral gravy train position in a straight fight with Sadiqvalleynick66 said:
Yes but how it was done in outer London is my point.seth plum said:Perhaps it is a naive assumption but isn’t the aim to try and get cleaner air everywhere?
The journey of 1000 miles starting with a single step as it were.Minimal notice, very expensive at the wrong time - post Covid , mid cost of living pressures. That’s it really.
No ULEZ expansion meant no TfL cos Boris only loaned the money to keep TfL afloat when Covid collapsed the daily revenue, at the same time No.10 was literally bulldozing billions into the pockets of business owners large and small - TfL has to give back all the covid 'support'. A 21st century gun to the head bargain.
That may be true I don’t really know well enough the financial model for TFL and what other options they may or may not have had.Billy_Mix said:
The timing is a direct result of Boris's childish political revenge buggering of TfL's finances because he lost the London Mayoral gravy train position in a straight fight with Sadiqvalleynick66 said:
Yes but how it was done in outer London is my point.seth plum said:Perhaps it is a naive assumption but isn’t the aim to try and get cleaner air everywhere?
The journey of 1000 miles starting with a single step as it were.Minimal notice, very expensive at the wrong time - post Covid , mid cost of living pressures. That’s it really.
No ULEZ expansion meant no TfL cos Boris only loaned the money to keep TfL afloat when Covid collapsed the daily revenue, at the same time No.10 was literally bulldozing billions into the pockets of business owners large and small - TfL has to give back all the covid 'support'. A 21st century gun to the head bargain.But nonetheless my point remains it was relatively short notice for Outer London and that has been brushed over by this current mayoral regime - it could and should have been introduced more gradually or simply told straight we are doing this as the only way to plug a financial hole. Stop the spin then as purely for air quality if that is not the case?1 - Sponsored links:
-
It's all a load of bollocks at the end of the day, don't fall for it.
Free school meals, where on earth can you get FREE FOOD?
Livingstone, Johnson and Khan all sold us lies and the voters just bent over and took it.
5 -
How much time would be sufficient, 5 years? Surely if you owned a car you would drive into inner London, therefore outer London had more time than an area that barely cared about ULEZ? Although in fairness the Tory couldn't run a propaganda campaign against it back then. Then there's the 90% of cars being compliant anyway factor. Seems to be a lot of fuss about not much when there are far bigger issues affecting Londoners.valleynick66 said:
Incorrect summary.cantersaddick said:
Let's get this straightvalleynick66 said:
Interesting. It remains my fear the expanded ULEZ will become a cash negative all too quickly.shirty5 said:
You've criticised it for being only a money raising exercise.
You've criticised it for being too strict but also for not being a blanket ban on polluting vehicles
You've criticised it for being implemented too quickly (despite the first city hall discussions and press coverage starting 2 and a half years before implementation, formal announcement more than a year before and a delay to implementation to allow more to use the scrappage scheme).
And now you're criticising it for not making enough money? Which us also an indicator its working
Me thinks you're just looking for reasons not to like it!I do believe it may end up
being cost negative too soon and have said that more than once. My fear is it will too soon be a cost as drivers change behaviour quickly or we will fail to actually get the fines levied relative to the costs of implementation and outsourcing (I assume) the maintenance of the associated processes.I do believe it was introduced in the wrong way at the wrong time. Outer London did not get much notice and a time of a cost of living ‘crisis’. It was announced in November 22 and Implemented in august 23. I’m not aware of any delay for the scrappage scheme.
I do believe it must have some impact on air quality (how can it not?) but I think it may end up being marginal as natural churn of vehicles and the trickle down benefit of existing ULEZ boundaries brings that to a degree.I don’t think I’ve ever said it should be a blanket ban.If I originally said it’s a revenue generating scheme that’s because I think that is the real driver (for outer London) by this current leadership . That is not the same as my fear it may end up being cost negative all too soon.
