ULEZ Asthma Impact

The following is an article written by Michael Simons on the likely impact of the ULEZ expansion on the incidence of asthma. It is a very good summary of the causes of asthma and the negligible impact that the ULEZ will have on it.

What Impact Would ULEZ Expansion Have on Asthma and COPD Cases?

The Mayor of London does not justify his plan to extend the Ultra Low Emission Zone to outer London by referring to the official Integrated Impact Assessment1 projections – the Impact Assessment forecasts only very small health benefits – instead, the Mayor relies on rhetoric and anecdotal stories, mainly centred around asthma, and childhood asthma in particular.

So what is known about asthma in London in the context of air pollution, and particularly pollution by nitrogen dioxide, NO2, the main target of ULEZ?

Asthma Mortality:

The Office of National Statistics, responding to a freedom of information request, gave the following numbers for total child asthma deaths in London2:

  YearAged under 1  1 to 4  5 to 9  10-14  15-19Total 0-19
2013 0 0 2 204
2014011204
2015002114
2016010012
2017002226
20180125311
2019001203
2020001001

There are multiple known causes and triggers for asthma, so most of this tiny number of cases may not have resulted from air pollution anyway. For instance, hot weather is a recognised aggravating factor, and 2018 had a particularly hot summer, which might account for the higher number that year. While every child’s death is an individual tragedy, in the administrative context of a population of over 9 million, these numbers are vanishingly small, and so would be any marginal improvement from ULEZ expansion.

Asthma Hospital Admissions:

A 2022 report from the Imperial College Environmental Research Group3 presents estimates of the number of hospital admissions for asthma. It states that:

“ Exacerbation of asthma by air pollution is estimated to lead to around 700 asthma admissions from  2017 – 2019 in children in London, 7% of all asthma admissions in children in London. (Asthma admissions may have more than one cause e.g. air pollution may worsen response to an allergen.)”

This was over 3 years, so the average annual number was 233. Note that, as stated, this number accounts for just 7% of child asthma admissions. Note also that the headline announcement by City Hall of 3600 child asthma admissions in 2021/22 referred to all-cause admissions, not pollution-exacerbated admissions. (Asthma has many causes and triggers, including indoor pollution, mould, dust mite, household chemicals, outdoor pollution, pollen, cold weather, hot weather, and hereditary factors – see the Appendix). This is an important distinction to bear in mind.

The Imperial College report also gives an estimate of the percentage change in admissions per 10 µg m-3 change of pollutant concentration. For nitrogen dioxide, NO2, and children aged 0-14, this value is 3.9% per 10 µg m-3 (p11 of the report).

The likely reduction in NO2 levels from expansion of ULEZ into outer London is not clear. The Integrated Impact Assessment gives a reduction of 6.9% in emissions, and a 1.4% reduction in NO2 level when population-weighted. For simplicity and transparency in the arithmetic, we will illustrate the reduction in admissions expected from a 10% decrease in NO2 levels in outer London, well above those estimates.

Roadside levels4 (within 5 metres of a busy main road) of NO2 in October 2022 were 28 µg m-3, and background levels (away from busy traffic) levels were 19 µg m-3. Most residents in outer London live well away from busy main roads, so we will adopt an effective value of 22 µg m-3.

A 10% notional ULEZ reduction is a reduction of 2.2 µg m-3. Since a 10 µg m-3 reduction in NO2 level is estimated to reduce child asthma emissions by 3.9%, the ULEZ reduction in NO2 level will bring about a proportionate reduction in admissions of 2.2/10×3.9 = 0.86%.

0.86% of 233 gives a reduction of just TWO hospital admissions per year across the whole of London.

And note we are talking about hospital admissions, not deaths.

Asthma/COPD Admissions for over-64’s

The numbers associated with the 15 – 64 year age group in the report are lower all round and give a much smaller result, so we will not report further on these.

For the over 65 age group asthma was combined with COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) because it is difficult to clinically distinguish between the two conditions. In this case, the report estimates 900 admissions over the 3 years, or 300 cases per year. For COPD/asthma in the over-64’s the percentage change in admissions per 10 µg m-3 change of pollutant concentration was estimated at 1.42%. The same NO2 levels apply as before.

Applying the same process as above, the % reduction in admissions will be 2.2/10×1.42 = 0.31%. 0.31% of 300 = 0.94, or rounding up, ONE less admission per year across the whole of London.

