Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
ULEZ Checker
Comments
-
Found the below on Twitter this morning, all common sense, but the school run traffic should have been dealt with years ago, far too many in cars when walking and buses should be used instead
3 -
Second and third are good points, but it's a 6 month report.JohnnyH2 said:Found the below on Twitter this morning, all common sense, but the school run traffic should have been dealt with years ago, far too many in cars when walking and buses should be used instead1 -
Isn’t that entirely the point though? It wasn’t introduced to make money, but to improve the air.cafc999 said:Looking at some of the figures in that report it looks like this is losing money handover fist as more and more cars are ULEZ compliant.7 -
My point is that if it keeps losing money, who pays for it? You cannot keep running a loss making operation on that scale. The Mayor will have to up charges or move the goal posts.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Isn’t that entirely the point though? It wasn’t introduced to make money, but to improve the air.cafc999 said:Looking at some of the figures in that report it looks like this is losing money handover fist as more and more cars are ULEZ compliant.1 -
I’m not sure why the LOLs on my comment on charges from some.cafc999 said:
My point is that if it keeps losing money, who pays for it? You cannot keep running a loss making operation on that scale. The Mayor will have to up charges or move the goal posts.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Isn’t that entirely the point though? It wasn’t introduced to make money, but to improve the air.cafc999 said:Looking at some of the figures in that report it looks like this is losing money handover fist as more and more cars are ULEZ compliant.Shouldn’t we want to appreciate who is still polluting our air ? Is it repeat offenders / foreign visitors or commercial vehicles for example ?
are we successful in getting the fees paid?1 -
It's aim is to improve people's health, not to make money, like the NHS.cafc999 said:
My point is that if it keeps losing money, who pays for it? You cannot keep running a loss making operation on that scale. The Mayor will have to up charges or move the goal posts.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Isn’t that entirely the point though? It wasn’t introduced to make money, but to improve the air.cafc999 said:Looking at some of the figures in that report it looks like this is losing money handover fist as more and more cars are ULEZ compliant.3 -
Will it cover its costs?Friend Or Defoe said:
Its aim is to improve people's health, not to make money, like the NHS.cafc999 said:
My point is that if it keeps losing money, who pays for it? You cannot keep running a loss making operation on that scale. The Mayor will have to up charges or move the goal posts.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Isn’t that entirely the point though? It wasn’t introduced to make money, but to improve the air.cafc999 said:Looking at some of the figures in that report it looks like this is losing money handover fist as more and more cars are ULEZ compliant.1 -
So if it it keeps making a loss, that potentially runs into the millions - it's ok?Friend Or Defoe said:
It's aim is to improve people's health, not to make money, like the NHS.cafc999 said:
My point is that if it keeps losing money, who pays for it? You cannot keep running a loss making operation on that scale. The Mayor will have to up charges or move the goal posts.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Isn’t that entirely the point though? It wasn’t introduced to make money, but to improve the air.cafc999 said:Looking at some of the figures in that report it looks like this is losing money handover fist as more and more cars are ULEZ compliant.
I fully understand the health 'benefits' but there has to be a financial justification for such projects0 -
Having been to some of the most polluted cities on earth, I’d said it’s absolutely ok, yes, you can’t put a price on breathable air.cafc999 said:
So if it it keeps making a loss, that potentially runs into the millions - it's ok?Friend Or Defoe said:
It's aim is to improve people's health, not to make money, like the NHS.cafc999 said:
My point is that if it keeps losing money, who pays for it? You cannot keep running a loss making operation on that scale. The Mayor will have to up charges or move the goal posts.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Isn’t that entirely the point though? It wasn’t introduced to make money, but to improve the air.cafc999 said:Looking at some of the figures in that report it looks like this is losing money handover fist as more and more cars are ULEZ compliant.
I fully understand the health 'benefits' but there has to be a financial justification for such projectsShort term cost, long term saving.2 -
I used the NHS as an example as it costs multiple more than ULEZ ever will.
0 - Sponsored links:
-
Serves more people than ULEZ.Friend Or Defoe said:I used the NHS as an example as it costs multiple more than ULEZ ever will.
