ULEZ expansion ruled lawful by High Court

[Earl Aelfheah]

18 hours ago, Rockets said:

I don't want them to fail but I think they will fail because they are ill-thought out, badly planned and, in many cases, nothing about climate change but everything about revenue generation. I don't want the councillors to quit I want them to do their job per the pledge they made when they took office and I want them to be accountable for their actions and to listen to everyone not just the active travel lobby groups and try to properly determine what the problem is before they embark on rushed implementations spending huge amounts of taxpayers money.

Sounds like you're also against ULEZ. Add that to road pricing, controlled parking, cycle lanes and LTNs and it's very hard to take your claims of wanting to see reduced car use and increase active travel, seriously. It seems that there is no real world traffic management scheme that you are in favour of. What would a cynic make of all this?

Edited August 17, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

20 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

What would a cynic make of all this?

I don't know but you're taking a very cynical position and jumping to an assumption from my post that is, clearly, very wrong. 

[Rockets]

We have seen this sort of behaviour from our councillors when organisations try to publish findings that go against the council narrative and really shows the challenges encountered when you pay for and commission research if the findings aren't completely endorsing the outcomes and conclusions you wanted from the research.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/08/19/khan-tried-silence-scientists-questioned-ulez-claims/

 

 

Khan tried to ‘silence’ scientists who questioned Ulez claims, emails show

Correspondence shows deputy ‘really disappointed’ that Imperial College publicised findings questioning effectiveness of scheme

 

By

Sarah Knapton,

 SCIENCE EDITOR

19 August 2023 • 9:00pm

Sadiq Khan is expanding the Ulez scheme to the whole of London

Sadiq Khan’s office tried to discredit and “silence” scientists who found that his ultra-low emissions zone (Ulez) policy had little impact on pollution, The Telegraph can disclose.

 

In private emails seen by The Telegraph, Shirley Rodrigues, the London Mayor’s deputy for environment and energy, told Prof Frank Kelly she was “really disappointed” that Imperial College had publicised findings questioning the effectiveness of Ulez.

 

Prof Kelly, a director of Imperial’s Environmental Research Group, which has been paid more than £800,000 by Mr Khan’s office since 2021, agreed to issue a statement – partly written by Ms Rodrigues – saying Ulez had helped to “dramatically reduce air pollution”.

 

Advertisement

 

London Conservatives said the correspondence revealed an “alarmingly cosy relationship” between the Mayor’s office and the scientists it was funding, as well as a desire to “silence scientists who question the effectiveness of Khan’s policies”.

 

Prof Kelly’s colleagues said they stood by their research “100 per cent”, but The Telegraph understands that the fallout has had a chilling effect, leaving them unwilling to publish further work on the subject.

 

The study from the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in 2021, found that the introduction of Ulez in 2019 cut nitrogen dioxide by less than three per cent and had insignificant effects on ozone and particulate matter.

 

Peter Fortune, the Conservative London Assembly Member for Bexley and Bromley, two of the boroughs challenging the Ulez expansion, said: “It is unacceptable that Sadiq Khan and his deputy conspired to silence legitimate research because it would damage the Mayor’s reputation and credibility.

 

“Sadiq Khan has claimed he is just following the science, yet he has been using scientific advisors to protect his own interests. Science relies on open, transparent debate.”

 

 

Imperial’s Environmental Research Group has been paid at least £802,958 by Mr Khan’s office since 2021, including a payment of £45,958 for a report on the “future health benefits of mayoral air quality policies” which has been widely cited by the Mayor despite not being peer reviewed.

 

Cllr Colin Smith, the leader of Bromley Council said: “When academics are paid for their research, it quite reasonably leads to questions being asked about the outcomes sought by those commissioning the work.

 

“Indeed, as long ago as last autumn we directly challenged Imperial as to their methodology and the conclusions of some of their research ourselves, and the revelation of these emails now serves to seriously heighten those concerns.”

 

Emails released under Freedom of Information requests show that Ms Rodrigues wrote to Prof Kelly on Nov 16 2021, complaining that Sky News, The Times and The Mail were running a “misleading” Ulez study that had been press released by Imperial College.

