Results of the Clean Air Consultation

Thanks so much to the 15,000 Londoners who took part in the Mayor’s consultation on plans to tackle air pollution in the capital. We asked for your views on a range of measures to tackle the city’s air pollution problem in one of the largest public consultations undertaken at City Hall.  

This is clearly an important issue for Londoners.  Around nine in ten of you think that central London has a problem with pollution, while 68 per cent think air quality in your local high street is poor. Inner Londoners, who are especially affected by air pollution, are more likely to perceive a problem in their area. There are some hotspots of pollution, including Marylebone/Edgware Road/ Euston Road, Farringdon, Whitechapel, Angel, Archway, Green Lanes, Peckham Road, and West London along the M4.

New measures to tackle pollution

The Ultra-Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), and area covering the existing Congestion Charging Zone, is due to be introduced in September 2020. All cars, motorbikes, vans, minibuses, buses, coaches and heavy goods vehicles will need to meet exhaust emission standards to enter or pay a daily charge. The survey revealed that there is strong public support for bringing forward the implementation of the ULEZ a year earlier, to 2019 (79 per cent).

In addition, 7 in 10 Londoners want the boundaries for the ULEZ to be extended up to the North/South circular or Londonwide for light vehicles.  This rises to 87 per cent for heavy vehicles.


The introduction of an ‘Emissions Surcharge’ from next year was supported by 81 per cent of you. This is an extra charge for the oldest, most polluting vehicles, driving at peak times in the Congestion Charging Zone (CCZ). 41 per cent of you think that £10 is the right level of daily charge for vehicles that do not meet emissions standards.

There is widespread support (77 per cent) for the Mayor’s call to Government for a diesel scrappage scheme to help Londoners switch away from polluting cars. 

There was also a large amount of discussion and debate here on Talk London about the potential measures, with hundreds of comments posted on the pros and cons of the suggested measures, plus lots of suggestions of other ways to tackle air pollution.

Many people talked about how we could encourage more people to cycle in the city, “in the centre of London more and more people are choosing to travel by cycle.  And more and more people would cycle if they felt it were safer to do so”. Others spoke about the need improve traffic flow, “look at traffic flow, signalling, light phasing and the loss of London road space which has caused serious congestion”. Other commonly mentioned ideas to improve air quality included more green infrastructure such as living walls or more trees; supporting electric/hybrid vehicle use in London; and slower speed limits or reducing engine idling.

The outcome of this consultation is being used by City Hall and Transport for London to further develop measures for addressing poor air quality. There will be another consultation with Londoners on these detailed proposals in October, with more information provided at in due course.

Some of the consultation results have been acted on immediately – the Mayor has implemented a programme of air quality alerts to the public on high pollution days, after 4-in-5 Londoners said they’d like to receive them. The Mayor has also announced the introduction of Low Emission Bus Zones, prioritising the greenest buses on the worst polluted routes as part of the wider programme to reduce emissions from the capital’s bus fleet.

Thank you so much to everyone who took the time to take part in the Clean Air consultation. You can read the full research report on the London Datastore. And of course, please do keep talking to us about your ideas for improving London’s air, here on Talk London. 

13th Sep 2016
9 months ago (4:41 PM)



The emissions test ruling sounds to be both redundant and pointless in this regard. All vehicles are subject to an emissions test anyway in order to pass their MOT test. It would make far more sense for the mayors' office to access DVLA records to ascertain the emissions status of any vehicle on londons' roads.


please clean London of all the fumes and let me LIVE


Have you died , how old was your grandmother when she died if she lived in london please? im not being rude im merely stating facts , mine was 92 lived here all her life !!


The air polution is one of the biggest problem in London Town. We need some mesures to deal with it and keep the citizen healthy.

mark nelson-smith

My understanding is that a significant proportion of PM10 emissions (the mixture of very particulate matter in sizes smaller than 10μm) is created by brake wear emissions. Combined with hydrocarbon exhausts, these create a particularly toxic mix. I would encourage the Mayor's office to also consider this as a significant contribution to poor air quality. Putting pressure on vehicle manufacturers to reduce their brake wear emissions as well as ways to reduce the constant start/stop posing of Central London traffic would be sensible.


