This is a good link, because it says thatfor 20 years London governance has kept aspects of road travel and other travel 'under review'. A term I used earlier. There is no evidence that Sadiq Khan is about to introduce road pricing, and in terms of staffing he says that the Authority basically recruits tech staff to keep up to date with things. However it is a good link to a QandA and worth reading. In the exchange I am heartened that Khan says that the aim is to make London net zero by 2030, that is something questioner peter Fortune did not focus on.
This is a good link, because it says thatfor 20 years London governance has kept aspects of road travel and other travel 'under review'. A term I used earlier. There is no evidence that Sadiq Khan is about to introduce road pricing, and in terms of staffing he says that the Authority basically recruits tech staff to keep up to date with things. However it is a good link to a QandA and worth reading. In the exchange I am heartened that Khan says that the aim is to make London net zero by 2030, that is something questioner peter Fortune did not focus on.
This is another good link. There is dispute regarding the existence of the 'Detroit' name as referenced in the link above, but part of the answer to the freedom of information request is this
'The defined scope for Detroit is to replace current systems that support the Congestion Charge, HGV permit scheme linked to the Direct Vision Standard, Low Emission Zone, Ultra Low Emission Zone and, in the future, the London Wide ULEZ and user charges at the Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels.'
Does not mention the introduction of road pricing at all, but does reference cleaner air several times when talking of 'emissions'.
Have I offended you by calling you daft @seth plum
I am used to it and worse, it's called playing the man not the ball.
Are you still allowed to say playing the man?
Don't want to offend anyone
It is maybe an old fashioned yet commonly used phrase which means if you're struggling to sustain a decent argument on the issues you revert to the personals. Quite common on Charlton Life.
The introduction might have had ways to improve it, but @cantersaddick has explained quite often the scheme was introduced with a lot of warning, and a scrappage scheme. What other things might have been done? If we want an environment with cleaner air one way or another is it will cost us all financially and a change in lifestyles. As for Sadiq Khan and road pricing he has said the GLA always keep road pricing ‘under review’, is there anything wrong with that? He has also said that whilst he is Mayor he would not introduce road pricing. It is up to each person to decide if Khan can be believed on that. That always brings me back to Ella’s mother Rosamund Kissi Debrah and her ongoing campaign to keep the health issue up there with the car issue.
It is wrong to say the latest expansion was introduced with a lot of warning. It was not. Even more so amidst a cost of living crisis.
This should not be glossed over. Further the scrappage scheme had to be improved from the initial offering.
So the point on pay per mile remains. it is the case he has spent significant sums to date on it and now been forced to state it wont yet be introduced. The evidence you queried is effectively there as a lesser study would surely have sufficed if the plans were not more advanced.
Any observations on why we still await any detailed analysis on compliance / fines issued?
Well as I said above, if there is evidence about road pricing could you provide a link? Including the spending on stuff for road pricing directed by Sadiq Khan. He has made a statement, if you think it was forced out of him that is an opinion certainly, whether it is fact is open to debate.
The warnings about the introduction of both ULEZ schemes and whether there was enough of it is down to opinion too. I personally believe it was dragged on too long before introduction, increasing the suffering of those affected by dirty air.
In terms of compliance and fines I don’t have any link to data on that. Nor do I have a link to how much cleaner the air has become.
Khan has been excellent during all this, because the car lobby is more vociferous and powerful than the concerned parent lobby, but he has walked a tricky path between the two opposing forces very well.
There is no evidence that previously Shaun Bailey, and currently Susan Hall give a damn about the pollution or the death of little Ella, or the suffering of others.
The evidence is that he has spent on feasibility studies / recruited staff for this purpose. Posters on here with knowledge of TFL have also confirmed this. khan has not said that no money has been spent on it.
There was not warning that ULEZ would be extended to its latest boundary.
You keep saying this even though its not really true. A year exactly from announcement of the final confirmation that it was happening to it being it place (plus 1 week where you got a notification but no charge). Before that there was widespread coverage of it from discussions in city hall, press coverage, public consultations etc. for a further 18 months. So between 2 and 2.5 years notice for anyone not living under a rock. How much warning do you think should have been given?
The introduction might have had ways to improve it, but @cantersaddick has explained quite often the scheme was introduced with a lot of warning, and a scrappage scheme. What other things might have been done? If we want an environment with cleaner air one way or another is it will cost us all financially and a change in lifestyles. As for Sadiq Khan and road pricing he has said the GLA always keep road pricing ‘under review’, is there anything wrong with that? He has also said that whilst he is Mayor he would not introduce road pricing. It is up to each person to decide if Khan can be believed on that. That always brings me back to Ella’s mother Rosamund Kissi Debrah and her ongoing campaign to keep the health issue up there with the car issue.
It is wrong to say the latest expansion was introduced with a lot of warning. It was not. Even more so amidst a cost of living crisis.
This should not be glossed over. Further the scrappage scheme had to be improved from the initial offering.
So the point on pay per mile remains. it is the case he has spent significant sums to date on it and now been forced to state it wont yet be introduced. The evidence you queried is effectively there as a lesser study would surely have sufficed if the plans were not more advanced.
