|
||||||||||||
|
QUICK INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY … ● The key policy
document for London, the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. keeps
TfL’s options open for road pricing. ● The
under-publicised consultation on ULEZ (2022) had questions on what sort of
road pricing might be introduced – and assumed that it would be in place
London-wide by 2026. 83% of
responses were opposed. ● Even so, in 2023
the Greater London Assembly announced a further consultation on what it might
look like. ● Officially ‘no
decision has been made’, so why
has TfL recruited several contractors working on developing road pricing
systems? People have also noticed the haste to get in ANPR surveillance
cameras for London-wide ULEZ despite its great unpopularity. The cameras
might just double up for road pricing? |
|||||
|
FROM ULEZ TO LONDON-WIDE ROAD PRICING? … ·
In 2023, various parties applied for a Judicial Review to stop ULEZ expansion. The five councils were unlucky that it was not ruled illegal on technicalities. (JRs are purely concerned with ‘due process’ and don’t decide the merits of the decision.)
·
TfL is already employing contractors to develop ‘road user charging systems, but we are told that ‘the technology isn’t ready yet’…. the Mayor obviously had an eye on being re-elected in 2024.
. ·
In February 2023, the GLA Transport Committee launched a
call for evidence on ‘smart road user charging’. Despite the timescale being
suspiciously short (29 days), the public response was heavily against being charged, so much that the percentage was not disclosed.. ·
In TfL’s consultation (2022, with ULEZ),, a massive 83% of responses were hostile to road
pricing! (See Consultation reports, Appendix F, p112). ·
Other clues were given in that consultation,
during which ULEZ got almost all the coverage and the Mayor’s road pricing
ambitions were conveniently much
under-publicised. We can see why – the following self-satisfied hype from
TfL
is just insulting to our intelligence! “…further
action will be needed in the long-term to achieve the necessary levels of traffic and emissions reductions to continue
to improve Londoners’ health and to meet net zero carbon targets to tackle
the climate emergency. This may require the introduction of London-wide road
user charging by 2030 at the latest,
as set out by an Element Energy analysis of a 2030 net zero target for London. The analysis notes that all scenarios
would benefit from London-wide road user charging being introduced as early as possible…”. |
|||||
|
TAKING YOU, YOUR MONEY AND PRIVACY FOR GRANTED… TAXING OVER 1 IN 4 JOURNEYS OFF THE ROAD? ·
Even less publicised was the assumption
that road pricing would be in place by 2026…
in a long and very technical consultation document known as ‘the Jacobs
Report’. The Jacobs Report also gives
the game away that the proposed scheme will “have a negligible beneficial
impact on carbon emissions in Greater London.” ·
The ‘necessary reductions’ are 27% of our car journeys and are based
on a strange report from the Element Energy consultancy [2022]. For some
reason, the Mayor insists on aiming for the ‘Net Zero’ fantasy world target
by 2030, 20 years ahead of national government. The bizarre Orwellian webpage
“Pathways to Net Zero Carbon by 2030”
bleats: “Fairness
must be at the heart of the net zero pathway... We
must ensure we are supporting those on low incomes from the costs.” Yet the ULEZ expansion – a stepping stone
to London-wide road pricing by getting the surveillance cameras in – will
seriously harm many poorer and
lower-paid people. ·
There is a possible sting in the tail, a change
of tone in response to this? Apart from vehicle-related factors like
emissions and distance travelled, TfL hinted
that in their brave new world, charges could be based on ‘household income’, ‘where you drive’ and ‘available alternatives
such as walking and cycling’. Yet they have the nerve to pretend that
this would ‘’respect privacy’ with
‘the minimum possible collection and use of personal
data’. It would be quite the opposite – who decides if your journey to work
or the shops is optimum or even ‘necessary’, or whether you should be having
a delivery by Ocado or Amazon? ·
Apart from being irrational and
irrelevant to road use – targeting income
could compromise privacy within a family. We are talking about a ‘Big Brother’ mentality, a bureaucracy
getting too big for its jackboots! It makes you wonder how steep the charges will be if journeys are to be taxed
off the road to meet the 27% target? ·
In the shorter term, he wants to install
thousands of cameras across London to bring in more taxes and fines on
drivers. There are issues for population
surveillance. |
|||||
|
ADDING INSULT TO INJURY … KHAN’S HYPOCRISY Khan is a hypocrite
- in his 2021 Manifesto (p33),
he crowed: “The
Tories tried to force an extension to the Congestion Charge to the North and South Circulars….But I stood firm and stopped [it] from
happening.” He has also –
repeatedly - let off lavish
fireworks displays when it suited him and been enthusiastic about
cannabis farms in California, which would be great for air quality if
replicated over here. Finally, he has tried to push more people to use the
tube even though the air
quality is better at street level.
·
Is it ‘London’s
toxic air’ or ‘London’s toxic Mayor’, please, Mr Khan? In the
shorter term, he wants to justify increased taxes on poorer drivers on ‘climate change’ and ‘air
quality’ grounds. It’s funny that if Greater London’s air is so filthy (as he
claims), why is he always urging people to walk and cycle in it? ·
The suggestion that around 4,000 Londoners
die a year as a result of air pollution is a bit of a try-on. Visit here for a rebuttal on the
deaths. ·
The Mayor’s consultation proposals didn’t
feature a proper cost-revenue analysis, which is a major omission. Surely
Londoners have the right to know how much it will all cost (taxpayers’ money
one way or another)? Also to know how much the Mayor will be
making out of us (revenue)? Did he expect us to just rubber-stamp his hyped
proposals? ·
Mayor Khan has previously eyed the £500m of
car tax (VED) Londoners pay to the Government every year, “If the Government refuses, I will ask TfL
to consider other ways of raising income”. He has recently levied a charge of £20 on council tax bills for
Transport for London, who are pushing for unpopular
schemes like LTNs (Low Traffic Neighbourhoods) that force traffic onto main
roads. They make drivers travel further, burning more fuel and increasing
emissions. ·
“A million tickets a year are set to be issued to
speeding motorists in London following a massive expansion of 20mph limits
and the roll-out of new LASERcam 4
speed cameras” (Evening
Standard, 25.2.22) SORRY, MR MAYOR …. It’s a case of KHAN’T PAY, WON’T PAY |
|||||
|
Please help spread the
word and - better still - actively support us in calling for a fairer deal for
drivers who already pay billions a year in taxes. Campaign articles index and data protection
|
