Tag Archives: Sadiq Khan

Traffic Speeds in London – They Are Getting Worse

Posted on by
Reply

I was having a clear out today of my office, and I happened to notice a copy of Ken Livingstone’s Mayor’s Transport Strategy dating from July 2001. It made for both amusing reading and anger at the lack of progress made since.

This is the first sentence in his Foreword to that document: “The single biggest problem for London is the gridlock of our transport system. At the start of the 21st Century, traffic speeds in central London have fallen to less than ten miles an hour with knock-on effects on the speed and reliability of the bus system. Congestion is growing in outer London town centres. Rail services are in unprecedented crisis. The Underground is more over-crowded and unreliable…..”. He said the transport crisis threatened London’s economic prosperity and suggested London needed a “world class transport system”.

Have we got one now? Not exactly and traffic speeds have actually fallen below what they were in 2001. In central London traffic speeds were reported as being less than 9 mph in central London last year by various sources, and as low as 7.3 mph in one quarter in 2017.

The Underground is more crowded than ever with some stations having to be closed at peak times. Surface rail has improved in some regards on some lines, but certainly not if you are a Southern Rail user.

What did Mr Livingstone plan to do to improve the dire state of affairs he commented upon? Apart from the fine words about improving the capacity of the public transport network as in Sadiq Khans recently published Transport Strategy, he proposed to implement a Congestion Charge “to deter unnecessary vehicle journeys in central London”. That obviously did not work. You can find a lot more analysis of why on this web page: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/congestion

Excuses from the Mayor and Transport for London as to why it did not work are numerous but are false. It failed simply because London has such high unsatisfied demand for road space and lots of people willing to pay for it, that they simply soaked up the space. The Congestion Charge (a.k.a. Tax) has more than doubled since Ken Livingstone introduced it, and still it did not work. In addition, more road space has been taken up by buses which are massively subsidised and their numbers expanded under Livingstone (they are still high) and by the modern fashion for PHVs (Uber etc). The growth in the population of London, and of businesses in central London, have created major headwinds in addition while cycle lanes have taken up valuable road space but are often relatively little used.

Mr Livingstone, and his successors Boris Johnson and Sadiq Khan have persisted with irrational and unproductive gestures without getting to the nub of the issue and producing policies that might actually work. Boris Johnson seemed to try to solve the problem by encouraging cycling, and Sadiq Khan’s added walking as a solution to both our transport and health problems. He also suggests road pricing or more congestion charging might help when we know from experience that those policies will not improve matters.

I suggest readers tell Sadiq Khan that a totally fresh approach is needed. Not more of the same regurgitated policies that emanate from Transport for London.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

Opposition to London Plan on Parking Levels

Posted on by
Reply

A report in Local Transport Today (LTT) has highlighted how some London Boroughs are strongly opposed to Mayor Sadiq Khan’s London Plan which is currently the subject of a public consultation. The main concern is the proposed new controls on parking provision in new housing developments. These have been substantially reduced such that many developments in central London will have exactly zero provision for parking (and that would be legally enforced). Even outer London where public transport access is high (PTAL levels 5 and 6) would also be covered by the zero rule, and even where PTAL levels are much lower parking provision will be severely restricted.

This is of course part of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy to drive car usage out of London altogether. In addition he is reducing the ability of local Boroughs to make their own decisions on what is most appropriate for their boroughs, thus increasing the centralised dictatorship or the Mayor and TfL. This is what Lisa Fairmaner of L.B.Kingston had to say to councillors “[It is] a direct challenge to local government in London with the mayor taking over a detailed planning policy role that should be carried out by local authorities through their local plans”. She suggested the Mayor was exceeding his powers.

The Leader of Bromley Council, Councillor Colin Smith, issued a statement in December which criticised the housing targets and impossibility of providing the necessary infrastructure to support many more residents. The maximum parking provision was also criticised by Bromley in the LTT report, including the inability of councils to set minimum parking provision standards.

It is surely no surprise that outer London boroughs, and their residents, are not happy with the Mayor’s proposals which are as usual developed with a mindset that cycling, walking and public transport are the only transport modes that should be used in London. This simply takes no account of the needs and desires of many residents, particularly the elderly and disabled of which there are enormous numbers in London. Restricting parking provision does not stop people owning cars but just causes the roads to be clogged up by parked vehicles with obstructive parking becoming commonplace. Parking provision should be dictated solely by market demand for it, as we said in our submission to the London Plan consultation.

