In article
-septembe
r.org, (Recliner) wrote:

Quote:

The government was today accused of _dragging its feet while Londoners
choke_ on toxic air.

Campaign group ClientEarth launched the attack on ministers on the first
anniversary of its Supreme Court victory which forced the Government to
beef up its masterplan to tackle nitrogen dioxide pollution.

The environmental lawyers also published a list of 20 pollution blackspots
where filthy air far exceeds EU limits.

They include Putney High Street, in south west London, where the average
NO2 concentration level was 133 micrograms per cubic metre between January
1 and April 27, according to monitoring by King_s College London, with EU
regulations saying this score should not be more than 40.

It's been a terrible pollution blackspot all my life. Never did me any harm
in the 1960s G.

What could be done about it though? It's a main approach to a Thames bridge
that is also the main local shopping street.

Dig a tunnel? Knock all the shops and nearby houses down and create a bigger
Exchange shopping centre away from the road? It's hardly going to be
practical to sharply reduce the traffic on the high Street is it?

Brixton Road in Lambeth had an average reading so far this year of 128.

While Euston Road in Camden, Marylebone Road in Westminster, and Earls
Court Road in Kensington and Chelsea were all on 86.

Continues, with map:


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...s-for-toxic-ai
r-in-london-a3236611.html

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:
In article
-septembe
r.org, (Recliner) wrote:

Quote:

The government was today accused of _dragging its feet while Londoners
choke_ on toxic air.

Campaign group ClientEarth launched the attack on ministers on the first
anniversary of its Supreme Court victory which forced the Government to
beef up its masterplan to tackle nitrogen dioxide pollution.

The environmental lawyers also published a list of 20 pollution blackspots
where filthy air far exceeds EU limits.

They include Putney High Street, in south west London, where the average
NO2 concentration level was 133 micrograms per cubic metre between January
1 and April 27, according to monitoring by King_s College London, with EU
regulations saying this score should not be more than 40.

It's been a terrible pollution blackspot all my life. Never did me any harm
in the 1960s G.

What could be done about it though? It's a main approach to a Thames bridge
that is also the main local shopping street.

Dig a tunnel? Knock all the shops and nearby houses down and create a bigger
Exchange shopping centre away from the road? It's hardly going to be
practical to sharply reduce the traffic on the high Street is it?

The answer is much cleaner, not necessarily fewer, vehicles. In particular,
we now know that diesels are much dirtier than previously understood (and,
yes, I do have a diesel car, but my next one won't be). The day is
approaching when only zero emissions vehicles will be allowed in the most
congested areas, or there will be hefty pollution charges on dirty
vehicles.

I know they're not necessarily cleaner overall, but EVs are much better for
local pollution. Of course, power generation also needs to be cleaner,
which is happening as the old coal stations close.


Brixton Road in Lambeth had an average reading so far this year of 128.

While Euston Road in Camden, Marylebone Road in Westminster, and Earls
Court Road in Kensington and Chelsea were all on 86.

Continues, with map:


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...s-for-toxic-ai
r-in-london-a3236611.html

I imagine most "regulars" here can predict what my opinion is.
Stop preventing traffic from moving. By far the biggest reason
air quality in London has deteriorated so much since we've had
a Mayor is that both Mayors and TfL - with the enthusiastic
support of some anti-motor car local authorities - have done
everything they can to frustrate motorists.

The evidence of/for this is overwhelming. Oxford Street, where
car owners are banned until after 19.00 hours has the worst air
pollution, and this cannot be blamed on private motorists. TfL has
boasted repeatedly that the "congestion charge" had reduced the
number of cars in Central London, yet air pollution is far worse than
twenty years ago.

The basic logic is bone simple. A car exhaust emits fumes from the
moment the engine is switched on until the moment it is switched
off. Therefore, the longer the engine is running, the worse its affect
on air quality. If the powers-that-be change roads in such a way
that car journeys last longer, car engines will be running longer and
there will be more air pollution.

