ULEZ isn't the congestion charge.Zambo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 11:23 am ULEZ was never about reducing congestion anyway. Poor show though.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... s-ago.html
Sadiq Khan
- Vespa
- Registered user
- Posts: 20171
- Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 8:37 am
Re: Sadiq Khan
https://rebellion.earth/donate/
he/him/them/they
he/him/them/they
-
- Registered user
- Posts: 12686
- Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 10:17 am
Re: Sadiq Khan
It was obvious to anyone with more than half a brain cell that the Congestion Charge was nothing more than a money making device, after all, most people living and operating a business had no choice but to pay, and the only effect it had was that one man bands like house maintenance either put an extra few quid on what they charged their customers or wouldn't operate within the zone.Zambo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 11:23 am ULEZ was never about reducing congestion anyway. Poor show though.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... s-ago.html
It came to light, after the first year or so, that Ken Livingstone, AKA 'the London Assembly', paid CAPITA, who ran the scheme, £35m in, for want of a better word, compensation for the loss of income CAPITA expected from running the scheme.
One of the reasons given for the congestion charge was that it would reduce exhaust emissions, fewer vehicles less emissions, but it hasn't reduced congestion, the only thing its reduced is the money in a persons pocket.
If the London Borough of Barnet isn't in London where is it?
I'll say soccer whenever I want to soccer soccer soccer soccer bloody soccer
Sent from my Advent Monza S200 so bloody old I can't remember when I bought it
I'll say soccer whenever I want to soccer soccer soccer soccer bloody soccer
Sent from my Advent Monza S200 so bloody old I can't remember when I bought it
- Zambo
- Registered user
- Posts: 25898
- Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:18 am
- Location: VAR office
Re: Sadiq Khan
Why not drive in the congestion charge zone and the ULEZ zone. Cheap at £27.50 per day.Vespa wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 1:03 pmULEZ isn't the congestion charge.Zambo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 11:23 am ULEZ was never about reducing congestion anyway. Poor show though.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... s-ago.html
And I thought that ULEZ was all about reducing congestion.
Apologies if I've got that incorrect.
When your heart is blue, there is nothing you can do. Keep Right On
- The Tick
- Registered user
- Posts: 13104
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 11:49 pm
Re: Sadiq Khan
ULEZ (ultra low emissions zone) was to reduce emissions of pollutants from old diesel vehicles within London.
-
- Registered user
- Posts: 12686
- Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 10:17 am
Re: Sadiq Khan
It could be argued that you are both correct and incorrect.Zambo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 1:52 pmWhy not drive in the congestion charge zone and the ULEZ zone. Cheap at £27.50 per day.Vespa wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 1:03 pmULEZ isn't the congestion charge.Zambo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 11:23 am ULEZ was never about reducing congestion anyway. Poor show though.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... s-ago.html
And I thought that ULEZ was all about reducing congestion.
Apologies if I've got that incorrect.
The original 'congestion charge' was aimed at reducing traffic so making bus services more reliable and business deliveries easier.
It did work, to an extent, it reduced traffic by 15% and the time it took to travel by 30%, mainly, I suspect, because business like courier services and one man builders and maintenance bods refused to enter the zone and if they did they put the charge on to their customers bills, which affected their businesses as customers often gave that as an excuse not to employ them.
Of course, and it isn't rocket science, if you reduce traffic you reduce emissions, which Khan has used as an excuse to extend the money grabbing zone, tarting it up as a health measure and forcing people to scrap perfectly good vehicles.
People only have to cast their minds back to interviews with one man operatives who said they couldn't afford to scrap a perfectly good van for a new one costing thousands more and so would have to stop being self employed and look to finding a job with someone who could afford to employ them.
Why not just make it illegal to use a non compliant vehicle in the zone and scrap the charge? Well, Sherlock, that's easy, it wouldn't make money.
If the London Borough of Barnet isn't in London where is it?
