Labour councillor Trevor Muten recently announced that there were no plans for an “ultra low emission zone” (ULEZ) in Brighton and Hove.
I hear many Brighton and Hove drivers celebrate by revving their engines and tooting their horns in a frenzy of giddy excitement!
Soberingly, there is another side to this debate – those who have diseases caused or worsened by air pollution.
Some of us won’t even know our own lives or our sensitive child’s lungs have been impacted until later in life or when our lives have been shortened. For some, air pollution may be the cause of a life of suffering and lost opportunities.
Just in case you didn’t already know, air pollution at the levels we breathe in Brighton and Hove causes a whole host of illnesses, suffering and lost life.
Contrary to disinformation, emissions don’t just blow away in our city. In the council’s own 2023 annual air quality report, 12 locations showed illegal levels of NO2 (nitrogen dioxide).
And all 80 violated WHO (World Health Organisation) guidelines for health. It was disappointing that this information wasn’t publicised as it is a public health concern.
When air quality is at illegal levels, the government requires an “Air Quality Action Plan” be submitted to show how the local council is planning to reduce air pollution.
It is the responsibility of the local council to produce the plan. It did – and the plan was approved by all parties last year.
Among many other interventions to reduce harmful air pollution, it included progressing an expanded ULEZ. Out of all the interventions, the ULEZ was deemed by far the most effective measure to reduce harmful NO2 air pollution.
Why is a ULEZ so effective in improving air quality? Older diesel vehicles emit far larger amounts of harmful NO2 pollution compared with other vehicles. Mostly, those vehicles are the ones implicated in the Volkswagen (VW) emissions scandal and vehicles older than 20 years.
Many cities in the UK have already implemented a ULEZ and many cities in Europe have banned those diesel vehicles outright to reduce the amount of harmful pollution next to roads.
It is impossible to reduce NO2 from road transport without tackling those older diesel vehicles and it is unrealistic to tackle diesel without a ULEZ or by banning them outright.
Thankfully around 90 per cent of private cars in Brighton and Hove are ULEZ compliant but the number of vehicles that remain cause the majority of NO2 pollution.
Just announcing a ULEZ reduces air pollution as people buy new vehicles, ensuring they are ULEZ compliant.
Announcing that there is not going to be a ULEZ, as the Labour councillor recently did, one would expect would have the opposite effect. People might be more likely to buy old secondhand polluting diesels on the cheap.
This is why, in my opinion, it was unwise of Labour and Councillor Muten, who chairs the council’s Transport and Sustainability Committee, to announce that they have no plans for an expanded zone. That decision will risk air quality and our health.
For those of us who need clean air to stay healthy, this announcement was bad news. It not only ruled out the most effective means of improving our air quality in Brighton and Hove and our health but also encouraged people to continue buying diesel.
On behalf of the vulnerable, whose health will be harmed as a result of this decision, I plead with Labour to implement an expanded ULEZ as soon as possible. It is the only realistic way to improve air quality in our city.
Adrian Hill is an air quality campaigner who lives in Brighton.
Adrian hill needs to explain why he thinks a ULEZ would be more affective than a park and ride, and considering the cost of implementing it with most vehicles now being electric, it seems somewhat pointless
Most cars in Brighton are not electric.
Number of cars in B&H: a bit over 100,000.
Number of electric cars: ~1,500.
The problem with Park and Ride is
1. that it does nothing to stop locals driving around in polluting cars.
2. that P&R already exists, but most people choose not to use it.
This is not to say that ULEZ is, or is not, the answer.
But whatever might happen needs to be effective and thought out.
The prime purpose should not be lost in the politics: to reduce air pollution so that what we breathe is less damaging to us and to our children
We don’t really have a park and ride in Brighton. Yes, there is a car park and then you can get on a local bus, stopping at every local stop. That’s not a park and ride – that’s just parking somewhere and taking a bus. It isn’t signposted to any large degree or promoted. It does not work as Park and Rides do across the world (dedicated fast services, well promoted, economical).
Why don’t we have park and rides? Well, claims that there isn’t land (not true – a number have already been identified and trial was stopped this summer by the “greens”. You could think the main loser for park and ride would be the council themselves (millions in city centre parking lost). So perhaps that’s why they are not so keen….
