Cleaning up London’s toxic air
Closed
672 Londoners have responded | 25/10/2021 - 19/07/2023
Discussions
The proposed Emissions Surcharge
At present, London is in breach of legal limits for a pollutant called Nitrogen Dioxide (NOx) which contributes to poor health, particularly respiratory problems such as wheezing, coughing, colds, flu and bronchitis. The Mayor has proposed the introduction of an Emissions Surcharge, to be introduced from 2017. The charge aims to reduce the number of most polluting vehicles from driving within the Congestion Charging Zone.
It is suggested that it would operate in the same zone and at the same times as the Congestion Charge (7am – 6pm, Monday to Friday). The charge would affect only the oldest vehicles that travel into the zone which are pre-Euro 4 standard. Broadly speaking, this means that only vehicles first registered with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) before January 2005 will be affected and will be required to pay the daily charge. Even if the UK leaves the EU, the emissions limits defined by the Euro 4 standards would still apply. These vehicles would be required to pay a daily charge which could be set at around £10 in addition to the Congestion Charge which is currently £11.50 (and any Low Emission Zone charges if applicable). The ES Charge is a short term measure, designed to take action ahead of the implementation of ULEZ in 2020. When the Ultra Low Emission Zone starts operation (currently planned for September 2020), the Emissions Surcharge could be discontinued, but this is subject to specific consultation in Autumn 2016. It is proposed that majority of exemptions and discounts that apply to the Congestion Charge would also apply to the Emissions Surcharge. This would mean that residents would only pay 10% of the daily charge, other discounts/exemptions for Blue Badge Holders, taxis and private hire vehicles. This would mean that residents would only pay 10% of the daily charge. Unlike the Congestion Charge, it is also proposed that vehicles with 9 or more seats including buses and coaches would be required to pay the charge as they con
The discussion ran from 04 July 2016 - 04 October 2016
Closed
Community guidelines
Anything you publish will appear almost right away. We want anyone to feel welcome to get involved in a constructive way. Our community guidelines will help us all do this.
Read our guidelines
Want to join our next discussion?
New here? Join Talk London, City Hall's online community where you can have your say on London's biggest issues.
Join Talk LondonAlready have an account?
Log into your accountAnonymous - account deleted
Community Member 9 years agoIt has been proven that when considering the overall pollution and use of raw materials required to make a vehicle, that running vehicles for a longer life is actually greener. There is also the concern that Diesel Particulate Filters clog...
Show full commentIt has been proven that when considering the overall pollution and use of raw materials required to make a vehicle, that running vehicles for a longer life is actually greener. There is also the concern that Diesel Particulate Filters clog in London and can cause worse pollution by cause the engine to run inefficiently. Also I pose the question what is a diesel particulate filter, because it is not a filter if collects visible soot and processes it into invisible exhaust products. DPFs could actually be more hazardous to health as many of the exhaust products stay airborne until absorbed by something (a living organism, e.g. someone’s lungs). Further assessment of real world driving conditions in London should be undertaken to determine if newer diesel vehicles are actually greener.
Show less of commentJamieo
Community Member 9 years agoClean up the buses and black taxis.
Show full commentWhy aren't the black taxis hydro or electric now?
Most of them are still diesel.
If you want to tax people for polluting then you have to set a good example yourself.
Public transportation and transport...
Clean up the buses and black taxis.
Why aren't the black taxis hydro or electric now?
Most of them are still diesel.
If you want to tax people for polluting then you have to set a good example yourself.
Public transportation and transport services should stop polluting the city.
They are the biggest polluter.
It seems that the mayor is not serious about pollution at all from this idea.
But sure he wants to raise money with taxes.
Surcharge = Tax
Clean buses and taxis etc = change.
If the pollution is pushed around the area. there is a thing called wind that can carry it into the area anyway.
More cars avoiding the toll going around the area = more traffic jams in a different area = more cars sitting there doing nothing except polluting in poorer areas.
You still have the same number of cars, you just care less about people in the surrounding area.
