ULEZ Camera locations

[Penguin68]

Doesn't this suggest that it's been more successful than expected in reducing the number of high polluting vehicles travelling in the zone?

If you think that's what it was all about, then yes, but very clearly the Mayor and TfL were looking at it is a revenue generator - they want polluting vehicles in London to fund them. Hence all their focus on revenue generation.

The metrics I would have been looking for were (a) a reduction in polluting vehicles entering London and (b) an improvement in air quality (year-on-year - although recent vehicle activity cannot be said to be the pre-Covid norm).

It is interesting that these latter metrics are not 'the news' as regards ULEZ expansion. But that less revenue than expected is. Speaks volumes. And throws some light on LTNs (IMHO).

[DuncanW]

The stated aim of the scheme has always been to reduce harmful emissions caused by 'more polluting cars'. The scheme has been successful so far; more so than anticipated. It really is as simple as that.

[Earl Aelfheah]

DuncanW Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The stated aim of the scheme has always to reduce

> harmful emissions caused by 'more polluting cars'.

> The scheme has been successful so far; more so

> than anticipated. It really is as simple as that.

Exactly. And regardless, I can't see how anyone would think a reduction in the most polluting vehicle is a bad outcome.

[Penguin68]

The stated aim of the scheme has always to reduce harmful emissions caused by 'more polluting cars'. The scheme has been successful so far; more so than anticipated. It really is as simple as that.

Such an aim is admirable, in so far as it must be assumed that the 'more polluting' vehicles pollute more. To my mind the real underlying metric is a measure of improved air quality - the apparent reduction in 'polluting' vehicles is a proxy for the more valuable air quality measure.

And I would make the point that nowhere is it stated by the Mayor and TfL that the reduction in revenues is being seen as a win. I cannot see headlines (though I haven't looked everywhere) of 'ULEZ delivers polluting vehicle reductions in new ULEZ zone'. All I can see is a whinge that planned revenue targets weren't met.

We are seeing this as a win for the policy, but that's not (quite) what's been being said. Maybe because if it is such a win, why were we playing around with LTNs if they were being introduced for healthy streets purposes.

[Earl Aelfheah]

You want to see more high polluting vehicles in London? What is this?

[sweetgirl]

Goodness me!

Open your 👀

Nothing more than a revenue generator as previously stated!

Cars being forced to idle in traffic making it a longer journey, I guess that?s ok is it?

The whole thing is a shambles but will continue as it?s making the councils money!

The rich, wealthy (call them what you like) will all be taking a hit soon!

So far I read a article where dulwich ltn?s have raised over 5million!

Sad to see that people are working like dogs just to pay bills & keep tree huggers happy!

[Earl Aelfheah]

sweetgirl Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Goodness me!

> Open your 👀

> Nothing more than a revenue generator as

> previously stated!

> Cars being forced to idle in traffic making it a

> longer journey, I guess that?s ok is it?

> The whole thing is a shambles but will continue as

> it?s making the councils money!

> The rich, wealthy (call them what you like) will

> all be taking a hit soon!

> So far I read a article where dulwich ltn?s have

> raised over 5million!

>

> Sad to see that people are working like dogs just

> to pay bills & keep tree huggers happy!

ULEZ

[DuncanW]

Sweetgirl, did you post this on the right thread? How would the ULEZ force people to idle in traffic?

Either way, when you use terms like treehuggers to describe those concerned about illegal levels of NO2 and PMI causing thousands of premature deaths every year, you rather give your position away.

[ianr]

Spartacus wrote above:

---------------------

> Today TfL finally admitted that the expanded

> ULEZ didn't make as much as expected

What does your "finally admitted" refer to; why those particular words?

[Waseley]

You could level the same criticism at any scheme that restricts motorists (money generator) - CPZs, general parking, speed controls, access controls. Some in society consider there should be no controls on drivers. Most fortunately don't agree. There is as ever a discussion on incentives Vs penalties and where revenue goes.

[DuncanW]

"You could level the same criticism at any scheme that restricts motorists (money generator) - CPZs, general parking, speed controls, access controls"

Many do... I can't recall any such scheme, and let's add in the reduction to 20mph, and the original congestion charge, that hasn't been met with claims that it's just a money generating wheeze...

[Jenijenjen]

Used to be called a stealth tax not so long ago

[Spartacus]

ianr Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Spartacus wrote above:

> ---------------------

> > Today TfL finally admitted that the expanded

> > ULEZ didn't make as much as expected

>

> What does your "finally admitted" refer to; why

> those particular words?

Whenever I'm asked why I use particular words, I like to refer people back to how the English Language evolved https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_English

Hopefully that will explain why I used those particular words and not Double Dutch.

Hope that puts your mind at rest Ianr on the peculiarities of the language we all use today.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Waseley Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You could level the same criticism at any scheme

> that restricts motorists (money generator) - CPZs,

> general parking, speed controls, access controls.

> Some in society consider there should be no

> controls on drivers. Most fortunately don't

> agree. There is as ever a discussion on

> incentives Vs penalties and where revenue goes.

Yep. It seems likely cars are highly subsidised in reality. Motorists pay around ?38bn a year to the treasury's coffers, around ?10bn less than the estimated cost to society (in terms of health, space and infrastructure). So much of the true cost is 'externalised'.

[edfans]

Can anyone suggest a reliable painter or handyman for work in se22 please

[Waseley]

Are you planning to paint over the ULEZ cameras?

[Dulwich handy]

Loooool

[CPR Dave]

I got pinged at Grove Vale / Oglander road recently so a trip to Sainsbury's is now becoming more expensive.

[Duc748]

@CPR Dave, approach Sainsburys from Bellenden, Avondale and Pytechley Roads and you'll miss the camera. When you depart Sainsburys, go up the hill and back the same way.

[Sue]

Duc748 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> @CPR Dave, approach Sainsburys from Bellenden,

> Avondale and Pytechley Roads and you'll miss the

> camera. When you depart Sainsburys, go up the hill

> and back the same way.

Duc748 can you give me a route for all my likely journeys?!

The last time I used my car was to take my Christmas tree back to my allotment, and now my battery is flat😭 hopefully not irreversibly damaged 😭

Oh and CPR Dave, wouldn't it be cheaper to get your groceries delivered, even with the delivery charge?