 

Ms Rodrigues thanked Prof Kelly’s team for trying to stop Imperial’s press office from releasing the research and said that she was “deeply concerned” about the damage the study was doing to credibility of the Mayor’s office and Ulez.

 

She added: “Is there anything you can do or advise to help us set the record straight? I would really appreciate any support.”

 

Prof Kelly replied, saying he was “totally dismayed” and was “pursuing options internally to offset this”. He said he would be “very happy to provide the Greater London Authority with support required as you move to mitigate the damage”.

 

Prof Kelly sent a statement to Ms Rodrigues to check, which initially said actions by the Mayor were “collectively providing a major benefit to the city”. She replied, crossing out the word “collectively” and adding that the Mayor’s schemes “have dramatically reduced air pollution in London”.

 

 

Cllr Paul Osborn, the leader of Harrow Council, which is resisting the Ulez expansion, said: “These dodgy emails raise important questions about the scientific basis for extending the Ulez. I have long believed that this expansion will have a very limited impact on air pollution but comes at a massive cost to the poorest and most vulnerable motorists.”

 

The emails also show that, on Feb 14 this year, the Greater London Authority (GLA) asked Prof Kelly to complain about a Telegraph article reporting on the uncertainty of air pollution death figures widely cited by Mr Khan, based on Prof Kelly’s research.

 

The GLA offered to set up a “friendly interview” for him with “very supportive” David Lammy, the Labour MP for Tottenham. 

 

At the time, Prof Kelly warned that “Imperial’s press office is not keen for us to put a direct contradiction to the Telegraph article”, but said that “as always, I’m happy to fight back”. He also asked the Mayor’s office to provide him with “a form of words” with which he could challenge the article.

 

 

Cllr Baroness O’Neill of Bexley added: “These findings confirm everything we knew, in that the data used to build the case for extending Ulez was flawed. Extending Ulez has always been more about the Mayor of London’s drive for income generation than improving air quality for Bexley residents.”

 

On April 17 , Prof Kelly admitted on the Evening Standard’s The Leader podcast that his research, paid for by the Mayor, would give Mr Khan “useful ammunition” to promote his Ulez expansion.

 

On June 6 , Prof Kelly wrote to Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, alleging that politicians were “not believing the science” on air pollution. Six of the signatories were part of the Imperial team, but they did not disclose that they were being funded by the Mayor’s office.

 

A spokesman for Mr Khan said: “It is right – and standard practice across government – that we commission experts to carry out research to inform the work we do.

 

“Frank Kelly and the Environmental Research Group at Imperial are some of the world-leading academic institutions looking at air quality. It is normal and proper to work with these experts to ensure our policies are as effective as possible at dealing with issues such as the high number of deaths – up to 4,000 a year – linked to toxic air in London every year.

 

“The Ulez analysis from the engineering department at Imperial only paints a partial picture, not accounting for the full lifetime impact of the scheme and only focusing on its immediate impact around its launch. It is commonplace for academic experts to disagree with how other academic studies are interpreted, as was the case here.”

 

The Telegraph has approached Imperial College for comment. 

 

© Telegraph Media Group Limited 2023

 

Edited August 20, 2023 by Rockets

[Rockets]

Interesting article: BBC News - Ulez: The politics of pollution & the mayoralty
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66583068

[CPR Dave]

That article reflects very badly on both Coty Hall and the scientists, from my perspective of it.

The only saving grace for the academic institution is that it seems some scientists there are not prepared to be cowed by the Mayor's PR team. Good for them.

I was also pretty shocked that the Mayor is prepared to rely on pad for research that is not peer reviewed. That isn't science in my book at least.

[heartblock]

Even peer review, does not guarantee the quality of research. There are some 'studies' (peer reviewed? ) that show that submitted papers with error built in to 'test' review have been 'passed' as accurate.

The best advice to anyone reading published research is to "critically appraise articles .... to maximise the chance of catching mistakes that have been missed during the peer-review process". There is some excellent training on Critical Appraisal Skills, to enable interested parties to use checklists designed for use with Systematic Reviews, Randomised Controlled Trials, Cohort Studies, Case Control Studies, Economic Evaluations, Diagnostic Studies, and Qualitative studies.

