|
||||||||||||
|
INTRODUCTION AND QUICK SUMMARY … ·
Mayor Khan has enthusiastically looked at new ways of making money out of drivers. Having
previously said he had no plans to expand ULEZ, he couldn’t resist the
temptation. He went ahead with it, going
back on his word that he wouldn’t if the opposition was overwhelming!!! ·
So was public opposition to London-wide road
pricing. There are marked concerns on privacy as well as cost. With an
election approaching and public unrest, he now makes a gesture not to go
ahead with some specific ‘pay per
mile’ road pricing – leaving plenty of wriggle room. The Mayor’s denials are
unconvincing. ·
The Mayor is Chair of Transport for London (TfL). TfL has
not just identified serious money-making opportunities, it has employed
contractors to develop a £150
million road pricing system, While recently denying plans for road pricing, the
Mayor contradicts himself by talking up a single charging system to replace
existing charges. This has been the blueprint
for his road pricing system. ·
The Mayor’s statements and behaviour on various issues
have been inconsistent and even contradictory. This is especially true
on health and environment matters. |
|||||||||||||
|
ROAD PRICING – THE PEOPLE AGAINST IT, POLITICIANS OFTEN FOR IT… ·
Mayor Khan got elected on a slogan ‘A Mayor for All
Londoners’. But his key policy document, the Mayor’s
Transport Strategy, is blatantly anti-motorist. Transport for London
(TfL) is bound by the Strategy to (high handedly) ensure that by 2041, 80% of
journeys made in Greater London are either by walking, cycling or public
transport. Motor vehicle journeys are to be pushed off the road.…. ·
TfL has made
clear its desire to implement a road user charging scheme that would
replace the current Congestion Charge and ULEZ. The Mayor is also Chair of
TfL. ·
The under-publicised consultation on ULEZ (2022) had
questions on what sort of road user charging might be introduced – and
effectively assumed that it would be in place London-wide by 2026 to replace
ULEZ income. 83% of responses were
opposed. (See report, Appendix F, p112). ·
Even so, in 2023, the Greater London Assembly Transport
Committee announced a further consultation on what it might look like. Public
responses were heavily against,
with marked concerns on privacy as well as cost. ·
Saying ‘no decision has been made’ looks thin.
The Mayor’s Transport Strategy reads: “The Mayor, through TfL, will
investigate proposals for the next generation of road user charging
systems.....TfL will develop the design, operation and technical elements of
these proposals.” (awkwardly numbered, p96
or p49/163 in PDF). ·
Having made
clear its desire for a road user charging scheme that would replace the
current Congestion Charge and ULEZ, TfL has recruited several contractors
working on developing road pricing systems. The project, Project Detroit,
will cost over £100 million, and it’s not just to look at processing payments
in-house. |
|||||||||||||
|
LONDON-WIDE ROAD PRICING? … DENIALS AND LIMP EXCUSES ·
The Mayor’s denials
of intent are unconvincing – see his non-answer
to Neil Garratt AM at Mayor’s Question Time (MQT/2023/4718, 21 Dec 2023). It goes
against the grain of his long term pattern of behaviour (Election approaching?).
But if he can so easily change his mind, might he easily change it back
again? ·
His Manifesto
commitment has plenty of wriggle room. In ruling out “a move to any form of
pay-per-mile smart road user charging system’, there is no clear meaning of
‘smart’ - and this would not rule out
some form of area-based
charge or daily charge (A strangely-named ‘London-wide carbon charge’
recommended in 2021, (p66).
Nor, technically, pay by kilometre, which was also considered then (p56).
·
He was reported (18 Jan 2022) as wanting pay-per-mile
road pricing in the context of ‘climate change targets’. “Longer term,
Mr Khan says he needs to bring in a
pay-per-mile system...” ·
On 8 April 2024, the Express published no less than seventeen
pieces of evidence on the Mayor’s plans for road pricing. On
17 April 2024, his ally Cllr Mete Coban confirmed
that the Mayor had only ruled it
out “for now”. ·
Despite his denials, he has recently talked up ‘having
a single charge to pay… making it simple’. Making it easier for drivers, even?
How this could be achieved without a replacement road pricing system was not
explained. (See short ‘Future of Motoring’ video, linked from article,
March 2024). ·
An under-publicised document reveals the assumption
that ULEZ income will be replaced by road pricing income by 2026… as part of his plans ‘to save
the planet’. ·
He claimed that about ULEZ, even though his own
document gives
the game away that it will have no effect! It is quite clearly about making money! Expanding
ULEZ was identified as a ‘new source of revenue’ worth over £100m a year in
2021 (p63). WHAT IS TRANSPORT FOR LONDON UP TO BEHIND THE SCENES? ·
In 2021, TfL explicitly reviewed a ‘pay per kilometre’ road
pricing scheme as a ‘new source of revenue’ (p56)
– and liked it. Revenue potential was about £900m/year net - twice the then-current
take on ULEZ/LEZ/Con Charge. ·
TfL is already employing contractors
to develop ‘road user charging
systems’, but we are told that ‘the technology isn’t ready yet’…. it was
tipped as being ready for the ‘pay per kilometre’
scheme in 2025 (p56).
Any reasonable person would see flannelling from a Mayor treading softly as
he’s desperate to get re-elected? ·
TfL has already spent at least £2.9m on developing ‘distance-based
road pricing’ (pay per mile or km?). Yet we are being told that ‘no decisions
have been made’. ·
As there are ‘no
formal conclusions’ from the work done so far, nothing to share in
Freedom of Information responses to concerned members of the public! Perhaps unsurprisingly, TfL makes use of a
Steering Group to oversee direction of all TfL road user charging schemes, but
they do not record minutes of their
discussions! (p24/30) ·
However, clues were given in the 2022
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 user charging’ 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 motor vehicle 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? ·
TfL has installed thousands of cameras across
London to bring in more taxes and fines on drivers. There are issues
for population surveillance. OTHER SUBTLE PUSHES FOR ROAD PRICING – AT LOCAL LEVEL ·
The Mayor will work with London boroughs on setting up
their own local road pricing schemes (p96
or p49/163). Since-embarrassed and now ex-Hackney Mayor Philip Glanville proposed
the borough as a pilot for a local
scheme. The City
of London is another local authority potentially involved, keen to work
with TfL and/or explore a charging mechanism for the Square Mile. ·
By chance, residents in LB Hammersmith & Fulham
discovered possible pricing schemes for journeys in local areas and on local
roads. These would be policed by ‘geo-fencing’, which the
council is encouraged to accelerate. The draft air quality document
was notably written for them by Poppy Lyle, a senior manager in
the Mayor’s GLA environment division. |
|||||||||||||
|
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 hardly be great for air quality if
replicated over here. The smoke is highly carcinogenic
and even growing the plants produces emissions (BVOCs).
Finally, he has tried to push more people to use the tube, even though the air
quality has been recorded as 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, which the GLA has admitted are a ‘statistical construct… not real
people’. ·
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 TfL,
which has been 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 …. YOU HAVE BEEN RUMBLED. WE ARE NOT IMPRESSED |
|||||||||||||
|
The Fair Deal for the
Motorist campaign was launched in 2009 as a private initiative. It
has exposed plans from the EU and levels of UK government that together
add up to a War on The Motorist. It is solidly
non-party i.e. lets you support your own candidates. Please help spread the
word and - better still - support us in calling for a
fairer deal for drivers who already pay billions a year in taxes.
|
|||||||||||||
