Cleaning up London’s toxic air

biggest problem is charcoal grill takeaway restaurants in Stepney tower hamlets and all the collections and deliveries to and from the restaurants 

 the charcoal grills and chip fat has made the buildings black so why are they allowed to open until  2 in the morning disturbing  people. the air quality is poor because of the charcoal grill takeaways for sure  

Surprisingly, the proposed extension to the ultra low emission zone does nothing to address climate change.  It is nothing to do with reducing CO2 emissions.  It is purely to attempt to reduce the undesirable oxides of nitrogen (NO)x which are formed when you burn fuel, in the presence of air which is 80% nitrogen.  I suppose more efficient engines produce less (NO)x.  Even so the extended ULEZ will only reduce the (NO)x by stopping vehicles whose owners can't afford the charge; otherwise there will be no change to (NO)x from extending the zone.  It is only by encouraging the use of hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicles that an elimination of both oxides of nitrogen and CO2 will occur.   

Ultra Low Emissions Zone

The proposal to extend the ultra low emissions zone is wholly misguided for the following reasons:

There is another much more effective way to reduce emissions of CO2.

As a way to introduce this I would draw your attention to the article “World-first hydrogen double decker buses to help tackle London’s toxic air” 10th May 2019.  At the time 20 buses had been ordered to work on three routes, 245, 7 and N7.  As you know, the combustion of hydrogen results in an exhaust consisting of water only, no CO2 so no contributions to climate change.

What plans exist to expand the number of hydrogen bus routes in London?  

As far as cars and vans are concerned, several companies including Ancaster-Hyundai in Croydon where I live are one of an increasing number of companies offering hydrogen powered cars.  The problem at the moment is the small, though increasing, number of hydrogen fill points for cars and vans.  Shell operate at least two hydrogen fill points one at Gatwick and one on Cobham Services on the M25 Jn 9/10. 

What plans exist to provide car and small van hydrogen fill points in and around London?

Where is all the hydrogen going to come from?  Preferably it will be from the electrical hydrolysis of sea water using power from wind turbines and solar panels.  For example Denmark is currently building an off shore wind farm to produce 1 million tonnes of hydrogen annually. 

What plans exist for producing hydrogen for London to distribute to the end points described above?

Surely in view of the above the ULEZ expansion is at best a distraction and at worst a complete waste of resources given the opportunities to clean up London’s air and reduce climate change described above.

ULEZ is not on and unfair for the outer London boroughs. One of the benefits is that where I live in Havering there will be a stop put to the cars that have been illegally modified where most of them don't qualify for ULEZ. Perhaps the priority should be for police to stop cars that are illegally modified making excessive car noise. That is the real danger on the road, which is very bad for public health.

In Nov 2014 City of London Corporation published "Riverside Walk Enhancement Strategy".
Eight years ago.
Page 55 item 8.3.2.3 White Lion Hill 'Proposal' says:
"In the short/medium term opportunities should be explored to develop a temporary scheme that will strengthen the pedestrian route linking Queen Victoria Street to the Riverside Walk."
Eight years ago...
By changing the pedestrian super-unfriendly junction of Puddle Dock and Upper Thames Street - allowing motor traffic approaching the river on Puddle Dock to turn right, as in a 'normal' T-junction - White Lion Hill could be immediately closed to motor traffic, and the Riverside Walk greatly improved.
Should be possible in about 8 weeks for a trial with temporary traffic lights.
Eight weeks - not eight years...
London is being seriously harmed by a dismal standard of 'Planning'.
It should not be accepted.

To help the climate stop the constant demolition of buildings which could be refurbished and reused. The numbers of construction lorries on the roads is ridiculous and they are dangerous to others. Stop the cutting down of mature trees for developments who seem to hate greenery as it takes up expensive real estate. Only very mature trees provide O2 and clean the carbon dioxide. They also give areas character and provide wildlife a home. The clean homogenised replacement patches of green do not! Provide more recycling bins around streets to aid with littering.
Reduce the crazy numbers of buses which run mostly empty?!

Nowhere near enough is being done by Khan: Instead of pandering on about excess population, Khan wants to build evermore:

I visited Paris last week: A city with COHESIVE and HOMOGENOUS green parks in multiple spaces. The view from the Eiffel Tower confirm this view vie the ground:

London, in comparison is GREY!!, Few specks of "green", overcome and overrun by greed and developments of GREY asphalt, concrete and glass.