EV's have powerful regenerative brakes, which means you don't have to slam the brakes to slow down. Lift off the accelerator and the car can come to a complete stop without using your traditional brakes. They do this by using the power of the electric motor to slow the car down. It means EV's have the lowest "brake wear emissions" around.


Extending the ULEZ zone is completely unworkable and will likely be dropped as a proposal. For it to work you would need to have cameras on every street corner in the new extended zone rather than at the boundary as most short journeys will be within the north/south circular. That would cost a fortune to set up and maintain that would far outweigh the gains in fees and fines.

In turn this would make many of the 800,000 private diesel cars practically worthless as everyone rushes to sell up and move to petrol. The impact will be hardship for many families in London with only a negligible improvement in NOx levels (currently at 5% of NOx contributions for private diesel vehicles). Petrol vehicles still produces NOx (albeit less) so the improvement will be less that the 5% NOx figure currently for diesel.


Why is there nothing in this article about domestic heating and scrappage schemes for old boilers??


Hi UncommonSense

There was strong public support for a boiler scrappage scheme - 79 per cent.  More information is available in the full consultation report on page 23 (link at the bottom of the article).

Thanks, Christine

Talk London Team 



It's not only boiler scrappage but more so insulation of old houses as most of the energy created by boilers goes right through single glassed and barely closing windows as well an non insulated roof conversions. This is causing huge pollution.


I worked for the commercial arm of a large visible gas company, you would be appauled at the number of elderly care homes and disabled/learning difficulty schemes whose staff set the heating thermostat to maximum (because elderly people sitting doing nothing feel the cold) and then open windows to cool the property.
And then they wonder why the care system has no money?


Why scrap old boilers?
Many older boilers such as the Ideal concord had low nox (rebreather) facilities on them, but overall the difference is is efficiency between a new and and old boiler is but a few percent.
From an owner's point of view a simple boiler and controls package is far reliable to run, when combined with both decent insulation and weather compensation (an external temperature sensor) the boiler doesn't need to run as hot or for as long, thus saving emissions.
There are housing models in west Europe, which I believe are called the passive house, good insulation coupled with a low energy fan system that uses the warm outgoing stale air to heat or cool the incoming air (to which particulate filtration can be added) are used, they reduce the the heat demand so much the a hot water cylinder with no jacket (3kw) and the body heat of the occupants is enough to heat the home without a boiler.
So rather than a boiler scrap age scheme, why don't the authorities start looking at scraping non listed buildings?


Why is there no interest in the diesel particulate reduction technology developed by Hydroxsolutions. Check out our web site.
Same old story it is all down to money and not the well being of the people in London.


Becuase diesel is dea following the scandals. Hydrogen never took off. (Have you ever seen a H2 filling station?!). Electricity is everywhere and is already gaining ground over new diesel car sales. The first mass market (affordable) long range electric cars this year and next, will make sure EV's become second only to petrol faster than many people realise. The Opel Ampera-e and Tesla Model 3 are good examples.


I think Euro 6 diesels will be exempt from the ULEZ charge under current proposals. Diesel still sells well in the UK and all new diesels are much cleaner than the soot factories we still have on the roads.

Hydrogen hasn't taken off yet but it the obvious choice for most motorists as it compares so closely to current cars. Investment in H2 filling pumps at petrol stations would be far less expensive than millions of charging points on every road. This does require government intervention and investment though. However while there is £25billion in fuel duty coming in each year to the Treasury, don't expect much urgency to find a solution.

Battery EV is only practical for those that can charge at home and don't do long journeys and long range EV is still way off. The Tesla Model 3 is still only 215 miles (likely less in real world use) so still not practical for many of us. Compared to 500 miles of a typical diesel and you can see there is still work to do. Even supercharging (which is not good for battery life) takes far longer than filling up petrol or diesel.

Personally I'd love to move to EV but while battery technology has the limitations it currently does it won't be viable for me and many others.


totally agree Hydrox all about tfl making money and wanting to spend £154million year for 5 years = £770 million on cycle lanes lol....guess where he and TFL are getting the money ?? yep- the drivers !!


If it's true that 81% of people want to spend £10 a day for entry into the extended ULEZ then all I can say is that either people are doing better financially than the government suggests as they are able to pay £2500 plus a year tax paid or the survey was only asking a thin selection of the public....cyclists for instance.


