The official site of the Mayor of London and the London Assembly

we ride London are a very good group and a big thorn in the side of sadiq khan-he is ignoring all their requests to be charge free from all congestion charges despite their own admission that they cause 1% pollution way less than cars in fact I think its even less- goes to show what this really about MONEY ....ITS NOT REALLY ABOUT COMMON SENSE AND STOPPING POLLUTION IS IT!

Sorry forgot the link-here it is http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-news-general-news/heres-what-would-h...

WELL, Talk London the main problem with your answer there is that when we write or email TFL- They simply avoid the issues and do as you do and they send us to a link which as we have already been consulted on it already is a waste of time as we have obviously filled it in after reading it so another link to the same thing is pointless wouldnt you agree.?

It is very clear however that something is afoot here as why would londoners all of a sudden be sent a letter about an expansion when we were not before in 2015? Do 10000 people actually have that much power over what is happening now? Surely not......!

HA HA , I for one beg to differ this site is "ALL about issues that affect daily lives" That much is true how are we supposed to discuss them then if TFL and Talk London reply in this manner? I dont think anyone said you were a service provider either but you do work for TFL and supposedly this site is for "having our say is it not?".

I would like to see your reply to the point The Cyclist raised too instead of trying to evade the issue as you do quite easily- why if it is true was this consultation carried out in 2015 or 2016 and all residents were not sent a leaflet or written to at that time and why is is deemed necessary to do do it now this has to be answered come on Talk London/TFL. Are you saying that this site has nothing to do with TFL now?

Cyclist

You are right - it's all about the numbers. I firmly believe that there should be a mandatory number of people who respond to a consultation of this magnitude. There are 8.6 million people in London so let's say the consultation is not conclusive unless at least 5% of the population respond. 10k or 15k is just not representative. If a parameter was set it would incentivise TfL to widen their target audience.

This is where it does not add up, TFL start this by taking the 10,000 or so responses of a 2016 consultation to initiate charging drivers to enter a part of the city. Now we have a situation where TFL Intend (and they intend) to charge drivers more by now expanding this zone to cover all of London which by including the north circular will happen. TFL should not be allowed to do that .How is it right that they listen to 10,000 people but to no one now-they keep moving the goalposts and this is entirely dishonest. It is not what the original 10,000 people voted for either....I am ashamed that I voted for a Labour Mayor and will vote Tory in the Election now..i am disgusted by this mayor and TFL,s treatment of Londoners.Ken livingson did this with our trucks told us we didn't know what we wanted and installed an LEZ and cost me thousands. Nearly lost my business its happening all over again and for what CYCLISTS. You have got to be kidding me

But what is the point if TFL and The Mayor have already decided that the south circular and the north circular will all be included in the ULEZ? I don't get this I thought a consultation was so the people could decide what they wanted isn't that what happened in 2016 ? Are TFL telling us that all this is because of a 2016 consultation where they listened to the 15000 people of which 10000 wanted a zone and now its including the south and north circular? That's not right surely we have not been consulted on this yet but TFL can say it will happen?

And yet all this can be avoided for a small sum of under £500 did you see this www.cgon.co.uk
apparently TFL know about this firm but will not comment how can they not if it will save the planet? The firm says it can reduce emissions by u to 80% that is something else surely !

It's not only the infrastructure that is the issue. But also the battery lifespan. Nissan offer a replacement battery pack for £4920 with £1000 cashback on the old battery pack (no mention of labour cost). The batteries have a 5 year lifespan. That's the equivalence of a new engine every 5 years in an internal combustion engine vehicle. Would you choose a vehicle that had that type of maintenance expenditure? Also it's not really reducing pollution, just shifting it to elsewhere, unless there is a huge change to nuclear power and I don't really see that happening.

If he can spend/waste £770 million on cycle highways he can run you round the courts for years and he,s still win- what galls me is that thousands of Londoners think they have a chance to change things with these so called "consultations" when in fact they cant-TFL have already made the decisions....that's not to say that after the expansion kicks in TFL will get away with it, I think thee will be a huge backlash on Sadiq Khan once londoners see they've been lied to and conned by the so called "15000 people who were in favour of the charges" and the equivalent of 9416 deaths blamed on drivers ....

LiamO yes I agree here ! It is a shame that TFL are very biased in their Consultations and it is very obvious too. Take this recent one here ending in June, First question asks

Q1. Do you support the principle of the Ultra Low Emission Zone to improve air quality in London?

Strongly support
Support
Neither support nor oppose
Oppose
Strongly oppose
Don’t Know

A. Strongly oppose

Q2- 2. To what extent do you support bringing forward the implementation of the ULEZ in central London from 7 September 2020 to 8 April 2019?

Strongly support
Support
Neither support nor oppose
Oppose
Strongly oppose
Don’t Know

A- Ive just told you I strongly oppose so how can I support anything?

HA HA HA HA ....This is clear proof Talk London that your consultations are biased to get the results you want NOT what Londoners want it really is disgraceful the way these are done they are not fair in the least bit !

I fear what the autumn will ask especially as its already been decided to Expand the ULEZ to include south and north circular it should start with

Q- Do you agree or disagree that the South and North circular should be included into the ULEZ?

