LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
I have, it's not science.rjsterry said:
You could even read the detailed report I posted. Stevo will be so proud.First.Aspect said:
Yes, that's what I meant.Pross said:
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 said:
So why was it flat throughout the period of the congestion charge in the 2010s?kingstongraham said:
There was an emissions surcharge on the congestion charge introduced in 2017.First.Aspect said:
Er. But you are arguing it is a result of ULEZ.rjsterry said:
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.First.Aspect said:
I was thinking about the start of a generational pandemic at the end of the year, followed by a generational change in working patterns.Pross said:
Is that rhetorical? I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that would significantly have affected pollution levels.First.Aspect said:
Did anything else happen in 2019?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
I suppose that was about 2-3 months into 2020, but if the changes are gradual....
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 isn't causation here other than EuroNcap.
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?
They start with the premise that the ULEZ did have an effect from 2017 (so given that it wasn't in effect until 2019 is curious) and then states that Covid makes data interpretation difficult, before anyway tentatively concluding that the presumption that ULEZ was already having an effect has continued, based on measured ULEZ compliance.
Given the range of error, I'm not sure much can be concluded at all based on data from 2019-2021. There is no effort to comment on changes that would have occurred anyway due to emissions standards changes, and no effort to plot traffic volume changes before 2019.
It is a tour de force of confirmation bias.
I'm happy with ULEZ zones on the whole because I'm a cyclist who likes his lungs. And to my mind ULEZ reduces traffic volume. On which basis I'd be more in favour of a congestion charging model that covered all motor vehicles, even electric frankly, because they still make using a city horrible for pedestrians and cyclists, and worse for anyone who really has to drive there.
However I do like informed debate.1 -
If it does nothing then surely it's a great money spinner for the local gov't which are usually too cash strapped to do anything around public transport anyway.First.Aspect said:
I have, it's not science.rjsterry said:
You could even read the detailed report I posted. Stevo will be so proud.First.Aspect said:
Yes, that's what I meant.Pross said:
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 said:
So why was it flat throughout the period of the congestion charge in the 2010s?kingstongraham said:
There was an emissions surcharge on the congestion charge introduced in 2017.First.Aspect said:
Er. But you are arguing it is a result of ULEZ.rjsterry said:
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.First.Aspect said:
I was thinking about the start of a generational pandemic at the end of the year, followed by a generational change in working patterns.Pross said:
Is that rhetorical? I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that would significantly have affected pollution levels.First.Aspect said:
Did anything else happen in 2019?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
I suppose that was about 2-3 months into 2020, but if the changes are gradual....
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 isn't causation here other than EuroNcap.
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?
They start with the premise that the ULEZ did have an effect from 2017 (so given that it wasn't in effect until 2019 is curious) and then states that Covid makes data interpretation difficult, before anyway tentatively concluding that the presumption that ULEZ was already having an effect has continued, based on measured ULEZ compliance.
Given the range of error, I'm not sure much can be concluded at all based on data from 2019-2021. There is no effort to comment on changes that would have occurred anyway due to emissions standards changes, and no effort to plot traffic volume changes before 2019.
It is a tour de force of confirmation bias.
I'm happy with ULEZ zones on the whole because I'm a cyclist who likes his lungs. And to my mind ULEZ reduces traffic volume. On which basis I'd be more in favour of a congestion charging model that covered all motor vehicles, even electric frankly, because they still make using a city horrible for pedestrians and cyclists, and worse for anyone who really has to drive there.
However I do like informed debate.
win win.0 -
I'm sort of also generally in favour of fairness and transparency.rick_chasey said:
If it does nothing then surely it's a great money spinner for the local gov't which are usually too cash strapped to do anything around public transport anyway.First.Aspect said:
I have, it's not science.rjsterry said:
You could even read the detailed report I posted. Stevo will be so proud.First.Aspect said:
Yes, that's what I meant.Pross said:
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 said:
So why was it flat throughout the period of the congestion charge in the 2010s?kingstongraham said:
There was an emissions surcharge on the congestion charge introduced in 2017.First.Aspect said:
Er. But you are arguing it is a result of ULEZ.rjsterry said:
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.First.Aspect said:
I was thinking about the start of a generational pandemic at the end of the year, followed by a generational change in working patterns.Pross said:
Is that rhetorical? I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that would significantly have affected pollution levels.First.Aspect said:
Did anything else happen in 2019?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
I suppose that was about 2-3 months into 2020, but if the changes are gradual....
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 isn't causation here other than EuroNcap.
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?
They start with the premise that the ULEZ did have an effect from 2017 (so given that it wasn't in effect until 2019 is curious) and then states that Covid makes data interpretation difficult, before anyway tentatively concluding that the presumption that ULEZ was already having an effect has continued, based on measured ULEZ compliance.