We're both on the same side but you haven't quite got the hang of this. The 81% who support it are all the people who drive cars dating back as far as 2005 (Euro4 emmissions cars) They were asked if they would like poorer workers with pre 2005 cars to be taxed off the road at absolutely no cost to themselves. Naturally they said it would be a great idea as they can still drive their 2005 diesel or petrol car into London without the poor people with older cars getting in their way. This only impacts on the poorest workers with cars older than 2005. Read it again.


Most people want less traffic and less pollution. We can't expect selfish drivers to change their behaviour by asking nicely. Cyclists are part of the solution. Anyone who claims to care about their kids health should be looking at alternatives to driving around London


I am very disappointed that this article does not discuss the issue of the unfairness of a flat rate charge which disproportionately penalises low mileage drivers of older cars whilst letting high mileage drivers of newer cars off Scot-free for polluting a lot more overall. I am in favour of charges in principle but ONLY if they are fair and respect the polluter pays principle. A flat charge is neither of those things: it allows high mileage drivers to continue polluting with impunity whilst clobbering low mileage drivers of older cars with a huge charge; it also disproportionately affects lower income households who are the least able to buy a newer car whereas the rich will either simply just pay the charge or go out and spend a spare £20k on a new one to avoid it. And it is worth reiterating that not all London drivers have a car to drive in central London: many have one solely to drive out of the capital to visit friends and places that are poorly served by public transport. I am extremely disappointed that this article discusses other criticisms of the proposed scheme such as whether improving traffic flow will help but ignores perhaps the most inequitable aspect of it, namely its innate unfairness and disproportionate effects.

As I have said all along the fairest way to reduce pollution and discourage driving is to make all drivers of all cars other than zero or very low emissions one pay a charge per mile driven. The costs (and the incentive to leave the car at home and use other means of transport) would be proportional to the mileage done and therefore by definition to the pollution caused. In the proposed solution however a driver doing half a mile in the zone once a week will have to pay £650 a year whereas someone doing 10000 miles a year in a newer car that may only not pollute that much less per mile pays precisely £0. Why is this discussion bring ignored in the articles on this measure?

Rosemary Pettit

You may be interested in the Hammersmith and Fulham Commission on Air Quality which has today published its draft report at
This is a resident-led Commission with recommendations for Government, GLA, Council, business, local organisations and residents.
It was set up by the Council with officer support but in all other respects was independent.


Thank you Rosemary - having skimmed through the report I agree with most of the measures recommended and am keen to see more encouragement to take up cleaner transport but (and maybe I have missed something here, as I say I have only skim read the relevant sections of the report to transport) I can't see how this report relates to my comment above, which was specifically about the proposed implementation of the charge as a flat rate, which seems to me to be totally counter productive if the aim is to reduce pollution as it allows drivers of (slightly) newer vehicles that only pollute a bit less than the older ones caught by the charge, to drive an unlimited number of miles in the zone without any financial penalty at all, whilst disproportionately overcharging low mileage drivers of older vehicles, which are also more likely to be owned by lower income households that cannot afford to buy a newer car. If I have missed something obvious please do point this out!


I should clarify - I could not find any discussion of the implementation of the ULEZ charge in the report nor suggestions as to why (or why not) the flat rate was considered a good (or bad) option, and/or what the council's opinion was of a flat rate versus other methods of charging as a suitable measure for the deterrence of high-polluting styles of driving. I was expecting to find some discussion of these issues in the report but unless I have missed something I could not see this. Is this discussion perhaps in one of the other linked reports on that web page?

Talk London

Thanks for your comments here. This first part of the consultation on cleaning up London’s air was all about measuring support for the broad principles behind the set of proposed measures, and also gathering further ideas. Officers at City Hall and Transport for London are now using the results gathered to prepare for a second, more detailed round of consultation, which we’ll be sure to contact you all about soon. Concerns like yours here have been fed into this process.

We hope this is helpful.



Yes it is helpful although I am surprised that a specific implementation (the flat rate) was proposed in the consultation if it was intended only to gain an insight into the level of support for the principles rather than the details of the implementation. When I filled in the survey my assumption was that my views were being sought on the actual proposals given, i.e. a flat rate daily charge for older vehicles only, and not on the general idea of charging to reduce pollution or of extending charging out to the North and South Circular. I think my answers would have been a lot different from what they were if I had thought that it was only about the principle of charges on vehicles to reduce air pollution (which I strongly support) than about this specific implementation of a flat rate over a very large area (which I strongly oppose on the grounds that it won't, I think, do much if anything at all to lower air pollution if many drivers are still allowed to drive unlimited mileage within the zone without penalty, and that it is unfair on lower income groups and low mileage drivers of older cars). I would have preferred it if this had been made clearer in the initial consultation documents and consultation wording, or if no specific proposal as to the manner and type of charging had been included.


