Freedom Pass 'in danger' if Government restricts council income from motoring fines

[Recliner]

Free travel benefits enjoyed by more than a million older Londoners are
under threat from proposed Government changes to council income from
parking charges, it can be revealed.

London Councils, the organisation that represents the 33 boroughs, warned
there would be a “real danger” of being unable to fund the Freedom Pass and
concessionary schemes for children with special educational needs and adult
Londoners with disabilities.

Councils rely on income from parking charges and fines to cover the annual
cost of the Freedom Pass, which allows older and disabled Londoners with
free travel on the Tube, train and bus.

This year councils will contribute £188m towards the £292m cost of the
Freedom Pass.

The cost of providing free travel is estimated to increase to more than
£400m in the next three years and to top £500m by the end of the decade.

Transport Secretary Mark Harper wants to stop councils appearing to
“profit” from motorists and has launched a consultation on whether any
“surplus” from penalty charge notices should be returned to the Treasury,
as already happens with speeding fines.

This would include fines issues for “moving traffic offences” such as
stopping in a yellow box junction or ignoring banned turn signs.

But London Councils, in its response to the consultation, said: “Were
government to remove the ability for authorities to make surpluses, or
return surpluses to the Treasury… how would local authorities afford
concessionary fares schemes?”

Abi Wood, chief executive of Age UK London, which has campaigned to save
the Freedom Pass, said: “We are alarmed by the impact of these measures,
which local councils say will put them under even greater pressure to
reduce vital transport schemes including the Freedom Pass and London
Taxicard service.

“In the capital, older Londoners are the fastest growing age group, and we
know that affordable transport makes a profound difference to the quality
of people’s lives.”

Last year, the number of penalty fines issued to drivers in London hit a
record of almost 7.6 million, generating an estimated £400m.

This included more than three million £130 tickets issued to drivers who
were caught on CCTV failing to obey road signs — such as driving through
low traffic neighbourhoods or school streets.

Councils are currently under severe financial pressure, mainly because of
the soaring cost of social care.

As a result, council tax bills rose by the maximum allowed of five per cent
in April, meaning the average annual bill in more than a third of boroughs
now exceeds £2,000.

London Councils said that if parking revenue was restricted, then the cost
of providing travel benefits “would either need to be met directly by
Central Government or there would need to be a significant scaling back of
commitments”.

London Councils added: “By removing the generation and use of any surplus,
there is a real danger that there would be a drastic reduction in
investment for local transport initiatives and/or a real shortfall in other
areas of council spend.”

A Department for Transport spokesperson said: “We’re on the side of
drivers, which is why we want to take profit out of penalty notices,
removing the incentive for over-zealous enforcement measures that treat
drivers as ‘cash cows’.

“The funding for important travel schemes that people rely on should not be
dependent on surpluses from unfair traffic enforcement measures, local
authorities are responsible for funding these sustainably and responsibly
and would be wise not to suggest otherwise.”

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/freedom-pass-government-council-income-motoring-fines-london-b1158399.html

[David Jones]

Post by Recliner
Free travel benefits enjoyed by more than a million older Londoners
are under threat from proposed Government changes to council income
from parking charges, it can be revealed.
London Councils, the organisation that represents the 33 boroughs,
warned there would be a “real danger” of being unable to fund the
Freedom Pass and concessionary schemes for children with special
educational needs and adult Londoners with disabilities.
Councils rely on income from parking charges and fines to cover the
annual cost of the Freedom Pass, which allows older and disabled
Londoners with free travel on the Tube, train and bus.
This year councils will contribute £188m towards the £292m cost of the
Freedom Pass.
The cost of providing free travel is estimated to increase to more
than £400m in the next three years and to top £500m by the end of the
decade.
Transport Secretary Mark Harper wants to stop councils appearing to
“profit” from motorists and has launched a consultation on whether any
“surplus” from penalty charge notices should be returned to the
Treasury, as already happens with speeding fines.
This would include fines issues for “moving traffic offences” such as
stopping in a yellow box junction or ignoring banned turn signs.
But London Councils, in its response to the consultation, said: “Were
government to remove the ability for authorities to make surpluses, or
return surpluses to the Treasury… how would local authorities afford
concessionary fares schemes?”
Abi Wood, chief executive of Age UK London, which has campaigned to
save the Freedom Pass, said: “We are alarmed by the impact of these
measures, which local councils say will put them under even greater
pressure to reduce vital transport schemes including the Freedom Pass
and London Taxicard service.
“In the capital, older Londoners are the fastest growing age group,
and we know that affordable transport makes a profound difference to
the quality of people’s lives.”
Last year, the number of penalty fines issued to drivers in London
hit a record of almost 7.6 million, generating an estimated £400m.
This included more than three million £130 tickets issued to drivers
who were caught on CCTV failing to obey road signs — such as driving
through low traffic neighbourhoods or school streets.
Councils are currently under severe financial pressure, mainly
because of the soaring cost of social care.
As a result, council tax bills rose by the maximum allowed of five
per cent in April, meaning the average annual bill in more than a
third of boroughs now exceeds £2,000.
London Councils said that if parking revenue was restricted, then the
cost of providing travel benefits “would either need to be met
directly by Central Government or there would need to be a
significant scaling back of commitments”.
London Councils added: “By removing the generation and use of any
surplus, there is a real danger that there would be a drastic
reduction in investment for local transport initiatives and/or a real
shortfall in other areas of council spend.”
A Department for Transport spokesperson said: “We’re on the side of
drivers, which is why we want to take profit out of penalty notices,
removing the incentive for over-zealous enforcement measures that
treat drivers as ‘cash cows’.
“The funding for important travel schemes that people rely on should
not be dependent on surpluses from unfair traffic enforcement
measures, local authorities are responsible for funding these
sustainably and responsibly and would be wise not to suggest
otherwise.”