I note with utter contempt that none of the fashion-following
major candidates for Mayor has mentioned this elementary point
although they all pretend to be concerned about air quality.

Clearly some alleviation of the damage done by past and future
Mayors and TfL can be achieved by cleaner vehicles, particularly
hybrids and all-electric cars. But anyone genuinely interested in
tackling London's very serious air problem - as opposed to
to pretending to be - must start by changing the roads back to
how they were 16 years ago.

Robin9 wrote:

;155394 Wrote:
In article
nal-septembe
r.org, (Recliner) wrote:
-
Quote:

The government was today accused of _dragging its feet while Londoners
choke_ on toxic air.

Campaign group ClientEarth launched the attack on ministers on the
first
anniversary of its Supreme Court victory which forced the Government to
beef up its masterplan to tackle nitrogen dioxide pollution.

The environmental lawyers also published a list of 20 pollution
blackspots
where filthy air far exceeds EU limits.

They include Putney High Street, in south west London, where the
average
NO2 concentration level was 133 micrograms per cubic metre between
January
1 and April 27, according to monitoring by King_s College London, with
EU
regulations saying this score should not be more than 40.-

It's been a terrible pollution blackspot all my life. Never did me any
harm in the 1960s G.

What could be done about it though? It's a main approach to a Thames
bridge that is also the main local shopping street.

Dig a tunnel? Knock all the shops and nearby houses down and create a
bigger
Exchange shopping centre away from the road? It's hardly going to be
practical to sharply reduce the traffic on the high Street is it?
-
Brixton Road in Lambeth had an average reading so far this year of 128.

While Euston Road in Camden, Marylebone Road in Westminster, and Earls
Court Road in Kensington and Chelsea were all on 86.

Continues, with map:

-
http://tinyurl.com/jz83aw3
r-in-london-a3236611.html


I imagine most "regulars" here can predict what my opinion is.
Stop preventing traffic from moving. By far the biggest reason
air quality in London has deteriorated so much since we've had
a Mayor is that both Mayors and TfL - with the enthusiastic
support of some anti-motor car local authorities - have done
everything they can to frustrate motorists.

The evidence of/for this is overwhelming. Oxford Street, where
car owners are banned until after 19.00 hours has the worst air
pollution, and this cannot be blamed on private motorists.

No, but it's full of idling diesel buses and taxis. And it's actually
neither the worst spot, nor getting worse:

"Oxford Street had a level of 104, which was a fall from 135 last year.

Experts believe this is significantly due to the use of cleaner buses,
including more operating in electric mode."


TfL has
boasted repeatedly that the "congestion charge" had reduced the
number of cars in Central London, yet air pollution is far worse than
twenty years ago.

Is it? I think we're much more aware of it now, but the actual levels are
probably less than then. I used to drive into London regularly in the
period up to the mid-1990s, and the smog was worse then than now.


The basic logic is bone simple. A car exhaust emits fumes from the
moment the engine is switched on until the moment it is switched
off.

That's not true of the increasing number of stop-start cars, nor hybrids or
EVs. So the problem is reducing.


Therefore, the longer the engine is running, the worse its affect
on air quality. If the powers-that-be change roads in such a way
that car journeys last longer, car engines will be running longer and
there will be more air pollution.

The big cause of urban pollution is diesel engines, whether in buses,
taxis, vans or cars. So you could blame Gordon Brown for changing the VED
system to favour diesel vehicles.


I note with utter contempt that none of the fashion-following
major candidates for Mayor has mentioned this elementary point
although they all pretend to be concerned about air quality.

Clearly some alleviation of the damage done by past and future
Mayors and TfL can be achieved by cleaner vehicles, particularly
hybrids and all-electric cars. But anyone genuinely interested in
tackling London's very serious air problem - as opposed to
to pretending to be - must start by changing the roads back to
how they were 16 years ago.

