The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

Well I'll keep this in mind for your posts in future RJS. I feel almost certain that you'll slip up and say something you know nothing about, or at the very least are unqualified to comment on in my special judgement.

1. Other cities will use ULEZ as a template. I know its a difficult concept for you to grasp, but there are actually other cities.
2. Tailpipe emissions in traffic on the busiest roads do not translate to the population level health benefits that ULEZ is purported to be addressing.
3. When governments say things that aren't true, it bothers me.

2 is obviously nonsense

Why?

Stevo_666

Jezyboy said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

This has turned into the middle class censored thread.

You'll all be saying these people should have studied harder next.

They say you get more right wing as you get older. It appears that rjsterry is ageing quickly

You'll have to explain what is rightwing about what I've written.

More a case of wanting people with no stake in this to keep their noses out of things that don't affect them.

Gosh you are right, even though this new tax not based on public health and will affect everyone eventually.

I'm in good health, so I'm not entitled to comment on the NHS. Nor do I have children, so education is off the table. My office building isn't made of RAAC so I can't comment on that.

I rarely use the trains, so that's not up for discussion.

I'm British, so I have no right to comment on the Trump or Putin threads.

Shall I go on?

What an utterly childish attitude.

And yes, telling poor people to just get a new car, and alleging that people in council houses have lots of money because they have nicer cars than you shows a whole new level of social ignorance. Well done.

Projecting a lot onto what I've written and inventing things that don't exist now. The ULEZ is going to be a universal tax on everyone is it?

What I'm suggesting is that maybe I have a better handle than you on the demographics of the lower income areas affected by the ULEZ expansion as I live there. I also think I have a better idea of the alternative travel options for the 24% of local households who don't have a car because as someone who doesn't drive but needs to travel a lot for work, I use those alternatives myself.

You don't believe removing vehicles with higher NOx and particulates emissions will improve air quality. Beyond dismissing the information that is available on fairly narrow grounds I've not seen much of an argument on why. As the air quality in London directly affects me and my children, I'm sure you can understand why being told what I should think by someone utterly unaffected by either the charge or the air quality is a bit much.

Similarly seeing as you brought it up - I would think lecturing a resident of Mariupol about what they should be doing about the Russian invasion would be a bit presumptuous.

The slight flaw in your logic is that you are assuming ULEZ will make a material difference to air quality - unfortunately there is good evidence that it will make very little difference.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac30c1

As I've said before, if you really want better air quality, escape to the country.

The final sentences of the abstract seem to indicate they have much less confidence than you in the idea that ULEZ makes little difference.

Here's a handy quote from the report for you:
"As other cities consider implementing similar schemes, this study implies that the ULEZ on its own is not an effective strategy in the sense that the marginal causal effects were small."

Your thoughts on that?

rick_chasey

Because of how few particulates there need to be to have an adverse effect on health.

You can’t have 4000 deaths a year attributed to pollution, and specifically two types that are present in high numbers in cars that don’t pass the ulez test, and then declare it makes no difference.

According to the research FA quoted himself it was a few % difference overall, which is what, 120 premature deaths prevented a year?

Seems a pretty good return tbh

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

Well I'll keep this in mind for your posts in future RJS. I feel almost certain that you'll slip up and say something you know nothing about, or at the very least are unqualified to comment on in my special judgement.

1. Other cities will use ULEZ as a template. I know its a difficult concept for you to grasp, but there are actually other cities.
2. Tailpipe emissions in traffic on the busiest roads do not translate to the population level health benefits that ULEZ is purported to be addressing.
3. When governments say things that aren't true, it bothers me.

Oh don't be so precious. Neither of us are air quality experts. For someone so keen on rigorous evidence you've swallowed the 'tax on poor people' line without question.
Yes other cities with well established vehicle pollution problems - Bristol for example - are implementing restrictions on the most polluting vehicles. Don't see a problem with that or any material difference with the restrictions on what fuel you can burn for domestic heating. I'd also encourage the respective mayors to bring in restrictions on wood burners, which currently benefit from a pretty gaping loophole in legislation.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

This has turned into the middle class censored thread.