Any observations on why we still await any detailed analysis on compliance / fines issued?
Well as I said above, if there is evidence about road pricing could you provide a link? Including the spending on stuff for road pricing directed by Sadiq Khan. He has made a statement, if you think it was forced out of him that is an opinion certainly, whether it is fact is open to debate.
The warnings about the introduction of both ULEZ schemes and whether there was enough of it is down to opinion too. I personally believe it was dragged on too long before introduction, increasing the suffering of those affected by dirty air.
In terms of compliance and fines I don’t have any link to data on that. Nor do I have a link to how much cleaner the air has become.
Khan has been excellent during all this, because the car lobby is more vociferous and powerful than the concerned parent lobby, but he has walked a tricky path between the two opposing forces very well.
There is no evidence that previously Shaun Bailey, and currently Susan Hall give a damn about the pollution or the death of little Ella, or the suffering of others.
The evidence is that he has spent on feasibility studies / recruited staff for this purpose. Posters on here with knowledge of TFL have also confirmed this. khan has not said that no money has been spent on it.
There was not warning that ULEZ would be extended to its latest boundary.
You keep saying this even though its not really true. A year exactly from announcement of the final confirmation that it was happening to it being it place (plus 1 week where you got a notification but no charge). Before that there was widespread coverage of it from discussions in city hall, press coverage, public consultations etc. for a further 18 months. So between 2 and 2.5 years notice for anyone not living under a rock. How much warning do you think should have been given?
It wasn't a years notice. Speculation is very different from confirmation.
25th November for introduction on 29th August. No one knew with certainty of any grace period either.
The point being ignored is that this was done in the midst of a cost of living 'crisis' and hence the period is too short - that is my point.
Poor timing and an immediate fee level which he (Khan) could have softened but chose not to.
18 months notice is my answer to your question on what is better / should have been given.
Question for you @cantersaddick any thoughts on the lack of MI and why its taking this long? I really think it would be interesting to see and positively show how its influenced road users. I repeat I support the objective just not the timing of the implementation.
The introduction might have had ways to improve it, but @cantersaddick has explained quite often the scheme was introduced with a lot of warning, and a scrappage scheme. What other things might have been done? If we want an environment with cleaner air one way or another is it will cost us all financially and a change in lifestyles. As for Sadiq Khan and road pricing he has said the GLA always keep road pricing ‘under review’, is there anything wrong with that? He has also said that whilst he is Mayor he would not introduce road pricing. It is up to each person to decide if Khan can be believed on that. That always brings me back to Ella’s mother Rosamund Kissi Debrah and her ongoing campaign to keep the health issue up there with the car issue.
It is wrong to say the latest expansion was introduced with a lot of warning. It was not. Even more so amidst a cost of living crisis.
This should not be glossed over. Further the scrappage scheme had to be improved from the initial offering.
So the point on pay per mile remains. it is the case he has spent significant sums to date on it and now been forced to state it wont yet be introduced. The evidence you queried is effectively there as a lesser study would surely have sufficed if the plans were not more advanced.
Any observations on why we still await any detailed analysis on compliance / fines issued?
Well as I said above, if there is evidence about road pricing could you provide a link? Including the spending on stuff for road pricing directed by Sadiq Khan. He has made a statement, if you think it was forced out of him that is an opinion certainly, whether it is fact is open to debate.
The warnings about the introduction of both ULEZ schemes and whether there was enough of it is down to opinion too. I personally believe it was dragged on too long before introduction, increasing the suffering of those affected by dirty air.
In terms of compliance and fines I don’t have any link to data on that. Nor do I have a link to how much cleaner the air has become.
Khan has been excellent during all this, because the car lobby is more vociferous and powerful than the concerned parent lobby, but he has walked a tricky path between the two opposing forces very well.
There is no evidence that previously Shaun Bailey, and currently Susan Hall give a damn about the pollution or the death of little Ella, or the suffering of others.
The evidence is that he has spent on feasibility studies / recruited staff for this purpose. Posters on here with knowledge of TFL have also confirmed this. khan has not said that no money has been spent on it.
There was not warning that ULEZ would be extended to its latest boundary.
The estimate for total costs by 2030 is £130-150m. It is for a new integrated system for ULEZ charging, congestion charging, Silvertown/Blackwell tunnel tolls etc- as per the response to the FOI request:
"We are working to build a new core technology platform for existing road user charging schemes to replace the currently outsourced system as the current contract expires in 2026. The confirmed scope of this project is to replicate the capability of the existing charging system that processes automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) events and according to a set of pre-defined business rules to support the Congestion Charge, HGV permit scheme linked to the Direct Vision Standard, Low Emission Zone, Ultra Low Emission Zone, and, in the future, user charges at the Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels (collectively known as Road User Charging, RUC)."
This could be used for pay per mile of course, but it doesn't in any way imply that it will be or that that was the purpose of the spend.
Just look up Project Detroit (it's an official project)
No doubt some people won't have time to search for it, but will have time to post long winded posts denying it
As far as my understanding goes yes project Detroit is a real thing but it is an attempt to bring all the separate systems of charging in house under one system. Now the bit people are getting upset about is that it includes a bit about having the ability to deal with any potential future charging policies.
