LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

briantrumpet

Pross said:

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

I'm old enough to remember that after a day in London, you'd get home and the water coming off you in the shower would be grey, as would the tissue if you blew your nose.

Mid 80's, and after a couple of days there my snot was black. It did surprise me somewhat.

Still the same when I visit but I think it’s mainly from using the Underground

Do they do air quality tests on the Underground? Not an ULEZ, I guess...

First.Aspect

Pross said:

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

I'm old enough to remember that after a day in London, you'd get home and the water coming off you in the shower would be grey, as would the tissue if you blew your nose.

Mid 80's, and after a couple of days there my snot was black. It did surprise me somewhat.

Still the same when I visit but I think it’s mainly from using the Underground

Its nothing like it used to be.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

I don't know why there is a private vehicle exception for vehicles registered in the ULEZ zone. This would carve out taxis and the low usages people are exercised about, but still include commurers, hgvs, delivery vans tradesmen and wotnot - which is where the majority of the pollution comes from.

It is one extra line of code in the system automatically issuing the charges.

Do you mean you think that private vehicles registered in London should be exempt from the charge?

Yes.

Yeah, that's crazy.

Why? It exempts a relatively small number of people and, if my guess about mayor contributions to traffic pollution is correct, still largely achieves the same thing.

Perhaps I have this wrong. Where is most of London's traffic coming from?

There's about 9 million people live within the boundaries of the Greater London Authority which is where the ULEZ is going to extend to cover from the end of next month.

There's a map here.

https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/ulez-expansion-2023

Sure, and they estimate that's about 200k private vehicles. What usage, as a percentage of the overall non compliant vehicle miles, do those 200k vehicles make up, do you think? And what percentage of emissions?

Pretty high.

Well I'm glad we've cleared that up.

Next on the agenda is the scrappage scheme.

Environmentally friendly?

If you have any better analysis let me know.

Sell it to someone in the sticks. It's a local emissions policy, not a planet saving policy.

It's blunt though isn't it.

I'm old enough to remember that after a day in London, you'd get home and the water coming off you in the shower would be grey, as would the tissue if you blew your nose.

So I get it, but I don't think necessarily that these schemes do much more than raise a bit of money.

Air quality in central London has measurably improved since the introduction of the ULEZ, but who wants facts?

https://www.qmul.ac.uk/chill/news/items/ulez-update-will-air-pollution-increase-on-roads-around-the-ulez.html

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

I don't know why there is a private vehicle exception for vehicles registered in the ULEZ zone. This would carve out taxis and the low usages people are exercised about, but still include commurers, hgvs, delivery vans tradesmen and wotnot - which is where the majority of the pollution comes from.

It is one extra line of code in the system automatically issuing the charges.

Do you mean you think that private vehicles registered in London should be exempt from the charge?

Yes.

Yeah, that's crazy.

Why? It exempts a relatively small number of people and, if my guess about mayor contributions to traffic pollution is correct, still largely achieves the same thing.

Perhaps I have this wrong. Where is most of London's traffic coming from?

There's about 9 million people live within the boundaries of the Greater London Authority which is where the ULEZ is going to extend to cover from the end of next month.

There's a map here.

https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/ulez-expansion-2023

Sure, and they estimate that's about 200k private vehicles. What usage, as a percentage of the overall non compliant vehicle miles, do those 200k vehicles make up, do you think? And what percentage of emissions?

Pretty high.

Well I'm glad we've cleared that up.

Next on the agenda is the scrappage scheme.

Environmentally friendly?

If you have any better analysis let me know.

Sell it to someone in the sticks. It's a local emissions policy, not a planet saving policy.

It's blunt though isn't it.

I'm old enough to remember that after a day in London, you'd get home and the water coming off you in the shower would be grey, as would the tissue if you blew your nose.

So I get it, but I don't think necessarily that these schemes do much more than raise a bit of money.