I'll say soccer whenever I want to soccer soccer soccer soccer bloody soccer
Sent from my Advent Monza S200 so bloody old I can't remember when I bought it
I'll say soccer whenever I want to soccer soccer soccer soccer bloody soccer
Sent from my Advent Monza S200 so bloody old I can't remember when I bought it
-
- Registered user
- Posts: 2426
- Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2021 4:17 pm
Re: Sadiq Khan
The congestion charge was something else.
And why would they want to raise money? Guess. To make public transport a more realistic option.
As to putting people out of work, really?
Euro 6 has applied to petrol vehicles since 2015 and for diesel since 2011. So those are some pretty old vans these guys ar running.
And why would they want to raise money? Guess. To make public transport a more realistic option.
As to putting people out of work, really?
Euro 6 has applied to petrol vehicles since 2015 and for diesel since 2011. So those are some pretty old vans these guys ar running.
- The Tick
- Registered user
- Posts: 13104
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 11:49 pm
Re: Sadiq Khan
The amount of vehicles that are non-compliant with ULEZ is minimal so not a lot of money can be made from charing them for in and out journeys across the zonal limit.birdie wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 2:22 pmIt could be argued that you are both correct and incorrect.Zambo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 1:52 pmWhy not drive in the congestion charge zone and the ULEZ zone. Cheap at £27.50 per day.Vespa wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 1:03 pmULEZ isn't the congestion charge.Zambo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 11:23 am ULEZ was never about reducing congestion anyway. Poor show though.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... s-ago.html
And I thought that ULEZ was all about reducing congestion.
Apologies if I've got that incorrect.
The original 'congestion charge' was aimed at reducing traffic so making bus services more reliable and business deliveries easier.
It did work, to an extent, it reduced traffic by 15% and the time it took to travel by 30%, mainly, I suspect, because business like courier services and one man builders and maintenance bods refused to enter the zone and if they did they put the charge on to their customers bills, which affected their businesses as customers often gave that as an excuse not to employ them.
Of course, and it isn't rocket science, if you reduce traffic you reduce emissions, which Khan has used as an excuse to extend the money grabbing zone, tarting it up as a health measure and forcing people to scrap perfectly good vehicles.
People only have to cast their minds back to interviews with one man operatives who said they couldn't afford to scrap a perfectly good van for a new one costing thousands more and so would have to stop being self employed and look to finding a job with someone who could afford to employ them.
Why not just make it illegal to use a non compliant vehicle in the zone and scrap the charge? Well, Sherlock, that's easy, it wouldn't make money.
It's primarily about reducing emissions.
-
- Registered user
- Posts: 12686
- Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 10:17 am
Re: Sadiq Khan
The congestion charge came in in 2003 and it did affect sole traders, as has the £12.50 charge now, and it's surprising how many old vans there are out there, not every roofer or plumber has a brand new electric Merc.Sunbeam Alpine wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 2:39 pm The congestion charge was something else.
And why would they want to raise money? Guess. To make public transport a more realistic option.
As to putting people out of work, really?
Euro 6 has applied to petrol vehicles since 2015 and for diesel since 2011. So those are some pretty old vans these guys ar running.
Last edited by birdie on Wed Apr 10, 2024 5:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If the London Borough of Barnet isn't in London where is it?
I'll say soccer whenever I want to soccer soccer soccer soccer bloody soccer
Sent from my Advent Monza S200 so bloody old I can't remember when I bought it
I'll say soccer whenever I want to soccer soccer soccer soccer bloody soccer
Sent from my Advent Monza S200 so bloody old I can't remember when I bought it
-
- Registered user
- Posts: 2426
- Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2021 4:17 pm
Re: Sadiq Khan
Of course it did, and the public.birdie wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 5:32 pmThe congestion charge came in in 2003 and it did affect sole traders.Sunbeam Alpine wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 2:39 pm The congestion charge was something else.
And why would they want to raise money? Guess. To make public transport a more realistic option.