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/freedom-pass-government-council-income-motoring-fines-london-b1158399.html

So ... the "Department for Transport spokesperson" thinks that
car-drivers should not face penalties when they act illegally. This one
thinks that such penalties are "unfair".

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Recliner

Post by Recliner
Free travel benefits enjoyed by more than a million older Londoners
are under threat from proposed Government changes to council income
from parking charges, it can be revealed.
London Councils, the organisation that represents the 33 boroughs,
warned there would be a “real danger” of being unable to fund the
Freedom Pass and concessionary schemes for children with special
educational needs and adult Londoners with disabilities.
Councils rely on income from parking charges and fines to cover the
annual cost of the Freedom Pass, which allows older and disabled
Londoners with free travel on the Tube, train and bus.
This year councils will contribute £188m towards the £292m cost of the
Freedom Pass.
The cost of providing free travel is estimated to increase to more
than £400m in the next three years and to top £500m by the end of the
decade.
Transport Secretary Mark Harper wants to stop councils appearing to
“profit” from motorists and has launched a consultation on whether any
“surplus” from penalty charge notices should be returned to the
Treasury, as already happens with speeding fines.
This would include fines issues for “moving traffic offences” such as
stopping in a yellow box junction or ignoring banned turn signs.
But London Councils, in its response to the consultation, said: “Were
government to remove the ability for authorities to make surpluses, or
return surpluses to the Treasury… how would local authorities afford
concessionary fares schemes?”
Abi Wood, chief executive of Age UK London, which has campaigned to
save the Freedom Pass, said: “We are alarmed by the impact of these
measures, which local councils say will put them under even greater
pressure to reduce vital transport schemes including the Freedom Pass
and London Taxicard service.
“In the capital, older Londoners are the fastest growing age group,
and we know that affordable transport makes a profound difference to
the quality of people’s lives.”
Last year, the number of penalty fines issued to drivers in London
hit a record of almost 7.6 million, generating an estimated £400m.
This included more than three million £130 tickets issued to drivers
who were caught on CCTV failing to obey road signs — such as driving
through low traffic neighbourhoods or school streets.
Councils are currently under severe financial pressure, mainly
because of the soaring cost of social care.
As a result, council tax bills rose by the maximum allowed of five
per cent in April, meaning the average annual bill in more than a
third of boroughs now exceeds £2,000.
London Councils said that if parking revenue was restricted, then the
cost of providing travel benefits “would either need to be met
directly by Central Government or there would need to be a
significant scaling back of commitments”.
London Councils added: “By removing the generation and use of any
surplus, there is a real danger that there would be a drastic
reduction in investment for local transport initiatives and/or a real
shortfall in other areas of council spend.”
A Department for Transport spokesperson said: “We’re on the side of
drivers, which is why we want to take profit out of penalty notices,
removing the incentive for over-zealous enforcement measures that
treat drivers as ‘cash cows’.
“The funding for important travel schemes that people rely on should
not be dependent on surpluses from unfair traffic enforcement
measures, local authorities are responsible for funding these
sustainably and responsibly and would be wise not to suggest
otherwise.”

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/freedom-pass-government-council-income-motoring-fines-london-b1158399.html
So ... the "Department for Transport spokesperson" thinks that
car-drivers should not face penalties when they act illegally. This one
thinks that such penalties are "unfair".

Actually, the not very well hidden agenda is to divert these monies to
the treasury to pay for Hunt's tax cuts to buy votes in October. Also it
is another attack on Khan, who they hope will take the blame for the
inevitable reduction in benefits.

[Recliner]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Recliner

Post by Recliner
Free travel benefits enjoyed by more than a million older Londoners
are under threat from proposed Government changes to council income
from parking charges, it can be revealed.
London Councils, the organisation that represents the 33 boroughs,
warned there would be a “real danger” of being unable to fund the
Freedom Pass and concessionary schemes for children with special
educational needs and adult Londoners with disabilities.
Councils rely on income from parking charges and fines to cover the
annual cost of the Freedom Pass, which allows older and disabled
Londoners with free travel on the Tube, train and bus.
This year councils will contribute £188m towards the £292m cost of the
Freedom Pass.
The cost of providing free travel is estimated to increase to more
than £400m in the next three years and to top £500m by the end of the
decade.
Transport Secretary Mark Harper wants to stop councils appearing to
“profit” from motorists and has launched a consultation on whether any
“surplus” from penalty charge notices should be returned to the
Treasury, as already happens with speeding fines.
This would include fines issues for “moving traffic offences” such as
stopping in a yellow box junction or ignoring banned turn signs.
But London Councils, in its response to the consultation, said: “Were
government to remove the ability for authorities to make surpluses, or
return surpluses to the Treasury… how would local authorities afford
concessionary fares schemes?”
Abi Wood, chief executive of Age UK London, which has campaigned to
save the Freedom Pass, said: “We are alarmed by the impact of these
measures, which local councils say will put them under even greater
pressure to reduce vital transport schemes including the Freedom Pass
and London Taxicard service.
“In the capital, older Londoners are the fastest growing age group,
and we know that affordable transport makes a profound difference to
the quality of people’s lives.”
Last year, the number of penalty fines issued to drivers in London
hit a record of almost 7.6 million, generating an estimated £400m.
This included more than three million £130 tickets issued to drivers
who were caught on CCTV failing to obey road signs — such as driving
through low traffic neighbourhoods or school streets.
Councils are currently under severe financial pressure, mainly
because of the soaring cost of social care.
As a result, council tax bills rose by the maximum allowed of five
per cent in April, meaning the average annual bill in more than a
third of boroughs now exceeds £2,000.
London Councils said that if parking revenue was restricted, then the
cost of providing travel benefits “would either need to be met
directly by Central Government or there would need to be a
significant scaling back of commitments”.
London Councils added: “By removing the generation and use of any
surplus, there is a real danger that there would be a drastic
reduction in investment for local transport initiatives and/or a real
shortfall in other areas of council spend.”
A Department for Transport spokesperson said: “We’re on the side of
drivers, which is why we want to take profit out of penalty notices,
removing the incentive for over-zealous enforcement measures that
treat drivers as ‘cash cows’.
“The funding for important travel schemes that people rely on should
not be dependent on surpluses from unfair traffic enforcement
measures, local authorities are responsible for funding these
sustainably and responsibly and would be wise not to suggest
otherwise.”