Air quality in central London has measurably improved since the introduction of the ULEZ, but who wants facts?

https://www.qmul.ac.uk/chill/news/items/ulez-update-will-air-pollution-increase-on-roads-around-the-ulez.html

Question wasnt whether it should be expanded or not, just who gets exemptions. I have no skin in the game so I couldn't care less about outrage in Uxbridge. I'm just asking awkward questions.

Besides, and far be it from me to use any independent critical thinking, but what does that graph actually show anyway? If you were looking at a ULEZ effect, wouldn't there be some sort of discontinuity in 2019? Or is that graph actually showing trends in emissions regulations as older vehicles are taken off the road?

rjsterry

The ULEZ didn't ban anything, so you wouldn't expect a sudden drop in pollution, but a gradual reduction as people change habits and replace older vehicles. The graph is countering the argument that the ULEZ would see a spike in pollution outside it's boundaries as traffic was diverted.

Here's a similar graph showing NO2 levels in various locations. The drop in roadside levels (red curve) either side of 2019 is pretty clear.


https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ulez_evaluation_report_2020-v8_finalfinal.pdf

As a side note it's quite gratifying that even major official documents have file names ending ...v8_finalfinal.pdf

rjsterry

Pross said:

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

I'm old enough to remember that after a day in London, you'd get home and the water coming off you in the shower would be grey, as would the tissue if you blew your nose.

Mid 80's, and after a couple of days there my snot was black. It did surprise me somewhat.

Still the same when I visit but I think it’s mainly from using the Underground

Underground dust is mostly iron oxide and dead skin cells. Yes they do monitor it fairly closely as their staff are down there for the working day.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

The ULEZ didn't ban anything, so you wouldn't expect a sudden drop in pollution, but a gradual reduction as people change habits and replace older vehicles. The graph is countering the argument that the ULEZ would see a spike in pollution outside it's boundaries as traffic was diverted.

Here's a similar graph showing NO2 levels in various locations. The drop in roadside levels (red curve) either side of 2019 is pretty clear.


https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ulez_evaluation_report_2020-v8_finalfinal.pdf

As a side note it's quite gratifying that even major official documents have file names ending ...v8_finalfinal.pdf

Did anything else happen in 2019?

rick_chasey

It is quite mad politics.

Massively cut funding to local public transport.

Give it a decade for the cuts to bite.

Run your party with absolutely no conscientious about the world.

Then implement a ULEZ policy, and because it’s then so mad that the party would do that people assume it’s the rival party’s policy and you can get your MPs elected in opposition because it no longer works because all the local transport is useless.

Pross

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

The ULEZ didn't ban anything, so you wouldn't expect a sudden drop in pollution, but a gradual reduction as people change habits and replace older vehicles. The graph is countering the argument that the ULEZ would see a spike in pollution outside it's boundaries as traffic was diverted.

Here's a similar graph showing NO2 levels in various locations. The drop in roadside levels (red curve) either side of 2019 is pretty clear.


https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ulez_evaluation_report_2020-v8_finalfinal.pdf

As a side note it's quite gratifying that even major official documents have file names ending ...v8_finalfinal.pdf

Did anything else happen in 2019?

Is that rhetorical? I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that would significantly have affected pollution levels.

First.Aspect

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

The ULEZ didn't ban anything, so you wouldn't expect a sudden drop in pollution, but a gradual reduction as people change habits and replace older vehicles. The graph is countering the argument that the ULEZ would see a spike in pollution outside it's boundaries as traffic was diverted.

Here's a similar graph showing NO2 levels in various locations. The drop in roadside levels (red curve) either side of 2019 is pretty clear.


https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ulez_evaluation_report_2020-v8_finalfinal.pdf

As a side note it's quite gratifying that even major official documents have file names ending ...v8_finalfinal.pdf

Did anything else happen in 2019?

Is that rhetorical? I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that would significantly have affected pollution levels.

I was thinking about the start of a generational pandemic at the end of the year, followed by a generational change in working patterns.

