Category Archives: Air Pollution

Breathe Book Review – Sadiq Khan’s Memoir

Posted on by
1

Sadiq Khan has published a book entitled Breathe. It is partly biographical and partly a polemic about air pollution and climate change.

He explains how he became interested in air pollution in London after training for the London marathon and developing “late-onset” asthma. He blames it solely on London’s poor air quality in the streets on which he trained.

He also covers the case of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah but misreports what the coroner said about the cause of her death. Air pollution was probably a contributory factor as she lived near the South Circular which is very heavily polluted but certainly not the sole cause.

He also makes inaccurate comments about the Blackwall Tunnel suggesting that the bends in the tunnel were designed so that horses did not bolt for the exit when they saw the daylight. I have seen this allegation about the Rotherhithe Tunnel which also has sharp bends but I doubt it is true. Wikipedia says the Blackwall tunnel has bends in order that the tunnel could align with Northumberland Wharf to the north and Ordnance Wharf to the south, and avoid a sewer underneath Bedford Street.

The book attempts to link air pollution to action on climate change but does not provide any evidence to support that. Indeed the book is short on supporting data and is hardly a scientific exposition of the issues.

Neither does Sadiq Khan look at the economic cost of his policies and why a lot of the justification was the need to bail out TfL by raising taxes via such schemes as the ULEZ.  He claims that the ULEZ had a major impact on the air pollution in London while ignoring the impact of central Government policies, the improvements to vehicles and the impact of the pandemic on reducing traffic.

But he does explain how scaring the population by emphasising the negative health impacts of air pollution has helped him to win election.

On the issue of LTNs, he alleges that the vocal public opposition has been stimulated by hostile media while arguing the bulk of residents support them. How wrong he is!

He covers his recent alleged heart attack in Glasgow and it’s difficult not to conclude from the length he spends on his medical problems that he is a hypochondriac.

The book will only be of interest to those who want an explanation of how Sadiq Khan got elected as Mayor of London by scaremongering about air pollution and climate change. But he does point out the weaknesses and mistakes of his opponents. Hopefully new candidates can learn from this book.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Two Petitions We Supported to be Debated in Parliament

Posted on by
4

The two petitions are requesting the revoking of powers to charge for CAZ, LEZ and ULEZ schemes and amend the 1999 GLA Act to remove the Mayor of London’s powers to impose road user charging.

Both petitions got enough signatures to justify debates in Parliament which will take place on the 26th June. Please encourage your MP to attend and give their views.

These may appear to be technical matters but this legislation has enabled local councils and Sadiq Khan to raise very large amounts of tax which are totally unjustified.

Don’t let MPs fob you off with excuses about the need to cut traffic congestion and save the planet from global warming by cutting vehicle emissions. It’s all about money, not the environment.

You should be able to watch the debates on the Parliament TV BBC Channel.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Politics and Technology Problems

Posted on by
2

It’s been a while since I wrote a blog post. Too busy sorting out some technical problems and keeping up with medical issues – I just booked my seventh Covid vaccination which does not scare me. But I would like to comment on some topical issues.

Should Dominic Raab have been fired, or encouraged to resign, which is the same thing in reality? There is one simple question to answer which is “would you like to work for him as a boss?”. My answer would be an undoubted “no”.

Leaders who wish to get things done need to be popular to some extent at least if they wish to have people work hard and follow the policies laid down. You certainly can’t get people to do what you want by bullying them.

Raab was apparently warned several times about his behaviour so the final outcome was hardly unexpected. In any organisation, and Government is no different, you have to have consensus and leadership by example. If Raab could not get Civil Service staff to do what he wanted then he needed to change his approach.

My first technical problem was that BT and Microsoft decided to stop supporting POP email clients, for alleged security reasons after 20 years. That meant potentially losing access to thousands of older emails I have received over the last 15 years. No workarounds provided unless I paid them money. I am very unhappy about being treated in this way and Outlook on the web is not nearly as good as Outlook 2016 as a local client.

My latest technical problem was configuring and learning how to use a new Samsung smartwatch (a Galaxy 4). This is replacing an older Huawei smartwatch which did basic functions very well but was not really compatible with the Apple i-Phone I currently use. I don’t like Apple watches – too expensive and I prefer a more traditional design. The Galaxy watch is also incompatible but you have to read the very small print on their web site to discover that. You even need a Samsung phone to set it up which is ridiculous. The user interface is horribly complex and it’s taken me hours to learn all the functions and configure it. Watches should be installable in a few minutes, not hours, and all common phones should be supported.

That’s the rant over for today.

I was alerted by the new emergency phone alarm just now. I presume that’s in case Russia launches World War 3, and we get 3 minutes warning of a nuclear attack. Reminds me of the 1960s but most people decided then that there was not much to do in 3 minutes except hide under a table.

