|
It's not designed to raise money.
Think you`ll find it is as tfl can`t raise what they want any other way, but again if assuming the pollution is high its only because they made it happen that way.
|
It's not designed to raise money.
Think you`ll find it is as tfl can`t raise what they want any other way, but again if assuming the pollution is high its only because they made it happen that way.
I don't understand the second half of the sentence but, if tfl want more.money, they can just put the fares up.
Edited by Adampr on 19/07/2023 at 23:40
|
|
Of course it is designed to raise money.
It is also designed to allow for road charging for all vehicles which is inevitably what it will end up doing once chargeable cars are negligible.
|
|
Most/all vehicles less than 6 years old will be exempt from the charge.
If the rules remain unchanged, the pool of affected vehicles and associated income will fall as vehicles are sold to non-Londoners, age and scrapped.
Investing in cameras systems, maintenance etc etc makes little sense unless at some the tax base is widened.
Reality - unconstrained vehicle use in densely packed urban areas simply results in congestion. Congestion and emissions charges are one way to reduce traffic.
|
|
Congestion and emissions charges are one way to reduce traffic.
Since when has that worked?
unconstrained vehicle use in densely packed urban areas simply results in congestion.
Why do you think that is?, maybe because roads are closed to non local traffic which means they all have to use main roads and end up with severe traffic jams, people keep stating the obvious and are not interested in why it happens, all because they want a larger income from the traffic jams they created....
some one mentioned TFL would just put up fares, I think they would be asking for trouble if they put them up anymore, reason why the motors are going to be charged to help pay for them....
|
Congestion and emissions charges are one way to reduce traffic.
Since when has that worked?
unconstrained vehicle use in densely packed urban areas simply results in congestion.
Why do you think that is?, maybe because roads are closed to non local traffic which means they all have to use main roads and end up with severe traffic jams, people keep stating the obvious and are not interested in why it happens, all because they want a larger income from the traffic jams they created....
some one mentioned TFL would just put up fares, I think they would be asking for trouble if they put them up anymore, reason why the motors are going to be charged to help pay for them....
That doesn't make any sense. So TFL won't put fares up because people won't like it, but they can extend the ULEZ, which people also don't like? Quite obviously, the whole point is to keep fares low (ish) and punish drivers so that people use public transport
As for creating traffic jams, I can only really say I am unsure how a ULEZ creates a traffic jam or why that would be considered desirable.
|
|
|
|
To one who hardly ever sets foot (and never wheel) in the London area, this all sounds like a cyclic argument, with participants concentrating on whichever part of the cycle best suits their personal bias. I don't believe the sole purpose of the ULEZ scheme is/was to raise money - tho that is clearly one of the side effects.
Just putting up all the necessary street furniture associated with it would have cost quite a bit ?
|
|
Any charge designed to change or manage public behaviour by large numbers of people is likely to raise significant revenue. That's the same whether it's a Congestion Charge, parking fees/fines or a ULEZ.
Question is what happens to that money.
If, as I understand to be the case, ULEZ revenue goes to TFL to help keep fares at a level where ridership is, at least, not deterred by cost then that's a reasonable objective. You can oppose it sure but it's not the sort of conclusion to which no reasonable authority could come.
ISTR that the previous extension out to the North/South Circulars was driven by Westminster/Whitehall so as to keep TfL afloat post pandemic.
As I said in the other thread, to which this might reasonably be kicked over and coupled, ULEZ has the fingerprints of all three parties on it.
|
|
|
|
A freind who lives in Horn Lane, Acron London W3,
1. Sold her MB E220 diesel to become compliant. now petrol.
2. Ealing is all 20 mph except for Hangar Lane which is 30 MPH
3. Gota ticket for 24 mph in the 20 zone,.Online speed awareness course. (I'd quite like to know where she managed to excede 20MPH !!!
4. Parking permit prices
www.ealing.gov.uk/info/201198/residents_permits/20...s Online speed awareness course.
5. Lots of LTN.s everywhere, 3 tickets in one day using a familiar route...
Not enjoying living in London anymore...
|
|
|
To one who hardly ever sets foot (and never wheel) in the London area, this all sounds like a cyclic argument, with participants concentrating on whichever part of the cycle best suits their personal bias. I don't believe the sole purpose of the ULEZ scheme is/was to raise money - tho that is clearly one of the side effects.
Just putting up all the necessary street furniture associated with it would have cost quite a bit ?
