All change 2025.

[Velma's Dad]

As I'm on a break in Paris with just my phone am unable to .

Okay, maybe when you get back then? I'm sure a lot of us would be intrigued to read it.

 

[Amarillo]

No idea, but there is a very large cement factory down the road still in production, a large coal powered power station that is being decommissioned .
And according to the latest research from Oxford University Khan's extortion racket will have a massive 1% / year effective reduction in overall pollution effect. NO will fall but PM2.5 will rise to compensate due to heavier vehicles.

1% of London’s pollution, 1% of England’s pollution, 1% of UK’s pollution, or 1% of the World’s pollution?

 

[WelshGas]

Okay, maybe when you get back then? I'm sure a lot of us would be intrigued to read it.

Or maybe you can dig it out.

 

[WelshGas]

1% of London’s pollution, 1% of England’s pollution, 1% of UK’s pollution, or 1% of the World’s pollution?

Seeing as the UK only accounts for 2% of the world's pollution, and I was referring to London ill leave you to make the choice.

 

[B J G]

Your current car won’t last forever. Anything with a micro chip has a limited lifespan.
At some point it will need replacing and EV is the right choice for many.

As for taxation. It will at some point in the not to distant future, pay per mile for all. It’s the only fair and reasonable way to tax vehicle use.

I wonder if a mileage charge based on a higher City road with variable time of day also applying rate than a lower rural rate would fit your reasonable and fair criteria?
There may also be a vehicle weight scale of charges.
It does depend on how many of the deteriorating roads will still be useable by 2030

 

[Amarillo]

Seeing as the UK only accounts for 2% of the world's pollution, and I was referring to London ill leave you to make the choice.View attachment 114033

If it is just London - and I haven’t seen your source data - charging just 10% of cars driven on London’s roads reduces pollution by 1% is a reasonable start.

What effect do you suggest charging 100% of driving on London’s roads would have?

 

[soulstyledevon]

I wonder if a mileage charge based on a higher City road with variable time of day also applying rate than a lower rural rate would fit your reasonable and fair criteria?
There may also be a vehicle weight scale of charges.
It does depend on how many of the deteriorating roads will still be useable by 2030

It’s no different to now.
You pay tax on fuel, the more you use the more you pay.
Unfortunately the current taxation levels are incredibly low. There’s no incentive to use a different form of transport.

 

[Velma's Dad]

It’s no different to now.
You pay tax on fuel, the more you use the more you pay.
Unfortunately the current taxation levels are incredibly low. There’s no incentive to use a different form of transport.

And such incentive there is to use public transport has been eroded over time. Tax on fuel has gradually fallen in real terms. The fuel duty rate used to rise with inflation, until 1999 when the Labour government suspended that link, and Coalition and Cons administrations since then have held increases below inflation, fearful of adverse public opinion about pump prices.

Meanwhile since the mid 1990s rail fares have risen in real terms by 20 percent (source: Commons Library).

 

[soulstyledevon]

Seemed relevant.

 

[soulstyledevon]

And such incentive there is to use public transport has been eroded over time. Tax on fuel has gradually fallen in real terms. The fuel duty rate used to rise with inflation, until 1999 when the Labour government suspended that link, and Coalition and Cons administrations since then have held increases below inflation, fearful of adverse public opinion about pump prices.

Meanwhile since the mid 1990s rail fares have risen in real terms by 20 percent (source: Commons Library).

A couple of weekends ago. We had tickets to the theatre. The train system ended up on strike and our £130 train tickets were no longer required.
We ended up driving and parking at Westfields.
£35 in fuel, £12 to park all day and only 1.5 hrs door to door. Not sure we will use the train again.
The economics don’t stack up…

 

[WelshGas]

If it is just London - and I haven’t seen your source data - charging just 10% of cars driven on London’s roads reduces pollution by 1% is a reasonable start.

What effect do you suggest charging 100% of driving on London’s roads would have?

 

[wildslammer22]

And such incentive there is to use public transport has been eroded over time. Tax on fuel has gradually fallen in real terms. The fuel duty rate used to rise with inflation, until 1999 when the Labour government suspended that link, and Coalition and Cons administrations since then have held increases below inflation, fearful of adverse public opinion about pump prices.

Meanwhile since the mid 1990s rail fares have risen in real terms by 20 percent (source: Commons Library).