Roger Lawson.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

TfL to Lose £1 billion per Year

Posted on by
Reply

 “TfL expects £1bn deficit by next year”. That was the headline in an article in today’s Financial Times. Apparently they have seen an internal email written by finance director Patrick Doig that the organisation faced an operating loss of £968 million in 2018/19 which he said was “clearly not a sustainable position…”. The deficit in the current financial year is expected to be £785 million this year which shows how rapidly its position is being eroded.

There are several reasons given for this erosion in their financial position – the Mayor freezing public transport fares (estimated cost £640m) did not help, but the big problem is falling revenue from users. Both bus and underground journey numbers have been unexpectedly falling.

Is this because more people are not travelling, e.g. doing internet shopping and working from home? Or is it because they have chosen to travel by bike (usage is growing), or find it is as cheap and a lot more comfortable to call Uber? Or perhaps it’s because some London residents are selling up and moving to the country with house prices peaking in London, or returning to homes in the rest of Europe. Perhaps those French, Polish, Romanian and other residents are worried about their future after Brexit? Perhaps they just got tired of life in London, unlike Dr Johnson who did not have to suffer the mediocre standards in TfL’s public transport provision.

The Mayor has only recently published his Business Plan for the years to 2022/23 (see this article: https://freedomfordrivers.blog/2018/01/17/tfl-business-plan-mayor-sadiq-khan-wants-more-money/ ). But you can see exactly why the Mayor is so keen to raise as much as £300 million from Londoners via the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) charges. As we have said before, the ULEZ is about money, not about improving the health of the population or cleaning up London’s air.

A comment in the FT article was by Gareth Bacon, London Assembly Conservative Members, who said there was now “serious cause for concern” about Mr Khan’s “cavalier” financial stewardship of TfL.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

London Plan Meeting

Posted on by
Reply

I attended a meeting yesterday (1/2/2018) hosted by the GLA on the London Plan. It was in Bexley Civic Centre in Bexleyheath. The lead speaker was Jules Pipe, Deputy Mayor for planning, regeneration & skills. Someone later asked who elected him – nobody of course – he was appointed by Mayor Sadiq Khan. There were a number of other Greater London Authority staff present who had worked on the London Plan including Gareth Fairweather from Transport for London (TfL). I spoke to him later and gave him my views on the London Plan and the Mayor’s Transport Strategy.

There were about 100 people in attendance, local councillors and the general public who could afford to spend three hours in the daytime to attend. After the initial presentations, which were somewhat boring although planning policies always are, there was plenty of time for comments and questions from the audience. It was clear there was wide opposition to the London Plan with particular concerns about the densification of the local borough (although there were also concerns about affordable housing provision), the restrictions on parking provision, the difficulty of accomodating more people and houses without more infrastructure (in schools, hospitals, etc), and the prejudice against the use of cars. Theresa O’Neill, Leader of Bexley Council, said they would be “sending back a robust response” to the consultation on the London Plan. Let us hope other London boroughs do the same. Another councillor said that Mayor Sadiq Khan does not understand outer London.

I asked a couple of questions:

1) Why does the London Plan (and the speakers at this event) talk about car dependency when using a car is simply a rational choice? It’s a prejudicial term and would not be used to describe people over-reliant on their cycles (as members of the panel might be)? Answer: it’s just a term to describe excessive emphasis on using cars when most trips can be done by walking, cycling and public transport (the Mayor’s target is 80%).

2) The main purpose of streets is surely to assist the movement of goods and people. While the London Plan and the Mayor’s Transport Strategy seems to want to turn them into places for social interaction and exercise. Please justify. Answer: Different roads have different purposes. Some might be used for movement while others might best be classed as “places”. Comment: George Orwell made it plain how changing the language can turn black into white. So defining a key road junction as a “place” (such as Bank junction in the City) enables closure of the road to traffic.

One speaker made a good comment on the provision of housing in Bexley. Apparently a former Planning Inspector decision suggested that only 450 new homes per annum could be built in Bexley due to limits on infrastructure. But the Mayor’s London Plan is ignoring that and insisting on 12,000 more homes.