You'll all be saying these people should have studied harder next.

They say you get more right wing as you get older. It appears that rjsterry is ageing quickly

You'll have to explain what is rightwing about what I've written.

More a case of wanting people with no stake in this to keep their noses out of things that don't affect them.

Gosh you are right, even though this new tax not based on public health and will affect everyone eventually.

I'm in good health, so I'm not entitled to comment on the NHS. Nor do I have children, so education is off the table. My office building isn't made of RAAC so I can't comment on that.

I rarely use the trains, so that's not up for discussion.

I'm British, so I have no right to comment on the Trump or Putin threads.

Shall I go on?

What an utterly childish attitude.

And yes, telling poor people to just get a new car, and alleging that people in council houses have lots of money because they have nicer cars than you shows a whole new level of social ignorance. Well done.

Projecting a lot onto what I've written and inventing things that don't exist now. The ULEZ is going to be a universal tax on everyone is it?

What I'm suggesting is that maybe I have a better handle than you on the demographics of the lower income areas affected by the ULEZ expansion as I live there. I also think I have a better idea of the alternative travel options for the 24% of local households who don't have a car because as someone who doesn't drive but needs to travel a lot for work, I use those alternatives myself.

You don't believe removing vehicles with higher NOx and particulates emissions will improve air quality. Beyond dismissing the information that is available on fairly narrow grounds I've not seen much of an argument on why. As the air quality in London directly affects me and my children, I'm sure you can understand why being told what I should think by someone utterly unaffected by either the charge or the air quality is a bit much.

Similarly seeing as you brought it up - I would think lecturing a resident of Mariupol about what they should be doing about the Russian invasion would be a bit presumptuous.

The slight flaw in your logic is that you are assuming ULEZ will make a material difference to air quality - unfortunately there is good evidence that it will make very little difference.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac30c1

As I've said before, if you really want better air quality, escape to the country.

Not an option for me. I've already moved from Z2 to Z5. It starts getting more expensive again as you move further out.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

Jezyboy said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

This has turned into the middle class censored thread.

You'll all be saying these people should have studied harder next.

They say you get more right wing as you get older. It appears that rjsterry is ageing quickly

You'll have to explain what is rightwing about what I've written.

More a case of wanting people with no stake in this to keep their noses out of things that don't affect them.

Gosh you are right, even though this new tax not based on public health and will affect everyone eventually.

I'm in good health, so I'm not entitled to comment on the NHS. Nor do I have children, so education is off the table. My office building isn't made of RAAC so I can't comment on that.

I rarely use the trains, so that's not up for discussion.

I'm British, so I have no right to comment on the Trump or Putin threads.

Shall I go on?

What an utterly childish attitude.

And yes, telling poor people to just get a new car, and alleging that people in council houses have lots of money because they have nicer cars than you shows a whole new level of social ignorance. Well done.

Projecting a lot onto what I've written and inventing things that don't exist now. The ULEZ is going to be a universal tax on everyone is it?

What I'm suggesting is that maybe I have a better handle than you on the demographics of the lower income areas affected by the ULEZ expansion as I live there. I also think I have a better idea of the alternative travel options for the 24% of local households who don't have a car because as someone who doesn't drive but needs to travel a lot for work, I use those alternatives myself.

You don't believe removing vehicles with higher NOx and particulates emissions will improve air quality. Beyond dismissing the information that is available on fairly narrow grounds I've not seen much of an argument on why. As the air quality in London directly affects me and my children, I'm sure you can understand why being told what I should think by someone utterly unaffected by either the charge or the air quality is a bit much.

Similarly seeing as you brought it up - I would think lecturing a resident of Mariupol about what they should be doing about the Russian invasion would be a bit presumptuous.

The slight flaw in your logic is that you are assuming ULEZ will make a material difference to air quality - unfortunately there is good evidence that it will make very little difference.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac30c1

As I've said before, if you really want better air quality, escape to the country.

The final sentences of the abstract seem to indicate they have much less confidence than you in the idea that ULEZ makes little difference.

