Forum Topic

Pollution in Putney High Street is falling

To counter the usual wild claims that pollution in PHS is soaring, the evidence shows the opposite.  The kerbside monitor there recorded, for example, an annual average level of NO2 in 2018 of 67 mcg/m3, which by last year had almost halved, to 36 mcg/m3 (data from https://www.londonair.org.uk/LondonAir/LATools/MonthlyAverages.aspx).Furthermore, research from Bath University (in the in the Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268125001143) based on the analysis of over a decade of data from Greater London and Central London, found that the introduction of the LEZ in 2008 and the ULEZ in 2019 significantly reduced harmful pollutants like nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) and particulate matter (PM10), resulting - and this is the key point - in a dramatic drop in sick leave in Greater London, and improved mental well-being and substantial cost savings. Key findings were:*  An 18.5% reduction in sick leave following LEZ implementation*  A 6.8% drop in the incidence of health problems*  An 10.2% decrease in respiratory issues*  Reported improvements in happiness, life satisfaction, and reduced anxiety.*  Annual public health savings of over £37 million, driven by fewer respiratory illnesses and reduced job absenteeism thanks to low emission zones.Altogether, rather good news.

Richard Carter ● 79d35 Comments

Wandsworth & TFL reviewed the no right turn a few years ago and decided to continue with with the restriction. According to Google Maps it will send people down Chelverton Road. (Time set for 07:00 Friday) There is a no left turn restriction from URR onto Charwood Road during the morning but as predicted vehicles are using the local shops (Sainsburys/Pets at Home) to do a U turn and turn right.  There used to be a guy, possible still there — that sits half a day in a camera car on Charlwood Road normally where it is prohibited to park and has done probably for the better part of two years if not more. Oblivious to the dangerous maneuvering and double parking behind him.  I assume he is paid by WBC as he is never ticketed.

Ed Robinson ● 69d

Crikey, Jonathan, your as bad as Philippa Bond, with all your https: Does what you put on here really prove anything. If the road has traffic it has traffic end of.  You only want people to drive 5mph or 10mph, then you don't practice what you preach zooming down the road overtaking vehicles.

Barbara Stevens ● 69d

Chelverton Rd, wasn't so bad today Lucille, but yesterday was dreadful.

Barbara Stevens ● 69d

20 mph limits definitely reduce accidents.  Don't take my word for it read this reporthttps://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2025/may/powerful-new-long-term-tfl-research-shows-20mph-speed-limits-save-lives-on-london-s-roadsAnd here is a Standard opinion piece for good measurehttps://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/opinion-its-official-20mph-is-good-for-all-londoners-its-time-selfish-drivers-stopped-opposing-it/ar-AA1FcY6V?ocid=BingNewsSerp

Jonathan Callaway ● 69d

I doubt this is true.  WBC/TfL policy is to try and keep through traffic on main roads rather than residential ones.Traffic heading east on URR will use Oxford Road to get to the Bridge, or maybe PBR.If someone reaches Putney Cross and sees the restriction then they are more likely to go up Burston Rd and turn left on to Putney Hill.Chelverton is more likely to be used as a cut through by traffic heading east and seeking to avoid delays on URR leading up to Putney Cross.Lucille is right.  The cameras on the turn from the URR into  Charlwood are still there.

Jonathan Callaway ● 69d

I think the camera is still up Barbara? It seems plenty of people are still using the shortcut during heavy traffic times. Incidentally while the air quality on Putney High Street may have improved, the same air quality on Upper Richmond Road going east from Charlwood to the junction at the High Street is disgusting, especially where the pavement narrows. Heavy traffic along this section has been much worse recently, no doubt why most local cyclists use Charlwood and Chelverton!

Lucille Grant ● 69d

The no right turn onto Putney high Street from URR heading West is a Wandsworth/TFL decision due to the traffic on the High Street.Chelverton Rd allows such traffic to join the High Street.It is basically Wandsworth/TFL policy to push traffic down that road.

Ed Robinson ● 69d

Well, I could say the same about you and Richard Jonathan, you only go against what anybody else has to say with all the continual statistics dated 5 yrs ago. Obviously lunchtime residents are not going to work and even if there was traffic, it wouldn't have bothered you on your bike. Hope you were not going the wrong way down the road.

Barbara Stevens ● 70d

Well, 12o/c is a bit different than 1st thing in the morning, which is 6 hrs from 6.30 am. They had a petition which didn't do much apart from now and again putting a van on Charlewood Rd. So Lunch time isn't people going out first thing to work or trying to get their children to school. Our own residents have had fines for coming back in the road before 10 am. but it does not deter other traffic, the noise is dreadful wakes you up.

Barbara Stevens ● 70d

Funnily enough I cycled down Chelverton about 1/2 hour ago. Zero traffic. If it is a problem why don’t you and your neighbours petition the council for further restrictions? Get your local councillor involved. Nothing will change if you just moan about it here.

