ULEZ Checker
Comments
-
Apparently not.valleynick66 said:
Anyone care to confirm if I’m reading that graphic correctly from the report?valleynick66 said:
but as I commented above doesn’t the 3 point improvement for outer London only match that for the rest of the country without the benefit of ULEZ?JamesSeed said:I think the argument is done and dusted (😉):
Via Politico: "Roadside levels of NO2, a gas that mainly comes from vehicles and has harmful health effects, have decreased by 27 percent across London since the ULEZ was expanded, according to a study independently reviewed and shared by the mayor of London."City Hall added that the London boroughs of Sutton, Merton, Croydon, Harrow and Bromley had the largest reduction in NO2 … which happens to be some of the boroughs most vocally against expanding the scheme."
Sadly, this is behind a paywall:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/mar/07/london-air-pollution-down-since-ulez-expansion-study
Or does the graph mean something else ?
In other words outer London improvement gain no better than the rest of England currently?
0 -
Harmful NO2 concentrations are estimated to be down across London:Central London - 54% lowerInner London - 29% lowerOuter London - 24% lower
The air quality is noticeably better around Clapham Common that it was 22 years ago when we moved there, not just because of ULEZ, but because there are fewer diesel cars, petrol cars pollute less than they used to, and because of the rising numbers of people replacing their vehicles with electric cars. It’s all good.3 -
I've this morning been given the news my van, a gebuinely excellent vehicle, is being swapped out for an EV soon. Which is fine and dandy but I won't be having a charger at my house as I don't want a liveried van on the drive especially not 2 and a half tonnes unladen of liveried van, they don't have any plans for chargers in our yard so I'll be less productive as a result charging it during my working day when I'd otherwise be, working. They are already bullying people into charging them in their own time (we are not allowed to use the vans privately, stackable offence) trying to get people to charge them on lunchbreaks (I'm not totally against this but we don't get paid for our lunch break so don't see why that should be incumbent on us to spend it sat in a van at a McDonald's) and the inevitable drop in productivity that accompanies regularly spending an hour charging a vehicle up when previously it was 10 minutes once every fortnight.
Whatever, this is progress apparently. They drive ok and will be Gucci and shiny.
3 -
If you’re being bullied at work do you have a Trade Union to support you?…Carter said:I've this morning been given the news my van, a gebuinely excellent vehicle, is being swapped out for an EV soon. Which is fine and dandy but I won't be having a charger at my house as I don't want a liveried van on the drive especially not 2 and a half tonnes unladen of liveried van, they don't have any plans for chargers in our yard so I'll be less productive as a result charging it during my working day when I'd otherwise be, working. They are already bullying people into charging them in their own time (we are not allowed to use the vans privately, stackable offence) trying to get people to charge them on lunchbreaks (I'm not totally against this but we don't get paid for our lunch break so don't see why that should be incumbent on us to spend it sat in a van at a McDonald's) and the inevitable drop in productivity that accompanies regularly spending an hour charging a vehicle up when previously it was 10 minutes once every fortnight.
Whatever, this is progress apparently. They drive ok and will be Gucci and shiny.3 -
That's insane to not have chargers at the yard. You're fully in your rights to tell them you don't want to park it outside your home.Carter said:I've this morning been given the news my van, a gebuinely excellent vehicle, is being swapped out for an EV soon. Which is fine and dandy but I won't be having a charger at my house as I don't want a liveried van on the drive especially not 2 and a half tonnes unladen of liveried van, they don't have any plans for chargers in our yard so I'll be less productive as a result charging it during my working day when I'd otherwise be, working. They are already bullying people into charging them in their own time (we are not allowed to use the vans privately, stackable offence) trying to get people to charge them on lunchbreaks (I'm not totally against this but we don't get paid for our lunch break so don't see why that should be incumbent on us to spend it sat in a van at a McDonald's) and the inevitable drop in productivity that accompanies regularly spending an hour charging a vehicle up when previously it was 10 minutes once every fortnight.
Whatever, this is progress apparently. They drive ok and will be Gucci and shiny.4 -
I know, and I have. I’ve been around long enough to know what I can and can't do and having the cheapest possible contractors they find installing an EV charger at my house is a definite no.