I don't think the cycle 'superhighways' will be painted over, so the loss
of traffic lanes is permanent. And surely those cyclists will contribute
more to cleaner air than the same lanes full of even free-flowing traffic.

So, we both agree that part of the problem is buses and taxis,
but you won't hear any politician, least of all the current
Mayoral candidates admit that. They all harp on about the
need to stop people using their cars as a means of reducing
air pollution.

Hybrid vehicles do not emit fumes when stationary or when
cruising gently but they do when being driven uphill or without
skill. So lengthening their journeys by closing roads or making
left or right turns illegal still increases the amount of fumes
they emit. Incidentally, another point our beloved politicians
are blind to is the fact that most minicab's in Central London
are hybrids, and so contribute less to air pollution than most
other vehicles.

Certainly diesel vehicles are the second biggest culprit; and has
any politician mentioned taxis in this regard? We have a Mayor
who commissioned a new bus design - which wasn't any good
anyway: well done Boris, another ludicrous failure - but has not
realised that a new design for a hybrid taxi is far more relevant
to London's requirements. Any Mayor who was serious about
reducing air pollution would open discussions with firms like Toyota.

There is no prospect of the cycles super highways being changed
in the immediate future but in the long run, they will probably be
eliminated. There are fashions in politics, and political fashions are
as trivial and silly as fashions in clothing or pop music. Already
many people are saying the cycle super highways are a disaster,
and in time more and more people will realise that allocating half
of the most important roads to a small minority of unpopular
people does not make sense.

Sooner or later, Ukip are going to wake up and realise that they
can win the Mayoral election if they come out and state boldly
that the current policies are idiotic. I'm surprised it hasn't yet
dawned on them that they ought to campaign on behalf of
motorists.

Robin9 wrote:

'Recliner[_3_ Wrote:
;155403']Robin9 wrote:-

;155394 Wrote: -
In article
nal-septembe
r.org, (Recliner) wrote:
-
Quote:

The government was today accused of _dragging its feet while Londoners
choke_ on toxic air.

Campaign group ClientEarth launched the attack on ministers on the
first
anniversary of its Supreme Court victory which forced the Government
to
beef up its masterplan to tackle nitrogen dioxide pollution.

The environmental lawyers also published a list of 20 pollution
blackspots
where filthy air far exceeds EU limits.

They include Putney High Street, in south west London, where the
average
NO2 concentration level was 133 micrograms per cubic metre between
January
1 and April 27, according to monitoring by King_s College London, with
EU
regulations saying this score should not be more than 40.-

It's been a terrible pollution blackspot all my life. Never did me any
harm in the 1960s G.

What could be done about it though? It's a main approach to a Thames
bridge that is also the main local shopping street.

Dig a tunnel? Knock all the shops and nearby houses down and create a
bigger
Exchange shopping centre away from the road? It's hardly going to be
practical to sharply reduce the traffic on the high Street is it?
-
Brixton Road in Lambeth had an average reading so far this year of
128.

While Euston Road in Camden, Marylebone Road in Westminster, and Earls
Court Road in Kensington and Chelsea were all on 86.

Continues, with map:

-
http://tinyurl.com/jz83aw3
r-in-london-a3236611.html
-

I imagine most "regulars" here can predict what my opinion is.
Stop preventing traffic from moving. By far the biggest reason
air quality in London has deteriorated so much since we've had
a Mayor is that both Mayors and TfL - with the enthusiastic
support of some anti-motor car local authorities - have done
everything they can to frustrate motorists.

The evidence of/for this is overwhelming. Oxford Street, where
car owners are banned until after 19.00 hours has the worst air
pollution, and this cannot be blamed on private motorists. -

No, but it's full of idling diesel buses and taxis. And it's actually
neither the worst spot, nor getting worse:

"Oxford Street had a level of 104, which was a fall from 135 last year.

Experts believe this is significantly due to the use of cleaner buses,
including more operating in electric mode."