Now, if you have any understanding of tech platforms it is just sensible that any new system is future proofed as much as possible. Does that mean road pricing is definitely coming for London with this project? No however I think we are all aware that given the move away from petrol and diesel cars there will have to be a change in road charging nationally and this will for part of it.
Assuming road pricing is brought in I'm yet to hear a sensible argument against it? If technology allows isn't it right that those who drive more should pay more than others for the upkeep of roads?
The introduction might have had ways to improve it, but @cantersaddick has explained quite often the scheme was introduced with a lot of warning, and a scrappage scheme. What other things might have been done? If we want an environment with cleaner air one way or another is it will cost us all financially and a change in lifestyles. As for Sadiq Khan and road pricing he has said the GLA always keep road pricing ‘under review’, is there anything wrong with that? He has also said that whilst he is Mayor he would not introduce road pricing. It is up to each person to decide if Khan can be believed on that. That always brings me back to Ella’s mother Rosamund Kissi Debrah and her ongoing campaign to keep the health issue up there with the car issue.
It is wrong to say the latest expansion was introduced with a lot of warning. It was not. Even more so amidst a cost of living crisis.
This should not be glossed over. Further the scrappage scheme had to be improved from the initial offering.
So the point on pay per mile remains. it is the case he has spent significant sums to date on it and now been forced to state it wont yet be introduced. The evidence you queried is effectively there as a lesser study would surely have sufficed if the plans were not more advanced.
Any observations on why we still await any detailed analysis on compliance / fines issued?
Well as I said above, if there is evidence about road pricing could you provide a link? Including the spending on stuff for road pricing directed by Sadiq Khan. He has made a statement, if you think it was forced out of him that is an opinion certainly, whether it is fact is open to debate.
The warnings about the introduction of both ULEZ schemes and whether there was enough of it is down to opinion too. I personally believe it was dragged on too long before introduction, increasing the suffering of those affected by dirty air.
In terms of compliance and fines I don’t have any link to data on that. Nor do I have a link to how much cleaner the air has become.
Khan has been excellent during all this, because the car lobby is more vociferous and powerful than the concerned parent lobby, but he has walked a tricky path between the two opposing forces very well.
There is no evidence that previously Shaun Bailey, and currently Susan Hall give a damn about the pollution or the death of little Ella, or the suffering of others.
The evidence is that he has spent on feasibility studies / recruited staff for this purpose. Posters on here with knowledge of TFL have also confirmed this. khan has not said that no money has been spent on it.
There was not warning that ULEZ would be extended to its latest boundary.
You keep saying this even though its not really true. A year exactly from announcement of the final confirmation that it was happening to it being it place (plus 1 week where you got a notification but no charge). Before that there was widespread coverage of it from discussions in city hall, press coverage, public consultations etc. for a further 18 months. So between 2 and 2.5 years notice for anyone not living under a rock. How much warning do you think should have been given?
It wasn't a years notice. Speculation is very different from confirmation.
25th November for introduction on 29th August. No one knew with certainty of any grace period either.
The point being ignored is that this was done in the midst of a cost of living 'crisis' and hence the period is too short - that is my point.
Poor timing and an immediate fee level which he (Khan) could have softened but chose not to.
18 months notice is my answer to your question on what is better / should have been given.
Question for you @cantersaddick any thoughts on the lack of MI and why its taking this long? I really think it would be interesting to see and positively show how its influenced road users. I repeat I support the objective just not the timing of the implementation.
Of course this only applies to the 10% of cars that aren't complaint and the subset of that whose owners don't drive as far as the South circular.
Some posters complained that the fine is too light and there should be an outright ban on all non-compliant cars.
The introduction might have had ways to improve it, but @cantersaddick has explained quite often the scheme was introduced with a lot of warning, and a scrappage scheme. What other things might have been done? If we want an environment with cleaner air one way or another is it will cost us all financially and a change in lifestyles. As for Sadiq Khan and road pricing he has said the GLA always keep road pricing ‘under review’, is there anything wrong with that? He has also said that whilst he is Mayor he would not introduce road pricing. It is up to each person to decide if Khan can be believed on that. That always brings me back to Ella’s mother Rosamund Kissi Debrah and her ongoing campaign to keep the health issue up there with the car issue.
It is wrong to say the latest expansion was introduced with a lot of warning. It was not. Even more so amidst a cost of living crisis.
This should not be glossed over. Further the scrappage scheme had to be improved from the initial offering.
So the point on pay per mile remains. it is the case he has spent significant sums to date on it and now been forced to state it wont yet be introduced. The evidence you queried is effectively there as a lesser study would surely have sufficed if the plans were not more advanced.
Any observations on why we still await any detailed analysis on compliance / fines issued?
Well as I said above, if there is evidence about road pricing could you provide a link? Including the spending on stuff for road pricing directed by Sadiq Khan. He has made a statement, if you think it was forced out of him that is an opinion certainly, whether it is fact is open to debate.
The warnings about the introduction of both ULEZ schemes and whether there was enough of it is down to opinion too. I personally believe it was dragged on too long before introduction, increasing the suffering of those affected by dirty air.