Given the range of error, I'm not sure much can be concluded at all based on data from 2019-2021. There is no effort to comment on changes that would have occurred anyway due to emissions standards changes, and no effort to plot traffic volume changes before 2019.
It is a tour de force of confirmation bias.
I'm happy with ULEZ zones on the whole because I'm a cyclist who likes his lungs. And to my mind ULEZ reduces traffic volume. On which basis I'd be more in favour of a congestion charging model that covered all motor vehicles, even electric frankly, because they still make using a city horrible for pedestrians and cyclists, and worse for anyone who really has to drive there.
However I do like informed debate.
win win.
I suspect if it really was a congestion charge, there'd be less opposition.0 -
I think you're very wrong here - the extended congestion charge zone only lasted 3 years due to opposition. Suddenly charging everyone to take their kids to school would not be popular.First.Aspect said:
I'm sort of also generally in favour of fairness and transparency.rick_chasey said:
If it does nothing then surely it's a great money spinner for the local gov't which are usually too cash strapped to do anything around public transport anyway.First.Aspect said:
I have, it's not science.rjsterry said:
You could even read the detailed report I posted. Stevo will be so proud.First.Aspect said:
Yes, that's what I meant.Pross said:
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 said:
So why was it flat throughout the period of the congestion charge in the 2010s?kingstongraham said:
There was an emissions surcharge on the congestion charge introduced in 2017.First.Aspect said:
Er. But you are arguing it is a result of ULEZ.rjsterry said:
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.First.Aspect said:
I was thinking about the start of a generational pandemic at the end of the year, followed by a generational change in working patterns.Pross said:
Is that rhetorical? I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that would significantly have affected pollution levels.First.Aspect said:
Did anything else happen in 2019?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
I suppose that was about 2-3 months into 2020, but if the changes are gradual....
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 isn't causation here other than EuroNcap.
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?
They start with the premise that the ULEZ did have an effect from 2017 (so given that it wasn't in effect until 2019 is curious) and then states that Covid makes data interpretation difficult, before anyway tentatively concluding that the presumption that ULEZ was already having an effect has continued, based on measured ULEZ compliance.
Given the range of error, I'm not sure much can be concluded at all based on data from 2019-2021. There is no effort to comment on changes that would have occurred anyway due to emissions standards changes, and no effort to plot traffic volume changes before 2019.
It is a tour de force of confirmation bias.
I'm happy with ULEZ zones on the whole because I'm a cyclist who likes his lungs. And to my mind ULEZ reduces traffic volume. On which basis I'd be more in favour of a congestion charging model that covered all motor vehicles, even electric frankly, because they still make using a city horrible for pedestrians and cyclists, and worse for anyone who really has to drive there.
However I do like informed debate.
win win.
I suspect if it really was a congestion charge, there'd be less opposition.
0 -
Possibly. I don't think trying pull the wool over people's eyes is helping much either, though.kingstongraham said:
I think you're very wrong here - the extended congestion charge zone only lasted 3 years due to opposition. Suddenly charging everyone to take their kids to school would not be popular.First.Aspect said:
I'm sort of also generally in favour of fairness and transparency.rick_chasey said:
If it does nothing then surely it's a great money spinner for the local gov't which are usually too cash strapped to do anything around public transport anyway.First.Aspect said:
I have, it's not science.rjsterry said:
You could even read the detailed report I posted. Stevo will be so proud.First.Aspect said:
Yes, that's what I meant.Pross said:
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 said:
So why was it flat throughout the period of the congestion charge in the 2010s?kingstongraham said:
There was an emissions surcharge on the congestion charge introduced in 2017.First.Aspect said:
Er. But you are arguing it is a result of ULEZ.rjsterry said:
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.First.Aspect said:
I was thinking about the start of a generational pandemic at the end of the year, followed by a generational change in working patterns.Pross said:
Is that rhetorical? I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that would significantly have affected pollution levels.First.Aspect said:
Did anything else happen in 2019?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
I suppose that was about 2-3 months into 2020, but if the changes are gradual....
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 isn't causation here other than EuroNcap.
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?
They start with the premise that the ULEZ did have an effect from 2017 (so given that it wasn't in effect until 2019 is curious) and then states that Covid makes data interpretation difficult, before anyway tentatively concluding that the presumption that ULEZ was already having an effect has continued, based on measured ULEZ compliance.
Given the range of error, I'm not sure much can be concluded at all based on data from 2019-2021. There is no effort to comment on changes that would have occurred anyway due to emissions standards changes, and no effort to plot traffic volume changes before 2019.
It is a tour de force of confirmation bias.
I'm happy with ULEZ zones on the whole because I'm a cyclist who likes his lungs. And to my mind ULEZ reduces traffic volume. On which basis I'd be more in favour of a congestion charging model that covered all motor vehicles, even electric frankly, because they still make using a city horrible for pedestrians and cyclists, and worse for anyone who really has to drive there.