-
TfL has
boasted repeatedly that the "congestion charge" had reduced the
number of cars in Central London, yet air pollution is far worse than
twenty years ago.-

Is it? I think we're much more aware of it now, but the actual levels
are
probably less than then. I used to drive into London regularly in the
period up to the mid-1990s, and the smog was worse then than now.

-
The basic logic is bone simple. A car exhaust emits fumes from the
moment the engine is switched on until the moment it is switched
off. -

That's not true of the increasing number of stop-start cars, nor hybrids
or
EVs. So the problem is reducing.

-
Therefore, the longer the engine is running, the worse its affect
on air quality. If the powers-that-be change roads in such a way
that car journeys last longer, car engines will be running longer and
there will be more air pollution.-

The big cause of urban pollution is diesel engines, whether in buses,
taxis, vans or cars. So you could blame Gordon Brown for changing the
VED
system to favour diesel vehicles.
-

I note with utter contempt that none of the fashion-following
major candidates for Mayor has mentioned this elementary point
although they all pretend to be concerned about air quality.

Clearly some alleviation of the damage done by past and future
Mayors and TfL can be achieved by cleaner vehicles, particularly
hybrids and all-electric cars. But anyone genuinely interested in
tackling London's very serious air problem - as opposed to
to pretending to be - must start by changing the roads back to
how they were 16 years ago.-

I don't think the cycle 'superhighways' will be painted over, so the
loss
of traffic lanes is permanent. And surely those cyclists will
contribute
more to cleaner air than the same lanes full of even free-flowing
traffic.

So, we both agree that part of the problem is buses and taxis,
but you won't hear any politician, least of all the current
Mayoral candidates admit that. They all harp on about the
need to stop people using their cars as a means of reducing
air pollution.

Hybrid vehicles do not emit fumes when stationary or when
cruising gently but they do when being driven uphill or without
skill. So lengthening their journeys by closing roads or making
left or right turns illegal still increases the amount of fumes
they emit. Incidentally, another point our beloved politicians
are blind to is the fact that most minicab's in Central London
are hybrids, and so contribute less to air pollution than most
other vehicles.

Certainly diesel vehicles are the second biggest culprit; and has
any politician mentioned taxis in this regard? We have a Mayor
who commissioned a new bus design - which wasn't any good
anyway: well done Boris, another ludicrous failure - but has not
realised that a new design for a hybrid taxi is far more relevant
to London's requirements. Any Mayor who was serious about
reducing air pollution would open discussions with firms like Toyota.

Haven't you heard about the new TX5?

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-new...k-cab-revealed

Why does the mayor need to open discussions with Toyota? It's perfectly
capable of seeing the opportunities for itself:
http://blog.toyota.co.uk/toyotas-cab...he-london-look


There is no prospect of the cycles super highways being changed
in the immediate future but in the long run, they will probably be
eliminated. There are fashions in politics, and political fashions are
as trivial and silly as fashions in clothing or pop music. Already
many people are saying the cycle super highways are a disaster,
and in time more and more people will realise that allocating half
of the most important roads to a small minority of unpopular
people does not make sense.

I suspect that, in reality, more roads will be closed to IC-engined cars.
The day is fast approaching when most taxis and buses will be hybrids or
EVs, and there will probably be a ban on diesel vehicles in central London.
And there will be more roads where there won't be any lanes for private
cars, only for public transport, non-polluting taxis and, yes, cycles.
Don't expect the war on motorists to end any time soon.


Sooner or later, Ukip are going to wake up and realise that they
can win the Mayoral election if they come out and state boldly
that the current policies are idiotic. I'm surprised it hasn't yet
dawned on them that they ought to campaign on behalf of
motorists.

The mayoral election is this week, and the UKIP candidate will be lucky to
get 10% of the first preference votes. There probably won't be a UKIP by
the time of the next mayoral election. After the June referendum,
regardless of the result, what will be its point?

