Sadiq Khan

[Vespa]

ULEZ was never about reducing congestion anyway. Poor show though.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... s-ago.html

ULEZ isn't the congestion charge.

[birdie]

ULEZ was never about reducing congestion anyway. Poor show though.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... s-ago.html

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.
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.

[Zambo]

ULEZ was never about reducing congestion anyway. Poor show though.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... s-ago.html

ULEZ isn't the congestion charge.

Why not drive in the congestion charge zone and the ULEZ zone. Cheap at £27.50 per day.

And I thought that ULEZ was all about reducing congestion.

Apologies if I've got that incorrect.

[The Tick]

ULEZ (ultra low emissions zone) was to reduce emissions of pollutants from old diesel vehicles within London.

[birdie]

ULEZ was never about reducing congestion anyway. Poor show though.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... s-ago.html

ULEZ isn't the congestion charge.

Why not drive in the congestion charge zone and the ULEZ zone. Cheap at £27.50 per day.

And I thought that ULEZ was all about reducing congestion.

Apologies if I've got that incorrect.

It could be argued that you are both correct and 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.

[Sunbeam Alpine]

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.

[The Tick]

ULEZ was never about reducing congestion anyway. Poor show though.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... s-ago.html

ULEZ isn't the congestion charge.

Why not drive in the congestion charge zone and the ULEZ zone. Cheap at £27.50 per day.

And I thought that ULEZ was all about reducing congestion.

Apologies if I've got that incorrect.

It could be argued that you are both correct and 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.

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.

It's primarily about reducing emissions.

[birdie]

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.

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]

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.

The congestion charge came in in 2003 and it did affect sole traders.

Of course it did, and the public.
But it is separate from ULEZ

[Vespa]

ULEZ was never about reducing congestion anyway. Poor show though.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... s-ago.html

ULEZ isn't the congestion charge.

Why not drive in the congestion charge zone and the ULEZ zone. Cheap at £27.50 per day.

And I thought that ULEZ was all about reducing congestion.

Apologies if I've got that incorrect.

It's designed to drive down usage of high polluting vehicles.

[birdie]

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.

The congestion charge came in in 2003 and it did affect sole traders.

Of course it did, and the public.
But it is separate from ULEZ

Both penalise the less well off.

[The Tick]

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.

[Sunbeam Alpine]

And once again

JOHNSON STARTED ULEZ

[birdie]

So the boundary of ULEZ only affects the better off.
What an utter load of shit, as usual.

[birdie]

And once again

JOHNSON STARTED ULEZ

Doesn't mean he was right, and Khan could, I suppose, not have continued with it.