Cleaning up London’s toxic air

It's certainly a step in the right direction but with all the exemptions listed I wonder how effective it will be. For example, what proportion of vehicles are private hire and taxis. Whilst the initiative should be supported it should also seek longer term and more effective solutions. Some of the European cities are introducing electric vehicle recharging technology called 'flash charge' whereby the vehicle gets recharged by induction (like an electric toothbrush) by hovering over metal strips for a minute or two. It's a bold move but if we really want to tackle pollution let's at least investigate and then invest

The Mayor and TFL need to be honest about the real aims of the T-Charge and ULEZ schemes.

I was amazed to see that petrol cars account for only 3% of London NOx emissions. That is according to the pie chart in TFL’s ULEZ consultation: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/environment/ultra-low-emission-zone

So I asked myself why on Earth are petrol cars included at all in the T-Charge and ULEZ proposals?

I found the answer buried in the London Assembly’s response to the ULEZ consultation. This contains an admission that one of the aims of the ULEZ is supposedly to reduce global warming (see middle of page 4): https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gla_migrate_files_destina…

‘However, a secondary aim of the ULEZ is also to reduce C02 emissions. Petrol vehicles tend to have higher CO2 emissions than diesels of equivalent age…’

Global warming doesn’t seem to be mentioned in TFL’s ULEZ or T-Charge proposals.

Realistically, whatever is done with taxes on cars in London, the effect on global CO2 emissions will be roughly nil.

It will be deeply unpopular if drivers in central London have to pay punitive taxes on older petrol cars, not because it is necessary to reduce local NOx levels but because certain politicians want to delude themselves that they are ‘doing something’ about global warming. Especially when drivers in other parts of the world continue to drive gas-guzzling vehicles with impunity, often paying much less tax on petrol than we do in the UK.

For the public to accept these schemes, they must be clearly and exclusively focused on solving the NOx pollution problem in central London, which means taking action on diesel vehicles.

The average age of cars may well be 7.7 years, but in 2015 15.3% of vehicles were over 13 years old (Vehicle Licensing Statistics Table VEH0207 (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/vehicles-statistics)), and these figures are increasing in much the same way and for much the same reason as population statistics.

Petrol cars are not the problem.
Petrol cars made over the past 20 years have catalytic convertors, which mean they produce very little CO or NO2 - NO NEW TAXES

The emissions surcharge should apply to the whole of London (the low emissions zone) as should the Ultra Low Emissions Zone.
It is arbitrary and unfair that outer London residents, who are afflicted by the *same* level of NOx and PM pollutants near their main roads should not be afforded the same level of protection as other Londoners.

The 10% payment for residents is too low. The majority of residents in inner London do not drive, let-alone own a vehicle. It is not fair or conscionable that minority of London residents who own a car should have some right to pollute, when even buses (which save on pollution) will be subject to the full costs. Air pollution is an urgent matter in terms of public health, public expenditure, and personal rights to clean air. It needs fair and drastic measures not half hearted measures.

In the opinion of the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs, it is a shame that it is proposed to levy the old vehicle surcharge on the Congestion Charge on historic vehicles.

Unlike in the case of previous environmental protection schemes the full extent of arguments for exemption simply has not been able to be presented.

In most developed countries, and indeed in both the Greater London LEZ and the London ULEZ as currently proposed, it has been recognised that historic vehicles are an important part of our culture and social history. The use of historic vehicles is rare. The purpose for which they enter the modern traffic in cities is usually for specific events which give pleasure to many of the public, including non-participants. They cannot have any measurable effect on the overall pollution levels in London and thus deserve to be exempted.
We hope the decision might be revisited.

We will explain our approach more fully in the promised full consultation in the Autumn.

Totally agree with previous comments that this sounds like another stealth tax by the mayor.
Major problem in London is the exploding population levels. more people = more pollution.
Pollution is going to get worse with more people and more construction works.

Excellent idea, also please start talks with the CCS consortium (they are developing ultra fast chargers - 150KWh) to install these ultra fast chargers around the city.

Charging by age of vehicle wil not help at all. The charge should reflect the on-road emissions of different types of vehicle. See this recent study of on road emissions: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231013007140
# Diesels emit around 10 time more toxic pollution than petrol engines
# Newer diesels are MORE polluting than older (circa 2005) models
Conclusion: Charge diesels to stop them coming into London, especially the newer ones. Encourage people to switch to petrol or petrol hybrids.

The current proposal would encourage people to switch to modern diesels which are the most polluting of all!

From that study:
"The main finding from this work is that there is little evidence of NOx emissions reduction from all types of diesel vehicles over the past 15–20 years. It is only petrol passenger cars (including hybrids) where strong evidence exists for effective NOx control. "

" emissions of NOx from modern (Euro 5) petrol passenger cars are on average a factor of 10 less than equivalent diesel cars. Furthermore, in agreement with previous work the NO2/NOx ratio for petrol vehicle NOx is also very low as shown in Fig. 2 and Table 2 — typically <5% except for Euro 5."

So please please please can we rid our London streets of these horrible dirty diesels?

Hi,
Please.....can someone show this article to Mayor Khan.....no extra tax or charges on citizen.....deal with car manufacturers who lied to you about emission data.....the cars mentioned in this article are new cars....

Californian regulators reject Volkswagen diesel recall plan
Dieselgate fix for 3.0-litre engine said to be 'insufficient'
Volkswagen Toureg
Sam Sheehan
by Sam Sheehan
14 July 2016

"The Californian Air Resource Board (CARB) has rejected Volkswagen’s proposed emissions fix for its 3.0-litre diesel engine fitted to Volkswagens, Audis and Porsches.

The board claimed that the plans submitted by all three companies were “incomplete and deficient in a number of areas”, and that ongoing technical discussions will need to be had before an agreement can be made.

Volkswagen has responded in an offical statement, saying: “We understand that today's announcement from CARB is a procedural step under California state law and relates to recall plans for vehicles with V6 3.0-litre TDI engines that were submitted previously.

"We continue to work closely with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and CARB to try to secure approval of a technical resolution for our vehicles as quickly as possible.”

Models affected by the decision are those that use Volkswagen’s 'generation 2.1' and '2.2' V6 diesel units, such as the Volkswagen Touareg (pictured above), Porsche Cayenne and Audi A8 built between 2009 and 2016.

An estimated 85,000 vehicles use these engines across the US, with a significant percentage residing in California.

Volkswagen has previously said that ‘fixing’ all of these vehicles would not be complicated, but this latest development has lead some to suggesting the car maker may be forced to buy back all of the cars if an agreement can’t be made.

Just last month Volkswagen agreed to spend more than $1 billion (about £757 million) to remedy issues created by its emissions cheating software. CARB said the money includes about $380 million for projects to encourage the use of cleaner heavy-duty vehicles, and £800 million for investment into California’s zero-emissions programmes.

The car maker also reached a settlement worth more than $15 billion (about £11.33 billion) with US regulators to resolve emissions issues with its 2.0-litre diesel models, including offering to buy back offending cars.

Volkswagen has maintained that European customers affected by dieselgate won’t be receiving any compensation or buy back schemes because an agreement has been made with European regulators".

I do not see the logic in exemptions for blue badge holders. Surely they should be switching to more environmentally friendly vehicles too?

Residents who have big polluting cars also should not have a 90% discount. The issue is different to the congestion charge. Yes, they need to drive locally, but they do not need to drive Chelsea tractors. As most of their journeys are within the most polluted areas they should be hit at least as hard as everyone else. As long as you give them a year to change their vehicle it is fair.