Ulez expanded to include whole of outer London

[lancon]

Did someone in this thread not point to an article that said that the scheme would not break even until 2027?

I believe it's seen as the time old cars will have left the road and the revenue raised will be little

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Did someone in this thread not point to an article that said that the scheme would not break even until 2027?

I haven't a clue i haven't read all 160 post in it, oh well if that is the case they should get those naughty boys and girls (or whatever they want to call themselves) doing unpaid work forced on them by the courts to do it and if they cannot then back to the highways agency and one less pothole filled every couple of hours (as posted earlier) not that you would notice.

 

[Hoppopotamus]

ULEZ charges effectively represent an additional charge to visit the national capital and seat of government - how democratic.
Unlike London residents who already have subsidized public transport schemes (most of the rest of the country does not even have viable public transport let alone subsidies) - they are now given money towards new cars whilst as usual the rest of the country has to pay their own way.
I propose levying an additional charge on London residents for use of renewable energy generated in the regions

 

[stripeyjoe]

ULEZ charges effectively represent an additional charge to visit the national capital and seat of government - how democratic.
Unlike London residents who already have subsidized public transport schemes (most of the rest of the country does not even have viable public transport let alone subsidies) - they are now given money towards new cars whilst as usual the rest of the country has to pay their own way.
I propose levying an additional charge on London residents for use of renewable energy generated in the regions

Sounds like a great idea, London should pay its way, would this be on top of the roughly £12,000,000,000 a year that it already donates to the rest of the feckless UK?
Gross GDP per capita London = £60,000, North West = £30,000
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gros...icactivitybygrossdomesticproductuk/1998to2021

 

[Justin Dean]

Money maker scheme

 

[lancon]

ULEZ charges effectively represent a way of increasing the air quality in London.

More to the point the charges are being put towards improving London transport, including a major new bus route, the Superloop, looks interesting.

And I don't recall seeing any Londoner residents against the ULEZ on this forum, one I was talking to yesterday is all in favour, thinks Sadiq Khan is doing a great job, doesn't big himself up just gets things done

 

[welly3]

ULEZ charges effectively represent an additional charge to visit the national capital and seat of government - how democratic.
Unlike London residents who already have subsidized public transport schemes (most of the rest of the country does not even have viable public transport let alone subsidies) - they are now given money towards new cars whilst as usual the rest of the country has to pay their own way.
I propose levying an additional charge on London residents for use of renewable energy generated in the regions

Nah, that's not true. Not once when visiting London have I ever had to pay a ULEZ charge. There's plenty of ways to visit London without incurring a ULEZ charge. The two cars I have access to, a 1972 VW Beetle and a 10+ year old Citroen C3 both meet the ULEZ standards and so no charges would be incurred for either. My motorbike also meets ULEZ standards. Or you could go by train. Or by plane. Or by boat. Or by bus. You won't pay a penny in ULEZ charges.

As for "most of the rest of the country does not even have viable public transport let alone subsidies", I think you can look at 13 years of Tory "governing" to blame for that.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

And I don't recall seeing any Londoner residents against the ULEZ on this forum,

I checked the forum member map few members live in the zone and the majority dont post in the snug so not really a surprise they haven't been vocal!

 

[stripeyjoe]

Money maker scheme

No it’s not. All the income is being invested in improvements to the public transport network.

 

[Bernie]

As for "most of the rest of the country does not even have viable public transport let alone subsidies", I think you can look at 13 years of Tory "governing" to blame for that.

If that were true London wouldn't have viable public transport.
I've found train services across the country quite good.

 

[Bernie]

I believe it's seen as the time old cars will have left the road and the revenue raised will be little

Would that matter as the scheme is meant to improve air quality rather than raise money? More would use public transport.

 

[Justin Dean]

Would that matter as the scheme is meant to improve air quality rather than raise money? More would use public transport.

Does it though.

 

[welly3]

Money maker scheme

More money into the city's coffers? Why is that a bad thing?

 

[welly3]

If that were true London wouldn't have viable public transport.
I've found train services across the country quite good.

I find rail services just a step above adequate, on a good day.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

I've found train services across the country quite good.

You wouldn't say that if you used our service regularly.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Would that matter as the scheme is meant to improve air quality rather than raise money? More would use public transport.

This thread continues to go round in circles this has already been discussed.
If they were serious about air pollution they would not allow those that can afford to pay £250 a month to drive in the zones to carry on poisoning the air.

 

[lancon]

Would that matter as the scheme is meant to improve air quality rather than raise money? More would use public transport.

The point was raised that it was just a money making scheme. All the money raised goes to improving public transport. And the improvement in air quality is often forgotten or disputed on here.
A good public transport is essential, I would use it, and rural pubs would like it too so more could enjoy them.

 

[lancon]

This thread continues to go round in circles this has already been discussed.
If they were serious about air pollution they would not allow those that can afford to pay £250 a month to drive in the zones to carry on poisoning the air.

As has been discussed somethings have to be taken slowly, it is a drag about the ULEZ, but can you imagine the riots if all non compliant just banned?

 

[Brew_DD2]

This thread continues to go round in circles this has already been discussed.
If they were serious about air pollution they would not allow those that can afford to pay £250 a month to drive in the zones to carry on poisoning the air.

It's the same as any taxation. Encourage people to change their own behaviour rather using the blunt instrument of banning.

 

[Benfleet Brewery]

It's the same as any taxation. Encourage people to change their own behaviour rather using the blunt instrument of banning.

Encourage the poorer people you mean. The rich can and will carry on polluting as either their vehicles are compliant (but often still polluting) or they can afford to pay the tax!