In terms of compliance and fines I don’t have any link to data on that. Nor do I have a link to how much cleaner the air has become.
Khan has been excellent during all this, because the car lobby is more vociferous and powerful than the concerned parent lobby, but he has walked a tricky path between the two opposing forces very well.
There is no evidence that previously Shaun Bailey, and currently Susan Hall give a damn about the pollution or the death of little Ella, or the suffering of others.
The evidence is that he has spent on feasibility studies / recruited staff for this purpose. Posters on here with knowledge of TFL have also confirmed this. khan has not said that no money has been spent on it.
There was not warning that ULEZ would be extended to its latest boundary.
You keep saying this even though its not really true. A year exactly from announcement of the final confirmation that it was happening to it being it place (plus 1 week where you got a notification but no charge). Before that there was widespread coverage of it from discussions in city hall, press coverage, public consultations etc. for a further 18 months. So between 2 and 2.5 years notice for anyone not living under a rock. How much warning do you think should have been given?
It wasn't a years notice. Speculation is very different from confirmation.
25th November for introduction on 29th August. No one knew with certainty of any grace period either.
The point being ignored is that this was done in the midst of a cost of living 'crisis' and hence the period is too short - that is my point.
Poor timing and an immediate fee level which he (Khan) could have softened but chose not to.
18 months notice is my answer to your question on what is better / should have been given.
Question for you @cantersaddick any thoughts on the lack of MI and why its taking this long? I really think it would be interesting to see and positively show how its influenced road users. I repeat I support the objective just not the timing of the implementation.
Again you've made that claim before but its not actually true. Introduction was delayed until 31st October with a further week where you got a notification but no charge. So a year. or close enough. So 18 months notice is enough you say? well the first public consultation on this was more than 2 years in advance of it coming into place. The first debate at the GLA more than 30 months in advance. Both of these received massive media coverage including in national news outlets and that remained the case throughout the whole period leading up to it being in place. So anyone paying the slightest bit of attention would have has well more than your 18 months notice.
I agree the timing wasn't great but TFL's hands were tied financially.
On the MI I have no idea about publication plans. We got numbers on the take up of the scrappage scheme which was far higher than expected which is a much better indication of whether its impacting behaviour than charges. I don't really know what you would take from it if you did get this MI. Number of charges means nothing, as I've said before someone who only drives in the zone occasionally it is still economically efficient for them to not upgrade their car so a charge for them isn't a bad thing. Its data on mode shift and car sharing that would make a difference. TBH i think your obsession with this shows that you don't really understand how the scheme is designed to work and the interactions of the behavioural science and the economic incentives of what is essentially a pollution permits scheme. If there were no charges you'd say it was pointless as everyone is compliant anyway and its just gonna lose money. If there were charges you'd say its not impacting behaviours.
The introduction might have had ways to improve it, but @cantersaddick has explained quite often the scheme was introduced with a lot of warning, and a scrappage scheme. What other things might have been done? If we want an environment with cleaner air one way or another is it will cost us all financially and a change in lifestyles. As for Sadiq Khan and road pricing he has said the GLA always keep road pricing ‘under review’, is there anything wrong with that? He has also said that whilst he is Mayor he would not introduce road pricing. It is up to each person to decide if Khan can be believed on that. That always brings me back to Ella’s mother Rosamund Kissi Debrah and her ongoing campaign to keep the health issue up there with the car issue.
It is wrong to say the latest expansion was introduced with a lot of warning. It was not. Even more so amidst a cost of living crisis.
This should not be glossed over. Further the scrappage scheme had to be improved from the initial offering.
So the point on pay per mile remains. it is the case he has spent significant sums to date on it and now been forced to state it wont yet be introduced. The evidence you queried is effectively there as a lesser study would surely have sufficed if the plans were not more advanced.
Any observations on why we still await any detailed analysis on compliance / fines issued?
Well as I said above, if there is evidence about road pricing could you provide a link? Including the spending on stuff for road pricing directed by Sadiq Khan. He has made a statement, if you think it was forced out of him that is an opinion certainly, whether it is fact is open to debate.
The warnings about the introduction of both ULEZ schemes and whether there was enough of it is down to opinion too. I personally believe it was dragged on too long before introduction, increasing the suffering of those affected by dirty air.
In terms of compliance and fines I don’t have any link to data on that. Nor do I have a link to how much cleaner the air has become.
Khan has been excellent during all this, because the car lobby is more vociferous and powerful than the concerned parent lobby, but he has walked a tricky path between the two opposing forces very well.
There is no evidence that previously Shaun Bailey, and currently Susan Hall give a damn about the pollution or the death of little Ella, or the suffering of others.
The evidence is that he has spent on feasibility studies / recruited staff for this purpose. Posters on here with knowledge of TFL have also confirmed this. khan has not said that no money has been spent on it.
There was not warning that ULEZ would be extended to its latest boundary.
You keep saying this even though its not really true. A year exactly from announcement of the final confirmation that it was happening to it being it place (plus 1 week where you got a notification but no charge). Before that there was widespread coverage of it from discussions in city hall, press coverage, public consultations etc. for a further 18 months. So between 2 and 2.5 years notice for anyone not living under a rock. How much warning do you think should have been given?