There are so many things wrong with this Tax. It just does not work for pollution, its so obviously a tax because they can probably get away with it.
This only benefits the government or city hall. Not the people of the city as a whole.
Show less of commentGeneral Genius
Community Member 9 years agoThe black cabs are a huge problem. Oxford St is one of the most polluted streets and it is generally closed to cars i believe. The buses are now largely hybrids, and so it is the black cabs that are the problem. You could stop new licenses...
Show full commentThe black cabs are a huge problem. Oxford St is one of the most polluted streets and it is generally closed to cars i believe. The buses are now largely hybrids, and so it is the black cabs that are the problem. You could stop new licenses for taxis and hire vehicles if they are deisel or have engine sizes greater than x. Some kind of things needs to be done.
Show less of commentHarry Palmes
Community Member 9 years agoEven converting black cabs to petrol would remove about 90% of the toxic pollution. Diesel is the killer. Petrol or petrol hybrid engines emit about 10 times less pollution. Electric is wonderful, but quite expensive to set up and...
Show full commentEven converting black cabs to petrol would remove about 90% of the toxic pollution. Diesel is the killer. Petrol or petrol hybrid engines emit about 10 times less pollution. Electric is wonderful, but quite expensive to set up and difficult for a taxi to run all day without stopping to recharge.
Show less of commentConverting the existing black cabs to petrol would be relatively cheap and effective in reducing deadly pollution. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231013007140
Dr David J Cairns
Community Member 9 years agoI am 82 years old and retired, and my car is 25 years old. It is low mileage (150,000 miles in 25 years is only 6,000 miles a year, well below the national average) and professionally maintained. It has a catalytic converter and has never...
Show full commentI am 82 years old and retired, and my car is 25 years old. It is low mileage (150,000 miles in 25 years is only 6,000 miles a year, well below the national average) and professionally maintained. It has a catalytic converter and has never failed the "MOT" due to emission problems. It would be uneconomical to replace it but I must have it because my wife has considerable mobility problems, as I do to a lesser extent. We go shopping weekly at the Beckton Retail Park, which is just inside the North Circular Road and includes such large shops as Sainsbury's, B&Q and Staples, all of which we use regularly, To visit equivalent stores in alternative locations would considerably increase our mileage. The Beckton Retail Park is only accessible form the North Circular Road, so I urge its exclusion from the extended low-emissions zone.
Show less of commentAnonymous - account deleted
Community Member 9 years agoIt's people like David that the London Mayor needs to help and not rip them off.
Anyway, as I've mentioned before I think the latest form of proposed stealth taxation aka ULEZ is very unfair and it's zone needs to be (at best) restricted...
Show full commentIt's people like David that the London Mayor needs to help and not rip them off.
Anyway, as I've mentioned before I think the latest form of proposed stealth taxation aka ULEZ is very unfair and it's zone needs to be (at best) restricted to within London's current CCZ (Central Congestion Charging Zone).
Show less of commentOsvaldo
Community Member 9 years agoWell said Phade. Lets hope mayor Khan actually reads this, understands how his electorate feel about being ripped off even more and acts, but somehow I very very much doubt it.
Anonymous - account deleted
Community Member 9 years agoWe Operate 25 minibuses-coaches that go into London several times per day, we try to update our vehicles as soon as we can once our finances allow. We have upgraded all our vehicles to Euro 5 at great cost, recently upgrading 5 vehicles to...
Show full commentWe Operate 25 minibuses-coaches that go into London several times per day, we try to update our vehicles as soon as we can once our finances allow. We have upgraded all our vehicles to Euro 5 at great cost, recently upgrading 5 vehicles to Euro 6. We want the air to be cleaner,our challenge is trying to catch up with the changes, one of our luxury 16 seat vehicles costs between £60,000.00 & £80,000.00 (depending on spec) and normally a 5 year finance package is in place.Some of the vehicles will still have finance to pay whilst having an out dated engine, as much as we would like to change these vehicles to meet the standards sometimes finance restricts our options. Companies like ours are bringing thousands of tourists in and out of London every day and they spend vast amounts which helps keep London great. Imposing charges for the service we do would be unfair. In time all my vehicles will have Euro 6 engines but i can envisage a new engine standard being introduced in advance of my loans being settled.