I think you have to live around London to see what is going on and as I`m not great at explaining anything I will leave it alone now, I gather the ULEZ will be replaced at a later date for road pricing (pay per Mile) as all the cameras are in place already.
|
|
The great thing about being outside Khan Land is that you get the opportunity to pay into his latest cash generating wheezes , but cannot vote against him.
Taxation without representation.
|
The great thing about being outside Khan Land is that you get the opportunity to pay into his latest cash generating wheezes , but cannot vote against him.
Taxation without representation.
It's something about mayors. Obviously, Khan's predecessors were somewhat challenging in completely different ways. I live much nearer Bristol these days and the mayor there is a silly little dictator with daft ideas that nobody challenges. I presume Andy Burnham up in Manchester isn't any better.
|
|
|
"I gather the ULEZ will be replaced at a later date for road pricing (pay per Mile) as all the cameras are in place already."
That's likely the end position, once we're all forced into EV they will need to get their revenue by other methods. I feel sorry for those who have to drive there, I avoid London like the plague.
|
"I gather the ULEZ will be replaced at a later date for road pricing (pay per Mile) as all the cameras are in place already."
That's likely the end position, once we're all forced into EV they will need to get their revenue by other methods. I feel sorry for those who have to drive there, I avoid London like the plague.
I've not lived there for about 7 years, but it's really not that bad. It certainly takes a long time to get around if you avoid the congestion charge, but it's not particularly challenging if you're not in a rush. It's certainly a different way of driving, though, and requires a lot more consideration than other places; you can't rely on the law...
When we first moved out of London, I was amazed at how few people let you out of a side road. In London everyone does, because they know you're coming anyway. Likewise, people don't get angry with you for being in the wrong lane at junctions because they probably are too, or at least have been that day. Dare to be in the wrong lane out in the sticks and everybody closes up to make sure there's no gap for you to drive into.
|
"I gather the ULEZ will be replaced at a later date for road pricing (pay per Mile) as all the cameras are in place already."
That's likely the end position, once we're all forced into EV they will need to get their revenue by other methods. I feel sorry for those who have to drive there, I avoid London like the plague.
I've not lived there for about 7 years, but it's really not that bad. It certainly takes a long time to get around if you avoid the congestion charge, but it's not particularly challenging if you're not in a rush. It's certainly a different way of driving, though, and requires a lot more consideration than other places; you can't rely on the law...
When we first moved out of London, I was amazed at how few people let you out of a side road. In London everyone does, because they know you're coming anyway. Likewise, people don't get angry with you for being in the wrong lane at junctions because they probably are too, or at least have been that day. Dare to be in the wrong lane out in the sticks and everybody closes up to make sure there's no gap for you to drive into.
When I was working, I had to quickly readjust to the London level of aggression on trips there but remember to reduce the level once I was back in the Midlands - and remove it altogether if I went out into the sticks.
|
"I gather the ULEZ will be replaced at a later date for road pricing (pay per Mile) as all the cameras are in place already."
That's likely the end position, once we're all forced into EV they will need to get their revenue by other methods. I feel sorry for those who have to drive there, I avoid London like the plague.
It's not somewhere I go a lot but have right into the centre to do some deliveries in a long wheelbase van and not had any issues with driving there - it's busy but other than it being slow then I've not come across any issues.
|
"I gather the ULEZ will be replaced at a later date for road pricing (pay per Mile) as all the cameras are in place already."
That's likely the end position, once we're all forced into EV they will need to get their revenue by other methods. I feel sorry for those who have to drive there, I avoid London like the plague.
I heard the latest idea being put forward is parking charges, each st-or..road will have an anpr camera positioned to see where a car is parking,when the car owner makes a call to pay the fee anpr checks what size engine and where possible its dimensions and whether its an EV, from that the price of parking will be set
I gather this will be applied mid 2024 in some London boroughs, as most parking is by phone now its meant to be easier and with the cameras size of vehicle will play a part in the cost of parking
It seems a lot of ideas being put forward about parking
|
I heard the latest idea being put forward is parking charges, each st-or..road will have an anpr camera positioned to see where a car is parking,when the car owner makes a call to pay the fee anpr checks what size engine and where possible its dimensions and whether its an EV, from that the price of parking will be set
Present schemes requiring a phone call or app record the registration number which provides all those details including size, weight and engine capacity. The only need for ANPR cameras is to automate the system.
|
|
Engine capacity? Does that mean it uses a lot of fuel whilst being parked up? Whereas a smaller capacity car uses far less whilst its parked up?