Seth, I'm not being bullied, its just more modern workplace tedious bullshit that makes doing the fundamentals for which I draw a wage that bit more difficult
1 -
Carter said:I know, and I have. I’ve been around long enough to know what I can and can't do and having the cheapest possible contractors they find installing an EV charger at my house is a definite no.
Seth, I'm not being bullied, its just more modern workplace tedious bullshit that makes doing the fundamentals for which I draw a wage that bit more difficult
If the EV charger is installed at no cost and is ‘yours’ thereafter that might be of use / value to you if you went EV personally ?
Not suggesting you should accommodate your employers wish but might this ultimately create some value for you?
Im not sure I would be unduly worried by choice of contractors as isn’t it a dedicated cable to your fuse box but a new / dedicated ‘output’ to support it? Same risk of contractors with any installation I’d assume. But maybe I’m being too optimistic.0 -
Its much of a muchness, it costs about a grand give or take to install an EV charging point. I dont have an EV so the value is nil for now and I dont plan on buying one so I can swallow a £1000 discount on my house when I sell. And if the subbies damage anything I know I will have the devils own job getting that sorted or getting accountability taken for it.
Plus, and big plus they look totally out of character with the rest of the house and will be in my way.0 -
And how do you bill them if you did charge at home?3
-
Thats something else I trust zero percent. Apparently the app knows its being plugged into a works van. Ive heard loads of people report this not happening so have reverted to public chargers.Rob7Lee said:And how do you bill them if you did charge at home?
I'm sure it will get sorted in time but its another layer of aggro0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Yet another city/country continues to progress and move forward into the 21st century.
Meanwhile in London people are still moaning about getting to breathe non toxic air.
3 -
5 -
‘Similar to other studies (Ellison et al., 2013, Margaryan, 2021, Prieto-Rodriguez et al., 2022, Zhai and Wolff, 2021), we find that U/LEZ have reduced traffic Nitrogen Dioxide and particulates. These impacts are stronger as LEZ became more stringent in Phase 2 with reductions in Nitrogen dioxide by 5.8% and in Particulates by 9.7%. ULEZ had an even stronger impact with a significant reduction in traffic and by 21% and 15%, respectively, compared to pre-implementation levels in Central London.The improvements in air quality induced by these policies have translated in wider productivity impacts as we demonstrate that LEZ has reduced the probability of taking sick leave by 18.5%. Consistent with other studies, we also observe beneficial physical health effects, including a 6.8% reduction in the incidence of health problems and a 10.2% reduction in respiratory problems, both compared to the period prior to the LEZ’s introduction.Not only has ULEZ improved general health, but also feelings of happiness, worthiness, and satisfaction by 1.8%, 1.9%, and 2.1%, respectively. The ULEZ has also reduced anxiety by 11% relative to the pre-policy average for individuals working in Central London.Overall, it appears that improvements in air quality have contributed to better physical health, which in turn has led to reduced sick leave and enhanced mental well-being.These effects are non-linear, being stronger when these clean air transport policies are more stringent, resulting in greater air quality improvements. Using a back-of-the-envelope approach on our in-sample estimates of the physical health and productivity impacts, we have found that LEZ leads to just over £37M savings per year for the overall population.’8
-
I’m sure the cobalt miners are dancing with joy.0
-
Good thing the new batteries coming out of China have much smaller mineral requirements.MrWalker said:I’m sure the cobalt miners are dancing with joy.2 -
TFL to increase London congestion charge to £18 from January including electric vehicles which have been exempt upto now.2
-
Lol! Well someone has to pay for the waste and excesses of TfL!Dansk_Red said:TFL to increase London congestion charge to £18 from January including electric vehicles which have been exempt upto now.1 -
Now, I like to drive into London, and I also like to buy a season ticket. But which one is best? There's only one way to find out.....0
-
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jun/19/uk-toxic-air-killing-people-doctors-warn?fbclid=PAZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAaek6ywdIB7A3KJSBs1KsDFOpzm6NLKLlMpK2rRMliD_kgjr9iRpHxSphbbpUA_aem_teCuC4rWqx7AsWRmlYW4wA
Air pollution causing 30k deaths a year and a cost of at least £27bn a year2 -
leaving even more room for surveillance technologycantersaddick said:
Good thing the new batteries coming out of China have much smaller mineral requirements.MrWalker said:I’m sure the cobalt miners are dancing with joy.1 -
Sponsored links:
-
Scientists say they have been "stunned" by how quickly young children's lungs began to recover and grow after pollution restrictions were brought in where they lived.