Here's a handy quote from the report for you:
"As other cities consider implementing similar schemes, this study implies that the ULEZ on its own is not an effective strategy in the sense that the marginal causal effects were small."

Your thoughts on that?

Agree it's imperfect and only part of an effective air quality strategy, but I think it is heading in the right direction. As noted, wood burners are just nuts in an urban environment, for example.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Well I'll keep this in mind for your posts in future RJS. I feel almost certain that you'll slip up and say something you know nothing about, or at the very least are unqualified to comment on in my special judgement.

1. Other cities will use ULEZ as a template. I know its a difficult concept for you to grasp, but there are actually other cities.
2. Tailpipe emissions in traffic on the busiest roads do not translate to the population level health benefits that ULEZ is purported to be addressing.
3. When governments say things that aren't true, it bothers me.

RJS is talking about tax in the Conservative party thread. According to his logic, I'm the only person who should be allowed to discuss it in Cake Stop

Not quite: interested in all views but I'd certainly give your posts on tax more weight given your professional background. I don't think FA is an expert on air quality or the demographics of outer London. Nor am I, but I do at least have direct experience of both.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

Because of how few particulates there need to be to have an adverse effect on health.

You can’t have 4000 deaths a year attributed to pollution, and specifically two types that are present in high numbers in cars that don’t pass the ulez test, and then declare it makes no difference.

According to the research FA quoted himself it was a few % difference overall, which is what, 120 premature deaths prevented a year?

Seems a pretty good return tbh

This is a really good illustration of why we need to talk to experts about stuff like this.

No, you are wrong on essentially everything here RC. That's not how it works.

There WILL be a non-zero number. Let's call that number N. Let's say it's in the 10s.

Is this a worthwhile public health measure, based on the implementation costs and the hardship it will place on the relatively few people affected by the policy?

Well, you might say, any more than one death is worthwhile. Is it, is that how we measure things? It isn't how NIHCE assess new drugs or clinical treatments. It isn't now we assess whether or not alcohol is legal, or how refined sugars are taxed. Cured meat is still readily available, and yet colon cancer risks from eating it are significant.

Even closer to topic, there are 1700 road deaths a year, and yet cars can still be driven by people who haven't updated their qualifications in half a century. You could make 10-100 times more difference to the UKs death statistics by simply banning cars.

Why don't you think that is proportionate? Is it because **YOU** need one? (And by "you" I refer to anyone who hasn't yet considered the galactic double standards here).

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

Well I'll keep this in mind for your posts in future RJS. I feel almost certain that you'll slip up and say something you know nothing about, or at the very least are unqualified to comment on in my special judgement.

1. Other cities will use ULEZ as a template. I know its a difficult concept for you to grasp, but there are actually other cities.
2. Tailpipe emissions in traffic on the busiest roads do not translate to the population level health benefits that ULEZ is purported to be addressing.
3. When governments say things that aren't true, it bothers me.

2 is obviously nonsense

So as far as I can tell, you *believe* it will make a difference and there is essentially no evidence of a lack of evidence that will persuade you otherwise.

I would have more sympathy with the argument that ULEZ should be tried so that we can see if it makes any difference. But it has, in central London, and the difference is negligible.

From that open access article Stevo posted, "The ULEZ changed the daily average background NO2 concentrations by −7% to 0%"

The definition of "background" is in the article - and corresponds to what "most people" would experience day to day.

The article goes on to say, "Only one background site (BL0) and one roadside site (CT6) showed a significant decrease in NO2 concentrations while the others either showed insignificant or null responses. This implies that the decrease in traffic and the improvement in vehicle compliance rate was not sufficient to change the NO2 concentrations within the ULEZ."

i.e. the data were skewed by one data point (which, in any good analysis you would need to seriously consider eliminating entirely as an outlier), and forces the conclusion that NO2 levels haven't really changed. Notably, the authors also conclude that of the potential effects, the effect on NO2 would be greater than the effect on ozone or PM2.5s.

All of this is for central London, and all analyses I've seen indicate that the effects taper off the further from a city centre you are. Thus, for the outer London ULEZ, you could say the effects will be even smaller, although you can't get lower than not measurable.

