Request ID: FOI-2264-2223 Date published: 21 December 2022
You asked
Dear Transport for London,
The goal of TFl and the Mayor is to push pollution from London to the rest of the world by forcing people to buy newer cars which in turn will require them to be produced, therefore creating pollution in the process.
Once Ulez is expanded it will allow vehicles from the outer boroughs who are currently choosing to remain outside the north-south circular boundary for journeys, into that area since they would be charged the ulez on a journey in the expanded zone anyway.
For instance anyone living in the outer borough's who currently chooses the orbital route around London (M25) who would be charged for a non compliant vehicle under ulez could choose to go via an inner London route but avoiding the congestion charge area without incurring any further charges from the London Mayor's Road charging schemes.
This would result in more pollution in London, which would go against the goal of the ulez scheme. Obviously that will lead to some more premature deaths for Londoners based on the Mayors own conclusion that pollution from cars is a direct cause of deaths to Londoners.
Has tfl modelled what proportion of deaths would be attributed to the scenario above?
Has the Mayor's office considered how many deaths of non Londoners will occur, from pollution during factory production and extraction of materials from the ground sources, for the extra production of cars to replace perfectly usable vehicles that will be directly attributed to Londoners having to change their cars to avoid ulez because the Mayor's one size ulez policy. Can you provide a numbers estimate of those deaths against Londoners deaths from pollution and explain why industry deaths are less important than Londoners lives.
We answered
TfL Ref: EIR-2264-2223
Thank you for your request received by Transport for London (TfL) on 6th December 2022 asking for information about the ULEZ expansion.
Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Information Regulations and our information access policy.
Specifically you asked:
“The goal of TFl and the Mayor is to push pollution from London to the rest of the world by forcing people to buy newer cars which in turn will require them to be produced, therefore creating pollution in the process.
Once Ulez is expanded it will allow vehicles from the outer boroughs who are currently choosing to remain outside the north-south circular boundary for journeys, into that area since they would be charged the ulez on a journey in the expanded zone anyway.
For instance anyone living in the outer borough's who currently chooses the orbital route around London (M25) who would be charged for a non compliant vehicle under ulez could choose to go via an inner London route but avoiding the congestion charge area without incurring any further charges from the London Mayor's Road charging schemes.
This would result in more pollution in London, which would go against the goal of the ulez scheme. Obviously that will lead to some more premature deaths for Londoners based on the Mayors own conclusion that pollution from cars is a direct cause of deaths to Londoners.
Has tfl modelled what proportion of deaths would be attributed to the scenario above?
Has the Mayor's office considered how many deaths of non Londoners will occur, from pollution during factory production and extraction of materials from the ground sources, for the extra production of cars to replace perfectly usable vehicles that will be directly attributed to Londoners having to change their cars to avoid ulez because the Mayor's one size ulez policy. Can you provide a numbers estimate of those deaths against Londoners deaths from pollution and explain why industry deaths are less important than Londoners lives.
Your requests for specific, recorded infiormation are answered as follows:
Question 1: Has tfl modelled what proportion of deaths would be attributed to the scenario above?
Answer: At present the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) does not include the North and South circular roads. Following the launch of London-wide ULEZ, these roads will be within the expanded zone. Whilst some non-compliant vehicles in outer London may decide to re-route via inner London as a result of the expanded zone, the impact of this has been assessed as part of the London-wide ULEZ Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA). Section 5.1.3 of the IIA states that the forecast changes in road traffic emissions in inner London would decrease as a result of the scheme. Therefore, the proportion of deaths in inner London attributed to London-wide ULEZ has not been assessed, as it is forecast there will be reductions in emissions in inner London as a result of London-wide ULEZ.
Question 2: Has the Mayor's office considered how many deaths of non Londoners will occur, from pollution during factory production and extraction of materials from the ground sources, for the extra production of cars to replace perfectly usable vehicles that will be directly attributed to Londoners having to change their cars to avoid ulez because the Mayor's one size ulez policy. Can you provide a numbers estimate of those deaths against Londoners deaths from pollution and explain why industry deaths are less important than Londoners lives.
Answer: In order to meet the ULEZ standards there is no requirement for individuals to purchase a brand-new or electric vehicle. Nearly all petrol vehicles sold from 2005 are compliant with the ULEZ standards (with some being available since 2000), so by the time the ULEZ expands, compliant vehicles will have been available for 18 years. Market research shows that there is good availability for second-hand vehicles. All scrappage of vehicles must be done by authorised treatment facilities. These have strict targets and requirements around the re-use of parts from the vehicles, ensuring that the environmental impacts are minimised. Under the End-of-Life Vehicles (ELV) directive, there is a target for a minimum of 95 per cent recycling and recovery of ELVs, so the legislation is well designed to mitigate any increases in hazardous or non-hazardous waste generated from scrappage. Section 5.5 of the IIA (see link above in answer to question 1) reported that the “impact of the scheme on resource use and waste generated is negligible in terms of tonnage, and therefore existing ELV infrastructure can be used to ensure wastes, especially more harmful hazardous wastes, are recycled or recovered.” If this is not the information you are looking for please do not hesitate to contact me.
Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal as well as information on copyright and what to do if you would like to re-use any of the information we have disclosed.
Yours sincerely,
David Wells FOI Case Officer FOI Case Management Team General Counsel Transport for London