So I am right in thinking a proper park and ride would in fact do a better job than a ULEZ as you have not actually said why you think it would benefit our city.
We do not have a park and ride in Brighton, if you are referring to withdean, that is not one, Google park and ride.
If we did have a park and ride on the 4 main roads into Brighton, we would subsequently then have an actual rapid transport network, which we currently don’t have.
Having a rapid transport network, more people including myself would be inclined to use it. Currently it takes an hour to bus across the city, 15 mins in a car. That isn’t going to tempt people no matter how much people pretend we have a great bus service, fact is, it’s mediocre.
I’m not sure what you mean by the prime purpose being lost in politics?
It’s not logical thinking to spend millions on a system that will hit the poorest the hardest and actually not help our city have a better transport network, then be out dated in 5 years time so money wasted as all cars will be compliment by then. Zero long term gain, just short term politics.
Not everyone can afford an electric car, so the logical and most cost effective solution, car parks on the entrances to the city, London road, Lewes road, old shoreham and maybe the marina with rapid transport supporting it.
New England Road has illegal levels of pollution. 50% of the NO2 pollution is caused by diesel vehicles (likely euro 5 and older). ULEZ is aimed at tackling those specific vehicles and the very old petrols that have high levels of particulates. A ULEZ will quickly improve air quality and that is why a ULEZ is required. Brighton has NO2 that violates the WHO guideline levels by 4.7 times.
Electric will help to improve CO2 emissions and health harming pollutants over the longer term but I agree is necessary as well as active travel and efficiency. I’m sorry if it wasn’t clear.
I don’t understand how a ULEZ would solve the problem on your figures. You state that we’re above WHO by 4.7 times. But ULEZ would remove 50%. So wouldn’t we still be far over – by 2 to 3 times?
Wouldn’t reducing traffic levels be needed too? And isn’t that a park and ride? Plus other options such as free public transport, more help/encouragement for those who can afford it to go electric. Surely the carrot is better than the stick? Especially as this stick is so politically toxic!
So on that basis a ULEZ takes us half way to legal levels.
Sounds like a good place to start.
Why not implement a refinement of current ulez applied elsewhere where the most polluting diesels – euro 3 and lower – are banned? From euro 4 onwards they are not too bad. Current ulez is quite onerous allowing for euro 6 only.
The pollution in Brighton and Hove is a legacy left by the Green and Labour coalition. Cycle lanes and Madeira Drive that took me 30 minutes to complete yesterday are the main factors.If the Council wants to reduce pollution return them back to the residents and not the cycle fanatics ie Bricycles.
Ahahaha
People who ride bikes are not residents?
What?
A very good article here which clearly states facts and helps dispel some of the misinformation. The Labour council should be deeply ashamed at prioritising diesel engines over the air we breathe but they are intent on scrapping projects that could make the city less congested and polluted. As the writer of this article is good at dispelling misinformation, perhaps he could also write an article on how cycle lanes DONT cause pollution. I am astonished how this daft myth is constantly restated in the comments in our local papers, how can people seriously state this? It is almost beyond parody .
Cycle lanes reduce the lanes available for cars, which increases congestion significantly, which prolongs journey times and pollution.
I think thats the idea.
I have seen the truth of this in Madeira Drive myself.
I am a full time cyclist with no car.
Cycle lanes increase congestion (and thus pollution)
This is perhaps the most common myth, possibly because critics confuse what feels like it’s true with what actually is true: the assumption that if you take some road space from motor vehicles, you get more traffic jams – as with (a commonly used parallel) forcing water down a smaller pipe.
But fluid and traffic are not the same thing, as shown by 60 years of governments trying and failing to road-build their way out of congestion. The idea of induced demand – more road space brings more cars – has been known for decades, and it also works in reverse. This is especially so with bike lanes, which are such an efficient use of the same space that they can often mean the same amount of space carrying more people overall.
(From The Guardian, Wed 3 Jul 2019)
Martin cook, I too read this article but couldn’t find any facts. I found a lot of option dressed up as facts. Just because you believe something does not make it so. The roads with the worst pollution are bus only north Street. Lewes road (some local politicians congested it), new England road (some idiots again messed with the traffic management here and made viaduct road 1 way…) So maybe the answer isn’t Draconian elitist schemes like ULEZ but maybe, just maybe it could be poor traffic management. Why don’t the people (green party) who whine on about ULEZ actually pay for an independent study on road system management for the main city roads, then compare those actual facts with what could be achieved with ULEZ. You never know they might actually do something environmentally friendly for the city for once.