Q2- If not why not , if yes say why.

williewonka
The reason there is a consultation is that legally there has to be one, but TfL and London's local authorities circumvent this by shaping the wording of their questions in consultations so that they have a good chance of getting the answers they want, and then by targetting the audience that will be supportive of their goals. It would be difficult to pin vote rigging on them but there is little corroborative evidence published after consultations to confirm how many people engaged in the consultation and what the demographic and geographic make-up of the respondents were. I believe that there should be a minimum number of respondents before a consultation is deemed to have a definitive result and that a consultation should not be regarded as fair or definitive if the overwheming majority of respondents were local residents who stood to gain an advantage by the outcome of the consultation. We are talking about public roads and spaces and the imposition of discriminatory, punitive fines which, in my opinion should be legally challenged. It is wholly wrong to decide to impose an arbitrary charge on people who, before the tide of scientific evidence changed, were going about their lawful business and contributing to our society. They are not criminals.

There is much said on here about vested interests - the Taxi and Private Hire sector and the Hauliers but I would suggest that the power lies in the hands of the metropolitan middle-class. In the last decade in particular there has been a colonisation of central London by the middle-class professionals, technocrats, designers and creative artists who are among the growing group of elitists who can afford to live in central London and who form politically persuasive lobby groups. One of the culture trends that binds them together is cycling. They wear their lycra, helmets and shoes they can't walk in with pride and want the world to be shaped to their design. They are impervious to the protestations of "White Van Man" and the working road commuters, and either have no awareness of the wider economy or don't care.

They demand the designation of "village" status on the areas where they live and then demand that the streets be either closed or restricted. They claim to support the re-emergence of the High Street but these are not high streets as most of us know them - there's no Co-Op or market stalls, just an array of coffee houses, artisan bakers and butchers and specialist organic food sellers.

They want to be able to cycle freely through the streets without being impeded by motorists, ride child scooters on the pavements and in the parks and eat al fresco as if they are in a Meditteranean resort. This is laudible but there are 8.6 million people in this city. The one great elephant-in-the room that we have to plan for is that there's just too many of us. Just demading action and wanting to lay the blame at someone's door (Diesel drivers) ignores the fact that the problems we face are the result of economic activity. We are constantly told by the government that Britain's economy (and London's in particlar) is booming, but this is partly because of the "Gig" economy that allows economic activity to flourish while holding the pay and working conditions of the lowest paid to subsistence levels.We are living on a knife edge - any new shock to the economy could have very serious implications, so racing headlong into dismantling the road infrastructure and financially penalising those who can least afford it seems a little counter-productive.

I have a solution that may suit both sides - the Metropolitan elite want the streets to belong to them and want the traffic air-brushed out so that the value of their propoerties continues to rise. The lower-paid are being punished for travelling by road. How about if we move all of the big businesses and shops to the outskirts of town then people wouldn't have to drive into central London or pay exorbitant rail season tickets and the middle-class can have the centre of the city as a play area.

I received an email from the mayors office the other day telling me that there WILL BE will be an expansion to include the South and North Circular into the Ultra Low Emission Zone

So TALK LONDON, why are we being consulted then if its already been decided?

Anyone else get one?

EMPASIS ON THE WORD "WILL BE" we havent even been consulted on it yet how can it be "will be?" Im i seeing things?

Thats not what this says here in an email sent yesterday, it clearly says " The ULEZ will be expanded to include the North and South Circular in 2021."

HELP US TO TACKLE LONDON'S TOXIC AIR
Air Quality consultation
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.

Tell us what you think

Cyclist, read my additional comment in this thread - this is the third consultation for the ULEZ in central London. It is a proposal to introduce the ULEZ earlier than already planned under the previous mayor's term. The footprint is the same as the existing congestion zone - in central London.
The consultation for the ULEZ expansion is later this year.
This will mean a minimum of 4 consultations for the ULEZ and the expansion.

Cyclist, the consultation for the expansion to north / south circular is later this year. You haven't been asked yet, because the consultation hasn't happened yet.

Ha Ha peterd123 you would think that the next normal stage wouldn't you I agree....You would also think that Talk London would answer some direct questions asked of them here on this site but NO they refuse to. Such as,

1- why have we the Londoners who you claim to represent not been consulted on including the South and North Circular into the ULEZ?
2-Why have we not been written to about this especially as it is going to affect millions not thousands?

Not to mention they are hugely overpriced. For me to get to work via TfL £8 per day, to travel via motorcycle £0.88 per day.

Hi steve is it not a case though that more of these harmful emissions are burnt off when diesels actually get moving and are worse when sitting idling?

Williewonka,

Yes, I got something similar as well although not that particular letter. To be fair, it's quite common for politicians and public authorities to say that something "will" happen when they really just mean that is what they currently have in mind.

But of course the fact there may be a consultation does not mean that the mayor or TfL will take any notice of the results - they are not under any obligation to do so, although failure to take into account public opinion without good reason is a tool that effective opposition parties should take advantage of.

Just to add to my comment above whatever measures are decided upon for road charging / ULEZ, that needs to be combined with some proper joined-up thinking on transport in general - that means everything from getting the existing traffic flowing better to cut emissions from idling, ramping up the electric charging point infrastructure which currently isn't good enough in inner London especially for those who live in flats and could not charge an electric car at home, and improving public transport, including capping the costs - I heard on Radio London the other day that London is the most expensive place in the world to buy a monthly travel card to the tune of being a third more expensive than the next most expensive place(!) - that needs to change as does the capacity which really needs to be increased massively. Crossrail (Elizabeth Line) will help West to East in the next few years but we really need Crossrail 2 to be confirmed North to South and ideally brought forward too, although I realise that may not be feasible unfortunately.