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/freedom-pass-government-council-income-motoring-fines-london-b1158399.html
So ... the "Department for Transport spokesperson" thinks that
car-drivers should not face penalties when they act illegally. This one
thinks that such penalties are "unfair".

Actually, the not very well hidden agenda is to divert these monies to
the treasury to pay for Hunt's tax cuts to buy votes in October. Also it
is another attack on Khan, who they hope will take the blame for the
inevitable reduction in benefits.

Yes, that sounds about right. The Tories have written off London (where
Khan increased his share of the vote), so aren't too bothered about
alienating even old people, normally the one group they look after.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall
Actually, the not very well hidden agenda is to divert these monies to
the treasury to pay for Hunt's tax cuts to buy votes in October. Also it
is another attack on Khan, who they hope will take the blame for the
inevitable reduction in benefits.

Yes, that sounds about right. The Tories have written off London (where
Khan increased his share of the vote),

The joke is they changed to voting system in the expectation that would
be to their candidate's advantage!

[Recliner]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall
Actually, the not very well hidden agenda is to divert these monies to
the treasury to pay for Hunt's tax cuts to buy votes in October. Also it
is another attack on Khan, who they hope will take the blame for the
inevitable reduction in benefits.

Yes, that sounds about right. The Tories have written off London (where
Khan increased his share of the vote),

The joke is they changed to voting system in the expectation that would
be to their candidate's advantage!

It probably *was* to Hall's advantage — she'd have done even worse on the
old system. Perhaps a high profile, popular candidate running a top class
campaign could have benefited enough from FPP to squeeze a win, but not
such a poor candidate, with such a dismal campaign.

[Recliner]

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall
Actually, the not very well hidden agenda is to divert these monies to
the treasury to pay for Hunt's tax cuts to buy votes in October. Also it
is another attack on Khan, who they hope will take the blame for the
inevitable reduction in benefits.

Yes, that sounds about right. The Tories have written off London (where
Khan increased his share of the vote),

The joke is they changed to voting system in the expectation that would
be to their candidate's advantage!

It probably *was* to Hall's advantage — she'd have done even worse on the
old system. Perhaps a high profile, popular candidate running a top class
campaign could have benefited enough from FPP to squeeze a win, but not
such a poor candidate, with such a dismal campaign.

Another thought: the Tories seem not to have realised that there aren't
many ULEZ non-compliant vehicles left in London. So while it still was a
big issue in Uxbridge last July, helping them (just) save BoJo's old seat,
it's been of declining importance once the extended ULEZ came into force
last August. Most of the affected vehicles no longer run on London's roads,
having been either scrapped or sold on to buyers in the sticks.

So, I suspect that the ULEZ is probably more popular than the Tories think.
It's overwhelmingly popular in inner London, and opposition is declining in
outer London. As such, it's no longer the powerful electoral weapon they
thought it was.

[Theo]

Post by Recliner
Another thought: the Tories seem not to have realised that there aren't
many ULEZ non-compliant vehicles left in London. So while it still was a
big issue in Uxbridge last July, helping them (just) save BoJo's old seat,
it's been of declining importance once the extended ULEZ came into force
last August. Most of the affected vehicles no longer run on London's roads,
having been either scrapped or sold on to buyers in the sticks.
So, I suspect that the ULEZ is probably more popular than the Tories think.
It's overwhelmingly popular in inner London, and opposition is declining in
outer London. As such, it's no longer the powerful electoral weapon they
thought it was.

I wondered about that too. Suppose Hall came in and scrapped ULEZ. What
would Londoners do? I doubt many would be selling their ULEZ compliant car
and buying an old and dirty one. Also, compliant cars are now 8 years and
newer for diesel and 18 years and newer for petrol. So when first announced
the policy may have stung since the affected diesels were relatively new,
but they aren't now - and there are now plenty of ULEZ-compliant petrol old
bangers to choose from.

It sounds like the Tories have done their usual thing of pandering to what
winds up their small and shrinking base of activists, rather than being
cognisant of the concerns of the wider electorate.