As to putting people out of work, really?
Euro 6 has applied to petrol vehicles since 2015 and for diesel since 2011. So those are some pretty old vans these guys ar running.
But it is separate from ULEZ
- Vespa
- Registered user
- Posts: 20171
- Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 8:37 am
Re: Sadiq Khan
It's designed to drive down usage of high polluting vehicles.Zambo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 1:52 pmWhy not drive in the congestion charge zone and the ULEZ zone. Cheap at £27.50 per day.Vespa wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 1:03 pmULEZ isn't the congestion charge.Zambo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 11:23 am ULEZ was never about reducing congestion anyway. Poor show though.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... s-ago.html
And I thought that ULEZ was all about reducing congestion.
Apologies if I've got that incorrect.
https://rebellion.earth/donate/
he/him/them/they
he/him/them/they
-
- Registered user
- Posts: 12686
- Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 10:17 am
Re: Sadiq Khan
Both penalise the less well off.Sunbeam Alpine wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 5:34 pmOf course it did, and the public.birdie wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 5:32 pmThe congestion charge came in in 2003 and it did affect sole traders.Sunbeam Alpine wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 2:39 pm The congestion charge was something else.
And why would they want to raise money? Guess. To make public transport a more realistic option.
As to putting people out of work, really?
Euro 6 has applied to petrol vehicles since 2015 and for diesel since 2011. So those are some pretty old vans these guys ar running.
But it is separate from ULEZ
If the London Borough of Barnet isn't in London where is it?
I'll say soccer whenever I want to soccer soccer soccer soccer bloody soccer
Sent from my Advent Monza S200 so bloody old I can't remember when I bought it
I'll say soccer whenever I want to soccer soccer soccer soccer bloody soccer
Sent from my Advent Monza S200 so bloody old I can't remember when I bought it
- The Tick
- Registered user
- Posts: 13104
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 11:49 pm
Re: Sadiq Khan
Not really. The congestion charge helped to fund TFL and expand the London metro and rail and bus networks, giving less well off people better access to better quality public transport.
The areas through which the current ULEZ boundary cuts are typically well off suburbs. So the idea that the working poor are somehow disenfranchised economically by all this is a myth.
14 years of austerity, an insatiable housing market bubble, and rising utility costs and somehow it's the fault of the London Congestion Charge that poorer Londoners are suffering.
The areas through which the current ULEZ boundary cuts are typically well off suburbs. So the idea that the working poor are somehow disenfranchised economically by all this is a myth.
14 years of austerity, an insatiable housing market bubble, and rising utility costs and somehow it's the fault of the London Congestion Charge that poorer Londoners are suffering.
-
- Registered user
- Posts: 2426
- Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2021 4:17 pm
Re: Sadiq Khan
And once again
JOHNSON STARTED ULEZ
JOHNSON STARTED ULEZ
-
- Registered user
- Posts: 12686
- Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 10:17 am
Re: Sadiq Khan
So the boundary of ULEZ only affects the better off.
What an utter load of shit, as usual.
What an utter load of shit, as usual.
If the London Borough of Barnet isn't in London where is it?
I'll say soccer whenever I want to soccer soccer soccer soccer bloody soccer
Sent from my Advent Monza S200 so bloody old I can't remember when I bought it
I'll say soccer whenever I want to soccer soccer soccer soccer bloody soccer
Sent from my Advent Monza S200 so bloody old I can't remember when I bought it
-
- Registered user
- Posts: 12686
- Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 10:17 am
Re: Sadiq Khan
Doesn't mean he was right, and Khan could, I suppose, not have continued with it.
If the London Borough of Barnet isn't in London where is it?
I'll say soccer whenever I want to soccer soccer soccer soccer bloody soccer
Sent from my Advent Monza S200 so bloody old I can't remember when I bought it
I'll say soccer whenever I want to soccer soccer soccer soccer bloody soccer
Sent from my Advent Monza S200 so bloody old I can't remember when I bought it