2 -
TFL are advertising the super loop buses are up and running now, but fail to mention the Grove Park to Canary Wharf one isn’t underway !!!!Clearly Khan is an utter lying bastard who wants my house, my life savings, my useable body parts and to grind my bones for glue.2
-
Eh?Friend Or Defoe said:
How much time would be sufficient, 5 years? Surely if you owned a car you would drive into inner London, therefore outer London had more time than an area that barely cared about ULEZ? Although in fairness the Tory couldn't run a propaganda campaign against it back then. Then there's the 90% of cars being compliant anyway factor. Seems to be a lot of fuss about not much when there are far bigger issues affecting Londoners.valleynick66 said:
Incorrect summary.cantersaddick said:
Let's get this straightvalleynick66 said:
Interesting. It remains my fear the expanded ULEZ will become a cash negative all too quickly.shirty5 said:
You've criticised it for being only a money raising exercise.
You've criticised it for being too strict but also for not being a blanket ban on polluting vehicles
You've criticised it for being implemented too quickly (despite the first city hall discussions and press coverage starting 2 and a half years before implementation, formal announcement more than a year before and a delay to implementation to allow more to use the scrappage scheme).
And now you're criticising it for not making enough money? Which us also an indicator its working
Me thinks you're just looking for reasons not to like it!I do believe it may end up
being cost negative too soon and have said that more than once. My fear is it will too soon be a cost as drivers change behaviour quickly or we will fail to actually get the fines levied relative to the costs of implementation and outsourcing (I assume) the maintenance of the associated processes.I do believe it was introduced in the wrong way at the wrong time. Outer London did not get much notice and a time of a cost of living ‘crisis’. It was announced in November 22 and Implemented in august 23. I’m not aware of any delay for the scrappage scheme.
I do believe it must have some impact on air quality (how can it not?) but I think it may end up being marginal as natural churn of vehicles and the trickle down benefit of existing ULEZ boundaries brings that to a degree.I don’t think I’ve ever said it should be a blanket ban.If I originally said it’s a revenue generating scheme that’s because I think that is the real driver (for outer London) by this current leadership . That is not the same as my fear it may end up being cost negative all too soon.I’ve not suggested 5 years but 9 months isn’t long if someone needs to save / adjust finances. Particularly when there is cost pressure more generally.The boundary for inner London does not mean living in outer London I must have entered it. If so little need to extend if air quality is already being positively influenced.Again my point is not the ultimate air quality gain just how it was implemented. It should either have been for less expensive fines initially to soften the blow or more notice.0 -
I asked a question and suggested 5 years.valleynick66 said:
Eh?Friend Or Defoe said:
How much time would be sufficient, 5 years? Surely if you owned a car you would drive into inner London, therefore outer London had more time than an area that barely cared about ULEZ? Although in fairness the Tory couldn't run a propaganda campaign against it back then. Then there's the 90% of cars being compliant anyway factor. Seems to be a lot of fuss about not much when there are far bigger issues affecting Londoners.valleynick66 said:
Incorrect summary.cantersaddick said:
Let's get this straightvalleynick66 said:
Interesting. It remains my fear the expanded ULEZ will become a cash negative all too quickly.shirty5 said:
You've criticised it for being only a money raising exercise.
You've criticised it for being too strict but also for not being a blanket ban on polluting vehicles
You've criticised it for being implemented too quickly (despite the first city hall discussions and press coverage starting 2 and a half years before implementation, formal announcement more than a year before and a delay to implementation to allow more to use the scrappage scheme).
And now you're criticising it for not making enough money? Which us also an indicator its working
Me thinks you're just looking for reasons not to like it!I do believe it may end up
being cost negative too soon and have said that more than once. My fear is it will too soon be a cost as drivers change behaviour quickly or we will fail to actually get the fines levied relative to the costs of implementation and outsourcing (I assume) the maintenance of the associated processes.I do believe it was introduced in the wrong way at the wrong time. Outer London did not get much notice and a time of a cost of living ‘crisis’. It was announced in November 22 and Implemented in august 23. I’m not aware of any delay for the scrappage scheme.