I suppose that was about 2-3 months into 2020, but if the changes are gradual....

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

It is quite mad politics.

Massively cut funding to local public transport.

Give it a decade for the cuts to bite.

Run your party with absolutely no conscientious about the world.

Then implement a ULEZ policy, and because it’s then so mad that the party would do that people assume it’s the rival party’s policy and you can get your MPs elected in opposition because it no longer works because all the local transport is useless.

Except it's Uxbridge, which has two tube stations and an Elizabeth line station just to the south. The local transport may not be perfect but it is not useless.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

The ULEZ didn't ban anything, so you wouldn't expect a sudden drop in pollution, but a gradual reduction as people change habits and replace older vehicles. The graph is countering the argument that the ULEZ would see a spike in pollution outside it's boundaries as traffic was diverted.

Here's a similar graph showing NO2 levels in various locations. The drop in roadside levels (red curve) either side of 2019 is pretty clear.


https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ulez_evaluation_report_2020-v8_finalfinal.pdf

As a side note it's quite gratifying that even major official documents have file names ending ...v8_finalfinal.pdf

Did anything else happen in 2019?

Is that rhetorical? I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that would significantly have affected pollution levels.

I was thinking about the start of a generational pandemic at the end of the year, followed by a generational change in working patterns.

I suppose that was about 2-3 months into 2020, but if the changes are gradual....

The drop starts back in 2017. Of course the pandemic would help in early 2020, but you would expect a pretty strong rebound. Also, office workers who switched to WFH were likely to be using public transport anyway.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

It is quite mad politics.

Massively cut funding to local public transport.

Give it a decade for the cuts to bite.

Run your party with absolutely no conscientious about the world.

Then implement a ULEZ policy, and because it’s then so mad that the party would do that people assume it’s the rival party’s policy and you can get your MPs elected in opposition because it no longer works because all the local transport is useless.

Except it's Uxbridge, which has two tube stations and an Elizabeth line station just to the south. The local transport may not be perfect but it is not useless.

Meh it’s the same story across the country tbf.

It’s very exercised here in Cambridge.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

It is quite mad politics.

Massively cut funding to local public transport.

Give it a decade for the cuts to bite.

Run your party with absolutely no conscientious about the world.

Then implement a ULEZ policy, and because it’s then so mad that the party would do that people assume it’s the rival party’s policy and you can get your MPs elected in opposition because it no longer works because all the local transport is useless.

Except it's Uxbridge, which has two tube stations and an Elizabeth line station just to the south. The local transport may not be perfect but it is not useless.

Meh it’s the same story across the country tbf.

It’s very exercised here in Cambridge.

That's just two places.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

It is quite mad politics.

Massively cut funding to local public transport.

Give it a decade for the cuts to bite.

Run your party with absolutely no conscientious about the world.

Then implement a ULEZ policy, and because it’s then so mad that the party would do that people assume it’s the rival party’s policy and you can get your MPs elected in opposition because it no longer works because all the local transport is useless.

Except it's Uxbridge, which has two tube stations and an Elizabeth line station just to the south. The local transport may not be perfect but it is not useless.

Meh it’s the same story across the country tbf.

It’s very exercised here in Cambridge.

That's just two places.

London,
Birmingham,
Bristol,
Oxford,
Glasgow,
Bath
all have some; some restricted to commercial vehicles, others not.

Cities that have concrete plans for them:
Cambridge,
Manchester,
Aberdeen,
Dundee,
Edinburgh
Newcastle

So it's not just two places.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

The ULEZ didn't ban anything, so you wouldn't expect a sudden drop in pollution, but a gradual reduction as people change habits and replace older vehicles. The graph is countering the argument that the ULEZ would see a spike in pollution outside it's boundaries as traffic was diverted.

