If you thought changing to an EV would be the end of the matter. Beware.

[WelshGas]

Cyclists, pedestrians, equestrians, and others, use London’s streets by right and pay through their Council tax.

Motorists, on the other hand, use the road under licence and pay nothing additional to maintain London’s roads (unless they stray into the very central area, or use an older non-compliant vehicle in the ULEZ).

Public transport users already pay for their use of public transport and also for the upkeep of London’s roads.

I’d support the use of technology to make London’s tube trains driverless. It works perfectly well on the 90s Docklands Light Railway.

Forgive me if I am wrong.
But LONDON is the capital of the United Kingdom and home to a significant number of Institutions that are financed by the citizens of the United Kingdom. So the citizens of the U.K. have a right to visit these institutions by any means they wish to employ.
Paying a “Pollution “ charge is one thing but paying to use the roads of our Capital City is a different matter.
Maybe if such a system is introduced a ring of APNR cameras around Greater London to charge ALL Londoners leaving “their” city should be the way forward.

 

[WelshGas]

How would you propose taxing pedestrians @WelshGas ?
Why wouldn’t you want to subsidise public transport? Surely if it helps everyone get to work economically then it’s a good thing?

Because @Amarillo is bound to get uptight.
Subsidising Public Transport, good idea if it was done fairly across the country.
Londoners have a very distorted view of the country as a whole. Oh to have 50% of the availability of Public Transport that TFL offers at the same prices.

 

[Amarillo]

Forgive me if I am wrong.
But LONDON is the capital of the United Kingdom and home to a significant number of Institutions that are financed by the citizens of the United Kingdom. So the citizens of the U.K. have a right to visit these institutions by any means they wish to employ.
Paying a “Pollution “ charge is one thing but paying to use the roads of our Capital City is a different matter.
Maybe if such a system is introduced a ring of APNR cameras around Greater London to charge ALL Londoners leaving “their” city should be the way forward.

As I would have thought you could infer, the Capital’s institutions do not pay for London’s roads. There is a small amount of Business rate retention that goes to the Greater London Authority, and in turn the GLA allocates some of this to TfL, but this forms a tiny proportion of TfL’s income, the majority of which comes from fare income.

Someone wanting to visit London without paying to cross one of the ANPR cordons could easily do so by leaving their car at any station or coach stop outside the Greater London Area and travel in by train or coach.

I have to say, your remarks about accepting (albeit grudgingly) a pollution charge for travel by motor vehicle into London is possibly just the reason for Mr Khan selling the ULEZ as a pollution charge. That may well be what it will be to begin with, but I doubt it will stay that way for long.

 

[Amarillo]

Because @Amarillo is bound to get uptight.
Subsidising Public Transport, good idea if it was done fairly across the country.
Londoners have a very distorted view of the country as a whole. Oh to have 50% of the availability of Public Transport that TFL offers at the same prices.

I think public transport is subsidised in all cities and all regions of the United Kingdom EXCEPT London.

I don’t actually have a problem with that. Indeed, I’d like to see better public transport across our nation.

But it is London that will have these ANPR cordons, and I will also be very happy for them to be used to raise revenue to subsidise public transport benefitting all who want to travel in London by public transport. (It should also benefit those who choose to drive with clearer roads).

 

[andyinluton]

I think public transport is subsidised in all cities and all regions of the United Kingdom EXCEPT London.

Apart of course from the £1.2bn given to TFL by the government, if that isn't subsidising Public transport I don't know what you would call it.



Today, Tuesday 30th August, Transport for London (TfL) issued an update on its funding agreement with the government.

Transport for London Commissioner Andy Byford said:

"After weeks of negotiation, we have today reached agreement with Government on a funding settlement until 31 March 2024. This agreement, which was hard won, means that we can now get on with the job of supporting London's recovery from the pandemic - to the benefit of the whole country. There is no UK recovery without a London recovery, and no London recovery without a properly funded transport network.

"The agreement with Government means that across the funding period, TfL expects to receive further base funding of around £1.2bn from Government until March 2024 and gives TfL ongoing revenue support

 

[The Tall Luthier]

Because @Amarillo is bound to get uptight.
Subsidising Public Transport, good idea if it was done fairly across the country.
Londoners have a very distorted view of the country as a whole. Oh to have 50% of the availability of Public Transport that TFL offers at the same prices.

Although you are right that it would be fairer if it was done across the country, the onus should be on complaining that our transport is not subsidised, not that London's is.

I commented to Granny Jen last week how the decision in the 1980s ( Thanks Maggie!) to privatise everything (except London transport) led to much higher car usage outside of London and much higher transport prices too.

I am sure that some shareholders did well though so that's ok.