Comparison with the Integrated Impact Assessment

The Jacobs Integrated Impact Assessment1 considered the decrease in health burden expected from expanding the ULEZ zone. It did not give estimates for asthma hospital admissions, only “incidences” (undefined). However it did give estimates for Respiratory Hospital Admissions, a term which includes asthma, and in Table 6-2, p73, it estimates that the extended ULEZ scheme would reduce annual London- wide hospital admissions from 2122 to 2086, a decrease of 26 cases or 1.2%.

A decrease of 26 cases across a city of over 9 million people is still a very small number. There are 33 boroughs in Greater London, so that averages out at less than one hospital admission fewer per borough per year. Again, a negligible benefit.

Conclusions

There appears to be no credible evidence that the expansion of the ULEZ into outer London would produce anything more than insignificant health benefits in asthma – or other respiratory diseases for that matter. We identify in this report three separate and credible sources which point to the negligible benefits which might be expected.

Vague statements and political histrionics about suffering children are a misleading way to inform public policy in this area. Proper analysis is required, especially when the policy carries heavy costs for society, as ULEZ certainly does. And these analyses point to ULEZ expansion doing effectively nothing for asthma.

Appendix

The NHS information sheet on asthma states:

The exact cause of asthma is unknown.

People with asthma have swollen (inflamed) and “sensitive” airways that become narrow and clogged with sticky mucus in response to certain triggers.

Genetics, pollution and modern hygiene standards have been suggested as causes, but there’s not currently enough evidence to know if any of these do cause asthma.

Who’s at risk

A number of things can increase your chances of getting asthma. These include:

  • having an allergy-related condition, such as eczema, a food allergy or hay fever – these are known as atopic conditions
  • having a family history of asthma or atopic conditions
  • having had bronchiolitis – a common childhood lung infection
  • exposure to tobacco smoke as a child
  • your mother smoking during pregnancy
  • being born prematurely (before 37 weeks) or with a low birth weight Some people may also be at risk of developing asthma through their job.
  • Asthma triggers

Asthma symptoms often occur in response to a trigger. Common triggers include:

  • infections like colds and flu
  • allergies – such as to pollen, dust mites, animal fur or feathers
  • smoke, fumes and pollution
  • medicines such as anti-inflammatory painkillers like ibuprofen and aspirin
  • emotions including stress, or laughter
  • weather – such as sudden changes in temperature, cold air, wind, thunderstorms, heat and humidity
  • Mould or damp
  • Exercise

References

  1. downloadable at https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/1561 9/widgets/44946/documents/27025
  2. https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/childhoo  dasthmainlondon2006to2020
  3. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/school-public-health/environmental-research-group/research/air-  pollution-epidemiology/air-pollution-and-asthma-in-london-2016-2019/
  4. https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-and-climate-  change/environment-and-climate-change-publications/inner-london-ultra-low-emission-zone-  expansion-one-year-report
  5. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/asthma/causes/

Michael Simons, March 2023     (Dr Michael Simons PhD, MRSC)

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

ULEZ Air Pollution Impact and Financial Impact Summary

The following is an article written by Richard Walker which explains the likely impact of the ULEZ expansion on life expectancy.

REVEALED!

ULEZ EXPANSION COULD INCREASE LIFE EXPECTANCY BY 2.4 DAYS – MAYBE!

Yes, instead of 81 years, or 29,565 days, it could rise to 29,567 days, an increase of 0.008% !!!!

Mayor Khan has been reluctant to put numbers to the health benefits of expanding ULEZ to outer London, but a report by the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, COMEAP NO2 2018 (Google it) reveals on page 69 that a 1 μg/m3 reduction in NO2 emissions should increase life expectancy by 8 days.

The official Jacobs Integrated Impact Assessment estimates (p47) that ULEZ expansion will reduce NO2 pollutant levels by just 0.3 μg/m3 in outer London. 0.3 x 8 = 2.4, so that gives a 2.4 day lifetime increase thanks to ULEZ, or + 0.008%.

Thank you, Mr Khan, but in no way can that pathetic benefit justify the pain your scheme will inflict on us.

Khan’s repetitive public statements about NO2 hazards are based on a health burden report which in turn is based on the COMEAP report published in 2018 where there was no consensus on the details and which is now out of date, plus the Jacobs Impact Assessment for the ULEZ.

The following diagram shows the overall financial impact of the ULEZ expansion:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

How Many Non-ULEZ Compliant Vehicles Drive in London?

How many people will be affected by the ULEZ expansion to outer London? This is an important question. Sadiq Khan claims only one in ten drivers (160,000 vehicles) will be affected based on counting non-compliant cars driving in London. But this is grossly misleading probably because it includes PHV/Uber cars which drive high mileages within London.

The RAC has reported the true figures. They claim nearly 700,000 cars registered in London will be affected which rises to 850,000 if vans are included. That does not even include the vehicles registered elsewhere that drive into London for commuting, shopping, etc.