Meanwhile Sadiq Khan is pushing ahead with the ULEZ expansion despite widespread public opposition. Financially it makes no sense and it will make no difference to air quality in the outer London boroughs. There will be a legal challenge in the High Court in July but I am not very hopeful of a successful outcome. But it’s worth supporting anyway.

The only way you can remove idiots like Sadiq Kahn is at the ballot box.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

London Air Quality and ULEZ Expansion Could Be Blocked

Posted on by
2

Sadiq Khan issued a tweet saying that “London has been ranked the 18th most polluted city in the world based on air quality, light pollution and traffic congestion”. But this is a lie and the tweet has subsequently been deleted.

London is nowhere near 18th most polluted city in the world, on any of these measures. IQair ranks London as the 3739th in the world on air pollution. It is ranked 55th out of just 404 cities on congestion, and the UN reports mean noise pollution as joint 28th out of the 61 cities measured. See https://order-order.com/2022/10/06/fact-check-khans-polluting-claims/ for more information.

It is regrettable that Sadiq Khan and his PR team find it necessary to scare the public in this way in support of his financially driven policies to extract more taxes from Londoners. There is simply no evidence that poor air quality is a major health problem in London.

We have said before that the Government could halt the planned expansion of the ULEZ. Thanks to one of our contacts for the following explanation of the legal position:

“The root cause of the problem is the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which was created during Tony Blair’s New Labour administration, along with the devolved Scottish and Welsh administrations.

Section 295 and schedule 23 of the GLA Act 1999 enables TFL, the Mayor and London Borough Councils to enforce their road user charging schemes such as congestion charge, ULEZ etc. See:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/29/part/IV/chapter/XV

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/29/schedule/23

Explanatory notes for easy read.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/29/notes/division/5/4/15

If you read the GLA Act 1999 carefully, the Secretary of State does have powers to veto/block road user charging schemes on the grounds of “the incompatibility is detrimental to the interests of persons resident in England outside Greater London.”

Part III, Chapter 1 and schedule 12 of the Transport Act 2000 enables local authorities outside of London (including Metro Mayors) to enforce their road user charging schemes such as Clean Air Zone (CAZ), Congestion Charge (for Cambridge) and traffic filter scheme (for Oxford)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/38/part/III

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/38/schedule/12

Explanatory notes for easy read.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/38/notes/division/5/3

I have written to Mark Harper, Secretary of State for Transport, pointing out he does have the power to block the ULEZ expansion and should do so. Also I have suggested that the Government should repeal the relevant clauses from the legislations to take road user charging powers away from the Mayors and local authorities, and even make road user charging powers illegal!

With a Conservative majority in the Commons they could also repeal the GLA Act 1999 which will then abolish the Mayor of London and transfer TFL back to Government control.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Latest Air Quality in Bromley Data Shows No Need for ULEZ Expansion

Posted on by
1

The latest Air Quality Annual Status Report for the London Borough of Bromley which has just been published shows there is no justification for the expansion of the ULEZ scheme to outer London boroughs like Bromley.

To quote from a Council report: “There were no monitored exceedances of the annual or daily mean for Particulate Matter (PM10) in 2021. The annual average was 15.4μgm-3 . This is well below the national limit of 40μgm-3 .

The annual mean for Particulate Matter (PM2.5) concentration in 2021 was 9.7μgm-3 . This was also well below the national limit of 20μgm-3 .

Historically, the trend in Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) concentration at the Harwood Avenue permanent continuous monitoring station, shows a decreasing trend. There was a slight increase from 2020 to 2021. This was due to life returning to normal following the changes to traffic levels during the COVID-19 pandemic and related lockdowns. The trends in NO2 concentrations for diffusion tube monitoring sites (for those with more than one year of data) for the 2015 – 2021 period also show evidence of a decreasing trend and all sites were below the national limit”.

In summary the measured pollution levels are well below national standards even on busy roads and the trend is downwards. There are unlikely to be any negative health impacts from the current levels of air pollution.

You can see the full report in the Agenda Reports Pack (Item 17) for the Council meeting on the 6th September here: https://cds.bromley.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=127&MId=7414&Ver=4

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Census Results – A Problem the Government is Ignoring

Posted on by
1

Yesterday (28/6/2022) the Office of National Statistics released the first results from the 2021 Census in the UK. The population of England and Wales rose to 59.6 million which is an increase of 6.3% since the last census 10 years ago.

This substantial change which directly affects our quality of life was barely covered in the national media. More people mean more stress on housing provision, more vehicles on our roads and a bigger demand for health services (particularly as the population has aged – there are more older people and they are living longer). Some of the age increase can be blamed on baby boomers growing old.