I do believe it must have some impact on air quality (how can it not?) but I think it may end up being marginal as natural churn of vehicles and the trickle down benefit of existing ULEZ boundaries brings that to a degree.I don’t think I’ve ever said it should be a blanket ban.If I originally said it’s a revenue generating scheme that’s because I think that is the real driver (for outer London) by this current leadership . That is not the same as my fear it may end up being cost negative all too soon.I’ve not suggested 5 years but 9 months isn’t long if someone needs to save / adjust finances. Particularly when there is cost pressure more generally.The boundary for inner London does not mean living in outer London I must have entered it. If so little need to extend if air quality is already being positively influenced.Again my point is not the ultimate air quality gain just how it was implemented. It should either have been for less expensive fines initially to soften the blow or more notice.
Not driving into inner London suggests not using the car that often. 🤔0 -
And I reject 5 years as a sensible notice period. 18 months perhaps?Friend Or Defoe said:
I asked a question and suggested 5 years.valleynick66 said:
Eh?Friend Or Defoe said:
How much time would be sufficient, 5 years? Surely if you owned a car you would drive into inner London, therefore outer London had more time than an area that barely cared about ULEZ? Although in fairness the Tory couldn't run a propaganda campaign against it back then. Then there's the 90% of cars being compliant anyway factor. Seems to be a lot of fuss about not much when there are far bigger issues affecting Londoners.valleynick66 said:
Incorrect summary.cantersaddick said:
Let's get this straightvalleynick66 said:
Interesting. It remains my fear the expanded ULEZ will become a cash negative all too quickly.shirty5 said:
You've criticised it for being only a money raising exercise.
You've criticised it for being too strict but also for not being a blanket ban on polluting vehicles
You've criticised it for being implemented too quickly (despite the first city hall discussions and press coverage starting 2 and a half years before implementation, formal announcement more than a year before and a delay to implementation to allow more to use the scrappage scheme).
And now you're criticising it for not making enough money? Which us also an indicator its working
Me thinks you're just looking for reasons not to like it!I do believe it may end up
being cost negative too soon and have said that more than once. My fear is it will too soon be a cost as drivers change behaviour quickly or we will fail to actually get the fines levied relative to the costs of implementation and outsourcing (I assume) the maintenance of the associated processes.I do believe it was introduced in the wrong way at the wrong time. Outer London did not get much notice and a time of a cost of living ‘crisis’. It was announced in November 22 and Implemented in august 23. I’m not aware of any delay for the scrappage scheme.
I do believe it must have some impact on air quality (how can it not?) but I think it may end up being marginal as natural churn of vehicles and the trickle down benefit of existing ULEZ boundaries brings that to a degree.I don’t think I’ve ever said it should be a blanket ban.If I originally said it’s a revenue generating scheme that’s because I think that is the real driver (for outer London) by this current leadership . That is not the same as my fear it may end up being cost negative all too soon.I’ve not suggested 5 years but 9 months isn’t long if someone needs to save / adjust finances. Particularly when there is cost pressure more generally.The boundary for inner London does not mean living in outer London I must have entered it. If so little need to extend if air quality is already being positively influenced.Again my point is not the ultimate air quality gain just how it was implemented. It should either have been for less expensive fines initially to soften the blow or more notice.
Not driving into inner London suggests not using the car that often. 🤔
Yes not driving that often as a good citizen. 😉 But also choosing to drive in the other direction where public transport less of an option.
0 -
seth plum said:TFL are advertising the super loop buses are up and running now, but fail to mention the Grove Park to Canary Wharf one isn’t underway !!!!Clearly Khan is an utter lying bastard who wants my house, my life savings, my useable body parts and to grind my bones for glue.
Their will be an additional charge for that1 -
Didn't actually come into effect until 31st October 2023 (there was a further period I think a week where people got a notification but not a charge) - was originally announced for August but was delayed to allow more time to take up scrappage scheme. So a year's notice from final confirmation. Again it was first discussed in city hall 18 months before that with continued press coverage throughout the period, so anyone in the area not living under a rock would have reasonably known about it for 2-2.5 years.valleynick66 said:
Eh?Friend Or Defoe said:
How much time would be sufficient, 5 years? Surely if you owned a car you would drive into inner London, therefore outer London had more time than an area that barely cared about ULEZ? Although in fairness the Tory couldn't run a propaganda campaign against it back then. Then there's the 90% of cars being compliant anyway factor. Seems to be a lot of fuss about not much when there are far bigger issues affecting Londoners.valleynick66 said:
Incorrect summary.cantersaddick said:
Let's get this straightvalleynick66 said:
Interesting. It remains my fear the expanded ULEZ will become a cash negative all too quickly.shirty5 said:
You've criticised it for being only a money raising exercise.