LiamO - This is the issue I have with the way the debate seems to have turned recently - it seems to have gone from a (fairly) reasonable discussion of how to tackle a real problem that I think most of us recognise exists, in which part of the solution might potentially be things like a move away from the internal combustion engine, discouragement of high mileage driving and/or some sort of emissions charging, to a very vocal and shrill diatribe against motor transport and diesel cars in particular. Given that people were strongly encouraged by successive Governments (of all political hues) to buy diesel on environmental grounds I find this change in attitude quite objectionable. Yes, new evidence has arisen showing that diesel powered vehicles produce more toxic emissions than everyone (including scientists) thought and there needs to be a rethink and encouragement away from them, but given that until as recently as a few years ago the advice was "if you want to drive an environmentally friendly car then buy a diesel" i do not think that drivers of diesel cars who bought them in good faith should be the subject of such public vilification. Nor should the solution be to charge them (and low-mileage drivers of older petrol cars) a disproportionate amount to drive potentially only a few hundred metres to get out of an arbitrary zone. And neither should there be exemptions for taxis and private hire lobby (both Black Cabs as well as minicabs and Uber) because these are just as much part of the problem as private vehicles are - except that they have a very powerful lobby leaning on the Mayor and the London Assembly to get their way.

If we are really serious about tackling the problem then a) demonising certain groups of people just because they drive a certain type of car is counterproductive as it just makes the debate ugly, and b) we need to discourage and lower vehicle miles overall, not just drivers of certain categories of vehicle, whilst letting others off scot free. As I've continually said the only fair way to do this is a charge per mile, although reading the report linked by williewonka I also really like the idea of strongly targeted measures in the worst areas (I live near one of these and know something needs to be done!) whilst not imposing a blanket policy on all areas including those where there isn't an acute problem. This would certainly be much better value for taxpayers' money, would be easier to police as the areas would be quite small (so cameras on the perimeter would cost less to install and non-compliance would be easier to spot) and in such small areas a flat rate (which I think should apply to ALL vehicles other than zero emissions capable ones) would be far less unfair than the £12.50 for the proposed ULEZ extension as there is not such a huge discrepancy between those who might only drive a short distance in an older car that has to pay the charge, and those who potentially might be driving around all day between the North and South circular in a newer one that doesn't.

HERE it is but without the pics- look at the first paragraph !!

 
help us to tackle london's toxic air 

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.
Tell us what you think
Share:

 
london tree week 
Come and celebrate the capital’s trees and woodlands at one of the many special #LondonTreeWeek events happening from 27 May to 4 June. From mindfulness sessions to historical walks visit our London Tree Week page to find out how you can get involved and book tickets for events.
Get involved
Share:

 
crowdfund london open for ideas
The Mayor is pledging up to £50k for the best ideas from Londoners to improve their local areas. From community gardens and revamped playgrounds to school allotments, let’s bring communities together and your idea to life. Have you got an idea? Join one of our Crowdfund London workshops now to get your idea off the ground. 
Join a workshop now
Share:

 
twipes win mayor's entrepreneur 2017
Alborz Bozorgi and Ellenor McIntosh from City, University of London have won this year’s Mayor’s Entrepreneur 2017 with their idea for Twipes. The pair will get £20k from Citi Foundation to develop their idea for flushable, eco-friendly toilet wipes. Know some budding entrepreneurs with bright ideas? Tell them to register their interest in the next round of the competition.
Tell me more
Share:

 
c40 financing sustainable cities forum 
More than 200 delegates from the world’s megacities came together at City Hall on 4 April to address climate change by sharing solutions on financing sustainable urban infrastructure. Want to find out more about the event? Read Dolly Oladini's blog about the day, what's happening now and what's coming up. 
Read Dolly's blog for an update
Share:

If you no longer wish to receive emails from us please unsubscribe or update your preferences to make our emails more relevant to you
This email is from City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk

{~AL835989211716502272886382316~}

Yes Robert I agree with all you say, BUT- I personally received an email from the mayors office which clearly says that the South and North Circular "will be expanded to include the North and South Circular in 2021" If you can give me an email I can fwd it to you as it doesn't come up here the same when I copy and past ! I also received a letter from a senior TFL member a while back saying we would all be consulted by mail in the autumn about any expansion- how is it then that I got an email saying it WILL be expanded something is wrong here don't you agree !!

t

I don't meant to enter this particular debate - I think it is clear that there will be a further consultation on expanding the zone - although as before the information supplied to respondents is likely to be biased in favour of the Mayor's proposals.

However a point that ought to be made is that it is not only residents of any proposed zone that will be affected by it. It is not fair only to notify people who live within the zone at each stage. Indeed, this biases the outcome as those living in the zone will derive most of the benefits, but bear relatively few of the costs. Consultation on the central London ULEZ needs to be advertised throughout inner London, and consultation on the expanded area needs to be advertised throughout Greater London. If there is not a mail drop to every household in the GLA area advertising this last consultation when it happens, then the Mayor/TfL will be failing in their duty to effectively consult Londoners.