These are enormous numbers and indicates the massive financial costs being imposed on potentially millions of people who will be either paying £12.50 per day or need to spend thousands of pounds on a new vehicle.

Yet again we have the Mayor of London grossly misleading people and telling porkies in his desperation to get public support for the ULEZ expansion.

See RAC Report here: https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/drivers-greater-london-could-be-liable-to-pay-the-ULEZ-this-summer/?  

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Mayor Abuses Opponents of ULEZ and Conservatives Gear Up

Sadiq Khan gave a speech on Monday in which he said that while some Londoners had “genuine concerns”, others had “latched on to the ULEZ to push their own agenda”. He said: “This includes a relatively small but well organised group of climate deniers and vested interests who are playing the genuine concerns of Londoners because they sense an opportunity to put a dent in the drive towards greater climate action”. See report here: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/climate-change-deniers-emboldened-ulez-215221307.html

This is of course a gross distortion of the truth. Opposing the ULEZ expansion has nothing to do with your views on climate change. The ULEZ is claimed to tackle air pollution (but it won’t help in outer London) and there is no basis for arguing it will tackle climate change. Only the misinformed will be fooled by this nonsense. The ULEZ is solely about raising tax to cover TfL and the Mayor’s financial mismanagement.

The Conservative Party seem to have finally realised that the ULEZ expansion is a great platform on which to attack Sadiq Khan. They are promoting a petition which has already been signed by over 70,000 people. Please add your name! See https://action.conservatives.com/stop-drivers-tax/

Meanwhile the Crowdjustice legal case for a judicial review has been progressing. See https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/stop-ulez-expansion/? for the latest news. Please support it.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Cycling in Decline

The Times has reported that “Bike sales fall to lowest level in 20 years” and the boom has become a bust. Bike sales have dipped to their lowest level in two decades. It suggests many people have lost their appetite for cycling, perhaps not surprising after a cold, wet winter. The boom during the pandemic has disappeared.

This is undermining the Government’s commitment to grow “active” travel and the hundreds of millions of pounds being spent on encouraging cycling has been a waste of money. However the Government did cut funding to Active Travel England by more than £200 million recently which was surely a wise decision when the Government is so short of money and there are big demands for money for the NHS, for defence and support of social programmes to limit the impact of energy price rises.

The money spent on cycle lanes is particularly problematic as they can increase traffic congestion and do not improve cycling safety. In fact the more people who cycle the more road traffic accidents involving cyclists there are, thereby increasing casualties. The increase in potholes has also had a negative impact on cycling.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Another Anti-ULEZ Demonstration and High St Kensington Cycle Lane

There is another demonstration against the expansion of the ULEZ on this coming Saturday at Trafalgar Square (the 18th March at midday). Please attend if you can.

There have been a number of reports of another way people have been demonstrating their opposition to the ULEZ enforcement cameras that are being installed – by damaging them. This is what happens when legitimate protests are ignored so we won’t be condemning this activity.

It is of course now very clear that the additional cameras were ordered before the public consultation was even commenced which shows how Sadiq Khan and TfL never had any intention of listening.

Apart from the two legal actions being pursued against the expansion, the Conservative Party is also organising local protest groups in each affected borough and setting up Facebook groups. For example there is one for Bromley residents named “Bromley say no to ULEZ expansion” which already has over 2,000 members. Why not join?

The good news is that a legal challenge to removal of the Kensington High Street cycle lanes by Better Streets (they should be called Worse Streets) was thrown out in the High Court. See  https://tinyurl.com/25c8dncv for details.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Government Petition Response – A Whitewash Coming

white paint on wooden surface
Photo by Anouk Doe on Pexels.com

The Government has responded to a petition we promoted to our readers calling for an independent review of LTNs after it collected more than 10,000 signatures. They have appointed the University of Westminster to undertake an independent evaluation of active travel schemes funded in 2020/21, including low-traffic neighbourhoods. See https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/632748?reveal_response=yes for the full Government response.

What’s wrong with that? Namely that it’s not an “independent” review because one of the most active promoters of LTNs is Prof. Rachel Aldred of Westminster University who is also a Director of the Active Travel Academy. She has published a number of reviews of active travel schemes and cycling, mostly quite biased ones and is a former trustee of the London Cycling Campaign. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Aldred for more background.

In summary there is no chance that this will be an unbiased and independent review. We suggest a complaint to your Member of Parliament is appropriate – see https://members.parliament.uk/members/Commons

On the political front an enormous amount of media coverage of late is on the small boat crisis and the attempts by the Government to halt illegal immigrants. These are mostly economic migrants, not people fleeing war or other disasters.