@Amarillo I think you'll find that Tfl is subsidised by virtue of the fact that it always makes a loss. I read that the national government gave it a £1 billion grant recently. It was on a government website though and you know what liars they are!

 

[WelshGas]

Although you are right that it would be fairer if it was done across the country, the onus should be on complaining that our transport is not subsidised, not that London's is.

I commented to Granny Jen last week how the decision in the 1980s ( Thanks Maggie!) to privatise everything (except London transport) led to much higher car usage outside of London and much higher transport prices too.

I am sure that some shareholders did well though so that's ok.

@Amarillo I think you'll find that Tfl is subsidised by virtue of the fact that it always makes a loss. I read that the national government gave it a £1 billion grant recently. It was on a government website though and you know what liars they are!

Just like Kahn .

 

[Amarillo]

Apart of course from the £1.2bn given to TFL by the government, if that isn't subsidising Public transport I don't know what you would call it.



Today, Tuesday 30th August, Transport for London (TfL) issued an update on its funding agreement with the government.

Transport for London Commissioner Andy Byford said:

"After weeks of negotiation, we have today reached agreement with Government on a funding settlement until 31 March 2024. This agreement, which was hard won, means that we can now get on with the job of supporting London's recovery from the pandemic - to the benefit of the whole country. There is no UK recovery without a London recovery, and no London recovery without a properly funded transport network.

"The agreement with Government means that across the funding period, TfL expects to receive further base funding of around £1.2bn from Government until March 2024 and gives TfL ongoing revenue support

I acknowledged the post pandemic bailout in post #42.

What happens once the post pandemic funding runs out in 2024/2025

Answer: London gets nothing.

That is when I expect the ULEZ ANPR cordons to be re-purposed and a far greater number of vehicles to be charged for crossing the cordons.

In the meantime Khan faces some tough challenges to release the funding, such as tackling the powerful London Underground drivers’ unions to introduce driverless trains. Something I welcome. Some of the dosh is for local authorities to battle popular opposition and create low traffic neighbourhoods (something I also welcome). But the vitriol directed at the mayor for these lovely neighbourhoods is something to behold.

 

[Amarillo]

Although you are right that it would be fairer if it was done across the country, the onus should be on complaining that our transport is not subsidised, not that London's is.

I commented to Granny Jen last week how the decision in the 1980s ( Thanks Maggie!) to privatise everything (except London transport) led to much higher car usage outside of London and much higher transport prices too.

I am sure that some shareholders did well though so that's ok.

@Amarillo I think you'll find that Tfl is subsidised by virtue of the fact that it always makes a loss. I read that the national government gave it a £1 billion grant recently. It was on a government website though and you know what liars they are!

London’s former mayor, Boris Johnson, cut TfL’s funding from central government for his successor to zero. This all changed during the pandemic, and between March 2020 and March 2024 TfL will have received or receive about £6bn of emergency bailout funding to keep the transport network running to near full capacity while passenger revenue plummeted.

I am looking ahead to after March 2024 - just a year away - when the outer ULEZ cordon will have been running for 8 months and the Inner London ULEZ cordon will have been dormant for the same length of time. Khan will be looking to that to raise extra revenue.

But let’s be clear. The government bailout is not for roads. It is to plug the gap in fare revenue caused by the pandemic and the revenue recovery post pandemic.

 

[WelshGas]

I acknowledged the post pandemic bailout in post #42.

What happens once the post pandemic funding runs out in 2024/2025

Answer: London gets nothing.

That is when I expect the ULEZ ANPR cordons to be re-purposed and a far greater number of vehicles to be charged for crossing the cordons.

In the meantime Khan faces some tough challenges to release the funding, such as tackling the powerful London Underground drivers’ unions to introduce driverless trains. Something I welcome. Some of the dosh is for local authorities to battle popular opposition and create low traffic neighbourhoods (something I also welcome). But the vitriol directed at the mayor for these lovely neighbourhoods is something to behold.

Especially as the vitriol comes from the affected residents.

 

[Amarillo]

Especially as the vitriol comes from the affected residents.

Delete “the” and replace with “a vocal minority of” and we can agree.

 

[WelshGas]

Delete “the” and replace with “a vocal minority of” and we can agree.

No.