I WISH
With the utmost respect this is exactly how misinformation perpetuates. Please do look up the science of induced and reduced demand. In the meantime, according to this logic cities like LA or Houston which have lane upon lane of multiple highways tearing through them, would have very little air pollution and cities like Amsterdam and Copenhagen would be dangerously polluted. Of course the opposite is true, the only way to reduce pollution from vehicles is to reclaim road space for more sustainable means, buses, trams, walking and cycling. This has worked all over Europe, there is no reason it can’t work here.
yes, there is a reason why it won’t work here. We don’t have park and ride and all the others you have listed do. So all those who don’t have good public transport where they live could not then travel close to Brighton. Park and ride is first priority – can’t learn from others where we don’t have this enabling step….
I know it’s easy to think everything can be done by public transport – but we live near many villages and areas where that just isn’t the case.
Martin cook, Amsterdam has trams and park and ride. Brighton does not. LA is in America not Europe so pretty hard to draw a comparison as you actually need a car in the US to buy milk.
Induced and reduced demand sounds highly like the state trying to control how people live their lives. This isn’t China. The best approach, which has been proven time and time again across Europe, be it Amsterdam to nice is park and ride linked up with trams. Not nonsense taxes on the poor.
I feel Adrian Hill’s article is well written. Although ULEZ does not necessarily mean people will be able to afford new compliant cars. It just means that those who have older more polluting cars will be penalised for not being well off enough to buy newer and less polluting cars. So will inevitably be a tax on the poor, who can least afford it. It shouldn’t come down to a choice between breathing and eating, but that is the inevitable course if ULEZ is introduced. The cost of living crisis has bitten family finances to the bone all major party’s should come together to come up with improving air quality without burdening peoples finances unfairly.
Absolute nonsense. Get in the bin. Grow up people. Take a step back and get away from the “Climate Crisis” propaganda which ultimately only benefits big business. A few years ago we were told to buy a diesel. Now diesel cars are anathema. Now we have to buy electric but who knows the environmental cost of producing that tank sized Tesla or where the electricity is being generated (most likely coal) or how we dispose of the batteries. You are being played. This is variously a tax (ULEZ) or a way to perpetuate profits for big business (Climate Crisis). Clowns
Lol. Assume this article is a parody?
This city does not need a ULEZ zone it’s totally unfair especially in a cost of living crisis especially for people that have older cars and can’t afford to replace them atm the cost each day of taking it on the road just to get to work! I’m fortunate even though my car is 13 years old I wouldnt have to pay but it already is a nightmare for me to travel round (self employed builder) especially with roads taken over by cyclists- went along sea rd to portslade took 2 hrs & that was going inland too- why is that cycle lane in the rd still when they have one on a massive promenade, left or right turns at junctions tarmaced over so you have to queue with cars going straight on then lights change again- parking spaces tarmaced too you spend even longer looking to park and that’s why pollution levels are up! I do agree cars need to be more green & did think years ago why are they promoting diesel cars it’s always been a dirtier fuel also I think just my opinion a few years ago EV cars not the way forward! Hydrogen way forward I say & by product from exhaust water!
Another Climate emergency, quick tax everyone more! You are so deluded if you think the answer to everything is tax people more.
Adrian Hill needs to provide the evidence that the alleged pollution levels in B&H are at a dangerous level. Utter cod’s wallop!! It’s purged constantly by fresh sea air.. Stop spreading alarm and despondency….
The council actively monitors air quality and publishes the figures – see https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/environment/noise-pollution-and-air-quality/2022-air-quality-annual-status-report-asr#tab–appendix-d-maps-of-monitoring-locations-and-aqmas.
To quote: “The relatively stringent annual average standard 40µg/m3 continues to be exceeded next to parts of Lewes Road with monitoring detecting NO2 (within 10%) of the UK standard next to, London Road, Grand Parade, New England Road, Viaduct Terrace and part of North Street (roadside at the building-line frontage).
In recent years substantial improvements have been detected around the bus ULEZ, the main railway station and the Royal County Hospital.”
