1. Pollution levels of all types, NOx, PMs, SO2, CO2 have been falling in the last decade. What has been the impact on pollutant levels from the Toxic Charge since introduction? 2. Pollution of all types, NOx, PMs, SO2, CO2 have been fulling in the last decade. What has been the impact on pollutant levels from the Congestion Charge since introduction? 3. In both cases has TFL’s “Pay to Pollute” policies accelerated the reduction of pollutants from exhausts? 4. If you are so worried about pollution, why have you not looked at alternative ways to lower emissions instead of resorting to tax hikes on hard pressed drivers? 5. How much money has been raised by the new Toxic Charge since its introduction 6. What has this money been used for? 7. How much money has been raised by the Congestion Charge since its introduction 8. What has this money been used for? 9. We are fully singed up to sustainable alternatives to enabling the use of relatively efficient and frugal internal combustion engines. By contrast, congestion and toxic charges are socially regressive and fashion-driven. These policies utterly fail to take account of the realities of a modern economy. Within this, how can cycling and walking replace powered transport, private or public? And why shift folk from low polluting motorcycles to high polluting buses and electric cars which generate particulate matter and have a relatively bad environmental footprint when their construction and disposal are taken into account? Where’s the moral justification for displacing pollution to power stations elsewhere, for the sake of cleaning urban air for no demonstrable health benefit? Please comment 10. Under the Ultra-Low Emissions Zone charging proposals, a user of an older 50cc moped, capable of over 100 mpg, or an old car able to deliver 60mpg, will pay £12.50 per day to travel into central London. A new multi-litre super car that pushes out more NOx is exempt. Please explain why this is the case 11. It seems, only motorists, motorcyclists, van drivers and truckers are to take the brunt of emissions penalties, do you think other non-vehicle sources of pollutants should share the punishment as well? And if so, where are your policies and plans to punish other sources of non-vehicle pollution? 12. It is laudable that some city authorities are promoting cruise ship access to the centre. We also note that The Greater London Authority Transport Committee has been reported, on 7th August, 2018, as calling for more river transport activity. Yet it is also contradictory to do this while charging road users for polluting. Please explain the thinking behind these policies. 13. We have identified the following proven practical ways to lower emissions from vehicles. For each of them please explain, why you have not recommended they be introduced to our National Government, tested the levels of their claimed efficacy, ignored them completely in favour of hitting drivers in the pocket – For more details visit https://www.fairfueluk.com/low-emissions-solutions.html a. BioFriendly's Green Plus - Bulk Fuel Additive b. Opti - Diesel - Bulk Fuel Additive c. Vivergo - E10 - Petrol Formulation d. CGON - Low cost retrofit - Fuel Enhancement Technology e. Sustainable Flow - Engine Performance Optimiser 14. Why did you (TFL) not attend the APPG inquiry into alternative solutions to lower emissions? 15. Cycle lanes have proliferated in London causing increased congestion and hence more exhaust emissions from stationary traffic. Do you believe your policies in reducing space on roads to vehicles is impaction on pollution and London’s economy? What is your evidence to show that more and more cycle lanes do not cause road congestion in London? 16. Is TFL anti motorists and ICE drivers? 17. What is the financial spend planned by TFL in the next few years to reduce vehicle congestion?

---

For ease of reference, I have addressed each question below in accordance with the Environmental Information Regulations and I can confirm that we hold some of the information you have requested. You asked:

1. Pollution levels of all types, NOx, PMs, SO2, CO2 have been falling in the last decade. What has been the impact on pollutant levels from the Toxic Charge since introduction?

    

2. Pollution of all types, NOx, PMs, SO2, CO2 have been fulling in the last decade. What has been the impact on pollutant levels from the Congestion Charge since introduction?

    

3. In both cases has TFL’s “Pay to Pollute” policies accelerated the reduction of pollutants from exhausts?

    

    

   London’s Congestion Charge, when it was first introduced in 2003, was a huge success.  There was a 15 per cent reduction in traffic in the Congestion Charge zone, which led to a 30 per cent reduction in congestion, as well as improvements in air quality. Data on pollution levels within London is published at the following link: https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/london-average-air-quality-levels

    

   Further information on the T-Charge and Congestion Charge can be found on our website at the following links:

    

   https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/emissions-surcharge

    

   https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/congestion-charge

    

    

4. If you are so worried about pollution, why have you not looked at alternative ways to lower emissions instead of resorting to tax hikes on hard pressed drivers?

    

   The Ultra low emission zone and T-Charge are part of a package of measures to reduce air pollution and encourage sustainable transport. These are set out in the Mayor’s Transport strategy and London environment strategy which you can find at the following link: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/london-environment-strategy

    

    

   The T-Charge and ULEZ are a charge for using more polluting vehicles in the most polluted areas of London, designed to encourage a shift to cleaner forms of transport or cleaner vehicles.

    

    

5. How much money has been raised by the new Toxic Charge since its introduction

    

6. What has this money been used for?

    

7. How much money has been raised by the Congestion Charge since its introduction

    

8. What has this money been used for?

    

   The T-Charge is part of the Congestion Charge scheme. All net revenue generated by the Congestion Charge since it was implemented in 2003 has been reinvested straight into ongoing investment in the Capital’s transport infrastructure. We publish our income data at the following link: https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/quarterly-progress-reports

    

    

9. We are fully singed up to sustainable alternatives to enabling the use of relatively efficient and frugal internal combustion engines. By contrast, congestion and toxic charges are socially regressive and fashion-driven. These policies utterly fail to take account of the realities of a modern economy. Within this, how can cycling and walking replace powered transport, private or public?