Another speaker talked about the lack of hospital provision and other infrastructure. The nearest A&E if you live in Bexley is Woolwich or Dartford. They could be 30 minutes or more away. There was also a problem with water supply.

One particular vociferous Irishman suggested that cycling up hills in the borough would be exceedingly difficult.

Those attending were encouraged to submit responses to the public consultation on the London Plan.

As the speaker from the GLA pointed out, there will be an independent review by a Planning Inspector so it’s possible notice will be taken of comments in the final version of the London Plan which will dictate policies in London for the next few years (unless Mayor Sadiq Khan is ejected when his re-election becomes due). He is surely not going to get much support from the residents of outer London boroughs if the meeting described is anything to go by.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

Press Release: The Real Reason for the ULEZ – It’s About Money

Posted on by
Reply

We have said before that we are suspicious about the reasons given for the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) in London. The proposed measures, particularly the extension to within the North/South Circular, seemed disproportionate to the likely benefits from reductions in air pollution. This is particularly so, bearing in mind that emissions from vehicles are rapidly falling, as newer vehicles replace older ones.

Now we know the truth!

In April 2017 we asked for information on the financial budgets for the ULEZ – the likely costs and income the Mayor would get. The request was refused and we eventually had to appeal to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). We have now received the requested data following a judgement in our favour. These are the figures received from Transport for London (TfL):

  • Implementation costs: £38.4 million.
  • Operating income and costs:
  • Impact of introduction of ULEZ on income (£m) over 5 years 2017/18 to 2021/22 inclusive. (+ve is net increase in income): £55.3 million.
  • Impact of introduction of ULEZ on costs (£m) over 5 years 2017/18 to 2021/22 inclusive. (-ve is net increase in costs): -£12.7 million.

But these figures make absolutely no sense as against the figures we have calculated for operating income based on data provided in the ULEZ consultation documents. For example we estimate income over five years as being £313.6 million rather than £55.3 million.

In reality TfL may be making a profit over five years of £300.9 million for a capital investment of £38.4 million. At a stroke Sadiq Khan will solve his budget problems with the ULEZ implemented.

The Mayor has great financial difficulties, as is apparent from his recently published budget for the next few years, where he begs for more financial support from central Government. But he surely will not need their support with this scheme in place, even though he does not have the funds to do it without more borrowing.

Just like the central London Congestion Charge (a.k.a. Tax), where charges were later raised (more than doubled), thus making it a very profitable for TfL, once the infrastructure, such as cameras are in place for the ULEZ, charges can then be raised. The scheme can also be extended way past when traffic air pollution ceases to be a problem, thus potentially introducing more general road pricing.

Will the health benefits outweigh the costs of the scheme to Londoners? The answer is no because they are only valued at £7.1 million over 5 years. This duplicity in justifying the ULEZ on health grounds, which few are likely to oppose, when the real reason may be to fund his empire, is surely typical of Mayor Sadiq Khan’s approach to politics and democracy. Who does not want cleaner air? But there are lots of ways to improve air quality from transport and other sources, without imposing such enormous costs on road users.

To remind readers, the ULEZ charge for non-compliant cars will be £12.50, imposed 24/7, and enormous numbers of people will need to buy new cars to avoid this cost.

Readers should make sure they oppose the extension of the ULEZ by responding to this public consultation before the 28th February: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/environment/air-quality-consultation-phase-3b/?cid=airquality-consultation

More Information 

Our full analysis of the costs and benefits of the ULEZ are contained in this document: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/_files/ugd/84d4d3_56efa46d4aa4417087f4aa709ed3584a.pdf?index=true

The ULEZ proposals are part of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy which we are vigorously campaigning against – see this web page for more information: http://www.freedomfordrivers.org/against-mts.htm

The unnecessary delays and obstruction by TfL in responding to our reasonable request for information on ULEZ costs is documented in this blog post: https://freedomfordrivers.blog/2018/01/09/press-release-tfl-forced-to-disclose-ulez-costs/

Our views on the ULEZ proposals and how the Mayor is scaring Londoner’s unnecessarily about air pollution and health are documented here: https://freedomfordrivers.blog/2017/11/30/panicking-londoners-consultation-on-ulez-extension/

For more information on this issue, contact Roger Lawson on 020-8295-0378.