Here's a similar graph showing NO2 levels in various locations. The drop in roadside levels (red curve) either side of 2019 is pretty clear.


https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ulez_evaluation_report_2020-v8_finalfinal.pdf

As a side note it's quite gratifying that even major official documents have file names ending ...v8_finalfinal.pdf

Did anything else happen in 2019?

Is that rhetorical? I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that would significantly have affected pollution levels.

I was thinking about the start of a generational pandemic at the end of the year, followed by a generational change in working patterns.

I suppose that was about 2-3 months into 2020, but if the changes are gradual....

The drop starts back in 2017. Of course the pandemic would help in early 2020, but you would expect a pretty strong rebound. Also, office workers who switched to WFH were likely to be using public transport anyway.

Er. But you are arguing it is a result of ULEZ.

If it started in 2017, how can that be?

Comes back to my point of correlation not necessarily being causation.

No one is arguing thelat improved air quality of a bad thing, but it isn't clear from those data that its anything to do with ULEZ. Don't let the fact that the report comes from a .ac.uk domain prevent you from thinking.

kingstongraham

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

The ULEZ didn't ban anything, so you wouldn't expect a sudden drop in pollution, but a gradual reduction as people change habits and replace older vehicles. The graph is countering the argument that the ULEZ would see a spike in pollution outside it's boundaries as traffic was diverted.

Here's a similar graph showing NO2 levels in various locations. The drop in roadside levels (red curve) either side of 2019 is pretty clear.


https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ulez_evaluation_report_2020-v8_finalfinal.pdf

As a side note it's quite gratifying that even major official documents have file names ending ...v8_finalfinal.pdf

Did anything else happen in 2019?

Is that rhetorical? I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that would significantly have affected pollution levels.

I was thinking about the start of a generational pandemic at the end of the year, followed by a generational change in working patterns.

I suppose that was about 2-3 months into 2020, but if the changes are gradual....

The drop starts back in 2017. Of course the pandemic would help in early 2020, but you would expect a pretty strong rebound. Also, office workers who switched to WFH were likely to be using public transport anyway.

Er. But you are arguing it is a result of ULEZ.

If it started in 2017, how can that be?

Comes back to my point of correlation not necessarily being causation.

No one is arguing thelat improved air quality of a bad thing, but it isn't clear from those data that its anything to do with ULEZ. Don't let the fact that the report comes from a .ac.uk domain prevent you from thinking.

There was an emissions surcharge on the congestion charge introduced in 2017.

TheBigBean

If everyone could just crack on with selling their cars, this ULEZ discussion could be put to bed,

kingstongraham

TheBigBean said:

If everyone could just crack on with selling their cars, this ULEZ discussion could be put to bed,

Then they can start using the infrastructure for road pricing.

Pross

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

The ULEZ didn't ban anything, so you wouldn't expect a sudden drop in pollution, but a gradual reduction as people change habits and replace older vehicles. The graph is countering the argument that the ULEZ would see a spike in pollution outside it's boundaries as traffic was diverted.

Here's a similar graph showing NO2 levels in various locations. The drop in roadside levels (red curve) either side of 2019 is pretty clear.


https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ulez_evaluation_report_2020-v8_finalfinal.pdf

As a side note it's quite gratifying that even major official documents have file names ending ...v8_finalfinal.pdf

Did anything else happen in 2019?

Is that rhetorical? I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that would significantly have affected pollution levels.

I was thinking about the start of a generational pandemic at the end of the year, followed by a generational change in working patterns.

I suppose that was about 2-3 months into 2020, but if the changes are gradual....

I assumed you were but as you say that was 2020. The surprising thing is the graph doesn't really steepen after lockdown. The curve was already on its way down well before 2019 though.

Pross

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

The ULEZ didn't ban anything, so you wouldn't expect a sudden drop in pollution, but a gradual reduction as people change habits and replace older vehicles. The graph is countering the argument that the ULEZ would see a spike in pollution outside it's boundaries as traffic was diverted.