0 -
But like the NHS, could do with a good dose of privatisation to sort it outcafc999 said:
Serves more people than ULEZ.Friend Or Defoe said:I used the NHS as an example as it costs multiple more than ULEZ ever will.
(Gets coat and runs)...1 -
Which means it's OK if it loses millions, or does the NHS not need a financial justification?cafc999 said:
Serves more people than ULEZ.Friend Or Defoe said:I used the NHS as an example as it costs multiple more than ULEZ ever will.1 -
The proof of the pudding will be in a couple of years time when hopefully breathing conditions should reduce along with deaths, putting less strain on Londons NHS. If the figures do not reduce then it will be a massive failure.
0 -
You're are comparing chalk with cheese and you know it.Friend Or Defoe said:
Which means it's OK if it loses millions, or does the NHS not need a financial justification?cafc999 said:
Serves more people than ULEZ.Friend Or Defoe said:I used the NHS as an example as it costs multiple more than ULEZ ever will.
The NHS is nothing at all like ULEZ0 -
Significant wording here:JamesSeed said:Ulez expansion led to significant drop in air pollutants in London, report finds.
Imagine our surprise.
Blah blah ESTIMATED 22% lower and
Blah blah 13% lower than PROJECTED.It’s meaningless - regardless of one’s political viewpoint.However,Non compliant cars were 8% of total in Feb and are now 4%.This data will be backed by proper stats so you would expect some improvement in air quality.Personally, I hope the non-compliant figure goes down to almost zero ASAP - not because I believe any of the air quality nonsense, but to see what Khan’s next move will be when the gravy train dries up….but I think we can guess.1 -
Probably a longer return time but there will be reductions in incidence rates of children being born with exema and asthma. Redections in non-smoking lung cancers. All of these have societal benefits and cost savings. The direct savings to NHS, indirect savings through less sick days, more productive workforce. Knock ons for crime social services etc.Dansk_Red said:The proof of the pudding will be in a couple of years time when hopefully breathing conditions should reduce along with deaths, putting less strain on Londons NHS. If the figures do not reduce then it will be a massive failure.
Financial arguments on this are typical tory cost of everything value of nothing arguments.4 -
Why do you think it’s losing money?cafc999 said:
My point is that if it keeps losing money, who pays for it? You cannot keep running a loss making operation on that scale. The Mayor will have to up charges or move the goal posts.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Isn’t that entirely the point though? It wasn’t introduced to make money, but to improve the air.cafc999 said:Looking at some of the figures in that report it looks like this is losing money handover fist as more and more cars are ULEZ compliant.0 -
cafc999 said:
So if it it keeps making a loss, that potentially runs into the millions - it's ok?Friend Or Defoe said:
It's aim is to improve people's health, not to make money, like the NHS.cafc999 said:
My point is that if it keeps losing money, who pays for it? You cannot keep running a loss making operation on that scale. The Mayor will have to up charges or move the goal posts.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Isn’t that entirely the point though? It wasn’t introduced to make money, but to improve the air.cafc999 said:Looking at some of the figures in that report it looks like this is losing money handover fist as more and more cars are ULEZ compliant.
I fully understand the health 'benefits' but there has to be a financial justification for such projectsAs the result of a freedom of information request TFL provided this answer:
‘The estimated final cost to deliver the expanded scheme was reported in November 2022 to be in the range of £145 -155m. This includes costs of signage, detection and enforcement infrastructure, marketing, project overheads and risk.
TfL estimates that the London-wide ULEZ could generate up to £200 million a year in net revenue for the first two years following expansion on 29 August but this will decline sharply with no surplus by 2026/27 as compliance increases. It is a statutory requirement that any net revenue generated by our road charging schemes (the ULEZ, LEZ or the Congestion Charge) is reinvested back into London’s transport network, including investing in improving transport links in outer London. All money received from the ULEZ is reinvested into improving London’s public transport network, such as expanding bus routes in outer London.‘The superloop bus network has been developed and expanded using the revenue surplus I believe.0 -
Yes agreed and hence why I’m curious to see how the forecast costs and revenues stack up against the actual figures.JamesSeed said:cafc999 said:
So if it it keeps making a loss, that potentially runs into the millions - it's ok?Friend Or Defoe said:
It's aim is to improve people's health, not to make money, like the NHS.cafc999 said:
My point is that if it keeps losing money, who pays for it? You cannot keep running a loss making operation on that scale. The Mayor will have to up charges or move the goal posts.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Isn’t that entirely the point though? It wasn’t introduced to make money, but to improve the air.cafc999 said:Looking at some of the figures in that report it looks like this is losing money handover fist as more and more cars are ULEZ compliant.
