Air pollution in East Dulwich - what can we do?

[first mate]

I think this is truly shocking, though it seems to be a council-wide solution to an increased need for housing. But, in regard to Southwark, not great when you consider how council housing stock has been squandered/sold off (Heygate Estate, now Elephant Park).

[tomszekeres]

That's a fair question.

Looking at it purely through a very narrow, air pollution lens, from what I know, lawns aren't particularly good at absorbing or mitigating NOx or FPM, so losing grass to infill is not going to affect local air pollution in any meaningful way.

A net loss of woodland, meadows or particularly roadside trees is a different matter in terms of pollution, and also has a big impact on biodiversity. But I don't know if that's happening much in these specific instances. I could be wrong though - to be honest, I know less of the details than I did about e.g. Heygate and Central Hill, where I think a lot of big mistakes were made (Private Eye did a great job of highlighting this).

We've got friends who live in one of the estates being infilled (they are homeowners, appreciate it may be different for tenants). I asked them neutrally what they thought, and while they may be in the minority (without rigorous polling, who knows?), they told me that they're pro the specific development on their estate, that nobody ever used the space being built on, and that we've got a housing crisis, so you've got to do what you've got to do.

And I guess I'm sympathetic to that viewpoint, although I think there are better ways to tackle the housing crisis. Like reforming council tax, for instance?

[heartblock]

Yes interesting, I think Peckham green is very well utilised and does have mature trees. There is also a campaign to refurbish existing stock rather than demolish and rebuild.

So back to traffic...hope the zoom event goes well, I might come join.

[tomszekeres]

Feel free to sign up, even if you're not sure you can make it (same goes for everyone) - we always expect last minute drop-outs.

Here's the booking link once again.

[hpsaucey]

Thanks for the event link - have booked a place.

HP

[malumbu]

Hi Tom, some thoughts for your event. I've attended many and run some myself.

Avoid the 'wouldn't it be nice if", "we only need to do that", "ban this that and the other", as you need to consider what is achievable.

Think about how this would be achieved - national government, local government, transport users. What the means to do this? Current powers, new legislation, behaviour change.

Don't underestimate the resistance of motorists for change. This is not aimed at most of the people on the forum, rather the population as a whole.

Don't get side tracked up by the dirty diesel debate. The reason many of us bought diesels were that they were some damn good, and car makers simply produced more of them, and smaller vehicles for this reason. The common rail system of fuel injection revolutionised this technology, 30 years ago diesel vehicles were agricultural. VW dieselgate actually worked for the benefit of the environment as subsequent controls on emissions now work properly and the latest generation are relatively very clean.

On this matter I am not sure of the value of talking about what car manufacturers can do. They respond to profit and regulation, and on the latter none of them went beyond what they had to do on air pollutants as there was no market advantage. Most are now well down the route of electrification - but a big both to Toyota for continuing to push their hybrids, which are almost the worst of both world (but a big cheer for their hydrogen car).

I don't see any value in discussing SUVs and the like. It's sold as a lifestyle. If drivers/owners were environmentally conscious most of us would have been driving Fiat Cinquecento's for the last 15 years (the modern ones!).

Think forward, beyond electric cars, to smart and connected transport. There will be time not so many years off when many of us wont need to own a car, with mobility as a service (at a touch of a button a pod will whisk you away to your transport node, a passing driver will stop to share their journey, or your car club vehicle will be ready and waiting). Even learning to drive will appear an anachronism to some in future. Just imagine all the space that will be freed up.

Broadly the four options for reducing pollution and carbon emissions from cars are:

- Existing vehicle operations are made less polluting. There is limited opportunities here for example all older London buses will have pollution reducing technology fitted. Improved driving style - better anticipation, less accelerating and braking, will also reduce air pollution, carbon emissions, in part as if we all drove like this there would be less congestion.

