Pollution levels are much more widesprerad than on busy roads or near industrial sources. My current, plus two former addresses (all three in residential areas of small to medium sized towns) come up with figures in the '60s and even farms on the other side of St Albans have figures in the high '50s and '60s, despite being as far away as possible from the M1, M25 and A1(M). So mapping on a fairly wide scale can give representative figures.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
ULEZ - Plans (and would you have to pay?)
- Thread starter The Ham
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
PM 2.5 mcg/m3, PM 10 mcg/m3 and NO2 mcg/m3
Trainbike46
Established Member
The website states:
"Where is the data from?
Imperial College London’s Environmental Research Group (ERG), who are the UK’s leading authority on air pollution. With their sophisticated modelling techniques and network of state of the art air pollution sensors, combined with the monitor data sourced and mapped by COPI from every UK council, ICL have provided us with a national air pollution model accurate to 20m sq.
addresspollution.org is using the latest available annualised data from 2019. When newer data becomes available, the site will be updated."
Generally air quality maps are based on a combination of fixed monitoring stations, as linked earlier in this thread, satellite data for NO2, and mobile monitoring stations including citizen science projects, an example of which is: https://www.theguardian.com/environ...nwatch-citizen-science-alarm-uk-air-pollution
Why's that, do you think that they are wrong, or do they not produce results that you want to hear?
Dai Corner
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 6,998
Remember the predictions given to the Government in early 2020?
No, but I'm sure you will present them here if you think they validate your argument.
Dai Corner
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 6,998
That has nothing to do with ULEZ plans, - there's nothing in @Trainbike46 's post #214 that discredits Imperial College's methods or reporting, so effectively off topic as this thread is not debating the merits of various research bodies.
Arguably the assessment of recorded air quality and making predictions (which are likely to have been a number of predictions rather than just one) are two different things.
That's before you consider that they will be from different specialties (even if they are within the same department - assuming that is medical being heart and lungs, of course it could even be a different department altogether).
It would be like saying "I don't trust the DfT to get rail usage right as there's some cars which don't have the right VED applied to them"
Dai Corner
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 6,998
@davews didn't mention a particular model, that was your suggestion in post #219. @Trainbike referred to Imperial College's work on precisely the topic of this thread.
Dai Corner
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 6,998
There are some extraordinarily knowledgeable people on this forum ....when it comes down to the subject of trains. However, once the discussion branches out into other areas, that in this case I happen to know a lot more about, the ignorance and ill-informed opinions come pouring out.
Speaking as an ex-director of transport in a London local authority, I think I can do so with some background knowledge at my fingertips......
The simple fact driving all this is that pollution from motor vehicles represents about half of our harmful emissions in urban areas and is killing people prematurely in large numbers. Around 200 a year in my former borough, so extrapolated across 33 London boroughs, your are all free to do the arithmetic. Forget your political dogma and your poorly justified views on loony left councils or mayors.....the is about human lives. And haven't you ever wondered why this isn't a discussion in Germany or the Netherlands......it's simple.....all the politicians of whatever colour agree it's a no brainer, and unlike the UK, no political party is sufficiently shameless or desperately clawing for votes to try to appeal to the same knuckle-dragging F wits who were similarly convinced by Brexit. Perhaps there will be a snappy three word phrase generated by Tory central office to rouse up some more idiots again this time around, fuelled by the Uxbridge result. Notably, no-one appears to have picked up on the 83% pass rate in the survey.....the truth is it affects a small minority of the oldest most polluting vehicles, exactly as it should, and is really aimed at HGVs and private coach operators. I have a diesel 2017 Mercedes estate that weighs 2 tonnes, but it passed ULEZ no bother.
There's a similar thread on here about LTNs, which I have delivered very successfully by any measure anyone will care to challenge me on, but to be frank I'm a member on here to get away from all that sh!te I have to listen to from people who are a waste of our valuable clean air However, what I will say is that Rishi "BP contract" Sunak can review whatever the F he likes, it will make no difference to the Councils who have introduced LTNs under their own governance processes. Bluntly he has no power to do anything about them other than prevent DfT money being spent on them......and most of them are funded differently anyway. So it's just more populist crap from a loathsome bunch of scumbags who care only about feathering their own nests and appealing to the lowest common denominator, which I'm sad to see has some traction around here (pun intended)
Rant over, and I'm going back to look at historic bashing moves in the back in the day thread.
Speaking as an ex-director of transport in a London local authority, I think I can do so with some background knowledge at my fingertips......
