MD3047 Proposed Mayor’s Transport Strategy Revision

The Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS)

1.1.    The Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS) is the principal policy tool through which the Mayor exercises their responsibilities for the planning, development, provision, and management of transport in London. The Mayor is required to prepare and publish a transport strategy and to keep it under review.  

1.2.    The MTS must contain the Mayor’s policies for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services to, from and within Greater London, his proposals for discharging his duty of exercising his powers for the purpose of securing the provision of those transport facilities and services, his proposals for providing accessible transport as well as a timetable for the implementation of such proposals and any other appropriate proposals. The current MTS was published in March 2018 (the 2018 MTS).  

1.3.    In revising any of his statutory strategies, the Mayor must, amongst other factors, have regard to the effect the revised strategy would have on the health of persons in Greater London and the achievement of sustainable development in the UK and include those policies and proposals which are best calculated to achieve those ends. 
1.4.    The MTS is key to defining the parameters of a road user charging (RUC) scheme. A scheme may only be made if it appears desirable or expedient for the purpose of directly or indirectly facilitating the achievement of any policy or proposal set out in the MTS. A scheme must also be in conformity with the MTS, with schemes usually referred to and described in the MTS given their significance to the Mayor’s discharge of his transport duty. Revenue raised from RUC schemes must be used to facilitate the implementation of the MTS’ policies and proposals. 

1.5.    In May 2022, the Mayor directed Transport for London (TfL) to prepare a draft revision to the 2018 MTS (the Proposed MTS Revision) that would provide for RUC’s role in addressing the triple challenges of toxic air pollution, the climate emergency and traffic congestion, including as a next step, the potential expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) London-wide. This was necessary because the 2018 MTS does not, in its current form, provide for the ULEZ to be expanded London-wide, which is being proposed as the next step in tackling the triple challenges, particularly air pollution. The draft revision would update the existing RUC proposals in the MTS with a new proposal to provide for an expanded ULEZ and also update and consolidate the policy foundation for any future RUC schemes.

1.6.    Alongside preparing the draft revision, the Mayor also asked TfL to arrange for an integrated impact assessment to be undertaken and to consult the public and stakeholders on his behalf. The Mayor’s direction and the delegation of his relevant powers to TfL are set out in Mayoral Decision 2987.  This consultation has now taken place and a decision is needed on whether to publish the Proposed MTS Revision, which is necessary before the Mayor can make any susbsequent decision on the ULEZ expansion scheme proposal. The Proposed MTS Revision is relatively limited in scope and would be in the form of a supplement to the 2018 MTS. 

Option development and assessment 

1.7.    On 18 January 2022, the Mayor announced four potential approaches to address toxic air pollution, the climate emergency and traffic congestion in London.  The approaches, which are all RUC schemes, that were under consideration by the Mayor were:

• extending the ULEZ London-wide with the current vehicle charge levels and emissions standards
• extending the ULEZ London-wide and adding a small clean air charge for all but the cleanest vehicles
• a small, London-wide, clean air charge for all but the cleanest vehicles
• a Greater London boundary charge for non-London registered vehicles entering Greater London.

1.8.    These options were themselves assessed in Next Steps for Reducing Emissions from Road Transport,  a report prepared by TfL for the Mayor and submitted to the Department for Transport. This report provided a preliminary assessment of each option’s potential in terms of reducing car vehicle kilometres and improving air quality and reducing CO2 emissions. The report notes if the options were to be taken forward, there would need to be further work and detailed impact assessments. The report also considered an additional option: ‘next-generation’ London-wide RUC. 

1.9.    After considering all of the options, on 4 March 2022 the Mayor announced that he had asked TfL to consult on his preferred option: expanding the ULEZ to outer London so that it would apply London-wide from 2023, because his preliminary view was that this had the potential to strike the right balance between maximising the health and environmental benefits for Londoners while minimising the financial impacts on drivers. In addition, the Mayor said that the long-term and fairest solution to these challenges will ultimately be a more sophisticated form of RUC, designed to be simple and fair for customers. This would enable all existing RUC schemes, such as the Congestion Charge and LEZ and ULEZ, plus the proposed tunnel user charging scheme for Silvertown and Blackwall tunnels, to potentially be replaced with a single scheme. He asked TfL to start exploring how this concept could be developed, while acknowledging that it is still some years away from implementation. 

The ULEZ and the need for an MTS revision

1.10.    All RUC schemes including the ULEZ are kept under review as per Proposal 20 of the 2018 MTS. Proposal 24 of the 2018 MTS already provides for the introduction of the central London ULEZ, tightening the LEZ emissions standards and the expansion of the ULEZ to inner London in 2021. 

1.11.    Proposal 24 of the 2018 MTS has, in effect, served its purpose with each of the three measures mentioned in the proposal now having been implemented. While this has contributed to a significant improvement in air quality in London, more recent evidence on the health impacts of air pollutants (described in section 2), means that it is timely to consider interventions beyond those envisaged in the MTS, which was developed and approved on the basis of the information available at the time (2018). 

1.12.    In its current form, Proposal 24 of the 2018 MTS does not provide for the further expansion of ULEZ to outer London so that it applies London-wide. Updating the proposal to allow for this expansion is considered appropriate given the new information and evidence available. 

1.13.    It is proposed to add new narrative to the 2018 MTS which would describe the triple challenges and set out that a key measure in addressing these challenges is traffic reduction. Expansion of ULEZ to outer London so that it would become a London-wide scheme would be cited as the possible next step in addressing these challenges (particularly in terms of emissions reductions, though there are likely to be some traffic benefits). The text of draft Proposal 24.1 which was consulted on is: 

The Mayor, through TfL and the boroughs, will seek to address the triple challenges of toxic air pollution, the climate emergency and traffic congestion through road user charging schemes including by expanding the Ultra Low Emission Zone London-wide.

The full text of the Proposed MTS Revision is within Appendix 1. 

1.14.    RUC schemes have been proven to be successful in reducing traffic and achieving other MTS objectives such as emissions reduction, and are considered an effective and necessary response to the triple challenges. The impact of the expanded ULEZ in October 2021 was observed even before it came into effect as people moved to cleaner vehicles in preparation for the expansion. In April 2020, more than 80 per cent of vehicles seen in the zone were compliant, compared to 39 per cent in February 2017 and 61 per cent in March 2019. Six months on from the expansion (May 2022), nearly 94 per cent of vehicles seen driving in the zone met the emission standards; as a consequence, harmful NO2 concentrations alongside roads in inner London are estimated to be 20 per cent lower than they would have been without the ULEZ and its expansion.

1.15.    RUC schemes can also support other MTS objectives, such as the target of 80 per cent sustainable mode share by 2041 (Policy 1) and Vision Zero for road danger (Policy 3). They can also help enable Londoners to achieve the 20 minutes of active travel that is recommended for good health and wellbeing, as set out in Policy 2 of the 2018 MTS.   

1.16.    The Proposed MTS Revision would take the form of an addendum to the 2018 MTS. The existing MTS text would not be amended directly nor replaced but instead the Proposed MTS Revision would supplement it. 

Proposals consulted on 

1.17.    The Proposed MTS Revision was consulted on as part of a package of proposals developed by TfL to help improve air quality, tackle the climate emergency and reduce congestion, as follows:

• the Proposed MTS Revision
• expansion of the ULEZ scheme to outer London so that it would operate London-wide from 29 August 2023
• removal of the annual £10 per vehicle Auto Pay registration fee for the Congestion Charge, ULEZ and Low Emission Zone (LEZ)  
• increase to the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) level from £160 to £180 for non-payment of the Congestion Charge and ULEZ daily charges 
• minor changes to the Congestion Charge and LEZ Scheme Orders of an administrative nature
• asking for views on shaping the future of RUC in London.

1.18.    The public and stakeholders were invited to give their views on each of the proposals in a consultation held over a ten-week period between 20 May 2022 and 29 July 2022.

1.19.    The response to the consultation for the proposals other than the Proposed MTS Revision will be reported on separately, and will be subject to a separate and subsequent Mayoral decision. 

Scope of the decision

1.20.    The Mayor is not being asked at this stage to decide to expand the ULEZ Scheme London-wide. As a consequence of the need for conformity between the MTS and a RUC scheme, a decision on revising the MTS must be the first step in the process of establishing a new or amended RUC scheme where that scheme would not be consistent with what is currently provided for in the 2018 MTS. The Proposed MTS Revision would also ensure that there is an appropriate policy foundation for the potential expanded ULEZ scheme and RUC in general going forward which reflects developments which have occurred since the 2018 MTS was published. 