You've criticised it for being too strict but also for not being a blanket ban on polluting vehicles
You've criticised it for being implemented too quickly (despite the first city hall discussions and press coverage starting 2 and a half years before implementation, formal announcement more than a year before and a delay to implementation to allow more to use the scrappage scheme).
And now you're criticising it for not making enough money? Which us also an indicator its working
Me thinks you're just looking for reasons not to like it!I do believe it may end up
being cost negative too soon and have said that more than once. My fear is it will too soon be a cost as drivers change behaviour quickly or we will fail to actually get the fines levied relative to the costs of implementation and outsourcing (I assume) the maintenance of the associated processes.I do believe it was introduced in the wrong way at the wrong time. Outer London did not get much notice and a time of a cost of living ‘crisis’. It was announced in November 22 and Implemented in august 23. I’m not aware of any delay for the scrappage scheme.
I do believe it must have some impact on air quality (how can it not?) but I think it may end up being marginal as natural churn of vehicles and the trickle down benefit of existing ULEZ boundaries brings that to a degree.I don’t think I’ve ever said it should be a blanket ban.If I originally said it’s a revenue generating scheme that’s because I think that is the real driver (for outer London) by this current leadership . That is not the same as my fear it may end up being cost negative all too soon.I’ve not suggested 5 years but 9 months isn’t long if someone needs to save / adjust finances. Particularly when there is cost pressure more generally.The boundary for inner London does not mean living in outer London I must have entered it. If so little need to extend if air quality is already being positively influenced.Again my point is not the ultimate air quality gain just how it was implemented. It should either have been for less expensive fines initially to soften the blow or more notice.2 -
It was announced very clearly that the route would start next year when the Silvertown tunnels open.seth plum said:TFL are advertising the super loop buses are up and running now, but fail to mention the Grove Park to Canary Wharf one isn’t underway !!!!Clearly Khan is an utter lying bastard who wants my house, my life savings, my useable body parts and to grind my bones for glue.1 -
Crusty54 said:
Not on the adverts currently on the wireless.
It was announced very clearly that the route would start next year when the Silvertown tunnels open.seth plum said:TFL are advertising the super loop buses are up and running now, but fail to mention the Grove Park to Canary Wharf one isn’t underway !!!!Clearly Khan is an utter lying bastard who wants my house, my life savings, my useable body parts and to grind my bones for glue.
Utter shameless scum trying to completely ruin our lives.1 - Sponsored links:
-
It's been suspended rather than scrapped. I live near by and there's a lot anger about this in a solid Labour area. It was always a terrible ideea, pushed through in complete contravention of the results of consultation by a Councillor and an officer with no relevant qualifications in traffic management and without proper discussion with TfL or teh bus operators. They are now about to do the same in West Dulwich again despite overwhelming opposition from locals. LTNs can work but they need to be carefully thought through. Some are beng imposed on communities who don't want them for ideological reasons - and I say that as someone who cycles to work.JamesSeed said:
Yes apparently that particular LTN never worked, which is why it's been scrapped.clive said:JamesSeed said:Not ULEZ, but sort of related?Rishi Sunak’s report finds low-traffic neighbourhoods work and are popularhttps://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/08/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-generally-popular-report-ordered-by-sunak-findsLTN scrapped after three-mile bus journey took two hours
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/07/ltn-scrapped-lambeth-london-bus-journey-hours/
Delays in low-traffic zones ‘could be risking lives’
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/#section-news
A low traffic neighbourhood (LTN) scheme is to be scrapped after being blamed for causing horrendous congestion on a main road in south London.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/low-traffic-neighbourhood-lambeth-bus-sadiq-khan-b1143732.htmlStreatham LTN trial suspended after lengthy bus delays
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68511760
That doesn't mean Sunak's report into LTN's was flawed. With a scheme like this there are always likely to be one or two that don't work, but the report finds that overall they do work, and are popular.0 -
So the consultation period was a known smokescreen and pointless use i of taxpayer funds then?cantersaddick said:
Didn't actually come into effect until 31st October 2023 (there was a further period I think a week where people got a notification but not a charge) - was originally announced for August but was delayed to allow more time to take up scrappage scheme. So a year's notice from final confirmation. Again it was first discussed in city hall 18 months before that with continued press coverage throughout the period, so anyone in the area not living under a rock would have reasonably known about it for 2-2.5 years.valleynick66 said:
Eh?Friend Or Defoe said:
How much time would be sufficient, 5 years? Surely if you owned a car you would drive into inner London, therefore outer London had more time than an area that barely cared about ULEZ? Although in fairness the Tory couldn't run a propaganda campaign against it back then. Then there's the 90% of cars being compliant anyway factor. Seems to be a lot of fuss about not much when there are far bigger issues affecting Londoners.valleynick66 said:
Incorrect summary.cantersaddick said:
Let's get this straightvalleynick66 said:
Interesting. It remains my fear the expanded ULEZ will become a cash negative all too quickly.shirty5 said:
You've criticised it for being only a money raising exercise.
