Skip to main content
Press ReleaseULEZ

London Mayor Should Come Clean About Charging Plans

By 20th November 2022One Comment

London Mayor Sadiq Khan has suddenly convened a meeting of the Greater London Assembly on 17 November. The aim is to rubber-stamp his ambitions to bring in “road user charging schemes” including making the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) London-wide. [1]
Using the cover of the fallout from the Chancellor’s Statement, the Mayor seeks to push ahead with his deeply flawed plans. His claims of ‘thousands of deaths each year from air pollution’ don’t add up – they are not real people but a contrived figure. Despite being holier-than-thou on air quality, he plans yet another large New Year’s firework display. [2] 

The Mayor has no clear mandate from his last Manifesto, or from his recent ULEZ consultation. A whistleblower revealed that his plans were deeply unpopular, with 66% against and only 24% for. [3]
His consultation is of dubious legality, as it withheld essential information from the public on the money he would make and the substantial costs. His own consultants’ report showed that his plans would disadvantage many Londoners, but also let slip his assumption of having full London-wide road pricing in place by 2026. [4] 

The Mayor must come clean over whether his consultation was ever for real and if decisions had been made in advance regardless of due process. A Transport for London webpage seen earlier in the year has revealed that road user charging systems were already being built: [5]
“London… is now looking to lead the way in introducing a new, more sophisticated type of road pricing. Join TfL now and make this happen. Help us build the next generation road use charging platforms. All being built in the cloud.”

The cash-strapped Mayor is also pushing on under two other pretexts; achieving a fantasy world known as ‘Net Zero’ that can only be achieved through massively disrupting everyone’s lives, and reducing car and motorbike use in London by 27% by 2030 (read: driving people off the road). [6]
The ULEZ consultation revealed many reasons why the Mayor should not go ahead. His failure to release the damning results for a balanced debate is one good reason why Greater London Assembly Members must reject his plans.


[1] See Proposal 24.1 on p13, Agenda reports pack 

 [2]  Not real people. GLA guide: Better Environment, Better Health, 2013, p15
(preserved on
“…it is estimated that the equivalent of… deaths in London… were attributable to long-term exposure. It should be noted that this does not relate to real individuals, but is a statistical construct…”

See other research from the Royal College of Physicians, 2016.

 2022 firework display – Mayor’s ‘best ever event’. Mr Khan said: “I’m delighted that our fireworks are back…” 

 Several previous displays – 

[3] Sadiq Khan’s Manifesto, 2021 


 [4] Full set of TfL consultation documents available (spin warning!) on 

 Jacobs consultants’ report: London-wide ULEZ Integrated Impact Assessment 

Vulnerable groups including pregnant women, minorities and the elderly will all be disproportionately and adversely impacted by the Mayor’s proposals.
Assumption of London-wide road pricing/road user charging in 2026 – p28

Legality, relevant to Mayor and Assembly decision-making. Amongst other issues, process has questionable compliance with key ‘Gunning Principles’ in case law 
there is sufficient information to give ‘intelligent consideration’ The information provided must relate to the consultation and must be available, accessible, and easily interpretable for consultees to provide an informed response 

‘conscientious consideration’ must be given to the consultation responses before a decision is made Decision-makers should be able to provide evidence that they took consultation responses into account  

[5] is on a recruitment site set up for TfL by an agency. This is corroborated by a short video for TfL and an article [sic] 
It has also been verified as genuine via

[6] Mayor justifies money-making plans against ‘Net Zero’
Sadiq Khan considers charging London drivers by the mile to meet net zero goals …

Drastic consequences of rush for ‘Net Zero’ 

See also independent CEBR report on impracticality of one key ‘Net Zero measure: ‘Economic impacts of the 2030 – 2040 bans on the sale of fossil fuel vehicles’

One Comment

  • Marina Assunta says:

    In India and China much of the land is swallowed in nothing but buildings, there is no air and so the atmosphere is thick dense with a restriction of air.
    Therefore, the absence of trees would result in significantly HIGHER amounts of carbon dioxide in the air and LOWER amounts of oxygen! The filthy air would also be full of airborne particles and pollutants like carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide and its temperature may increase by up to 12 F.
    When talking of cleaning the environment think what you do before putting the blame on vehicles.

Leave a Reply