In the past few months, a four-letter acronym has swung local elections, changed national policy, and re-ignited a topic of contentious debate in London: ULEZ. A seemingly simple scheme, introduced following the results of many similarly successful ones, has now exploded into one of the most divisive topics in London’s modern history—one that seems to have become the decider in who will win the upcoming mayoral elections.
But is ULEZ really that bad, or are we overlooking that already visible benefits that it and many other “anti-motorist” schemes have had on Londoners? Why, is this what is being latched onto as oppressing motorists, rather than something that is going to benefit us all?
ULEZ is one of a series of issues that campaigners claim are designed to get people out of their cars and make car journeys longer—they’re right, but that’s exactly the point. Cars and other road vehicles (and even to some extent electric cars, albeit indirectly), are responsible about half of all NOX in London’s local atmosphere, and are particularly harmful in that they release small particulate matter, the most problematic of which being known as PM2.5.
First, its important to understand that “air quality” is an incredibly broad term that encompasses many things, though generally when people refer to pollution and other related terms, they are referring to two types of pollutants, NOX and PM2.5. Other types exist, such as carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide, but these two are generally the most harmful.
Nitrogen oxides, especially nitrogen dioxide, are harmful to the human respiratory system in that they often exacerbate already existing illnesses like asthma, especially in the children and elderly. In urban areas, it comes almost exclusively from the burning of fossil fuels. Particulates like PM2.5 come from many sources—but in most case it similarly originates from combustion-engine powered vehicles.
The legal limit for NOX is 40 µg/m3. For decades, London has been above this limit. COVID-19, as with many fields, has been of particular interest to those studying air quality—in London, the lockdowns for the first time brought NOX levels below this limit (see graph).
Already, it had been on a downwards trajectory thanks to measures brought under previous mayorships (yes, including Boris Johnson), in hopes of combatting the near 10,000 premature deaths estimated to be caused by poor air quality. In December 2020, an inquest ruled for the first time that air pollution was a significant contributing factor in a child’s death, and whilst it is difficult to attribute it in many cases, it is certainly actively harming our respiratory systems.
But far worse than NOX is PM2.5, which mostly comes from vehicles, with much of the remainder coming from domestic and commercial gas burning. These particulates are particularly dangerous for small children and can significantly increase the risk of
respiratory illnesses in area with high concentrations. Owing to this, high profile campaigns such as banning idling outside schools, a common source of PM2.5, are key in protecting the lives of those at risk.
And contrary to the frequent misinformation spread on the topic, these zones work. Independent research from both Imperial College London and the University of Bath have linked them to public health benefits and a substantial (around 13% for the original ULEZ) decrease in particulate levels.
It's indisputable that much of the reasoning for such “anti-car” measures is to improve London’s air quality—it is called the ultra-low emission zone—but in critiquing many in such a goal many miss the other more nuanced benefits of less cars on our streets.
20mph zones in London have been met with the same vitriol as its low emission counterparts. Unlike ULEZ, however, they have existed now for about two decades, and despite huge initial opposition, they are now happily ingrained into most central London communities. Half of all pedestrians hit at 30mph die—this falls to just one in ten at 20mph. Road accidents themselves significantly decrease as well, and due to smoother driving there are often small reductions in levels of particulates from breaking pads.
Recently, many 20mph zones have gone on to become fully pedestrianised, which has helped reinvigorate local communities and overall provide a better quality of life. Carnaby Street was one of the first London streets to be pedestrianised by the Greater London Council in 1973, now it is a bustling hub of life for shopping.
The main problem people have with 20mph zones is… the speed. A recent study by TomTom found that London is the slowest city in the world to drive in, with average journey times being the slowest (the methodology may have some issues). 20mph zones are annoying for car drivers, but we have already established that they significantly raise pedestrian safety, and is discouraging car use really that bad?
Cyclists also greatly benefit from decreased car usage. In 2022, 1027 pedal cyclists were seriously injured or killed, the highest of any category of road users. Especially at poorly designed junctions like the Holborn Circus gyratory system, where nine cyclists have died since 2008, reduced speed limits help drivers better identify possible issues, giving them increased time to react to possible collisions.
By far the most valid argument against anti-car schemes is that it disproportionately impacts those who live in areas that lack public transport, or can’t afford to take it instead of driving: most living in inner London supported ULEZ, most living in outer London did not.
In some areas, driving is the only reasonable way to get around, with busy roads that are uncomfortable or dangerous to use for pedestrians or cyclists. Many are poorly connected. Efforts have been made in previously poorly connected areas like East London with the DLR, but south London especially is notoriously disconnected from the rest of the metropolis.
No Tube line has most of its stations south of the river—the proposed Crossrail 2, which seeks to majorly connect south-west London (there has been no such plans for south-east London), has been put on hold indefinitely while TfL tries to escape its £15 billion debt, being seemingly politically drip-fed by the Department for Transport with its emergency funding agreements.
No one can deny that the ULEZ implementation was poor, especially in consulting with residents in outer London. Yet every outer London borough still exceeds WHO recommended air quality guidelines, the five boroughs with the highest rate of asthma admissions are in outer London, and unsurprisingly, so are the number of premature deaths attributed to air pollution. On road safety, twice as many are killed per km of road in the most deprived 30% of areas in London, and despite making up only 20% of road injuries, car drivers are responsible 65% of injuries. London is beginning to enter an age where we can transition away from the car, and rather than actively opposing doing so, we should be supporting it however much we are able.
Comments