You've criticised it for being too strict but also for not being a blanket ban on polluting vehicles
You've criticised it for being implemented too quickly (despite the first city hall discussions and press coverage starting 2 and a half years before implementation, formal announcement more than a year before and a delay to implementation to allow more to use the scrappage scheme).
And now you're criticising it for not making enough money? Which us also an indicator its working
Me thinks you're just looking for reasons not to like it!I do believe it may end up
being cost negative too soon and have said that more than once. My fear is it will too soon be a cost as drivers change behaviour quickly or we will fail to actually get the fines levied relative to the costs of implementation and outsourcing (I assume) the maintenance of the associated processes.I do believe it was introduced in the wrong way at the wrong time. Outer London did not get much notice and a time of a cost of living ‘crisis’. It was announced in November 22 and Implemented in august 23. I’m not aware of any delay for the scrappage scheme.
I do believe it must have some impact on air quality (how can it not?) but I think it may end up being marginal as natural churn of vehicles and the trickle down benefit of existing ULEZ boundaries brings that to a degree.I don’t think I’ve ever said it should be a blanket ban.If I originally said it’s a revenue generating scheme that’s because I think that is the real driver (for outer London) by this current leadership . That is not the same as my fear it may end up being cost negative all too soon.I’ve not suggested 5 years but 9 months isn’t long if someone needs to save / adjust finances. Particularly when there is cost pressure more generally.The boundary for inner London does not mean living in outer London I must have entered it. If so little need to extend if air quality is already being positively influenced.Again my point is not the ultimate air quality gain just how it was implemented. It should either have been for less expensive fines initially to soften the blow or more notice.0 -
Pretty sure you are wrong on the date. It started in the August not later.cantersaddick said:
Didn't actually come into effect until 31st October 2023 (there was a further period I think a week where people got a notification but not a charge) - was originally announced for August but was delayed to allow more time to take up scrappage scheme. So a year's notice from final confirmation. Again it was first discussed in city hall 18 months before that with continued press coverage throughout the period, so anyone in the area not living under a rock would have reasonably known about it for 2-2.5 years.valleynick66 said:
Eh?Friend Or Defoe said:
How much time would be sufficient, 5 years? Surely if you owned a car you would drive into inner London, therefore outer London had more time than an area that barely cared about ULEZ? Although in fairness the Tory couldn't run a propaganda campaign against it back then. Then there's the 90% of cars being compliant anyway factor. Seems to be a lot of fuss about not much when there are far bigger issues affecting Londoners.valleynick66 said:
Incorrect summary.cantersaddick said:
Let's get this straightvalleynick66 said:
Interesting. It remains my fear the expanded ULEZ will become a cash negative all too quickly.shirty5 said:
You've criticised it for being only a money raising exercise.
You've criticised it for being too strict but also for not being a blanket ban on polluting vehicles
You've criticised it for being implemented too quickly (despite the first city hall discussions and press coverage starting 2 and a half years before implementation, formal announcement more than a year before and a delay to implementation to allow more to use the scrappage scheme).