1.21.    If the Proposed Revision to the MTS is published, the Mayor would be asked to make a second decision in respect of amending the scheme rules so as to provide for ULEZ to be expanded London-wide. Publication of the Proposed MTS Revision does not mean that the ULEZ scheme will be expanded London-wide. However, publication would enable the Mayor to go on to make a decision on ULEZ expansion subsequently. That decision would need to be informed by the consultation responses received in respect of the detailed scheme proposal, the specific integrated impact assessment that was undertaken in respect of this proposal and any other relevant information and advice that is put before the Mayor. This process is consistent with the process that was undertaken when implementing other proposals in the 2018 MTS including expansion of ULEZ to inner London which formed part of existing Proposal 24.
 

2.1.    The 2018 MTS sets out the Mayor’s vision to create a fairer, greener, healthier and more prosperous London. A shift away from car travel in favour of walking, cycling and public transport will be critical to realising this vision and that is why the central aim of the strategy is for 80 per cent of all trips in London to be made on foot, by cycle or using public transport by 2041. This will support “Good Growth”, which works to re-balance development in London towards more genuinely affordable homes, reduce car dependency and create a more sustainable and socially integrated city. Achieving the aims of the 2018 MTS must start with an ambitious approach to London’s streets, as that is where most travel happens.

2.2.    Recently it has become increasingly apparent that London faces three major challenges: 

• While significant progress has been achieved in reducing harmful air pollution over the past decade, more is still needed to protect human health. 
• London faces a climate emergency, with the impacts of extreme weather felt increasingly widely. 
• Traffic congestion is growing as London returns to business as usual following the Covid-19 pandemic with costs to the economy and Londoners’ quality of life.  

Air pollution

2.3.    The Mayor has a duty to achieve the legal limits for air pollutants in Greater London. Air pollution has a negative impact on the health of Londoners and remains at illegal levels in some areas. It has a disproportionate impact on more vulnerable and deprived people. The two pollutants causing the greatest concern, based on their impact on human health,   are: 

• Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and
• Particulate matter (PM).

2.4.    London-wide NOx emissions decreased by 18 per cent between 2016 and 2019 (NOx – generic ‘oxides of nitrogen – is the emission of concern for NO2 concentrations). The main reduction in emissions came from road transport, which were 31 per cent lower in 2019 compared to 2016. However, road transport remains the predominant source of NOx emissions in London. 

2.5.    Between 2016 and 2019, PM2.5 emissions from road transport reduced by 14 per cent. This is higher than the overall reduction in PM2.5 emissions from all combined sources over the same time period (a reduction of five per cent). However, road transport still contributes a substantial proportion of PM2.5 emissions. In 2016, road transport accounted for 33 per cent of PM2.5 emissions and in 2019 this had only fallen slightly to 31 per cent. 

2.6.    Since 2016, the action that the Mayor has taken to improve London’s air quality has resulted in a reduction in toxic NO2 in central London five times the national average.  Despite these recent improvements in air quality, air pollution in London remains the biggest environmental risk to the health of all Londoners. While levels of NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 have all been falling, the rate of reduction has been significantly slower in outer London than in inner and central London. For example, the rate of reduction of NOx emissions from road transport has been at half the rate in outer London compared to that seen in both central and inner London. The same pattern emerges in relation to PM2.5 emissions, which have fallen more slowly in outer London. This is due in large part to the introduction of the ULEZ in central and then inner London. There remains more that can and should be done to lower exposure to poor air quality as quickly and effectively as possible to protect human health, including going beyond existing UK air quality requirements. 

2.7.    All London residents live in areas that are within the PM2.5 UK legal limits (25 µg/m3). There has been a significant reduction in the number of London residents who live in areas which exceed the UK legal limits for NO2  (40 µg/m3) since 2016, with fewer than two per cent of Londoners (around 170,000) living in areas of exceedance in 2019.

2.8.    In September 2021, the World Health Organization (WHO) updated its recommended guidelines for air pollutants  (shown in Table 1). These guidelines reflect the overwhelming evidence of the health impacts of air pollution, even at low levels. In addition to the guidelines, the WHO has also provided interim targets aimed at promoting a gradual shift from high to lower concentrations in locations where air pollution is particularly high.

Table 1: Recommended HO 2021 air quality guideline levels compared to interim targets and UK limits

2.9.    The UK government has recently consulted on new legal limits for PM2.5 and the Mayor has made the case for these to be aligned with the new interim WHO targets and for the legal limit for NO2 to be updated as well. 

2.10.    For NO2, as Table 2 shows, almost a third of London residents live in areas that exceed 30 µg/m3, the level 2 interim target set by the WHO, and all Londoners live in areas that exceed the guideline limit of 10 µg/m3. It is clear that more needs to be done to reduce the number of Londoners living in areas where NO2 concentrations exceed interim target levels of 30 µg/m3 and 20 µg/m3 to minimise the number of Londoners who are regularly exposed to harmful levels of air pollution.

Table 2: London residents living in areas of NO2 exceedance by concentration level

2.11.    More also needs to be done to reduce the significant number of Londoners who live in areas where PM2.5 exceeds the lowest WHO interim target of 10 µg/m3 (Table 3) and the even lower guideline of 5 µg/m3. Although there has been a reduction in Londoners living in areas of exceedance since 2016, 88 per cent of Londoners still live in areas that do not meet the lowest interim target (10 µg/m3), and all Londoners live in locations where concentrations exceed the guideline limit of 5 µg/m3.

Table 3: London residents living in areas of PM2.5 exceedance by concentration level

2.12.    In 2020, TfL and the GLA commissioned research from the Environment Research Group (ERG) at Imperial College London to assess the impact on health of the Mayor’s air quality policies, and air pollution in London, using current (2019) and future levels of air pollution up to 2050 (projected from 2013). ERG’s key findings were that, in 2019 in Greater London, the equivalent of between 3,600 to 4,100 deaths (61,800 to 70,200 life years lost ) were estimated to be related to PM2.5 and NO2. The report showed that the greatest number of attributable deaths were in outer London boroughs mainly due to the higher proportion of elderly people in these areas, who are more vulnerable to the impacts of air pollution. 

2.13.    Over 500,000 Londoners are living with asthma, with half of these people living in outer London boroughs.  Further research commissioned by the GLA has shown the continued health impacts of pollution in London, particularly on Londoners more vulnerable to its impacts. Between 2017 and 2019 the capital’s poor air quality contributed to over 1,700 hospital admissions for asthma and serious lung conditions.  

2.14.    If no further action is taken to reduce air pollution, around 550,000 Londoners will develop diseases related to poor air quality over the next 30 years. In this case the cost to the NHS and social care system in London is estimated to be £10.4 billion by 2050.   The greatest number of deaths related to air pollution  are likely to be in outer London boroughs, mainly due to the higher proportion of elderly people in these areas, who are more vulnerable to the impacts of air pollution.   Children are also more vulnerable to breathing in polluted air as their airways are still developing and they breathe more rapidly than adults. 

2.15.    Finally, taking action on air quality will also help to address health inequalities. Health inequalities are systematic, avoidable and unfair differences in mental or physical health between groups of people. These inequalities typically relate to age, ethnicity and income. 

2.16.    In 2021, a joint TfL/GLA study produced by Logika Air Quality Consultants  explored the relationships between air quality and inequalities.  The study confirmed earlier findings that communities with higher levels of deprivation, or higher proportions of people from Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds, are more likely to be exposed to higher levels of air pollution. 

2.17.    The unequal distribution of air pollution means that Londoners living in more deprived areas (including in outer London) continue to be disproportionately impacted by poor air quality. In 2019, 45 per cent of residents living in London’s most deprived areas lived in locations exceeding the interim target for NO2 of 30 µg/m3, compared to 12 per cent in London’s least deprived areas. Londoners living in deprived areas are disproportionately exposed to, and impacted by, poor air quality and this situation persists despite overall improvements in air quality across the city. Low-income Londoners, who are less likely to own a car, are among the group which is disproportionately affected. 

Climate emergency

2.18.    We are facing a climate emergency: global warming will exceed 2˚C during this century unless there are deep and rapid reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. In February 2022, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that global warming would cause unavoidable increases in multiple climate hazards and present multiple risks to ecosystems and humans , with the most vulnerable the most at risk from adverse impacts. 

2.19.    In October 2021, the Government published a national net zero strategy setting out how it plans to meet the UK’s legally binding emissions targets out to 2050. The strategy includes a range of policy measures alongside funding to support the UK’s transition to net zero and is supported by its transport decarbonisation plan (July 2021).