It wasn't a years notice. Speculation is very different from confirmation.
25th November for introduction on 29th August. No one knew with certainty of any grace period either.
The point being ignored is that this was done in the midst of a cost of living 'crisis' and hence the period is too short - that is my point.
Poor timing and an immediate fee level which he (Khan) could have softened but chose not to.
18 months notice is my answer to your question on what is better / should have been given.
Question for you @cantersaddick any thoughts on the lack of MI and why its taking this long? I really think it would be interesting to see and positively show how its influenced road users. I repeat I support the objective just not the timing of the implementation.
Of course this only applies to the 10% of cars that aren't complaint and the subset of that whose owners don't drive as far as the South circular.
Some posters complained that the fine is too light and there should be an outright ban on all non-compliant cars.
The introduction might have had ways to improve it, but @cantersaddick has explained quite often the scheme was introduced with a lot of warning, and a scrappage scheme. What other things might have been done? If we want an environment with cleaner air one way or another is it will cost us all financially and a change in lifestyles. As for Sadiq Khan and road pricing he has said the GLA always keep road pricing ‘under review’, is there anything wrong with that? He has also said that whilst he is Mayor he would not introduce road pricing. It is up to each person to decide if Khan can be believed on that. That always brings me back to Ella’s mother Rosamund Kissi Debrah and her ongoing campaign to keep the health issue up there with the car issue.
It is wrong to say the latest expansion was introduced with a lot of warning. It was not. Even more so amidst a cost of living crisis.
This should not be glossed over. Further the scrappage scheme had to be improved from the initial offering.
So the point on pay per mile remains. it is the case he has spent significant sums to date on it and now been forced to state it wont yet be introduced. The evidence you queried is effectively there as a lesser study would surely have sufficed if the plans were not more advanced.
Any observations on why we still await any detailed analysis on compliance / fines issued?
Well as I said above, if there is evidence about road pricing could you provide a link? Including the spending on stuff for road pricing directed by Sadiq Khan. He has made a statement, if you think it was forced out of him that is an opinion certainly, whether it is fact is open to debate.
The warnings about the introduction of both ULEZ schemes and whether there was enough of it is down to opinion too. I personally believe it was dragged on too long before introduction, increasing the suffering of those affected by dirty air.
In terms of compliance and fines I don’t have any link to data on that. Nor do I have a link to how much cleaner the air has become.
Khan has been excellent during all this, because the car lobby is more vociferous and powerful than the concerned parent lobby, but he has walked a tricky path between the two opposing forces very well.
There is no evidence that previously Shaun Bailey, and currently Susan Hall give a damn about the pollution or the death of little Ella, or the suffering of others.
The evidence is that he has spent on feasibility studies / recruited staff for this purpose. Posters on here with knowledge of TFL have also confirmed this. khan has not said that no money has been spent on it.
There was not warning that ULEZ would be extended to its latest boundary.
You keep saying this even though its not really true. A year exactly from announcement of the final confirmation that it was happening to it being it place (plus 1 week where you got a notification but no charge). Before that there was widespread coverage of it from discussions in city hall, press coverage, public consultations etc. for a further 18 months. So between 2 and 2.5 years notice for anyone not living under a rock. How much warning do you think should have been given?
It wasn't a years notice. Speculation is very different from confirmation.
25th November for introduction on 29th August. No one knew with certainty of any grace period either.
The point being ignored is that this was done in the midst of a cost of living 'crisis' and hence the period is too short - that is my point.
Poor timing and an immediate fee level which he (Khan) could have softened but chose not to.
18 months notice is my answer to your question on what is better / should have been given.
Question for you @cantersaddick any thoughts on the lack of MI and why its taking this long? I really think it would be interesting to see and positively show how its influenced road users. I repeat I support the objective just not the timing of the implementation.
Of course this only applies to the 10% of cars that aren't complaint and the subset of that whose owners don't drive as far as the South circular.
Some posters complained that the fine is too light and there should be an outright ban on all non-compliant cars.
So the 10% did not deserve a little more notice?
As the benefit is forecast to be marginal it should have been introduced with more leeway / time - that's my point.
I also remain concerned its going to be a cost drain all too soon - most do not agree with that.
To repeat myself and widen the point I look forward to the data analysis on compliance to see what trends emerge / behaviours have / will change for Outer London. I really think that will be interesting.
My reservation (its only that because Outer London derivers benefit from the initial introduction in inner London) is that for non compliance we are down to a core of drivers who are ad hoc visitors and will pay relatively speaking one off fines. We wont have many cars registered within Outer London or nearby who are still not compliant and are therefore already (now) polluting less. I'm also interested in how well we actually collect the fines from foreign registered cars, commercial vehicles who see it as a cost of business, repeat offenders who disregard etc. I fear we wont improve air quality very much more with this group who don't care / accept it.