The population increase has been concentrated in London and the South-East but older people have tended to move out of London being replaced by young immigrants (not just from overseas but from within the UK). The census data might also have been distorted as people tended to move out of central London boroughs to the country during the pandemic.

England now has the highest population density of all major European countries.

One major impact of more population is degradation of the environment – more air pollution and more waste. Here’s a good quote from Sir David Attenborough that is very relevant: “All our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people, and harder – and ultimately impossible – to solve with ever more people”.

What is the Government doing to try and tackle this problem?  In essence very little apart from rather feebly trying to restrict immigration. The birth rate is forecast to fall, but there is as yet no sign of any reduction in the population growth. A growing population might mean a healthy economy but the shortage of housing, particularly in the South-East, has been a major factor in political unrest while the elderly are facing problems in getting medical treatment as the NHS is over-stretched to cope.

The Government is being distracted by many other issues at present in a reactive fashion. Such problems as food and energy security would not be a problem if the UK population was reduced.

Likewise the growth of population, particularly in London and the South-East, has put great stress on the road network. Population growth has zoomed ahead of road capacity which has barely changed in the last few years. This is a recipe for more traffic congestion.

The Government surely needs to be less reactive to short-term problems and look at the longer-term issue of excessive population growth.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Sadiq Khan Commits to Expanding ULEZ to All London

Posted on by
6

The Mayor of London is pushing ahead with expanding the ULEZ to the whole of London despite strong opposition from outer London boroughs. He has launched a public consultation (see link below) on his proposal. The plan is to expand it in August 2023 and anyone with a non-compliant vehicle will need to pay £12.50 per day – that means older vehicle users, particularly diesel cars and vans.

He claims this is necessary to clean up London’s air but it’s really about raising tax to fill the yawning hole in TfL’s budget.

The consultation document claims it will lead to a 9% reduction in NOx emissions in outer London and a 6% reduction in CO2 emissions but will anyone notice the difference? These changes will not have any significant impact on the health of Londoners and the Mayor’s comments about cutting “harmful emissions to help save the planet” are just nonsense. It won’t save the planet from anything but it will cost many Londoners an enormous amount in paying the charge or having to replace their vehicles.

He even suggests that his proposals will help to reduce traffic congestion. Again a nonsensical claim unless he manages to discourage vehicle use altogether which is clearly the plan. An outright attack on freedom of movement and the choice of how you travel.

His claims about the impact of the ULEZ in central London are grossly exaggerated. Emissions have reduced mainly because the vehicle fleet has been renewed as older vehicles are scrapped and central Government tax incentives have encouraged more fuel-efficient vehicles (including EVs).

The Mayor says that only one in five drivers in London will be impacted but the financial impact on them will be devastating.

The Mayor has proposed a vehicle scrappage scheme to support low income and disabled people and he mentions a reimbursement scheme for NHS patients but no details are provided. A vehicle scrappage scheme is likely to be very limited in scope and likewise any reimbursement scheme for patients (there is one already but it’s administratively complex and limited so don’t expect it to help much).

There will be a large cost involved in installing all the extra cameras required to enforce the scheme, which TfL can barely afford, and once installed it will give the Mayor the ability to charge all vehicles to drive in London. Don’t expect the Mayor to give up on a new revenue source!

Make sure you respond to the public consultation below and object!  

ULEZ Expansion Consultation: https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/cleanair?tool=survey_tool

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

The Good News and the Bad

Posted on by
3

The good news is that Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham is proposing to drop plans for a Clean Air Zone (CAZ) scheme that would charge motorists similar to the Birmingham and London schemes. But it depends on agreement with the Government. The charging scheme had already been “paused” until 2026 but now looks like it will be scrapped. Signs already put up for the scheme will need to be removed. See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-61439444 for more details.

The bad news is that the Daily Telegraph have reported that the Government is to finance Mini-Holland cycling schemes to encourage people to ditch their cars in Britain’s major cities under government plans.

Nineteen local authorities, including Manchester, Hull and Nottinghamshire, are to get government funds for mini-Hollands with segregated bike lanes, traffic calming and residential streets blocked to cars.

It is suggested officials have steered away from describing any of the projects as Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs), which have provoked intense local opposition over road closures and claims of increased congestion on boundary highways in some areas. But they did acknowledge some had LTN features. See Telegraph article here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/14/wheels-motion-turn-british-cities-cycle-friendly-mini-hollands/

Comment: I cannot understand why people think that Holland is a good example to follow. There may be more cycling in some Dutch cities such as Amsterdam but nationally there are more casualties to cyclists than in the UK and traffic congestion is also worse. There is no evidence that introducing such schemes increases cycling (or “active travel”) in the UK. Cycling remains a fair-weather transport mode only followed by young males in flat locations. If people calling for mini-Hollands actually bothered to visit Holland they would see a very different picture. The only good aspect is that Holland has encouraged more off-road cycle paths that separate vehicle traffic from cyclists.  