TfL Business Plan – Mayor Sadiq Khan Wants More Money

Posted on by
1

Just before Christmas, Transport for London published their proposed Business Plan for the five years to 2022/23. See http://content.tfl.gov.uk/fc-20171205-item10-draft-business-plan.pdf for the details, but what follows is a summary, with some comments.

The foreword by Mayor Sadiq Khan contains the usual whinging from him about the lack of central Government subsidy and his budget difficulties. It is true that TfL no longer receive a central Government grant for operating subsidies, but that was agreed by Boris Johnson on the basis that they would obtain extra income from the new Elizabeth line. There are still substantial capital grants though.

The Mayor is of course suffering from his self-imposed hair-shirt by promising to freeze public transport fares in London when campaigning to get elected. He has implemented that, at least as far as TfL controlled fares are concerned. He even goes so far as to say that this “will put £200 back in Londoners’ pockets by 2020”. Surely he is confusing stopping increases (which mainly covered inflation), with reducing fares?

TfL’s latest budgets are particularly constrained by a reduction in forecast public transport revenues. Bus usage for example has been falling, so revenue growth is anticipated to be lower than expected in previous budgets. Bus operating deficit was £599 million in 2016/2017 but will rise to £632 million this year and be has high as £647 million in 2022/23. These are enormous numbers.

Looking at the Financial Summary (page 30), shows that overall TfL will show an operating surplus before “capital renewals” and “financing costs”. After the latter they are running big deficits up until 2020/21. This is what one might term “political presentation of finance data”. Cash flow was negative to the tune of £1,353 million in 2016/17 and it only really becomes positive 4 years later. For someone with experience of looking at the finances of organisations, as this writer has, this looks a very unhealthy financial profile.

One result of this financial plan is that the Mayor is cutting funding for road maintenance that goes to local boroughs. This will not necessarily affect minor road maintenance but it will mean cuts to major projects. Part of the reason is because a lot of the money is going to support cycling initiatives, the redevelopment (pedestrianisation) of Oxford Street and other major projects that are mainly in central London.

Local boroughs are likely to be very unhappy with the cuts to funding of Local Implementation Plan (LIP) programmes, particularly as projects tend to be planned years in advance so abrupt changes in funds available may mean a lot of planning work is wasted.

The lack of major renewal work on roads will surely cause the proverbial “stitch in time” to come true. It will lead to expensive short-term fixes, and more major work in due course if proper maintenance is delayed. For example, bridges often require substantial work after many years of use and that cannot be deferred forever.

Big projects that are consuming the funds are more cycle superhighways, Vauxhall Cross, Wandsworth Gyratory, the Silvertown Tunnel and the Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf bridge (which I commented on negatively as regards its’ financial wisdom in a previous blog post).

The Mayor and TfL are complaining that the cost of operating and maintaining London’s roads of up to £350m per year are effectively being cross-subsidised by public transport fare payers and they need some of the money raised from Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) to pay for it. This is nonsense. The Mayor has very substantial income from business rates and other sources (such as congestion charging) – these more than cover the costs of operating and maintaining the road network.

All that is happening is that the Mayor is choosing to spend large amounts of money on cycling, on his “healthy streets” projects, on expensive remodeling of gyratories (past ones have introduced congestion where none existed before), on massive subsidies to bus travel when nowhere else in the country does this take place and while removing budgets from local London boroughs. This is not a formula that will please Londoners who understand what is happening, nor improve TfL’s financial position.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

 

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

 

TfL Will Have to Disclose ULEZ Costs After All

Posted on by
Reply

In April 2017 I responded to a public consultation on the proposed extension of the ULEZ. However I criticised the lack of information on the cost/benefit of the scheme, indeed of any information on costs and likely revenues at all, which made making an informed response to the consultation difficult.

As Transport for London (TfL) refused to provide such information when requested I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request. TfL refused the request on the grounds of “commercial confidentiality” so I asked for a review and subsequently appealed to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

They have upheld my complaint and so I should get the requested information after all (unless they appeal to the First Tier Tribunal). But is it not disgraceful that TfL can obstruct and delay this legitimate need for such information?

TfL claimed it was commercially sensitive because they were already talking to possible suppliers but the ICO judged that there was insufficient evidence that such disclosure would result in specific harm to TfL that would justify refusal.

