13 ms·

Madrid bans polluting vehicles from city centre

250 points by purple_ducks 8y ago

sharpercoder 8y ago
Fun story. I bought a very fuel efficient diesel car (build: 2001) 3 years ago. It does 94 mpg or 1L per 30KM. Since then, many cities in my country decided to introduce "pollution zones", banning diesels of 2000 and older. My old home city decided to go one step further and ban diesels of 2004 and older. When I visit family and friends, I actually have to actively route around it. Which is ironic, since my car is more fuel efficient then most cars currently produced. But I guess the NOx exhaust also matters (which is much higher with diesels). To be frank, it surprises me that I can go around in my car still at all. Burning diesel to move people should be banned by now, especially with the market flooding with EVs.
- totfz 8y ago
  >To be frank, it surprises me that I can go around in my car still at all. Burning diesel to move people should be banned by now, especially with the market flooding with EVs. Do you think everybody can afford to buy a new car, especially an EV? The reason these bans are in place is because they are necessary, and they are necessary because most cars are old because most people can't afford to switch. It's effectively a tax on the poor.
  - esotericn 8y ago
    Everything that increases the cost of doing _anything_ is a "tax on the poor"; that's just a particularly emotional way of describing exactly what it is that poor people don't have (money/power). In a city like London there is actually no reason to drive around a diesel car in the centre. It's done for convenience only. Non-diesel vehicles exist, electric vehicles exist, very soon there'll be enough to fill the roads (Central London is really quite small), done. I don't think it should be banned - I think a tax is far more appropriate (that's actually what we're doing) - but ultimately, yes, poor people will be hit harder. We don't allow burning rubbish to heat homes either. That's a "poor tax" too.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    I own car but also take advantage of the transport networks. What I really dislike with this kind of bans is the complete disregard how people can afford to reach their usual destinations with a fragile transport network, if at all. One of the customer sites I used to travel to, takes 30m with the car and almost 2h with public transports.
    - yiyus 8y ago
      I would not call Madrid's public transportation network fragile. Not at all. For most practical cases, public transport won't take longer than if you need to park a car.
      - pjmlp 8y ago
        Not if one is lucky enough to live close enough to the city center. From my experience in Lisbon, it took me 1h to do 30 km during rush hour and 2h outside rush hour. As the trains/bus/boat connections get drastically reduced outside rush hour. Ah, and good luck returning back home after mid-night. Talking with Spanish friends, their view of Madrid network isn't much different from my experience. In any case I was talking in general, because outside the major European cities, the transports are even worse, like 1 bus connection every two hours until 8pm and such.
        yiyus 8y ago
        I don't know Lisboa, but I can tell you this is not the case in Madrid. Neither it is in Barcelona, Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Berlin, ... There can be very particular routes for which 30km can take very long (although I do not see how a 30km trip is relevant when we're talking about the centre of the cities), but this is not common. And 8pm is not late at all, it is quite easy to move at that time. Again, I do not know Lisboa, but your generalization does not fit with my experience at all.
        pjmlp 8y ago
        Nice, I talk about the general case, and you list capitals and people living on the city center. A 30km trip is relevant, because there is a large set of population that works on the city center, yet it can only afford to buy a house 30-100km away from it, and commutes every day. I lived in middle size cities where after 8pm there are no more buses, only taxis.
  - simion314 8y ago
    I am not the person you replied, taxes on pollution affect the poor, it is true but I seen people buying a 20 years BMW rather then a new or newer less cool model car, so the pollution taxes and measures should affect this purchases and push people into buying petrol, smaller engine cars.
    - hu3 8y ago
      Yes but these people had a choice. Poor people don't.