On top of all of this, for a given "Euro4/6" cut off, the effects will be expected to be smaller over time anyway, as the vehicle fleet naturally refreshes.

So, "obviously nonsense" PC, or perhaps one of my armchair analyses that are correct by fluke only?

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Well I'll keep this in mind for your posts in future RJS. I feel almost certain that you'll slip up and say something you know nothing about, or at the very least are unqualified to comment on in my special judgement.

1. Other cities will use ULEZ as a template. I know its a difficult concept for you to grasp, but there are actually other cities.
2. Tailpipe emissions in traffic on the busiest roads do not translate to the population level health benefits that ULEZ is purported to be addressing.
3. When governments say things that aren't true, it bothers me.

RJS is talking about tax in the Conservative party thread. According to his logic, I'm the only person who should be allowed to discuss it in Cake Stop

Not quite: interested in all views but I'd certainly give your posts on tax more weight given your professional background. I don't think FA is an expert on air quality or the demographics of outer London. Nor am I, but I do at least have direct experience of both.

Can you tell me why the air quality is fundamentally different in London to anywhere else in the UK? I would really love to know.

Your experience of demographics appears to amount to coveting your neighbour's car.

Pross

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

mully79 said:

Pross said:

mully79 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo’s not a fan of law and order

Oh I dunno. Although I can understand why so many are motivated to get around such an unfair tax on the a section of the motoring public. Especially given the evidence that the claimed benefits are marginal in outer London.

Seems entirely fair that it only affects the people who haven't bothered their arses to upgrade.

More likely to be the case that they can't afford to upgrade, as has been pointed out several times.

Flog their old diesel, take the grant and buy a similar age petrol? That’s what I’d have done with my 10 year old non-compliant high mileage diesel worth around £1500. Pretty sure I could get a similar level of petrol car. Not many will have pre-2009 petrols and £2k would probably allow an upgrade on most that are older.

Sounds like a good idea until you realise you can't get finance on a car older than 10 years and a 2012 VW polo is over £6k.

Nice Ford Fiesta 2010 petrol less than £2k, one of many on Autotrader.

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202308271255924?sort=relevance&advertising-location=at_cars&fuel-type=Diesel&include-delivery-option=on&make=Ford&model=Fiesta&page=1&postcode=SA1 5QF&price-to=2000&year-from=2009&fromsra

That's a diesel, they're all cheap now. + Huge mileage.
I've just sold a newer fiesta for £200 scrap as it fell to bits.

Cheap because its non-compliant. Thanks to Pross for demonstrating my point for me

I didn’t see you make a point that someone with a 2009 petrol banger could upgrade to a 2010 model with public money but if you did I’m more than happy to have helped.

Much easier not to introduce this cluster**** of a system in the first place then none of this public funding would be needed.

Maybe you should lobby the Tory Government to get rid of the legislation that made it necessary then?

If there is a Tory mayor elected next year she has it in her manifesto will scrap the expansion. Probably the most effective route.

Will the Government then strip her of funding?

pangolin

Did you read to the end FA?

On the other hand, the ULEZ is one of many policies implemented to tackle air pollution in London, and in combination these have led to improvements in air quality that are clearly observable. Thus, reducing air pollution requires a multi-faceted set of policies that aim to reduce emissions across sectors with coordination among local, regional and national government.

Your stance is like having no speed limits anywhere and saying that seatbelts on their own aren't making enough difference, so lets scrap them too.

pangolin

If it matters I live in a city with a ULEZ

First.Aspect

pangolin said:

Did you read to the end FA?

On the other hand, the ULEZ is one of many policies implemented to tackle air pollution in London, and in combination these have led to improvements in air quality that are clearly observable. Thus, reducing air pollution requires a multi-faceted set of policies that aim to reduce emissions across sectors with coordination among local, regional and national government.

Your stance is like having no speed limits anywhere and saying that seatbelts on their own aren't making enough difference, so lets scrap them too.

Seatbelts are making a difference. You can measure that.