Theo

[Roland Perry]

Post by Theo

Post by Recliner
Another thought: the Tories seem not to have realised that there aren't
many ULEZ non-compliant vehicles left in London. So while it still was a
big issue in Uxbridge last July, helping them (just) save BoJo's old seat,
it's been of declining importance once the extended ULEZ came into force
last August. Most of the affected vehicles no longer run on London's roads,
having been either scrapped or sold on to buyers in the sticks.
So, I suspect that the ULEZ is probably more popular than the Tories think.
It's overwhelmingly popular in inner London, and opposition is declining in
outer London. As such, it's no longer the powerful electoral weapon they
thought it was.

I wondered about that too. Suppose Hall came in and scrapped ULEZ. What
would Londoners do? I doubt many would be selling their ULEZ compliant car
and buying an old and dirty one.

The irritating assumption that ULEZ only affects London residents. Later
in the month I'll be driving to just inside the ULEZ because once again
there's bustitution on the line to Kings Cross (which would add at least
another two hours to an already long day).

I'm quite sure five miles two or three times a year in my non-ULEZ
compliant car was what tipped the balance when it came to air quality in
London. Or did I just mis-spell "tourist tax"?

[Theo]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Theo
I wondered about that too. Suppose Hall came in and scrapped ULEZ. What
would Londoners do? I doubt many would be selling their ULEZ compliant car
and buying an old and dirty one.

The irritating assumption that ULEZ only affects London residents.

London residents are those who can vote in Mayoral elections, which is where
Hall was campaigning, yes.

Has ULEZ been a significant issue in politics of areas outside London?

Post by Roland Perry
Later in the month I'll be driving to just inside the ULEZ because once
again there's bustitution on the line to Kings Cross (which would add at
least another two hours to an already long day).
I'm quite sure five miles two or three times a year in my non-ULEZ
compliant car was what tipped the balance when it came to air quality in
London. Or did I just mis-spell "tourist tax"?

Compared with annual motoring costs, I'm not sure how much difference
£25-£37.50 a year makes. Having a car that got slightly less MPG would
probably wipe that out, and I don't think anyone would change car to save
that much a year.

If you're going to be travelling into London regularly, buy a ULEZ compliant
car. They start at about £500.

Theo

[Roland Perry]

Post by Theo

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Theo
I wondered about that too. Suppose Hall came in and scrapped ULEZ. What
would Londoners do? I doubt many would be selling their ULEZ compliant car
and buying an old and dirty one.

The irritating assumption that ULEZ only affects London residents.

London residents are those who can vote in Mayoral elections, which is where
Hall was campaigning, yes.
Has ULEZ been a significant issue in politics of areas outside London?

No, that's part of the problem.

Post by Theo

Post by Roland Perry
Later in the month I'll be driving to just inside the ULEZ because once
again there's bustitution on the line to Kings Cross (which would add at
least another two hours to an already long day).
I'm quite sure five miles two or three times a year in my non-ULEZ
compliant car was what tipped the balance when it came to air quality in
London. Or did I just mis-spell "tourist tax"?

Compared with annual motoring costs, I'm not sure how much difference
£25-£37.50 a year makes.

The difference is mainly trying to keep track of the various schemes one
has to subscribe to, to drive on roads which used to be open to any of
the public.

Post by Theo
Having a car that got slightly less MPG would probably wipe that out,
and I don't think anyone would change car to save that much a year.
If you're going to be travelling into London regularly, buy a ULEZ compliant
car. They start at about £500.

Find me a five seater estate car, comfortable for a two-hour drive ten
minutes of which is inside ULEZ, for that price.

[Theo]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Theo
Compared with annual motoring costs, I'm not sure how much difference
£25-£37.50 a year makes.

The difference is mainly trying to keep track of the various schemes one
has to subscribe to, to drive on roads which used to be open to any of
the public.

https://urbanaccessregulations.eu/
has a map of city centre schemes across Europe

https://www.tolls.eu/
has toll roads and bridges

Satnav apps also tell you if they're going to take you a chargeable area.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Theo
Having a car that got slightly less MPG would probably wipe that out,
and I don't think anyone would change car to save that much a year.
If you're going to be travelling into London regularly, buy a ULEZ compliant
car. They start at about £500.

Find me a five seater estate car, comfortable for a two-hour drive ten
minutes of which is inside ULEZ, for that price.

£891, Mercedes C-Class:
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202403278033385

Theo

[Roland Perry]

Post by Theo

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Theo
Compared with annual motoring costs, I'm not sure how much difference
£25-£37.50 a year makes.

The difference is mainly trying to keep track of the various schemes one
has to subscribe to, to drive on roads which used to be open to any of
the public.

https://urbanaccessregulations.eu/
has a map of city centre schemes across Europe

I can't see a map, just a haystack where one has to guess towns which
might have measures, and type them in.

Post by Theo
https://www.tolls.eu/
has toll roads and bridges

Much the same.

But both sites confirm there's dozens of schemes, so the nightmare
exists.

Post by Theo
Satnav apps also tell you if they're going to take you a chargeable area.

I'll keep an eye on Google Maps next time I'm nearing such an area.
Can't say I've noticed it announcing proximity to London Congestion
Charging or ULEZ, BICBW.

Post by Theo

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Theo
Having a car that got slightly less MPG would probably wipe that out,
and I don't think anyone would change car to save that much a year.
If you're going to be travelling into London regularly, buy a ULEZ compliant
car. They start at about £500.

Find me a five seater estate car, comfortable for a two-hour drive ten
minutes of which is inside ULEZ, for that price.

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202403278033385

[7 owners, 145k miles]
I'm not that fond of high mileage Mercedes after my B-Class gearbox went
beyond-economic-repair.