The introduction might have had ways to improve it, but @cantersaddick has explained quite often the scheme was introduced with a lot of warning, and a scrappage scheme. What other things might have been done? If we want an environment with cleaner air one way or another is it will cost us all financially and a change in lifestyles. As for Sadiq Khan and road pricing he has said the GLA always keep road pricing ‘under review’, is there anything wrong with that? He has also said that whilst he is Mayor he would not introduce road pricing. It is up to each person to decide if Khan can be believed on that. That always brings me back to Ella’s mother Rosamund Kissi Debrah and her ongoing campaign to keep the health issue up there with the car issue.
It is wrong to say the latest expansion was introduced with a lot of warning. It was not. Even more so amidst a cost of living crisis.
This should not be glossed over. Further the scrappage scheme had to be improved from the initial offering.
So the point on pay per mile remains. it is the case he has spent significant sums to date on it and now been forced to state it wont yet be introduced. The evidence you queried is effectively there as a lesser study would surely have sufficed if the plans were not more advanced.
Any observations on why we still await any detailed analysis on compliance / fines issued?
Well as I said above, if there is evidence about road pricing could you provide a link? Including the spending on stuff for road pricing directed by Sadiq Khan. He has made a statement, if you think it was forced out of him that is an opinion certainly, whether it is fact is open to debate.
The warnings about the introduction of both ULEZ schemes and whether there was enough of it is down to opinion too. I personally believe it was dragged on too long before introduction, increasing the suffering of those affected by dirty air.
In terms of compliance and fines I don’t have any link to data on that. Nor do I have a link to how much cleaner the air has become.
Khan has been excellent during all this, because the car lobby is more vociferous and powerful than the concerned parent lobby, but he has walked a tricky path between the two opposing forces very well.
There is no evidence that previously Shaun Bailey, and currently Susan Hall give a damn about the pollution or the death of little Ella, or the suffering of others.
The evidence is that he has spent on feasibility studies / recruited staff for this purpose. Posters on here with knowledge of TFL have also confirmed this. khan has not said that no money has been spent on it.
There was not warning that ULEZ would be extended to its latest boundary.
You keep saying this even though its not really true. A year exactly from announcement of the final confirmation that it was happening to it being it place (plus 1 week where you got a notification but no charge). Before that there was widespread coverage of it from discussions in city hall, press coverage, public consultations etc. for a further 18 months. So between 2 and 2.5 years notice for anyone not living under a rock. How much warning do you think should have been given?
It wasn't a years notice. Speculation is very different from confirmation.
25th November for introduction on 29th August. No one knew with certainty of any grace period either.
The point being ignored is that this was done in the midst of a cost of living 'crisis' and hence the period is too short - that is my point.
Poor timing and an immediate fee level which he (Khan) could have softened but chose not to.
18 months notice is my answer to your question on what is better / should have been given.
Question for you @cantersaddick any thoughts on the lack of MI and why its taking this long? I really think it would be interesting to see and positively show how its influenced road users. I repeat I support the objective just not the timing of the implementation.
Of course this only applies to the 10% of cars that aren't complaint and the subset of that whose owners don't drive as far as the South circular.
Some posters complained that the fine is too light and there should be an outright ban on all non-compliant cars.
Valley Nick being one of them
I did think that was the case. Pay for a mile seems to be a way to legitimise their anger.
The introduction might have had ways to improve it, but @cantersaddick has explained quite often the scheme was introduced with a lot of warning, and a scrappage scheme. What other things might have been done? If we want an environment with cleaner air one way or another is it will cost us all financially and a change in lifestyles. As for Sadiq Khan and road pricing he has said the GLA always keep road pricing ‘under review’, is there anything wrong with that? He has also said that whilst he is Mayor he would not introduce road pricing. It is up to each person to decide if Khan can be believed on that. That always brings me back to Ella’s mother Rosamund Kissi Debrah and her ongoing campaign to keep the health issue up there with the car issue.
It is wrong to say the latest expansion was introduced with a lot of warning. It was not. Even more so amidst a cost of living crisis.
This should not be glossed over. Further the scrappage scheme had to be improved from the initial offering.
So the point on pay per mile remains. it is the case he has spent significant sums to date on it and now been forced to state it wont yet be introduced. The evidence you queried is effectively there as a lesser study would surely have sufficed if the plans were not more advanced.
Any observations on why we still await any detailed analysis on compliance / fines issued?
Well as I said above, if there is evidence about road pricing could you provide a link? Including the spending on stuff for road pricing directed by Sadiq Khan. He has made a statement, if you think it was forced out of him that is an opinion certainly, whether it is fact is open to debate.
The warnings about the introduction of both ULEZ schemes and whether there was enough of it is down to opinion too. I personally believe it was dragged on too long before introduction, increasing the suffering of those affected by dirty air.
In terms of compliance and fines I don’t have any link to data on that. Nor do I have a link to how much cleaner the air has become.
Khan has been excellent during all this, because the car lobby is more vociferous and powerful than the concerned parent lobby, but he has walked a tricky path between the two opposing forces very well.
There is no evidence that previously Shaun Bailey, and currently Susan Hall give a damn about the pollution or the death of little Ella, or the suffering of others.
The evidence is that he has spent on feasibility studies / recruited staff for this purpose. Posters on here with knowledge of TFL have also confirmed this. khan has not said that no money has been spent on it.
There was not warning that ULEZ would be extended to its latest boundary.