      - jack_pp 8y ago
        Europe is different from the US, we don't need cars here. I'm from Romania and I don't even have a licence. The only reason to have a car here is for work or comfort. I've travelled around the EU quite a lot and could always get around with public transport or taxis. So no, in the context of the EU, banning cars is not a tax on the poor, it is a comfort tax at best and one which increases the comfort of every other citizen while punishing "poor" people who want cheap comfort at the expense of everyone else around them.
        majewsky 8y ago
        It depends. For city-dwellers, that's true (I'm one myself, 29, living in Germany, no driver's license either). But someone living in a village will find it pretty impossible to run their errands or bring their children to school without a car.
        simion314 8y ago
        >But someone living in a village will find it pretty impossible to run their errands or bring their children to school without a car. It is not impossible, I know people that live in villages in Romania and use public transport to go to the city where they work. Usually this people don't own a car because they don't have a driver license, there are enough such people since the common transport is profitable for the companies that offer it.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    The sensible way to go about this would be making new cars with ICE progressively more expensive, starting some time twenty years ago or so, so that people naturally switch over to clean alternatives. What we get instead of incessant lobbying by car manufactures until perfectly fine, new, cars need to be banned from city centers because the air quality is too bad. Now it is too late for a painless switch to less polluting transportation and the poorest suffer most.
  - wongarsu 8y ago
    > It's effectively a tax on the poor I live in a European city with comparatively bad public transport, and I still don't own a car. Sure, going somewhere by public transport often takes twice as long as going by car, but it's cheaper and I am free to do stuff in that time. In the rare case I need one I could always rent one or use a car pool and still be much cheaper than owning and operating one. In rural areas it's a different matter, but the poor in the city rarely need cars in Europe. Many want it for the convinience, but taxing luxury goods is accepted practice.
  - esotericn 8y ago
    As a possible counterpoint, consider the following image: https://goo.gl/maps/R9aBPPb59yC2 https://goo.gl/maps/R9aBPPb59yC2 I used to drive past this block fairly often and I'd shudder every time. I can't imagine living there. (It's worse in person than in the photo, really, the building is black). Poor people are overwhelmingly more likely to live in those sorts of conditions in London - more likely to live near traffic lights, close to busy polluted roads, on major arterial routes, and generally just in the pollution hotspots. By contrast, the wealthy are more likely to live in luxury apartments with proper AC, or leafy suburbs, or just on side streets that aren't front-line pollution (compare Euston/Marylebone Road to side streets). (I say more likely, because it's true on a statistical level, but it's also just obviously true. I can afford to not live there so I don't. It's obviously horrible, look at it, there's a massive road on one side and a railway line on the other. You'd better have some bloody good sound insulation if nothing else). So actually reducing emissions is in some ways an inverse tax on the poor - because poor people inhale more of the shit anyway.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    Allowing people to pollute is effectively a subsidy for them, paid for with a tax on everyone’s health. Wealthy people are more able to take advantage of this subsidy and more able to avoid some of the tax, so the old way is also a tax on the poor. Except instead of just taking their money, they’re being slowly killed.
- grecy 8y ago
  What car did you buy? I'm curious what car can do 1L per 30km!
  - pedrocr 8y ago
    3.3L/100km doesn't seem that hard. I get 4.7 in a mid-size sedan so this is probably a small Volkswagen with a 3 cylinder engine.
    - grecy 8y ago
      The best I ever really hear about are ~4L/100km, from small VW sedans as you say. I'm curious what can get better!
      - pedrocr 8y ago
        It's probably one of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Lupo#Lupo_3L https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Lupo#Lupo_3L It also explains where the 94mpg number comes from.
- pedrocr 8y ago
  Not sure how you're doing the conversion but 3.3l/100km is only 71mpg according to Google. 94mpg would be 2.5l/100km or 1l per 40km.
  - FartyMcFarter 8y ago
    US gallon vs Imperial gallon? It's a ~20% difference.
    - pedrocr 8y ago
      That would be 85mpg, not 94 from what I can see online
- jeffwass 8y ago
  Yeah, low-emissions diesel branding is a criminal oxymoron. It’s 100% the particulate and NoX emissions that are the major problems for those of us living in urban populations.
