EIR - ULEZ empirical evidence and analysis [Jan 2024]

Your request 

1. In recent years, both the central London ULEZ and the expansion to inner London have had significant impacts on air quality in London. Following the expansion of ULEZ to inner London, harmful NO2 concentrations alongside roads in inner London were estimated to be 20 per cent lower than they would have been without the ULEZ and its expansion. In central London, roadside NO2 concentrations were assessed to be 44 per cent lower than they would have been without ULEZ
2. Please provide the calculations / white paper for this claim: 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
3. Can you share details of how as consulted in this claim: The consultation also asked for people’s views to help shape the future of road user charging (“Future RUC”), which could include replacing existing charges with a road user charging scheme that uses more sophisticated technology to make it as simple and fair as possible for customers
4. Why did you proceed when democratically, 59 per cent also believe that the ULEZ proposals consulted on should not be implemented.
5. Please provide analysis on this claim: Long-term exposure is associated with an increase in symptoms of bronchitis in asthmatic children and reduced lung development and function.
6. Please provide NO2 levels pre and post ULEZ introduction to support this claim in particular: Almost a third of London residents live in areas which exceed 30 μg/m3 of NO2, the level 2 interim target set by the WHO, and all Londoners live in areas which exceed the guideline limit of 10 μg/m3.
7. This claim is absurd: the policies in the London Environment Strategy (including the inner London ULEZ) are predicted to result in the avoidance of around 300,000 new cases of NO2 and PM2.5 related disease and 1.2 million new air pollution related hospital admissions London-wide by 2050

Our response

(1) The figures you quote were findings of the Inner London ULEZ Expansion One Year Report, which is available on the GLA website: Inner London Ultra Low Emission Zone Expansion One Year Report | London City Hall

(2) estimates the long-term health impacts of exposure to air pollution in London from 2016 to 2040 and is available on the GLA website: Modelling the long-term health impacts of air pollution in London | London City Hall

(3-4) Following a public consultation that ran from 20 May to 29 July 2022, the Mayor decided to expand the ULEZ London-wide from 29 August 2023. The Mayor made this decision after taking into account a detailed consultation report, integrated impact assessment and other relevant matters.

Transport for London (TfL) ran the consultation, which received nearly 58,000 responses. The majority of respondents to the consultation said there was a need to go further to tackle poor air quality. The Mayor has been clear that this was not an easy decision but a necessary one, due to the impact of air pollution on people’s health.

TfL’s Report to the Mayor sets out the consultation process, including how it was publicised
and the marketing material used. This report is published on the TfL website: Report to Mayor on ULEZ expansion and future Road User Charging proposal | Improving air quality and Londoners' health, tackling climate change and reducing congestion | Have Your Say Transport for London (tfl.gov.uk)

The Mayor’s decision, TfL Consultation Report, and other supporting documentation (including the Integrated Impact Assessment) can be found on the GLA website: MD3060 London-wide Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) Scheme | London City Hall

The Mayor’s response to the consultation was raised at Mayor’s Question Time. His response is available here: Ignoring Consultations | London City Hall

There are several further questions relating to this subject matter, with answers published on the GLA website: Questions to the Mayor | London City Hall (Search, keyword ULEZ and filter by date – 1 Dec 2022).

(5) Studies have long shown the many adverse health issues associated with elevated pollution levels. The latest evidence shows adverse health effects following long-term exposure to relatively low levels of pollution, below those experienced in London. See below for a non-exhaustive list of published research setting out the health impacts of air pollution.

The Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) publishes regular reports and statements on the health effects of air pollution: COMEAP: reports and statements - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

The health effects across the life course are also summarised in “Impacts of air pollution across the life course – evidence highlight note.” Imperial College London. April 2023. Available at: Impacts of air pollution across the life course – evidence highlight note (london.gov.uk)

The World Health Organization undertook a systemativ review of the studies of air quality and health to inform its updated air pollution guidelines. Please see the WHO website for more information about this process and the studies reviewed: WHO global air quality guidelines: particulate matter (‎PM2.5 and PM10)‎, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide

(6) Please see our answer to Question 1 for a summary of the impact of the introduction of the ULEZ and its expansion to inner London on roadside NO2 levels.

The exposure figures were published as part of the consultation materials for the London-wide ULEZ expansion, which are available on the TfL website: our-proposals-to-help-improve-air-quality-tackle-the-climate-emergency-and-reduce-congestion-by-expanding-the-ulez-london-wide-and-other-measures (ehq-production-europe.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com)

As noted in the materials, these figures are from the London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (LAEI) 2019. The data is publicly available on the London Datastore: London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (LAEI) 2019 - London Datastore

(7) These figures are from the Health Lumen report referenced in Question 2.