And now you're criticising it for not making enough money? Which us also an indicator its working
Me thinks you're just looking for reasons not to like it!I do believe it may end up
being cost negative too soon and have said that more than once. My fear is it will too soon be a cost as drivers change behaviour quickly or we will fail to actually get the fines levied relative to the costs of implementation and outsourcing (I assume) the maintenance of the associated processes.I do believe it was introduced in the wrong way at the wrong time. Outer London did not get much notice and a time of a cost of living ‘crisis’. It was announced in November 22 and Implemented in august 23. I’m not aware of any delay for the scrappage scheme.
I do believe it must have some impact on air quality (how can it not?) but I think it may end up being marginal as natural churn of vehicles and the trickle down benefit of existing ULEZ boundaries brings that to a degree.I don’t think I’ve ever said it should be a blanket ban.If I originally said it’s a revenue generating scheme that’s because I think that is the real driver (for outer London) by this current leadership . That is not the same as my fear it may end up being cost negative all too soon.I’ve not suggested 5 years but 9 months isn’t long if someone needs to save / adjust finances. Particularly when there is cost pressure more generally.The boundary for inner London does not mean living in outer London I must have entered it. If so little need to extend if air quality is already being positively influenced.Again my point is not the ultimate air quality gain just how it was implemented. It should either have been for less expensive fines initially to soften the blow or more notice.But again to reiterate my gripe is not the ultimate benefit to clean air but timing and how implemented. I think you can admit it was not ideal notwithstanding your firm belief in the merits of such a restriction on driving.0 -
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2024/march/london-s-pioneering-new-network-of-express-bus-services-the-superloop-now-circles-the-entire-capitalseth plum said:
Crusty54 said:
Not on the adverts currently on the wireless.
It was announced very clearly that the route would start next year when the Silvertown tunnels open.seth plum said:TFL are advertising the super loop buses are up and running now, but fail to mention the Grove Park to Canary Wharf one isn’t underway !!!!Clearly Khan is an utter lying bastard who wants my house, my life savings, my useable body parts and to grind my bones for glue.
Utter shameless scum trying to completely ruin our lives.
0 -
The ULEZ camera on Northdown Rd has been cut down.guinnessaddick said:The ULEZ cameras at the Danson interchange have been cut down again, the second time since the beginning of December. I see there is a camera on Northdown rd in Welling, it’s been there awhile, probably because it’s off the beaten track.1 -
No-one knew it was there til you grassed on here G!!! 😉guinnessaddick said:
The ULEZ camera on Northdown Rd has been cut down.guinnessaddick said:The ULEZ cameras at the Danson interchange have been cut down again, the second time since the beginning of December. I see there is a camera on Northdown rd in Welling, it’s been there awhile, probably because it’s off the beaten track.2 -
Literally in schools.PopIcon said:It's all a load of bollocks at the end of the day, don't fall for it.
Free school meals, where on earth can you get FREE FOOD?
Livingstone, Johnson and Khan all sold us lies and the voters just bent over and took it.Johnson is a proven liar. I’ll agree with you there.1 -
I can’t believe people are still banging on about this ULEZ business. It’s done and dusted. If it’s all been a terrible disaster then that’ll be reflected in the election result. Personally I think ULEZ is now a non issue.valleynick66 said:
And I reject 5 years as a sensible notice period. 18 months perhaps?Friend Or Defoe said:
I asked a question and suggested 5 years.valleynick66 said:
Eh?Friend Or Defoe said:
How much time would be sufficient, 5 years? Surely if you owned a car you would drive into inner London, therefore outer London had more time than an area that barely cared about ULEZ? Although in fairness the Tory couldn't run a propaganda campaign against it back then. Then there's the 90% of cars being compliant anyway factor. Seems to be a lot of fuss about not much when there are far bigger issues affecting Londoners.valleynick66 said:
Incorrect summary.cantersaddick said:
Let's get this straightvalleynick66 said:
Interesting. It remains my fear the expanded ULEZ will become a cash negative all too quickly.shirty5 said:
You've criticised it for being only a money raising exercise.