You keep saying this even though its not really true. A year exactly from announcement of the final confirmation that it was happening to it being it place (plus 1 week where you got a notification but no charge). Before that there was widespread coverage of it from discussions in city hall, press coverage, public consultations etc. for a further 18 months. So between 2 and 2.5 years notice for anyone not living under a rock. How much warning do you think should have been given?
It wasn't a years notice. Speculation is very different from confirmation.
25th November for introduction on 29th August. No one knew with certainty of any grace period either.
The point being ignored is that this was done in the midst of a cost of living 'crisis' and hence the period is too short - that is my point.
Poor timing and an immediate fee level which he (Khan) could have softened but chose not to.
18 months notice is my answer to your question on what is better / should have been given.
Question for you @cantersaddick any thoughts on the lack of MI and why its taking this long? I really think it would be interesting to see and positively show how its influenced road users. I repeat I support the objective just not the timing of the implementation.
Of course this only applies to the 10% of cars that aren't complaint and the subset of that whose owners don't drive as far as the South circular.
Some posters complained that the fine is too light and there should be an outright ban on all non-compliant cars.
So the 10% did not deserve a little more notice?
As the benefit is forecast to be marginal it should have been introduced with more leeway / time - that's my point.
I also remain concerned its going to be a cost drain all too soon - most do not agree with that.
To repeat myself and widen the point I look forward to the data analysis on compliance to see what trends emerge / behaviours have / will change for Outer London. I really think that will be interesting.
My reservation (its only that because Outer London derivers benefit from the initial introduction in inner London) is that for non compliance we are down to a core of drivers who are ad hoc visitors and will pay relatively speaking one off fines. We wont have many cars registered within Outer London or nearby who are still not compliant and are therefore already (now) polluting less. I'm also interested in how well we actually collect the fines from foreign registered cars, commercial vehicles who see it as a cost of business, repeat offenders who disregard etc. I fear we wont improve air quality very much more with this group who don't care / accept it.
Inner London was fair game because it was the Tories idea.
The forecast that road pricing via technology would sometime come in, and might replace fuel duty and/or road tax is probably going to become a reality. Sometime in the future. However it is not happening now, and Sadiq Khan has said he wouldn’t allow it in London whilst he is Mayor. If it happens in the future then it will be an adjustment everybody will have to come to terms with, like the introduction of tuition fees, or fares going up, or prescription charges, or costs to see the dentist, and many other changes there have already been. In terms of ULEZ the debate for some is about the introduction of it, or the costs, or what it might mean in the future, but the debate for others is about the climate crisis and the health of children like Ella Kissi Debrah, although admittedly in this thread I seem to be the only person referencing the cleaner air/child health aspect of things.
The whole ULEZ debate is no longer really the zinger it once was. Like the smoking ban, and the implementation of seatbelt laws, there’s always going to be a ‘heated debate’, but it eventually becomes accepted, apart from by a small minority. If there really is a huge groundswell of opinion that ULEZ is a failure, or not worth the aggro, then it’ll probably be reflected in the mayoral voting. But many of the anti ULEZ warriors on social media don't actually live in London. 🤷🏻♂️
Not sure I buy into this thing about Susan Hall being a political outlier tbh. On the subject of ULEZ she's been very happy to overtly perpetuate a pack of lies she knows to be untrue, whilst who knows what's been circulating away from any sort of public scrutiny via these astroturf accounts.
On top of other elements of her character she seems very 'on brand' for her party.
What has she claimed about ULEZ which is untrue out of interest?
Her whole campaign is built around it, as I'm sure you know. But the constant repeating by her and her campaign of the (non-existent) plans from Khan to introduce pay-per-mile charging eventually resulted in a complaint to the CPS. So there's that.
To be clear I’m not a fan of her or her campaign. Indeed I think all the candidates are poor.
BUT to your point I think you are saying the only lie in ULEZ is about pay per mile ?
Further though I thought several posters on here with inside knowledge of TFL have advised there was and is feasibility studies underway so not sure what the lie actually is?
I think when you repeat the same lie over and over and over again you're getting into semantics suggesting it's not a pattern of dishonesty tbh. If your political opponent take the (highly unusual) step of reporting the matter for investigation I suspect that any justification for the claim having any proper basis in fact is thin. To say the least.
But, despite Khan's unequivocal and frequent denial of the lie, it clearly cuts through with some of the electorate. So it's job done for her campaign I suppose but we'll have to agree to disagree on whether it's even a lie.
I think we may be at crossed purposes I thought Khan had confirmed he did have a feasibility study under way?
Perhaps its precise wording we are debating in that he might say it’s not a pre determined outcome ?
in any event isn’t the ‘complaint’ in that article about the style of the leaflet as required by electoral law and not the messages/ points being made?
Pay by the mile sounds ok to me. Much fairer than charging everyone the same, when some people hardly use their cars at all. It’s just common sense isn’t it? You’d have to have guarantees about maximum charge limits though.