- Cleaner vehicles are taken up more faster, for example, by providing tax and financial incentives for newer vehicles. It's easy to be dismissive, but government is ambitious, has thrown a lot of money at this and manufacturers are responding. The continued subsidy on the new price is wrong, this is subsidising the well off, historically many of them used their zero emission vehicle as the second car. There has already been plenty of discussion that switching from the internal combustion engine to zero emission is only part of the solution.

- Pollutant emissions are displaced outside hotspots or kept away from populated areas. That is not necessary closing roads (as said please don't focus on LTNs), but smarter traffic controls, and smoother driving (through both education, post driving testy training and average speed cameras). Freight consolidation centres help reduce freight mileage. A proper national road user charging system where you are charged according to vehicle, time of day, and location would be revolutionary, and in my view a no brainer. This is a scheme that rewards drivers who driver more environmentally as they would pay less than the current system (vehicle excise duty) and could be further rewarded if they use more sustainable means.

- Demand for more polluting transport modes is reduced, for example, by encouraging people to drive less and walk or cycle more, or by using planning rules to control transport demand. Road user charging can also be included here.

You've already spoken about adopting a more sustainable lifestyle including considering how goods are delivered. I fear this is another one where the average person will need to be dragged kicking and screaming from their Amazon deliveries. Ultimately it is all aspects of your life, where you live, work, having a family, educating them, leisure pursuits and holidays, but we are not in a single party state so beyond encouragement and a carbon tax on flying (it has to come)......

Anyway this is purely for your event, rather than for further discussion here. I've already bleated on ad nausium. Good luck.

[pinkladybird]

I've just booked my place - thanks.

[Nigello]

I fear this "gabfest" will attract people who have their own views already fixed in stone - preaching to the converted or wanting to express their opposition. Don't talk more, just drive less and walk more and reduce your deliveries. It is simple. Carrots and sticks can help but it is ultimately up to YOU - yes, you - to ditch your vehicle or not. Don't get peeved if you see nobody else doing it - nobody really cares so just do your own thing without looking for a reward (other than self0-satisfaction and a knowledge you are helping, even just a little bit, to lower emissions and reduce congestion). Over to you.

[tomszekeres]

Nigello Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I fear this "gabfest" will attract people who have

> their own views already fixed in stone - preaching

> to the converted or wanting to express their

> opposition.

We'll see - I'll let you know how it goes! :)

[ydrmdy]

just hold your breath!

[Rockets]

Also, ensure you don't focus this solely on the car. Yes cars need addressing but there are many of here who blindly obsess about the cars' negative impact - often motivated by their own obsession with two-wheeled modes of transport! ;-)

Cars account for 18% of emissions so there is a whopping 82% of emission sources that often get overlooked. I am glad you are looking at wood burning stoves etc but you need to take it further. You need to be discussing how each individual needs to assess their own impact beyond the car and wood-burner cause celebres.

Often what happens is that those who have dumped the car, or don't (for example) use a wood burning stove, are happy to castigate those that do and it narrows the debate too much towards those areas of transgression.

Broaden the debate about creating a consciousness around the continued use of fossil-fuel boilers or the reliance on products made on the other side of the world and shipped on huge cargo ships that in one journey pollute more than all of the cars in a single country.

[Lebanums]

I'm glad a friendlier post has been created. Many of the previous threads seemed to take aim at one another without solving the problem.

Private car owners are not the bad guys here.

What I find is ED, is cut off from other areas unless you live just off LL, making it more convenient to use our cars. I have lived in several places, i.e. a small town in Scotland, Glasgow, Oslo, West London, all well-connected. Then when I moved to ED, I got my drivers license and purchased a car because I could not get to work easily.

Living at the Forest Hill Road end of East Dulwich, it is now even more difficult to use public transport to get to work due to the buses that no longer service Peckham Rye station, and there has never been a bus that connects to Honor Oak Park. It also takes me half the time to drive, so why would I add more time to my already busy day?

I don't believe roads need to be shut off to improve pollution, nor do we have to penalise drivers who make necessary journeys, which may also be less than 1?km.

To change mindsets, public transport must be improved.