    

   And why shift folk from low polluting motorcycles to high polluting buses and electric cars which generate particulate matter and have a relatively bad environmental footprint when their construction and disposal are taken into account?

    

   Where’s the moral justification for displacing pollution to power stations elsewhere, for the sake of cleaning urban air for no demonstrable health benefit? Please comment

    

   Please be aware that, whilst EIR requests can be in the form of a question, rather than a request for specific documents, we do not have to answer your question if this would mean creating new information or giving an opinion or judgment that is not already recorded. We consider that this is a request for the creation of new information, an opinion or judgement rather than a request for recorded information and so doesn’t fall within the parameters of the EIRs. However, there is clear and demonstrable evidence of the health impacts of exposure to high concentrations of air pollutants.

    

    

   Analysis indicates that over the typical lifecycle of a vehicle there are overall savings from electric vehicles both in terms of CO2 and air pollutants at the current UK grid mix. This saving is expected to increase over time as the level of renewables in the UK grid increases. Furthermore reducing concentrations and exposure to air pollution is important as well as reducing overall emissions. Tackling air pollution in urban areas where people are most exposed to pollution is rightfully the priority.

    

    

10. Under the Ultra-Low Emissions Zone charging proposals, a user of an older 50cc moped, capable of over 100mpg, or an old car able to deliver 60mpg, will pay £12.50 per day to travel into central London.  A new multi-litre super car that pushes out more NOx is exempt. Please explain why this is the case

     

    The ULEZ is designed to tackle NOx emissions. The standards are based on the declared NOx emissions of vehicles. For mopeds and similar vehicles the emissions limit is Euro 3 (0.15 g/km of NOx). For cars the standards are Euro 4 for petrol or Euro 6 for diesel (0.08 g/km of NOx). We do not believe it is the case that a new multi litre supercar emits more NOx than a non-compliant vehicle, but if you are able to provide examples then we will investigate further.

     

     

11. It seems, only motorists, motorcyclists, van drivers and truckers are to take the brunt of emissions penalties, do you think other non-vehicle sources of pollutants should share the punishment as well? And if so, where are your policies and plans to punish other sources of non-vehicle pollution?

     

    Road transport is responsible for over fifty percent of NOx emissions. The mayor has set out policies and proposals to reduce emissions from other sources in the London Environment Strategy which you can find at the following link: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/london-environment-strategy

     

     

12. It is laudable that some city authorities are promoting cruise ship access to the centre. We also note that The Greater London Authority Transport Committee has been reported, on 7th August, 2018, as calling for more river transport activity. Yet it is also contradictory to do this while charging road users for polluting. Please explain the thinking behind these policies.

We consider that this is a request for the creation of new information, an opinion or judgement rather than a request for recorded information and so doesn’t fall within the parameters of the EIRs. We do not hold any recorded information that would answer this.

13.       We have identified the following proven practical ways to lower emissions from vehicles. For each of them please explain, why you have not recommended they be introduced to our National  Government, tested the levels of their claimed efficacy, ignored them completely in favour of hitting drivers in the pocket – For more details visit https://www.fairfueluk.com/low-emissions-solutions.html

a.         BioFriendly's Green Plus - Bulk Fuel Additive

b.         Opti - Diesel - Bulk Fuel Additive

c.         Vivergo - E10 - Petrol Formulation

d.         CGON - Low cost retrofit - Fuel Enhancement Technology

e.         Sustainable Flow - Engine Performance Optimiser

We consider that this is a request for the creation of new information, an opinion or judgement rather than a request for recorded information and so doesn’t fall within the parameters of the EIRs. However, TfL officers have met with BioFriendly and CGON. The test results shared were inconclusive at best, and also there is no way to mandate, or enforce, usage of the fuel additives in vehicles belonging to the general public.

We are not against the marketing of these products, and some may well be beneficial, but it is not the role of TfL to become an advocate for products to central Government.

1. Why did you (TFL) not attend the APPG inquiry into alternative solutions to lower emissions

    

   We consider that this is a request for the creation of new information, an opinion or judgement rather than a request for recorded information and so doesn’t fall within the parameters of the EIRs. We do not hold any recorded information that would answer this.

    

    

2. Cycle lanes have proliferated in London causing increased congestion and hence more exhaust emissions from stationary traffic. Do you believe your policies in reducing space on roads to vehicles is impaction on pollution and London’s economy? What is your evidence to show that more and more cycle lanes do not cause road congestion in London?

    

   An independent study on understanding and managing congestion was commissioned and published at the end of 2017. You may see this at the following link: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/understanding-and-managing-congestion-in-london.pdf

    

    

3. Is TFL anti motorists and ICE drivers?

We consider that this is a request for the creation of new information, an opinion or judgement rather than a request for recorded information and so doesn’t fall within the parameters of the EIRs. We do not hold any recorded information that would answer this.

17. What is the financial spend planned by TFL in the next few years to reduce vehicle congestion?

Our plans for the transport network can be found in our business plan which is published at the following link: https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/business-plan

If this is not the information you are looking for, or if you are unable to access it for some reason, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal as well as information on copyright and what to do if you would like to re-use any of the information we have disclosed.

Yours sincerely

Lee Hill

Information Access Manager

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

Back to top

---