Show less of commentAnonymous - account deleted
Community Member 9 years agoHow is scrapping perfectly usable cars good for the environment? the environmental cost of building replacement cars far outweighs the damage that would be caused by leaving the older cars on the road. this plan was devised in the EU to...
Show full commentHow is scrapping perfectly usable cars good for the environment? the environmental cost of building replacement cars far outweighs the damage that would be caused by leaving the older cars on the road. this plan was devised in the EU to bolster the car industry.
Show less of commentA tax on those that can least afford it.
large companies can afford to run new compliant vehicles. many small struggling companies cannot. the middle class can afford newer vehicles. the individual resident already driving an older car is likely doing so because they can't afford a newer vehicle, and now face their family car being banned with now no resale value locally.
The Congestion Charge, Low Emission Zone and Ultra Low Emission Zone were introduced to bring London in line with EU targets for major cities within Europe. Now since the EU referendum and Brexit outcome we stand on the precipice of deep recession, yet the mayor in a quest for soundbites seeks to drive even more van reliant small businesses out of business, as happened with the introduction of the Low Emission Zone several years ago. In addition diesel car owners with older cars are those which can least afford to replace their banned vehicles. Financial suicide for London and hardship for it's residents bowing to the EU which will have shunned us by 2020. Why the rush to push for economic ruin? and why now, amidst such uncertainty?
Hola
Community Member 9 years agoPure and Absolute exploitation.
Hola
Community Member 9 years ago1. This is absolute Exploitation.
2.I think politician should stop using their personal life or other personal related issue to deal with the affairs of the Country during their campaign. Because it is now clear that when they assume...
Show full comment1. This is absolute Exploitation.
2.I think politician should stop using their personal life or other personal related issue to deal with the affairs of the Country during their campaign. Because it is now clear that when they assume office, they do not have any member of the public at heart, all they do is to make policies and proposal to exploit, extract and stress the lives of ordinary citizen in the Country.
3. My question to Mayor Khan is this; "HOW MANY 9 - 5 WORKER IN HIS OFFICE CAN AFFORD BRAND NEW OR ELECTRIC CARS?"
4. Mayor Khan new proposal will kill small business within city of London and its environment.
5. When congestion charge was introduced, it was done so to reduce the number of cars travelling into and travelling thru. central London and to reduce traffic jam with the City of London.
6. I'm not against people taking pleasure in what they enjoy but other call it habit. What is killing people the most is in their hands. It is CIGARETTE and TOBACCO. I was opportune to work as a service engineer, for Seven years visiting customers in their homes, during this period I saw people who smoke in their confined spaces with windows and Doors locked, without any ventilation. some even smoke and as they do this they shake-off the ashes on their infants.
7. Emission from cars (petrol cars and some diesel engines) are treated via the cat converters installed in their exhaust system but not the smoke from cigarette or tobacco that's been inhale into human sensitive system.
8. As long as fuel burns....either a new car or an old car, they all emit something and they all emit equal amount depending on the size of engine. i.e every similar size of engine emit same.
9. Because all engine of similar sizes emit same amount of emission when they burn fuel, this is why we see car manufacturers LYING about new car emission. NOTHING CHANGES, EITHER NEW OR OLD.
10. Wind blows in the atmosphere, it either blows west to east or east to west, south to north or vice versa. Noone knows its directions. it blows into United Kingdom into London and out of London, out of United Kingdom.
11. Try clean up London by exploiting the road user and car owners thru additional charges, how about the Aircrafts which flies over London and City of London air space.
12. Small businesses and people without 9 - 5 or white-collar job buys vans to run courier and delivery business just to make a living, these Vans could be registered before 2005 as these could be what they could afford and I assure you they don't make any profit after all expenses. I have been there, so I know what am talking about.
