Cleaning up London’s toxic air

Charging for entering the low emissions zone, does not solve the problem. Whats needed is a solution. Cgon LTD have proven and are happy to prove again that the ezero range can reduce the oldest of diesel and petrol engines to almost zero exhaust emissions it will reduce (NOx) by up to 80%,and will actually pay for itself over short period of time. Once fitted the emissions reduction is instant. [email protected]

I have just received an email from TFL stating
"Tackling London’s toxic air is the Mayor’s top priority. On 5 April, he unveiled bold plans for a new central London Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) in 2019. The ULEZ will be expanded to include the North and South Circular in 2021.
Under the scheme, the most polluting vehicles must pay a daily charge to drive in central London from 8 April 2019.
We want to know what you think of our plans. Tell us now, and help us shape our plans to clean up London’s air."
Now I was written to by a senior member of TFL,s staff (Andrew Hatch) weeks ago telling me that we would all be consulted on the proposed expansion first yet here they are Advertising the fact that the inclusion of the SOUTH AND NORTH CIRCULAR WILL TAKE PLACE IN 2021-so WHAT IS GOING ON TFL? This is not on you cannot do this to people, it sounds and looks like its already been decided so why the need for any consultation if you clearly don't care what people have to say?

Posted by another user :-

LiamO
new

33 min 19 sec ago

I might be commenting after the horse has bolted but I can't help but feel that a lot of people posting on this site have bought into all of the scaremongering that we are all going to die from respiratory diseases caused by motor vehicles (predominately diesel ones). I would like to make a few observations about the ULEZ:
The start point of charging is surely arbitrary - there is no magic barrier between one side of the North/South Circular or the M25. Toxic fumes travel in the air and are dissipated.
We used to manufacture many things in this country, particularly during the Industrial Revolution, but somewhere along the line our commercial and political leaders decided that it would be better to have the Chinese do it for us, leaving us with crisp, clean air. The Chinese then built new cities and hundreds of coal powered power stations and embarked on a financial splurge on consumer goods and the world's mineral and water rights. The upshot is that their new cities are under a cloud of smog the likes of which we haven't seen since the 1960's. However, this smog doesn't just stay there - it travels around the globe - so the hand wringing about this side or that of the North/South Circular means very little.
The devices you are using to post your comments were invariably manufactured in China and you are not as carbon-neutral as you would like to think. Why do TFL and the local authorities sell the notion that they can reduce emissions on a street by street basis? Why is it that a lot of the roads being closed to through traffic are in more affluent areas, where residents stand to gain from increases in their property value? Why does Kensington & Chelsea have the 2nd longest life expectancy in the country when they have some of the heaviest urban traffic flows?
The much vaunted 9k deaths per year never seems to fluctuate and is never explained in regional differences - those living near the busiest roads should have the highest mortality rates - and the data doesn't filter out respiratory conditions caused by smoking or industrial pollutants and doesn't clearly explain what "early death" is. These are not people dying in the prime of life but they may not be meeting the predicted life-span. The main factor, I believe, is poverty - it kills more people than emissions. Those below the poverty line have a worse diet and more medical complications than those on average earnings and are therefore more susceptible to "early" death.
We do need to plan for the future and reduce (on a global basis) our human detritus but this will need to be done from a much wider perspective than the one adopted by our local authorities and TfL. We badly need the Department of Transport to instigate a review of road and traffic planning in our major cities so that the response is balanced and not the scalpel approach that makes motorists the cancer and local politicians the scalpel.
The main point to remember is that we all need the transport network for everything we consume. Waging war on commercial diesel vehicles is akin to chewing on your own arm.

WOW LOOK AT THIS FOLKS !!
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/london-is-not-bound-in-tox…

This scheme is unfair for residents. We have a car and live about 300 metres inside the congestion zone. We use it to drive out of London on weekends (we use public transport to go to work during the week). We never drive into central London. We will have to pay £2.05 each day we drive in or out and that will be £11++ per day from 2023.
You should be charging Uber and minicabs plus black cabs - there are thousands and thousands of those that drive round the city all day and night causing excessive pollution and discouraging people from using public transport.
We want to keep our car and feel strongly against paying £11++ each time we use our car so will be forced to move out of London. The ULEZ charge should not apply to residents cars used outside the congestion zone hours (7am-6pm on working hours). It should apply to all commercial vehicles including black cabs and minicabs.

I am so disappointed by this. I honestly felt we were getting somewhere and London would lead the way for greener cities and now we find out the biggest causes of pollution are be exempt. It's a utter joke!

Why are you encouraging taxi drivers? What is it they bring to the London community?
Now they are encouraged to pollute and poison us! Did you not read your own statistics on emissions. They sit there idling at traffic lights, driving dangerously as they u-turn or abruptly pull over when they see the occasional fare and giving the space needed to cyclists when over taking... The list of reasons for moving on from such an archaic system is endless and here you are slapping us in the face with this garbage.

Why don't residence get penalised more? Why are we asking people who live in central London where the streets are already crammed with cars making residential areas unsafe to cycle through to keep their vehicles? Why aren't you asking people already near the centre of everything to walk or cycle if public transport isn't good enough for them. If you want to have a car in a city there should be a significant penalty for that! If you can afford a car in the city you can afford the price tag for the damage you are causing everyone else.

Are you banning heavy goods vehicles from peak times to make the roads safer and less congested? No.
Are you installing more cycle bays to replace car parking space so, for every car there is an equivalent bike space on each road? No.

I wish I was more articulate so I could put in words how vulgar and ill considered and ineffective I find piece of halfway sloppy legislation.

While you aren't really taking action can you do something about those bodge job cycle lanes I now see everywhere, corralling cyclists into little lanes you can't over take in and already are filled up making it increasingly dangerous as you dumb down cyclists and drivers . Why are you segregating cyclists when we should be encouraging car drivers to accept that cyclists have rights and deserve part of the road and encouraging cyclists to look and think? Cycle traffic lights allowing cyclists to get a head start is all you need. The massive expenditure on cycle these cycle lanes is restrictive and dangerous and I imagine very expensive.

I implore you, please spend some real time drawing up something radicle and thoroughly considered taking into account the numbers of people who will be commuting into London.

Less private vehicles & taxis, making way for buses & cyclists.
Less short term thinking & more consideration to those who are already being considerate.
Prove you are really here to achieve something longer lasting.
You talk big and I support you cap on public transport. Don't be a one trick pony.

I think it is unfair to target older cars. This is penalising people who can't afford newer cars and isn't tackling the problem. I have noticed that a lot of newer cars have filthy engines (you can tell from the black exhaust) which is due to them not being serviced. I have an old car (2001 Nissan Micra) which is serviced every year and has a small engine that doesn't create much pollution. The rule against older cars doesn't tackle the real car pollution source in London, which is diesel engines.