However I do like informed debate.
win win.
I suspect if it really was a congestion charge, there'd be less opposition.
And there are those of us who remember alternatives to the school drop off and who have little sympathy on that one.0 -
Fine by me. There's no excuse in London.kingstongraham said:
I think you're very wrong here - the extended congestion charge zone only lasted 3 years due to opposition. Suddenly charging everyone to take their kids to school would not be popular.First.Aspect said:
I'm sort of also generally in favour of fairness and transparency.rick_chasey said:
If it does nothing then surely it's a great money spinner for the local gov't which are usually too cash strapped to do anything around public transport anyway.First.Aspect said:
I have, it's not science.rjsterry said:
You could even read the detailed report I posted. Stevo will be so proud.First.Aspect said:
Yes, that's what I meant.Pross said:
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 said:
So why was it flat throughout the period of the congestion charge in the 2010s?kingstongraham said:
There was an emissions surcharge on the congestion charge introduced in 2017.First.Aspect said:
Er. But you are arguing it is a result of ULEZ.rjsterry said:
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.First.Aspect said:
I was thinking about the start of a generational pandemic at the end of the year, followed by a generational change in working patterns.Pross said:
Is that rhetorical? I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that would significantly have affected pollution levels.First.Aspect said:
Did anything else happen in 2019?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
I suppose that was about 2-3 months into 2020, but if the changes are gradual....
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 isn't causation here other than EuroNcap.
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?
They start with the premise that the ULEZ did have an effect from 2017 (so given that it wasn't in effect until 2019 is curious) and then states that Covid makes data interpretation difficult, before anyway tentatively concluding that the presumption that ULEZ was already having an effect has continued, based on measured ULEZ compliance.
Given the range of error, I'm not sure much can be concluded at all based on data from 2019-2021. There is no effort to comment on changes that would have occurred anyway due to emissions standards changes, and no effort to plot traffic volume changes before 2019.
It is a tour de force of confirmation bias.
I'm happy with ULEZ zones on the whole because I'm a cyclist who likes his lungs. And to my mind ULEZ reduces traffic volume. On which basis I'd be more in favour of a congestion charging model that covered all motor vehicles, even electric frankly, because they still make using a city horrible for pedestrians and cyclists, and worse for anyone who really has to drive there.
However I do like informed debate.
win win.
I suspect if it really was a congestion charge, there'd be less opposition.1 -
Bet those are the same people complaining about the traffic during the school run.kingstongraham said:
I think you're very wrong here - the extended congestion charge zone only lasted 3 years due to opposition. Suddenly charging everyone to take their kids to school would not be popular.First.Aspect said:
I'm sort of also generally in favour of fairness and transparency.rick_chasey said:
If it does nothing then surely it's a great money spinner for the local gov't which are usually too cash strapped to do anything around public transport anyway.First.Aspect said:
I have, it's not science.rjsterry said:
You could even read the detailed report I posted. Stevo will be so proud.First.Aspect said:
Yes, that's what I meant.Pross said:
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 said:
So why was it flat throughout the period of the congestion charge in the 2010s?kingstongraham said:
There was an emissions surcharge on the congestion charge introduced in 2017.First.Aspect said:
Er. But you are arguing it is a result of ULEZ.rjsterry said:
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.First.Aspect said:
I was thinking about the start of a generational pandemic at the end of the year, followed by a generational change in working patterns.Pross said:
Is that rhetorical? I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that would significantly have affected pollution levels.First.Aspect said:
Did anything else happen in 2019?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
I suppose that was about 2-3 months into 2020, but if the changes are gradual....
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 isn't causation here other than EuroNcap.
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?
They start with the premise that the ULEZ did have an effect from 2017 (so given that it wasn't in effect until 2019 is curious) and then states that Covid makes data interpretation difficult, before anyway tentatively concluding that the presumption that ULEZ was already having an effect has continued, based on measured ULEZ compliance.
Given the range of error, I'm not sure much can be concluded at all based on data from 2019-2021. There is no effort to comment on changes that would have occurred anyway due to emissions standards changes, and no effort to plot traffic volume changes before 2019.
It is a tour de force of confirmation bias.
I'm happy with ULEZ zones on the whole because I'm a cyclist who likes his lungs. And to my mind ULEZ reduces traffic volume. On which basis I'd be more in favour of a congestion charging model that covered all motor vehicles, even electric frankly, because they still make using a city horrible for pedestrians and cyclists, and worse for anyone who really has to drive there.
However I do like informed debate.
win win.