I wish Mayor Khan would read thru my few points and he would change direction and reconsider small businesses and individuals who could barely survive on 9 - 5 salary. Otherwise, make London "A home for the rich" and not a home for all and do not claim you are from a poor background.
This is not what Londoner need, not even in Century to come.
Cheers.
Show less of commentAnonymous - account deleted
Community Member 9 years agowell said!
Enjoy my car
Community Member 8 years agoI totally agree with you Hola.
Mr Kahn & Tax For Londoners won't listen because what we're saying isn't what they want to hear due to the fact he harbours leadership aspirations which don't fit with the role of actually doing something...
Show full commentI totally agree with you Hola.
Mr Kahn & Tax For Londoners won't listen because what we're saying isn't what they want to hear due to the fact he harbours leadership aspirations which don't fit with the role of actually doing something proactive & getting London moving, instead they'd rather add a Tax & do nothing.
The problem with all of this is it's short term political grandstanding which is exactly how we got here in the first place.
Anyone concerned about the environment as a whole wouldn't be advocating EV's the damage that is being made in countries like Chile where the Lithium is being mined does not make them anywhere near as green as they're made out to be, now I'm not saying that they're not an alternative because I believe like Diesel & Petrol powered vehicles they have their place but they're no greener than the other two.
What's needed is a proper infrastructure policy that takes all the different aspects of what London needs into account so for once those in charge actually come up with a policy that gets London moving rather than policies that are decided by opinion polls.
Power Stations should be worked on first because if you want to EV's to be a true green alternative you need to clean up the way their energy is made as well as deal with the damage caused by mining the Lithium in the first place, also London needs a power station built & soon it'll probably have to be Nuclear but so be it, as energy demands grow especially if more people start using EV's.
Remove the number of traffic lights in Central London I think it works out to one every 800 yards in Central London.
All these planes that are stacked over London could be tackled by making all freight flights from Stansted Gatwick & Heathrow land at Manston this would free up a lot of slots as well as pulling freight traffic away from London along with the expansion of City Airport these thing will have a true effect on air quality without costing Londoners & those travelling in a penny.
As a byproduct of this you'd make some very affordable housing stock available to those working for UPS DHL etc as well as giving employment opportunities to an area that could do with some regeneration Margate/Ramsgate etc, if the second crossing ever gets the go ahead then it will tie up with Tilbury & the new Super docks as well as quick access to ferries & ports on the Kent coast.
TFL have made roads worse with the reduction of road space to private & goods vehicles by 1/3 since we've had an elected Mayor/TFL, reducing the speed limit to 20mph (when all vehicles are at their most inefficient) has not helped neither have speed humps, shutting the cut throughs is another problem so rather than having traffic spread across an area we have it bunched up on the main roads that can't cope, this is a problem made by those in charge not the motorist.
100,00+ new apartments in Central London that need skilled tradesmen to visit them to carry out works & of course service them, now most of these trades people live outside the capital, so they have to drive in they won't do that in a petrol car as they'd burn to much fuel public transport isn't an option when you need tools, also those building the apartments don't contribute to the infrastructure in anyway but draw great profits from them all of which go to their shareholders.
Also when the scrappage scheme came in Petrol cars were very inefficient compared to a diesel at the time as well as producing high CO2 levels, now due to a new generation of Petrol engines that actually owe a lot to diesel engine design & this has lead to the advance in Petrol efficiency now most people that do under 12,000 miles per year are already jumping into versions without any incentive from the government & it'll continue to swing that way but for those that do more than 12,000 a year then a diesel is what they need.
Also why are the main arterial roads out of London now reduced to 50mph surely as the A13 clears Canning Town it should be 70mph (I have no problem with a 50mph limit as you come into London) same with the A2 it should be 70mph once you clear the Kidbrooke interchange.
Mr Kahn & TFL should be starting from the top with these environmental policies but Mr Khan & his kind won't do that as it may mean doing something radical which could cost them votes or a chance at leadership of their respective party so instead they fudge it & introduce another tax on the motorist rather than doing what needs to be done which is GET LONDON MOVING.