You've criticised it for being too strict but also for not being a blanket ban on polluting vehicles
You've criticised it for being implemented too quickly (despite the first city hall discussions and press coverage starting 2 and a half years before implementation, formal announcement more than a year before and a delay to implementation to allow more to use the scrappage scheme).
And now you're criticising it for not making enough money? Which us also an indicator its working
Me thinks you're just looking for reasons not to like it!I do believe it may end up
being cost negative too soon and have said that more than once. My fear is it will too soon be a cost as drivers change behaviour quickly or we will fail to actually get the fines levied relative to the costs of implementation and outsourcing (I assume) the maintenance of the associated processes.I do believe it was introduced in the wrong way at the wrong time. Outer London did not get much notice and a time of a cost of living ‘crisis’. It was announced in November 22 and Implemented in august 23. I’m not aware of any delay for the scrappage scheme.
I do believe it must have some impact on air quality (how can it not?) but I think it may end up being marginal as natural churn of vehicles and the trickle down benefit of existing ULEZ boundaries brings that to a degree.I don’t think I’ve ever said it should be a blanket ban.If I originally said it’s a revenue generating scheme that’s because I think that is the real driver (for outer London) by this current leadership . That is not the same as my fear it may end up being cost negative all too soon.I’ve not suggested 5 years but 9 months isn’t long if someone needs to save / adjust finances. Particularly when there is cost pressure more generally.The boundary for inner London does not mean living in outer London I must have entered it. If so little need to extend if air quality is already being positively influenced.Again my point is not the ultimate air quality gain just how it was implemented. It should either have been for less expensive fines initially to soften the blow or more notice.
Not driving into inner London suggests not using the car that often. 🤔
Yes not driving that often as a good citizen. 😉 But also choosing to drive in the other direction where public transport less of an option.6 -
How do you conclude done and dusted when the conservative candidate is saying she will abolish it on Day 1 if elected (I doubt she will be successful by the way) ?JamesSeed said:
I can’t believe people are still banging on about this ULEZ business. It’s done and dusted. If it’s all been a terrible disaster then that’ll be reflected in the election result. Personally I think ULEZ is now a non issue.valleynick66 said:
And I reject 5 years as a sensible notice period. 18 months perhaps?Friend Or Defoe said:
I asked a question and suggested 5 years.valleynick66 said:
Eh?Friend Or Defoe said:
How much time would be sufficient, 5 years? Surely if you owned a car you would drive into inner London, therefore outer London had more time than an area that barely cared about ULEZ? Although in fairness the Tory couldn't run a propaganda campaign against it back then. Then there's the 90% of cars being compliant anyway factor. Seems to be a lot of fuss about not much when there are far bigger issues affecting Londoners.valleynick66 said:
Incorrect summary.cantersaddick said:
Let's get this straightvalleynick66 said:
Interesting. It remains my fear the expanded ULEZ will become a cash negative all too quickly.shirty5 said:
You've criticised it for being only a money raising exercise.
You've criticised it for being too strict but also for not being a blanket ban on polluting vehicles
You've criticised it for being implemented too quickly (despite the first city hall discussions and press coverage starting 2 and a half years before implementation, formal announcement more than a year before and a delay to implementation to allow more to use the scrappage scheme).
And now you're criticising it for not making enough money? Which us also an indicator its working
Me thinks you're just looking for reasons not to like it!I do believe it may end up
being cost negative too soon and have said that more than once. My fear is it will too soon be a cost as drivers change behaviour quickly or we will fail to actually get the fines levied relative to the costs of implementation and outsourcing (I assume) the maintenance of the associated processes.I do believe it was introduced in the wrong way at the wrong time. Outer London did not get much notice and a time of a cost of living ‘crisis’. It was announced in November 22 and Implemented in august 23. I’m not aware of any delay for the scrappage scheme.