 

[flying banana]

It's amazing how many on here think its ok to add yet more financial strain to the poorest households in the form of another tax on cars. It's the poorest who can't afford euro 6 cars or evs.but its the poorest who will have to fork out these ridiculous extra taxes. The more we'll to do will just but a new motor. This will be Coming soon to Sheffield. But guess what, I will still have to drive in to the city because our transport up here is a bigger joke than the ev revolution itself. Transpenine express cancelled 23157 of its East West services alone in 1 year. Getting to Sheffield Hull Manchester by rail now is so unreliable I am driving in every shift in my 08 diesel car,if I had a choice and still chose to drive then the tax is fair enough. Alas for most people we aren't given a choice

 

[flying banana]

If u were in Sheffield tonight you already can't get to Doncaster by rail. The last 3 are all cancelled and the Scarborough train didn't make iit past Hull. This is every night and morning. The same. Its not even 11pm and you are stuck to driving
If your ever boozing up here and are going home by rail,I recommend an afternoon session only

 

[Amarillo]

It's amazing how many on here think its ok to add yet more financial strain to the poorest households in the form of another tax on cars. It's the poorest who can't afford euro 6 cars or evs.but its the poorest who will have to fork out these ridiculous extra taxes. The more we'll to do will just but a new motor. This will be Coming soon to Sheffield. But guess what, I will still have to drive in to the city because our transport up here is a bigger joke than the ev revolution itself. Transpenine express cancelled 23157 of its East West services alone in 1 year. Getting to Sheffield Hull Manchester by rail now is so unreliable I am driving in every shift in my 08 diesel car,if I had a choice and still chose to drive then the tax is fair enough. Alas for most people we aren't given a choice

I fully agree. Khan has a £110 million car scrappage scheme but its scope is very limited.

Generally, the very poorest, won’t be affected by the ULEZ as they don’t have cars (just under 50% of London households are car free). The richest won’t be affected as they already have ULEZ compliant cars. It is the middle lot that will carry the burden.

The same happens when a controlled parking zone is introduced. The poorest third (very general) don’t have cars, the richest third (very general) have a garage or driveway. The middle third (very general) have to pay for a parking permit. And the most unfair bit of all is that those with a driveway have an exclusive section of the roadside, about the length of a parking bay, which they get free of charge to access their driveway. Their poorer neighbour with no driveway has to pay annually for their parking bay - to which they don’t have exclusive use.

 

[vmaxkiddy]

If u were in Sheffield tonight you already can't get to Doncaster by rail. The last 3 are all cancelled and the Scarborough train didn't make iit past Hull. This is every night and morning. The same. Its not even 11pm and you are stuck to driving
If your ever boozing up here and are going home by rail,I recommend an afternoon session only
View attachment 105683

Yep, it’s hopeless. Of the 113 rail journeys I’ve taken in the last 12 months, 59% (67 journeys) have involved a full or partial refund because of delays and cancellations. It would have been even more if LNER used the same15 minute rule as other rail companies, but they give themselves a 30 minute leeway

 

[GrannyJen]

Although you are right that it would be fairer if it was done across the country, the onus should be on complaining that our transport is not subsidised, not that London's is.

I commented to Granny Jen last week how the decision in the 1980s ( Thanks Maggie!) to privatise everything (except London transport) led to much higher car usage outside of London and much higher transport prices too.

I am sure that some shareholders did well though so that's ok.

Just to point out ...

The transport act 1985 did more than deregulate bus services and open the door to the privatisation of the National Bus Company ...

It also initiated the phasing out of the country bus subsidy, a payment of up to 5 pence per mile to operators of uneconomic services supplying the needs of rural communities. It was to the bus industry what Beeching was to rail. Over the next five years hundreds of bus routes were phased out leaving communities private transport dependent. If we want less cars and less pollution then we have to ask can we afford to reintroduce subsidies on that scale?

 

[ArunAlec]

Just to point out ...

The transport act 1985 did more than deregulate bus services and open the door to the privatisation of the National Bus Company ...

It also initiated the phasing out of the country bus subsidy, a payment of up to 5 pence per mile to operators of uneconomic services supplying the needs of rural communities. It was to the bus industry what Beeching was to rail. Over the next five years hundreds of bus routes were phased out leaving communities private transport dependent. If we want less cars and less pollution then we have to ask can we afford to reintroduce subsidies on that scale?

The bus route that served my parents was axed over 10 years ago. Since then the council have provided a free return taxi service for my Mum, every Thursday from her doorstep to the nearby town. About 15 miles round trip.

 

[GrumpyGranddad]

Reading all this I feel very lucky to live where I do. Chiltern Line from Wendover to Marylebone is only just over £6 using my Senior Railcard and it’s a reliable service. Also I get a free bus pass from the Council that I can use nationally (including London). Used both last Friday on a trip to the Royal Albert Hall.

 

[SusiBus]

The 757 Green Line coach linking Luton Airport with London comes off the M1 near
St Albans. It then does a loop around a nearby roundabout, makes one stop to pick up/drop off passengers, then back on the M1. By doing so it is classified as providing what I think is called a local bus service, hence making it eligible for subsidies.
What's really nice is living near St Albans l can catch it and travel to London free using my OAP.
Nice one Arriva!