I fully understand the health 'benefits' but there has to be a financial justification for such projectsAs the result of a freedom of information request TFL provided this answer:
‘The estimated final cost to deliver the expanded scheme was reported in November 2022 to be in the range of £145 -155m. This includes costs of signage, detection and enforcement infrastructure, marketing, project overheads and risk.
TfL estimates that the London-wide ULEZ could generate up to £200 million a year in net revenue for the first two years following expansion on 29 August but this will decline sharply with no surplus by 2026/27 as compliance increases. It is a statutory requirement that any net revenue generated by our road charging schemes (the ULEZ, LEZ or the Congestion Charge) is reinvested back into London’s transport network, including investing in improving transport links in outer London. All money received from the ULEZ is reinvested into improving London’s public transport network, such as expanding bus routes in outer London.‘The superloop bus network has been developed and expanded using the revenue surplus I believe.I’m surprised not published and hence my suspicion it is maybe less cost neutral than anticipated.0 - Sponsored links:
-
Look at the figures of non compliant cars and then times that by £12.50 or £50. Now see if that adds up to the original outlay cost and running costs. Now use those figures to see if it tallies up.JamesSeed said:
Why do you think it’s losing money?cafc999 said:
My point is that if it keeps losing money, who pays for it? You cannot keep running a loss making operation on that scale. The Mayor will have to up charges or move the goal posts.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Isn’t that entirely the point though? It wasn’t introduced to make money, but to improve the air.cafc999 said:Looking at some of the figures in that report it looks like this is losing money handover fist as more and more cars are ULEZ compliant.1 -
Things that provide health benefits must be financially viable unless they are things you like, got it.cafc999 said:
You're are comparing chalk with cheese and you know it.Friend Or Defoe said:
Which means it's OK if it loses millions, or does the NHS not need a financial justification?cafc999 said:
Serves more people than ULEZ.Friend Or Defoe said:I used the NHS as an example as it costs multiple more than ULEZ ever will.
The NHS is nothing at all like ULEZ1 -
.valleynick66 said:
I think the superloop was funded by surplus ULEZ revenue as promised.
Yes agreed and hence why I’m curious to see how the forecast costs and revenues stack up against the actual figures.JamesSeed said:cafc999 said:
So if it it keeps making a loss, that potentially runs into the millions - it's ok?Friend Or Defoe said:
It's aim is to improve people's health, not to make money, like the NHS.cafc999 said:
My point is that if it keeps losing money, who pays for it? You cannot keep running a loss making operation on that scale. The Mayor will have to up charges or move the goal posts.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Isn’t that entirely the point though? It wasn’t introduced to make money, but to improve the air.cafc999 said:Looking at some of the figures in that report it looks like this is losing money handover fist as more and more cars are ULEZ compliant.
I fully understand the health 'benefits' but there has to be a financial justification for such projectsAs the result of a freedom of information request TFL provided this answer:
‘The estimated final cost to deliver the expanded scheme was reported in November 2022 to be in the range of £145 -155m. This includes costs of signage, detection and enforcement infrastructure, marketing, project overheads and risk.