E17 Pioneer,
You talk about fairness.
Is 15,000 responses out of a London population of more than 8 million a FAIR reflection on everyone's views?
Is it fair to penalise motorists for all the pollution problem when a major contributor to the air problem has been the congestion caused by the number of roadworks, narrowing/removing existing roads, speed humps, empty 24/7 bus lanes, buses regulating and everything else which has been implemented by TFL and local authorities?
Is it fair that TFL, local authorities and the government never accept responsibility but blame the everyone else?
Is it fair to charge any resident, who may own an older car, and only make essential journeys more than someone who can afford to buy a newer vehicle and drive around all day for free? And please do not give me 'they would be cleaner' as occasional use of older cars will not pollute as much as newer cars driving around all day, every day because they can without being charged!
As already mentioned, I live in the centre of the congestion zone and I was never made aware of the original consultations yet TFL are quite happy to email me whenever I am due to pay for registration of residents discount, pre-pay etc.
Anyone with an ounce of common sense would have questioned why only 15,000 response were received and realised that maybe there had not been sufficient awareness...making it unfair. But given that it was probably done by a bunch of E17 Pioneers and wouldn't have suited TFL/the Mayor's agenda, it was seen as a success. NOW THAT IS UNFAIR!

Cyclist, this current consultation is about launching the already agreed ULEZ in CENTRAL London. Originally the launch date was 2020, the current mayor wants to launch in 2019.
The proposed ULEZ covers the existing footprint of the existing congestion zone, and enhancing it to a combined congestion / ULEZ.
This has already been consulted on during Boris Johnston's term, therefore the only factor being consulted on by Khan is 'can we introduce this earlier?'. So in fact this is the 3rd consultation for the ULEZ in CENTRAL London.
There is a lot of detail in the proposal, hopefully you will find this useful -
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/environment/air-quality-consultation-ph...

Towards the end of the page it proposes a further consultation later this year on expanding the ULEZ to the north / south circular.
The consultation for the expansion is later this year.
This will mean a total of at least 4 consultations for the ULEZ and it's expansion, which sounds fair to me.

E17Pioneer can I just ask in the name of fairness, Do you think it is right of sadiq khan and TFL to expand the south and north circular to be included into the ULEZ WITHOUT being consulted are you happy not to have been consulted?

LiamO

Well said.

E17Pioneer
I have been following your input and I find it quite persuasive and succinct but, as is often the case with those who rigidly adhere to scientific facts as irrefutable evidence, your maligning of anyone who has proferred an opinion that isn't underpinned by the facts as you see them makes a discussion forum a bit of a one-way street.

Although there is much evidence that air pollution is, in large cities in particular, attributable to vehicle emissions, it seems to me that what is being questioned by some respondents is the way in which the reports are being interpretted, and the assumptions and estimations that are being publicly aired as hard facts. This has created a vitriolic atmosphere that is being fed on a daily basis by central and local government agencies issuing assertions through the media that diesel emissions are directly responsible for a plethora of diseases, some fatal. The connections to many of the assumptions are unproven and the science is untested. However, the science that has been rigorously tested is fairly water-tight and I think most people believe that action is required.

Drip-feeding the public with stories that we are all going to cough our lungs up in a deadly froth if we go near a diesel-powered vehicle just makes owners and drivers of diesel vehicles the target of, in particular, the stoic middle-class, who extol the virtues of cycling, super-foods, good schools and fair play while rounding on anyone who appears to be affecting their idyllic urban lifestyle. Their vociferous demands that diesel is banned immediately are impossible for any government to placate as our economy is intrinsically linked to the internal combustion engine, in particuar in the movement and supply of goods and services.

It could be suggested that the constant hectoring and finger-jabbing towards owners and drivers of diesel vehicles might be to lend credence to the many financial punishments that are being considered by Tfl and London's local authorities, not least the ULEZ charge. To justify these measures they will say that they are just responding to public concerns and demands for action.

The problem is time and money (as always). Here are a few examples of public health issues that were identified early but which were not fully negated for decades:

1. Asbestos was used for millenia before it became prevelant in building materials after WW2. Although the health implications were known quite quickly the phasing out of asbestos didn't start until 1985 and its use was not fully banned in the developed world until 1999. The ubiquitous use (by central and local authorities in particular) has left a legacy of schools, hospitals, council homes and public buildings that are still riddled with asbestos. It is ESTIMATED to still kill around 2k people per year.

2. Lead in petrol (Tetraethal) was used from 1921. It resulted in many deaths of workers in the production of leaded petrol, particularly in the U.S. Again, although its health implications were known from the 1960's it was not banned in the UK until 2000, having seriously affected thousands of people, particularly children. The engineer who invented the process (Thomas Midgeley) went on to invent CFC gases, one of the most destructive environmental hazards ever released into the atmosphere.

3. In 1854 Cholera was identified as a water-borne disease in London by the physician John Snow after an outbreak in Soho that killed 616 people. The scientific perceived wisdom prior to this was that these diseases were air-borne and attributable to poor air quality in the city. Two previous outbreaks had killed 14,137 people. It wasn't until sanitation was improved and a huge sewer was built while creating the Victoria Embankment that the death toll was brought under control.

I cite these observations for 2 reasons - to understand that having information about a problem does not make solving it quickly a foregone conclusion, and to note that for every scientist who puts their name to a study that brings a problem to light there is one that created it in the first place, and profited from it. The rest of us are just victims and beneficiaries in eqaul measure.

