Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
ULEZ Checker
Comments
-
It's done and dusted in London. Only a fringe of people who can't remember why they don't like it are against it.5
-
Eh?cafc999 said:
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.
it’s her published pledge should she win to scrap the extension - and which is all I comment on (I doubt she will win) so not sure why you say that?0 -
Well, she's a Tory so we should assume that anything she says is a lie.valleynick66 said:
Eh?cafc999 said:
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.
it’s her published pledge should she win to scrap the extension - and which is all I comment on (I doubt she will win) so not sure why you say that?6 -
How many published promises have been broken in the past?valleynick66 said:
Eh?cafc999 said:
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.
it’s her published pledge should she win to scrap the extension - and which is all I comment on (I doubt she will win) so not sure why you say that?
Do you honestly think she will abolish something that brings in money?1 -
Well purely because she says she will scrap on Day 1 without any caveat I doubt she would have a legitimate choice not to.cafc999 said:
How many published promises have been broken in the past?valleynick66 said:
Eh?cafc999 said:
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.
it’s her published pledge should she win to scrap the extension - and which is all I comment on (I doubt she will win) so not sure why you say that?
Do you honestly think she will abolish something that brings in money?Likewise on the other side of the coin we are told by Khan it’s not a revenue based initiative.Probably a hollow promise as unlikely to get the win but I don’t see how they could not follow through at least initially given the public pronouncements.1 -
Politicians tell more than their share of lies but as far as I'm concerned Khan was absolutely spot on about one thing in an interview the other day: "The day after the election, people won't want to wake up with a conservative mayor".I'm still shuddering at the idea now.6
-
In all honesty I’m not 100% convinced the mayor (of any political shade) has that much power and influence to really influence things given the dependency on central government and broader economic climate beyond their control. These constraints mean there is limited wriggle room to do notable schemes and enforce local policy at variance to elsewhere.IdleHans said:Politicians tell more than their share of lies but as far as I'm concerned Khan was absolutely spot on about one thing in an interview the other day: "The day after the election, people won't want to wake up with a conservative mayor".I'm still shuddering at the idea now.I see their role as ‘selling’ London to create advantages whether that be in terms of generating tourism or accessing more central funding etc.
They are limited and ULEZ is one of the few policies that stand out.2 -
You've possibly credited me with making a serious point. I was really just recoiling at the idea of waking up with Susan Hall on the other side of the bed.
5 -
Since Ken Livingstone onward there have been some significant Mayor led improvements in transport.
Arguably the best improvement (even if flawed in a practical sense in some places) has been the introduction of Bus Lanes.
London used to be (necessarily?) dominated by the car to the detriment of every other road user.
If the Bakerloo line is extended through, say, Camberwell and Peckham to Lewisham, maybe on to Bromley or up to Eltham it would be great.
I won’t live to see it mind you, but it is a step towards more clean air and less dependence on the motor car.1 -
Susan Hall won't be mayor, and the froth around ULEZ is mainly gone apart from some odd radicalised nutters3
- Sponsored links:
-
TFL have refused a Freedom of Information Request on how much it has cost to repair/replace damaged cameras. Stating that if they release the cost it might encourage more damage.1
-
Red Ken, Boris the Liar and Sadiq Kant - such a low bar0
-
Abolishing the expanded ULEZ now wouldn't make sense, whether you agreed with the policy or not. The infrastructure is in place, and many people will already have changed their vehicles. Indeed there would be an expense to change the boundary back to the north and south circulars.
It might be popular with some people just outside London, who currently have to pay to drive in, but they aren't voting in the election.5 -
Bakerloo line will terminate at Lewisham thank you very much! Hopefully i'll still be alive to see it!seth plum said:Since Ken Livingstone onward there have been some significant Mayor led improvements in transport.
Arguably the best improvement (even if flawed in a practical sense in some places) has been the introduction of Bus Lanes.
London used to be (necessarily?) dominated by the car to the detriment of every other road user.
