Boris' Air Pollution Legacy

At the end of Boris' term, London is still experiencing high levels of illegal air pollution with health impacts for tens of thousands of Londoners. His response to this has been to propose a scheme he's called the 'Ultra Low Emission Zone' (ULEZ). This article looks in to the details of this, why it isn't going to give us clean air and what different mayoral candidates are proposing:

• The Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ) and the Congestion Charge Zone (CCZ) are referring to the same small area of central London. Essentially the ULEZ is an update on the CCZ with additional environmental considerations. 
• It means vehicles have to be at the latest EU standards (Euro 6 for diesels, Euro 4 for petrol), So this doesn't ban diesels.
• It begins in 2020.

Other measures to reduce air pollution:

Currently the mayor has just got buses to the Euro 4 standard at the end of 2015 (by retrofitting Euro 3). The mayor has pinned his hopes on Euro 6 and so many of the buses in service are two generations older and very significantly dirtier.

Impact

• 9'500 deaths in London each year: http://www.healthyair.org.uk/twice-as-many-deaths-caused-by-air-pollution-in-london/
• Cardiovascular diseases account for 80% of all premature deaths due to air pollution. That's around 20 Londoners a day are dying from Cardiovascular Diseases linked to air pollution, mostly heart attacks and strokes. 
• Royal College of Physicians latest report: https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outputs/every-breath-we-take-lifelong-impact-air-pollution

It is obvious that the proposed ULEZ is coming in too late, lacks of decisive action and will fail to make any significant improvement apart from in a very limited area of central London.

Mayoral Candidates:

Zac (Conservative): Backing Boris' inadequate plans and promising more of the same.

Sadiq (Labour): Although showing a willingness to go further than Boris, his policies currently lack decisive action to deliver clean air for all Londoners. 

• Consult on bringing forward the Ultra-Low Emission Zone and expanding it along major arterial routes or a wider section of central London. Lack of details on what he would like to introduce.
• Call upon the Government to introduce a diesel vehicle scrappage scheme to support those who wish to change to a greener car. But not using his mayoral powers to ban these vehicles...
• Deliver the electric charging infrastructure, in partnership with the private sector, necessary for a major expansion in the use of electric vehicles.

Caroline (Lib Dems): Caroline Pidgeon's experience as an assembly member shows in her policies for clean air, which they say aren't just ambitious, but are deliverable in practice by a future mayor:

• Immediately add a £2:50 surcharge for diesels in the zone,
• Start the ULEZ in 2018 (2 years earlier)
• Ban diesel vehicles up to and including double-decker buses (not HGVS, presumably due to lack of alternatives) from the zone by 2024

Sian (Green Party): The Green Party are proposing a raft of policies to tighten up and improve the ULEZ in addition to making sure it is expanded to a wider area. This includes:

• Immediately introduce a higher congestion charge for all but the cleanest vehicles in central London, to create a Very Low Emission Zone. We will invite boroughs to opt in some or all of their area to expand this zone into illegally polluted parts of inner and outer London.
• Begin consultation immediately on a scheme to replace the ULEZ that will cover all of London and be effective in complying with the law. This could be combined with the new traffic demand management scheme we will develop to replace the Congestion Charge. 

Conclusions

While Sadiq is clearly leading Zac with his ambition for clean air, neither of the leading candidates are proposing decisive action on air pollution. In contrast, both the Liberal Democrats and the Greens are proposing immediate actions which would start giving us cleaner air from day one with plans to tighten the rules significantly over the next 5 years.

However in order to improve the health of the millions of Londoners living away from the centre, it's clear that clean air measures must be applied far beyond the limited zone currently proposed.

If you want to highlight the problem of air pollution, Stop Killing Cyclists are holding an Air Pollution Protest outside the Department for Transport on the 27th April - gathering from 5pm, main  action 6-6:30, join after work, details here: https://www.facebook.com/events/1124784950872843/

What can Public Health do for cycling?

We know cycling is great for people's health, and in a country like the Netherlands the population gain significantly from the regular exercise they get from their bikes. As we hear more about the impact of lifestyle choices on health, what are the people in charge doing to promote active transport for everyone?

Ask not what cycling can do for public health, ask what public health can do for cycling. 

A couple of years ago responsibility for 'public health' moved from the NHS to Local Authorities. This change means councils must consider health when they plan all of their activities - education, transport, planning and all the rest.

It was hoped this change would cause a step change in the way councils worked with a new emphasis on cycling and walking. However that didn't happen, so what are the reasons and what can we do about it?

The problem

Public health professionals know that a big shift to active travel is needed to combat our sedentary lifestyles & improve the health of the population. However this hasn't translated in to action from councillors and engineers who are following different priorities.

We can't afford the NHS if we continue like this.

Lack of physical activity places a huge burden on our health services. The cost of treating the associated health complications comes at a time of constrained budgets. The rapid growth of conditions like Type 2 Diabetes could make the NHS unsustainable as we know it. Unfortunately there isn't a magic bullet and public health can't solve this on their own.

Must transport be part of the solution?