The Cyclist,
You're absolutely right pal.

As for being conned into believing things, all these so-called surveys are just lip service so they can say they held a public consultation. At the end of the day, the stats and figures produced will always point to what they are trying to prove. I previously worked for a company who conducted similar so-called research/consultations and I can tell you that, just like the press, what you read is not necessarily the full picture. In fact, my job lasted about a month as I resigned due to the manipulation of figures to always suit the primary agenda.

Most surveys have an option of 'neither agree or disagree' which is a movable figure. In other words, balancing on the fence. When they pull together the final reports, if the question is to the benefit of the ultimate objective, all the 'neither agrees...' end up in the agree. If the question could go against them, all of a sudden it's toppled off to the disagree pile.

The reports are then completed with a heavy bias to support the ultimate goal. Just look at the report for the T-Charge where there were only approx 15,000 responses out of approx 140,000 residents and all the businesses within the congestion zone. That's less than 10%.

Now changing the subject, as we all know, a major source of poor air quality is caused by vehicles sitting in congested areas. These are the key findings from a survey undertaken by INRIX last year:

Congestion in London has risen noticeably between the years of 2012 and 2015 with journey times in Central London increasing by 12% annually.

Car traffic, including taxis and private hire vehicles (PHVs), is decreasing in Central London and the Congestion Charge Zone (CCZ); thus, as a category, cars are not causing an increase in congestion in these area

Roadway travel demand, as seen in vehicle counts, is flat or decreasing in Central London and increasing only slightly in Outer London; increased use of alternate modes of transit may explain why roadway traffic volumes remain flat.

Truck (LGV) traffic is increasing in Central London, possibly related to the rise in commerce.
This is the only vehicle type to show more roadway volume in all three zones of London.

One of the most significant drivers of increased congestion in London is roadworks, increasing 362% during the study period.

Source: http://londonfirst.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/London-Congestion-Tr...

So it appears that yet again, TFL, the Mayor and Local Authorities are all guilty of increasing pollution given all the roadworks to put cycle lanes, cycle super highways, speed humps etc. in place. But there again, it's never their fault is it?

SG65
Very well said my friend indeed !! You really need to copy and paste this to your local London assembly mp and your local MP for inclusion In the next meeting attended by sadiq Khan, Its all recorded m8. WE have to have a voice and its not here, Talk London is more or less for supporters of everything that TFL does and like it or not they will do what they want just as Ken Livingston did years ago with the lorries, his attitude was when we objected was "you Londoners don't know what you want anyway".This mayor has political goals ahead of him he does not really care about "all Londoners" If he did he would have written to everyone of us with a full explanation of what the T charge and emission zone was all about instead of pretending on the surface to be consulting on central London when in reality he was looking at doing the whole of London under the guise of Central London. I,ll bet this little fellow like ken Livingston and boris Johnston don't even drive.......yet he talks about "all Londoners"

Its a joke we are all being conned into believing things are worse than they really are because the EU are looking to fine the UK billions for not adhering to pollution controls...... I pity the small business who has a £3k van to earn £350 a week doing decorating or the small mechanic who does the same, the motorbike mechanics who will suffer because motorcyclist buy new bikes and so don't need servicing or repaired as much (25 thousand of them in London) all because of a poorly thought out idea by a man who don't even drive and wants to make money for TFL for CYCLISTS....of which I am one-please NOT IN MY NAME...

E17 Pioneer,
Thanks for all the links...although I'm not sure what your point is but I will respond a little later in this post.

This particular consultation is regarding the early introduction of the ULEZ, which will lead to its expansion to the north and south circulars (watch this space for the next restrictively publicised consultation), which is another money making attack on drivers.

Everyone knows there are pollution problems, there always has been, but the questions are: is having a flat charge for the 'older more polluting' vehicles a fair way to go? And will it really make that much of a difference to pollution levels when there are other more effective options available which would make a much bigger difference in probably a shorter period of time.

I’ll approach this in a logical manner, something TFL and the Mayor may consider trying at some point.