On 2016\05\02 22:55, Recliner wrote:

The mayoral election is this week, and the UKIP candidate will be lucky to
get 10% of the first preference votes. There probably won't be a UKIP by
the time of the next mayoral election. After the June referendum,
regardless of the result, what will be its point?

We polled 20% the other day. The Cons were on 30%, and Labour were on
33%. I don't see how you can write off a party that's so close to being
first in the polls.

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\05\02 22:55, Recliner wrote:

The mayoral election is this week, and the UKIP candidate will be lucky to
get 10% of the first preference votes. There probably won't be a UKIP by
the time of the next mayoral election. After the June referendum,
regardless of the result, what will be its point?

We polled 20% the other day. The Cons were on 30%, and Labour were on
33%. I don't see how you can write off a party that's so close to being
first in the polls.

The current polls show UKIP getting 7% first preference votes in the London
mayoral election. It may, just, manage to come third, depending on how the
Greens do.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.ne...alPoll_W_2.pdf

I'm not sure how coming a very distant third counts as "so close to being
first". Is there any UK region where UKIP will come higher than third or
fourth?

After the 23rd of June, what will be the role of UKIP, assume it doesn't
splinter into two or more fragments? Will the current parliamentary party
and the current leader even be in the same party? Are they even on
speaking terms?

Even Farage is reported to want to wind it up as a political party, and
turn it into a "movement".
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/663...ion-membership

If Ukip had done as I suggest, their share of the vote
would be much higher. I agree they will come nowhere in
the current Mayoral election.

Robin9 wrote:

'Recliner[_3_ Wrote:
;155440']Robin9 wrote:-

-

Sooner or later, Ukip are going to wake up and realise that they
can win the Mayoral election if they come out and state boldly
that the current policies are idiotic. I'm surprised it hasn't yet
dawned on them that they ought to campaign on behalf of
motorists.-

The mayoral election is this week, and the UKIP candidate will be lucky
to
get 10% of the first preference votes. There probably won't be a UKIP
by
the time of the next mayoral election. After the June referendum,
regardless of the result, what will be its point?

If Ukip had done as I suggest, their share of the vote
would be much higher. I agree they will come nowhere in
the current Mayoral election.

It would be interesting to see how well a pro-motorist candidate did in the
London mayoral elections. I don't see any on this year's list:

https://www.londonelects.org.uk/im-v...o-you-can-vote

UKIP has other baggage, so even if the UKIP candidate was pro-motorist, it
would be overshadowed by other considerations that usually make UKIP do
badly in London. It would be a better test if there was someone promoting
those policies alone, and not the usual UKIP stuff. For example, Peter
Whittle's manifesto has these policies:

- End open borders and introduce an Australian style points system [What
has this to do with the London mayor?]

- Build more houses across London and ensure Londoners have priority in
social housing [How?]

- Scrap council translation services and reinvest the money into London's
communities [I don't think this comes under the mayor]

- Support police stop and search powers to help reduce knife crime and save
young lives

- Cut immigration and tax vacant foreign owned properties to reduce
pressure on London's housing [I don't think these come under a London
mayor]

-----

So he's repeating familiar UKIP policies that aren't relevant to the
mayor's powers, but not mentioning things that are, such as public
transport investment, fares, roads, congestion charge, local pollution,
taxis, planning permission for new tall buildings, council tax levels,
cycling, etc. He also tells us nothing about why he would be qualified for
the job.

He's obviously not a serious candidate, any more than UKIP is a serious
party. Compare his absent policies and cv with the much more specific,
relevant manifesto pledges by the only two serious candidates:

https://www.londonelects.org.uk/mayo...ate-sadiq-khan

https://www.londonelects.org.uk/mayo...-zac-goldsmith


Even other no-hopers at least have serious manifestos:

https://www.londonelects.org.uk/mayo...roline-pidgeon

https://www.londonelects.org.uk/mayo...ate-sian-berry