Maybe. But the fee mostly reduces the amount of trips done by car in the first place, causing less CO2 to be emitted in the first place, whoch is even better.
Or the tube, or trains, or the clipper, or the DLR, or the overground...
There is absolutely no need for a vehicle (aside from work gear/deliveries) for most people (I can think of a few cases, but largely its quite accessible) inside the ULEZ.
Public transport is easier, cheaper, and faster, and would be even more so if there weren't as many cars.
Laws against a subset of the poor, maybe. If you’re poor enough, you won’t have a car and just use public transport. The London ULEZ I thinm is for petrols older than 2005 and diesels older than 2015. Petrols are the cheaper for initial cost and fuel, so my guess is poor people more commonly have a petrol. But if you’re poor, you also probably are more likely to live on a busy road, so it’s improving yojr air quality.
This is idiotic. Im not talking about piss poor homeless people inside London, im talking about those that cant afford to live in London and therefore live outside where there is virtually no public transport or it would take 3 times longer than with the car.
Er… This isn’t what it’s like in London, but I guess it’s counterintuitive if you’re not from there. London has absolutely loads of poor (but not homeless) people living there. The places outside London within commuting distance are expensive, because people want to work there but not put up with all the other London shit like tiny houses and noise. Because it’s London, it has great public transport links to everywhere.
Given that money from congestion taxes most often go to fund public transportation, which poorer people use to a larger extent, this is not a law against the poor.
I imagine poor people will appreciate better air quality and less noisy cars around too.
London has pretty good public transport, people shouldn't be driving.
I agree that is not great but in some places for example in Barcelona have a similar thing, they have exceptions for the low income people or some other situations.
Make it “x” percent of your income then, so rich people have to pay an amount that hurts them and poor people have to pay an amount that hurts them, so everyone is hurt and thinks about using public transport and then make public transport on top cheaper for the poor.
Problem is, poor people already don’t live in the city and need cars because they come from outside the city where public transport is a joke, but in theory yours is a lot better.
London has one of the best transit systems in the world. A car is not necessary.
If you want to take up a shitload of extra space and pollute everywhere you go with fumes and noise then you get to pay extra. It’s a choice, not a necessity.
My friends we’re not talking about America here. There is infrastructure and a social culture beyond “why should government help it’s own people fuck you get a car”. There are lots of ways to get around by bus or train or bike and they’re all way cheaper which is good for poor folks.
In America you’d be right, we make our poor and everyone else pay 10x what they’d spend on transit to pay for a car, car insurance, gas, parking, toll roads and repairs. Then defund every other form of transit, build our cities for cars instead of people and call it Freedom.
Im not talking about muricaland either at least in Germany it is like that as well, and i expect it not to be much different in UK, outside the citys the public transport is a joke.
If you live outside the city, you don’t pay taxes in the city.
If you don’t pay taxes in the city, it means local taxpayers are paying for YOUR car to wear down roads, add to traffic congestion, make lots of noise and take up space wherever you park it.
This is why there are toll roads, parking fees, fuel taxes and other additional charges (in this case for noise and pollution) in cities.
So if poor people living outside the city REALLY can’t use public transit to get to the city (which I doubt tbh I’ve been all over Europe for work including suburbs and rural areas entirely by train and bus) then they just have to fucking pay for the extra space, pollution and damage they cause with their cars.
Cars don’t deserve special treatment so they can fuck up cities even more than they already do. Just look at American cities, they’re all roads and parking lots thanks to cars 😭
For context, virtually all petrol cars built after 2006 comply with the new rules. There was a scrappage scheme that paid you to get rid of your polluting vehicle.
In Haringey- one of the outer London boroughs affected by the ULEZ expansion 60% of families don’t have cars.
It’s not the poor who are driving around the borough
So why do feel there is a need to carry kids to school by car? In inner-city London, no less.
Also, you can get a working car for 1k€$ but that’s obviously not the full cost. You need to pay for parking, maintenance, insurance, taxes and, finally, gas.
Some might, some won't. It'd be stupid in Berlin because of the Bezirken (which have people of all incomes), but in Amsterdam (where only rich people live in the centre) it'd be fine.
Add comment