London, compared to a world class city as Paris (and Berlin!) is nothing: A dusty desert of dry dust due to overdevelopment.

Hi, how are you?
I live in Brazil and I have a paper on London to do, regarding smart cities. If you can help me, I'd appreciate it;

- What strategies have been adopted to implement the smart city guidelines;

- how was the receptivity of the residents with the things installed;

- Was there a cost to the population (taxes derived from the implementation of such resources)?

- what are the city's prospects for the coming years.

The mayor of London Sadiq Khan has announced that he intends to expand the ultra low emission zone to include the whole of greater London . He says this is the only way to drive down emissions from vehicles and to meet the Uk climate change targets. I say he`s man on a mission to save the planet all by himself. The plan is to complete this change by the end of 2023. This means all vehicles which don`t meet the ULEZ emission standards will have to be sold or scrapped, unless their owners are prepared to pay a daily charge of £12.50.
This will include all petrol cars more than 17 years old and all diesel models over 7 years old. I would guess that this will include over 100000 vehicles in the greater London area and many more coming in from outside. Perfectly good vehicles ,most cherished by their owners and all passing their annual MOT test. All will be rendered worthless ! It is a well known fact that manufacturing a new car puts up a massive amount of co2 emissions, which takes an average of 8 years to pay back ,ie for it to start being green. Better to leave the older vehicle to run its course and be scrapped at the end of its life.
Mayor Khan insists that his plan is feasible ,I say it s misguided. Does he think that all those people, many of them poorer people will have the cash to replace their vehicle ,what with energy bills going through the roof ,and soon to follow food, clothing , in fact anything delivered by road seeing massive increases. Oh yes ,as long as our Labour mayor can continue in his gas guzzling range rover and remove as many poorer people off the roads as possible he will achieve his goal. I would guess that deep down he despises the very people he claims to represent .The man has failed on every count, He`s a fool and the sooner he`s gone the better !

ULEZ is not fair and is not right.

The scheme unfairly penalises those with reliable well looked after older cars who cannot afford to or do not want to scrap them.

How can it be right that I can be charged for driving 2 miles in to the zone which would create minimal emissions in the zone yet a newer, but still polluting vehicle can drive in the zone FOC all day creating far more harmful emissions all be it at a lower rate per mile.

Surly the fairest and most effective solution is a charge for all vehicles based on total emissions created or total miles driven in the zone using black box technology similar to that of insurance companies.

Failing that why are there no schemes, grants help or advice to modify existing vehicles to be more compliant either by retrofit euro rating upgrade or EV conversion. This would save good vehicles from the scrapyard while also making them less polluting.

Also the 40 year threshold is too long for historic recognition I have a 1990 Honda motorbike that I am restoring it is only a 399cc petrol engine so it is quite small but because it was built before euro rating was introduced it is £12.50 per day.

My 2010 daily drive is a Euro 5 diesel the car is well loved and well looked after why is there no help to upgrade the exhaust to Euro 6 standard.

I feel this ULEZ scheme is more about raising revenue from those who can least afford it than meaningfully improving air quality.

It is a great concern that this unfair and discriminatory scheme may be rolled out to all London boroughs

Do you actually enforce the Clean Air Act?

There has been a huge increase in people with log burners and open fires.

Due to the increase in the cost of gas and electricity this is likely to increase further.

People need to know more about the Act, the reasons why it is in place, what alternative fuels they should use and what sanctions there are if smokeless fuel is not used.

This action will educate Londoners and help reduce emissions.

I have received help to insulate my home and I have updated my boiler at great cost. I recycle and try to buy food with less packaging.
I drive my car only when necessary. I do less than 4K miles per year.

I live in a Victorian terrace so there is little I can do to stop heat loss. I need to replace the windows as they are beyond repair but the cost will be 17k. I cannot afford this. You will see below why.

Expanding ULEZ to the suburbs will affect residents unfairly. We already walk a lot and use our cars to the minimum as they are so expensive to run. However, having a car is a necessity when you live on the outskirts of London. Hospital visits to Surrey and getting across London to help elderly relatives late at night. I am a Single parent supporting others and i travel alone at night so rely on a car. I moved to Twickenham for a better quality of life and cheaper housing. There is no tube line here. Bus services have been cut. I cannot afford to change my 20 year old car.

