Pay per mile / use is on the way for all road users not just Londoners so this is not news. You are already being tracked by so many ways you don't even know about. Current income schemes for road users from fuel duty, road tax etc are crude and outdated and need replacing. 2012 TDV8 Vogue (L322)

I'm looking forward to seeing my 500bhp GpB rally car from the early 1980's being exempt from all these LEZ's.....

Apparently, if they don't need to pay road tax or have an MoT and they are over 40 years old, you can drive freely in the zones!!

Merchy wrote:

This is not conspiracy theory stuff, but watch the video on the link below for Khan's future plans, this is not rumour, sni- snip snip it's scary to think about what Khan will want next.

Philip wrote:

It’s won’t reduce pollution by any meaningful degree (see the impact assessment), and normal replacement of the vehicle fleet means its proposed format will be entirely irrelevant in about three years.

Philip wrote:

Maybe there’s another reason to spend hundreds of millions of pounds to install and run a London-wide ANPR network?

pcourtney wrote:

they should be tackling the shocking toxic air levels in the tube system, that is probably killing more people every year than at street level - especially those that commute 1 hour in the morning and 1 hour back, absolutely incredible that TfL can get away with such double standards

If they were really that worried about the air quality they would ban any engine over one litre capacity.

Which engine pollutes more?
A one litre engine doing 18,000 miles a year, or a 3 litre one doing 4K a year?
Its not only what you’ve got, it’s how much you use it……… “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” -where’s the fun in that?

JayGee wrote:

Philip wrote:

The earlier zones weren’t beneficial either, they have just taken the credit for the normal replacement of vehicles by less polluting ones, bus fleet finally cleaned up etc.

Can you point me to the data that supports this claim please

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Saying ULEZ has had no impact on air quality/ pollution reduction over projected reductions from normal vehicle renewal is one such claim. 2012 TDV8 Vogue (L322)

All this reminds me of the days I helped set up the congestion charge for Boris (back in the day) it was amazingly successful, so much so that the traffic into the city reduced significantly, it caused alarm in County Hall because they took less money - so they put the price up "simples" as they had got used to the income. I'm beginning to suspect ULEZ is an easy way to tax motorists to help keep London running obviously it's all GREENWASHED just like the VED on Range Rovers with the diesel engines we were encouraged to buy. (not Range Rovers but Diesel engines) Geoff

JayGee wrote:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Saying ULEZ has had no impact on air quality/ pollution reduction over projected reductions from normal vehicle renewal is one such claim.

My point relates to private cars. There’s an enormous amount of independent info out there; take NOx - look at this (pre-ULEZ) graph and tell me that ULEZ taxing private cars has made all the difference in London:

The Mayor’s office pretends that preventing a fraction of the total number of cars entering the original zone had a wildly unrealistic impact on levels of pollution - claims like 13,500 polluting cars not entering the zone meant pollution had dropped by a third, clearly nonsense when banning every single car wouldn’t have that impact.

You didn't mention 'private cars' earlier. Commercial vehicles are subject to ULEZ and in London were a major source of pollution. Not sure you can derive anything from an 8 year old graph with no provenance.
If the ULEZ is such a big con it surely must be easy enough to post a link to the unbiased and independent data you are basing this claim on? We could all then get together and take the mayor to court for the biggest misuse of public funds since Shirley Porter. 2012 TDV8 Vogue (L322)

As I said, there’s a huge amount of
information out there, most of it vastly more credible than the twaddle peddled by Khan’s PR department. You’re free to believe what you want to, but targeting private cars in London is extraordinarily cynical.

I'm sure there is a huge amount of information out there and I wouldn't treat any PR dept output as fact but can't you just provide one credible link to back up your claim that ULEZ has had no effect on pollution? Targeting private cars would indeed be very cynical but ULEZ applies to commercial vehicles as well. You may not like the ULEZ charge or it's implementation or the mayor (for whatever reason) but saying it doesn't reduce pollution is quiet a claim. 2012 TDV8 Vogue (L322)

It’s not about one “credible link (of which a quick Google will find an enormous amount of)”, the simple numbers involved tell us that ULEZ’s impact on private car use cannot have had the effects claimed - in the current zones or the upcoming extension (as the independent impact assessment confirms).