2.20.    In January 2022, the GLA published the Element Energy report  on London’s 2030 net zero target and in response to this, the Mayor announced his preferred pathway to net zero carbon.   This pathway would require a 27 per cent reduction in car vehicle kilometres travelled on London’s roads by 2030. 

2.21.    Twenty-five per cent of the city’s carbon emissions now come from road transport.  Some progress has already been made towards reducing vehicle carbon emissions in London. Between 2016 and 2019 there was an estimated six percent reduction in CO2 emissions in the central London ULEZ compared to a scenario with no ULEZ.  CO2 emissions from cars and vans in the expanded inner London zone are expected to reduce by five per cent in the first year. 

2.22.    However, there is more to be done including taking action to reduce car vehicle kilometres travelled on London’s roads by 27 per cent by 2030.

Traffic congestion

2.23.    Last year, the cost of traffic congestion in London was estimated at £5.1 billion with the average driver losing 148 hours to congestion per year.  Congestion also delays vital bus services (making the bus a less attractive option for existing and potential bus passengers) and essential freight and servicing trips, makes public spaces unpleasant for walking and cycling, and worsens air pollution. 

2.24.    RUC schemes can contribute to reducing congestion as demonstrated by the Congestion Charge in central London. When this scheme was introduced in central London in 2003 congestion was reduced by 30 per cent, and traffic by 15 per cent. The inner London ULEZ has only been in operation since October 2021, but early indications suggest it has contributed to a reduction of around 21,000 vehicles (around two per cent) in the expanded zone on an average day compared to the month before the launch of the scheme. 
 

3.1.    Under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (the Equality Act), as public authorities, the Mayor and TfL must have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, and victimisation; and to advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations, between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not when exercising their functions. This is known as the Public Sector Equality Duty. Protected characteristics under the Equality Act are age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race (including gypsy and traveller communities), religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, and marriage or civil partnership status  (the duty in respect of this last characteristic is to eliminate unlawful discrimination and other prohibited conduct under the Act only). In line with best practice, the impact on groups who also have the potential to be socially excluded – in this case, people on low incomes or from deprived communities – has also been considered, notwithstanding that these specific attributes are not protected under the Equality Act but may be common to people with protected characteristics. 

3.2.    The Public Sector Equality Duty applies to the Mayor’s decision to publish the Proposed MTS Revision. 

3.3.    TfL commissioned consultants, Jacobs, to carry out an Integrated Impact Assessment on the Proposed MTS Revision (2022 MTS Revision IIA). It comprised the following assessments:

• Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)
• Equalities Impact Assessment (EQIA)
• Health Impact Assessment (HIA)
• Economic and Business Impact Assessment (EBIA).

3.4.    An IIA undertaken for the 2018 MTS (2018 MTS IIA) was published in 2017.This was followed by a Post Adoption Statement published in 2018 which sets out how the IIA had influenced the development of the strategy. The IIA assessment framework set out in the 2018 MTS IIA was retained for the assessment of the Proposed MTS revision (2022 MTS revision IIA). This means the same topics and objectives were used to ensure consistency of appraisal between the 2018 MTS and the proposed revision and to allow for the findings of the 2022 MTS revision IIA to be read easily alongside the findings of the 2018 MTS IIA. This approach also means that, even where negative or positive effects have been identified, the scale of these effects (in the context of the overall effects of the MTS) may not be enough to change the overall assessment. 

Impacts on equalities and Protected Characteristics

3.5.    The EQIA element of the IIA is set out in section 2.4 and Table 7 of the Report to Mayor and the full assessment is available in the IIA (appended to the Report to Mayor). In producing this summary, the approach has been to present in table form the instances in the assessment where an impact on a protected group has been identified and what the impact is. For each group, the summary table in the Report to Mayor states the topic and objective to which the assessment pertains – this leads to some repetition but mirrors the approach in the IIA. Not all of the topics and objectives were assessed as having potential impacts for protected groups.  For completeness, comments on the alternatives that were assessed are also included. Those alternatives are:

• Alternative A: Modifying the ULEZ to make it even more impactful in reducing emissions: building on the existing scheme by extending it to cover the whole of Greater London and adding small clean air charge for all but the cleanest vehicles.
• Alternative B: A small, London-wide, clean air charge: a low level daily clean air charge for all but the cleanest vehicles to nudge behaviour and reduce the number of short journeys by car. This would operate on top of the existing ULEZ (central and inner London).

3.6.    As described in more detail in section 4, the assessment framework for the 2018 MTS IIA was re-used to assess the Proposed MTS Revision, and this meant that the same IIA objectives, guide questions and indicators were used. 

3.7.    There were no impacts on people with protected characteristics identified across any of the IIA objectives that were significant enough at the strategic level to change the assessment score for the 2018 MTS IIA as a whole. Section 4 summarises some possible mitigations for the potential negative effects that have been identified. 
 

Consultations and impact assessments 

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

4.1.    Undertaking an SEA for new or revised plans is a statutory requirement following the transposition of European Directive 2001/42/EC (the SEA Directive) into UK legislation by the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (the SEA Regulations). The MTS is a plan for the purposes of these regulations, which also apply to any significant revision of that strategy. 

4.2.    The objective of an SEA as set out in the Directive is: “to provide for a high level of protection of the environment and to contribute to the integration of environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans and programmes with a view to promoting sustainable development”.

4.3.    The SEA Regulations require an environmental report to be prepared, and made available to the public which identifies, describes and evaluates the likely significant effects on the environment of implementing the proposed revision to the strategy and sets out the reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives and the geographical scope of the strategy. 

4.4.    As per the SEA Regulations, an assessment of the likely significant effects on the environment should be undertaken through assessing issues such as air quality, biodiversity, flora and fauna, climate change, energy use and generation, flood risk, geology and soils, heritage, health, landscape, townscape and public realm, materials and waste noise and vibration, water resources and quality. 

4.5.    The environmental report which is included in the IIA addresses the requirements of an SEA but also considers the social and economic aspects of sustainable development.

4.6.    While the 2018 MTS IIA included a Habitats Regulation Appraisal (HRA) and a Community Safety Impact Assessment, these were initially scoped out of the 2022 MTS revision IIA owing to the scale and nature of the revision. As described further below, TfL commissioned Jacobs to undertake a HRA pursuant to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 in response to comments made by Natural England as part of their response to the consultation. 

4.7.    In developing their approach to the 2022 MTS revision IIA, Jacobs considered the scale and scope of the Proposed MTS Revision and undertook an assessment which was proportionate to it. It is important to reiterate that the assessment is limited to the Proposed MTS Revision alone, which consists of one supplementary proposal and accompanying narrative. The 2018 MTS IIA remains relevant to the 2018 MTS as a whole as originally published, and a separate IIA has been undertaken on the proposed expansion of ULEZ (and the other proposals consulted on). The approach to the 2022 MTS Revision IIA was set out in the Scoping Report prepared in March 2022 and which was sent to the relevant consultation bodies: the Environment Agency, Historic England and Natural England. Table 1.2 of the 2022 MTS Revision IIA (which is appended to Appendix 1) includes more detail on the response of the statutory bodies to the Scoping Report. 

4.8.    Given that the 2018 MTS IIA was undertaken in 2017, policy and baseline data have been updated and presented in the accompanying ‘London-wide ULEZ and MTS amendments baseline report for Integrated Impact Assessments’ (hereafter referred to as “Baseline Report”).

4.9.    The purpose of the 2022 MTS Revision IIA is to determine whether the findings of the 2018 MTS IIA would change as a result of the Proposed MTS revision (and reasonable alternatives). As noted in 3.5, two alternative options to the Proposed MTS Revision were also included in the assessment. 

4.10.    As described above, the assessment framework for the 2018 MTS IIA was re-used to assess the Proposed MTS Revision, and this meant that the same IIA objectives, guide questions and indicators were used. For each of the guide questions, the matrix indicated which of the different assessments (SEA, EqIA, HIA, HRA) was being addressed. In addition, the assessment matrix set out the findings of the 2018 MTS assessment alongside the findings for the MTS revision, in order to aid comparison.  

4.11.    There were no impacts identified across any of the IIA objectives that were significant enough at the strategic level to change the assessment score for the 2018 MTS IIA as a whole. 

4.12.    In developing the proposals, TfL carefully considered the potential impacts as identified by the IIA (including those on groups with protected characteristics), alongside the likely impacts on emissions and air quality, and traffic congestion. 

The Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) 

4.13.    The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitats Regulations) transposed the European Union Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora into UK law to protect sites that are internationally important for threatened habitats and species, and to create a legal framework for species requiring strict protection.

4.14.    The Habitats Regulations require that a competent authority (in this case, the Mayor) considers the potential impacts of a plan or project on a European Site (a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) or Special Protection Area (SPA)) before deciding to permit or otherwise authorise the plan or project (a plan or project directly connected with or necessary to the management of such a site or which is a candidate or potential SAC/ SPA are excluded).  

4.15.    As set out earlier, a Scoping Report on the approach to the IIA was sent to the three statutory bodies (Environment Agency, Historic England and Natural England). Their responses to this scoping stage are summarised within the 2022 MTS Revision IIA (see table 1.2 in the IIA which is appended to Appendix 1). During the public and stakeholder consultation, Natural England provided a further response stating that they considered that a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) is required to rule out any impacts from the proposed expansion of ULEZ on the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The response drew attention to the potential impacts of ammonia (NH3) from traffic emissions. 

4.16.    Epping Forest District Council (EFDC) stated its concern about the potential impacts of the ULEZ on the Epping Forest SAC. Spelthorne Borough Council made similar comments in respect of the Staines Moor Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and the Southwest London Waterbodies Special Protection Area (SPA). 

4.17.    In the context of these comments, TfL on behalf of the Mayor commissioned Jacobs to undertake an HRA. This process has four stages. The first stage – a screening process – is undertaken in order to determine whether to proceed to the subsequent stages, including a full assessment. 

4.18.    If this screening stage determines that a plan or project is unlikely to have significant effects on a European Site, the subsequent three stages are not required. The screening stage, therefore, is to determine if the Proposed MTS Revision (and/or proposed ULEZ expansion since both the plan and project have been considered) are likely to have a significant environmental effect on any SACs or SPAs such that an appropriate assessment is then required.  

4.19.    The following sites were identified as being within scope of the assessment: the Epping Forest, Richmond Park and Wimbledon Common SACs; the Lee Valley and South West London Waterbodies SPAs; and the Ramsar  sites at the Lee Valley and South West London Waterbodies. 

4.20.    The HRA screening report is appended to the Report to the Mayor (Appendix 1). It does not identify any likely significant effects at any of the sites arising from the Proposed MTS Revision and proposed ULEZ expansion. Therefore, and in accordance with the HRA regulations, no further assessment was undertaken. For this reason, the screening report constitutes the HRA. 

4.21.    The HRA report was sent to Natural England and will be published online.

The Post Adoption Statement and publicity requirements

4.22.    The SEA Regulations set out the post-adoption procedures which must be complied with following the making of a decision which has been informed by an SEA. These procedures require that, as soon as reasonably practical after the adoption of the revised plan for which the SEA has been undertaken, the responsible authority (the Mayor) must publish a ‘post-adoption statement’. This is normally published on a public consultation website alongside the Scoping Report and Environmental Report (which in the case of the Proposed MTS Revision forms part of the 2022 MTS Revision IIA). The responsible authority must take such steps as it considers appropriate to inform the public, the consultation bodies (the Environment Agency, Historic England and Natural England) and the Secretary of State that the revised plan has been adopted and where the relevant documents can be viewed. 

4.23.    TfL on behalf of the Mayor has commissioned Jacobs to undertake a draft post-adoption statement in respect of the MTS Revision. It is attached at Appendix 2 and will be finalised and published if the Mayor’s decision arising out of this form is to proceed with publication of the Proposed MTS Revision (subject also to the London Assembly not resolving to reject it). 

4.24.    The draft post-adoption statement has been prepared in line with the regulatory requirements and explains:

• how environmental considerations have been integrated into the MTS Revision
• how the environmental report in the 2022 MTS Revision IIA (Jacobs, 2022a) has been taken into account
• how the environment-related feedback from the scoping stage and wider consultation has been taken into account
• the reasons for choosing to adopt the final version of the MTS Revision in light of other reasonable alternatives considered
• the measures to be taken to monitor the significant environmental effects of implementing the MTS Revision.

Potential benefits, disbenefits and mitigations

4.25.    It is relevant at this first stage of the decision making process for the Mayor to be aware of the likely benefits and disbenefits of ULEZ expansion including whether it is likely to be effective in addressing the triple challenges as the Proposed MTS Revision contemplates. As stated above, the Mayor identified ULEZ expansion as his preferred option because he considered that it had the potential to strike the right balance between maximising the health and environmental benefits for Londoners while minimising the financial impacts on drivers. 

4.26.    The consultation materials including the IIA related the benefits of a London-wide expansion of ULEZ in terms of helping to address the triple challenges, and the disbenefits. These are summarised below: 

Air quality benefits

4.27.    If it were to be implemented, the London-wide expansion of ULEZ could bring benefits in terms of reducing harmful pollutants from vehicles, particularly in outer London, where air quality remains a challenge. 

4.28.    The expected air quality benefits of this Scheme would include:

• A reduction of NOx emissions from cars and vans in outer London of 9.6 per cent and 6.6 per cent respectively. London-wide reductions in road transport NOx emissions are estimated to be 5.4 per cent, equivalent to 362 tonnes of NOx. Overall, taking into account all road transport emissions, an estimated reduction in NOx vehicle emissions in outer London of 6.9 per cent.
• An average reduction in NO2 concentrations in outer London of 1.6 per cent, and reduction in central and inner London of 0.7 per cent and one per cent respectively. As a result, nearly 30,000 additional Londoners would live in areas meeting the WHO interim target of 30 µg/m3 and 340,000 additional Londoners would live in areas meeting the tighter interim target of 20 µg/m3.
• An 11.3 per cent reduction in tailpipe PM2.5 emissions in London, and an overall reduction in PM2.5 emissions from road transport of 1.5 per cent, this is equivalent to eight tonnes of PM2.5.
• Compared with central ULEZ, where NO2 concentration reductions due to the scheme were as high as 44 per cent at roadside, this amounted to emissions savings of 230 tonnes. The proposed expansion London-wide is expected to have lower percentage decreases (for example 9 per cent from cars in outer London) but a higher volume of emissions saved of 362 tonnes. This is due to the greater size of the area in which emissions are saved.

4.29.    Almost all of London’s most deprived communities would be expected to experience an improvement in air quality – 99.9 per cent live in areas with improved NO2 concentrations and 97 per cent live in areas with improved PM2.5 concentrations (albeit marginal).

4.30.    The most significant impact on air quality and emissions will be as a result of people switching from non-compliant to ULEZ standard compliant vehicles, especially those who travel more frequently.

Carbon emissions benefits 

4.31.    If a London-wide expansion of ULEZ were to be implemented, there would be a reduction in carbon emissions. The greatest reduction in carbon emissions in London is from cars in outer London; a reduction of 1.4 per cent compared to the 2023 baseline without the expansion. There would be slight increase in carbon emissions in inner London (0.3 per cent) due to some re-routing around the current inner London ULEZ boundary. However, overall the expansion proposals would deliver a 0.4 per cent reduction in London-wide carbon emissions from road transport equivalent to 23,000 tonnes, including a 0.9 per cent reduction in carbon emissions from cars. Carbon emissions are expected to reduce by 1.6 per cent outside London, equivalent to 43,000 tonnes of carbon.

4.32.    The anticipated NOx emissions and carbon reductions would have corresponding health benefits due to the decreased level of air pollutants and may also encourage some people who have previously opted to travel by non-compliant vehicle into outer London to adopt walking or cycling to their destination instead of upgrading to a compliant vehicle or paying the charge.

Traffic and mode shift benefits

4.33.    Expanding the ULEZ to outer London is expected to have a modest impact on total London-wide car kilometres; it will reduce them by about 0.5 per cent. Most of this reduction is from people with non-compliant cars choosing to change mode or destination, or not travel.

4.34.    A London-wide ULEZ is expected to have a small but material impact on car trips in London reducing by around 146,000 every day.  This equates to 1.7 per cent of all car trips. Out of the 146,000 fewer car trips in London, just under 70 per cent are expected to switch to sustainable modes. This means an additional 55,000 (0.7 per cent) walking or cycling trips, 26,000 (0.6 per cent) bus trips and 19,000 (0.3 per cent) rail trips every day in London. This would have a small but positive impact on the London-wide active, efficient and sustainable mode share.