The simple fact driving all this is that pollution from motor vehicles represents about half of our harmful emissions in urban areas and is killing people prematurely in large numbers. Around 200 a year in my former borough, so extrapolated across 33 London boroughs, your are all free to do the arithmetic. Forget your political dogma and your poorly justified views on loony left councils or mayors.....the is about human lives. And haven't you ever wondered why this isn't a discussion in Germany or the Netherlands......it's simple.....all the politicians of whatever colour agree it's a no brainer, and unlike the UK, no political party is sufficiently shameless or desperately clawing for votes to try to appeal to the same knuckle-dragging F wits who were similarly convinced by Brexit. Perhaps there will be a snappy three word phrase generated by Tory central office to rouse up some more idiots again this time around, fuelled by the Uxbridge result. Notably, no-one appears to have picked up on the 83% pass rate in the survey.....the truth is it affects a small minority of the oldest most polluting vehicles, exactly as it should, and is really aimed at HGVs and private coach operators. I have a diesel 2017 Mercedes estate that weighs 2 tonnes, but it passed ULEZ no bother.
There's a similar thread on here about LTNs, which I have delivered very successfully by any measure anyone will care to challenge me on, but to be frank I'm a member on here to get away from all that sh!te I have to listen to from people who are a waste of our valuable clean air However, what I will say is that Rishi "BP contract" Sunak can review whatever the F he likes, it will make no difference to the Councils who have introduced LTNs under their own governance processes. Bluntly he has no power to do anything about them other than prevent DfT money being spent on them......and most of them are funded differently anyway. So it's just more populist crap from a loathsome bunch of scumbags who care only about feathering their own nests and appealing to the lowest common denominator, which I'm sad to see has some traction around here (pun intended)
Rant over, and I'm going back to look at historic bashing moves in the back in the day thread.
DustyBin
Established Member
It's always refreshing to read a well-reasoned post free from pejoratives, emotive language and political bias!
Dai Corner
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 6,998
How prematurely do they die?
Without that figure it's hard to decide whether avoiding driving a non ULEZ compliant car in the zone is worth the inconvenience.
Apologies if my actual empirical knowledge doesn't fit with your ill-informed views.
And if I had used the exact terms I'd have liked to, I'd get banned, so I thought I showed remarkable constraint under the circumstances.
I can just imagine the response if I'd posted "Deltics are crap" so I think my response was pretty fair.
And if I had used the exact terms I'd have liked to, I'd get banned, so I thought I showed remarkable constraint under the circumstances.
I can just imagine the response if I'd posted "Deltics are crap" so I think my response was pretty fair.
We democratically voted for Brexit. Get over it and move on.
Dai Corner
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 6,998
It matters a lot to me. If I knew avoiding flying, driving, heating my house with gas, buying things which caused pollution in their manufacture etc etc might extend my life by ten years I'd be more inclined to do so than if it would only be six months or a year.
What's the actual figure?
I think some of you understand what I was saying. OK the Covid models were done by different people at Imperial College so a direct relationship is not possible. But I remain sceptical that from a presumably limited number of sensors from which they modelled the pollution they can predict the pollution levels to every part of the UK to two decimal places at 20m resolution. If the levels are indeed correct at my house (and I do not believe they are) then it may reduce my life expectancy. But at 74, and having lived here for over 40 years, I am going to die anyway in the next 10-20 years so a possible 1%-2% change in that is not something I am going to worry about.
For acute respiratory conditions like emphysema you may get your 10 year wish, but I suppose it depends on how much you value debilitation, prior to death.
Does the general future of the planet or the life expectancy of anyone else not also feature in these deliberations of yours, or is it just about your own personal circumstances? (And there, ladies and gentlemen, lies the inherent problem ....)
Dai Corner
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 6,998
Of course it does. That's why I'd like to know how average life expectancy is affected by driving non-compliant vehicles in a ULEZ.
I wonder if chasing 1960s diesels or even older steam locos will catch up with the bashers and their lungs?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Quite.
Spurious precision like that is always a red flag to me.
I couldn't find any details of the methodology used on the website either.
Last edited:
But it's not the question you asked though, is it?
Dai Corner
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 6,998
I thought the implication was "I, as a typical person"
Would you care to give the answer used in deciding to created ULEZ's?
Quite a few my's and I's in there, so nice try but I'm not sure I'm buying that.
Can you rephrase your other question into something more intelligible please?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I presume you had a bunch of similar questions about the effects of cigarette smoking when that was banned in public places and cigarette taxation increased massively? Or perhaps that wasn't politicised for your consumption in the same way by the papers you read......
Dai Corner
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 6,998
You seem to be avoiding answering the question "what is the average life expectancy in the ULEZ and how is it expected to change"
I don't think I can put it more simply than that. would you agree with this Guardian article which says six months.
London's ultra-low emission zone: good or bad idea?
Campaigners say it will cut pollution, but opponents claim it will hit poor people hardest
www.theguardian.com
Last edited:
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
To save you ploughing through it and having to endure a lot of survey data that doesn't support your narrative, life expectancy varies by 25 years across London due to socio-economic and other factors, but in my borough it was 62 and 4 years respectively.
So more than enough, in other words.
Dai Corner
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 6,998
So ULEZ will make only a very minor difference compared with other factors?
- Status