Firstly, get traffic flowing before attacking already hard strapped motorists.
To list a few suggestions:
1, revisit bus lanes (especially 24/7 ones) which for the majority of the time lay empty through the day whilst the other lane is congested.
2, Stop buses using bus lanes as bus stands to regulate causing other buses having to join the congested lane to get around them and in doing so, cause more congestion.
3, revisit the use of and location of speed humps. Slowing down to then accelerate causes vehicles to pollute more and slows the flow of traffic.
4, the use, and introduction, of zebra crossings on main roads when traffic lights would be more effective and permit a steady flow of traffic...reducing congestion.
5, traffic light timings and sequences. As I've previously mentioned in my earlier posts, I live in the centre of the congestion zone and there are lights which stay green for 15 seconds allowing 3-4 cars through but stay red for 45 seconds (yes, sad I know but, I've timed them on more than one occasion so they are my official stats as you appear to like stats). This causes a build up of traffic at the lights whilst the road ahead is clear
As mentioned, these are just a few possible solutions which would increase the flow of traffic and therefore reduce congestion which, in turn would, help in cutting pollution levels.
Secondly, reducing pollution. As already mentioned on this forum, TFL, as they are starting to do, should be looking to right their wrongs before passing the blame in an excuse to generate money.
1, Buses are not only one of the main causes of congestion (just view any of the traffic cams on the most congested streets) but the older buses are also one of the worst offenders for pollution.
2, many of the black Taxis, who will be exempt from the charge for some unknown reason, are still old diesel cabs polluting the streets of London as they do more damage driving around all day, when not sat outside a train station with their engines idling, probably pollute the air more in one day than the average Londoner does in a fortnight.
Instead of investing £740m in cycle super highways as a priority, which not only take up valuable tarmac but are pretty empty outside peak hours, prioritise investing money in improving the bus fleet and taxis as a priority.
Once all the above is done, then come back with accurate, factual and relevant facts and figures on the pollution levels before penalising all motorists.
I have a ULEZ compliant vehicle which I use mainly at weekends to do the things I can’t do using public transport. The rest of the week, I use public transport, walk or cycle so they’re shouldn’t be a reason for me to be against the Mayor’s proposals but I see myself as being open minded and being fair. What they are proposing certainly is not a fair way to approach the pollution/congestion issues they keep ramming down people’s throats.
Now, as promised, in response to your links and comments:
a) “The person most likely to own a car is a white male with an income of 75K+”.
Utter rubbish! I, and many others I know, are nowhere near that income and if it was the case, there would be no need to introduce a ULEZ as chances are, they could afford to buy cleaner cars. So, that should read, the person most likely to own a car, drive around all day polluting London and not pay a penny is anyone with an income of £75K+ once the ULEZ is introduced because they will be the only ones who will be able to afford it. So well done you for siding with those protecting the rights of the already privileged. The survey was undertaken by LTDS...in other words, TFL, using figures which are not up to date and as mentioned, does not agree with DfT stats.

b) “The concerns about air pollution are international and are being researched by scientists around the world”.

What’s new? Issues with the ozone, electronic cigarettes, cloning sheep, surgical procedures etc, etc are researched by scientists around the world every day. The links you have provided refer to air pollution. China probably has more bicycles than any other country and they still have air pollution problems. Surely you are not making a link or suggestion that cycling causes congestion and therefore increases pollution?

c) And if you don't believe car pollution on its own damages health, then you should be aware that car ownership certainly increases your likelihood of diabetes and obesity.

You link to yet another TFL survey. They don’t mention that their own Oyster card reduced fares and bus ‘hopper’ scheme also certainly increases the likelihood of diabetes and obesity more people are jumping on and off buses to go one stop instead of taking a five minute walk. Oh, but of course, that would mean breathing in pollution caused by cars which are probably being blocked by the same buses having to pick them up.

d) Finally, you should also be aware that increased car ownership proportionally increases the risk of physical danger to pedestrians - cars are the biggest killers of children aged 5-19.

Inconsiderate cyclists, skateboarders, joggers and anyone walking along on their tablet or mobile phone also increases the risk of physical danger to pedestrians. As for the biggest killers of children aged 5-19, that would be land transport...not just cars and certainly not attributed to pollution. Or are you saying that pollution kills the brain cells of the idiots who go to their local hardware store to buy a piece of drainpipe instead of an exhaust for their vehicles? If you actually read the article, it states: 90% of the world's fatalities on the roads occur in low- and middle-income countries, even though these countries have approximately half of the world's vehicles. These are probably the same countries which have no MOT’s, proper enforcement or even road markings. Having lived abroad, I can quite happily state that most of the vehicle related deaths to young people in the counties I lived were caused by badly maintained vehicles or driving at speeds beyond the capability of the driver. Not because of the pollution. A ULEZ would not have and will not change this.

So, my parting note is, to avoid becoming a diabetic and obese, stop spending so much time in front of your computer looking at survey results, mainly undertaken by TFL who have one goal in mind and don’t state all the facts, and go for a walk or go for a cycle ride but don't forget to wear a mask and make sure you obey the rules of the road if cycling.

HA HA ! My sentiments exactly. All we hear about is this number which is clearly the main reason the Mayor of London has got this far with his determination to force poorer drivers out of their hard earned cash that they used to buy these cars- his party if I remember correctly the Labour Party now he has his eyes set on becoming Prime Minister he wants to "make a difference". Well sir you certainly are doing that. You want to impose a charge on every Londoner who drives a car older than 2005 and motorcyclists who ride a bike older than 2007, how bizarre. How can you penalise a man who uses his car to go to the shops twice a week the same as a man who uses his car every day? How can you sir charge a motorcyclist £12.50 a day same as a car driver when heor she is not sitting in traffic like car drivers idling but is actually filtering in and out the traffic and in doing so is creating LESS Polution? Simply does not make sense. A person smarter than you would encourage the use of Motorcycles not penalise them surely. This ULEZ is a badly thought out scheme it is designed primarily not to save lives but to damage lives financially.It is a scheme that is designed to make TFL money which it clearly will. What next, you want these drivers who have no car then to get on a bus or train or bicycle? Don't be silly. You cant get a plumber on a bus with his tools as he doesn't know what he needs till he gets there, same for decorators, builders, etc...Absolutely stupid scheme. Yet sad thing is it will go ahead as I agree with the cyclist-scaremongering is not even close. Its a sad day for Londoners if you allow yourselves to let TFL extend this zone to include the South Circular and the North Circular.
Pollution blows in from everywhere a line around it on a map will make NO DIFFERENCE only to the pockets of TFL and boost the mayors ego !!