It's the politics of envy writ large. Sheer greed.
|
Engine capacity? Does that mean it uses a lot of fuel whilst being parked up? Whereas a smaller capacity car uses far less whilst its parked up?
It's the politics of envy writ large. Sheer greed.
Well, generally speaking, the richest people have the highest engine capacities so they can pay more, and the poorest have the smallestt so they can pay less...
|
Engine capacity? Does that mean it uses a lot of fuel whilst being parked up? Whereas a smaller capacity car uses far less whilst its parked up?
Once the engine is started the one with largest capacity is, other things equal, going to emit more CO2 and other undesirable stuff. Reducing emissions to which the council's citizens are exposed is, one might conclude, a legitimate aim. Charging more for a Range Rover than a City Car like a 107 or Picanto fits with that.
A smaller capacity car is likely to be physically smaller too; less space at the kerbside. If kerbside space is in short supply then rationing by price is not unreasonable.
|
|
Thing is cars have never been cleaner, The larger car owners will have paid more in road tax anyway and they get clobbered again just to park it. The EV owners …once ice car numbers have steeply dropped ….will have new ways of extracting cash from them devised.
|
Thing is cars have never been cleaner, The larger car owners will have paid more in road tax anyway and they get clobbered again just to park it. The EV owners …once ice car numbers have steeply dropped ….will have new ways of extracting cash from them devised.
They, EVs that is will be charged according to the dimensions or wheelbase size, ie, if the cars wheelbase is not inside painted parking lines they will be charged extra
Iirc at the moment if say a land rover parks with wheels over the line they get a parking ticket, new rules say they get charged more for parking in the space but no ticket, though depending on council could be both charged extra parking and fine
|
|
Bonkers is the word being used to describe the used car market. Bonkers is the word I would use for most aspects of thread. If the motor car is not a cash cow then I don't know what is!
|
|
Exactly our rulers are very interested in green...money that is. They'll dream up some convincingly imaginative stuff the blue hairs will just love. Seriously despair at their gullibility.
|
Exactly our rulers are very interested in green...money that is. They'll dream up some convincingly imaginative stuff the blue hairs will just love. Seriously despair at their gullibility.
Do you seriously think the problem with NOx etc and the death of Kissi Lee-Debra are, whatever that means, just stuff the blue hairs love?
|
|
You seriously think our leaders / politician care deeply about anything except self aggrandaisement, controlling us and extracting the maximum money from us that they can? Really? I have a super bridge that I can sell you..cheap.
Conviction politicians means these days that they need a conviction for something criminal.
Edited by Ethan Edwards on 22/07/2023 at 21:41
|
Conviction politicians means these days that they need a conviction for something criminal.
With feelings as bitter and twisted as this it's a wonder you don't go and live somewhere else ... :-)
|
Conviction politicians means these days that they need a conviction for something criminal.
With feelings as bitter and twisted as this it's a wonder you don't go and live somewhere else ... :-)
I can't really disagree though. Watching Starmer going on about how Labour need to pay attention to voters has once again depressed me. No interest in what's right, just what he needs to do to get elected.
|
|
The Uniparty have won in all the by-elections proving beyond doubt that whatever they do the populace will still vote for more punishment and more theft of their hard earned.
I sometimes wonder if they're putting the kool aid straight in the mains water, for the last 3 or more decades when there hasn't been a fag paper between the three cheeks of the same backside uniparty the electorate have consistently trooped out and voted for the same motley crews and every time they expect a different result.
Despite them being no better maybe the Libs winning the balance of power next time could work out ok, hopefully they'll have a leader this time instead of another Clegg pole climber, and make changing the voting system to PR a condition of their agreeing to form a govt...whilst it has its downsides PR can be no worse than the farce UK politics has become in recent years, the fake tories and their games of musical chairs at the cabinet and PM itself are now a worldwide laughing stock, difficult to know if its the white house current regime or the wef/who that rules the UK these days.
|
|
If folk want public services - health, education, law and order, defence, bins collected etc etc they need to be paid for. There are choices to be made over how to raise tax and who pays - motorists, drinkers, PAYE, VAT etc etc.
Issues of fairness often relate to individual circumstances - fuel and excise duties raise about 4% of total tax so a bit of congestion and emissions charges still leaves it a minor issue - compared to (say) VAT or PAYE.
