• AI cameras used to detect train passengers’ emotions without them knowing (Independent)
• The Unbuilt Tube Line to London Lullingstone Airport: Video (Jago Hazzard)
• How The Channel Tunnel Works: Video (How The Channel Tunnel Works)
• Rethinking ULEZ for tariff by distance (Zag Daily)
• Austria to Curb Crashes by Selling Super-Speeders’ cars (CityLab)
• Hôpital Lyon Sud Metro Station’s cool design aesthetic (Archello)
• LA’s $9.5 Billion Metro Purple Line Extension Progress: Video (How Structure)
• Train Station Certificate: Japan’s PERTIS (KHKQ Beside Trains)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
Quote from the ULEZ article: because of the flat fee model that ULEZ operates under.
Precisely.
As someone personally affected by this, I would enormously prefer a pay-per-mile (or kilometre) regime, as ((% of my journeys are out of the “zones” to the outer world & would be fairer.
The current flat-fare is, as stated grossly loaded in favour of, once you are driving inside the designated area, there is no further penalty.
Like she says, it’s regressive, not progressive.
@Greg
I see where this is coming from, though the often-angry motoring mob are vociferously against any pay-per-mile initiative.
But the real point of the ULEZ is to incentivise vehicle replacements to reduce emissions anywhere near London, not just to minimise polluting vehicle usage in the arbitrary zone, which is really only arbitrary because that’s where the GLA’s jurisdiction starts and ends.
I do have sympathy for those who live just outside the political boundary, so didn’t get any access to scrappage schemes, but nevertheless have to suck up the charge if they cross the invisible line. A less feudal political culture would have produced a sensible solution to that, rather than using it as a political football.
In defence of the flat fee model:
*it is simple to understand and can be explained concisely on a road sign;
*it is predictable (which helps people budget and make informed decisions on whether/how to make the journey); and
*it discourages short journeys.
Short journeys are far more likely to have practicable alternatives to driving a car, and, since the engine does not get to warm-up, are very inefficient in mpg terms. Moreover, short journeys are a big source of congestion on local roads (as opposed to the Primary Route Network).
Paul & everybody – a question:
Quote: The often-angry motoring mob are vociferously against any pay-per-mile initiative.
Why?
They hate ULEZ, anyway, so what’s wrong with p.p.m??
@Greg
I can’t really speak for people whose views I don’t share.
I think there are concerns about privacy implications, cost of implementation and future expansion beyond the GLA boundary.
Personally I think it was a political football to scaremonger with in the mayoral election campaign rather than a coherent rational consideration, but I recognise that there may be folk with rational objections that I either don’t understand or don’t, on balance, agree with.
If a goal would had been to not affect local trips near the zone border, a simple solution would had been to just have two zone borders within some distance and only charge anyone crossing both borders. That way people doing local trips within the fringes of decent public transit coverage wouldn’t have to pay, but anyone living far away out in the bushes wanting to drive into more central parts of London, or for that sake people living well within London travelling to places far outside London, would have to pay, which is the intent.
The problem with this is that the cost, both installation/investment and maintenance, would be about twice as high.
P.S. a bit weird that motorists are against a distance based fee as they happily fill their fuel tanks based approximately on what distances they travel.