While I agree that pollution is a problem that needs fixing, and that constant car use can contribute to obesity and diabetes - though perhaps not as much as sedentary jobs and too much time in front of the telly - your use of childhood death figures is very disingenuous.

That ONS document states that the biggest killer is "land transport accidents", which doesn't just refer to pedestrians - it also includes car accidents where the occupants are killed, motorcycle and scooter accidents, and also accidents where pedestrians are killed by other vehicles such as buses or trains.

To be honest, one of the most serious growing dangers to pedestrians is inattention due to mobile phone use. This is being addressed by legislation (though still very little noticeable enforcement) for drivers - but very little is being done to prevent pedestrians and cyclists endangering themselves and others.

Id like to start by saying I am fine totally FINE. I have asthma but have had it all my life and coming from the countryside that's a wonder so no pollution to blame there.
My grandparents lived into their late 80,s and early 90,s in South London, through the smog and old cars buses and lorries, they were also fine -died of old age.

Now we have URGENT POLLUTION ALERTS ! Why ? Pollution is better now than it ever was the kings report even says so ! NOx Emissions are lower now than they were in 1990 !! They are 2/3 thirds down since 1990.....Hello !! I smoke cigars, I cycle a bicycle, I ride motorbikes, I have 2 diesel cars - and I am fine so how is that I wonder am I just one of the lucky ones? Oh and I don't go to the gym nor is my asthma any worse on URGENT ALERT DAYS lol...... Listen to be serious- Pollution is a global problem we know that but by doing what the Mayor is doing charging divers throughout is not the answer, it will not make a difference to me except make me poorer it wont benefit my health either. Everyone knows Pollution is worse in cities so why move there? If it concerns that many people then move out to the green fields of kent or surrey is pollution there too? Yes but not as much or is that true here also? 9416 deaths every year quoted again and again..... but the facts are they are NOT CAUSED BY DRIVERS ARE THEY!! YET tfl spout this day in and day out. Truth is that figure came from a survey that was done in 2010....So facts? Oh and the "kings report" ? the measures proposed will increase life expectancy by a couple of days I can live with that by leaving things as they are-everyone knows the air is slowly getting cleaner as newer cars are getting cleaner, yet Sadiq Khan will get the credit for it all simply by SCAREMONGERING !

'Soon...only the well off will be able to drive/ afford a car in London'
This already is the case. The likelihood of car ownership rises by income and age. Averagely 45% of Londoners - generally in the lowest income bracket - don't own cars at all. The person most likely to own a car is a white male with an income of 75K+, So well done for protecting the rights of the already privileged.
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-12-how-many-cars-are-there-in-l...
It's not TFL that are 'scaremongering' in isolation.
The concerns about air pollution are international and are being researched by scientists around the world -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/air-pollution-china-deaths_us_55cd9a...
https://www.thelocal.fr/20160621/pollution-in-france-kills-48000-people-...
https://www.mpg.de/9405012/mortality-air-pollution

- the above being just a small example of international studies on air pollution, of which most estimate 30% is caused by cars.

And if you don't believe car pollution on it's own damages health, then you should be aware that car ownership certainly increases your likelihood of diabetes and obesity -
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/improving-the-health-of-londoners-transport-ac...

Finally, you should also be aware that increased car ownership proportionally increases the risk of physical danger to pedestrians - cars are the biggest killers of children aged 5-19.
http://visual.ons.gov.uk/what-are-the-top-causes-of-death-by-age-and-gen...

So what are your suggestions to tackle this issues of pollution, child mortality, obesity and diabetes?

In your comment below you suggest concern about car pollution was scaremongering by TFL - so if you are not concerned about car pollution, why mention it here?

The London-specific report is here

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/hiainlondon_kingsreport_14...

This is more useful than the previous link, as it gives a lot of detail on the scientific and statistical methods used to derive the results. The 9400 figure (9416 to be precise) appears on pages 8, 9 and 40 - this is an upper estimate.

This in turn is a regurgitation and extension of analysis in

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil...

and placed into a London context. This is even more useful, as it gives an explanation of it in layman's terms.

I would suggest that anyone quoting this research ought to take the time to understand what is being done here. Inevitably, given the complexity of public health issues, this is not research based on straightforward analysis of factual data, but is based on complex modelling. The figure does not mean that the authors have identified 9,400 or 40,000 deaths that were attributable to air pollution - you couldn't do that anyway, as people don't 'die of air pollution' but from various conditions which may, possibly, have been exacerbated by air pollution. So the 9,400 figure is purely a statistical construct and does not really mean anything in reality.

Just to get things in context, there are only 50,000 deaths in London in total each year, and the real-life deaths will mainly be of people old enough to have been exposed to far higher levels of pollution, such as smog, in the past. And yes, for the avoidance of any doubt, London's air is already far cleaner than it used to be; there is no "new" crisis and pollution from road traffic has not "replaced" pollution from burning coal. The following shows that NOx emissions have already fallen by around two-thirds since 1990.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/emissions-of-air-pollutants

What these studies are actually attempting to do is estimate the impact of air pollution on life expectancy. This can be more easily done in a general way, and then the impact of particular sources of pollution is estimated by estimating the levels of each pollutant that different groups of people are exposed to. As a result of the uncertainty in the methodology, confidence intervals are very wide to the point where the effect of air pollution could be practically nothing. The various figures quoted represent simply the mid-point of the estimated range.