I suspect if it really was a congestion charge, there'd be less opposition.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Yeah. I have tried to teach myself to think when I am in a traffic jam in the car, that I am the traffic.0
-
When it comes to studies on things like whether ULEZ works, I'm not sure it's possible to get the level of confidence in results which you seek.First.Aspect said:
I have, it's not science.rjsterry said:
You could even read the detailed report I posted. Stevo will be so proud.First.Aspect said:
Yes, that's what I meant.Pross said:
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 said:
So why was it flat throughout the period of the congestion charge in the 2010s?kingstongraham said:
There was an emissions surcharge on the congestion charge introduced in 2017.First.Aspect said:
Er. But you are arguing it is a result of ULEZ.rjsterry said:
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.First.Aspect said:
I was thinking about the start of a generational pandemic at the end of the year, followed by a generational change in working patterns.Pross said:
Is that rhetorical? I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that would significantly have affected pollution levels.First.Aspect said:
Did anything else happen in 2019?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
I suppose that was about 2-3 months into 2020, but if the changes are gradual....
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 isn't causation here other than EuroNcap.
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?
They start with the premise that the ULEZ did have an effect from 2017 (so given that it wasn't in effect until 2019 is curious) and then states that Covid makes data interpretation difficult, before anyway tentatively concluding that the presumption that ULEZ was already having an effect has continued, based on measured ULEZ compliance.
Given the range of error, I'm not sure much can be concluded at all based on data from 2019-2021. There is no effort to comment on changes that would have occurred anyway due to emissions standards changes, and no effort to plot traffic volume changes before 2019.
It is a tour de force of confirmation bias.
I'm happy with ULEZ zones on the whole because I'm a cyclist who likes his lungs. And to my mind ULEZ reduces traffic volume. On which basis I'd be more in favour of a congestion charging model that covered all motor vehicles, even electric frankly, because they still make using a city horrible for pedestrians and cyclists, and worse for anyone who really has to drive there.
However I do like informed debate.
Ultimately falling NOx (etc) suggests that the package of policies is working, it would also suggest that if ULEZ itself is purely a money spinner, it's not working tremendously.
1 -
I'm going to shock you here - but that won't stop there being vocal opposition to it.TheBigBean said:
Fine by me. There's no excuse in London.kingstongraham said:
I think you're very wrong here - the extended congestion charge zone only lasted 3 years due to opposition. Suddenly charging everyone to take their kids to school would not be popular.First.Aspect said:
I'm sort of also generally in favour of fairness and transparency.rick_chasey said:
If it does nothing then surely it's a great money spinner for the local gov't which are usually too cash strapped to do anything around public transport anyway.First.Aspect said:
I have, it's not science.rjsterry said:
You could even read the detailed report I posted. Stevo will be so proud.First.Aspect said:
Yes, that's what I meant.Pross said:
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 said:
So why was it flat throughout the period of the congestion charge in the 2010s?kingstongraham said:
There was an emissions surcharge on the congestion charge introduced in 2017.First.Aspect said:
Er. But you are arguing it is a result of ULEZ.rjsterry said:
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.First.Aspect said:
I was thinking about the start of a generational pandemic at the end of the year, followed by a generational change in working patterns.Pross said:
Is that rhetorical? I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that would significantly have affected pollution levels.First.Aspect said:
Did anything else happen in 2019?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
I suppose that was about 2-3 months into 2020, but if the changes are gradual....
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 isn't causation here other than EuroNcap.
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?
They start with the premise that the ULEZ did have an effect from 2017 (so given that it wasn't in effect until 2019 is curious) and then states that Covid makes data interpretation difficult, before anyway tentatively concluding that the presumption that ULEZ was already having an effect has continued, based on measured ULEZ compliance.
Given the range of error, I'm not sure much can be concluded at all based on data from 2019-2021. There is no effort to comment on changes that would have occurred anyway due to emissions standards changes, and no effort to plot traffic volume changes before 2019.
It is a tour de force of confirmation bias.
I'm happy with ULEZ zones on the whole because I'm a cyclist who likes his lungs. And to my mind ULEZ reduces traffic volume. On which basis I'd be more in favour of a congestion charging model that covered all motor vehicles, even electric frankly, because they still make using a city horrible for pedestrians and cyclists, and worse for anyone who really has to drive there.
However I do like informed debate.
win win.
I suspect if it really was a congestion charge, there'd be less opposition.0 -
From a random search, look at the scheme that was being objected to here.
https://www.hornchurchandupminsterconservatives.com/news/stop-gaynes-school-street-scheme0 -
Which changes in emissions standards? If you are suggesting just general steady replacement with newer vehicles, I can't see why this would manifest as an increased rate of reduction in roadside NO2 over just these few years. Data on traffic volumes is available from the GLA. Lots of itFirst.Aspect said:
I have, it's not science.rjsterry said:
You could even read the detailed report I posted. Stevo will be so proud.First.Aspect said:
Yes, that's what I meant.Pross said:
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 said:
So why was it flat throughout the period of the congestion charge in the 2010s?kingstongraham said:
There was an emissions surcharge on the congestion charge introduced in 2017.First.Aspect said:
Er. But you are arguing it is a result of ULEZ.rjsterry said:
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.First.Aspect said:
I was thinking about the start of a generational pandemic at the end of the year, followed by a generational change in working patterns.Pross said:
Is that rhetorical? I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that would significantly have affected pollution levels.First.Aspect said:
Did anything else happen in 2019?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
I suppose that was about 2-3 months into 2020, but if the changes are gradual....