Regulated (standard full fare and season tickets) rail fares have risen by c.20% since the 1990’s but for non season ticket holders many fares have fallen below inflation if you take into account advance fares and special offers. The governments decision to consolidate the railway into GBR (Great British Railways) and then row back on it as left the railways in a state of limbo with private operators having their incentives to attract passengers removed but with no new public money invested after the £B’s spent during the pandemic to keep the trains running.

The planned investment in buses has been rowed back and in many cases badly spent.

So in summary we if you live outside of London (or to a lesser extent Scotland & Wales) public transport is going to be starved of investment for the foreseeable future and therefore become even less of a viable alternative to the car in many cases.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Amarillo]

Or maybe you can dig it out.

A FactCheck here from Channel 4 which includes a 1.2% figure (which rounds to 1%).

FactCheck: will ULEZ expansion to outer London improve air quality?

We calculate the expansion will add 13 minutes to the average Londoner's life expectancy in 2023.

www.channel4.com

 

[Velma's Dad]

A FactCheck here from Channel 4 which includes a 1.2% figure (which rounds to 1%).

FactCheck: will ULEZ expansion to outer London improve air quality?

We calculate the expansion will add 13 minutes to the average Londoner's life expectancy in 2023.

www.channel4.com

Thanks. I'm guessing then that WG may have meant Imperial College rather than Oxford Univ.

Anyway that C4 fact-check looks like a very credible summary. Certainly, to describe a 1.3% average reduction in NO2 exposure as "transformative" seems a pretty heroic assertion.

What seems to me to be missing though is any analysis of the impact on people living close to high-traffic zones. It's well known that the risks from airborne pollutants tend to be extremely localised. Still, a total reduction of just 26 hospital admissions a year does seem pretty nugatory in public health terms, even if those 26 hospitalisations all occurred within a few at-risk sub-communities.

[EDIT] I just skim-read the Jacobs cost-benefit analysis report that the mayor's office had commissioned. It supports the acknowledged modelled outcome of 214 life-years saved per year. In public health terms NICE generally regards a drug or other intervention to be justified at up to about £20k per QALY. On that basis the ULEZ expansion would be considered fair value for money if it was costing around £4m a year. In fact ULEZ is expected to cost £200m+ a year (in taxpayer funds to set it up and run it plus the daily charges and penalties paid by car users). So on that basis, it seems to make absolutely no sense.

 

[NessL]

A couple of weekends ago. We had tickets to the theatre. The train system ended up on strike and our £130 train tickets were no longer required.
We ended up driving and parking at Westfields.
£35 in fuel, £12 to park all day and only 1.5 hrs door to door. Not sure we will use the train again.
The economics don’t stack up…

We were booked to go out in London on a recent strike day. We parked at the O2 and got the tube across to the west end.
Unfortunately our return coincided with the O2 kicking out. It took an hour and a half to get out of the car park!
Luckily we were in the van, so put the bed out for a bit of a nap and tucked into the crunchy nut cornflakes.
Think we’ll stick to the train when it’s running.

 

[Amarillo]

Thanks. I'm guessing then that WG may have meant Imperial College rather than Oxford Univ.

Anyway that C4 fact-check looks like a very credible summary. Certainly, to describe a 1.3% average reduction in NO2 exposure as "transformative" seems a pretty heroic assertion.

What seems to me to be missing though is any analysis of the impact on people living close to high-traffic zones. It's well known that the risks from airborne pollutants tend to be extremely localised. Still, a total reduction of just 26 hospital admissions a year does seem pretty nugatory in public health terms, even if those 26 hospitalisations all occurred within a few at-risk sub-communities.

[EDIT] I just skim-read the Jacobs cost-benefit analysis report that the mayor's office had commissioned. It supports the acknowledged modelled outcome of 214 life-years saved per year. In public health terms NICE generally regards a drug or other intervention to be justified at up to about £20k per QALY. On that basis the ULEZ expansion would be considered fair value for money if it was costing around £4m a year. In fact ULEZ is expected to cost £200m+ a year (in taxpayer funds to set it up and run it plus the daily charges and penalties paid by car users). So on that basis, it seems to make absolutely no sense.

There’s a significant difference between the effects of the ULEZ and the additional benefits of the expanded ULEZ.


For a genuine fair comparison I think you need to look at three things.