Jonathan Callaway ● 70d

Still traffic in Chelverton Rd, it's now 10.20, so non stop traffic from 6.30. They must have taken away the van on Charlewood, unless they don't mind getting a fine.

Barbara Stevens ● 70d

Well try Chelverton, now I got up at 6.30 because I couldn't stand the noise of the vehicles, big delivery vehicles large vans cars. all trying to get into Putney High St, they have taken a short cut from the URR to Charlewood into Chelverton.

Barbara Stevens ● 70d

"The air does not get cleaner automatically."I think you are confusing "automatically" with changes that occur over time.Did my laptop, phone or even light bulb get cleaner automatically? No but they did improve over time.     Newer cars are cleaner than older cars and older cars.    Older cars fail MOT's or breakdown and have to be repaired.      Those repair costs may be expensive and hence older cars will come off the road.    The number of Bus miles have been reduced significantly.    As fuel costs have increased a number of older vehicles have become inefficient.    Buses have been replaced.    Life styles change. Working from home is now more common and requires less commuting.In short when comparing improvements the base line should not be what pollution was years ago but what it would be without ULEZ.The question is was ULEZ made on political decisions?I refer you to TFL's prediction of ULEZ compared to extending the congestion charge (see link below) which clearly shows the congestion charge extension would not only have been quicker to implement but would have reduced pollution more significantly.

Ed Robinson ● 71d

The air does not get cleaner automatically.  It takes concerted long term action by the authorities and it appears to have been working.  Without citizens pushing for something to be done and scientists telling us ever more loudly of the public health dangers of polluted air, it could well have taken even longer.Your political issue with ULEZ is a quite different point.  ULEZ is just one tool in the authorities' toolbox. For most of the population it appears to have had a beneficial effect and for people with polluting older vehicles the Mayor had a scrappage scheme to help them get rid of them.  Not a perfect scheme but shouldn't we be looking at it as something that worked for the greater good of most of the population?

Jonathan Callaway ● 71d

"Realistically totally pollution-free air is unattainable"\It didn't stop Labour from promising it whilst telling ULEZ compliant drivers that their vehicles were clean and demonising those that drove non-compliance cars.Sorry I will not forget the disgraceful regressive tax policy brought in by Labour and championed by middle class supporters who on the whole, so happens would be exempt from the charge.The policy also promoted buying older ULEZ compliant cars that the TRUTH organisation (those that measure the real world impact of car models in cities) wanted banned.We are possibly in a worse situation than before ULEZ expansion. Those that bought the ould second hand cars that Labour told them were clean have a good argument for not being additionally taxed as do those that bough new cars that are obviously ULEZ compliant.The sensible thing would have to be to extend the Congestion charge to the N/S Circular during peak times.This would have reduced congestion (hence pollution) as well as speeding up public transport bus times.Now there is no plan and we are told just suck the pollution in and be thankful.Of course the air will get cleaner! What next laptops and phone will get thiner and cheaper and more powerful!

Ed Robinson ● 71d

Realistically totally pollution-free air is unattainable.  There are ambient levels of pollution from various sources such that even if all traffic were 100% emission-free there would still be PMs getting into the atmosphere, as explained, from tyre and brake wear.  Take a look at this very interesting map: https://aqicn.org/map/europe/So the air is cleaner and it will probably get cleaner.  I don't see the problem so why the persistent negativity?  Let's just applaud the progress made and push for further improvements.

Jonathan Callaway ● 71d

We were promised by not only the Mayor but also the Labour Assembly members that ULEZ would deliver CLEAN air.CLEAN not cleaner!How can there still be pollution when ULEZ propaganda told us that a ULEZ compliant meant a clean vehicles?They over egged the benefits of ULEZ and taxed those that can least afford it.The air is cleaner, yes - but it would without ULEZ as buses have been upgraded/replaced/reduced and the numbers of old road stock reduces over time not to mention other economic factors that reduce those that can afford to drive, working from home etc.Alternative solutions such as extended the congestion charge (not necessarily the same tariff) to within the N/S circular do not seem to have been considered for political reasons.

Ed Robinson ● 71d

Most certainly not safer, because you do not know what the vehicle in front is about to do as going so slow. Or has it actually stopped or about to, with their foot permanently on the break.

Barbara Stevens ● 71d

Levels of NO2 in PHS have continued to fall even after Hammersmith bridge was shut.  Lower emissions must be the main reason - there are more electric cars around than five years ago.  Also. more vehicles have engines that cut out when they're stuck in traffic.20 mph on side roads now covers the whole borough.  That was another success for the Putney Society who agitated to have West Putney made a 20 mph zone, then did a survey of some roads in Thamesfield to show the council that the majority of residents were in favour there too.I don't see a problem with 20 mph on URR.  You might just take a tiny bit longer to reach the next lights.  It's also safer of course for all road users as well as pedestrians.