It's a mystery why it's ULEZ compliant if it has a Euro 3 engine.

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Theo

Post by Recliner
Another thought: the Tories seem not to have realised that there aren't
many ULEZ non-compliant vehicles left in London. So while it still was a
big issue in Uxbridge last July, helping them (just) save BoJo's old seat,
it's been of declining importance once the extended ULEZ came into force
last August. Most of the affected vehicles no longer run on London's roads,
having been either scrapped or sold on to buyers in the sticks.
So, I suspect that the ULEZ is probably more popular than the Tories think.
It's overwhelmingly popular in inner London, and opposition is declining in
outer London. As such, it's no longer the powerful electoral weapon they
thought it was.

I wondered about that too. Suppose Hall came in and scrapped ULEZ. What
would Londoners do? I doubt many would be selling their ULEZ compliant car
and buying an old and dirty one.

The irritating assumption that ULEZ only affects London residents.

Only London residents have votes in London's mayoral election. Why would the London mayor worry about what Ely residents
think of his policies?

Post by Roland Perry
Later in the month I'll be driving to just inside the ULEZ because once again
there's bustitution on the line to Kings Cross (which would add at least
another two hours to an already long day).
I'm quite sure five miles two or three times a year in my non-ULEZ
compliant car was what tipped the balance when it came to air quality in
London. Or did I just mis-spell "tourist tax"?

The extended ULEZ persuaded both you and Neil to upgrade to ULEZ-compliant cars (and helped persuade me to do without a
car, which is what he really wants).

BTW, how did your meeting with Khan go?

[Roland Perry]

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Theo

Post by Recliner
So, I suspect that the ULEZ is probably more popular than the Tories think.
It's overwhelmingly popular in inner London, and opposition is declining in
outer London. As such, it's no longer the powerful electoral weapon they
thought it was.

I wondered about that too. Suppose Hall came in and scrapped ULEZ. What
would Londoners do? I doubt many would be selling their ULEZ compliant car
and buying an old and dirty one.

The irritating assumption that ULEZ only affects London residents.

Only London residents have votes in London's mayoral election. Why
would the London mayor worry about what Ely residents think of his
policies?

That's precisely what's broken.

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry
Later in the month I'll be driving to just inside the ULEZ because once again
there's bustitution on the line to Kings Cross (which would add at least
another two hours to an already long day).
I'm quite sure five miles two or three times a year in my non-ULEZ
compliant car was what tipped the balance when it came to air quality in
London. Or did I just mis-spell "tourist tax"?

The extended ULEZ persuaded both you

No it didn't. My old car needed an expensive repair, and so it was
better to buy a newer one. Especially as it was in use for hospital
trips etc up to six days a week, and had to be reliable.

Post by Recliner
and Neil to upgrade to ULEZ-compliant cars (and helped persuade me to
do without a car, which is what he really wants).
BTW, how did your meeting with Khan go?

Didn't need to, because after several exchanges of letters their
jobsworths caved in.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall
Actually, the not very well hidden agenda is to divert these monies to
the treasury to pay for Hunt's tax cuts to buy votes in October. Also it
is another attack on Khan, who they hope will take the blame for the
inevitable reduction in benefits.

Yes, that sounds about right. The Tories have written off London (where
Khan increased his share of the vote),

The joke is they changed to voting system in the expectation that would
be to their candidate's advantage!

It probably *was* to Hall's advantage — she'd have done even worse on the
old system. Perhaps a high profile, popular candidate running a top class
campaign could have benefited enough from FPP to squeeze a win, but not
such a poor candidate, with such a dismal campaign.

Another thought: the Tories seem not to have realised that there aren't
many ULEZ non-compliant vehicles left in London. So while it still was a
big issue in Uxbridge last July, helping them (just) save BoJo's old seat,
it's been of declining importance once the extended ULEZ came into force
last August. Most of the affected vehicles no longer run on London's roads,
having been either scrapped or sold on to buyers in the sticks.
So, I suspect that the ULEZ is probably more popular than the Tories think.
It's overwhelmingly popular in inner London, and opposition is declining in
outer London. As such, it's no longer the powerful electoral weapon they
thought it was.

Do the ULEZ fines also contribute towards Freedom Passes?

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall
Actually, the not very well hidden agenda is to divert these monies to
the treasury to pay for Hunt's tax cuts to buy votes in October. Also it
is another attack on Khan, who they hope will take the blame for the
inevitable reduction in benefits.

Yes, that sounds about right. The Tories have written off London (where
Khan increased his share of the vote),

The joke is they changed to voting system in the expectation that would
be to their candidate's advantage!

It probably *was* to Hall's advantage — she'd have done even worse on the
old system. Perhaps a high profile, popular candidate running a top class
campaign could have benefited enough from FPP to squeeze a win, but not
such a poor candidate, with such a dismal campaign.

Another thought: the Tories seem not to have realised that there aren't
many ULEZ non-compliant vehicles left in London. So while it still was a
big issue in Uxbridge last July, helping them (just) save BoJo's old seat,
it's been of declining importance once the extended ULEZ came into force
last August. Most of the affected vehicles no longer run on London's roads,
having been either scrapped or sold on to buyers in the sticks.
So, I suspect that the ULEZ is probably more popular than the Tories think.
It's overwhelmingly popular in inner London, and opposition is declining in
outer London. As such, it's no longer the powerful electoral weapon they
thought it was.

Do the ULEZ fines also contribute towards Freedom Passes?

It appears not:

"Net revenue is projected to continue to decline and to be zero by 2027, as more people change their vehicles to less
polluting ones.