4.35.    The proposed London-wide ULEZ is expected to have the biggest impact on mode shift in outer London with a 2.4 per cent (166,000) reduction in car trips, 1.7 per cent (64,000) increase in walking and cycling trips, 1.2 per cent (29,000) increase in bus trips and a 0.7 per cent (17,000) increase in rail trips.

4.36.    The Proposed MTS Revision and two Alternatives would reduce the volume of road traffic on the transport network and reduce congestion to a limited degree. In line with the previous assessment findings this may beneficially impact communities including the vulnerable who previously were disproportionately affected by traffic severance due to busy roads.

4.37.    A reduction in NOx and carbon emissions will help reduce traffic and congestion to a small degree. Positive impacts are identified on the historic environment, natural capital and noise and vibration as a result of reduced road traffic and the anticipated shift to low emissions vehicles.

Potential disbenefits 

4.38.    There is potential for communities which straddle the ULEZ boundary to be disproportionately impacted as the charge(s) proposed could create a barrier between residents with non-compliant vehicles on either side of the boundary and between their homes and the facilities that they access on a regular basis (e.g. schools or other local facilities). 

4.39.    There would also be a disproportionate impact on disabled people who are reliant on private vehicles to access employment and leisure opportunities and on older people. However, this must be considered in the context of high levels of vehicle compliance and the grace period which would apply to disabled or disabled passenger vehicle tax class vehicles. Some people with underlying health conditions who require access to healthcare more frequently and to attend appointments in person, may be eligible for the ULEZ NHS patient reimbursement scheme. There is a potential negative impact for parents with young children due to their lesser capacity to switch to a compliant vehicle and/or to change mode. 

4.40.    Businesses that operate outside standard working hours and in locations less accessible by public transport will be the most impacted especially those in the transport and distribution sectors and a range of building support services (where vehicles used do not meet the emissions standards). There could be negative impacts on employers in outer London due to the potential loss of individuals from outside Greater London who are willing to work in outer London; there could be a particular impact on some employees at Heathrow Airport, as one of the biggest employers in outer London. There is also the potential for negative impacts for people on low incomes who travel by private vehicle in outer London to access employment or opportunities due to their lesser capacity to switch to a compliant vehicle and/or to change mode – especially those who are self-employed and rely on their vehicle to carry out their work, those who work in locations poorly served by public transport, or those who work out-of-hours.

4.41.    A shift to low emissions vehicles would result in a small negative impact on materials and waste as a result of the short-medium term increase in the number of non-compliant vehicles that would be scrapped, and the increase in demand for mineral resources in new replacement vehicles.

4.42.    For a comprehensive summary of the potential negative impacts on people with protected characteristics, see section 3 and the IIA itself.

Mitigations

4.43.    Mitigations for potential adverse impacts of these proposals on certain groups were put forward as part of the consultation. 

4.44.    It was proposed that certain vehicles in the 'disabled' and 'disabled passenger’ tax class, wheelchair accessible private hire vehicles and minibuses used for community transport would benefit from an extended ‘grace period’.  This approach was used when the central London ULEZ was put in place in April 2019 and when it was extended in October 2021 (minibuses were not included in the central London phase). 

4.45.    In addition, there is potential for further modifications to the proposed Scheme, as a result of the consultation responses received and TfL’s subsequent recommendations to the Mayor, if these are approved. These could be put in place as further mitigations. For example, there could be further changes to grace periods. 

4.46.    Some impacts are also expected to be mitigated through a new large-scale and targeted vehicle scrappage scheme to support Londoners. As also set out in the consultation materials, for the London-wide ULEZ proposal the Mayor is considering such a scheme  to support Londoners, including, for example, those on low incomes, disabled people, charities and businesses. If the Mayor decides to implement the ULEZ expansion (which as described above, is contingent on his approval of the Proposed MTS Revision), further information on the scrappage scheme would be provided prior to its implementation. 

Consultation

Consultation responses

4.47.    A full consideration of the consultation responses is included in the Report to the Mayor (Appendix 1) which should be read in conjunction with this form.

4.48.    Section 42 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (GLA Act) provides that when revising any mayoral strategy, the Mayor must consult the following: 

• the London Assembly
• the functional bodies
• each London borough council
• the Common Council of the City of London
• voluntary bodies some or all of whose activities benefit the whole or part of Greater London 
• bodies which represent the interests of different racial, ethnic or national groups in Greater London
• bodies which represent the interests of different religious groups in Greater London
• bodies which represent the interests of persons carrying on business in Greater London.

4.49.    When revising the MTS, there is an additional requirement on the Mayor to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and such other persons or bodies which represent the interests of persons with mobility problems as he considers it appropriate to consult. 

4.50.    The consultation process was conducted in accordance with the statutory requirements. A comprehensive consultation and public and stakeholder engagement programme were devised and implemented to ensure that stakeholders and the public were provided sufficient information to facilitate meaningful and constructive feedback.

4.51.    The consultation was conducted online using a consultation ‘portal’, in common with all other TfL consultations. The portal included a questionnaire which respondents could complete if they wished. TfL’s consultation portal included the following information to help respondents to come to an informed point of view on the Proposed MTS Revision:

• overview document of all of the proposed changes 
• the text of the Proposed MTS Revision
• the 2022 MTS revision IIA 
• London-wide ULEZ and MTS revision baseline report for ULEZ Scheme IIA and 2022 MTS revision IIA
• consultation brochure providing a less technical summary of proposals 
• an interactive map demonstrating the proposed new ULEZ boundary and postcode checker 
• an Easy Read version of the consultation materials and proposed changes
• British Sign Language video of the proposals 
• audio file of the proposals. 

Consultation process

4.52.    TfL used a variety of channels to raise awareness of the consultation. These are described in the Report to the Mayor (Chapter 3) and are summarised below. A notice was also placed in the London Gazette on 20 May 2022.

• email sent to over two million TfL registered customers
• email to over 1,500 stakeholders. Stakeholders were also contacted and offered meetings
• advertisements in national and regional press
• radio advertising
• a press release on 20 May 2022. 

4.53.    Respondents to the consultation were asked to complete and submit an online questionnaire to provide their feedback about the proposals. It included a number of open and closed questions, providing an opportunity for respondents to indicate their views about each of the proposals and ideas, and give additional comments and feedback. Question 14 specifically invited views regarding the Proposed MTS Revision: “Please use this space to give us any comments about the proposed revision to the Mayor’s Transport Strategy”. 

4.54.     TfL offered a number of ways for respondents to respond:

• online – through the questionnaire on the consultation portal
• e-mail – comments e-mailed directly to TfL
• post – by letter 
• telephone service. 

4.55.    Easy-read versions of the survey and the summary material were also available online, along with British sign Language videos and audio files of the proposal.

4.56.    TfL commissioned AECOM, an independent consultancy, to analyse the consultation responses. All closed questions were reviewed, and the results tabulated and reported. All open questions, where respondents provided comments, were read and analysed in detail.

4.57.    AECOM developed a ‘code frame’ for each of the open questions. Each code frame is a list of the issues raised during the consultation, together with the frequency with which each issue was raised.

Responses received

4.58.    It is important to reiterate that – as set out in section 1 – the consultation was on a range of proposals, and, while the focus of this Mayoral decision is the Proposed MTS Revision, high-level data on the total responses received in respect of all of the consultation proposals is given below for context. 

4.59.    A total of 57,913 responses were received for the consultation overall, of which 57,579 were from the public and 334 were classified as stakeholders by TfL. Of the 57,913 responses, 11,868 were identified as organised responses (or campaigns).

4.60.    Of the 57,913 respondents, 20,836 respondents (36 per cent) provided a comment about the MTS revision. 

4.61.    Five sets of organised responses were received in response to the consultation, of which three referred to the Proposed MTS Revision. These were as follows: 

• Fair Fuel UK: a total of 4,726 responses were received. The response to the MTS revision used in this response was: 
  • “….we oppose amendments to the Mayor's Transport Strategy to enable him to charge us for driving virtually anywhere in Greater London….”
• Wearepossible.org: a total of 4,312 responses were received. The response to the MTS revision  used in this respsonse was: 
  • “Please accept this email as my response to the consultation on proposals to extend the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) London-wide from 29 August 2023. I agree with the proposed amendments to the Mayor’s Transport Strategy.”
• London Friends of the Earth Network (via Action Network): a total of 705 responses were received. The response to the MTS revision used in this response was the same as Wearepossible.org: 
  • “Please accept this email as my response to the consultation on proposals to extend the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) London-wide from 29 August 2023. I agree with the proposed amendments to the Mayor’s Transport Strategy.”