Interesting link. I note the following "Many of the respondents to the Commission’s call for evidence complained of the number of vehicles ‘idling’, i.e., leaving their engines running while stationary on residential streets across the borough. London councils, such as Islington and Kensington and Chelsea, have introduced penalty charges for idling aimed at raising awareness, but no fines have been issued." This seems like a potential easy "win", if actually enforced, in terms of air quality. As ever black cabs seem to be the worst offenders - one can only assume they are so wealthy they,literally, have money to burn.


You won't need to spend £20k on a new car. You just need a car from 2005 or newer. The unfair part of this is that many poorer workers will have bought a car expecting to be able to use it until 2020 (the current plan) without paying an emmissions tax. The new Mayor's proposals only affect the poorest workers in society who face trying to sell cars which will be "unsellable" and buying another car. It is unthinkable that a Labour Mayor would want to impose a ruling to reduce emmisions and traffic based purely on how new your car is. Can't afford a newer car? The Labour Mayor has news for you... you can't afford to drive at all.

This won't be the end of the matter either. If you tolerate this, then your Euro 4 will be next, maybe a year later, then it'll be Euro 5 cars and so on. So, if you're about to buy a car make sure it's at least a Euro 6 emmissions car. That way you might get a couple of years out of it before you're in the same boat as the poorest workers are now.


I think we are in agreement here Tuesdeoman - my £20k figure was purely an illustration to show how a rich person would be able to spend the sort of money on a new car just to avoid a charge that many people don't even earn in a year. Yes you can buy a newer petrol car for less than that but (particularly for diesels) the cars that are caught by the charge are actually not that old (2014 or earlier) and many people bought diesel in good faith because the government was promoting diesel as an environmentally friendly option at that time. Yes that has been proven wrong since and in fact they are worse for health but people would have bought these cars expecting to be able to keep them for 5-10 years (some of them on long hire purchase deals that I am sure will be difficult to get out of without a high cost) and I think it is unfair and unreasonable for people to have to pay this charge as a daily rate win such a car especially if they don't do many miles. As you rightly say those who are going to lose out the most are people on low incomes who will effectively be priced out of driving altogether whereas richer ones will just carry on and probably be very grateful to the Mayor for giving them less congested roads. Quite ironic for a Socialist Mayor!

And yes the standards will inevitably get tighter so if you can just afford a Euro IV car now what happens in a few years time when the minimum standard switches to Euro V or Euro VI? Yes that's right those on lower incomes will have to scrap the cars they just about managed to buy for the last round. That's why I think it has to be a charge by mile for all cars - whilst the rich would still inevitably be able to afford to drive more at least they wouldn't be able simply to buy a new car to escape the charge altogether, and if the rates are set at the right level (not that I can suggest what that should be!) it would hopefully still incentivise even them to reduce their mileage, which I think has to be the ultimate goal if the main aim is to reduce pollution.

Talk London

Hi all,

Thanks again for your comments! As mentioned above, this first part of the consultation was all about measuring support for the broad principles behind the set of proposed measures, and also gathering further ideas. Officers at City Hall and Transport for London are now using the results gathered to prepare for a second, more detailed round of consultation, which we’ll be sure to contact you all about soon. Concerns like these here have been fed into this process.

Hope this is helpful.


This mayor will bankrupt the poor of London if this extension of the ULEZ out to the North Circular get implemented. Many less well off can't afford a new low emisions car just like that or can't afford another tax. If he really wanted to get serious about pollution they would stop aeroplanes flying over central London which are the real polluters not tax the poor motorist for daring to have a car whereby petrol cars have quite low NOx levels. Just a typical Labour tax system, hopefully the government will step in and stamp on this stupid idea.


This is great news that our Mayor is going to tackle the vehicle pollution that costs the ives of more than 9,000 Londoners each year.