It is a statutory requirement that any net revenue generated by our road charging schemes (the ULEZ, LEZ or the
Congestion Charge) is reinvested back into London’s transport network, including investing in improving transport links
in outer London. All money received from the ULEZ is reinvested into improving London’s public transport network, such
as expanding bus routes in outer London."

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-1814-2324

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall
Actually, the not very well hidden agenda is to divert these monies to
the treasury to pay for Hunt's tax cuts to buy votes in October. Also it
is another attack on Khan, who they hope will take the blame for the
inevitable reduction in benefits.

Yes, that sounds about right. The Tories have written off London (where
Khan increased his share of the vote),

The joke is they changed to voting system in the expectation that would
be to their candidate's advantage!

It probably *was* to Hall's advantage — she'd have done even worse on the
old system. Perhaps a high profile, popular candidate running a top class
campaign could have benefited enough from FPP to squeeze a win, but not
such a poor candidate, with such a dismal campaign.

Another thought: the Tories seem not to have realised that there aren't
many ULEZ non-compliant vehicles left in London. So while it still was a
big issue in Uxbridge last July, helping them (just) save BoJo's old seat,
it's been of declining importance once the extended ULEZ came into force
last August. Most of the affected vehicles no longer run on London's roads,
having been either scrapped or sold on to buyers in the sticks.
So, I suspect that the ULEZ is probably more popular than the Tories think.
It's overwhelmingly popular in inner London, and opposition is declining in
outer London. As such, it's no longer the powerful electoral weapon they
thought it was.

Do the ULEZ fines also contribute towards Freedom Passes?

"Net revenue is projected to continue to decline and to be zero by 2027, as more people change their vehicles to less
polluting ones.
It is a statutory requirement that any net revenue generated by our road charging schemes (the ULEZ, LEZ or the
Congestion Charge) is reinvested back into London’s transport network, including investing in improving transport links
in outer London. All money received from the ULEZ is reinvested into improving London’s public transport network, such
as expanding bus routes in outer London."
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-1814-2324

That doesn't specifically exclude it. Subsidising various passes can be
seen as an investment in public transport in London

[Recliner]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall
Actually, the not very well hidden agenda is to divert these monies to
the treasury to pay for Hunt's tax cuts to buy votes in October. Also it
is another attack on Khan, who they hope will take the blame for the
inevitable reduction in benefits.

Yes, that sounds about right. The Tories have written off London (where
Khan increased his share of the vote),

The joke is they changed to voting system in the expectation that would
be to their candidate's advantage!

It probably *was* to Hall's advantage — she'd have done even worse on the
old system. Perhaps a high profile, popular candidate running a top class
campaign could have benefited enough from FPP to squeeze a win, but not
such a poor candidate, with such a dismal campaign.

Another thought: the Tories seem not to have realised that there aren't
many ULEZ non-compliant vehicles left in London. So while it still was a
big issue in Uxbridge last July, helping them (just) save BoJo's old seat,
it's been of declining importance once the extended ULEZ came into force
last August. Most of the affected vehicles no longer run on London's roads,
having been either scrapped or sold on to buyers in the sticks.
So, I suspect that the ULEZ is probably more popular than the Tories think.
It's overwhelmingly popular in inner London, and opposition is declining in
outer London. As such, it's no longer the powerful electoral weapon they
thought it was.

Do the ULEZ fines also contribute towards Freedom Passes?

"Net revenue is projected to continue to decline and to be zero by 2027,
as more people change their vehicles to less
polluting ones.
It is a statutory requirement that any net revenue generated by our road
charging schemes (the ULEZ, LEZ or the
Congestion Charge) is reinvested back into London’s transport network,
including investing in improving transport links
in outer London. All money received from the ULEZ is reinvested into
improving London’s public transport network, such
as expanding bus routes in outer London."
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-1814-2324

That doesn't specifically exclude it. Subsidising various passes can be
seen as an investment in public transport in London

I don't think subsidising Freedom Passes could be described as 'improving
London’s public transport network'. Also, the Pass is paid for by the
Councils, not TfL. My guess is that expanded ULEZ revenue probably funded
the setup costs for the Superloop network.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall
Actually, the not very well hidden agenda is to divert these monies to
the treasury to pay for Hunt's tax cuts to buy votes in October. Also it
is another attack on Khan, who they hope will take the blame for the
inevitable reduction in benefits.

Yes, that sounds about right. The Tories have written off London (where
Khan increased his share of the vote),

The joke is they changed to voting system in the expectation that would
be to their candidate's advantage!

It probably *was* to Hall's advantage — she'd have done even worse on the
old system. Perhaps a high profile, popular candidate running a top class
campaign could have benefited enough from FPP to squeeze a win, but not
such a poor candidate, with such a dismal campaign.

Another thought: the Tories seem not to have realised that there aren't
many ULEZ non-compliant vehicles left in London. So while it still was a
big issue in Uxbridge last July, helping them (just) save BoJo's old seat,
it's been of declining importance once the extended ULEZ came into force
last August. Most of the affected vehicles no longer run on London's roads,
having been either scrapped or sold on to buyers in the sticks.
So, I suspect that the ULEZ is probably more popular than the Tories think.
It's overwhelmingly popular in inner London, and opposition is declining in
outer London. As such, it's no longer the powerful electoral weapon they
thought it was.

Do the ULEZ fines also contribute towards Freedom Passes?