[Nigello]

I disagree - if you have a bus that ocmes every ten minutes and a car sitting outsdie, you are always going to choose your car, even if you know the trip will likely be a bit stressful and parkign will be likely hard to find. More buses won't mean those little journeys that add up will go away. Just walk more and you'll feel better for it. A trip of 1km in a car is less than a few minutes' walk. Sheesh!

[Lebanums]

It depends on what your trip of 1?km is, maybe take an elderly person to the doctor or hospital. I see too many judgements about this kind of route without understanding the needs.

Also, if my work journey was well-connected, I would be delighted to get rid of my car, it's the only thing I use it for. I came from a small town, so waiting 10 mins on a bus is easy!

[heartblock]

I always take a bus or train if I can, ED public transport is pretty poor. When I used to get a bus to Victoria it was a bun fight at the bus stop outside ED station every morning. I?m lucky I can walk most of my commute now, 2 hours walking in all, but not everyone has that choice.

[tomszekeres]

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Also, ensure you don't focus this solely on the

> car. Yes cars need addressing but there are many

> of here who blindly obsess about the cars'

> negative impact - often motivated by their own

> obsession with two-wheeled modes of transport!

> ;-)

Yep totally - I'm going to be talking about delivery vehicles, personal hire (aka Uber), and micromobility amongst other topics - I think those of us that are bike fans are sometimes too evangelical as you say, and there are lots of other interesting alternatives starting to become available.

> Cars account for 18% of emissions so there is a

> whopping 82% of emission sources that often get

> overlooked.

I promise I will not be overlooking these :)

> I am glad you are looking at wood

> burning stoves etc but you need to take it

> further. You need to be discussing how each

> individual needs to assess their own impact beyond

> the car and wood-burner cause celebres.

>

> Often what happens is that those who have dumped

> the car, or don't (for example) use a wood burning

> stove, are happy to castigate those that do and it

> narrows the debate too much towards those areas of

> transgression.

It's really tricky, because ICEs and wood-burning stoves are *really* bad (just ask anyone with COPD), and alternatives readily exist.

But castigation definitely puts people on the defensive, rather than thinking about the most effective way of getting the message across.

> Broaden the debate about creating a consciousness

> around the continued use of fossil-fuel boilers or

> the reliance on products made on the other side of

> the world and shipped on huge cargo ships that in

> one journey pollute more than all of the cars in a

> single country.

I'm totally up on this, and agree that it's madness e.g. to transport recycled toilet paper halfway across the world (rather than buying it from UK), but this goes a little beyond the immediate topic. Totally agree though.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Get smaller cars if they can?t

>

> The size of the car is irrelevant as regards

> pollution - it is the cleanness of the engine

> which is. An all electric SUV produces less

> pollution than a petrol bubble car.

>

> Car size is about envy and a socialist belief that

> nobody should either have money or be allowed to

> spend it. Southwark council's intention to drive

> private cars out of Southwark is about 'private'

> not 'car'. Hence they are prepared to wage war

> against car ownership regardless of the fact that

> they are diverting 'pollution' to areas of

> multiple occupancy and state schools - they care

> more about private car ownership and how to stop

> it than about public health - for them the fact

> that they can cloak their actions under a banner

> of public health just adds amusement to the

> exercise. The impact of behavioural changes

> arising from Covid (including working from home)

> and the impact of the ULEZ extension in autumn

> might have been a marker to see what the new

> normal is regarding local pollution (and its

> sources) before implementing divisive road

> closures. But that it only relevant if it is

> pollution, and not private car ownership, which is

> the target. Which it isn't.

Generally, small cars are more efficient, because there is less energy involved in just moving the car (rather than the person sitting in it). If you think people driving around London in oversized SUVs are somehow marginalised / victimised... well I think that's a questionable position.

[redpost]

It's very basic physics: force = mass x acceleration

Bigger engine provides more force

Range rover sport is twice the mass of a Nissan juke, 6/8 cylinders vs 3, and emits twice the pollution with most conservative engine option.