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 isn't causation here other than EuroNcap.
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?
They start with the premise that the ULEZ did have an effect from 2017 (so given that it wasn't in effect until 2019 is curious) and then states that Covid makes data interpretation difficult, before anyway tentatively concluding that the presumption that ULEZ was already having an effect has continued, based on measured ULEZ compliance.
Given the range of error, I'm not sure much can be concluded at all based on data from 2019-2021. There is no effort to comment on changes that would have occurred anyway due to emissions standards changes, and no effort to plot traffic volume changes before 2019.
It is a tour de force of confirmation bias.
I'm happy with ULEZ zones on the whole because I'm a cyclist who likes his lungs. And to my mind ULEZ reduces traffic volume. On which basis I'd be more in favour of a congestion charging model that covered all motor vehicles, even electric frankly, because they still make using a city horrible for pedestrians and cyclists, and worse for anyone who really has to drive there.
However I do like informed debate.
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/travel-in-london-reports
More data on pollution both inside and outside the ULEZ here.
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/air_quality_in_london_2016-2020_october2020final.pdf
The data for roadside levels outside the zone shows a steady decrease in NO2 levels over the decade, which would be expected from gradual replacement of older lower standard vehicles. The Central area covered by the ULEZ is the only area to show accelerated decrease in roadside NO2 levels. Comparing that with traffic data, the central area shows a steady decrease over a decade with outer areas staying at similar levels throughout. The introduction of the ULEZ was advertised well in advance precisely to give people the opportunity to upgrade their vehicles in advance of the introduction and avoid the charges.
I look forward to your conclusions 😁.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Needs to be said all the same.rick_chasey said:
Easy for him to say that he won't be in government for the next 10 years.rjsterry said:Good to hear Gove confirming that the 2030 date for the ICE ban is non-negotiable. Credit where it's due.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
There's no evidence that it changes vehicle ownership, only that it functions as a congestion charge for a subset of vehicle owners.rjsterry said:
Which changes in emissions standards? If you are suggesting just general steady replacement with newer vehicles, I can't see why this would manifest as an increased rate of reduction in roadside NO2 over just these few years. Data on traffic volumes is available from the GLA. Lots of itFirst.Aspect said:
I have, it's not science.rjsterry said:
You could even read the detailed report I posted. Stevo will be so proud.First.Aspect said:
Yes, that's what I meant.Pross said:
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 said:
So why was it flat throughout the period of the congestion charge in the 2010s?kingstongraham said:
There was an emissions surcharge on the congestion charge introduced in 2017.First.Aspect said:
Er. But you are arguing it is a result of ULEZ.rjsterry said:
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.First.Aspect said:
I was thinking about the start of a generational pandemic at the end of the year, followed by a generational change in working patterns.Pross said:
Is that rhetorical? I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that would significantly have affected pollution levels.First.Aspect said:
Did anything else happen in 2019?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
I suppose that was about 2-3 months into 2020, but if the changes are gradual....
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 isn't causation here other than EuroNcap.
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?
They start with the premise that the ULEZ did have an effect from 2017 (so given that it wasn't in effect until 2019 is curious) and then states that Covid makes data interpretation difficult, before anyway tentatively concluding that the presumption that ULEZ was already having an effect has continued, based on measured ULEZ compliance.
Given the range of error, I'm not sure much can be concluded at all based on data from 2019-2021. There is no effort to comment on changes that would have occurred anyway due to emissions standards changes, and no effort to plot traffic volume changes before 2019.
It is a tour de force of confirmation bias.
I'm happy with ULEZ zones on the whole because I'm a cyclist who likes his lungs. And to my mind ULEZ reduces traffic volume. On which basis I'd be more in favour of a congestion charging model that covered all motor vehicles, even electric frankly, because they still make using a city horrible for pedestrians and cyclists, and worse for anyone who really has to drive there.
However I do like informed debate.
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/travel-in-london-reports
More data on pollution both inside and outside the ULEZ here.
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/air_quality_in_london_2016-2020_october2020final.pdf
The data for roadside levels outside the zone shows a steady decrease in NO2 levels over the decade, which would be expected from gradual replacement of older lower standard vehicles. The Central area covered by the ULEZ is the only area to show accelerated decrease in roadside NO2 levels. Comparing that with traffic data, the central area shows a steady decrease over a decade with outer areas staying at similar levels throughout. The introduction of the ULEZ was advertised well in advance precisely to give people the opportunity to upgrade their vehicles in advance of the introduction and avoid the charges.