"Net revenue is projected to continue to decline and to be zero by 2027,
as more people change their vehicles to less
polluting ones.
It is a statutory requirement that any net revenue generated by our road
charging schemes (the ULEZ, LEZ or the
Congestion Charge) is reinvested back into London’s transport network,
including investing in improving transport links
in outer London. All money received from the ULEZ is reinvested into
improving London’s public transport network, such
as expanding bus routes in outer London."
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-1814-2324

That doesn't specifically exclude it. Subsidising various passes can be
seen as an investment in public transport in London

I don't think subsidising Freedom Passes could be described as 'improving
London’s public transport network'. Also, the Pass is paid for by the
Councils, not TfL. My guess is that expanded ULEZ revenue probably funded
the setup costs for the Superloop network.

How is that going?

[Recliner]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall
Actually, the not very well hidden agenda is to divert these monies to
the treasury to pay for Hunt's tax cuts to buy votes in October. Also it
is another attack on Khan, who they hope will take the blame for the
inevitable reduction in benefits.

Yes, that sounds about right. The Tories have written off London (where
Khan increased his share of the vote),

The joke is they changed to voting system in the expectation that would
be to their candidate's advantage!

It probably *was* to Hall's advantage — she'd have done even worse on the
old system. Perhaps a high profile, popular candidate running a top class
campaign could have benefited enough from FPP to squeeze a win, but not
such a poor candidate, with such a dismal campaign.

Another thought: the Tories seem not to have realised that there aren't
many ULEZ non-compliant vehicles left in London. So while it still was a
big issue in Uxbridge last July, helping them (just) save BoJo's old seat,
it's been of declining importance once the extended ULEZ came into force
last August. Most of the affected vehicles no longer run on London's roads,
having been either scrapped or sold on to buyers in the sticks.
So, I suspect that the ULEZ is probably more popular than the Tories think.
It's overwhelmingly popular in inner London, and opposition is declining in
outer London. As such, it's no longer the powerful electoral weapon they
thought it was.

Do the ULEZ fines also contribute towards Freedom Passes?

"Net revenue is projected to continue to decline and to be zero by 2027,
as more people change their vehicles to less
polluting ones.
It is a statutory requirement that any net revenue generated by our road
charging schemes (the ULEZ, LEZ or the
Congestion Charge) is reinvested back into London’s transport network,
including investing in improving transport links
in outer London. All money received from the ULEZ is reinvested into
improving London’s public transport network, such
as expanding bus routes in outer London."
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-1814-2324

That doesn't specifically exclude it. Subsidising various passes can be
seen as an investment in public transport in London

I don't think subsidising Freedom Passes could be described as 'improving
London’s public transport network'. Also, the Pass is paid for by the
Councils, not TfL. My guess is that expanded ULEZ revenue probably funded
the setup costs for the Superloop network.

How is that going?

Pretty well, I think:

https://www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-news/175691/london-superloop-fully-operational/

[Roland Perry]

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall
Actually, the not very well hidden agenda is to divert these
monies to the treasury to pay for Hunt's tax cuts to buy votes
in October. Also it is another attack on Khan, who they hope
will take the blame for the inevitable reduction in benefits.

Yes, that sounds about right. The Tories have written off London (where
Khan increased his share of the vote),

The joke is they changed to voting system in the expectation that would
be to their candidate's advantage!

It probably *was* to Hall's advantage — she'd have done even
worse on the old system. Perhaps a high profile, popular
candidate running a top class campaign could have benefited
enough from FPP to squeeze a win, but not such a poor candidate,
with such a dismal campaign.

Another thought: the Tories seem not to have realised that there
aren't many ULEZ non-compliant vehicles left in London. So while
it still was a big issue in Uxbridge last July, helping them
(just) save BoJo's old seat, it's been of declining importance
once the extended ULEZ came into force last August. Most of the
affected vehicles no longer run on London's roads, having been
either scrapped or sold on to buyers in the sticks.
So, I suspect that the ULEZ is probably more popular than the
Tories think. It's overwhelmingly popular in inner London, and
opposition is declining in outer London. As such, it's no longer
the powerful electoral weapon they thought it was.

Do the ULEZ fines also contribute towards Freedom Passes?

"Net revenue is projected to continue to decline and to be zero by 2027,
as more people change their vehicles to less
polluting ones.
It is a statutory requirement that any net revenue generated by our road
charging schemes (the ULEZ, LEZ or the
Congestion Charge) is reinvested back into London’s transport network,
including investing in improving transport links
in outer London. All money received from the ULEZ is reinvested into
improving London’s public transport network, such
as expanding bus routes in outer London."
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-r
equest-detail?referenceId=FOI-1814-2324

That doesn't specifically exclude it. Subsidising various passes can be
seen as an investment in public transport in London

I don't think subsidising Freedom Passes could be described as 'improving
London’s public transport network'. Also, the Pass is paid for by the
Councils, not TfL. My guess is that expanded ULEZ revenue probably funded
the setup costs for the Superloop network.

I've seen these Superloop buses because they pass my daughters flat in
West London. Neither of us have found them the best way to get anywhere.

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall
Actually, the not very well hidden agenda is to divert these
monies to the treasury to pay for Hunt's tax cuts to buy votes
in October. Also it is another attack on Khan, who they hope
will take the blame for the inevitable reduction in benefits.

Yes, that sounds about right. The Tories have written off London (where
Khan increased his share of the vote),

The joke is they changed to voting system in the expectation that would
be to their candidate's advantage!