Respondent profile

4.62.    Where information was provided by respondents to the Proposed MTS Revision, AECOM undertook analysis about the type of respondent and where they lived (Table 4). Further information is provided in AECOM’s report, which is appended to the Report to Mayor (Appendix 1).

Table 4: Respondent profile

Table 5: Area of residence of respondents

4.63.    The individual consultation responses have also been made available to the Mayor for his consideration should he wish to read any particular responses in full. 

Responses to the Proposed MTS Revision

4.64.    The remainder of this section summarises the issues raised by the public and stakeholders concerning the proposed MTS revision. The Mayor is asked to refer to the Report to the Mayor (in particular sections 3,4 and 5), as well as AECOM’s report, for the full analysis. AECOM undertook an analysis of public and stakeholder responses and assigned codes to each response to indicate the theme of the comment. In AECOM’s analysis, any comments made in response to Question 14 were coded as responses to the Proposed MTS Revision; responses made to other questions, or made by letter or email, which referred to the Proposed MTS Revision, were also included in their thematic analysis.  

4.65.    In addition, TfL analysed individual stakeholder responses to identify comments made about the Proposed MTS Revision. This analysis, and TfL’s response to the issues raised by stakeholders and the public, is set out in full in Chapter 5 of the Report to the Mayor. Reponses concerning the HRA are described in section 4 of this document. 

Issues raised concerning the proposed MTS revision

4.66.    The majority of stakeholders stated their support for the proposed MTS revision. However, around twice as many members of the public stated their opposition as those stating their support. All of the London Boroughs who responded were supportive with the exception of LB Harrow, which was supportive of a change to the MTS but was not in support if it meant (on its own) a London-wide expansion of ULEZ. 

4.67.    The London Assembly Transport Committee, and Siân Berry AM supported the revision but stated that road danger reduction should be included as a specific objective within the wording of Proposal 24.1. Shaun Bailey AM opposed the MTS Revision.

4.68.    Comments were also made by stakeholders concerning the MTS more broadly, and the priorities of TfL and the Mayor in the future. For example, the Campaign for Better Transport and Client Earth stated that Zero Emission Zones should be progressed. 

4.69.    Various comments were also made by stakeholders and the public concerning the likely impacts of the ULEZ expansion, mitigations and other related issues. These do not directly concern the Proposed MTS Revision itself. 

Issues raised concerning the triple challenges

4.70.    There was more support than opposition for the statement that the three challenges (toxic air pollution, the climate emergency and traffic congestion) were important/need to be improved, from both public and stakeholders. Air quality was the most highly-supported challenge, with the climate emergency and traffic congestion also receiving support. Only one stakeholder stated that air quality was not important, and no stakeholders said that the climate emergency or congestion were not important. 

Issues raised concerning the IIA or impacts of the proposals

4.71.    Comments concerning the habitats impacts of the proposal are summarised in section 4. 

4.72.    A small number of comments were made concerning the impacts of the proposed expansion of the ULEZ. These do not directly concern the proposed MTS revision. 

4.73.    As set out in section 3, the 2022 MTS Revision IIA found that there were no impacts identified across any of the IIA objectives that were significant enough at the strategic level to change the assessment score for the 2018 MTS IIA as a whole. 

Issues raised concerning the quality of the consultation

4.74.    The questionnaire invited respondents to comment on the quality of the consultation – the results are in Chapter 4 of the Report to the Mayor (Appendix 1). 

High level themes arising out of the consultation on the scheme specific proposal for ULEZ expansion

4.75.    Subsequent to the decision on whether to publish the Proposed MTS Revision, the Mayor will be provided with a comprehensive analysis of the consultation responses received in respect of the scheme-specific proposal to expand ULEZ London-wide when he is asked to make a decision on that proposal. As has been stated throughout this document, the decision that the Mayor is being asked to make pursuant to this decision form is limited to a decision on whether or not to publish the Proposed MTS Revision. New proposal 24.1 contained within the Proposed MTS Revision identifies expansion of ULEZ London-wide as the possible next step in addressing the triple challenges. Given this, and that a consultation on the ULEZ scheme proposal has also taken place (albeit that it is subject to a separate decision making process), it is relevant to make the Mayor aware at a high level of the general themes that were raised in response to the scheme consultation. 

4.76.    The headline themes raised included: the impact on disabled people, including whether current grace period proposals go far enough; the need for a significant scrappage scheme, including the potential to include mobility credits and funding for specially adapted vehicles; identifying the right implementation date with some responses emphasising the urgent need for action and others the impact of increases in the cost of living; and concerns about public transport provision in outer London. 

4.77.    In addition to providing a comprehensive analysis of these themes and the responses overall, the Mayor would also be advised as to how the concerns raised in the consultation might be mitigated through the scheme’s design, for example, by exemptions, discounts and grace periods, or through a scrappage scheme. At this current stage in the decision making process, it is not possible to precisely identify those mitigations, but it is likely that certain of the issues raised will be able to be addressed although there may be some residual concerns which persist. The Mayor would need to take into account whether the benefits of the scheme outweigh the disbenefits. 

Recommendations 

4.78.    It is recommended that the following modifications are made to the Proposed MTS Revision. 

4.79.    A minor update to the narrative under the heading ‘Toxic air pollution’ is recommended to reflect more recent data on the impact of the expansion of the ULEZ on compliance with vehicle emissions standards. Currently, the text refers to an increase of 92 per cent a month after implementation; this would be replaced with text referring to 94 per cent six months after implementation. 

4.80.    The text under the heading ‘Climate Emergency’ sets out the Mayor’s preferred pathway to net zero in London by 2030 is described and concludes: 

However there is more to be done including taking action to reduce vehicle kilometres travelled on London’s roads by 27 per cent by 2030.  

This is a reference to the Accelerated Green scenario in the Element Energy report , which the Mayor then announced was his preferred pathway . In both the report and the press release, this is stated as a 27 per cent reduction in car vehicle kilometres. For consistency and clarity, it is recommended that this sentence is modified to reflect the wording used in the report and the Mayor’s announcement on 4 March 2022. This would modify the final sentence of the ‘Climate Emergency’ section as follows:

However there is more to be done including taking action to reduce car vehicle kilometres travelled on London’s roads by 27 per cent by 2030.

4.81.    It is also proposed that an update is made to the narrative under the heading ‘Traffic Congestion’. This update reflects more recent or fuller information with regard to the initial impacts of the inner London ULEZ in terms of vehicle reduction. The current paragraph which refers to initial indications being an 11,000 reduction in vehicles, which comes from an earlier report (the ULEZ first month report of December 2021), would be replaced with the following which reflects the recent data which is now available: 

The inner London ULEZ has only been in operation since October 2021 but early indications suggest it has contributed to a reduction of around 21,000 vehicles  (around two per cent) in the expanded zone on an average day compared to the month before the launch of the scheme.   

4.82.    Finally, it is proposed that the following text is inserted in the section ‘Addressing the Triple Challenges’: 

Proposals for any new or amended RUC schemes would need to be introduced in accordance with statutory procedure, including consultation requirements. 

This is to address concerns expressed by some consultation respondents that proposals for new or amended RUC schemes need to be consulted on. The requirement for consultation stems from mayoral guidance issued pursuant to Schedule 23 so this insertion would simply reiterate that the statutory procedure would be followed and that this is likely to require consultation. 

4.83.    No modification to the text of Proposal 24.1 itself is recommended. 

4.84.    A marked-up version of the Proposed MTS Revision showing all of the suggested modifications is appended to the Report to the Mayor (Appendix 1). The final version recommended for publication is attached to this form at Appendix 3. 

Key risks and issues

4.85.    GLA officers consider that TfL officers have adopted sound project management techniques in  preparing the Proposed MTS Revision and undertaking the consultation; and that risks have been appropriately mitigated. 

4.86.    Officers have taken the following steps to mitigate the risks: 

• the public and stakeholder consultation on the Proposed MTS Revision was conducted in accordance with statutory requirements and consultation principles (please see Report to the Mayor (Appendix 1) and as described in this section)
• TfL commissioned Jacobs to prepare the IIA which considered the impacts of the proposals, including on targeted groups, which is provided to the Mayor for the purposes of informing his decision of on whether to publish the Proposed MTS Revision (the IIA is an appendix to the Report to the Mayor, which is attached to this form at Appendix 1) 
• the consultation responses have been analysed and considered, and the Report to the Mayor has been prepared to assist the Mayor in deciding whether to publish the Proposed MTS Revision
• if the Mayor approves the Proposed MTS Revision, pre and post-publication statutory procedures will be followed such as those relating to the role of the London Assembly and publicity requirements
• TfL officers sought legal advice throughout the process. 