A better analogy would be mandating that all cars are bright yellow, to be more visible to each other and pedestrians in a wide range of lighting conditions. It is unquestionable that yellow is more visible. You can measure this in the lab on the human eye. It therefore stands to reason that if all cars are yellow, this will improve safety.

Right? If not, why not?

And as for your quote above, let me flip this around for you. Did you read the rest of the article? Can you therefore put that statement into context? I'll do it for you - it says air quality is improving for other reasons.

First.Aspect

Pretty sure you can measure the effects of speed on accident statistics as well.

So you will need to find an analogy for something that people have tried to measure and can't, and that has then been legislated for anyway.

Over to you.

First.Aspect

pangolin said:

If it matters I live in a city with a ULEZ

You would be permitted to comment even if you didn't. I'm not the forum police.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

This has turned into the middle class censored thread.

You'll all be saying these people should have studied harder next.

They say you get more right wing as you get older. It appears that rjsterry is ageing quickly

You'll have to explain what is rightwing about what I've written.

More a case of wanting people with no stake in this to keep their noses out of things that don't affect them.

Gosh you are right, even though this new tax not based on public health and will affect everyone eventually.

I'm in good health, so I'm not entitled to comment on the NHS. Nor do I have children, so education is off the table. My office building isn't made of RAAC so I can't comment on that.

I rarely use the trains, so that's not up for discussion.

I'm British, so I have no right to comment on the Trump or Putin threads.

Shall I go on?

What an utterly childish attitude.

And yes, telling poor people to just get a new car, and alleging that people in council houses have lots of money because they have nicer cars than you shows a whole new level of social ignorance. Well done.

Projecting a lot onto what I've written and inventing things that don't exist now. The ULEZ is going to be a universal tax on everyone is it?

What I'm suggesting is that maybe I have a better handle than you on the demographics of the lower income areas affected by the ULEZ expansion as I live there. I also think I have a better idea of the alternative travel options for the 24% of local households who don't have a car because as someone who doesn't drive but needs to travel a lot for work, I use those alternatives myself.

You don't believe removing vehicles with higher NOx and particulates emissions will improve air quality. Beyond dismissing the information that is available on fairly narrow grounds I've not seen much of an argument on why. As the air quality in London directly affects me and my children, I'm sure you can understand why being told what I should think by someone utterly unaffected by either the charge or the air quality is a bit much.

Similarly seeing as you brought it up - I would think lecturing a resident of Mariupol about what they should be doing about the Russian invasion would be a bit presumptuous.

The slight flaw in your logic is that you are assuming ULEZ will make a material difference to air quality - unfortunately there is good evidence that it will make very little difference.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac30c1

As I've said before, if you really want better air quality, escape to the country.

I read that before, not convinced their results say what you think.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

Well I'll keep this in mind for your posts in future RJS. I feel almost certain that you'll slip up and say something you know nothing about, or at the very least are unqualified to comment on in my special judgement.

1. Other cities will use ULEZ as a template. I know its a difficult concept for you to grasp, but there are actually other cities.
2. Tailpipe emissions in traffic on the busiest roads do not translate to the population level health benefits that ULEZ is purported to be addressing.
3. When governments say things that aren't true, it bothers me.

2 is obviously nonsense

So as far as I can tell, you *believe* it will make a difference and there is essentially no evidence of a lack of evidence that will persuade you otherwise.

I would have more sympathy with the argument that ULEZ should be tried so that we can see if it makes any difference. But it has, in central London, and the difference is negligible.

From that open access article Stevo posted, "The ULEZ changed the daily average background NO2 concentrations by −7% to 0%"

The definition of "background" is in the article - and corresponds to what "most people" would experience day to day.

The article goes on to say, "Only one background site (BL0) and one roadside site (CT6) showed a significant decrease in NO2 concentrations while the others either showed insignificant or null responses. This implies that the decrease in traffic and the improvement in vehicle compliance rate was not sufficient to change the NO2 concentrations within the ULEZ."

i.e. the data were skewed by one data point (which, in any good analysis you would need to seriously consider eliminating entirely as an outlier), and forces the conclusion that NO2 levels haven't really changed. Notably, the authors also conclude that of the potential effects, the effect on NO2 would be greater than the effect on ozone or PM2.5s.