The whole ULEZ debate is no longer really the zinger it once was. Like the smoking ban, and the implementation of seatbelt laws, there’s always going to be a ‘heated debate’, but it eventually becomes accepted, apart from by a small minority. If there really is a huge groundswell of opinion that ULEZ is a failure, or not worth the aggro, then it’ll probably be reflected in the mayoral voting. But many of the anti ULEZ warriors on social media don't actually live in London. 🤷🏻♂️
I'm really hoping that if Khan wins this debate starts dying down. From the manifestos I've read nearly all the opposition are running some sort of scrapping ulez, it's an agenda being pushed by the Tories and a big chunk of people not even living in London and is detracting from real issues affecting way more than the less than 10% it impacts.
Comments
There is no evidence that Sadiq Khan is about to introduce road pricing, and in terms of staffing he says that the Authority basically recruits tech staff to keep up to date with things.
However it is a good link to a QandA and worth reading.
In the exchange I am heartened that Khan says that the aim is to make London net zero by 2030, that is something questioner peter Fortune did not focus on.
Don't want to offend anyone
There is dispute regarding the existence of the 'Detroit' name as referenced in the link above, but part of the answer to the freedom of information request is this
'The defined scope for Detroit is to replace current systems that support the Congestion Charge, HGV permit scheme linked to the Direct Vision Standard, Low Emission Zone, Ultra Low Emission Zone and, in the future, the London Wide ULEZ and user charges at the Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels.'
Does not mention the introduction of road pricing at all, but does reference cleaner air several times when talking of 'emissions'.
Quite common on Charlton Life.
Especially when budgets have been cut
25th November for introduction on 29th August. No one knew with certainty of any grace period either.
The point being ignored is that this was done in the midst of a cost of living 'crisis' and hence the period is too short - that is my point.
Poor timing and an immediate fee level which he (Khan) could have softened but chose not to.
18 months notice is my answer to your question on what is better / should have been given.
Question for you @cantersaddick any thoughts on the lack of MI and why its taking this long? I really think it would be interesting to see and positively show how its influenced road users. I repeat I support the objective just not the timing of the implementation.
"We are working to build a new core technology platform for existing road user charging schemes to replace the currently outsourced system as the current contract expires in 2026. The confirmed scope of this project is to replicate the capability of the existing charging system that processes automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) events and according to a set of pre-defined business rules to support the Congestion Charge, HGV permit scheme linked to the Direct Vision Standard, Low Emission Zone, Ultra Low Emission Zone, and, in the future, user charges at the Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels (collectively known as Road User Charging, RUC)."
This could be used for pay per mile of course, but it doesn't in any way imply that it will be or that that was the purpose of the spend.
Now, if you have any understanding of tech platforms it is just sensible that any new system is future proofed as much as possible. Does that mean road pricing is definitely coming for London with this project? No however I think we are all aware that given the move away from petrol and diesel cars there will have to be a change in road charging nationally and this will for part of it.
Assuming road pricing is brought in I'm yet to hear a sensible argument against it? If technology allows isn't it right that those who drive more should pay more than others for the upkeep of roads?
Some posters complained that the fine is too light and there should be an outright ban on all non-compliant cars.
I agree the timing wasn't great but TFL's hands were tied financially.
On the MI I have no idea about publication plans. We got numbers on the take up of the scrappage scheme which was far higher than expected which is a much better indication of whether its impacting behaviour than charges. I don't really know what you would take from it if you did get this MI. Number of charges means nothing, as I've said before someone who only drives in the zone occasionally it is still economically efficient for them to not upgrade their car so a charge for them isn't a bad thing. Its data on mode shift and car sharing that would make a difference. TBH i think your obsession with this shows that you don't really understand how the scheme is designed to work and the interactions of the behavioural science and the economic incentives of what is essentially a pollution permits scheme. If there were no charges you'd say it was pointless as everyone is compliant anyway and its just gonna lose money. If there were charges you'd say its not impacting behaviours.
As the benefit is forecast to be marginal it should have been introduced with more leeway / time - that's my point.
I also remain concerned its going to be a cost drain all too soon - most do not agree with that.
To repeat myself and widen the point I look forward to the data analysis on compliance to see what trends emerge / behaviours have / will change for Outer London. I really think that will be interesting.
My reservation (its only that because Outer London derivers benefit from the initial introduction in inner London) is that for non compliance we are down to a core of drivers who are ad hoc visitors and will pay relatively speaking one off fines. We wont have many cars registered within Outer London or nearby who are still not compliant and are therefore already (now) polluting less. I'm also interested in how well we actually collect the fines from foreign registered cars, commercial vehicles who see it as a cost of business, repeat offenders who disregard etc. I fear we wont improve air quality very much more with this group who don't care / accept it.
Sometime in the future.
However it is not happening now, and Sadiq Khan has said he wouldn’t allow it in London whilst he is Mayor.
If it happens in the future then it will be an adjustment everybody will have to come to terms with, like the introduction of tuition fees, or fares going up, or prescription charges, or costs to see the dentist, and many other changes there have already been.
In terms of ULEZ the debate for some is about the introduction of it, or the costs, or what it might mean in the future, but the debate for others is about the climate crisis and the health of children like Ella Kissi Debrah, although admittedly in this thread I seem to be the only person referencing the cleaner air/child health aspect of things.
You’d have to have guarantees about maximum charge limits though.