| London ULEZ expansion question 12:45 - Jun 1 with 7882 views | Trequartista |
I read that the London ULEZ is expanding to all London boroughs in August. The M25 between the A12 junction and the Dartford Crossing goes through London. So will there be a charge for using this section of the M25 in a non-ULEZ compliant vehicle? |  |
| |  |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 20:26 - Jun 1 with 2294 views | StokieBlue |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 18:37 - Jun 1 by BanksterDebtSlave |
That's because the average bod ain't on your street anymore. Gentrification has turned out nicely! [Post edited 1 Jun 2023 18:44]
|
Yet 90% of people within the ULEZ don't have to pay anything and get the benefit of less air pollution.
So clearly the average bod within the ULEZ is benefitting given they don't pay.
SB [Post edited 1 Jun 2023 20:35]
|  | | |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 20:29 - Jun 1 with 2276 views | StokieBlue |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 20:08 - Jun 1 by BanksterDebtSlave |
It's frankly startling, not to say depressing, that supposedly intelligent and enlightened folk can't accept that policies such as these disproportionately affect the poorer in society.
How about a surcharge on electric vehicles to subsidise public transport for people that can't afford greenwash? [Post edited 1 Jun 2023 20:10]
|
The poorer in society are likely to live in the areas which suffer from the most air pollution. Given 90% don't pay anything and a lot of that pollution is imported from outside the City by people travelling into it I think they are probably doing fairly well from the policy.
Interesting that you want to place a charge on something that is less polluting - it would surely just mean everyone moves back to petrol which is allowed within the ULEZ and would be more polluting than electric vehicles.
SB [Post edited 1 Jun 2023 20:36]
| | | |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 21:00 - Jun 1 with 2227 views | BloomBlue |
No, but that is one of the complaints. Basically in a few parts of London if you drive under/over the M25 with a non compliant vehicle you pay the ULEZ charge but if you drove that same vehicle on that stretch of the M25 you don't.
Hence that's one one of complaints, if the ULEZ is now covering all London boroughs then it should cover all roads in those boroughs including where the M25 is inside a borough. After all if the aim is to reduce pollution then it should be irrelevant if the car is on the M25 or not. |  | | |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 21:39 - Jun 1 with 2194 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 20:26 - Jun 1 by StokieBlue |
Yet 90% of people within the ULEZ don't have to pay anything and get the benefit of less air pollution.
So clearly the average bod within the ULEZ is benefitting given they don't pay.
SB [Post edited 1 Jun 2023 20:35]
|
How many of that 90% have been priced out of affordable private transport and are now effectively locked in to the ghetto areas, scraping together enough to pay for shared occupancy rents while the enlightened few get to contemplate their navels while saving the planet in a Tesla?
Enjoy your bubble. |  |
| |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 21:51 - Jun 1 with 2185 views | StokieBlue |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 21:39 - Jun 1 by BanksterDebtSlave |
How many of that 90% have been priced out of affordable private transport and are now effectively locked in to the ghetto areas, scraping together enough to pay for shared occupancy rents while the enlightened few get to contemplate their navels while saving the planet in a Tesla?
Enjoy your bubble. |
Do you ever actual post any evidence for your claims?
I can't remember many times in the last decade that you've actually backed up anything you've said, you post woolly stuff based on your outlook and then step back and admire it.
Why would they have been priced out of private transport? Of all vehicles within the ULEZ, 90% qualify for travel without paying. The majority that pay will be from outside London and thus should pay for polluting the city.
You clearly know nothing about the scheme and just post whatever your narrative determines. Even a 16 year old petrol car qualifies to travel without payment yet you focus on EV's as if they are the only things which are exempt. The real target is older diesel vehicles which have certain emissions which reduce air quality but you seem to think the air quality of Londoners is irrelevant.
SB | | | |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 21:54 - Jun 1 with 2178 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 20:02 - Jun 1 by BanksterDebtSlave |
But not London median bods! [Post edited 1 Jun 2023 20:05]
|
Ooh, a statistical, financial and Nathan Barley pun, that's very good! :-) |  |
| |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 22:16 - Jun 1 with 2171 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 21:51 - Jun 1 by StokieBlue |
Do you ever actual post any evidence for your claims?
I can't remember many times in the last decade that you've actually backed up anything you've said, you post woolly stuff based on your outlook and then step back and admire it.
Why would they have been priced out of private transport? Of all vehicles within the ULEZ, 90% qualify for travel without paying. The majority that pay will be from outside London and thus should pay for polluting the city.