All of this is for central London, and all analyses I've seen indicate that the effects taper off the further from a city centre you are. Thus, for the outer London ULEZ, you could say the effects will be even smaller, although you can't get lower than not measurable.

On top of all of this, for a given "Euro4/6" cut off, the effects will be expected to be smaller over time anyway, as the vehicle fleet naturally refreshes.

So, "obviously nonsense" PC, or perhaps one of my armchair analyses that are correct by fluke only?

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Well I'll keep this in mind for your posts in future RJS. I feel almost certain that you'll slip up and say something you know nothing about, or at the very least are unqualified to comment on in my special judgement.

1. Other cities will use ULEZ as a template. I know its a difficult concept for you to grasp, but there are actually other cities.
2. Tailpipe emissions in traffic on the busiest roads do not translate to the population level health benefits that ULEZ is purported to be addressing.
3. When governments say things that aren't true, it bothers me.

RJS is talking about tax in the Conservative party thread. According to his logic, I'm the only person who should be allowed to discuss it in Cake Stop

Not quite: interested in all views but I'd certainly give your posts on tax more weight given your professional background. I don't think FA is an expert on air quality or the demographics of outer London. Nor am I, but I do at least have direct experience of both.

Can you tell me why the air quality is fundamentally different in London to anywhere else in the UK? I would really love to know.

Your experience of demographics appears to amount to coveting your neighbour's car.

(Sorry the quoting has got mangled) Not sure why you draw that conclusion. I only commented on the number of vehicles. I've not suggested there's anything particularly special about London. Like a lot of cities surrounded by hills the air quality isn't great. It's the one I'm interested in because I live here. I think the impact on the small number of drivers affected by the charge is massively overstated for political reasons.

TheBigBean

Just getting back on topic. I'm currently on a bus.

kingstongraham

That article is the one that is all around the implementation of the central london ulez which ignores the fact the same restrictions were already in place for the congestion charging period. It's no surprise that it didn't massively change pollution levels.

Pross

TheBigBean said:

Just getting back on topic. I'm currently on a bus.

I’ll be on one later to go to the rugby. Ironically this is far easier for me on this occasion as it is an away match, home games would be much more of a pain.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

That article is the one that is all around the implementation of the central london ulez which ignores the fact the same restrictions were already in place for the congestion charging period. It's no surprise that it didn't massively change pollution levels.

But it's reached the conclusion some people want, so is now gospel.

focuszing723

TheBigBean said:

Just getting back on topic. I'm currently on a bus.

Is it hybrid electric. I always use one in Bath park n' ride works well there.

Hmmmm, autonomous electric Taxis.

focuszing723

Nice day today.

focuszing723

Barbaque, wine.

focuszing723

Are UAP's real?

focuszing723

What more do you want from life?

focuszing723

First principles...

Stevo_666

I've must been for a nice little 50k bike rise, the air was lovely and clean as far as I can tell and none of it was in the ULEZ. We don't want these selfish townies pushing their pollution out here....

rjsterry

A bit better than here, but with the high pressure this week it's going to be worse for a few days. (I know you don't live in Sevenoaks but assuming it's fairly near there). We're both forecast to hit 64 on Wednesday.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

That article is the one that is all around the implementation of the central london ulez which ignores the fact the same restrictions were already in place for the congestion charging period. It's no surprise that it didn't massively change pollution levels.

But it's reached the conclusion some people want, so is now gospel.

It isn't the only one that has been posted that says the same thing.

The paper does discuss the T-charge, and they DO say that TFL used their comparison baseline period as being both outer London and pre-2017, which means that any "X% drop" claim coming from them does NOT account for underlying trends between 2017 and 2019, meaning they are exaggerated.

The paper notes that the emissions standards applying to ULEZ and the duration are both greater than for the T-charge. So, they aren't attempting to evaluate the effect of the T-charge, but are saying that their methodology would measure the difference between the two.

Which is still essentially nothing.