I haven't read  that particular Prof. Kelly's report or study - is there a link? He has contributed to the understanding of toxic effects of particulate pollution on the respiratory and cardiovascular systems and published key papers on the toxicological mechanisms of ozone, nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter pollution, but I'm not sure which report you are all discussing here?

Edited August 24, 2023 by heartblock

[Rockets]

Heartblock - the discussion is in relation to the Imperial College research that Sadiq's office weren't happy with the conclusions of, key para pasted from the article below.

On 20/08/2023 at 10:55, Rockets said:

Sadiq Khan’s office tried to discredit and “silence” scientists who found that his ultra-low emissions zone (Ulez) policy had little impact on pollution, The Telegraph can disclose.

 

The link is below but the full article is pasted a few posts above.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/08/19/khan-tried-silence-scientists-questioned-ulez-claims/

[heartblock]

Right a bit of searching has found the article (open access) https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac30c1

The paper is quite nice as actually does look at pollution - so an empirical measure rather than using a tenuous measure of actual pollution. Prof Graham is also an excellent statistician. 

 excerpts 

Additionally, comparing the trend in different years, the most rapid pollution reductions generally occurred before the launch of the ULEZ.

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. 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.

[malumbu]

Nice one, hit the nail on the head, "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."

It will reduce the number of polluting vehicles on London roads, improving health, which is important to the outer boroughs as the population is older and therefore more vulnerable to the effects of poor air quality.

It's desperate to use an e-mail chain to try to discredit the scheme.  If you could be bothered to look at Prof Kelly's background you will see that he chaired the government's Committee on the medical effects of air pollution where he would have to balance the views of the hawks and the doves (epidemiological studies can be interpreted in a number of ways, as well as getting government on board  https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/committee-on-the-medical-effects-of-air-pollutants-comeap  Governments of all colours and sizes will have conversations with bodies they fund about exact wording during the publication of reports they fund.  No doubt Prof Kelly would have experienced that when he chaired the committee for example in advice about the impact of NO2 - does this interact with particulate matter or are the effects separate?  Is there the potential for double counting??  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/734799/COMEAP_NO2_Report.pdf

There is no smoking gun out there.

Here's some more views from the specialist publication Air Quality News, which does what it says on the tin, ie provides news on air quality 

https://airqualitynews.com/health/what-a-waste-of-time-and-money-reactions-to-ulez-decision-pour-in/

Extracting from this:

Dr Anna Moore, a respiratory doctor based in London: ‘Today’s verdict will help to deliver cleaner air for 5 million more Londoners. As a doctor, I see patients suffer from the effects of toxic air week in and week out. There is no organ in the body which is not harmed by air pollution. Our health service is under extraordinary pressure; waiting lists are too long, emergency services are overwhelmed. Cleaning up the air we all breathe would prevent or reduce so much illness – from diabetes to cardiovascular disease, strokes to dementia, asthma to COPD. Today’s decision will help lessen the terrible burden air pollution puts on our city’s health and healthcare system.’Dr Mark Hayden, a consultant paediatrician from London, said: ‘What a waste of time and money that could have been better spent on improving cycling and walking infrastructure and new bus routes. We need more YIMBYs and less NIMBYs if we want clean air and a liveable planet.’

Sarah Woolnough, chief executive at Asthma + Lung UK: ‘We’re pleased that the ULEZ expansion will go ahead as planned. The ULEZ scheme has successfully lowered levels of nitrogen dioxide in the air and expanding it to greater London will mean more Londoners will experience the health benefits of reduced pollution. Road transport is the leading cause of air pollution in our towns and cities. For people living with lung conditions, such as COPD and asthma, harmful pollutants trigger symptoms including breathlessness, coughing and wheezing, and in more severe cases these flare-ups can result in hospitalisation. The ULEZ expansion is a positive step towards cleaner air across the city, allowing Londoners to breathe more easily.’

Andrew Pendleton, Deputy CEO and Director of Strategy and Advocacy, said: I am delighted to hear of today’s verdict, which is a win for common sense and a fantastic step in the right direction towards the kind of London we all want to see: one which is fairer, more thriving and more sustainable for generations to come. The expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone to outer London will protect millions more people from the devastating health impacts of toxic air, which include heart disease, strokes, asthma and dementia. All Londoners deserve clean air, and today’s decision is a promise of a better, healthier future for London.”