You clearly know nothing about the scheme and just post whatever your narrative determines. Even a 16 year old petrol car qualifies to travel without payment yet you focus on EV's as if they are the only things which are exempt. The real target is older diesel vehicles which have certain emissions which reduce air quality but you seem to think the air quality of Londoners is irrelevant.
SB |
16 year old petrol cars....in my dreams!
Get out more. | |
| |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 22:20 - Jun 1 with 2167 views | Pendejo |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 18:17 - Jun 1 by Coastalblue |
I have no real issue with the ULEZ, and I live in the current zone. It doesn't require a particularly new or expensive car to be exempt, even my 10 year old diesel qualifies.
It's the LTN's that I think have been less well thought out and am not convinced are working as intended in all areas. |
LTN grrrrrrrrrr
Had to collect a donation for my wife's CIC in Brixton this evening. It's from someone who has donated before, so knew where it is... Didn't know some had planned an LTN on the road. So had to head back out into A23 on which there were roadworks, so a 2 min journey turned into a 20 min journey (time from entering area to arrival at destination).
Also ULEZ resident, been enough warning ahead of implementation; petrol cars are compliant from 2008, most diesels from 2016, but both OP and I have older Mazda's who were early adopters.
I would assert the poorest Londoners use buses. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| London ULEZ expansion question on 22:20 - Jun 1 with 2165 views | Coastalblue |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 18:37 - Jun 1 by BanksterDebtSlave |
That's because the average bod ain't on your street anymore. Gentrification has turned out nicely! [Post edited 1 Jun 2023 18:44]
|
Quite frankly that's absolute bollix. |  |
| |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 23:21 - Jun 1 with 2124 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 22:20 - Jun 1 by Coastalblue |
Quite frankly that's absolute bollix. |
Because?
Maybe somebody is renting out a subdivided family house, is that it?
Edit...surprised to see an uppie from Stokie without you providing peer reviewed evidence. [Post edited 1 Jun 2023 23:22]
| |
| |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 00:05 - Jun 2 with 2096 views | Clapham_Junction |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 18:37 - Jun 1 by BanksterDebtSlave |
That's because the average bod ain't on your street anymore. Gentrification has turned out nicely! [Post edited 1 Jun 2023 18:44]
|
In many areas it's not gentrification but selfishness by people who invoked right to buy and then sold on at a massive profit or became private landlords.
Tower Hamlets was over 80% council housing in 1980. Almosr all those homes are still there, but just not social housing anymore (its estimated that more than half of former council flats in the borough are now rented privately (often room by room), at 3-4 times council rents). Local Facebook groups endlessly moan about gentrification but the reality is that the local community has screwed itself over. |  | | |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 03:58 - Jun 2 with 2046 views | Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 15:46 - Jun 1 by StokieBlue |
I'm pretty happy with it yes given my air quality has improved [1].
Who is this "average bod in the street" of whom you speak? I'm sure they enjoy the improved air quality as well, especially given over 90% of people within the ULEZ zone have vehicles that qualify and don't have to pay anything [2].
Can I ask why you have an issue with it given you live in Suffolk?
SB
[1]. "The ULEZ has already been hugely successful in central and inner London, helping to reduce harmful nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels by 46 per cent in central London and 21 per cent in inner London.[2]. "
[2]. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2023/march/over-90-per-cent-of- |
SHOCKER |  | | |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 04:00 - Jun 2 with 2046 views | Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 15:46 - Jun 1 by StokieBlue |
I'm pretty happy with it yes given my air quality has improved [1].
Who is this "average bod in the street" of whom you speak? I'm sure they enjoy the improved air quality as well, especially given over 90% of people within the ULEZ zone have vehicles that qualify and don't have to pay anything [2].
Can I ask why you have an issue with it given you live in Suffolk?
SB
[1]. "The ULEZ has already been hugely successful in central and inner London, helping to reduce harmful nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels by 46 per cent in central London and 21 per cent in inner London.[2]. "
[2]. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2023/march/over-90-per-cent-of- |
You’re only going to comment on London politics moving forwards?!
Praise the lord! | | | |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 07:33 - Jun 2 with 1989 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 00:05 - Jun 2 by Clapham_Junction |
In many areas it's not gentrification but selfishness by people who invoked right to buy and then sold on at a massive profit or became private landlords.