Does he not think if someone is driving round in a car made before 2005 it's maybe because they're not able to buy a new one.
What Mr Khan should be doing is sorting out the following before taxing the motorist is:
Start with Power Stations first & the rubbish that's pouring out of them.
The number of Traffic Lights in Central London
The Planes stacking over London's skies.
Raise the speed limit back up to 30mph reopen some of the cut throughs raise the speed limit from 50mph to 70mph (as they were before) on arterial roads remove a large number of traffic lights.
Get those building large buildings to contribute to the infrastructure, for example whoever is responsible for building an apartment block in the middle of Lewisham roundabout should be paying towards the road network & a fine for the traffic chaos that it's caused.
Once he's done that then & only then should he start to look at the motorist because the truth of the matter is that the person driving the car is a victim of numerous failures by TFL & it's Mayors to actually address the true issues that London faces rather than introduce another TAX on those that can least afford it.
Rant over
Not that it'll make a difference because the consultation is lip service he'll do it no matter how logical the arguments are!!
Show less of commentTer
Community Member 9 years agoEmmissions penalty should be based on model not year to make any sense , an older vehicle can be less polluting than many new vechicle models so the whole basis seems to be flawed or just a bias against people with older cars.
Also on...
Show full commentEmmissions penalty should be based on model not year to make any sense , an older vehicle can be less polluting than many new vechicle models so the whole basis seems to be flawed or just a bias against people with older cars.
Also on detail it is not clear if pre 2005 but iv compliant cars are proiposed excempt or not ??
This is another reason that a pollution charge should be based solely on actual pollution generated , not arbitrary such as age.
And why have London or UK gov not taken a massive class action against the manufacturers caught cheating ? Possibly the single biggest reason nox is not dropping in London .
All points to a proposed scheme that makes the poorest pay and buy more new cars from cheating big business . Not a great start Sadiq!
Show less of commentNiamh Lynch
Community Member 9 years agoI forgot to add it on my additional comments on the survey but it might be useful to do as was done during the Olympics and have overnight deliveries - that appeared to ease congestion and pollution
Londoner321
Community Member 9 years agoWhat a disgrace this policy. Did Mr Khan stand for election on more TAXATION upon the poor people of London? I don't recall any mention of this. Completely ignores what the main problem is i.e. over population in London. More people = more...
Show full commentWhat a disgrace this policy. Did Mr Khan stand for election on more TAXATION upon the poor people of London? I don't recall any mention of this. Completely ignores what the main problem is i.e. over population in London. More people = more cars = more traffic = more pollution! If we control the growth of the city eventually you will have a chance to control pollution better. As someone else said above, the rich people of London who can afford to pay this won't because they can afford a new car every year - yet ordinary / poorer people who cannot afford to buy a new car will be screwed into the ground paying it. Well done Mr Khan - great progressive policy!!!
Show less of commentdenis54
Community Member 9 years agosurcharge = tax
Show full commentno more tax
only the poor wiil pay this tax.
the rich have new cars the M P s will not pay the mayor will not pay
just the poor hard working people will pay as always
surcharge = tax
Show less of commentno more tax
only the poor wiil pay this tax.
the rich have new cars the M P s will not pay the mayor will not pay
just the poor hard working people will pay as always
Talk London
Official Representative 9 years agoThanks all for your thoughts here. A number of you have touched on whether, and which, exemptions and discounts should apply to the Emissions Surcharge. What do others think? Should there be exemptions/discounts, and who for? Should residents receive a discount? Do you think that buses and coaches should also be made to pay the charge alongside other large vehicles such as HGVs?
Trikkitt
Community Member 9 years agoResidence shouldn't get exemptions or discounts. If the purpose is to encourage lower emission vehicles it needs to apply to all, so everyone is encouraged. Unlike the congestion charge, which should have residence exemption/discount as...
Show full commentResidence shouldn't get exemptions or discounts. If the purpose is to encourage lower emission vehicles it needs to apply to all, so everyone is encouraged. Unlike the congestion charge, which should have residence exemption/discount as it is simply where they live.