1. The benefits of the Inner ULEZ.
2. The benefits of the doughnut shaped outer ULEZ (as if the inner ULEZ hadn’t existed.
3. The benefits of the whole ULEZ.

What I think the cited studies have done is study 1 and 3, then deducted 1 from 3 to get a version of 2. But this is not the same as 2 in isolation.

But where we should see real benefits is how the ULEZ evolves in time. Now the infrastructure is in place, who pays and how much they pay to use London’s roads can evolve over time for the benefit of the health and well-being of those who live and work in London, and also those who just visit.

Already the Mayor is introducing a “Superloop” express bus service to serve people living between the N/S circular roads and the Greater London boundary.

I wonder how long it will take to travel from Royal Dock to Bexleyheath?

 

[Velma's Dad]

What I think the cited studies have done is study 1 and 3, then deducted 1 from 3 to get a version of 2. But this is not the same as 2 in isolation.

Yes, however my read of the Jacobs CBA is that the net effects of '2' (the expansion) are a very small impact on NO2, practically none on particulates, and a consequently tiny public health benefit: 214 life-years per annum, at a cost of maybe a million pounds per LY. If that is correct (and it seems to be the most thorough analysis, commissioned by the mayor's office itself) then as a public health policy intervention, it completely sucks.

As a way of raising tax for public transport improvements for the long term, it's both a very expensive way of raising that tax (the up-front costs of setting the scheme up have been said to be £200m) and also regressive due to the disproportionate take from less well-off road users. So as a tax raising policy, it also sucks.

Leaving aside people's views on Khan's personal political motives, a system has been constructed where a city mayor whose remit is actually only that of a glorified transport commissioner inevitably uses the only income-generating powers he has, a road charging scheme disguised as a public health intervention, to create more public transport infrastructure, eg the Superloop. Go figure.

Of course the Tories hate Khan with a passion, and Labour is starting to ditch him too. But both parties need to own the problem. Labour, when they created the London Assembly and GLA in 1998, and Coalition/Cons who failed to revise a clearly flawed constutional structure despite parliamentary committees highlighting its flaws to them repeatedly. (And indeed they granted the mayor more powers in 2007 - but of course then they were correctly anticipating that 'their boy' Boris would win the mayoralty).

 

[Amarillo]

Yes, however my read of the Jacobs CBA is that the net effects of '2' (the expansion) are a very small impact on NO2, practically none on particulates, and a consequently tiny public health benefit: 214 life-years per annum, at a cost of maybe a million pounds per LY. If that is correct (and it seems to be the most thorough analysis, commissioned by the mayor's office itself) then as a public health policy intervention, it completely sucks.

As a way of raising tax for public transport improvements for the long term, it's both a very expensive way of raising that tax (the up-front costs of setting the scheme up have been said to be £200m) and also regressive due to the disproportionate take from less well-off road users. So as a tax raising policy, it also sucks.

Leaving aside people's views on Khan's personal political motives, a system has been constructed where a city mayor whose remit is actually only that of a glorified transport commissioner inevitably uses the only income-generating powers he has, a road charging scheme disguised as a public health intervention, to create more public transport infrastructure, eg the Superloop. Go figure.

Of course the Tories hate Khan with a passion, and Labour is starting to ditch him too. But both parties need to own the problem. Labour, when they created the London Assembly and GLA in 1998, and Coalition/Cons who failed to revise a clearly flawed constutional structure despite parliamentary committees highlighting its flaws to them repeatedly. (And indeed they granted the mayor more powers in 2007 - but of course then they were correctly anticipating that 'their boy' Boris would win the mayoralty).

Almost entirely agree. Except that the ULEZ setup, now it is in place, can be tweaked to a fairer system of charging. By engine size, for example, number of seats, maximum gross weight, or anything else held on the registration document.

 

[Velma's Dad]

Almost entirely agree. Except that the ULEZ setup, now it is in place, can be tweaked to a fairer system of charging. By engine size, for example, number of seats, maximum gross weight, or anything else held on the registration document.

Absolutely. What will the rate be for campervans (/motor caravans/MPVs/motorhomes)?

 

[GrumpyGranddad]

Enjoyed the Proms last night while my van is still ULEZ compliant
Parking in Hyde Park for £2.80

 

[Amarillo]

Yes, however my read of the Jacobs CBA is that the net effects of '2' (the expansion) are a very small impact on NO2, practically none on particulates, and a consequently tiny public health benefit: 214 life-years per annum, at a cost of maybe a million pounds per LY. If that is correct (and it seems to be the most thorough analysis, commissioned by the mayor's office itself) then as a public health policy intervention, it completely sucks.

