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

    • Rant ahead: You're not one of them but unfortunately, there's a substrate of posters here that do very little except moan and come up with weird conspiracy theories. They're immediately highly critical of just about any change, and their initial assumption is that everyone else is a total fucking contemptible idiot. For example: don't you think that the people who run the libraries will have considered the impact of timing of reconstruction on library users? (In fact, we know they have - because they've made arrangements at other libraries to attempt to mitigate the disruption). After all, these are the people that spend their whole working week thinking about libraries and dealing with library users (and the kids especially). You don't go into the library game for the chicks and fame - so it's fair to assume that librarians are committed to public service and public access to libraries, including by kids. Likewise the built environment people (engineers, architects, construction managers, project managers, construction contractors, subcontractors or whoever is on this job) are told to minimise disruption on every job they do. The thing that occurs to us as amateurs within 30 seconds of us seeing something is probably not something a full time professional hasn't thought about! Southwark Council, the NHS, TfL, Dulwich Estate, Thames Water, Openreach - they're not SPECTRE factories filled with malevolent chaosmongers trying to persecute anyone. They're mostly filled with people who understand their job and try to do their best with what they've been given - just like all of us. Nobody is perfect or immune from challenge, and that's fair enough, but why not at least start from the assumption that there's a good reason why things have been done the way they have? Any normal person would be pleased that their busy, pretty, lively local library is getting refurbished, and will have more space and facilities for kids and teens, and will be more efficient to run and warmer in winter. But no, EDT_Forumite_752 had kids who did an exam 20 years ago, and this makes them an expert on library refurbishment who can see it's all just stuff and nonsense for the green agenda and why can't it all be put off... 😡😡😡
    • I completely misread the previous post, sorry. For some reason I thought the mini cooper was also a police vehicle, DUH.
    • This has given me ideas for the ginger wine I love, that no one else likes!      
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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