It is suggested that the proposed Government legislation would be illegal, because it contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights and the Refugee Convention. The latter was established in 1951 to help people made homeless or stateless by the Second World War and was a very positive move at the time. But it was never intended to enhance the rights of economic migrants who wish to move to a wealthier country.

I suggest that a breach of a Convention is not necessarily illegal and that the UK can withdraw from Conventions whenever it considers it necessary to do so. The country is being swamped by migrants, both legal and illegal ones.  This is putting enormous pressure on housing and social services.

For example the London Borough of Lewisham have recently published a new “Local Plan” and it reports these statistics: The population has grown by 23% over the last 20 years and is still growing rapidly. Some 46% of the residents identify as BAME heritage which rises to 76% for the school population. This shows the impact of uncontrolled immigration over the last 50 years, but the Council is still “planning for an open Lewisham”. That’s undefined but suggests that they are open to even more migration.

The BBC, as is now commonplace, spouts the views of left-wing commentators including that of a well-known footballer for no good reason. His views on football may be sound but he does not understand the problem of illegal immigrants. At least the BBC have now brought him into line to stop him issuing injudicious tweets based on his own political opinions.

Will the Government be able to halt the flow of illegal immigrants? Only if they take a very tough stance in my view.

Other news last week was the conviction of a electric scooter rider for causing the death of a pedestrian. The judge said: “Pavements are for pedestrians and people in wheelchairs or infants in prams. They are supposed to be free of vehicles of any type. This mode of transport should not be there. This tragic incident was avoidable”. See full BBC report here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-64892358

But we will no doubt see many more such cases unless scooter riding is curbed.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Road Pricing Not on Government Agenda

The Government has responded negatively to the Parliament Transport Committee on road pricing with these words:  “……. as set out in the Chancellor’s previous letter the Government does not currently have plans to consider road pricing. Given this, the Government does not have further views on the Committee’s recommendations for the ways in which road pricing should be considered. More broadly, as noted previously the Government will need to ensure that the tax system encourages the uptake of EVs, and revenue from motoring taxes will need to keep pace with this change, while remaining affordable for consumers. Our tax system has already begun to adapt to this transition. From 2025, electric cars, vans and motorcycles will pay Vehicle Excise Duty in the same way as petrol and diesel vehicles. The Government will continue to keep all tax policy under review.”

See full exchange of letters here: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/34225/documents/188339/default/

Effectively the Government has ducked the issue again and kicked the can down the road while in London Sadiq Khan is pushing ahead with road pricing schemes.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Oxfordshire Bribed to Introduce Traffic Filters

An article in the Sunday Times by Nicholas Hellen has explained how Oxfordshire County Council was bribed with £33 million of Government funding to install the planned traffic filters. Installing the filters was conditional on funding for 159 electric buses and the Council committed to go ahead six months before a  public consultation took place.

Under the proposed scheme residents will need to apply for a permit to pass through six pinch points but will be restricted to 100 days per year or be fined £70. The allocation of Government funding was explicitly linked to a written pledge to introduce the scheme.

Comment: Local democracy is being undermined by Government interference. Residents need to join the campaign against this scheme – see https://reconnectingoxford.weebly.com/

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Sadiq Khan Shows His True Colours

At the People’s Question Time in Ealing on 2/3/2023 the Mayor of London showed just what he will do to try and push through his ULEZ policies. He made a number of outrageous allegations about those who oppose expansion including that they are covid and vaccine deniers and are associated with the “far right”. See video here:  https://fb.watch/j1rLkjfuto/

He got a severe barracking from the audience and quite rightly. The protesters inside and outside the hall might have been a mixed bunch of people but it is ridiculous to suggest they were extreme conspiracy theorists. It is malicious nonsense for Sadiq Khan to suggest that those who oppose the ULEZ expansion are extremists of any kind.

On a personal note, I have been campaigning against the ULEZ expansion but I certainly don’t deny the benefit of covid vaccinations – I have had 5.

To back up Sadiq Khan, the Labour Leader of Ealing Council Peter Mason said this on Twitter: “The protest outside Peoples Question Time at Ealing Town Hall tonight wasn’t an expression of freedom of speech. People from outside our borough came to our streets to spread racism, intimidation and hatred. This isn’t democracy, this is barbarism”.

Again a false demonisation of those protesting. The protesting certainly had  nothing to do with racism and all that Sadiq Khan and Peter Mason have done is to stir up hatred with unfounded allegations.

What is politics coming to when such people are allowed to generate divisions based on false claims?

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.