Tower Hamlets was over 80% council housing in 1980. Almosr all those homes are still there, but just not social housing anymore (its estimated that more than half of former council flats in the borough are now rented privately (often room by room), at 3-4 times council rents). Local Facebook groups endlessly moan about gentrification but the reality is that the local community has screwed itself over. |
Tell that to the people of Peck.....Nunhead!!
What you describe which is true and houses the capital's underclass(who likely are more unable than ever to buy private transport if they want it) does not mean that areas of London have not been gentrified. | |
| |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 07:39 - Jun 2 with 1982 views | StokieBlue |
Superb post, you've really moved the debate forward there with your reasoned analysis backed up by solid evidence and references.
SB | | | |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 09:28 - Jun 2 with 1921 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
At least this report acknowledges there is an income related issue here.
https://economy2030.resolutionfoundation.org/reports/where-the-rubber-hits-the-r
"So, in this briefing note we discuss how the rapid and welcome uptake of electric vehicles must come with reform of motoring related taxes that protects tax revenues, helps limit congestion, and considers the potentially disproportionate impacts on low-to-middle income households. We have outlined a package of measures that ensure EV drivers start to pay their way but also supports a rapid transition away from petrol and diesel vehicles while not putting the burden on those who cannot afford to switch cars." | |
| |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 09:31 - Jun 2 with 1919 views | StokieBlue |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 09:28 - Jun 2 by BanksterDebtSlave |
At least this report acknowledges there is an income related issue here.
https://economy2030.resolutionfoundation.org/reports/where-the-rubber-hits-the-r
"So, in this briefing note we discuss how the rapid and welcome uptake of electric vehicles must come with reform of motoring related taxes that protects tax revenues, helps limit congestion, and considers the potentially disproportionate impacts on low-to-middle income households. We have outlined a package of measures that ensure EV drivers start to pay their way but also supports a rapid transition away from petrol and diesel vehicles while not putting the burden on those who cannot afford to switch cars." |
I'm sure that a complete move to EVs would have issues for many and we aren't ready for that move yet on a number of levels.
However it's nothing to do with the ULEZ so I am not sure why you are continually trying to shoehorn it in as a reason against it.
Petrol and diesel cars are both allowed in the ULEZ (with different rules for each), it's not some kind of EV only upper class quasi-state as you've continually suggested on this thread.
SB [Post edited 2 Jun 2023 9:34]
| | | |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 09:37 - Jun 2 with 1911 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 09:31 - Jun 2 by StokieBlue |
I'm sure that a complete move to EVs would have issues for many and we aren't ready for that move yet on a number of levels.
However it's nothing to do with the ULEZ so I am not sure why you are continually trying to shoehorn it in as a reason against it.
Petrol and diesel cars are both allowed in the ULEZ (with different rules for each), it's not some kind of EV only upper class quasi-state as you've continually suggested on this thread.
SB [Post edited 2 Jun 2023 9:34]
|
You're sticking with the notion that ULEZ does not have a "potentially disproportionate impact on low-to-middle income households" then?
I understand why in your Stoke Newington bubble you believe we can all afford compliant vehicles though.
Edit...."We have outlined a package of measures that ensure EV drivers start to pay their way but also supports a rapid transition away from petrol and diesel vehicles while not putting the burden on those who cannot afford to switch cars." [Post edited 2 Jun 2023 9:41]
| |
| |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 09:59 - Jun 2 with 1895 views | StokieBlue |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 09:37 - Jun 2 by BanksterDebtSlave |
You're sticking with the notion that ULEZ does not have a "potentially disproportionate impact on low-to-middle income households" then?
I understand why in your Stoke Newington bubble you believe we can all afford compliant vehicles though.
Edit...."We have outlined a package of measures that ensure EV drivers start to pay their way but also supports a rapid transition away from petrol and diesel vehicles while not putting the burden on those who cannot afford to switch cars." [Post edited 2 Jun 2023 9:41]
|
Yet 90% of journeys are compliant, something you continually ignore.
Your final quote means nothing in this context. It refers entirely to a complete switch to EV's which of course many can't afford, however, many won't have been required to switch cars to be compliant with the ULEZ - if you can find data on that it would be interesting but you've conflating two different datasets in order to have a pop.
I'm going to leave it there because you have no interest in actually discussing the subject at hand, only to have a pop and to ignore the specifics of the specific subject.
SB [Post edited 2 Jun 2023 10:00]
| | | |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 10:15 - Jun 2 with 1859 views | Clapham_Junction |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 07:33 - Jun 2 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Tell that to the people of Peck.....Nunhead!!