  - wallace_f 8y ago
    This is one of the reasons why I was surprised Tesla revealed a semi before a city bus. Getting the air and noise pollution out of city centers alone is a big win. City busses also dont have as much energy-density issues (can swap busses or batteries) and regenerative braking would also be a big win, especially with the way bus drivers drive.
    - dotancohen 8y ago
      Semis outside the city avoid stop-and-go, which drastically affects mileage. City buses are almost strictly stop-and-go, if for nothing more than alighting of passengers.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      Electric buses is a competitive business; semis less so, from what I can tell. Tesla probably has a better head start there.
- Tade0 8y ago
  If you're in europe(UK by chance?) then your car is built to a standard that allows 87.5% more NOx emissions, so in this regard you're polluting as much as a diesel burning over 5.6l/100km[0]. [0] Comparing to a car produced in 2006. This standard has been updated since.
- thesimp 8y ago
  And diesel cars like yours are THE reason why these type of legislation is being put into place. Your 2001 diesel is most likely a euro 3 emission type and that put on average 3x more NOx and 10x as much diesel particulate matter in the air per km driven than a 2010 euro 5 diesel (1). Of course you can do a calculation on how it is economically better to drive a car for a longer period of time compared to factories using resources to make new cars. But at this moment all the focus is to get NOx and particulate matter emissions down, preferably in cities. So noone, except you, cares about how fuel efficient your old car is because even the biggest modern Mercedes, BMW or Audi luxury barge is more environmentally friendly than yours. Buy any modern (less than 5 years old) normal everyday car and immediately you lower the amount the amount you pollute in your everyday driving. 1: http://ecoscore.be/nl/legislation/european http://ecoscore.be/nl/legislation/european
- fyfy18 8y ago
  Have you ever had the DPF replaced? On most diesels they get so clogged up after around 150,000km so that the engine can't work efficiently anymore (and it can actually break the engine if it gets clogged enough). You can pay to have it replaced (a few thousand Euro) or in a lot of countries it's quite popular to just remove the guts of it, so the there is no filter, meaning your polluting car pollutes even more. It's usually illegal, but as particulate emissions are not part of periodic inspection most European vehicles undergo, it's usually not found out. (They weren't required until Euro 5 came into affect, so maybe your car doesn't even have one.)
- natch 8y ago
  By thinking about the fuel efficiency of your diesel as somehow being relevant to the pollution zones shows you have made an error that is pretty commonplace. One shouldn’t confuse fuel efficiency with fewer emissions. Motorcycles for example are very fuel efficient for getting a person or two around without a lot of stuff as compared to a car, but they cause way more pollution per mile (which makes it even worse than measuring by per gallon, exactly because they are so fuel efficient, making it strikingly bad because to achieve worse emissions per mile, their emissions have to be truly extraordinarily bad). (Yes, other commenter who wants to retort that the type of motorcycle matters, it’s true that it does. This is a general point about internal combustion engines where some motorcycles are being used as an example.)
- ip26 8y ago
  Unfortunately optimizing combustion for fuel economy can increase emissions dramatically. Two primary examples- 1) efficiency rises with combustion temperature; however over a certain threshold temperature NOx starts to spontaneously form much more rapidly 2) efficiency rises with combustion pressure; however a high compression engine tends to have a combustion chamber shaped like a pancake instead of a sphere or cylinder, which tends to cause incomplete combustion raising particle emissions. Edit: I forgot another, a leaner mixture (more air less fuel) helps get the most complete combustion for maximum efficiency and low particulate, but the more air in the chamber, the more free oxygen and nitrogen there is to form more NOx Every engine strikes a balance between fuel economy, particulate, and NOx emissions. They are like the three corners of a project management triangle.