I look forward to your conclusions 😁.
I do have some sympathy for people living just inside the M25, where air quality is bad in certain places, like town centres, but not bad on the whole. I think these people can legitimately query whether it is solving a problem that doesn't exist in most of their area.
Like I said, it is a blunt instrument and for some areas it is being mis-sold.
It is also counter intuitively bad for overall CO2 emissions, if indeed people are prematurely switching vehicles to avoid it. But they aren't. So that is fine.1 -
Do I need some carrots at the same time?kingstongraham said:
I'm going to shock you here - but that won't stop there being vocal opposition to it.TheBigBean said:
Fine by me. There's no excuse in London.kingstongraham said:
I think you're very wrong here - the extended congestion charge zone only lasted 3 years due to opposition. Suddenly charging everyone to take their kids to school would not be popular.First.Aspect said:
I'm sort of also generally in favour of fairness and transparency.rick_chasey said:
If it does nothing then surely it's a great money spinner for the local gov't which are usually too cash strapped to do anything around public transport anyway.First.Aspect said:
I have, it's not science.rjsterry said:
You could even read the detailed report I posted. Stevo will be so proud.First.Aspect said:
Yes, that's what I meant.Pross said:
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 said:
So why was it flat throughout the period of the congestion charge in the 2010s?kingstongraham said:
There was an emissions surcharge on the congestion charge introduced in 2017.First.Aspect said:
Er. But you are arguing it is a result of ULEZ.rjsterry said:
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.First.Aspect said:
I was thinking about the start of a generational pandemic at the end of the year, followed by a generational change in working patterns.Pross said:
Is that rhetorical? I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that would significantly have affected pollution levels.First.Aspect said:
Did anything else happen in 2019?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
I suppose that was about 2-3 months into 2020, but if the changes are gradual....
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 isn't causation here other than EuroNcap.
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?
They start with the premise that the ULEZ did have an effect from 2017 (so given that it wasn't in effect until 2019 is curious) and then states that Covid makes data interpretation difficult, before anyway tentatively concluding that the presumption that ULEZ was already having an effect has continued, based on measured ULEZ compliance.
Given the range of error, I'm not sure much can be concluded at all based on data from 2019-2021. There is no effort to comment on changes that would have occurred anyway due to emissions standards changes, and no effort to plot traffic volume changes before 2019.
It is a tour de force of confirmation bias.
I'm happy with ULEZ zones on the whole because I'm a cyclist who likes his lungs. And to my mind ULEZ reduces traffic volume. On which basis I'd be more in favour of a congestion charging model that covered all motor vehicles, even electric frankly, because they still make using a city horrible for pedestrians and cyclists, and worse for anyone who really has to drive there.
However I do like informed debate.
win win.
I suspect if it really was a congestion charge, there'd be less opposition.
It's really difficult to go a long way to a state primary school in London. Secondary school children take themselves.
Therefore, the only kids needing transport to schools are the unbelievably lazy primary school kids and those going to private schools. If I'm a Labour PM do I need to worry about the latter?
I'd also bring in the stick and encourage police to fine parents dropping off where they shouldn't. E.g. a private school near me has nowhere to drop off, so it is just traffic chaos as all the cars stop all over the place.
Perhaps I can generously not add VAT to school fees at the same time.
0 -
Anecdotal rather than real evidence, but I know of 3 neighbours that have changed their cars because of the ULEZ and it was a factor in my son's decision to sell his car, when he bought it the previous owner was selling because of the ULEZ zone as it was. I suspect he would have sold it within a year anyway but with ULEZ incoming he took the opportunity to sell a convertible in spring hoping to get more for it.First.Aspect said:
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?
0 -
-
Well there goes the moral highground they took when Gary Lineker likened them to Hitler.0
-
Cross posting about crisps?First.Aspect said:Well there goes the moral highground they took when Gary Lineker likened them to Hitler.
1 -
Sure but the conservative party have never claimed the moral high ground, so that makes it fine for them to do whatever they want (or something like that anyway).First.Aspect said:Well there goes the moral highground they took when Gary Lineker likened them to Hitler.