As a way of raising tax for public transport improvements for the long term, it's both a very expensive way of raising that tax (the up-front costs of setting the scheme up have been said to be £200m) and also regressive due to the disproportionate take from less well-off road users. So as a tax raising policy, it also sucks.

Leaving aside people's views on Khan's personal political motives, a system has been constructed where a city mayor whose remit is actually only that of a glorified transport commissioner inevitably uses the only income-generating powers he has, a road charging scheme disguised as a public health intervention, to create more public transport infrastructure, eg the Superloop. Go figure.

Of course the Tories hate Khan with a passion, and Labour is starting to ditch him too. But both parties need to own the problem. Labour, when they created the London Assembly and GLA in 1998, and Coalition/Cons who failed to revise a clearly flawed constutional structure despite parliamentary committees highlighting its flaws to them repeatedly. (And indeed they granted the mayor more powers in 2007 - but of course then they were correctly anticipating that 'their boy' Boris would win the mayoralty).

Is the £200 million cost you cite for the entire ULEZ, or the additional cost of the extended ULEZ.

=== TfL figures ===

The implementation costs for the October 2021 ULEZ expansion to inner London were £115 million. This cost includes staffing, marketing, and the signs, cameras and back-office systems needed to make the scheme operational.

======

If your £200m figure is for the whole ULEZ, and the TfL figures for the inner London ULEZ is correct, then the cost of the 2023 extension is £85m.

Whatever the answer for the £200m figure, it needs to be divided among all the benefits of the ULEZ (or the expanded ULEZ):
1. Health benefits
2. Revenue for transport enhancements
3. Economic benefits from lower road traffic volumes leading to faster moving traffic.

 

[andyinluton]

1. Health benefits

Health benefits is just an excuse to raise money. If it was about health all none compliant vehicle should be banned, paying the £12.50 doesn't make a vehicle any cleaner...

If it was truly about emissions there are other measures that could be introduced to reduce them, get rid of speed bumps, link traffic lights etc to keep traffic flowing smoothly rather than stop start.

Anyone else remember the linked lights in Slough, there used to be a row of 11 sets of traffic lights, go through the first one at 30mph and stick to that speed you would get through all of them without stopping, go faster & you would hit a red light, absolutely brilliant way of policing the speed limit.

 

[wildslammer22]

Health benefits is just an excuse to raise money. If it was about health all none compliant vehicle should be banned, paying the £12.50 doesn't make a vehicle any cleaner...

If it was truly about emissions there are other measures that could be introduced to reduce them, get rid of speed bumps, link traffic lights etc to keep traffic flowing smoothly rather than stop start.

Anyone else remember the linked lights in Slough, there used to be a row of 11 sets of traffic lights, go through the first one at 30mph and stick to that speed you would get through all of them without stopping, go faster & you would hit a red light, absolutely brilliant way of policing the speed limit.

All that is very true but it’s part of a more holistic strategy. Raising extra money to invest in public transport to make many car journeys less attractive has been proven to reduce congestion and emissions in London over many years.

I personally think the London model won’t translate very well in many other UK towns or cities and the required investment for public transport just isn’t there.

 

[andyinluton]

All that is very true but it’s part of a more holistic strategy. Raising extra money to invest in public transport to make many car journeys less attractive has been proven to reduce congestion and emissions in London over many years.

I personally think the London model won’t translate very well in any other UK towns or cities and the required investment for public transport just isn’t there.

Why don't we just charge any car driving Londoner escaping out of the North / South circular a large fee to contribute towards upgrading the transport network outside London.

I think if we had a vote on it there would be an almost unanimous decision, of course Londoners wouldn't be eligible to vote as this is a matter concerning those that don't live in London.

 

[wildslammer22]

Why don't we just charge any car driving Londoner escaping out of the North / South circular a large fee to contribute towards upgrading the transport network outside London.

I think if we had a vote on it there would be an almost unanimous decision, of course Londoners wouldn't be eligible to vote as this is a matter concerning those that don't live in London.

Londoners escaping the city in their cars already contribute enormously to the greater UK economy - have you visited Cornwall or the Cotswolds recently?!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk