Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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 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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

"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...

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.

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'.

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

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?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The coop of Forest Hill Road is very different- cheerful and helpful staff 
    • Would you expose your young people to 'that man'? That is apparently a real question. 'That man' is in fact a retired Oxford Professor of Moral & Pastoral Theology who wrote a book setting out to provide a moral reckoning on the vexed subject of Britain's Empire and its history. What might formerly have been a purely academic matter has become highly contentious, and according to one Cambridge academic "serious shit" that needed to be CLOSED DOWN. It's all rather amazing, the stuff of satire or nightmare but not of the real world. Anyway, Lord Biggar accepted an invitation to visit Peckham and speak to and with a small audience that was due to include young Black students ... who in the end didn't come on the day! Having set the whole thing up to facilitate this encounter for them, the outcome was a disappointment. The conversation with Lord Biggar and audience was not:   
    • Entertaining a visitor from Philippines, she's been here before but I've promised lunch.  Somewhere a little different maybe, quirky?
    • Surely a very simple: "how much does the council receive from the organisers of the Gala festival for payment for use of Peckham Rye" would smoke out a response. The "commercial sensitivity" could be because the council are giving it away or it could be because Gala don't want others to know how much they are paying - it is really tough to make money from any type of festival these days and Wide Awake in Brockwell, for example, sent out a plea for people to buy tickets via a reduced price "Tell a Friend" special offer because (they said much of it linked to the problems Lambeth were having with the High Court) things were entering "squeaky bum time"  and they were struggling to hit their break-even point. It does make me wonder whether expansion is baked-in to the agreements the council has with the organisers for events like Gala as the organisers have to be able to scale the size of the event each year to try to make money. I do also how much of the "revenue" from these events might be swallowed up by the provision of the "free community" event element of them. The comment piece in the Guardian sums it up quite nicely: The heart of this issue seems to be how cash-strapped councils are becoming increasingly beholden to commercial interests to the detriment of the public. A weekend festival that welcomes 50,000 people can expect to raise about £500,000 for local authorities. Councils argue that this money goes back in the public purse, allowing them to continue funding free community events such as Lambeth’s beloved Country Show, though there doesn’t seem to be much transparency over exactly how much cash is raised or where it is allocated.   The issue for councils may well be that if people found out how much was actually being raised by these events that the community would say the disruption is not worth it and I do wonder how much of the revenue is being swallowed up by the provision of the "free event" using the same infrastructure. Any time a council doesn't want to share something openly very much suggests that it is because they think constituents won't like the answer.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...