angarg12 8y ago
A while back I told my friends "in the next 5 years a major European city will ban non EV. And if it's a success, the flood gates will open and there will be no way back". I'm surprised (and pleased) that this initiative is being implemented in Spain, since the infrastructure for supporting EVs there is less developed than other places (say, Germany). I sincerely wish it turns out to be a success, which would quickly accelerate similar initiatives in other places.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  The car lobby is very strong here (Germany). And guess what, one of the punishments for them regarding diesel (selling cars at discount to affected consumers), turned out to become yet another profit, because in the end they just sell more cars anyway. Mercedes has ads across the country how they are just a nice company and want to help the planet by giving the opportunity to Euro 4/5 car owners to exchange their cars at affordable prices, while avoiding to mention why they are actually offering it.
  - cmrdporcupine 8y ago
    It's a strange twist that the only country that punished VW/Audi group for dieselgate with sanctions that had any kind of teeth was the U.S. -- not exactly known for its environmentalist tendencies. There VW was forced to pay for a huge EV charging infrastructure in addition to the vehicle buyback. In Canada, the gov't did basically nothing and it was only a class action lawsuit that accomplished much, and the deal we got was far less than what they got in the U.S. Still, the money I got from dieselgate buyback paid for most of my Chevy Volt. So that's something.
    - thefounder 8y ago
      Well that may prove it was a political motivated punishment (for the US at least) not related to the environment damage. VW got fined in Europe (i.e few billions) as well but not as much as in the US.
      - 8y ago
esotericn 8y ago
Same thing in London. From April 2019, diesel cars older than ~2014 and petrol cars older than ~2005 will have to pay 12.50GBP a day to drive in the centre. A few years later, the zone will be expanded to cover an area with a radius of approximately 5-10 miles around the centre (so basically everywhere apart from far-flung suburbs). 12.50 a day is pretty much as good as a ban (for most it'd make driving into and out of London cost more than 5x more for example).
- andrepd 8y ago
  I don't like that very much. It's equivalent to saying "only the rich can drive in the city", another example of cities being turned into "playgrounds of the rich". Why should the gas-guzzling obnoxious Lamborghini get to drive and not my comparatively clean city car? Just say "vehicles with more emissions than x are banned" rather than pricing them out or even going by fabrication year.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - esotericn 8y ago
    I think you've missed something here - the emissions bands are based on, well, emissions. (I used years, but it's not model year, it's Euro emissions standards, which happen to track model year fairly closely (hence the ~)). A clean car will be allowed in free. A dirty car will have to pay. A new Lambo is Euro 6, just as a new city car would be. It's not about fuel efficiency but particulate emissions, i.e. stuff people breathe in that's bad for them. If it's the 'pay for it' aspect you're bothered about - eh. I like the idea that if I want, I can pay to drive in the city. Most of the time I won't, but if my Grandma comes to visit, we'll use my car.
    - andrepd 8y ago
      >the emissions bands are based on, well, emissions. (I used years, but it's not model year, it's Euro emissions standards, which happen to track model year fairly closely (hence the ~)) Ah, gotcha. I didn't realise that, thanks.
jesperlang 8y ago
bans some polluting vehicles: > The plan, known as Madrid Central, establishes a low-emissions zone that covers 472 hectares (1,166 acres). All petrol vehicles registered before 2000 and diesel ones registered before 2006 will be banned from the area, unless they are used by residents of the area or meet other exemptions. Nevertheless a good step!
Improvotter 8y ago
I wouldn't say Madrid is the first. I live in Ghent (Belgium) and only taxis and public transit are allowed in the city centre. In Antwerp only cars with low emissions are allowed in the city centre, or have to pay iirc. Ghent is awesome to live in thanks to this, everyone bikes everywhere when you live in Ghent regardless. There also are a ton of UberEATS, Deliveroo, Takeaway, and Bubblepost (post delivered by bike) in the city centre.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  > I live in Ghent (Belgium) and only taxis and public transit are allowed in the city centre. How do they deliver stock to shops, collect waste, or do construction?