But a question. The ULEZ will cover:

"All cars, motorbikes, vans, minibuses, buses, coaches and heavy goods vehicles will need to meet exhaust emission standards to enter or pay a daily charge. "

I hope that will include black cabs. They are all diesel and all seem to have smoky exhausts. When I'm on my bike behind a black cab it's most unpleasant (and life threatening) to have to breath the fumes. Why can't they all be scrapped and replaced with electric vehicles?


The 9,000 figure covers all NOx emissions. Transport accounts for roughly 40% of that with the rest made up from gas boilers, construction and industry and rivers(!). Even if you removed all vehicles from the road you would still have 5,400 deaths from NOx.

Completely agree with you on black cabs. Despite only buses and black cabs allowed down Oxford street, it's still one of the most polluted streets in London. There is a replacement zero emission black cab currently being developed but I'd expect it will take years for them to be able to build enough to replace them all. I may be wrong but I think I read they will be given until 2032 to see the last of the diesel cabs. Not good.


It's funny how this consultation doesn't even mention black cabs.
My educated guess is... unions and their usual...backward, selfish, shortsighted and ignorant attitude. A similar situation is with TFL (tube) and rail. They have way too much powers.


Biggest polluters are black cabs and busses. Vast majority are diesel.
For example, at King's Cross station (Pancras Rd / Midland Rd) cabbies are all lined up (regularly 10+) hardly moving every 5min while idling their engines. They should be driving non-diesel cars a long long time ago. Instead they have big diesel enginees.
Busess - why on earth most of them are they still diesel is beyond me. It's obvious that they are major contributor to the pollution.


Black cab lobbying - Sadiq is too weak to take them on. Wasted 4 years ahead for us to look forward to...

Talk London

Hi skywalker and GeoffC,

There's lots on plans to make the capital's bus fleet cleaner here. And there's also a new action plan for taxis.

Hope that's helpful. 


One of the main reasons for London's disgusting pollution is the complete lack of a mass transit system south of the river. More than 90% of the tube network is North of the river and of the remainder most of it is in the south west or hugs the river. Please don't evoke our broken down overland network as evidence of a system; at Denmark Hill station services run at the rate of 4 trains per hour! Try running four trains an hour on the Jubilee line and see what happens! There is one proposal to extend the Bakerloo line to Lewisham but that is not nearly good enough - the Peckham/Camberwell and extension needs building too as well as extensions to the Victoria Line to fill in the gaps in the South. Will it happen? No, because South Londoners are second class citizens! One last comment on the cabs - the sooner the black cab monopoly is put to the sword the better for all Londoners. Uber drivers do not make you stand in the street for hours, drive past you without reason, refuse to go South of the river, charge you rip off prices, seek out every traffic jam in town or bore you to death with their tedious stories. Uber drivers turn up quickly, go the direct route to your destination and charge a fraction of the price a black cab would charge. We understand, Mr Mayor, that you expense account people like black cabs, but you are small and dying breed. Just like the Hacknied carriage.


What a pathetically small sample (15,000) out of a population of millions. This is clearly an inadequate poll for depriving so many residents pre-emptively of the use of their cars -- particular older residents with older privately owned petrol cars under 3 litres (who amount to under 3 per cent of Londoners). The comment of Stevemeeus below reinforces this.

Talk London

Hi deden,

This was actually one of the highest responses we’ve had to a consultation run by City Hall. You make a good point though that it seems small against the size of the whole London population.

In addition to analysing the 15,000 responses we received, and in conjunction with Transport for London, we also ran a survey that was representative of the London population. These efforts mean the consultation was a robust one.

Hope that helps.


I'm really surprised to see no explicit mention of Heathrow in the consultation report. It's the polluting elephant in the room that's been ignored.

Isn't it true that Heathrow's got pollution problems every bit as bad as Central London? And most of the pollution comes from traffic, not planes? So why is there no talk of taking action against polluting vehicles there?


Why charge Euro 5 the same as pre Euro and Euro 1-4 ? The NOx and particulate emissions are very much less.
This will just push the pollution into the streets on the edge of the North and South Circular.
Why charge this say at weekends and 8pm - 6am when traffic is moving more freely and is thus less polluting ?
How will non UK registered vehicles be charged ?