I cannot afford a secondhand car or any car. My credit has been ruined by economic abuse of my ex-husband.

I am not an unusual example as I have spoken to other residents in my road who say the same thing about changing their cars. We want to reduce emissions but there is no money to to it.

Scrappage schemes and incentives to get hybrid or electric cars need to cover 80% of the true cost. At the moment these schemes are excluding us. If you really want us to move over to lower emissions you need to fund more to help us do this. I really need your help and so do others who are working and struggling already with the cost of living. I am earning less than I did before 2008 and I am a professional. God help us please.

I am already frugal and limiting every penny I spend due to gas, petrol and mortgage interest rates.

Please listen to my call in to BBC Radio London on Friday 4 March at 8.36am.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0blym2n

The ULEZ scheme is badly flawed. The mayor wants to clean up London's air. That is not unreasonable. I demonstrate my point as follows. My car does not meet the emission standards so I would have to pay the ULEZ charge. My car is 22 years old and has almost been wrapped in cotton wool since new. I cannot (sensibly) scrap it. I could not find a cheap used car in the same 'as new' state as mine. It would be environmentally bad to scrap a perfectly good car with emissions as low as the day I bought it. I drive 2000 miles annually - 50 in the ULEZ . The emissions produced by manufacturing a new car far exceeds the additional emissions my car is likely to produce for its remaining life. On the other hand, somebody who has a 'small green car' and commutes every day into London and doing a high mileage produces vastly more harmful emissions than I do by maybe going into the ULEZ area three times annually. But the high emissions produced by the daily commuter is deemed acceptable, but the emissions my car produces during the 50 miles I might drive within the ULEZ is not. If the mayor wants to reduce emissions then all cars should pay (other than electric cars). I would not scrap my car which is better than the new ones.

If LGA is serious in its wish to reduce emissions from vehicles then it should start by this year introducing a ban on all private cars that are not battery powered (Disability exceptions apply) from driving anywhere in the Congestion Charge Zone on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays of each week. This should be extended after a period of one year to include non-battery powered delivery vehicles, taxis, and public transport.
At the same time it should add new routes for buses to better service residents of newly developed areas and improve services on existing routes.

On top of air pollution, Havering Council which is run by Conservatives do nothing to tackle pollution coming from cars that are illegally modified with making excessive noise not to mention the toxic chemicals being released.
Just like Conservatives do nothing about climate change and have let everyone down not to mention how they messed up everything with Covid, they are now neglecting more serious matters to do with the environment. How would anyone on this forum feel loads of cars were outside your home that has its exhaust modified in a way to release nothing but untold pollution with noise louder than fireworks? You would be fuming and more to the point you would want to ensure the council does its job instead of being lazy and showing absolutely no care. This is what Havering Council have done. There is no law enforcement in place to challenge these drivers. To add even more disgrace to what this council have neglected is the fact anyone driving a car or van in Havering can sound their horn whenever they feel lke it, if this happened in central London or elsewhere the driver would get a fine. In Havering drivers are immune from any penalty fines because its lawless and anything which was mentoned above stands in this disgrace of a borough that do not care about climate change.

A huge addition to air pollution where I live is the vast increase in the use of outdoor fire pits, bbq’s and open fires in houses. People burn anything to save money so. The summer is worse as soon as there is a hint of sun I can’t breathe because of smoky fires. In the winter our area suffers from the high numbers of cabbies running their cars while stationary for hours, polluting the air. People need a leaflet drop reminding them of helping keep the air clean by not doing certain things especially burning rubbish and household waste in bonfires in their gardens! I would like to cycle places but still even in 20mph zones people speed near you and the number of lorries on the road driving at speed scare me off!

The proposals for 'journey charge' are poorly thought through as means to improving London's emissions. In December 2021 sale of Electric cars increased to 25% of all cars sold in the UK, and across 2021 up threefold over 2020. At current rate, the majority of new cars in London will be electric within a year or two. And 70% of that electricity is generated using renewable and nuclear sources, with that percentage rising.

Rolling out 'journey charge' ostensibly for the purpose of cleaning London's air or reducing its emissions is misguided. It just puts a massive additional cost burden on Londoners, at a time that emissions from vehicles is plummeting.

Getting London's budget addicted to 'journey charge' is therefore a mistake. Unlike heroin, such taxes create dependency to the revenue source and are impossible to go 'cold turkey' on and roll back.