0 -
There is no carrot you can offer that will stop opposition to any policy that restricts what car drivers can do.TheBigBean said:
Do I need some carrots at the same time?kingstongraham said:
I'm going to shock you here - but that won't stop there being vocal opposition to it.TheBigBean said:
Fine by me. There's no excuse in London.kingstongraham said:
I think you're very wrong here - the extended congestion charge zone only lasted 3 years due to opposition. Suddenly charging everyone to take their kids to school would not be popular.First.Aspect said:
I'm sort of also generally in favour of fairness and transparency.rick_chasey said:
If it does nothing then surely it's a great money spinner for the local gov't which are usually too cash strapped to do anything around public transport anyway.First.Aspect said:
I have, it's not science.rjsterry said:
You could even read the detailed report I posted. Stevo will be so proud.First.Aspect said:
Yes, that's what I meant.Pross said:
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 said:
So why was it flat throughout the period of the congestion charge in the 2010s?kingstongraham said:
There was an emissions surcharge on the congestion charge introduced in 2017.First.Aspect said:
Er. But you are arguing it is a result of ULEZ.rjsterry said:
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.First.Aspect said:
I was thinking about the start of a generational pandemic at the end of the year, followed by a generational change in working patterns.Pross said:
Is that rhetorical? I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that would significantly have affected pollution levels.First.Aspect said:
Did anything else happen in 2019?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
I suppose that was about 2-3 months into 2020, but if the changes are gradual....
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 isn't causation here other than EuroNcap.
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?
They start with the premise that the ULEZ did have an effect from 2017 (so given that it wasn't in effect until 2019 is curious) and then states that Covid makes data interpretation difficult, before anyway tentatively concluding that the presumption that ULEZ was already having an effect has continued, based on measured ULEZ compliance.
Given the range of error, I'm not sure much can be concluded at all based on data from 2019-2021. There is no effort to comment on changes that would have occurred anyway due to emissions standards changes, and no effort to plot traffic volume changes before 2019.
It is a tour de force of confirmation bias.
I'm happy with ULEZ zones on the whole because I'm a cyclist who likes his lungs. And to my mind ULEZ reduces traffic volume. On which basis I'd be more in favour of a congestion charging model that covered all motor vehicles, even electric frankly, because they still make using a city horrible for pedestrians and cyclists, and worse for anyone who really has to drive there.
However I do like informed debate.
win win.
I suspect if it really was a congestion charge, there'd be less opposition.
It's really difficult to go a long way to a state primary school in London. Secondary school children take themselves.
Therefore, the only kids needing transport to schools are the unbelievably lazy primary school kids and those going to private schools. If I'm a Labour PM do I need to worry about the latter?
I'd also bring in the stick and encourage police to fine parents dropping off where they shouldn't. E.g. a private school near me has nowhere to drop off, so it is just traffic chaos as all the cars stop all over the place.
Perhaps I can generously not add VAT to school fees at the same time.0 -
1. Unilever increases prices
2. Sales volumes fall
3. Profits rise.
4. Unilever claim not to have passed on raw materials costs, and thus not to be profiteering.
How can 1-3 be compatible with 4?0 -
If the sales volume fell disproportionately on goods with much smaller margins, and grew on goods with thicker margins.First.Aspect said:1. Unilever increases prices
2. Sales volumes fall
3. Profits rise.
4. Unilever claim not to have passed on raw materials costs, and thus not to be profiteering.
How can 1-3 be compatible with 4?0 -
I may have misread, but the margins seem to have grown on the goods for which sales have slowed.rick_chasey said:
If the sales volume fell disproportionately on goods with much smaller margins, and grew on goods with thicker margins.First.Aspect said:1. Unilever increases prices
2. Sales volumes fall
3. Profits rise.
4. Unilever claim not to have passed on raw materials costs, and thus not to be profiteering.
How can 1-3 be compatible with 4?
Am going to have to go and read it again now aren't I.0 -
I was reading this, and well, it's pretty impressive, though it runs directly in counter to my renewed interactions with schools, 17 years after I last had any interaction.
https://www.economist.com/britain/2023/07/13/the-strange-success-of-the-tories-schools-policyThere is an exception. Under the Conservatives, England’s schools have improved. England is now the best in the West when it comes to reading at primary-school age, according to one ranking. When it comes to maths, English students of the same age have improved compared with their European peers (even if they lag Asian ones). Scotland, whose progressive education system is loathed by Tories, has dribbled down the table. Historically, England was a laggard; now it is ahead.
Smaller targets have been met, too. More students study sciences and maths, as the Tories wanted. Maths has become the most popular subject at a-level, the exams English students sit at 18. Watered-down gcses, the exams children sit at 16, have been replaced by more rigorous versions. In 2010, 68% of schools were rated good or outstanding by inspectors. Now the figure is 88%. In a stint of government in which achievements are few, schools stand out0 -
My colleague sold his non ulez car last week to give him the impetus to get the new car sorted.