Jonathan Callaway ● 71d

Jonathan, how about just opening Hammersmith Bridge, instead of coming out with wood burning stoves, problems with vehicles tyres. How about, so much traffic going over the Bridge at Putney because Hammersmith Bridge not open. If ULEZ was brought in then most vehicles should have changed, but so much sitting in unnecessary traffic doesn't help and doesn't do much good for your vehicle. Or 20 mph on the URR when at least 30 should be acceptable. What speed were you allowed to go when you learnt to drive, not 10 mph or 20 mph, side roads yes 20 mph. But not a main road. As for break pads not surprised since people must be continually breaking to not go over 20 mph. More like wearing your break pads out unnecessarily.

Barbara Stevens ● 71d

I find the negativity around improvements to air quality in Putney High Street really disappointing.The Putney Society started its campaign to improve AQ back in 2011 and has seen some successes.  What we managed to do, in the first instance, was raise public awareness and engage with the council, who realised there was a real risk to public health.  The issue moved up the political agenda and even got the attention of Boris Johnson when he was Mayor.The source of the air pollution was primarily vehicle emissions - our first survey in Putney showed purely residential streets were almost all within EU guidelines although it is known that homes produce other pollution such as emissions from gas or oil-fired central heating, wood-burning stoves etc.Back to PHS.  It was always the traffic and it probably always will be.  The main emissions are NO2, a toxic gas that can harm the lungs of all of us, in particular the very young and the very old; and particulates of all sizes that can be mixed with exhaust fumes as well as coming from wear on tyres and brakepads.What has changed? Diesel-only buses have largely been phased out after a 2012 council survey of NO2 levels linked to specific vehicle types identified them as by far the major source of NO2 on PHS.  Retro-fitted buses, hybrid buses and now electric buses have brought major improvements.  The original inner London ULEZ zone and its subsequent extension have helped by removing most of the older more polluting vehicles from the roads.  The inner London zone had a positive effect locally as more of the through traffic became compliant.Here are some stats to show how things have improved since 2011.  Bear in mind the EU guidelines were for average levels not to exceed 40ug/m3 while the WHO sets a safe level of 10 ug/m3. - In 2010 the PHS street level average was 168, so over four times the EU level and over 16 times the WHO level.  This made PHS one of the most polluted roads in the UK.  - By 2015 this had fallen to 123 thanks to the arrival of the first hybrid buses.  - In 2024 the average in PHS was just 36, within the EU level but still 3½ times more than the WHO standard.In my view this shows the value of local campaigning, in this case initiated by the Putney Society – although it obviously took time – as well as the need to remain vigilant.  Attention has since turned to particulates, especially the PM2.5 ones which are so tiny they can lodge in the lungs and do long term damage.  These were not accurately measured in the past and some air quality experts argue the only safe level is zero.  These too have been falling though I don’t have accurate stats to illustrate that in PHS.  This website provides useful background on trends in PM levels across the UK: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/air-quality-statistics/concentrations-of-particulate-matter-pm10-and-pm25Just how these substantial improvements were achieved can be debated but the results are very clear and should be welcomed unreservedly.

Jonathan Callaway ● 71d

"But poorer people are unlikely to afford a car"The idea that people drive old cars through choice is a stupid entitled opinion.ULEZ is a regressive tax!

Ed Robinson ● 77d

Oops! Mistype there: the 2024 NO2 level was 36 µg/m3, not 16!

Richard Carter ● 77d

Quibbles about the causes of the reduction in pollution are somewhat beside the point. The ULEZ is regressive? But poorer people are unlikely to afford a car, and anyway, in inner London the proportion of households without access to a car was 62 per cent in 2023/24; in outer London it was 33 per cent. And as for the lame "joke" about the ULEZ extending to Spain, it's rather embarrassing to have to point out that the Bath study said no such thing: "The closest study to ours is a working paper by Holub et al. (2021) who have exploited the short-term variation in PM10 due to the Sahara dust on weekly work absence rate using Spanish social security data."But the real issue is that pollution in Putney High Street is much lower than in the past and is on a downward trajectory: in 2010, the annual average level of NO2 was 168 µg/m3 whilst in 2024 it was 16 µg/m3 - still too high and well above the WHO safe level of 10 µg/m3 but definitely improving.

Richard Carter ● 77d

Certainly true that the amount of vehicles in Brighton has reduced. Less commuter traffic nationally due to WFH.Nationally, golf courses have shown a significant increase in mid week usage since the pandemic.Widely thought to be those working from home.