Politicians want to be elected - there is no point in a career in opposition. They mostly tell the public what they want to hear, not what is needed or intended.
Starmer, in fairness, knows he can't change the economic reality - there is no spare cash to fund better services and many earlier expectations have been dashed. ULEZ from his perspective is a vote loser so support goes.
Clegg as the minority partner in a coalition did not get his way over uni fees. His choice was to prioritise the coalition over fees. LibDem voters disagreed. It is questionable whether Clegg was politically foolish, or the voters simplistically naive.
|
|
>>difficult to know if its the white house current regime or the wef/who that rules the UK these days.
The people who fund the Conservative party, Shirley?
|
|
<< Watching Starmer going on about how Labour need to pay attention to voters has once again depressed me. No interest in what's right, just what he needs to do to get elected. >>
His problem (anyone's) is that without getting elected he can't do anything anyway. After that the goalposts have moved, with the consequences we all know. Everyone cursed Nick Clegg for exactly that, making no allowance for the reality he found himself in.
The trouble is that not long after getting elected, instead of getting to grips with the urgent issues, most of them revert to worrying about the next election again.
Edited by Andrew-T on 23/07/2023 at 09:26
|
|
If you don't get elected you don't have the chance to 'care for people' in a meaningful way (ie policy).
|
|
Agree, the car is a cash cow for many diverse people. Garages repairing them, parking, fuel tax, road tax…which doesn’t go to roads…dealers, fines for this that and the other, Ex coppers running courses instead of a speeding fine, must have missed lots too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not designed to raise money.
Think you`ll find it is as tfl can`t raise what they want any other way, but again if assuming the pollution is high its only because they made it happen that way.
I don't understand the second half of the sentence but, if tfl want more.money, they can just put the fares up.
Doesn't really work the objective is to get people out of polluting cars and into clean ones or on public transport.
tfl needs government funding. The same government, in the shape of Grant Shaps, that is now blaming Khan for ULEZ gave Khan the tfl funding subject among other things to extending ULEZ.
That is the quality of people we have in government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And it's not a 'green' issue as peddled by the current Tories in gov but a public health one.
Same Tories who has ULEZ and ULEZ expansion in their policy book.
|
|
"""f folk want public services - health, education, law and order, defence, bins collected etc etc they need to be paid for. There are choices to be made over how to raise tax and who pays - motorists, drinkers, PAYE, VAT etc etc."""
I have little objection to the overall tax take. It is the waste of the money that I object to. If I run my household like ANY Gov runs the countries finances I would be on the streets. The percentage increases on top salaries have to be curtailed as it is just increasing the gap between rich and poor. If people can afford to retire at 50 and the rest now at 68 something is radically wrong. There has always been corruption in the country hidden away from view but of late some wage demands by well off people in society are little more than what I would describe as open corruption by strikes holding the rest of us to ransom. A proper democratic government would get the basics right, the latest guy in charge has commented on some aspects of what is going on which is unusual but needs to do a hell of a lot more as we are heading towards a total moral decline.
|
... the latest guy in charge has commented on some aspects of what is going on which is unusual but needs to do a hell of a lot more as we are heading towards a total moral decline.
Pretty well every generation thinks the world is in a moral decline, Sammy. It's a standard grumble when no better alternative explanation presents itself.
|
|
Quite so, there is a record of someone in the 18th century bemoaning the moral decline even then.
|
Quite so, there is a record of someone in the 18th century bemoaning the moral decline even then.
Sallust (Bellum Catilinae (43–42 BC; Catiline’s War) reckons it was down to the destruction of Carthage removing the morally bracing effect of an external military existential threat, but there is apparently evidence that the rot started earlier.
Are we off-topic yet?
|
|
|
Quite so, there is a record of someone in the 18th century bemoaning the moral decline even then.
And he was right even back then!
|
"Quite so, there is a record of someone in the 18th century bemoaning the moral decline even then."
"And he was right even back then!"
It's an age thing. The younger generation never thinks that way. The oldies mostly see things changing over time and don't like it. They believe life was simpler and generally better when they were young.
Collectively, people often have a hankering for some mythical "golden age", coloured by nostalgia, vivid in people's distorted memories, which never existed.
I don't buy it. I ought to, perhaps, as I'm well-qualified as an oldie, but I just accept that things change and do my best to keep up. In my life in the UK, spanning the period after WW2 up until now, I'm convinced that in general things have got better overall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