If the Bakerloo line is extended through, say, Camberwell and Peckham to Lewisham, maybe on to Bromley or up to Eltham it would be great.
I won’t live to see it mind you, but it is a step towards more clean air and less dependence on the motor car.0 -
Thank the lord RBG didn't behave like this with parking around Charlton.Jints said:
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 idea, 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.
Oh hang on a minute...
1 -
Plans to introduce a part-time low-traffic neighbourhood have been challenged by Greenwich’s Conservative opposition leader – meaning that a panel of councillors will have to hear concerns about the scheme.Billy_Mix said:
Thank the lord RBG didn't behave like this with parking around Charlton.Jints said:
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 idea, 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.
Oh hang on a minute...
Three Labour councillors — Lakshan Saldin (Charlton Hornfair), Leo Fletcher (Blackheath Westcombe) and Maisie Richards Cottell (East Greenwich) — have also called in the plans. They are raising worries about specific aspects of the scheme, which would cover much of Greenwich and part of Blackheath.
https://greenwichwire.co.uk/2024/03/15/greenwich-ltn-plan-to-be-challenged-by-tory-councillor/
0 -
Ulez won't be a massive thing come Mayoral election, I've heard more people grumbling about council tax (the GLA element) which is up considerably.1
-
Council tax pays for stuff. If you don’t like what happens vote the council out. If you have solutions write to your councillor or MP suggesting them or stand for election yourself.
It is however quite cathartic to complain endlessly about those who achieve power, there is no compunction to accept defeat without complaint.
If the form of complaining is illegal, then accept the full force of the law if you’re caught, including surrendering some of your DNA for reference and future use.
Council tax pays for stuff.0 -
Nobody is complaining about council tax, but they are complaining about the ever rising element that goes to the GLAseth plum said:Council tax pays for stuff. If you don’t like what happens vote the council out. If you have solutions write to your councillor or MP suggesting them or stand for election yourself.
It is however quite cathartic to complain endlessly about those who achieve power, there is no compunction to accept defeat without complaint.
If the form of complaining is illegal, then accept the full force of the law if you’re caught, including surrendering some of your DNA for reference and future use.
Council tax pays for stuff.
we all know council tax pays for stuff seth1 - Sponsored links:
-
As per usual 2+2 = 5 and lets make up/misinterpret what someone's said.seth plum said:Council tax pays for stuff. If you don’t like what happens vote the council out. If you have solutions write to your councillor or MP suggesting them or stand for election yourself.
It is however quite cathartic to complain endlessly about those who achieve power, there is no compunction to accept defeat without complaint.
If the form of complaining is illegal, then accept the full force of the law if you’re caught, including surrendering some of your DNA for reference and future use.
Council tax pays for stuff.
"I've heard more people grumbling about council tax (the GLA element)" - I'm sure you know what the GLA element is (the precept) and who and how it is set.
I'm quite happy in the main with Bromley Council and how and what they spend their money on. Services are much better than when I lived in Greenwich or Lewisham (perversely the council tax is also cheaper).
Was up 2.99% this year, the GLA element up 8.58%.1 -
The Department for Transport insisted on the extension as part of the TfL financial settlement. Not in her power to remove it.valleynick66 said:
Eh?cafc999 said:
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.
it’s her published pledge should she win to scrap the extension - and which is all I comment on (I doubt she will win) so not sure why you say that?0 -
Incorrect. The expansion to outer London was not conditional.Crusty54 said:
The Department for Transport insisted on the extension as part of the TfL financial settlement. Not in her power to remove it.valleynick66 said:
Eh?cafc999 said:
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.