Finally, it's worth remembering that the results are the net effect of all pollution, not broken down according to source - the Kings report does attempt to do this, and indicates that around a quarter is due to road transport. The current TfL consultation on the ULEZ shows that only half of the NO2 is produced by transport, and that seems to cover only the pollution that originates in London, with in practice a substantial proportion of it having originated elsewhere (mainly continental Europe).

So we need to get this in context - the measures the mayor is proposing will probably only reduce total NO2 exposure levels by a tiny amount, less than 1%. If the total impact of all man-made pollution is to reduce life expectancy by 1 year (COMEAP suggests 6 months for PM2.5, so it is probably about that), the measures proposed will increase life expectancy by a couple of days. Is that really a massive achievement?

The report does not come from TFL - it comes from The Royal College of Physicians, and is supported by Dr Frank Kelly chair of the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution ( the 'someone in the NHS sector' ). Their findings are further corroborated by the World Health Organisation.
You dispute the findings of 15 scientists at RCoP, WHO and Kings College? I look forward to you producing your own paper and submitting it to peer review.

https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outputs/every-breath-we-take-lifelo...

I have to agree with the cyclist , TFL do state quite categorically in most of their posts that there "are the equivelant of 9400 deaths" each year caused by pollution.There is no way any Hospital can firmly pin these deaths on just pollution alone what about smoking is/was this not a primary . I am please you mentioned someone in the NHS Sector it gives me the opportunity to show you that a study done by them here http://content.digital.nhs.uk/catalogue/PUB20781/stat-smok-eng-2016-rep.pdf

shows that were 75,000 deaths attributed to smoking alone and that's just deaths what about hospital admittance for smoking related diseases of which according to this report stands at 475,000 yes 475,000 !!!! and then theres,, lung cancer.I have yet to see a report from anyone proving what TFL say that clearly lands the blame of Pollution at solely the feet of cars, vans and motorbikes. It may be an a part of that but certainly the facts banded around by TFL are NOT ACCURATE ! So E17 ....all is not what it seems at all. I have asked TFL and Talk London for proof of these fugures but to date like many on this site have been ignored but I can find plenty of information from accredited sites to show more deaths from smoking and that's just one !

I have met Dr Frank Kelly of King's College, and Dr Andrea Sella of UCL. Both are very clear about what causes air pollution and the damage done to our health. The figure of 9400 deaths seem reasonable to them.
The blogger you link to has no medical or scientific qualifications at all, I look forward to them releasing a paper for peer review.
The link you provide is opinion and not fact. They report they have FOI figures for respiratory diseases, they clearly do not understand the affects of pollution because they have failed to add figures for heart disease, strokes and alzheimer's.
The next time I get on a plane I will not offer to fly it as I trust the experts, unless you are going to extend your philosophy of 'my opinion trumps detailed research and qualification' to all corners of your life, I suggest you direct us to research and reports, not the opinion of lobby groups.

Hi SG65

Well said m8 !!I did recieve this today, again promising to "comprehensively engage with individuals and businesses affected"

!!! Well we will wait and see......

About 11 min 1 sec ago Talk London wrote:

Hi The Cyclist,

There are two statutory consultation stages underway or still to follow. The current stage, open until June concerns the early implementation of the ULEZ in central London, plus additional measures to strengthen emissions standards. A further statutory stage focuses on the possible expansion of the ULEZ beyond central London. It is currently expected to take place in Autumn 2017 and will comprehensive engage individuals and businesses affected by any expansion in accordance with legal requirements.

The Consultation Stages section of the TfL Consultation Portal outlines the purpose and overview of content for each consultation stage.

Hope that helps,

Talk London Team

HA HA , you are so funny ! Are you saying its all lies and all googled, I'm part of many motorbike action groups and let me tell you we know what we are about !Oh and what,s wrong with google ? Its where I found out rue stats to back p the fact that there are not 9416 deaths totally attributed to Pollution by drivers, quite the contrary-why is it TFL will not even answer this question to prove once and for all that its True? All TFL keep saying is that "there are the equivalent of 9400 deaths each year due to pollution by drivers", my goodness its simple what does equivalent mean?

It does not mean there were statistically beyond a doubt that each death included in this 9400 count was caused purely and unequivocally by pollution by drivers and in particular Diesel drivers as SADIQ KHAN SAYS repeatedly !. Why? because these deaths were also caused by smoking,factories, lung cancer and other pollution "related causes" we all know it but no -one will defend the statement made by tfl .....WHY IS THIS ?

Thanks so much for directing me to the MAG UK site.
I contacted the author of the blog you enclosed the link to, it is none other than Lembit Opik, who heads up MAG. He asked ME if I knew the source of the 9,500 deaths a year stat, because he had never seen the original report. I sent HIM the link to the King's College report, because he had never seen it. Unbelievable. So the 'facts and figures' you refer to are an opinion piece only, based on nothing than a quick google of how people die in London. He certainly had never seen the report. How you can despute the source of figures you have never seen with any authority, and categorically refute it's claims, if you are not aware of the source of information or it's methodology?
This is exactly why scientists marched in London recently, because their careful studies of empirical evidence can be refuted by non-specialist ex-politicians, without detailed research or evidence, and in fact give their opinion before they even have all the facts.