Here's a similar graph showing NO2 levels in various locations. The drop in roadside levels (red curve) either side of 2019 is pretty clear.


https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ulez_evaluation_report_2020-v8_finalfinal.pdf

As a side note it's quite gratifying that even major official documents have file names ending ...v8_finalfinal.pdf

Did anything else happen in 2019?

Is that rhetorical? I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that would significantly have affected pollution levels.

I was thinking about the start of a generational pandemic at the end of the year, followed by a generational change in working patterns.

I suppose that was about 2-3 months into 2020, but if the changes are gradual....

The drop starts back in 2017. Of course the pandemic would help in early 2020, but you would expect a pretty strong rebound. Also, office workers who switched to WFH were likely to be using public transport anyway.

Er. But you are arguing it is a result of ULEZ.

If it started in 2017, how can that be?

Comes back to my point of correlation not necessarily being causation.

No one is arguing thelat improved air quality of a bad thing, but it isn't clear from those data that its anything to do with ULEZ. Don't let the fact that the report comes from a .ac.uk domain prevent you from thinking.

There will be a natural reduction from cars being renewed for cleaner models (Euro 6 registrations started in September 2015) and the ULEZ is intended to help encourage people to change to those.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

The ULEZ didn't ban anything, so you wouldn't expect a sudden drop in pollution, but a gradual reduction as people change habits and replace older vehicles. The graph is countering the argument that the ULEZ would see a spike in pollution outside it's boundaries as traffic was diverted.

Here's a similar graph showing NO2 levels in various locations. The drop in roadside levels (red curve) either side of 2019 is pretty clear.


https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ulez_evaluation_report_2020-v8_finalfinal.pdf

As a side note it's quite gratifying that even major official documents have file names ending ...v8_finalfinal.pdf

Did anything else happen in 2019?

Is that rhetorical? I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that would significantly have affected pollution levels.

I was thinking about the start of a generational pandemic at the end of the year, followed by a generational change in working patterns.

I suppose that was about 2-3 months into 2020, but if the changes are gradual....

The drop starts back in 2017. Of course the pandemic would help in early 2020, but you would expect a pretty strong rebound. Also, office workers who switched to WFH were likely to be using public transport anyway.

Er. But you are arguing it is a result of ULEZ.

If it started in 2017, how can that be?

Comes back to my point of correlation not necessarily being causation.

No one is arguing that improved air quality of a bad thing, but it isn't clear from those data that its anything to do with ULEZ. Don't let the fact that the report comes from a .ac.uk domain prevent you from thinking.

I've already covered that point above. The graphs are from different sources. You're doing that Stevo thing of ignoring/pretending you haven't seen earlier replies

To play along, let's eliminate possible other explanations. We've already discounted the pandemic as a lasting effect and WFH as the wrong demographic. What other reasons would you suggest for roadside NO2 levels reducing specifically within the ULEZ zone around the time it was introduced?

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

The ULEZ didn't ban anything, so you wouldn't expect a sudden drop in pollution, but a gradual reduction as people change habits and replace older vehicles. The graph is countering the argument that the ULEZ would see a spike in pollution outside it's boundaries as traffic was diverted.

Here's a similar graph showing NO2 levels in various locations. The drop in roadside levels (red curve) either side of 2019 is pretty clear.


https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ulez_evaluation_report_2020-v8_finalfinal.pdf

As a side note it's quite gratifying that even major official documents have file names ending ...v8_finalfinal.pdf

Did anything else happen in 2019?

Is that rhetorical? I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that would significantly have affected pollution levels.

I was thinking about the start of a generational pandemic at the end of the year, followed by a generational change in working patterns.

I suppose that was about 2-3 months into 2020, but if the changes are gradual....

The drop starts back in 2017. Of course the pandemic would help in early 2020, but you would expect a pretty strong rebound. Also, office workers who switched to WFH were likely to be using public transport anyway.

Er. But you are arguing it is a result of ULEZ.