As I said originally, in my view, these proposals are out of proportion to the benefit to be obtained. The fact that TfL are apparently reluctant to disclose the financial budgets for this scheme suggests to me that it is more about tax raising than simply tackling the air pollution health issue.

The costs of the scheme may be so high that even with the additional taxes raised from vehicle users, it may be unaffordable. BUT WE DON’T KNOW BECAUSE TFL REFUSED TO TELL US.

It is unfortunately typical of late for the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, to issue public consultations in his name that are biased polemics of the benefits of his proposals while not disclosing the facts. Democracy is undermined when a public authority acts in this way.

It is further undermined when TfL refuse to disclose information and by doing so delay its release past the consultation due date when they know any appeal process will take many months.

More information will follow when I get the requested data; in the meantime you can read the ICO’s decision notice here: http://www.freedomfordrivers.org/ICO-Decision-ULEZ-Request.pdf

That was a welcome Christmas present from the ICO, and I wish all our readers a happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

Sadiq Khan Plans Your Life

Posted on by
Reply

If you live in London, you should pay attention to the “London Plan” that Mayor Sadiq Khan has recently published. Indeed if you live in other large conurbations you might wish to review it also because the policies he is promoting might spread elsewhere.

What’s the London Plan? It’s a document that sets the “spatial development” strategy for London over the next few years and has legal implications for planning developments, housing construction, transport infrastructure, and many other aspects of our lives.

The Mayor makes it plain that London needs to cope with the rapidly expanding population and business activity. The population of London might reach 10.5 million by 2041 he says (currently 8.8 million). That means a lot more houses have to be built (66,000 per annum he says) and support for more workplaces.

In addition it has major implications for transport infrastructure while at the same time he wants to clean up London’s air. He wants to make London a “zero carbon” city by 2050, although no doubt he will be long gone by then. As part of this he aims to reduce “car dependency” (an emotive and inaccurate phrase disparaging people who have made a rational or personal choice about how they travel when you don’t see this said about those who rely on cycles for their daily travel needs).

Why has the population of London grown so rapidly in recent years and continues to do so? Page 12 of the Plan explains why. It says 40 per cent of Londoners were born outside the UK, and the city is now home to 1 million EU citizens, no doubt attracted by the vibrant London economy. This has put a major strain on housing, transport, social services and other infrastructure (incidentally an unbelievable 1.2 million Londoners are apparently “disabled”).

This state of affairs has come about because of national policies on immigration with no effective policies to distribute that more widely across the country compounded no doubt by a desire by some politicians to improve their chances of being elected.

Specifically looking at transport, the Mayor’s target is for 80% of all journeys to be made by walking, cycling and public transport (that of course includes the 14% of Londoners who are disabled!). It’s currently 64%. This is going to mean an aggressive set of policies to reduce car use – hence our campaign against the Mayor’s Transport Strategy which supports the London Plan – see http://www.freedomfordrivers.org/against-mts.htm

The Mayor highlights the health inequalities in London, with deprived areas of London having reduced life expectancies (as much as 15 years for men and 19 years for women) surely an astonishing statistic. What is the reason for this? Poor housing conditions are certainly one, but lack of daily activity is allegedly another so the Mayor wants us all to be walking and cycling.

The Mayor does have plans to improve public transport including proposals for Crossrail 2 and extension of the Bakerloo line but these proposals will do relatively little to soak up the increased demand, and with no proposals of significance to improve the road network, hence no doubt the need to encourage us all to walk or cycle.

The Mayor’s plans to support the need for more housing include targets for every London borough (for example over 2,000 new homes every year in Barnet, Brent, Ealing, Greenwich, Hounslow, Newham, Southwark, and Tower Hamlets). This includes high concentration developments in locations with good public transport access levels (PTALs), particularly inner London boroughs. Outer London boroughs might see a relaxation of planning regulations to allow more “in-fill” developments including building on back gardens as the Conservatives promptly complained about. There will be more encouragement for smaller builders, more efficient building techniques and “proactive” intervention in London’s land market (more “compulsory purchase” perhaps).