Instead of spending £200 million on encouraging cycling the Government should spend it on improving the road network to improve road safety and cut traffic congestion.

Another good article in the Telegraph was entitled “Why Boris and the elite are determined to wean us off the car”. It said “Exasperated motorists are feeling pushed out of the picture with rising fuel costs, congestion charges, low traffic zones and speeding fines, and motorists, especially those who travel into cities, feel they are being hit from every direction. Dead ahead there are closed off roads in low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs); to the left there are automated cameras monitoring their every move; to the right low emission zones and 20mph limits. And all around are parking charges and fuel costs that put a hefty dent in your wallet”; “There has now developed in Government an anti-car attitude as opposed to car management, a hostility to the motor vehicle rather than how we can manage this, says former transport minister John Spellar. He puts this down to a London-centric approach to transport that focuses on the problems cars cause in congested cities and ignores different conditions in other areas. As Spellar points out, working Britons outside the capital – particularly manual and shift workers – often rely on their vehicles to get to work, unlike city commuters who can travel by train”. See https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/features/boris-elite-determined-wean-us-car/ for the full article.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

SUVs and Campaign Against       

Posted on by
2

You have probably seen in the news a campaign against SUVs with tyres being let down. This is undoubtedly a criminal act which should be condemned.

But it’s worth saying that SUVs are an irrational choice of vehicle except for the very few who have a very large family or need to transport a lot of goods. An SUV typically is shaped like a brick and has a large frontal area. Therefore it will have higher wind resistance and fuel consumption than a smaller vehicle. If you want a luxury vehicle with plenty of space inside you don’t need to buy an SUV. Even electric SUVs will have a reduced range over comparable smaller vehicles.

So my view is that SUVs should be avoided and they have certainly contributed to higher overall air pollution in the last few years. But attacking the vehicle or their owners is wrong.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Manchester Campaign Against CAZ and Bromley Air Quality

Posted on by
Reply

While Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, plans to expand his ULEZ scheme, in Manchester there has been a very effective campaign against their proposed CAZ scheme. Mayor Andy Burnham is now back-tracking on the proposals.

Daily charges for the most polluting vehicles that don’t meet emission standards – HGVs, buses, non-Greater Manchester licensed taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (PHVs) – had been due to begin on 30 May 2022 but will now not go ahead. The withdrawn legal direction would have led to charges for non-compliant vans, Greater Manchester-licensed taxis and private hire vehicles (PHVs) from June 2023. Private cars, motorcycles and mopeds were exempt. Concerns about financial hardship for local people and the availability of compliant vehicles led the Mayor of Greater Manchester and Greater Manchester local authority leaders to ask government to lift its legal direction. Greater Manchester’s 10 local authorities have until 1 July 2022 to work with government to develop a new plan that will clean up the air while protecting livelihoods.

The campaign against the Manchester CAZ has 90,000 supporters under the banner Rethink GM. Go here for more information: www.rethinkgm.co.uk and to register support. On the home page click “Forums” then “Register” with just your name and email. The web site also provides a link to an active Facebook page.

Meanwhile the London Borough of Bromley have shown that it is not necessary to impose expensive ULEZ or CAZ schemes to clean up the air (most of that borough is outside the London ULEZ scheme). A press release from Bromley reports that updated data from the London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory shows that between 2016 and 2019 there was a 23% decline in NO2 across the borough, a 19% decline in PM2.5 and a 28% decline in PM10 particulates.

Bromley claims to now be the “cleanest and greenest borough in London”.

For more details see Bromley press release here: https://www.bromley.gov.uk/news/article/2825/big_improvements_in_air_quality

Comment: Bromley has of course ignored demands for LTNs and road closures and is keen to keep traffic moving. But they have pursued positive initiatives such as electric bus trials. Unlike many Labour controlled boroughs in London they have taken a more empirical and less dogmatic approach to the air quality issue.

Readers are reminded that the London ULEZ did little to contribute to improvements in air quality so why is the Mayor wanting to expand it? See https://freedomfordrivers.blog/2021/11/17/ulez-had-minimal-impact-on-air-pollution/ . It will cost a great deal to install hundreds of new cameras to expand the zone and high operating costs, apart from the impact on residents who will need to buy new vehicles or pay £12.50 per day. Although the Mayor says he has abandoned the idea of a boundary charge for people driving into London from outside, the extra cameras will make it very easy to introduce such a scheme!

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.