I do believe it must have some impact on air quality (how can it not?) but I think it may end up being marginal as natural churn of vehicles and the trickle down benefit of existing ULEZ boundaries brings that to a degree.I don’t think I’ve ever said it should be a blanket ban.If I originally said it’s a revenue generating scheme that’s because I think that is the real driver (for outer London) by this current leadership . That is not the same as my fear it may end up being cost negative all too soon.I’ve not suggested 5 years but 9 months isn’t long if someone needs to save / adjust finances. Particularly when there is cost pressure more generally.The boundary for inner London does not mean living in outer London I must have entered it. If so little need to extend if air quality is already being positively influenced.Again my point is not the ultimate air quality gain just how it was implemented. It should either have been for less expensive fines initially to soften the blow or more notice.
Not driving into inner London suggests not using the car that often. 🤔
Yes not driving that often as a good citizen. 😉 But also choosing to drive in the other direction where public transport less of an option.
It will be a topic no doubt in the elections but not the only one ( for me at least).The disaster as you describe it is in my opinion not yet proven. I would not call it a disaster.We haven’t been given any information on the costs versus revenue nor analysis of compliance versus non compliance. I maintain that will be interesting in due course.2 -
She won't abolish itvalleynick66 said:
How do you conclude done and dusted when the conservative candidate is saying she will abolish it on Day 1 if elected (I doubt she will be successful by the way) ?JamesSeed said:
I can’t believe people are still banging on about this ULEZ business. It’s done and dusted. If it’s all been a terrible disaster then that’ll be reflected in the election result. Personally I think ULEZ is now a non issue.valleynick66 said:
And I reject 5 years as a sensible notice period. 18 months perhaps?Friend Or Defoe said:
I asked a question and suggested 5 years.valleynick66 said:
Eh?Friend Or Defoe said:
How much time would be sufficient, 5 years? Surely if you owned a car you would drive into inner London, therefore outer London had more time than an area that barely cared about ULEZ? Although in fairness the Tory couldn't run a propaganda campaign against it back then. Then there's the 90% of cars being compliant anyway factor. Seems to be a lot of fuss about not much when there are far bigger issues affecting Londoners.valleynick66 said:
Incorrect summary.cantersaddick said:
Let's get this straightvalleynick66 said:
Interesting. It remains my fear the expanded ULEZ will become a cash negative all too quickly.shirty5 said:
You've criticised it for being only a money raising exercise.
You've criticised it for being too strict but also for not being a blanket ban on polluting vehicles
You've criticised it for being implemented too quickly (despite the first city hall discussions and press coverage starting 2 and a half years before implementation, formal announcement more than a year before and a delay to implementation to allow more to use the scrappage scheme).
And now you're criticising it for not making enough money? Which us also an indicator its working
Me thinks you're just looking for reasons not to like it!I do believe it may end up
being cost negative too soon and have said that more than once. My fear is it will too soon be a cost as drivers change behaviour quickly or we will fail to actually get the fines levied relative to the costs of implementation and outsourcing (I assume) the maintenance of the associated processes.I do believe it was introduced in the wrong way at the wrong time. Outer London did not get much notice and a time of a cost of living ‘crisis’. It was announced in November 22 and Implemented in august 23. I’m not aware of any delay for the scrappage scheme.
I do believe it must have some impact on air quality (how can it not?) but I think it may end up being marginal as natural churn of vehicles and the trickle down benefit of existing ULEZ boundaries brings that to a degree.I don’t think I’ve ever said it should be a blanket ban.If I originally said it’s a revenue generating scheme that’s because I think that is the real driver (for outer London) by this current leadership . That is not the same as my fear it may end up being cost negative all too soon.I’ve not suggested 5 years but 9 months isn’t long if someone needs to save / adjust finances. Particularly when there is cost pressure more generally.The boundary for inner London does not mean living in outer London I must have entered it. If so little need to extend if air quality is already being positively influenced.Again my point is not the ultimate air quality gain just how it was implemented. It should either have been for less expensive fines initially to soften the blow or more notice.
Not driving into inner London suggests not using the car that often. 🤔
Yes not driving that often as a good citizen. 😉 But also choosing to drive in the other direction where public transport less of an option.
It will be a topic no doubt in the elections but not the only one ( for me at least).The disaster as you describe it is in my opinion not yet proven. I would not call it a disaster.We haven’t been given any information on the costs versus revenue nor analysis of compliance versus non compliance. I maintain that will be interesting in due course.2