TfL estimates that the London-wide ULEZ could generate up to £200 million a year in net revenue for the first two years following expansion on 29 August but this will decline sharply with no surplus by 2026/27 as compliance increases. It is a statutory requirement that any net revenue generated by our road charging schemes (the ULEZ, LEZ or the Congestion Charge) is reinvested back into London’s transport network, including investing in improving transport links in outer London. All money received from the ULEZ is reinvested into improving London’s public transport network, such as expanding bus routes in outer London.‘The superloop bus network has been developed and expanded using the revenue surplus I believe.I’m surprised not published and hence my suspicion it is maybe less cost neutral than anticipated.I know some of you are keen to find a stick to beat Khan with, but I don’t think you’ll find one. ULEZ seems to have been a success overall.Great that London has been a trailblazer with this issue. Boris & Sadiq, take a bow.4 -
There will be knockers going over the figures with a fine tooth comb. If they don’t add up I suspect you’ll have heard about it by now.cafc999 said:
Look at the figures of non compliant cars and then times that by £12.50 or £50. Now see if that adds up to the original outlay cost and running costs. Now use those figures to see if it tallies up.JamesSeed said:
Why do you think it’s losing money?cafc999 said:
My point is that if it keeps losing money, who pays for it? You cannot keep running a loss making operation on that scale. The Mayor will have to up charges or move the goal posts.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Isn’t that entirely the point though? It wasn’t introduced to make money, but to improve the air.cafc999 said:Looking at some of the figures in that report it looks like this is losing money handover fist as more and more cars are ULEZ compliant.2 -
As I have repeatedly said I support the clean air ambition.JamesSeed said:.valleynick66 said:
I think the superloop was funded by surplus ULEZ revenue as promised.
Yes agreed and hence why I’m curious to see how the forecast costs and revenues stack up against the actual figures.JamesSeed said:cafc999 said:
So if it it keeps making a loss, that potentially runs into the millions - it's ok?Friend Or Defoe said:
It's aim is to improve people's health, not to make money, like the NHS.cafc999 said:
My point is that if it keeps losing money, who pays for it? You cannot keep running a loss making operation on that scale. The Mayor will have to up charges or move the goal posts.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Isn’t that entirely the point though? It wasn’t introduced to make money, but to improve the air.cafc999 said:Looking at some of the figures in that report it looks like this is losing money handover fist as more and more cars are ULEZ compliant.
I fully understand the health 'benefits' but there has to be a financial justification for such projectsAs the result of a freedom of information request TFL provided this answer:
‘The estimated final cost to deliver the expanded scheme was reported in November 2022 to be in the range of £145 -155m. This includes costs of signage, detection and enforcement infrastructure, marketing, project overheads and risk.
TfL estimates that the London-wide ULEZ could generate up to £200 million a year in net revenue for the first two years following expansion on 29 August but this will decline sharply with no surplus by 2026/27 as compliance increases. It is a statutory requirement that any net revenue generated by our road charging schemes (the ULEZ, LEZ or the Congestion Charge) is reinvested back into London’s transport network, including investing in improving transport links in outer London. All money received from the ULEZ is reinvested into improving London’s public transport network, such as expanding bus routes in outer London.‘The superloop bus network has been developed and expanded using the revenue surplus I believe.I’m surprised not published and hence my suspicion it is maybe less cost neutral than anticipated.I know some of you are keen to find a stick to beat Khan with, but I don’t think you’ll find one. ULEZ seems to have been a success overall.Great that London has been a trailblazer with this issue. Boris & Sadiq, take a bow.My concern is the costs whereas most suggest it’s a revenue making scheme.I just don’t understand why no information is published on this when it must be to hand.Why is that?0 -
We all suspect why.valleynick66 said:
As I have repeatedly said I support the clean air ambition.JamesSeed said:.valleynick66 said:
I think the superloop was funded by surplus ULEZ revenue as promised.
Yes agreed and hence why I’m curious to see how the forecast costs and revenues stack up against the actual figures.JamesSeed said:cafc999 said:
So if it it keeps making a loss, that potentially runs into the millions - it's ok?Friend Or Defoe said:
It's aim is to improve people's health, not to make money, like the NHS.cafc999 said:
My point is that if it keeps losing money, who pays for it? You cannot keep running a loss making operation on that scale. The Mayor will have to up charges or move the goal posts.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Isn’t that entirely the point though? It wasn’t introduced to make money, but to improve the air.cafc999 said:Looking at some of the figures in that report it looks like this is losing money handover fist as more and more cars are ULEZ compliant.