Andy Pike ● 77d

No doubt so they can have a long weekend in Manchester where if I'm not mistaken 2019-2023 (last year I could see) saw improvements in air quality year after year.Or perhaps even Brighton:"Over the past 5 years (2018 to 2023) diffusion tubes suggest NO2 has improved 16 µg/m3 next to the A2010 road and main railway station, down from 42 to 26 µg/m3. As Brighton train station is one of the busiest in the UK the improvement in air quality benefits many thousands of people."

Ed Robinson ● 78d

It is a possibility, no doubt!

Ivonne Holliday ● 78d

Is it possible that the incidence of reduced sick leave is that they are all working from home so dont have to throw a Monday sickie? Just saying.

Andy Pike ● 78d

Hello Richard,Thank you for the information but I have not had time to read in detail the Science Direct article.I can tell you that yesterday the traffic on PHS and PH was flowing beautifully and it was a delight to see.  In this sense, pollution on PHS and PH was reduced considerably.  A very rare occurrence! As far as your post is concerned, it would not surprise me that there has been a decrease in respiratory issues in the ULEZ zones.  It would not take much until spring comes though high pollen counts can have a considerable incidence.I do take with a pinch of salt the remaining items of your list.  All of them can be result of other issues or a combination of pollution plus other issues.  For Wandsworth/Richmond/Merton boroughs, for example, until 2024 I believe, the air quality guidelines applicable were much higher than WHO.  Since the beginning of 2024, they follow WHO guidelines. Therefore, NO2 36 mcg/m3  is still above the WHO guidelines.  Also, the measurements taken by WBC relate to PM 2.5.A dramatic drop in sick leave in Greater London and improved mental well-being?  Really? Wow!!  It would be interesting what they call Greater London as well as Central London for that matter.  I know what the difference is but it surprised me that many people call Central London the City - which it is not.So, I am sorry to say that, for now, I take note of the information I saw and will endeavour to read the article in full.

Ivonne Holliday ● 78d

Richard is always pushing the ULEZ expansion as a great success whilst ignoring some fundamental points.It is a regression tax. That means those that least afford it have to pay it whilst those more wealthy are exempt.Sold as the only way to improve air quality. It's the same with the winter fuel allowance. The policy is poor so they have to try and convince people that there can be no other policy.A congestion charge within South/North Circular would have lowered emissions and freed up roads space for public transport but that would have meant taxing the liberals who identified as green whilst they drive their new cars An Oxford type ULEZ tariff scheme would have also spread the cost but again that would tax the middle class car driver.Time stands still according to some supporter. But in the real world old cars  breakdown, become uneconomical to fix or fail MOTs. Whilst new cars are cleaner. Fuel, insurance and other costs also mean for many motoring is not affordable. Buses are also under the Mayors powers and they were cleaned up before the S/N circular expansion yet the ULEZ claim credit for those too.The Mayor has looked after his supporters whilst taxing those not only with less wealth but also with less public transport.And because he has told people several times that ULEZ means not cleaner air but clear air he has boxed himself in.Terrorist police are now guarding cameras  when we are on heightened alert.Of course some people must be happy because someone else is being taxed!

Ed Robinson ● 79d

Ooh Ed, are you raining on Richard's parade?

Sue Hammond ● 79d

That's handy for motorists to know (not) when Khan is relentlessly milking his favourite cash-cow in London.

Sue Hammond ● 79d

Now the ULEz covers Northern Ireland!

Ed Robinson ● 79d

These seemed more authorative UK data sources referenced in the report (which I've not had time to read yet ...)"4.3. Sick leave, health and well-being dataThe second objective of this study is to determine whether the air quality improvements resulting from the policies have translated into benefits for productivity, well-being and physical health. To achieve .3. Sick leave, health and well-being data The second objective of this study is to determine whether the air quality improvements resulting from the policies have translated into benefits for productivity, well-being and physical health. To achieve this, we utilise the Quarterly Labour Force Survey (QLFS) (Office for National Statistics, Social Survey Division, Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, Central Survey Unit, 2023) and the Annual Population Survey (APS) (Office for National Statistics, Social Survey Division, 2024)., we utilise the Quarterly Labour Force
Survey (QLFS) (Office for National Statistics, Social Survey Division, Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, Central Survey Unit, 2023) and the Annual Population Survey (APS) (Office for National Statistics, Social Survey Division, 2024)."

Michael Ixer ● 79d

Just wondered where they got their sick leave data from - there seems to be a reference to Spain.I didn't know the ULEZ extended that far!No wonder they're so happy!"We estimate the causal impact of air pollution on the incidence of sick leaves in a representative panel of employees affiliated to the Spanish social security system. Using over 100 million worker-by-week observations from the period 2005-2014, we estimate the relationship between the share of days an individual is on sick leave in a given week and exposure to particulate matter (PM10) at the place of residence, controlling for weather, individual effects, and a wide range of time-by-location controls. We exploit quasi …"

Ed Robinson ● 79d