ULEZ is politically toxic thanks to London. The way it has been done has put environmental causes back – and who doesn’t want cleaner air?
The London mayor says this is not to make money. But clearly it is. Yes, to spend on transport, but hundreds of millions from less well-off to others, many who are better off!
The article says “just announcing a ULEZ reduces air pollution as people buy new vehicle”. Really? Many people who are driving older petrol cars and diesels having spare cash to buy. Yes, some can but most cannot. After all, that’s why many of them are driving older vehicles now – they can’t afford to buy more recent one. Saying otherwise is heartless
To make fairer, London really could stop making money from ULEZ. Take all the £12.50’s and put into a pot and pay this out as scrappage. And a guarantee that anyone who has paid in can get all of that back (and ideally more) towards a compliant vehicle. That would help those who can’t easily make the change and make the scheme much less about robbing the poor to pay the rich! But TLF want the money for other things, not really about removing the more polluting vehicles or improving air then is it?
Well we said no to ULEZ because we all voted labour.
Greens look set to loose their only MP as they are clearly still not listening…
Balance restored.
Now if we could fix some of these terrible road schemes. Brighton seafront, viaduct road, Lewes road, we might just get the pollution down.
We didn’t all vote Labour, and there is no guarantee that Labour will not be bringing in ULEZ when it suits them to make a profit by it. They didn’t put up much of a fight against the idiotic schemes perpetuated on the city by the Ghastly Greens. So why should one believe anything they say now?
A proper park and ride scheme with excellent public transport is badly needed. The current bus service is unreliable and often leads to buses being so full, that it is impossible to get on them when they do arrive at a stop. And sometimes they don’t turn up at all. The whole system needs a complete overhaul.
Brighton biggest issue is traffic. The city, was not built for the car. The recent chaos caused by the central road closure emphasised this and the build up in traffic, pollution and driver frustration was not pleasant.
I’d stick a £5 levy on each and every journey (including electric cars). £10 for old vehicles. I’d also pedestrianise many streets. I’d add lots of exception for those with disabilities.
Controversial, radical and there would be many, many losers, but businesses and people would adjust and it has the potential to make Brighton one of the most liveable cities in the UK. We should turn Brighton’s small streets into an asset, not a chaotic hazard.
Much of Brighton was built for the car. My home is nearly 100 years old and was built with a garage.
Yes, the very central parts of B&H predate cars – although the richer homes had horses and stables. But the majority of the city was built when cars were available to some and now, thanks to improving standards of living through the decades, cars are available to most.
As for taxing every short journey – well we already have that. If you travel more than a few minutes walk in most of the city you move parking zones. So you can’t stop without paying a fee (and so a tax). Long journeys to and from home are not penalised as these are out of the city. So I think we already have (by accident) a system to tax short car journeys within the city (disabled people don’t have to pay and traders can pay for an annual pass so we already have a reasonably fair system)
Your point is valid. I’m taking the perspective of someone who has always lived in the centre of cities and wants a walkable city with few cars.
Latter developments were meant for the car hence the conflict.
I blame the low rise expansion of UK cities for the poor state of UK cities outside of London. It is well established that inner city density is a driver of growth and this is holding the UK back and (arguably) rendering our cities second class on the world stage.
This is why I fight for the centre of cities.
Dave kane obviously hasn’t seen any of the historical photos of central Brighton with 4 lane roads, which are now narrowed down to 2 lanes. Instead of moronic taxes, build an actual solution, a park and ride system.
The loudmouth carbrains who bang on about ULEZ, “climate propaganda” and 15 minute cities (lol) are the unpleasant minority. Multiple surveys have shown that the vast majority of urban residents strongly support these schemes, so cry whinge and moan but sustainable schemes to reduce dangerous air, noise and traffic pollution are welcome and they are coming soon. Thank goodness for that.
All well and good considering this, but until BHCC realise that we are a tourist destination and strongly rely on its income I couldn’t think of a worse this to do
“And all 80 violated WHO (World Health Organisation) guidelines for health. It was disappointing that this information wasn’t publicised as it is a public health concern”
Cool – so where i the link to this report/data? Good chance to ‘publicise’ it here… so were is it?
Got a link? Got references? Or just more blah, blah, blah?