A friend is considering trading in his old volvo because although we are outside the Ulez zone, he has a yearly pass to chessington world of adventure and Kingston's boundary wierdly extends down to there.veronese68 said:
Anecdotal rather than real evidence, but I know of 3 neighbours that have changed their cars because of the ULEZ and it was a factor in my son's decision to sell his car, when he bought it the previous owner was selling because of the ULEZ zone as it was. I suspect he would have sold it within a year anyway but with ULEZ incoming he took the opportunity to sell a convertible in spring hoping to get more for it.First.Aspect said:
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?0 -
I must say that as their prices have increased our purchases have dropped. They are certainly making less profit from this household. Now zero on Magnums for example.First.Aspect said:1. Unilever increases prices
2. Sales volumes fall
3. Profits rise.
4. Unilever claim not to have passed on raw materials costs, and thus not to be profiteering.
How can 1-3 be compatible with 4?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
True. Look at the ULEZ whinging from people it doesn't even affectkingstongraham said:
There is no carrot you can offer that will stop opposition to any policy that restricts what car drivers can do.TheBigBean said:
Do I need some carrots at the same time?kingstongraham said:
I'm going to shock you here - but that won't stop there being vocal opposition to it.TheBigBean said:
Fine by me. There's no excuse in London.kingstongraham said:
I think you're very wrong here - the extended congestion charge zone only lasted 3 years due to opposition. Suddenly charging everyone to take their kids to school would not be popular.First.Aspect said:
I'm sort of also generally in favour of fairness and transparency.rick_chasey said:
If it does nothing then surely it's a great money spinner for the local gov't which are usually too cash strapped to do anything around public transport anyway.First.Aspect said:
I have, it's not science.rjsterry said:
You could even read the detailed report I posted. Stevo will be so proud.First.Aspect said:
Yes, that's what I meant.Pross said:
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 said:
So why was it flat throughout the period of the congestion charge in the 2010s?kingstongraham said:
There was an emissions surcharge on the congestion charge introduced in 2017.First.Aspect said:
Er. But you are arguing it is a result of ULEZ.rjsterry said:
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.First.Aspect said:
I was thinking about the start of a generational pandemic at the end of the year, followed by a generational change in working patterns.Pross said:
Is that rhetorical? I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that would significantly have affected pollution levels.First.Aspect said:
Did anything else happen in 2019?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
I suppose that was about 2-3 months into 2020, but if the changes are gradual....
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 isn't causation here other than EuroNcap.
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?
They start with the premise that the ULEZ did have an effect from 2017 (so given that it wasn't in effect until 2019 is curious) and then states that Covid makes data interpretation difficult, before anyway tentatively concluding that the presumption that ULEZ was already having an effect has continued, based on measured ULEZ compliance.
Given the range of error, I'm not sure much can be concluded at all based on data from 2019-2021. There is no effort to comment on changes that would have occurred anyway due to emissions standards changes, and no effort to plot traffic volume changes before 2019.
It is a tour de force of confirmation bias.
I'm happy with ULEZ zones on the whole because I'm a cyclist who likes his lungs. And to my mind ULEZ reduces traffic volume. On which basis I'd be more in favour of a congestion charging model that covered all motor vehicles, even electric frankly, because they still make using a city horrible for pedestrians and cyclists, and worse for anyone who really has to drive there.
However I do like informed debate.
win win.
I suspect if it really was a congestion charge, there'd be less opposition.
It's really difficult to go a long way to a state primary school in London. Secondary school children take themselves.
Therefore, the only kids needing transport to schools are the unbelievably lazy primary school kids and those going to private schools. If I'm a Labour PM do I need to worry about the latter?
I'd also bring in the stick and encourage police to fine parents dropping off where they shouldn't. E.g. a private school near me has nowhere to drop off, so it is just traffic chaos as all the cars stop all over the place.
Perhaps I can generously not add VAT to school fees at the same time.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Wait till yours starts...rick_chasey said:I was reading this, and well, it's pretty impressive, though it runs directly in counter to my renewed interactions with schools, 17 years after I last had any interaction.
https://www.economist.com/britain/2023/07/13/the-strange-success-of-the-tories-schools-policyThere is an exception. Under the Conservatives, England’s schools have improved. England is now the best in the West when it comes to reading at primary-school age, according to one ranking. When it comes to maths, English students of the same age have improved compared with their European peers (even if they lag Asian ones). Scotland, whose progressive education system is loathed by Tories, has dribbled down the table. Historically, England was a laggard; now it is ahead.
Smaller targets have been met, too. More students study sciences and maths, as the Tories wanted. Maths has become the most popular subject at a-level, the exams English students sit at 18. Watered-down gcses, the exams children sit at 16, have been replaced by more rigorous versions. In 2010, 68% of schools were rated good or outstanding by inspectors. Now the figure is 88%. In a stint of government in which achievements are few, schools stand out1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Oh mate, no need, I've already had enough with them just with the bloody introduction sessions ahead of the start in September.
Why oh why did I have to take a cumulative 6hours out of my day to still not know a) who the teacher will be b) what classroom it will be in and c) when pick up time is (it's changing...).
F*ck me. They can't communicate for sh!t, tell me to trust them when they give me all the reasons not to, and yet somehow involve me far more than I want to be involved.
I've already done school, christ alive.0