Larissa Lockwood, Director of Clean Air, said: ‘All Londoners deserve clean air. Today’s verdict is fantastic news for our health, our city

Toxic air affects every organ in the human body, harming our physical and mental health from the first breath we take to the last. Levels of air pollution in our capital are still too high, and London will continue to be a global leader on tackling this problem with the expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone. This is a vital next step to ensuring we live in the type of city we all want to share: one which is healthy, thriving and sustainable.’

UK Health Alliance on Climate Change: ‘The ULEZ expansion decision is a win for health, all our health. Today we’ve taken a step further towards a cleaner, greener & healthier London. We now call on councils to come together to make London a better place to live… by supporting active travel wherever possible. Further, we call on the national government to provide further support for TfL and the scrappage scheme etc.’

 

Are you going to find dirt on all these people or organisations? 

 

6 days to go.

Edited August 26, 2023 by malumbu

[heartblock]

33 minutes ago, malumbu said:

 

It's desperate to use an e-mail chain to try to discredit the scheme

? Didn't know I was trying to discredit - as I have said I'm very much in favour of ULEZ expansion myself, although I believe the scrappage scheme is inadequate for poorer families and individuals who live in low PTAL areas and depend on their car for work/school run and as carers.

I do wish this personal stuff would stop. I have just gone to the bother to find the paper (excellent authors - I think I have come across Marc's work on OSA and COPD) and it's just another personal attack. How about posting with respect towards other posters at all times?

Also from my point of view research is research, opinion is opinion. I personally wouldn't have a vaccination based on opinion, but I would based on research. So I'm not sure long posts regurgitating opinion furthers a cause, even one I agree with, others may think differently?

[Rockets]

Heartblock, completely agree. Some on here only want to attack and deposition (probably because they have no rational argument to oppose your rational argument and analysis).

Thank you for digging that out.

Edited August 26, 2023 by Rockets

[heartblock]

I would also add -  pretending to be angry to try and coerce is used by some very suspect political actors. There is a bit too much of this 'I'm angry'  'I'm insulted' I'm upset' - again if you feel that posters are not abiding by the guidelines of posting with respect towards other posters at all times - then report the post. 

Critiquing research or opinion isn't cynical or discrediting someone - every researcher publishes in the knowledge that another colleague or expert, or even a student will be expected to critically analyse the research - we actively teach our students to do this! It's part of every rubric marking scheme.

They are taught critical analysis in research methods modules in every HEI in the UK.

 

[malumbu]

Heartbeat, I was agreeing with the line of yours I quoted.  But you have to admit that some on this thread have seized on the Telegraph article to oppose the ULEZ extension and/or attack the authorities and/or academics.  Have a look at the COMEAP link I posted Rocks - I welcome your opinion on Prof Kelly.  My apologies it is only 3 days to go. 

[Rockets]

It seems some are not keen on critical analysis......

[heartblock]

I may agree with ULEZ, but critiquing research and reports is extremely important.

Critiquing research, reports or opinion isn't cynical or discrediting someone - every researcher publishes in the knowledge that another colleague or expert, or even a student will be expected to critically analyse the research - we actively teach our students to do this! It's part of every rubric marking scheme.

Students are taught critical analysis in research methods modules in every HEI in the UK.

In fact the two health statisticians on the - Associations of long-term average concentrations of nitrogen dioxide with mortality (Chair Prof Kelly),  are my colleagues and teach critical analysis on a research methods module. 

All this 'attack' and 'anger' business is the same rhetoric from some very dodgy political actors, it doesn't add to the discussion, it doesn't coerce anyone to a POV.

Rocket's isn't attacking - they are giving a POV with their evidence, the academics understand and encourage critique. So maybe that line of discourse can stop now?

and what do I think? I haven't read the Torygraph article as in a paywall - but I believe that it's about actions and e-mails rather than any research or reports.

The report: Associations of long-term average concentrations of nitrogen dioxide with mortality,  he chaired (Prof Kelly) - from the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants is very good on the whole.

Excellent statistical analysis and has some interesting text - showing that 'experts' also disagree fundamenatlly - which is normal in the fields of science.

