ULEZ Legal

[patman post]

Because Johnson ULEZ was about pollution , Khans is about raising revenue ULEZ along with congestion and parking  charges has made driving in London a privalege of the wealthy .But yes as an adopted Londoner I dont own a car , I can basically be anywhere in the capital within an hour, the City in half that and never have to say 'no' when asked if I want another one , cheers
On the odd occasion I need a motor which isnt very often there are those Zipcar things for about £5 an hour that you just park up and forget about or even daily rental is so cheap the expense of keeping a car taxed and insured in London cant be justified .

Congestion charge still applies — so how you fund your personal driving is immaterial...

[patman post]

If Boris Johnson's introduction of the ULEZ in 2015 was such a good idea, then why is Saddiq Khan's extension of it such a bad idea? It's just political point scoring.

The few times I've been to central London in recent years (by public transport) I've been struck by how much less traffic there is. It's my impression (subjective) that traffic is even less than it was in the 1960's and 1970's. What's not to like?

Over a longer timescale I've driven in London quite a lot, but the during the few months I actually lived there I didn't own a car and I managed fine without one.

Covid might have caused your observation. Other than that, I'd say it was your mostly your imagination. Besides, Johnson's original pollution zone only covered the congestion charge zone, that not many polluters would drive in anyway. 

Khan has introduced his plans without enough consultation and explanation. This heavy-handed imposition has been exacerbated by the large number of little Hitlers, who've introduced their own LTNs, closed roads, and imposed restrictions on longterm residents who are not causing  unnecessary problems...

[Streetwalker]

If Boris Johnson's introduction of the ULEZ in 2015 was such a good idea, then why is Saddiq Khan's extension of it such a bad idea? It's just political point scoring.

Because Johnson ULEZ was about pollution , Khans is about raising revenue 

The few times I've been to central London in recent years (by public transport) I've been struck by how much less traffic there is. It's my impression (subjective) that traffic is even less than it was in the 1960's and 1970's. What's not to like?

Over a longer timescale I've driven in London quite a lot, but the during the few months I actually lived there I didn't own a car and I managed fine without one.

ULEZ along with congestion and parking  charges has made driving in London a privalege of the wealthy .But yes as an adopted Londoner I dont own a car , I can basically be anywhere in the capital within an hour, the City in half that and never have to say 'no' when asked if I want another one , cheers 
On the odd occasion I need a motor which isnt very often there are those Zipcar things for about £5 an hour that you just park up and forget about or even daily rental is so cheap the expense of keeping a car taxed and insured in London cant be justified .

[HDQQ]

If Boris Johnson's introduction of the ULEZ in 2015 was such a good idea, then why is Saddiq Khan's extension of it such a bad idea? It's just political point scoring.

The few times I've been to central London in recent years (by public transport) I've been struck by how much less traffic there is. It's my impression (subjective) that traffic is even less than it was in the 1960's and 1970's. What's not to like?

Over a longer timescale I've driven in London quite a lot, but the during the few months I actually lived there I didn't own a car and I managed fine without one.

[Borchester]

How's Starmer going to do that? I doubt he can kick Khan out of the Party — even the more charismatic Blair couldn't sustain that position with Ken.

No — Starmer promising to do something if he gets into power and opposing one Labour's powerful figures is not going to be a good look, or help to win votes...

Starmer does not have to kick Khan out of the party. All he need do is to ignore or oppose Saddo's less popular policies and Khan's popularity will decline as Sir Stodge's climbs

[patman post]

I  imagine that Starmer will be delighted to give his rival Khan a hearty kick in the balls and I can't see that worrying many floating or traditional Labour voters

How's Starmer going to do that? I doubt he can kick Khan out of the Party — even the more charismatic Blair couldn't sustain that position with Ken.

No — Starmer promising to do something if he gets into power and opposing one Labour's powerful figures is not going to be a good look, or help to win votes...

[Borchester]

I don't think many people are against the idea of Ulez, or reducing vehicle pollution around towns and cities — but there's been little effort given to consulting, explaining and getting people onboard.

The schemes have been disjointed and mostly too hurried — and often dictatorial. A few months is too short to get the messages out, take note of objections and reservations and problems of specific areas. And wheeling out an extended Ulez at the same time local authorities are independently closing through roads and imposing LTN with limited joined up thinking and consultation is exacerbating the opposition.

It's looking like Rishi Sunak can get a winning position here***, if he really supports a highly-publicised review of, and a slow-down in, implementing LTNs with all their attendant problems, and this isn't just another opportunistic press release.

All Labour can do is match the Tory call — but that puts them against Sadiq Khan, his Ulez, and London's Labour council activists. Starmer could have done without this added aggravation, because it's one area that's likely to lose Labour support, without gaining floating voters...

