The London ULEZ in action

Transport for London have published their first set of what must loosely be described as "numbers" since the ULEZ was extended, from their ANPR cameras and payment / fines records.  It's fair to say that little can be taken by way of meaningful conclusions from this effort, although it is conceivable they'll be in a position to do better between now and the Mayoral election next year.  Whether "better" will include anything genuinely meaningful and useful is open to question.  Don't bother looking at what has appeared in the meejah on this: the TfL numbers provided are so ropey that pressmen and politicians alike have been resorting to guesswork in an attempt to make a commentary-narrative from it.

Under the weighty heading "Compliance Data" we have been given numbers for the first month, plus historical figures, supposedly for the purpose of demonstrating "improvements".  Can they properly be compared?  No, because the number of cameras deployed has been changing p- increasing - throughout, AND coverage by cameras in the extended zone was very patchy indeed in that first month.  (Some boroughs have not been cooperating, which means TfL has been largely confined to installing cameras on "its" roads - the Red Routes - although these do, or ultimately will, provide quite a mesh for capturing vehicle movements of any distance within the full zone.)  Maybe, perhaps some time in 2024, they'll have a fairly full network of functioning cameras.  Even then, there are helpful online resources enabling the crafty driver to (attempt to) plot a route that avoids them.

Then there's the obvious issue that drivers' behaviours in the early weeks of a scheme aren't necessarily indicative of how things will be when it settles down.  

TfL's own commentary cheerfully mashes up DVLA data relating to vehicles known to exist and be registered to a London address, with vehicles actually logged by the cameras.

Finally, there are as yet no data whatever on air quality which in principle is the purpose of the exercise.

Granted that much of this data shortfall will "improve" over time (in the statistical sense of more cameras in action, data collated from a longer period of the scheme's operation, and air quality data actually being provided), it still isn't clear we'll get solid conclusions on what ought to be the political issues arising.  Partly that's because all the politicos involved are quite capable of cherry-picking data, not to mention abusing statistics and of course lying outright.  But even if the data were turned over to the most objective statistical analysis, there are several fundamental problems, including:

1.  It is really obvious that the number of dirty old bangers on the road has anyway been decreasing steadily, for the simple treason that they fall off the perch eventually and are replaced, if at all, by inevitably newer, cleaner models.  This has been going on inexorably for decades.  Khan won't be able to prove what part, if any, of the "increase in compliant vehicles" is down to his ULEZ extension, as opposed to the steady march of technology, or indeed to people no longer being able to afford to drive - including firms going out of business.  He may not even find a handy inflexion-point on the graphs to call in aid.
2. Still less will he be able to conclude definitively on any changes in air quality that might be registered in due course.  (a) Road vehicles are only one contributor to air pollution.  Another very large contributor is the vast fleet of diesel engines associated with building sites: diggers, cranes, gennies, etc etc.  According to Private Eye, Khan has resolutely refused to implement the latest European standards on building-site emissions, on the grounds that to do so might impact on London's economy (and he's probably right, at least at the margin).  Plus, (b) the road network is constantly changing - indeed, Khan himself is having a new cross-Thames tunnel constructed, which is bound to result in increased traffic.  Stick all that up yer exhaust pipe, Sadiq, and smoke it.

None of these objective difficulties will prevent the politicos from bandying their chosen "analysis" next year - and of course Khan from brandishing his cute little book "Breathe" on the subject of air quality.  (Nicely reminiscent of Gordon Brown who laughably wrote a tome on "Courage" ...) 

There are several possible desiderata in play**, that in an ideal world we might seek to audit.  The easiest will be "number of compliant vehicles on the road".  But that is at best a proxy for "air quality", and if the latter doesn't show a material improvement that can somehow legitimately be claimed by Khan's scheme, the former will be irrelevant.  Which leads us to "value for money".  Ah yes, VFM.  Well, let me simply say that last month I scrapped a car, for which Khan kindly paid me £2,000.  Which was around double its market value (or three times what Webuyanycar offered me).  Me and tens of thousands of others.  Thanks, Sadiq.

ND 

____________

** Some will suspect that another desideratum is - more cameras surveying our streets ...

COP26 Finance mandate - another free cop out for Finance titans

 If you work in any large organisation in the UK or the West over the last few years, you will be well aware of the cultural capture by left-leaning values that has engulfed CEO's and Human Resources teams. 

Aware that trying to engineer upwards growth for their business all the time is hard work, Chief Exec's have rushed to discover the need to promote diversity and inclusivity and set these cultural targets that are rather easier to achieve - but achieving them allows the same bonus to be earned. 

The new wave of course is climate change and the impact on companies of this. In some ways a big positive, flying junior staff around the world for various not so important meetings has been ended by the pandemic - at no loss the the staff or companies really in the Zoom enabled ear. Lower carbon miles must be a good thing in the round, but this has been a side benefit of the pandemic, not the result of firm action by companies. 

Reducing investments in oil and gas, like tobacco and arms before, has proved easier and also allows for some wiggle room when finding somewhere to blame for poor investor returns. As does overly investing in green energy and infrastructure projects where lower returns can be promised in return for some feelings of moral superiority. 

In fact, many centuries ago the protestant reformation was started by Martin Luther, angry at indulgences sold by the Pope's to absolve people of their misdeeds. The new found obsession with Sustainability seems to have many similarities - look at the rich and famous flying into Glasgow to espouse their morality and direct everyone else's behaviours, much like the Papacy of the Middle Ages. Pontificating in Glasgow has a nice ring to it, eh?

Returning to avarice driven CEO's, the new Net Zero mandate is manana from heaven for them. They will be able to run their large companies with a view to reducing emissions, lets not worry about profits and market share, all very difficult in a competitive market. Instead we can have lots of internal meetings about vision and strategy, employ consultants and come to some obvious conclusions, like abandoning offices and commuting in due course. All the while getting paid the full whack of pay and with ready made excuses for any economic downside "its for the good of the planet."

Their personal jets, houses, jacuzzi's and mistresses jewellery will I predict remain untouched - as much as those of Prince Charles.  Whether the world gets any benefits; maybe, maybe not.