If it started in 2017, how can that be?

Comes back to my point of correlation not necessarily being causation.

No one is arguing thelat improved air quality of a bad thing, but it isn't clear from those data that its anything to do with ULEZ. Don't let the fact that the report comes from a .ac.uk domain prevent you from thinking.

There was an emissions surcharge on the congestion charge introduced in 2017.

So why was it flat throughout the period of the congestion charge in the 2010s?

There isn't causation here other than EuroNcap.

Pross

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

The ULEZ didn't ban anything, so you wouldn't expect a sudden drop in pollution, but a gradual reduction as people change habits and replace older vehicles. The graph is countering the argument that the ULEZ would see a spike in pollution outside it's boundaries as traffic was diverted.

Here's a similar graph showing NO2 levels in various locations. The drop in roadside levels (red curve) either side of 2019 is pretty clear.


https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ulez_evaluation_report_2020-v8_finalfinal.pdf

As a side note it's quite gratifying that even major official documents have file names ending ...v8_finalfinal.pdf

Did anything else happen in 2019?

Is that rhetorical? I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that would significantly have affected pollution levels.

I was thinking about the start of a generational pandemic at the end of the year, followed by a generational change in working patterns.

I suppose that was about 2-3 months into 2020, but if the changes are gradual....

The drop starts back in 2017. Of course the pandemic would help in early 2020, but you would expect a pretty strong rebound. Also, office workers who switched to WFH were likely to be using public transport anyway.

Er. But you are arguing it is a result of ULEZ.

If it started in 2017, how can that be?

Comes back to my point of correlation not necessarily being causation.

No one is arguing thelat improved air quality of a bad thing, but it isn't clear from those data that its anything to do with ULEZ. Don't let the fact that the report comes from a .ac.uk domain prevent you from thinking.

There was an emissions surcharge on the congestion charge introduced in 2017.

So why was it flat throughout the period of the congestion charge in the 2010s?

There isn't causation here other than EuroNcap.

Euro NCAP is a car safety rating system. I assume you mean the European Emissions Standards? If so then one of the aims of the ULEZ is to encourage people to change their cars to a newer standard so it is surely related.

First.Aspect

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

The ULEZ didn't ban anything, so you wouldn't expect a sudden drop in pollution, but a gradual reduction as people change habits and replace older vehicles. The graph is countering the argument that the ULEZ would see a spike in pollution outside it's boundaries as traffic was diverted.

Here's a similar graph showing NO2 levels in various locations. The drop in roadside levels (red curve) either side of 2019 is pretty clear.


https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ulez_evaluation_report_2020-v8_finalfinal.pdf

As a side note it's quite gratifying that even major official documents have file names ending ...v8_finalfinal.pdf

Did anything else happen in 2019?

Is that rhetorical? I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that would significantly have affected pollution levels.

I was thinking about the start of a generational pandemic at the end of the year, followed by a generational change in working patterns.

I suppose that was about 2-3 months into 2020, but if the changes are gradual....

The drop starts back in 2017. Of course the pandemic would help in early 2020, but you would expect a pretty strong rebound. Also, office workers who switched to WFH were likely to be using public transport anyway.

Er. But you are arguing it is a result of ULEZ.

If it started in 2017, how can that be?

Comes back to my point of correlation not necessarily being causation.

No one is arguing thelat improved air quality of a bad thing, but it isn't clear from those data that its anything to do with ULEZ. Don't let the fact that the report comes from a .ac.uk domain prevent you from thinking.

There was an emissions surcharge on the congestion charge introduced in 2017.

So why was it flat throughout the period of the congestion charge in the 2010s?

There isn't causation here other than EuroNcap.

Euro NCAP is a car safety rating system. I assume you mean the European Emissions Standards? If so then one of the aims of the ULEZ is to encourage people to change their cars to a newer standard so it is surely related.

Yes, that's what I meant.