When you figure that the RR owner is more likely to plump for turbo/supercharged v8 option and drive more aggressively, I wouldn't be surprised if pollution is 3 or 4 more times as much as a conservative juke driver. This is the madness.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > Cars account for 18% of emissions so there is a

> whopping 82% of emission sources that often get

> overlooked.

Is that right? I thought vehicles accounted for more like 50% of the particulate / NO2 pollution?

[Penguin68]

I think there is confusion between NOx2 (from diesels) - which can cause respiratory problems - as can smoke from wood-burners etc. - and CO2 emissions, seen as driving climate change, but which have no impact on breathing unless the atmosphere is all CO2 (and indeed without which we would have no growing plants).

[Penguin68]

Generally, small cars are more efficient,...

This is true when you compare cars of similar ages and differing sizes - but we know that a large number of vehicles on the road are many years old - a modern SUV or larger vehicle may well be more 'efficient' than a smaller vehicle 15-20 years old. Trabants are tiny - on the above argument we would all be healthier driving those than a Range Rover. Really?

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Penguin68, that's true - newer cars are generally more efficient, but so are smaller cars. Newer, smaller cars probably the most efficient of all.

[Glemham]

What can we do? Well one thing is to stop the building of 12 large houses with underground car parking on the old SG Smith site in the middle of Dulwich Village. It has just been announced that McCulloch Builders who paid the Dulwich Estate ?5.25million for the site a few years ago and left it looking like a WWII bomb site, have now sold it on to Aquinna Homes who intend to carry out the original plan, which has planning permission from Southwark, to build 12 large expensive homes complete with underground car parking. How does encouraging residents to own cars fit with the Council?s policy of LTNs, particularly in the area that has become the focus of so much community dispute?

The site would have been the perfect place for the new Almshouses which the Estate has been trying to relocate for over 80 years, plus some reasonably priced retirement flats.

The construction will entail removing the old fuel tanks and tons of earth to make way for the underground car parking.

When this plan was first put forward someone estimated that it would involve 1,000 lorry loads to remove the earth. Which roads will bear the brunt of this and all the other construction traffic?

On their website Aquinna describe the development as ? 12 family homes in a semi-rural idyll - a conservation village with fabulous schools? and plan for them to be available from Summer next year...........

[malumbu]

There is common confusion between air pollution (principally particles of unburned fuel, and nitrogen oxides) and carbon emissions.

Unless you are in a room of carbon dioxide when you would asphyxiate, CO2 is not toxic and is of course essentially to life being fixed by most plants as part of the carbon cycle that produces the basis of all foods.

Carbon dioxide is a climate change agent, and rising levels since the industrial revolution is changing life as we know it.

The fumes you see coming out of exhausts are water vapour, harmless and a product of combustion (and similarly respiration). Blue smoke usually on acceleration is due to worn engines - although really a thing of the past. Black smoke is either a knackered disesel, a seriously knackered petrol engine, or where the fiters have either failed or been illegally removed. There should be no visible 'soot' and it would be straight forward for the police or other enforcement agency to stop a vehicle and require it to be tested at an MOT station. There is a smoky heavy vehicle hot line but not one for cars (common government!)

Good point on construction - it is easy to fixated on vehicles. Like it or not HS2 has to go through numerous environmental restrictions, both on the construction and the vehicles used. Doubt if there are the same restrictions on smaller construction sites. Whether we need then or not!

We could reduce air pollution and carbon emissions from road vehicles very simply by the way we drive them (smoother, better anticipation) and the occupancy. Sadly most aren't bothered.

Trebants are two stroke, one of the dirtiest engines known to man (not sure how they compare with maritime, and old diesel trains)

[Earl Aelfheah]

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/air-quality

? Road vehicles are the single biggest cause of London's air pollution. They produce around half of all nitrogen oxides and emit tiny particles of rubber and metal - too small to see with the naked eye - into the air we breathe.?