*** https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunak-orders-review-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-and-says-hes-on-the-side-of-motorists-12930344

I  imagine that Starmer will be delighted to give his rival Khan a hearty kick in the balls and I can't see that worrying many floating or traditional Labour voters

[patman post]

I don't think many people are against the idea of Ulez, or reducing vehicle pollution around towns and cities — but there's been little effort given to consulting, explaining and getting people onboard.

The schemes have been disjointed and mostly too hurried — and often dictatorial. A few months is too short to get the messages out, take note of objections and reservations and problems of specific areas. And wheeling out an extended Ulez at the same time local authorities are independently closing through roads and imposing LTN with limited joined up thinking and consultation is exacerbating the opposition.

It's looking like Rishi Sunak can get a winning position here***, if he really supports a highly-publicised review of, and a slow-down in, implementing LTNs with all their attendant problems, and this isn't just another opportunistic press release.

All Labour can do is match the Tory call — but that puts them against Sadiq Khan, his Ulez, and London's Labour council activists. Starmer could have done without this added aggravation, because it's one area that's likely to lose Labour support, without gaining floating voters...

*** https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunak-orders-review-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-and-says-hes-on-the-side-of-motorists-12930344

[BeElBeeBub]

I know people will adapt and in years to come nobody will think twice about it but most folk around here on the border line think it could have been phased in over a longer period .We all want clean air but  Khans own report stated it wont make any difference to polution in outer London where backyard bonfires cause more distress to people than vehicle emmissions 
Me I'll just turn right at the end of the road instead of left , Surrey's gain is Londons loss

there will obviously be diminishing returns as you move outside the urban areas but there has to be a border somewhere. excluding some boroughs will cause as many issues as not, and wherever the border line is will cause problems.

yes a phase in might have been better, but I however long it was it would never be long enough.

The real mitigation would be a scrappage scheme  that covered beyond the 32 boroughs, but funding for that was blocked. 

[Streetwalker]

"Off limits" is a bit hyperbolic.

At worst it's £12.50 a day extra costs for some tradesmen (the ones right on the edge who have an old van, don't get the scrappage and do a fair bit of work in london) when they do a London job.

It's not like hiring a tradesman in London is know for being cheap anyway.

small biz and sole traders can get £5k to scrap their van/car and £7.5k if they scrap it and get an electric van.

I had a look and £5k for a light van (say transit) older than 2015 (diesels after 2015 will be ULEZ compliant) is a bit above the going rate, meaning they will probably get more for their van than it's worth. If their van is alot older (say a 2005) then it will almost certainly be worth less than £5k.  There are, as always, exceptions for particular rare configurations or custom vehicles etc.  I imagine icecream vans might be hit.  In those cases you can claim £5k for retrofitting to make compliant.

The big issue is (thanks to the treasury) it's only available to biz in the 32 boroughs (which does include uxbridge).

I know people will adapt and in years to come nobody will think twice about it but most folk around here on the border line think it could have been phased in over a longer period .We all want clean air but  Khans own report stated it wont make any difference to polution in outer London where backyard bonfires cause more distress to people than vehicle emmissions  
Me I'll just turn right at the end of the road instead of left , Surrey's gain is Londons loss 

[BeElBeeBub]

ULEZ expansion legal, High Court rules | Politics News | Sky News



So there we go or wont as the case may be .  London has just become off limits for thousands of tradesmen , people in the zone will be paying extra to get services to come to them and without opposition of any sort Khan will continue as Mayor

"Off limits" is a bit hyperbolic.

At worst it's £12.50 a day extra costs for some tradesmen (the ones right on the edge who have an old van, don't get the scrappage and do a fair bit of work in london) when they do a London job.

It's not like hiring a tradesman in London is know for being cheap anyway.

small biz and sole traders can get £5k to scrap their van/car and £7.5k if they scrap it and get an electric van.

I had a look and £5k for a light van (say transit) older than 2015 (diesels after 2015 will be ULEZ compliant) is a bit above the going rate, meaning they will probably get more for their van than it's worth. If their van is alot older (say a 2005) then it will almost certainly be worth less than £5k.  There are, as always, exceptions for particular rare configurations or custom vehicles etc.  I imagine icecream vans might be hit.  In those cases you can claim £5k for retrofitting to make compliant.

The big issue is (thanks to the treasury) it's only available to biz in the 32 boroughs (which does include uxbridge).

[Streetwalker]

ULEZ expansion legal, High Court rules | Politics News | Sky News



So there we go or wont as the case may be .  London has just become off limits for thousands of tradesmen , people in the zone will be paying extra to get services to come to them and without opposition of any sort Khan will continue as Mayor