Cities across the globe are leading the charge on clean air policies. But British ones can do more

Oh, no: air pollution in action. Image: Getty.

Last 21 June was Clean Air Day – and leaders of the UK’s 14 largest cities, all of which have illegal levels of air pollution, marked the occasion by calling on the government to do more to address these issues. In particular, the mayors have called for the government to accelerate its proposed ban on diesel and petrol cars by a decade, which would mean phasing out these vehicles by 2030; and to introduce clean air zones across the UK and a scrappage scheme to help car owners replace their high-emission cars.

This focus from city leaders is welcome, given that air pollution is primarily an urban problem. As highlighted in the recent Centre for Cities briefing How can UK cities clean up the air we breathe?’, UK cities are home to 88 per cent of roads which are predicted to have concentrations of NO2 above legal limits. The main culprit is unsurprisingly road transport, and in particular diesel vehicles, which are responsible for 80 and 35 per cent of NO2 roadside concentration respectively.

As such, while national government policies to tackle air quality problems are important, the onus is on cities to address these problems – and we’ve already seen progress on this front in recent years. 

London, with its greater devolved powers, has been leading the way – historically, with the launch of the congestion charge zone in 2003, and more recently with the introduction of the Toxicity charge (or T-charge). In addition, mayor Sadiq Khan recently confirmed a forthcoming expansion of the ultra-low emission zone to North and South Circular Roads.

Other cities are also catching on. Sheffield was one of the first places to launch its Clean Air Strategy, including plans to replace existing buses with more environmentally friendly stock. Leeds is due to introduce a new fleet of low-emission buses, and Greater Manchester’s metro mayor Andy Burnham wants to accelerate the timeline for achieving carbon neutrality ahead of the national commitment of 2050.

However, most UK cities could do more to cut carbon and drive efficiency, using the powers at their disposal, in particular with regards to the single biggest contributor: car usage. And with the government having mandated 28 local authorities across 12 cities to develop plans to clean air plans (due at the end of this year), city leaders need to act soon.

Our clean air briefing highlights a number of approaches championed by cities across the globe, which UK cities could also adapt to tackle air pollution in their area:

1. Restricting vehicle access and reducing idling

In Paris, a sticker system is used to restrict vehicle access into city centres. Vehicles are split into six categories, depending on how heavily polluting they are according to European emissions standards, and the most polluting have been banned from the city. Moreover, any vehicle can be refused entrance in response to high levels of pollution on a given day. To mitigate adverse consequences and to encourage low-pollution transport, the city makes public transport free during these periods.

In a similar vein, New-York City introduced an anti-idling law in 2009 to reduce unnecessary emissions from idling vehicles parking or stopping. In particular areas, it is forbidden to idle in a vehicle for longer than three minutes while parking, waiting or stopping. This is even stricter around schools, where the time allowed is just one minute.


2. Changing the flow of traffic and promoting cycling and walking

Barcelona and Copenhagen have both adopted approaches to promote cycling and walking. Barcelona’s urban mobility plan focuses on the idea of superblocks – the idea of redirecting traffic in grids around small neighbourhoods, with space within these superblocks dedicated to pedestrian and cycling public space. Through this, the city hopes to shift preferences from driving to walking and cycling.

Similarly, Copenhagen has invested in infrastructure to make cycling easier, faster and safer, thus achieving its goal to become the best cycling city in the world. Policies include set requirements for bike space per employee for commercial buildings, and bike parking space for residential developments. There are also cycling superhighways connecting the suburbs and inner-city areas, and large areas of the city centre are closed for motor vehicles.

3. Introducing a congestion charge

Milan is one of five cities across the world which has introduced congestion charges in their central area. The €5 tax is charged between 7.30am to 7.30pm. In addition, vehicles entering the area must fulfil a minimum emission standard and diesel vehicles must be equipped with a particulate filter. Electric vehicles have free access and hybrid cars are exempt until a set date. The profits are used to reinvest in policies that promote sustainable mobility and reduce air pollution.

Implementing these ideas in UK cities will not necessarily be easy, as suggested by the response among politicians in Greater Manchester when we proposed a congestion charge in the city region. But as places finalise their clean air strategies, they will need to take tough decisions to get to grips with pollution and the associated health and social problems it brings – and that may mean going against the grain of popular opinion.

Maja Gustafsson is an intern with the Centre for Cities, on whose blog this article originally appeared.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.

 
 
 
 

Does it matter that TfL are renaming White Hart Lane station Tottenham Hotspur?

New White Hart Lane. Image: Getty.

Pretend for a moment that you’re travelling in the London of 1932. You’re taking the Piccadilly Line northbound and alight at Gillespie Road station. The name should be obvious: it’s inscribed in bespoke brown tiling on the platform.

But that 31 October, following an intense campaign by the eponymous football club, the London County Council changed the station’s name to Arsenal (Highbury Hill). The area’s growing association with the name “Arsenal” ended in a lengthy negotiation that changed maps, signs and train tickets alike. Football had acquired so much power that it changed the name of not just a Tube station but an entire suburb, even before the era of Wenger or the Emirates.

Now the spectre of name changes is on the horizon once again. As Tottenham Hotspur FC inches closer to completing its new stadium, the club is clamouring for a renamed Overground station. Despite the fact the new stadium is located on almost exactly the same site as the old just off White Hart Lane, and fans have long been calling the scaffolding-laden mess “New White Hart Lane”, the club’s executive director is adamant that the station’s existing name cannot stand. White Hart Lane station, on the Overground line leaving Liverpool Street, is set to be renamed “Tottenham Hotspur”, at a cost to the club of £14.7m.

Little has been made of the fact that this peculiar PR kerfuffle is tied to Spurs’ failure to convince Nike to sponsor the venue. Some sources have even claimed that the sponsorship is yet to be finalised because it is somehow contingent on the renaming of the Overground station; beyond the ridiculous Johnson-era vanity project that was the Emirates Air Line, it seems improbable that TfL will allow any more corporate-flavoured information pollution. There will be no “Nike Stadium” station on the way to Enfield, much as there is no “Emirates” on the way to Cockfosters, especially if public consultation gets a look in.

The scene of the crime. Image: TfL.

But there’s a problem with the new name, all the same. “White Hart Lane” already means “football stadium”, in the same way Loftus Road or Stamford Bridge do. Changing it to “Tottenham Hotspur” risks opening the floodgates to an “O2 North Greenwich” or a “Virgin Euston” at some point in future, names as banal as there are dystopian. The Greater London Authority has promised to spend the £14.7m fee on community programmes in the local area – but that’s not much money to set the precedent that a private company can mess about with the Tube map.


What’s more, as CityMetric has often observed, there are plenty of station names across London that could do with a tidy up. Picking one that’s perfect already and asking for £14.7m to change it is adding insult to injury. How much would it cost a community group if they asked to change the name of Goodge Street to Fitzrovia? Why does a vast corporate entity backed by international sponsors and thousands of season ticket holders get to set the standard?

Back in Arsenal’s day, changing names on the Tube must have been easy; changes could be accommodated gradually without bothering the every day traveller. But in our world of online information, maps and apps, name changes are rather more complicated.

The question is – if TfL can bring itself to balefully accept this particular proposition, why can’t it accept ours? Why sort out a single non-issue on the Tube Map when you can catch lots of real ones in one go? A day’s pandemonium might just be a price worth paying to fix the Bethnal Greens problem once and for all.