4.87.    No officer involved in  the drafting or clearing of this Mayoral Decision has any interests to declare. 

Links to Mayoral Strategies and priorities

Mayor’s transport duty and Transport Strategy

4.88.    The 2018 MTS outlines the Mayor’s vision for transport in London including policies and proposals that will contribute to achieving it. The central aim of the MTS is to increase the active, efficient and sustainable mode share of trips in London to 80 per cent by 2041. This aim can only be achieved if there is a reduction in car use in London. The MTS sets a target of 10-15 per cent reduction in overall traffic levels by 2041. 

4.89.    In combination, an increase in sustainable trips made by public transport, walking or cycling and a reduction in car use will also help to address poor air quality. The 2018 MTS is clear in its ambition to reduce harmful emissions from road transport. 

4.90.    The MTS sets out that air pollution can exacerbate health conditions and shorten the lives of Londoners. It also notes that the communities suffering most from poor air quality are often the most vulnerable in society. The ULEZ contributes to addressing these challenges and is supported by policies set out in the MTS. 

4.91.    Policy 6 of the MTS states:
“The Mayor, through TfL and the boroughs, and working with stakeholders, will take action to reduce emissions – in particular diesel emissions – from vehicles on London’s streets, to improve air quality and support London reaching compliance with UK and EU legal limits as soon as possible. Measures may include retrofitting vehicles with equipment to reduce emissions, promoting electrification, road charging, the imposition of parking charges/ levies, responsible procurement, the making of traffic restrictions/ regulations and local actions.”

4.92.    The MTS also contains a number of proposals setting out how RUC can be used to further the aims and objectives of the Strategy. These include Proposal 20, Proposal 21 and Proposal 24 (an update to this proposal is the subject of the consultation). 

Proposal 20
The Mayor, through TfL, will keep existing and planned road user charging schemes, including the Congestion Charge, Low Emission Zone, Ultra Low Emission Zone and the Silvertown Tunnel schemes, under review to ensure they prove effective in furthering or delivering the policies and proposals of this strategy.

Proposal 21
The Mayor, through TfL, will investigate proposals for the next generation of road user charging systems. These could replace schemes such as the Congestion Charge, Low Emission Zone and Ultra Low Emission Zone. More sophisticated road user charging and/or workplace parking levy schemes could be used to contribute to the achievement of the policies and proposals in this strategy, including mode share, road danger reduction and environmental objectives, and to help reduce congestion on the road network and support efficient traffic movement. In doing so, the Mayor will consider the appropriate technology for any future schemes, and the potential for a future scheme that reflects distance, time, emissions, road danger and other factors in an integrated way. TfL will develop the design, operation and technical elements of these proposals in consultation with road users and stakeholders.

Proposal 24
The Mayor, through TfL will seek to introduce the central London Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) standards and charges in 2019, tighter emissions standards London-wide for heavy vehicles in 2020, and an expanded ULEZ covering inner London in 2021. 

4.93.    The MTS also sets out the timeline to zero carbon from transport in London by 2050. 

Policy 7
The Mayor, through TfL and the boroughs, and working with stakeholders, will seek to make London’s transport network zero emission by 2050, contributing towards the creation of a zero carbon city, and also to deliver further improvements in air quality to help meet tighter air quality standards, including achieving a health-based target of 10μg/m3 for PM2.5 by 2030. London’s streets and transport infrastructure will be transformed to enable zero emission operation, and the switch to ultra low and zero emission technologies will be supported and accelerated.

The London Plan 

4.94.    The London Plan (2021) is also relevant as it covers air quality and carbon emissions. In particular, Policy SI 1 Improving Air Quality and Policy SI 2 Minimising Greenhouse Gas emissions. Policy T1 Strategic Approach to Transport, supports the MTS objectives of 80 per cent sustainable mode share and an approach which makes the most effective use of land. Policy T2 supports the Healthy Streets approach outlined in the MTS. 

4.95.    In Policy T3: Transport capacity, connectivity and safeguarding, reference is made to the two schemes set out in Table 10.1,  which includes a review of road pricing schemes and next generation charging (subject to further assessment). 

London Environment Strategy (LES)

4.96.    The Mayor has a duty to achieve the legal limits for air pollutants in Greater London. The Mayor also has a specific duty to address climate change. In 2018, the Mayor published his London Environment Strategy (LES) and 1.5°C Climate Action Plan. These set out pathways, policies and actions needed to achieve a zero carbon London by 2050. The LES also sets out the aspiration that London will have the best air quality of any major world city by 2050. Objective 4.2 and the associated Policy 4.2.4 and proposals set out the commitment to achieving legal compliance:

• Objective 4.2: Achieve legal compliance with UK and EU limits as soon as possible, including by mobilising action from London boroughs, Government and other partners
• Policy 4.2.4: The Mayor will work with the government, the London boroughs and other partners to accelerate the achievement of legal limits in Greater London and improve air quality

4.97.    Additionally, Objective 4.3 and Proposal 4.3.1a sets out a commitment to going beyond these legal limits:
Objective 4.3: Establish and achieve new, tighter air quality targets for a cleaner London by transitioning to a zero emission London by 2050, meeting World Health Organization health-based guidelines for air quality
Proposal 4.3.1.a: The Mayor will set new concentration targets for PM2.5, with the aim of meeting World Health Organization guidelines by 2030

4.98.    The LES contains Proposal 4.3.2.c: The Mayor, working with government, TfL, the London boroughs and industry will aim for London’s entire transport system to be zero emission by 2050, with work towards this including using regulatory and pricing incentives to support the transition to the usage of Ultra Low Emission Vehicles.

4.99.    Since then, the science has shown the need for even more urgent action and the stark consequences of failing to act. Recognising this urgency, the Mayor has declared a climate emergency for London and set a target for London to be net zero carbon by 2030. The Mayor has announced  that his preferred pathway to net zero is the Accelerated Green scenario set out in the Element Energy report , which requires a 27 per cent reduction in car vehicle kilometres by 2030. This puts London at the forefront of global cities and UK action on climate change. The 2030 net zero carbon target is central to the London Recovery Board’s Green New Deal mission.  

Health inequalities relating to air pollution 

4.100.    Health inequalities are systematic, avoidable and unfair differences in mental or physical health between groups of people. These inequalities typically relate to age, ethnicity and income. 

4.101.    The London Health Inequalities Strategy (2018)  states that: “The Mayor’s key ambition is for London to have the best air quality of any global city, with progress fastest in the most polluted areas, benefitting people most vulnerable to the effects of air pollution.” The Strategy reflects the ambition set out in the LES with regard to air quality and includes a specific objective: 

Objective 3.1 
London’s air quality improves, and fewer Londoners are exposed to harmful pollution – especially in priority areas like schools

4.102.    In 2021, a joint TfL/GLA study  explored the relationships between air quality and inequalities . The study confirmed earlier findings that communities with higher levels of deprivation, or higher proportions of people from non-White ethnic backgrounds, are more likely to be exposed to higher levels of air pollution. 

4.103.    While there have been improvements in air quality across London, improvements have been slower in more deprived areas. For this analysis PM2.5 exceedance is based on the WHO interim target 4 (10 µg/m3) and NO2 exceedance is based on WHO interim target 2 (30 µg/m3). These levels have been selected as they are the next step on the path to deliver a shift from high concentrations to lower concentrations, and to ultimately work towards meeting WHO guideline levels.

4.104.    Between 2016 and 2019, Londoners living in areas exceeding the WHO interim target for NO2 (30 µg/m3) fell by 65 per cent London-wide, the ULEZ made a material contribution to this success. However, this improvement was not evenly distributed, with residents living in London’s most deprived areas  experiencing a 51 per cent reduction, compared to the 84 per cent reduction experienced in London’s least deprived areas.  This disparity is also evident when looking at the change in the number of Londoners living in areas that exceed the WHO interim target for PM2.5 (10 µg/m3). In deprived areas, the number of residents living in areas of exceedance fell by just three per cent between 2016 and 2019, whilst the figure for London’s least deprived areas was 31 per cent.
 

5.1.    There are no direct financial implications for the GLA arising from this decision. 

5.2.    If published, the Proposed MTS Revision would enable the implementation of the ULEZ scheme proposal which was consulted on alongside it. The associated costs and forecast revenue of that proposal will be provided in a separate decision form relating specifically to it. This separate decision form will also provide any potential financial implications of the ULEZ scheme proposal for the GLA.
 