One aspect of transport infrastructure that the London Plan covers is that of parking provision for new housing, office or shop developments. It wants most developments to be “car free” (i.e. no parking provision), particularly those with high PTAL levels. The details of what this means in practice are not clear, but it looks like the intention is to reduce parking provision substantially, thus resulting in more on-street parking and obstruction.

The Mayor concludes his near 500-page tome on the subject of the “Funding Gap”. By this he means the gap between the public sector funding required to support London’s growth (and his plans) and the money currently committed. In other words, he wants more money, including a bigger share of taxation collected from Londoners. For example, he repeats his call for control of Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) which any right-thinking person should surely oppose. Yes the Mayor wants more money and more power. Unfortunately the establishment of directly elected Mayors such as Mr Khan has resulted in empire building of the worst kind. They are effectively dictators within their realms with no effective democratic constraints on their policies and negligible public accountability.

In summary, it is not clear that the building of lots of new homes (which of course will emit more pollutants, particularly during constructions, more than offsetting any reduction from restraining car use), of a fairly low standard in dense conurbations, is going to improve the quality of life for Londoners. It is undoubtedly the case that more new homes are needed in London but building new homes without complementary improvements to the transport infrastructure, which has consistently lagged behind the growth in London’s population, does not make much sense.

As is already seen in the statistics, older London residents are moving out and being replaced by immigrants. Some readers might wish to consider doing the same given the outlook for the quality of life in London. Simply reacting to the population growth in London without trying to constrain it, or divert it elsewhere, is surely a mistake.

You can submit your comments on the London Plan to the public consultation by going here: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/comment-draft-london-plan . Please be sure to do so.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

 

Panicking Londoners: Consultation on ULEZ Extension

Posted on by
2

London Mayor Sadiq Khan has announced today a consultation on the extension of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) to within the North/South Circular in 2021. Any vehicle that does not meet the required emission standard will be required to pay a charge of £12.50 for cars/vans in addition to any central London Congestion Charge that might also apply. Cars and vans will need to meet the Euro 6 standard for diesels and Euro 4 standard for petrol vehicles.

In addition motorcycles will be included in the above and the ULEZ tighter emission standards will apply to the whole of London from October 2020 for heavy vehicles (buses, coaches, lorries and other specialist vehicles).

The announcement was launched with the following claims from Alex Williams of Transport for London: “Right now, air pollution in London is a public health crisis…….filthy air contributes to thousands of early deaths each year in London, and impacts our health over the course of our lives, leading to decreased lung function in our children, and greater risk of dementia and stroke when we get older.”

This is scaremongering of the worst kind. The claim relating to deaths is an exaggeration and the claims about dementia and stroke are disputed by some authorities. In any case these are often based on epidemiological studies and results from such research may simply reflect the fact that those who live in poor inner-city neighbourhoods lead unhealthy life styles.

Even the suggested reduction in air pollution from these new taxes are only expected to have any impact in the next few years and by 2030 the benefit will have disappeared anyway. So very high short- term costs are being imposed on many vehicle owners as they will need to change their cars/vans unnecessarily.

I commented about claims that air pollution is causing an epidemic of asthma in a previous blog post here: https://freedomfordrivers.blog/2017/11/18/does-air-pollution-in-london-cause-asthma/ . It’s basically nonsense.

London’s air, and the vehicles which drive in London, have been getting cleaner and that will rapidly progress as vehicles are replaced without this expensive scheme (of which the Mayor is refusing to disclose the costs). Where is the cost/benefit justification? There is none.

The Mayor claims that London’s air is “lethal” but that is simply not true. Sadiq Khan is now not just scaring children and dragging them into his politicking, but now is attempting to disconcert the elderly who might be worried about the diseases of age. It’s simply unprincipled. To say there is a “public health crisis” is just wrong. Londoners are living longer and there is no evidence that air pollution is shortening the lives of Londoners to any measurable extent.

Make sure you go here to respond to the public consultation: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/environment/air-quality-consultation-phase-3b/?cid=airquality-consultation

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

Does Air Pollution Cause Asthma?

Posted on by
2

One response to our campaign against the Mayor’s Transport Strategy is that we should not oppose it because it might stop their kids getting asthma. Children have been widely used in Sadiq Khan’s publicity over his plans to reduce air pollution and there is a strong emphasis in the Transport Strategy on the potential environmental benefits. But unfortunately, a lot of the arguments put forward are simplistic and show little understanding of the causes and prevalence of asthma.