Researchers found that children in London whose lung growth had been stunted by pollution showed impressive improvements after the introduction of an Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) in 2019 reduced emissions.
The study followed more than 3,400 primary school children in London and Luton and provides what scientists believe is the strongest evidence yet that local clean air zones could help reduce some of the harm caused by pollution during childhood.
3 -
cantersaddick said:My focus on this is from a public health and health economics as thats my professional area of interest.
For me this is huge. Beyond the obvious healthier children is a clear and obvious societal good. There are just so many benefits.
This is tens of thousands of GP appointments available for other needs with knock on effects on wait times and access to GP. Its thousands of referral and treatment slots in the NHS which are available for others and waiting lists for treatments reducing.
Its millions fewer sick days taken from school and work across their lifetime leading to a more productive and healthy workforce.
Its whole liferimes of NHS support avoided.
These sort of public health interventions really are huge wins for every part of society.
Posted the above on the "wrong" thread....0 -
Looking at that chart, did ULEZ improve fhe lungs of the Luton children too ?Chizz said:Scientists say they have been "stunned" by how quickly young children's lungs began to recover and grow after pollution restrictions were brought in where they lived.
Researchers found that children in London whose lung growth had been stunted by pollution showed impressive improvements after the introduction of an Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) in 2019 reduced emissions.
The study followed more than 3,400 primary school children in London and Luton and provides what scientists believe is the strongest evidence yet that local clean air zones could help reduce some of the harm caused by pollution during childhood.
0 -
No its following the same individual children over time. So you would expect lung performance to increase year on year. The point is that pre-ULEZ the london children were lagging behind but now they are on a par once you control for physical activity, socio-economic group etc.letthegoodtimesroll said:
Looking at that chart, did ULEZ improve fhe lungs of the Luton children too ?Chizz said:Scientists say they have been "stunned" by how quickly young children's lungs began to recover and grow after pollution restrictions were brought in where they lived.
Researchers found that children in London whose lung growth had been stunted by pollution showed impressive improvements after the introduction of an Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) in 2019 reduced emissions.
The study followed more than 3,400 primary school children in London and Luton and provides what scientists believe is the strongest evidence yet that local clean air zones could help reduce some of the harm caused by pollution during childhood.
3 -
letthegoodtimesroll said:
Looking at that chart, did ULEZ improve fhe lungs of the Luton children too ?Chizz said:Scientists say they have been "stunned" by how quickly young children's lungs began to recover and grow after pollution restrictions were brought in where they lived.
Researchers found that children in London whose lung growth had been stunted by pollution showed impressive improvements after the introduction of an Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) in 2019 reduced emissions.
The study followed more than 3,400 primary school children in London and Luton and provides what scientists believe is the strongest evidence yet that local clean air zones could help reduce some of the harm caused by pollution during childhood.
"While we would expect children's lungs to grow year on year, our results indicate that the London children's lung growth had accelerated during the four years to 'catch up' with the control group in Luton to reach similar levels of lung capacity," researchers say.
Overall the proportion of children in London whose lung capacity was deemed "clinically impaired" (suggesting lung damage resulting in coughs or breathlessness) fell from 14% to 9%. In Luton - where some smaller scale measures were put in place to tackle air pollution - the figures were 9% to 7%.
3 -
To put those graphs into context (because they look quite minor in terms of the differences imo).
The proportion of children in London who were deemed "clinically impaired" fell from 14% prior to ULEZ to 9% five years later.
This also helps with long term health protection because lungs finish growing in early adulthood. Becoming an adult with smaller lungs is a permanent issue. Catching up now will improve these children's later lives.
Clean air is something that benefits everyone, and it's brilliant that this has had the impact that it has.3