I fully understand the health 'benefits' but there has to be a financial justification for such projectsAs the result of a freedom of information request TFL provided this answer:
‘The estimated final cost to deliver the expanded scheme was reported in November 2022 to be in the range of £145 -155m. This includes costs of signage, detection and enforcement infrastructure, marketing, project overheads and risk.
TfL estimates that the London-wide ULEZ could generate up to £200 million a year in net revenue for the first two years following expansion on 29 August but this will decline sharply with no surplus by 2026/27 as compliance increases. It is a statutory requirement that any net revenue generated by our road charging schemes (the ULEZ, LEZ or the Congestion Charge) is reinvested back into London’s transport network, including investing in improving transport links in outer London. All money received from the ULEZ is reinvested into improving London’s public transport network, such as expanding bus routes in outer London.‘The superloop bus network has been developed and expanded using the revenue surplus I believe.I’m surprised not published and hence my suspicion it is maybe less cost neutral than anticipated.I know some of you are keen to find a stick to beat Khan with, but I don’t think you’ll find one. ULEZ seems to have been a success overall.Great that London has been a trailblazer with this issue. Boris & Sadiq, take a bow.My concern is the costs whereas most suggest it’s a revenue making scheme.I just don’t understand why no information is published on this when it must be to hand.Why is that?
It's simply a matter of whether one cares or not.0 -
You would have heard it by now? The interim report came out today LOL.JamesSeed said:
There will be knockers going over the figures with a fine tooth comb. If they don’t add up I suspect you’ll have heard about it by now.cafc999 said:
Look at the figures of non compliant cars and then times that by £12.50 or £50. Now see if that adds up to the original outlay cost and running costs. Now use those figures to see if it tallies up.JamesSeed said:
Why do you think it’s losing money?cafc999 said:
My point is that if it keeps losing money, who pays for it? You cannot keep running a loss making operation on that scale. The Mayor will have to up charges or move the goal posts.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Isn’t that entirely the point though? It wasn’t introduced to make money, but to improve the air.cafc999 said:Looking at some of the figures in that report it looks like this is losing money handover fist as more and more cars are ULEZ compliant.
Look at the figures, do the math and make your own mind up0 -
You are comparing a national service against a local charge mateFriend Or Defoe said:
Things that provide health benefits must be financially viable unless they are things you like, got it.cafc999 said:
You're are comparing chalk with cheese and you know it.Friend Or Defoe said:
Which means it's OK if it loses millions, or does the NHS not need a financial justification?cafc999 said:
Serves more people than ULEZ.Friend Or Defoe said:I used the NHS as an example as it costs multiple more than ULEZ ever will.
The NHS is nothing at all like ULEZ
Get it?
0 -
JamesSeed said:
There will be knockers going over the figures with a fine tooth comb. If they don’t add up I suspect you’ll have heard about it by now.cafc999 said:
Look at the figures of non compliant cars and then times that by £12.50 or £50. Now see if that adds up to the original outlay cost and running costs. Now use those figures to see if it tallies up.JamesSeed said:
Why do you think it’s losing money?cafc999 said:
My point is that if it keeps losing money, who pays for it? You cannot keep running a loss making operation on that scale. The Mayor will have to up charges or move the goal posts.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Isn’t that entirely the point though? It wasn’t introduced to make money, but to improve the air.cafc999 said:Looking at some of the figures in that report it looks like this is losing money handover fist as more and more cars are ULEZ compliant.
2 -
“We are now set to get London’s air to within legal limits by 2025, 184 years earlier than previously projected.”
That bit jumped out at me. Massive positive impact.
Also this bit is exactly what ive been saying on here about the expansion yet people have lept on saying its unfair on the poor or its not needed jn outer London:
"We know that toxic air is associated with increased risks of asthma, cancer and dementia, and that it disproportionately affects poorer Londoners and those from Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities.“With the greatest number of deaths attributable to air pollution occurring in outer London, it’s great to see these results since the Ulez was introduced London-wide.”
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/25/ulez-expansion-led-to-significant-drop-in-air-pollutants-in-london-report-finds5