Where a viable alternative exists for a vehicle then the charge should apply. e.g. if there is a coach or bus that meets the emission requirements then they should be included. If there isn't a suitable vehicle available then it shouldn't apply. It should be reviewed each year.
There should also be sever restrictions on plug-in hybrid vehicles, or those with range extenders. These should only be allowed if running on the electric drive train. Use of the petrol side should incur the emissions surchage.
Show less of commentAnonymous - account deleted
Community Member 9 years agoI think this proposal is fine.
But we should go further.
Why not say also that from year X all vehicles that emit pollution will be banned from central London, and then from year Y from outer London. X and Y would be chosen to give time...
Show full commentI think this proposal is fine.
But we should go further.
Why not say also that from year X all vehicles that emit pollution will be banned from central London, and then from year Y from outer London. X and Y would be chosen to give time for people to get reasonable use out of their existing vehicles and to build up an infrastructure of charging points. Exceptions for special purpose vehicles like fire engines where alternatives might not yet be viable. And it is possible that X & Y for cars could be A& B for vans and C&D for lorries &c &c.
Could a total ban with several years warning be put through a cost-benefit analysis please?
Show less of commentAnonymous - account deleted
Community Member 9 years agoIt seems mad to exclude private hire vehicles (Uber?) from this ... they are one of the most commonly occurring vehicles on the roads (at least it certainly feels like that).
Show full commentIt seems mad to exclude private hire vehicles (Uber?) from this ... they are one of the most commonly occurring vehicles on the roads (at least it certainly feels like that).
Show less of commentAnonymous - account deleted
Community Member 9 years agoIf the purpose of the exercise is to reduce NOx emissions, the EU's mistake of falling over backwards to please the diesel manufacturers should not be repeated. The US has fuel-blind emissions limits on motor vehicles. That is why VW were...
Show full commentIf the purpose of the exercise is to reduce NOx emissions, the EU's mistake of falling over backwards to please the diesel manufacturers should not be repeated. The US has fuel-blind emissions limits on motor vehicles. That is why VW were caught out and have now been forced to compensate buyers and states. The EURO 3 emissions limits for petrol cars are tighter (on the stuff which shortens people's lives) than EURO 6 emissions limits for diesels. The proposed Emissions Charge should reflect this, e.g. by applying to pre-EURO 3 petrol vehicles and to pre-EURO 6 diesel vehicles. Also do not grant exemptions to public service vehicles or to taxis or private hire: they contribute far more than private vehicles as they drive higher mileages.
Show less of commentAnonymous - account deleted
Community Member 9 years agoGreat, so who would be the majority among the owners of these older vehicles who use them on a daily basis? Answer: the not so well off in society ... Great proposal Mr. Mayor, let's tax the working classes and the poor again!
Tuesdeoman
Community Member 9 years agoA good point well made. The wealthy and the company car drivers warmly welcome any tax that keeps the poor off the road and out of their way. You can just imagine how they will be completing their questionaire.
They would probably enjoy an...
Show full commentA good point well made. The wealthy and the company car drivers warmly welcome any tax that keeps the poor off the road and out of their way. You can just imagine how they will be completing their questionaire.
They would probably enjoy an additional question that asks "Would you like poorer workers with older cars than yours to be removed from the roads, thus reducing congestion and making your progress easier?
Show less of commentand If so, how much of London do you want us to remove them from?"
Neko
Community Member 9 years agoThe most polluting vehicles, whether coaches , black vans or private car hires , HGVs, the ambulances, should be charges the penalty charge. People / organizations only change behaviour when there is something to be lost as a consequence.
Anonymous - account deleted
Community Member 9 years agoThe Idea in principle is Good and similar schemes are in place around the world, most people will just pay the charge,and will have no impact on emissions and pollution, what would be a better alternative, find a solution that tackles...