What you describe which is true and houses the capital's underclass(who likely are more unable than ever to buy private transport if they want it) does not mean that areas of London have not been gentrified. |
You talk about gentrification as if it were a deliberate plan to force the less wealthy out. The reality is that there is a massive undersupply of housing due to London's population increase, which has led to a large rise in house prices in all areas, which in turn means that only the wealthier people can afford to buy homes. Areas becoming more middle class is a result of market competition rather than some sinister plot.
The main problem for the less well off is the huge loss of social housing and lack of rent controls. | | | |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 10:17 - Jun 2 with 1850 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 09:59 - Jun 2 by StokieBlue |
Yet 90% of journeys are compliant, something you continually ignore.
Your final quote means nothing in this context. It refers entirely to a complete switch to EV's which of course many can't afford, however, many won't have been required to switch cars to be compliant with the ULEZ - if you can find data on that it would be interesting but you've conflating two different datasets in order to have a pop.
I'm going to leave it there because you have no interest in actually discussing the subject at hand, only to have a pop and to ignore the specifics of the specific subject.
SB [Post edited 2 Jun 2023 10:00]
|
Leaving 10 per cent that aren't and many without the option of owning a private vehicle down to costs including this one. Perhaps they don't matter? | |
| |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 10:24 - Jun 2 with 1832 views | giant_stow |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 10:17 - Jun 2 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Leaving 10 per cent that aren't and many without the option of owning a private vehicle down to costs including this one. Perhaps they don't matter? |
I share your complaint about things being rationned via wealth / ability to pay. We had ration books in the war, so why can't we ration things again via fair share.
You're backing up the wrong tree with your attacks on gentrifiers though - a lot of those will have themselves been forced out of home areas which they can no longer afford. Blame the system not the individuals.
The same goes to Clapham above when he blames the Tower Hamlet communty for the lack of social housing now. |  |
| |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 12:50 - Jun 2 with 1758 views | Clapham_Junction |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 10:24 - Jun 2 by giant_stow |
I share your complaint about things being rationned via wealth / ability to pay. We had ration books in the war, so why can't we ration things again via fair share.
You're backing up the wrong tree with your attacks on gentrifiers though - a lot of those will have themselves been forced out of home areas which they can no longer afford. Blame the system not the individuals.
The same goes to Clapham above when he blames the Tower Hamlet communty for the lack of social housing now. |
I think you must have misunderstood my post. The point was that there was lots of social housing, and that housing is almost all still there, but just not social housing anymore. If it was, people wouldn't be forced out.
However, many of the community decided to do RTB, and in doing so, hugely reduced the amount of social housing available to their peers. | | | |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 14:36 - Jun 2 with 1725 views | unbelievablue |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 13:26 - Jun 1 by Lord_Lucan |
The ULEZ expansion is a fecking criminal act |
Something we agree on. My car is 12 years old and I pay £12.50 when I go inside the South Circular. I don't begrudge that too much because I consider that London proper (although Woolwich isn't exactly the West End).
This extension is ostensibly based on flimsy science but is a cash grab from a mayor who ideologically I tend to support on most matters, but practically is a complete mess. I can't wait til he's gone.
Importantly, the help available is only for a really small slice (those on benefits etc.). There's no help to move to a new car for people who live pay-cheque to pay-cheque. Which, as most people know, is the majority of young people who decided to live and work in London. My choices, at the end of August, are:
- Sell my car (now worth less down here) and buy a second hand ULEZ compliant one (now more expensive down here)
- Buy a new car (pricey, and on finance even more so)
- Move (not feasible atm)
- Stop driving (a lot of freedom in driving when you live this far out)
None of those are optimal choices. I am biased here, but I think it's a joke. Incentivise me better or feck off. |  |
| |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 15:15 - Jun 2 with 1690 views | giant_stow |
| London ULEZ expansion question on 12:50 - Jun 2 by Clapham_Junction |
I think you must have misunderstood my post. The point was that there was lots of social housing, and that housing is almost all still there, but just not social housing anymore. If it was, people wouldn't be forced out.
However, many of the community decided to do RTB, and in doing so, hugely reduced the amount of social housing available to their peers. |
No I think I understood that you were blaming members of rhe community for buying their social housing - i just place the blame for that loss of housing stock with the architects of the right to buy policy - not those who bought their homes. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