The increase in brake dust emmissions is down to one fact and that is the increase in the number of speed humps. These things are mini environmental disasters that increase emissions due to combustion and emissions due to breaking, car, bus and truck fuel consumption is twice that on the road with speed humps and it is on a flat road. TfL time to wake up and smell the coffee that these ridiculous means of speed enforcement. Much better to train drivers as to whether speed is appropriate and when it is inappropriate. I'm a member of the Institute advanced motorists I always drive within the speed limit. It's not difficult!


I'm totally in favour of improving London air quality (I have in fact had bouts of pollution-induced asthma myself) and have voluntarily tried to do so for many years, namely by limiting driving whenever possible, and always owning and driving LPG-converted cars. What strikes me in the scheme at hand is the focus on administrative convenience and ignorance of the facts.

Quoting from the above it says "the oldest, most polluting vehicles" (as if that is a foregone conclusion) and "all cars ... will need to meet exhaust emission standards". So, I drive an older car that, thanks to a Euro 6 compatible LPG conversion, meets every possible standard; in particular, emissions of NOx are notably lower than for other cars, and there are no particulates whatsoever. LPG is propane gas, it's what you use on fork lifts in warehouses, and you can outright stand in plumes of the exhaust and notice "it's a little warm and humid here".

And guess what? Yes, because of the administrative convenience of using the date of registration as the sole "benchmark", I get hit.

And guess again: If you say "LPG" to the bureaucrats, what do they say? Yes, that's right, they say "What?"

Incompetence par extreme.


Our new mayor talks anti pollution, but like his predecessors acts differently. In his short tenure he has had two simple opportunities to reduce pollution in east London and has failed on each.

Greenwich cruise terminal. The question was simple; do we want cruise ships that are making some attempt to reduce pollution by purchasing the equipment that allows them to switch off diesel generators when docked? London's answer; no, send us the most polluting ships that no one else wants.

London City Airport. Even with its dangerously short runway it did once have a small part to play in regenerating east London. Unless any one didn't notice, east London is doing pretty well now. Building densely around the airport and then granting permission for a huge increase in flights is not only asking for a serious accident, as it will deliver a huge increase in noise and air pollution for the large and increasing local community.

Strangely, it is in my view also a financially poor decision. Apparently the airport has been for sale at £2bn. This looks cheap for development land around here, but when you factor in that surrounding buildings could all be 3 or 4 times taller than currently planned?


Yes we do have a problem not one but many. The government just legally continue to ripping of the public one way or another.
They don't mention to use a scooter or motorcycle, You can still use your car's but just keep on bribing us so we can legally justified it.
What a load of nonsense. keep on conning your own people.

Julian E Chichester

There are three very simple, cost free steps that could be taken to improve air quality in London and reduce greenhouse gas emissions:
1. Ban tourist buses from leaving their engines running whilst their passengers visit tourist attractions. I cycle daily past Buckingham Palace, and there are always a line of tourist buses parked outside for hour son end with their engines running, which adds unecessarily to London's pollution.
2. Require all shop window lighting to be switched off at night after a certain time - eg 11 pm or midnight, as they do in Paris.
3. Require all offices etc to have motion sensitive switches which are activated after a certain time to prevent lights being left on all night.


Where is the mention of black cabs/taxis in this report? It is obscene that lobbying by the black cabs has meant that they escape focus. He seems to ignore the cleaner air benefits of uber. Black cabs should have been tackled years ago
Although, have to give it to Ken then Boris: they at least introduced hire bikes and cycle lanes. I.e. real measures that improve air quality. Remains to be seen but I don't expect anything so tangible from Sadiq. His immediately pro-cabbie rhetoric means a wasted 4 years to follow!


Thanks. But it is not nearly enough. The one thing that has been a substantive positive change in terms of taxi pollution has been uber (efficient hybrids), yet it seems that is the one thing Sadiq is looking to immediately restrict. Have users of uber been asked whether the increased regulation is beneficial? Or is it just the taxi lobbyists. (in case you're wondering, I'm a cyclist, and use both taxis/uber rarely.)

I have to say that the proposals (scrappage scheme, no new diesel taxis from 2018, green taxi ranks) are a welcome step in the right direction, but seem seriously too little compared to the uber restrictions and damage to air taxis already/will continue to do.


The conversion of Taxis from diesel fuel to hybrid is essential as is the need to stop taxis idling in taxi ranks in central London


Showing 1-50 of 141 comments