Show full commentThe Idea in principle is Good and similar schemes are in place around the world, most people will just pay the charge,and will have no impact on emissions and pollution, what would be a better alternative, find a solution that tackles emissions inc NOx, for every vehicle that wishes to travel in the designated areas, also implementing a scrapping scheme is costly and ultimately the Tax payer picks up some of the bill.and this also has other environmental issue's. The ezero1 is on Sale at £699.00 and for cars and small commercials it can reduce(NOx) and emissions by up to 80%, and maybe if there was an incentive from the government for drivers to fit such a device they actually get back over a 12 month period the cost or a contribution towards this product,
Show less of commentAnonymous - account deleted
Community Member 8 years agoEzero1 looks like an HHO system, they produce hydrogen and oxygen in the perfect combination to be explosive in a confined space and will self detonate if pressurised.
Sums suggest that typical HHO systems do not make enough gas to have a...
Show full commentEzero1 looks like an HHO system, they produce hydrogen and oxygen in the perfect combination to be explosive in a confined space and will self detonate if pressurised.
Sums suggest that typical HHO systems do not make enough gas to have a significant effect on an engine other than possibly at idle - here goes some quick sums for a 2 litre engine running at 2000 rpm: HHO production rate in litres per minute assumed to be 20 (seems to be a reasonable figure), splits into 2/3 Hydrogen (H2) and 1/3 Oxygen (O2) (litres/min = H2 13.334 & O2 6.666). Engine capacity assumed to be 2 litres. Selected RPM = 2000 (33.33 revs per second), Air consumption (assuming 100% efficiency and 4 stroke cycle) 33.33 so air consumption is 2000 litres/minute. So Air to HHO ratio is 100:1. Air to H2 ratio is approx 149:1, so H2 is 0.0066% of the gasses entering the engine. At less than 0.01% of the air entering the engine, it is difficult to imagine that this can have a significant effect on combustion to reduce pollution by 80%. Does anyone have any data to counter these simple sums?
I have read that NOX is more likely to be reduced by more complete combustion at lower temperatures, BMW have been experimenting with water mist injection to achieve this.
Show less of commentpierpaolo
Community Member 9 years agoraise legal limit for NOx and scrap ULEZ
Anonymous - account deleted
Community Member 9 years agoAbsolutely agree with this - but two comments:
Show full comment- In line with other users comments, minicabs should be subject to regulations too;
- Something like this should be introduced in tandem with measures to make it cheaper and easier for those...
Absolutely agree with this - but two comments:
Show less of comment- In line with other users comments, minicabs should be subject to regulations too;
- Something like this should be introduced in tandem with measures to make it cheaper and easier for those who commute in to work to do so on public transport. Aiming to encourage people to swap a car commute to a public transport commute, or cycle. A substantial chunk of those affected will surely be people who cannot afford to fork out for a new car, so the plan should build in measures to avoid this disproportionately affecting people with lower disposable incomes.
Trikkitt
Community Member 9 years agoWhat sort of measures do you think are needed? I've always lived in London, and I do a lot of driving. All of it is out of London. During normal commute in to London I would never consider driving because not only is it an awful...
Show full commentWhat sort of measures do you think are needed? I've always lived in London, and I do a lot of driving. All of it is out of London. During normal commute in to London I would never consider driving because not only is it an awful experience it is horribly expensive to park. To me the transport in London has been great and in recent years has improved in reliability substantially. I can't see how they could improve it very much, unless you start talking about constructing additional train lines at huge expense.....
Show less of commentAnonymous - account deleted
Community Member 9 years agoI think things like the new hopper bus fare will be very helpful - as will ensuring that current providers for trains and buses are actually delivering.
Agree that transport in London is really good, rather than making huge changes...
Show full commentI think things like the new hopper bus fare will be very helpful - as will ensuring that current providers for trains and buses are actually delivering.
Agree that transport in London is really good, rather than making huge changes (construction etc.) I am suggesting that moves like this acknowledge the impact they will have on some groups, and communicate what is being done to mitigate. I wholeheartedly support any measures that will reduce emissions and reliance on cars in central, but to help reduce any ill-feeling directed at policies that will have a positive overall effect, I think it is worth considering their impact on all groups.
Show less of comment