Transport departments will ask why they're being expected to adopt a new set of aims and priorities. To answer this local councils need to consider other ways they could fill the physical activity deficit in their communities and whether that is affordable.

For instance we could ask:

• How much money did they spend on leisure services last year?
• What proportion of the physical activity needs of the population were realised by their leisure services programmes?
• Can this fulfil the activity needs of the community and is it affordable?

We can't afford to solve this without using all of the opportunities we have to promote healthy activity. Transport departments are in control of much of our public space and budgets public health professionals can only dream of. We need transport to be part of the solution by promoting active transport, improving our health and saving the NHS from spiralling costs.

Because it's no longer just about cost effectively getting people from A to B.

• We need to emphasise and give credit for outcomes (like more people cycling) rather than big showy projects (many cycling schemes are about small scale interventions with small budgets).
• We should not accept health impacts being regarded as secondary considerations with journey times being used to justify projects which fail to promote cycling and walking.
• Roads must be designed to make cycling and walking viable options for everyone.

We need to keep reinforcing these messages with every consultation and when we talk or write to our politicians.

The invisible killer you can't escape

Finally, we all need to talk about air pollution a lot more. The impacts on children, the old and the weak are truly shocking and the evidence continues to pile in.

Progress has been made by Client Earth and EU regulations but the scale of the problem is huge and far too little is being done about it. We need to push for local government action to address sources of pollution close to our homes, schools and hospitals. 

Should diesels be banned from London's streets?

It is estimated that diesel vehicles are responsible for around 90 per cent of road based transport emissions.

That is the figure quoted by the Mayor in response to a question from John Biggs AM (Question No: 2014/3701). With the huge health impacts due to air pollution and possible enforcement coming from the EU the need for action is greater than ever.

The strategy from the mayor seems to be a combination of improving the standards of vehicles generally and banning the most polluting from central London. A complete ban seems off the table due to EU single market rules, but given the challenge of meeting the EU's air quality standards will Boris' plan be bold enough?

Ultra Low Emission Zone proposed

ULEZ will require most vehicles to meet a Euro 6/VI diesel standard (or an equivalent Euro 4/IV for petrol vehicles). For heavy vehicles, Euro 6 will reduce NOx emissions by between 80 and 90 per cent compared to Euro 5/V diesel vehicles.

The contrast between the new and existing standards shows the disproportionate pollution caused by a legacy of dirty diesels which will affect London's air quality for years to come. Even in the current Low Emission Zone (LEZ), 45,832 penalty charge notices were issued in 2013 for vehicles not meeting the current low standards, over 800 every week!

Many of the buses which are controlled by the mayor are currently only operating to the Euro III standards set over a decade ago, emitting ten times the NOx and particulates of Euro VI vehicles.

Buses

In the last year London have been running over one hundred Euro II buses and almost two thousand unimproved Euro III buses. That amounts to more than one in five of our buses emitting high levels of air pollution and contrasts with only 14 buses at the cleaner Euro VI standard.

Boris wants the entire fleet to meet the Euro IV standard "for these emissions" by 2015. The cynic in me would add that "for these emissions" means retrofitted Euro III buses count so we won't actually have fully compliant Euro IV standard buses. Therefore this means is retrofitting the remaining Euro IIIs and scrapping the handful of Euro II relics.

I think it's also worth asking that given the size of the problem and the importance the Mayor has placed on reaching Euro six, will achieving Euro four achieve the scale of improvement we need?

Buses in operation by Engine Type, the data:

• Euro VI - 14
• EEV * - 853
• Euro V - 3,151
• Euro IV - 1,683
• Euro IIIs retrofitted with SCR** - 1,017
• Euro III - 1,917
• Euro II - 121

Total - 8,756

* EEV stands for enhanced environmentally-friendly vehicle.
** Euro III buses fitted with selective catalytic reduction which meet the Euro IV standards for particulate matter and nitrogen oxides.

Licensed Taxis

Data shows over half of taxis are currently at Euro 3 engine standard and currently there are only a handful of electric and hydrogen taxis operating in London. However Boris has said from 2018 all newly licensed taxis will have to be zero emission.

Similar to the buses, it seems we will be living with a legacy of older highly polluting vehicles for many years to come. Is this going to be fast enough or will this need to be replaced with a more ambitious plan to provide clean taxis for London?

More help needed?

In addition to these measures Boris says he has lobbied Government for a change to fiscal incentives (tax) and proposed a national diesel scrappage scheme to reduce the number of diesels on our roads.

Following the big Client Earth win on air quality, it seems likely Boris will need to review his plan to see if he can achieve more faster.

In fact this will be one of the first things Boris is asked when he starts back at Westminster City Hall.

First question @LondonAssembly 21 May http://t.co/fXC8kwqYbc | @GreenJennyJones asking for #AirQuality Plan to make London compliant by 2020

— Clean Air in London (@CleanAirLondon) May 16, 2015

This Thursday at City Hall @GreenJennyJones asks London Mayor to bring forward pollution plans or face Supreme Court http://t.co/VeHDosJuUu

— GreenLondonAMs (@GreenLondonAMs) May 19, 2015