6.1.    This section considers legal issues that are not addressed elsewhere in the form.

The MTS revision 

6.2.    The Proposed MTS Revision has been prepared in accordance with the statutory obligations which apply to the Mayor when revising any of his statutory strategies (ss 41 and 42 of the GLA Act) and which are particular to the revision of the MTS (ss 141 and 142 of the GLA Act).

6.3.    As with all the Mayoral strategies, the Mayor must keep the MTS under review and make such revisions as he considers necessary. When revising any of his statutory strategies, the Mayor shall have regard to the principal purposes of the Greater London Authority, the effect the strategy will have on various themes (health, health inequalities, sustainable development and climate change) as well as on the need to ensure consistency with national policies, the UK’s EU obligations and such other international obligations as the Secretary of State notifies the Mayor of and with other Mayoral strategies. The Mayor must also have regard to these consistency requirements and to available resources when considering whether to revise a strategy. In addition, the Mayor must have regard to the desirability of promoting and encouraging the use of the River Thames when deciding whether to revise a strategy and again when preparing the revision. However, in light of the road transport focused nature of the revision at hand, this matter is of less relevance than it was at the time the 2018 MTS was prepared.

6.4.    A revision to a Mayoral strategy shall include such policies and proposals which the Mayor considers are best calculated to promote improvements in the health of persons in Greater London and the reduction of health inequalities between persons living in Greater London, and contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development in the UK and the mitigation of, or adaptation to, climate change in the UK. This requirement is subject to the qualification that such policies and procedures need not be included if the Mayor considers that any action that would need to be taken as a consequence is not reasonably practicable in the circumstances. 

6.5.    In addition, the MTS (and the MTS as revised) must include policies and proposals which will enable the Mayor to discharge his general transport duty and specific proposals for the provision of accessible transport for people with mobility issues, and a timetable for when they will be implemented must be included. The Mayor may also include any other proposals which he considers appropriate. 

6.6.    Although the functions relevant to the preparation and consultation of the Proposed MTS Revision were delegated to TfL pursuant to section 38 of the GLA Act by MD2987, approval of the final version of the MTS is reserved to the Mayor. 

The MTS and RUC

6.7.    The procedural requirements set out in Schedule 23 to the GLA Act which are described in 1.4 above create the need for alignment between the MTS and a RUC scheme, both in respect of the scheme’s objectives and its scope (and other key features). In effect, the Proposed MTS Revision is a discrete supplement to the 2018 MTS which will ensure that these procedural requirements are complied with should the Mayor wish to go on to decide to expand ULEZ London-wide as has been proposed. 

6.8.    The requirement for conformity between a RUC scheme and the MTS is the reason the Mayor is being asked to consider whether to publish the Proposed MTS Revision as a separate, standalone decision notwithstanding that the recent consultation encompassed the revision, the proposal to expand ULEZ London-wide and other proposed changes to existing RUC schemes such as removing the Autopay fee. The Proposed MTS Revision must be published before the Mayor can consider whether to implement the proposed ULEZ expansion. A separate set of decision documents will be submitted to the Mayor in respect of the other proposals which were consulted on (including a separate report on the consultation responses specific to those proposals) if the Proposed MTS Revision is published. The Mayor is, therefore, being asked to decide whether to provide a policy foundation for ULEZ expansion through the Proposed MTS Revision at this stage rather than committing to implementation of the expanded ULEZ. 

Consultation 

6.9.    The consultation requirements that apply when revising the MTS are described in section 4 of this document. The consultation undertaken by TfL on behalf of the Mayor satisfies those statutory requirements. TfL’s Report to the Mayor (Appendix 1) provides full details of the consultation and sets out TfL’s response to particular issues raised in respect of the Proposed MTS Revision and recommendations as to how they should be addressed. The relevant consultation responses will be made available to the Mayor should he wish to refer to them as a primary source when making his decision. 

6.10.    The Mayor is asked to have regard to all of the information and advice in this form and its appendices when making his decision whether to proceed with publication of the Proposed MTS Revision. 

Role of the London Assembly 

6.11.    The London Assembly was consulted on the Proposed MTS Revision, however, the London Assembly has a further opportunity to review the revision prior to publication. 

6.12.    If the Mayor decides to proceed with publication of the Proposed MTS Revision then section 42B of the GLA Act requires that the version of the revision which is intended for publication must be laid before the London Assembly in accordance with the Assembly’s standing orders. They provide that the revision is laid by submitting a paper copy of the draft revision to the Chair of the London Assembly (copied to the Executive Director of Assembly Secretariat). Section 42B requires that any motion to reject the revision must be considered at a meeting throughout which members of the public are entitled to attend. The deadline for laying the revision set out in the standing orders is midday, six clear days prior to the relevant meeting. Given section 41B specifies that the Assembly have 21 days in which to resolve to reject the revision, it is considered prudent for the Mayor to lay the revision 21 days before the meeting, that is, well in advance of the deadline set out in the standing orders. If the Assembly votes by at least two-thirds of the members present and voting (abstentions do not count as a vote against), the Mayor must not publish the revision. The Assembly may include in the motion its reasons for rejecting the revision and any other relevant commentary that it wishes the Mayor to consider. If the revision is rejected by the Assembly, the revision may not be published. 

Post-publication tasks and publicity 

6.13.    If the Mayor’s decision is to publish the revision (and subject to the London Assembly not resolving to reject it), the steps outlined in the paragraphs below will be taken to publicise it and other supporting documents in line with the requirements of section 43 of the GLA Act and the SEA Regulations.

6.14.    Section 43 requires that adequate publicity is given to the current version of a strategy. A copy must be sent to each London Borough Council and the City of London Corporation. Given the revision would be published as an addendum to the 2018 MTS and copies of the 2018 MTS have previously been provided to the boroughs and the City of London, it is proposed that only the addendum would be provided at this time. A copy of the current version of the MTS must also be made available for inspection at City Hall and such other places as the Mayor considers appropriate. A copy would also be available for inspection at TfL’s Palestra office since this provides a central London venue for people to attend who wish to view the MTS in hard copy. The revision would also be published on the GLA’s website alongside the 2018 MTS with links to it from TfL’s website. A copy of the 2018 MTS and revision may be supplied to any person requesting it for a fee which the Mayor may determine. The setting of this fee (if any) was previously delegated to TfL by the Mayor by MD2O81.

6.15.    As explained in section 4 above, it is a requirement of the SEA Regulations that a Post Adoption Statement is produced to demonstrate how the SEA influenced the drafting of the final approved version of the revision. The Post-Adoption Statement (Appendix 2) would be finalised and published as soon as practicable after the Mayor’s decision. The IIA and Post-Adoption Statement would be made available for inspection with the 2018 MTS and revision as well as being published online. Respondents to the consultation and the Secretary of State would also be advised of the publication of the Proposed MTS Revision and the Post-adoption Statement and where the documents may be inspected. 

6.16.    No specific publicity requirements apply to the HRA, however, given its relevance to the IIA and the fact that it was undertaken following consultation responses submitted by Natural England and others, it would also be published and made available for inspection with the IIA.
 

7.1.    The Mayor is asked to consider whether further consultation or assessment of impacts is necessary or appropriate prior to deciding whether or not to publish the Proposed MTS Revision. If the Mayor considers that he does not require any further information or advice, other than that which is contained in this form and its appendices, in order to make his decision, it is recommended that the Proposed MTS Revision is published with the modifications as described in section 4. The final version recommended for publication is attached to this form at Appendix 3.

7.2.    If the Proposed MTS Revision (as modified) is approved by the Mayor, it would be laid before the London Assembly in accordance with the requirement in s 42B of the GLA Act and the Assembly’s standing orders, as described in section 6. 

7.3.    If the London Assembly does not resolve to reject the revision, it will be published as an addendum to the 2018 MTS and the post-publication tasks set out in section 6 will be undertaken by TfL (pursuant to powers delegated in MD2987). 

7.4.    Following publication, a second set of decision documents relating to the ULEZ scheme proposal and the other RUC proposals that were also consulted on as part of the May to July 2022 consultation will be submitted to the Mayor for his consideration. This is when the Mayor will be asked to decide whether to implement the ULEZ scheme expansion London-wide. 
 

• Appendix 1 – Report to the Mayor on the consultation 
• Appendix 2 – Post Adoption Statement 
• Appendix 3 – Recommended MTS Revision