I agree air pollution needs to be solved but what incentive is there to fix it if it becomes a profit centre for the government.

Income gets reinvested in the transport infrastructure, e.g. public transport.

Ultimately, only public transport can "solve" congestion and air pollution. It was interesting to see Uber references heavily in this. Uber is a significant contributor to increased congestion and pollution in cities, no matter what it might claim.

Hypothecation might be used to justify the introduction of a charge, but it will be dropped fairly quickly after that; happens again and again in the UK.

>Income gets reinvested in the transport infrastructure, e.g. public transport.

Money is fungible. People said the same thing you're saying in defense of seizing assets from drug dealers and punitive sin taxes. Why is it going to be different this time?

>Ultimately, only public transport can "solve" congestion and air pollution

Congestion is a supply and demand problem. Acting like a gridlocked highway is congestion but a packed subway train isn't is simply an exercise in broadcasting cognitive dissonance. No realistic transit system of any type can deal with peak demand without some amount of congestion regardless of the form said congestion takes. Increasing the overall bandwidth of the system reduces the length of time the congestion occurs.

> Acting like a gridlocked highway is congestion but a packed subway train isn't is simply an exercise in broadcasting cognitive dissonance.

The difference is when the subway is full you can add another line or bike lanes or footpaths or trams.

Once the 12 lane highway and 10km^2 of parking you need to provide the same capacity as the subway or ten bike lanes is full there's nowhere to go because adding more car infrastructure displaces productive land use. There is no amount of car infrastructure you can have which will meet demand in a major city, it just forces people to spend more time driving and makes the city worse.

Car congestion makes public transport and other less polluting forms transport (e.g. walking, cycling) less effective / attractive.

Public transport is the most efficient way to increase bandwidth.

Easiest solution is pay 101% of the tax out equally to everyone in the area. The neoliberal hatred of anyone poor having anything will trumpnany public support.

In what way does this 'fix' air pollution?

FYI: Our politicians do not use public transport, nor do they suffer the congested roads (they prefer blue-light escorts in armoured cars).

London is exceptional in the UK in its public transport links. (The UK has had anti-railway gov.ts since WW2; what you may know as the 'Beeching Scandal' is just a front for the corruption committed by Ernest Marples and co.).

If they really wanted to fix the issue, they'd make cycling safe and punish bicycle thieves. London is congested and polluted because: People don't want to be injured/killed by drivers, who will face no punishment. People don't want to have their bicycle stolen by career-criminals who will face no punishment.

The 'Ultra Low Emissions Zone' ought to be barred under the trade descriptions act. Go and breathe from the exhaust of a Euro6 Diesel then come back and tell me how 'low emissions' London is.