Re: Sadiq Khan
Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2024 1:03 pm
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
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
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
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Doesn't mean he was right, and Khan could, I suppose, not have continued with it.