Is there any evidence that ULEZ is encouraging people to change their cars? Or on the whole to residents of the richest areas of the UK tend to change their cars more frequently than every 7 years anyway?

shirley_basso

There was a car scrappage scheme for a long time around then, wasn't there?

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

The ULEZ didn't ban anything, so you wouldn't expect a sudden drop in pollution, but a gradual reduction as people change habits and replace older vehicles. The graph is countering the argument that the ULEZ would see a spike in pollution outside it's boundaries as traffic was diverted.

Here's a similar graph showing NO2 levels in various locations. The drop in roadside levels (red curve) either side of 2019 is pretty clear.


https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ulez_evaluation_report_2020-v8_finalfinal.pdf

As a side note it's quite gratifying that even major official documents have file names ending ...v8_finalfinal.pdf

Did anything else happen in 2019?

Is that rhetorical? I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that would significantly have affected pollution levels.

I was thinking about the start of a generational pandemic at the end of the year, followed by a generational change in working patterns.

I suppose that was about 2-3 months into 2020, but if the changes are gradual....

The drop starts back in 2017. Of course the pandemic would help in early 2020, but you would expect a pretty strong rebound. Also, office workers who switched to WFH were likely to be using public transport anyway.

Er. But you are arguing it is a result of ULEZ.

If it started in 2017, how can that be?

Comes back to my point of correlation not necessarily being causation.

No one is arguing thelat improved air quality of a bad thing, but it isn't clear from those data that its anything to do with ULEZ. Don't let the fact that the report comes from a .ac.uk domain prevent you from thinking.

There was an emissions surcharge on the congestion charge introduced in 2017.

So why was it flat throughout the period of the congestion charge in the 2010s?

There isn't causation here other than EuroNcap.

Euro NCAP is a car safety rating system. I assume you mean the European Emissions Standards? If so then one of the aims of the ULEZ is to encourage people to change their cars to a newer standard so it is surely related.

Yes, that's what I meant.

Is there any evidence that ULEZ is encouraging people to change their cars? Or on the whole to residents of the richest areas of the UK tend to change their cars more frequently than every 7 years anyway?

You could even read the detailed report I posted. Stevo will be so proud.

rjsterry

Good to hear Gove confirming that the 2030 date for the ICE ban is non-negotiable. Credit where it's due.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

Good to hear Gove confirming that the 2030 date for the ICE ban is non-negotiable. Credit where it's due.

Easy for him to say that he won't be in government for the next 10 years.

Stevo_666

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

I don't know why there is a private vehicle exception for vehicles registered in the ULEZ zone. This would carve out taxis and the low usages people are exercised about, but still include commurers, hgvs, delivery vans tradesmen and wotnot - which is where the majority of the pollution comes from.

It is one extra line of code in the system automatically issuing the charges.

Do you mean you think that private vehicles registered in London should be exempt from the charge?

Yes.

Yeah, that's crazy.

Why? It exempts a relatively small number of people and, if my guess about mayor contributions to traffic pollution is correct, still largely achieves the same thing.

Perhaps I have this wrong. Where is most of London's traffic coming from?

There's about 9 million people live within the boundaries of the Greater London Authority which is where the ULEZ is going to extend to cover from the end of next month.

There's a map here.

https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/ulez-expansion-2023

Sure, and they estimate that's about 200k private vehicles. What usage, as a percentage of the overall non compliant vehicle miles, do those 200k vehicles make up, do you think? And what percentage of emissions?

Pretty high.

Well I'm glad we've cleared that up.

Next on the agenda is the scrappage scheme.

Environmentally friendly?

If you have any better analysis let me know.

Sell it to someone in the sticks. It's a local emissions policy, not a planet saving policy.

It's blunt though isn't it.

I'm old enough to remember that after a day in London, you'd get home and the water coming off you in the shower would be grey, as would the tissue if you blew your nose.

So I get it, but I don't think necessarily that these schemes do much more than raise a bit of money.

Nail. Head.