it’s her published pledge should she win to scrap the extension - and which is all I comment on (I doubt she will win) so not sure why you say that?You may be thinking of the previous expansion to the south and north circular.0 -
For everyone saying ULEZ is now not an issue or 90% of vehicles are fine just remember the goal posts can easily be moved just like that. If it's currently loss making all that needs doing is moving the goal posts from any vehicle pre-2006 onwards by say 2-3 years to start getting the revenue in again.0
-
So odd that on ‘X’ many of the vehemently anti ULEZ (and anti Khan) types don’t live in London.Being selfish, and living near the south circular, ULEZ Is fine by me.I suspect historians will have the policy down as something we should have done a few years earlier.4
-
They might have to drive into London / within the zone?JamesSeed said:So odd that on ‘X’ many of the vehemently anti ULEZ (and anti Khan) types don’t live in London.Being selfish, and living near the south circular, ULEZ Is fine by me.I suspect historians will have the policy down as something we should have done a few years earlier.0 -
Why read that stuff at all?JamesSeed said:So odd that on ‘X’ many of the vehemently anti ULEZ (and anti Khan) types don’t live in London.Being selfish, and living near the south circular, ULEZ Is fine by me.I suspect historians will have the policy down as something we should have done a few years earlier.
I‘m still waiting for some facts and figures and neutral analysis to learn impact on our London funding, attributable air quality gains (as there will be some) and compliance v non compliance.
0 -
Yep, and all elements of tax pays for stuff.Rob7Lee said:
As per usual 2+2 = 5 and lets make up/misinterpret what someone's said.seth plum said:Council tax pays for stuff. If you don’t like what happens vote the council out. If you have solutions write to your councillor or MP suggesting them or stand for election yourself.
It is however quite cathartic to complain endlessly about those who achieve power, there is no compunction to accept defeat without complaint.
If the form of complaining is illegal, then accept the full force of the law if you’re caught, including surrendering some of your DNA for reference and future use.
Council tax pays for stuff.
"I've heard more people grumbling about council tax (the GLA element)" - I'm sure you know what the GLA element is (the precept) and who and how it is set.
I'm quite happy in the main with Bromley Council and how and what they spend their money on. Services are much better than when I lived in Greenwich or Lewisham (perversely the council tax is also cheaper).
Was up 2.99% this year, the GLA element up 8.58%.0 -
and a stopped clocked is right twice a dayseth plum said:
Yep, and all elements of tax pays for stuff.Rob7Lee said:
As per usual 2+2 = 5 and lets make up/misinterpret what someone's said.seth plum said:Council tax pays for stuff. If you don’t like what happens vote the council out. If you have solutions write to your councillor or MP suggesting them or stand for election yourself.
It is however quite cathartic to complain endlessly about those who achieve power, there is no compunction to accept defeat without complaint.
If the form of complaining is illegal, then accept the full force of the law if you’re caught, including surrendering some of your DNA for reference and future use.
Council tax pays for stuff.
"I've heard more people grumbling about council tax (the GLA element)" - I'm sure you know what the GLA element is (the precept) and who and how it is set.
I'm quite happy in the main with Bromley Council and how and what they spend their money on. Services are much better than when I lived in Greenwich or Lewisham (perversely the council tax is also cheaper).
Was up 2.99% this year, the GLA element up 8.58%.
Everything between your first, and repeated, last sentence had nothing to do with the precept. I can't work out if you really didn't know the difference (which is how your response appears) or are being purposely obtuse for the sake of it. Either way, I must get back to the 'do not engage'3 -
The precept is not relevant.
Money comes in under the guise of a lot of different names, there used to be something called Road Tax which wasn't only spent on roads, the essential thing is that if anybody moans about being tax overburdened then pay up or change the system.
Moaning about it is welcome, I moan about a lot of things myself, but I don't tend to moan about tax rates however they're labelled because it seems clear to me we all ought to be paying much more to start to fix the destruction since 2010, and the extra destruction since 2016, and the long standing ongoing destruction of the environment.
There are elections in May. I suspect there are those amongst us who accept that we must all pay all sorts of taxes and charges if we want there to be things, the structures are details.
Money comes in, money gets spent.1