It probably *was* to Hall's advantage — she'd have done even
worse on the old system. Perhaps a high profile, popular
candidate running a top class campaign could have benefited
enough from FPP to squeeze a win, but not such a poor candidate,
with such a dismal campaign.

Another thought: the Tories seem not to have realised that there
aren't many ULEZ non-compliant vehicles left in London. So while
it still was a big issue in Uxbridge last July, helping them
(just) save BoJo's old seat, it's been of declining importance
once the extended ULEZ came into force last August. Most of the
affected vehicles no longer run on London's roads, having been
either scrapped or sold on to buyers in the sticks.
So, I suspect that the ULEZ is probably more popular than the
Tories think. It's overwhelmingly popular in inner London, and
opposition is declining in outer London. As such, it's no longer
the powerful electoral weapon they thought it was.

Do the ULEZ fines also contribute towards Freedom Passes?

"Net revenue is projected to continue to decline and to be zero by 2027,
as more people change their vehicles to less
polluting ones.
It is a statutory requirement that any net revenue generated by our road
charging schemes (the ULEZ, LEZ or the
Congestion Charge) is reinvested back into London’s transport network,
including investing in improving transport links
in outer London. All money received from the ULEZ is reinvested into
improving London’s public transport network, such
as expanding bus routes in outer London."
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-r
equest-detail?referenceId=FOI-1814-2324

That doesn't specifically exclude it. Subsidising various passes can be
seen as an investment in public transport in London

I don't think subsidising Freedom Passes could be described as 'improving
London’s public transport network'. Also, the Pass is paid for by the
Councils, not TfL. My guess is that expanded ULEZ revenue probably funded
the setup costs for the Superloop network.

I've seen these Superloop buses because they pass my daughters flat in
West London. Neither of us have found them the best way to get anywhere.

So the Superloop is doomed!

[Clank]

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
I don't think subsidising Freedom Passes could be described as
'improving London’s public transport network'. Also, the Pass is paid
for by the Councils, not TfL. My guess is that expanded ULEZ revenue
probably funded the setup costs for the Superloop network.

I've seen these Superloop buses because they pass my daughters flat in
West London. Neither of us have found them the best way to get anywhere.

So the Superloop is doomed!

The SL7 is the best way to get from Heathrow to Croydon (and vice versa),
and in my experience is quite well patronised throughout.

There again, it was the best way to get from Heathrow to Croydon and well
patronised throughout when it was the X26 and the 726 before that - and
while the improved frequency of the SL7 vs X26 is welcome it's not really
clear to me what difference being a "Superloop" makes other than the
incredibly ugly roundel.

[Recliner]

Post by Clank

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
I don't think subsidising Freedom Passes could be described as
'improving London’s public transport network'. Also, the Pass is paid
for by the Councils, not TfL. My guess is that expanded ULEZ revenue
probably funded the setup costs for the Superloop network.

I've seen these Superloop buses because they pass my daughters flat in
West London. Neither of us have found them the best way to get anywhere.

So the Superloop is doomed!

The SL7 is the best way to get from Heathrow to Croydon (and vice versa),
and in my experience is quite well patronised throughout.
There again, it was the best way to get from Heathrow to Croydon and well
patronised throughout when it was the X26 and the 726 before that - and
while the improved frequency of the SL7 vs X26 is welcome it's not really
clear to me what difference being a "Superloop" makes other than the
incredibly ugly roundel.

The Superloop is now the best way to get from Heathrow Central to Harrow. There's long been the 140 bus route from
Heathrow to Harrow Weald, but it has innumerable stops, and meanders off the direct route, so it's very slow. So, in
2019, presumably in prep for the SL, TfL added the express X140 from Heathrow to Harrow, with fewer stops and following
the direct route. Later, it also got swish new double-decker electric buses. It became the SL9 in 2023.

I think several of the SL routes had a similar history, but what's different is how they now link up, and have the
striking new branding. People new recognise them as relatively fast, frequent buses that are part of the bigger loop.
The hopper fares mean that it costs no more to travel on two, and perhaps three, of the sections than one.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry
I've seen these Superloop buses because they pass my daughters flat in
West London. Neither of us have found them the best way to get anywhere.

So the Superloop is doomed!

It's just a straw poll, which are commonplace by people posting here.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall
Actually, the not very well hidden agenda is to divert these monies to
the treasury to pay for Hunt's tax cuts to buy votes in October. Also it
is another attack on Khan, who they hope will take the blame for the
inevitable reduction in benefits.

Yes, that sounds about right. The Tories have written off London (where
Khan increased his share of the vote),

The joke is they changed to voting system in the expectation that would
be to their candidate's advantage!

It probably *was* to Hall's advantage — she'd have done even worse on the
old system. Perhaps a high profile, popular candidate running a top class
campaign could have benefited enough from FPP to squeeze a win, but not
such a poor candidate, with such a dismal campaign.

Another thought: the Tories seem not to have realised that there aren't
many ULEZ non-compliant vehicles left in London. So while it still was a
big issue in Uxbridge last July, helping them (just) save BoJo's old seat,
it's been of declining importance once the extended ULEZ came into force
last August. Most of the affected vehicles no longer run on London's roads,
having been either scrapped or sold on to buyers in the sticks.
So, I suspect that the ULEZ is probably more popular than the Tories think.
It's overwhelmingly popular in inner London, and opposition is declining in
outer London. As such, it's no longer the powerful electoral weapon they
thought it was.

Do the ULEZ fines also contribute towards Freedom Passes?

The claim is the money is used to improve public transport opportunities
in London, so, probably, yes.