'While not a unanimous decision (some Members disagreed fundamentally), we recommend quantification of the health benefits of interventions that primarily target emissions of oxides of nitrogen'

and

'In the course of our work a number of points of disagreement arose between Members of the Committee. These points were discussed at length but some proved to be impossible to resolve.'

 

 

Edited August 26, 2023 by heartblock

[Rockets]

44 minutes ago, heartblock said:

and what do I think? I haven't read the Torygraph article as in a paywall - but I believe that it's about actions and e-mails rather than any research or reports

Absolutely.. its about the researchers at Imperial, who were being paid by Sadiq's office, coming to a conclusion that Sadiq and his team were "really disappointed" over and then Imperial having to agree a statement with them aimed to redress it.

 

A classic case of when those you paid to do research for you don't reach the conclusion you were hoping your money would pay for......it all gets a bit complicated...;-)

[Nigello]

How much pollution etc. blows in from outside any given area, in this case, ULEZ? How correct is it to say that X numbers of deaths or cases of illness could be avoided by expanding ULEZ? I think headlines are there to grab attention but not necessarily to inform fully (in general, not for anything specific). 

[mr.chicken]

On 26/08/2023 at 20:14, heartblock said:

Rocket's isn't attacking - they are giving a POV with their evidence, the academics understand and encourage critique. So maybe that line of discourse can stop now?

Really because Rockets is saying things like:

On 26/08/2023 at 21:06, Rockets said:

A classic case of when those you paid to do research for you don't reach the conclusion you were hoping your money would pay for......it all gets a bit complicated...;-)

That's not evidence or critique. This is all about casting shade on the researchers by questioning motivations etc.

 

 

 

[Penguin68]

The Mayor's claim about annual deaths (4000) flows from an applied statistical analysis based on fairly big picture figures. Last year I believe that only one death (or was it even that?) was actually attributed to air pollution. It is an algorythmic application to a London population figure which suggests that poor air quality reduces people's natural lives by a very small amount, and then multiplies that by the millions living in London, on the assumption that all Londoners live in London for all their lives. This is nothing like the real death toll of those dying in the great smogs of the early 20th Century. When pollution very clearly did kill. 

[jazzer]

How about all the pollution comes from the 100o's of planes in the sky. It doesn't stay in the atmosphere, it comes down to earth, so why not charge airlines and plane manufacturers for all the pollution they cause???????????? 

[malumbu]

Coz government is too scared.  It's the CO2 that is the issue.  Nitrogen Oxides are similar in density to air and mix/dilute.  Air traffic has to be addressed 

[Rockets]

And seemingly some think domestic heating as well needs to have some sort of ULEZ as it is the largest NO2 source in London......(apologies in advance to Mr Chicken if he thinks the publication I link to has some right-wing/Tory agenda but the Mr Chicken approved media outlet The Guardian hasn't written about this subject....;-))

https://www.homebuilding.co.uk/news/ULEZ-charge-on-homes

[CPR Dave]

It's the CO2 that is the issue. Nitrogen Oxides are similar in density to air and mix/dilute

 

If this were actually the case then ULEZ, which discriminates against cars with lower CO2 emissions and higher NOx emissions, would be a total waste of time. 

 

Oh.

[mr.chicken]

CO2 is what causes global warming, which will be bad but it's otherwise pretty harmless to humans in these concentrations.

NOx and particulates aren't globally important in the same way but are very harmful to humans at the concentrations found in London.

I don't understand what point you are trying to make @CPR Dave, NO is a similar density to air, NO2 is a similar density to CO2. Particulates are denser still.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 31, 2023 by mr.chicken

[malumbu]

A basic lesson Rocks.  There are total emissions that are dealt with at source.  UK is doing fairly well here apart from agriculture and ignoring aviation.  Much of this is diluted in the atmosphere so contributes to background pollution, and transboundary ie other countries.  Then there is ambient air quality limits,  this is the stuff we breathe in, so for NO2 is dominated by traffic sources as exhausts pipes are close to the ground as opposed to 70 metre high stacks from a power station.  A cold still day will lead to higher concentrations of vehicle emissions at street level as there is less turbulence ie mixing with the air and less upwards mixing due to the lower inversion/boundary height.  Happy to give you a dispersion for dummies workshop if this helps.