Like the Mayor, this writer has suffered from asthma, so I have a personal interest in this issue. Note also that we do not oppose cleaning up London’s air because one does not need a scientist to tell you that air quality in central London, and in some outer London “hot spots”, is appalling bad and not just makes walking or cycling unpleasant but probably exacerbates some medical conditions (including pre-existing asthma of course). Our opposition to the Mayor’s Transport Strategy is based on other factors and the irrational, ineffective and uneconomic approach to the environmental issues.

Let’s cover some of the basics about asthma:

  • Does air pollution cause asthma (in children or others)? As far back as 1995, a Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) looked at this issue and came to the conclusion that although air pollution may provoke asthma attacks or aggravate existing chronic disease, the effect is generally small with other factors such as viruses, cigarette smoke, diet and house dust-mite droppings more important. They also noted that there had been a general increase in asthma in the last 30 years so it was now a very common disease. Was this down to more urbanisation and are city dwellers more likely to suffer from it because of air pollution? The answer is no. Indeed, a study in the Isle of Skye, where air pollution was believed to be minimal, showed as high a prevalence of asthma as anywhere else. See this report in The Independent for more information: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/air-pollution-is-not-the-cause-of-asthma-epidemic-1578437.html . Very heavy air pollution may reduce lung function in children according to more recent studies, but it is not the cause of the asthma epidemic in the last 50 years.
  • Why are allergies, that drive asthma, more common? There have been many possible causes put forward for this. It seems to relate to the exposure of very young children, or their mothers, that condition the immune system to over-react. For example, it has been argued that excessively clean houses are one cause. Smoking by mothers, or in houses, may have been another cause. Or a general increase in pollutants in the home. As we reported in our newsletter in June 2017, the concentration of some air pollutants can be five times higher indoors than outdoors. This is due to gas stoves, food cooking, dog/cat hairs, dead skin, lint particles from tumble dryers, deodorant spays, scented candles and air fresheners. The desire to minimise heat loss from homes, and reduce drafts (and hence fresh air) along with smaller homes might have contributed to these problems. Obesity is also a factor in asthma risk and we all know that has been rising. 
  • Are diesel vehicles a cause of worse air pollution and asthma? Diesel vehicles became popular for cars, and always have been for HGVs and buses, because of reduced fuel consumption and a desire to minimise carbon emissions. However that did not take account of the large emissions of NOX and particulates from such vehicles. But removing all diesel vehicles would not likely have much impact on overall air pollution levels in London. The reason is that much of the air pollution is from other sources such as home/office heating, industrial activities, or simply blown in from the countryside around. Even with vehicles, much of the particulates come from tyre and brake wear so converting all vehicles to electric ones will only reduce the emissions, not eliminate them. And removing private cars will have minimal impact when taxis, PHVs, LGVs, and HGVs continue to increase in number and are much bigger sources, as are trains, planes, river traffic and other transport modes. To reduce air pollution needs a much more “holistic” approach rather than focussing on one or two perceived evils alone. It seems very unlikely that attacks on diesel vehicles will have much impact on the causes or prevalence of asthma in any sensible timescale and the latest diesel vehicles are now very clean.

The above is a simplification of a very complex topic, but I hope it explains some of the key points. Does Mayor Sadiq Khan believe he is doing good by his aggressive environmental policies that will get us all walking and cycling (other than the disabled presumably)? Is he simply ignorant of the real issues? Or is he promoting these policies for other reasons, such as the financial problems of Transport for London, his desire to raise more funds and his desire to be seen as “doing good” to help his re-election?

Lastly, it’s worth mentioning that although asthma has become a lot more prevalent, the medical treatments for the disease are now quite effective in other than the worse cases. Certainly, much better than when I was a child. The high prevalence of asthma in the UK has been given as one reason why the UK became a centre for the medical research into treatments. But it seems to be a worldwide phenomenon that asthma levels have increased.

My conclusion is that cleaning up London’s air might make it a more pleasant place to live and work, but it won’t have much impact on the prevalence of asthma.

Incidentally a great article on the scare-mongering associated with air pollution is present here: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/08/15/claims-of-40000-deaths-from-air-pollution-debunked-by-death-statistics/

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.