  - tinco 8y ago
    Most Dutch cities have automatic gates, so that kind of traffic, we call it 'destination transport' for some reason, can use a remote control to open the gates and enter the city. For example police and ambulances can also enter the city. Of the moderate size cities I've recently been to only Amsterdam still allows regular traffic in its center, and I think that's because it has such a large center for a Dutch city. You can't really park at the edge and then walk in.
- stabbles 8y ago
  Another example is Groningen in The Netherlands where roughly 60% of the journeys within the city are by bike [1] and cars are banned from the city center. > In 1977, the traffic circulation plan was implemented over a single night. Hundreds of new signs were put up to create one-way streets or change their direction. Overnight, the centre of Groningen became impenetrable for cars. The next morning, hostesses greeted confused motorists with flowers and leaflets that explained the new situation. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jul/29/how-groningen-invented-a-cycling-template-for-cities-all-over-the-world https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jul/29/how-groningen...
  - notimetorelax 8y ago
jacquesm 8y ago
Quite a few young people without a degree or other good secondary education that do not have a lot of money make their living as couriers. Because courier companies are in a powerful position compared to their couriers everybody is classed as 'independent contractor' and they are required to bring their own vehicle. They can't afford new ones so they end up buying older ones, and as couriers they drive a lot so they end up buying diesels, which, given the form factor of their cars (small delivery vans) is usually the only option. At their income level the only cars they can afford are the older diesels, which are now no longer legal to drive in the cities where they have their work. Effectively these rules put a whole slew of kids out of a job.
- cagenut 8y ago
  I can't stand this kind of inane climate science denialism every time there's one micro shred of progress. ALL diesel (and oil, and coal, and gas) has to be banned from EVERYWHERE within your and my lifetime. Quit lending your voice to reactionary concern trolling.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    It's just a fact, no need to get your panties in a twist and no need to make it seem like I deny climate change. I've seen a couple of kids in exactly that situation and this is what happened to them. Any kind of rule has unintended side effects, it does not hurt to point those out even when you are in support of the rule. Quit jumping to conclusions. FWIW I built a house that was off the grid powered by windmill and solar and experimented with building electric vehicles before Tesla came around because I believe that to be the future. To call me a climate change denier is hilarious.
  - burlesona 8y ago
    The OP said this eliminates some jobs. I saw nothing about climate denial. Your post seems really over-reactive.
  - mrlatinos 8y ago
    Are you replying to the same comment that I just read? He's just pointing out the potential economic impact of a hyper-targeted restriction. Seems to me like "any ban on diesel is good" is not a great approach to policy making, Mr. Gore.
rini17 8y ago
Soot from old diesel cars is undeniably a problem, but large part of particulate matter is from tyres, not from engines. It will be interesting to see if and how that's going to be resolved.
- Tepix 8y ago
  Half of it is from brakes. Electric cars mostly brake using the engines so they also improve this aspect.
donatj 8y ago
You want to know how you get populists uprisings? Regressive taxes that hurt the poor.
- posixplz 8y ago
  You want to know how we save the planet? Force people, including the working class, to stop relying on dirty fossil fuels. If there’s no forcing function, nothing will change.
  - donatj 8y ago
    Believe it or not, people don’t respond well to force. Force only breeds contempt. It simply hurts your cause in the long run.
    - truculent 8y ago
      Tbf, I'm not sure we have a long run at this point
- kace91 8y ago
  The poor in European capitals don't go around in cars, they use public transportation. Unlike the US, moving around in a car is somewhat of an unneeded luxury, as the city is perfectly livable using subway and buses - and more recently, the myriad of bikes, electric scooters and the like that you can rent with apps and leave wherever.
- truculent 8y ago
  also: running out of food and habitable space on the planet
ransom1538 8y ago
Madrid is completely covered in the smell of diesel fuel. When I smell a diesel car drive by it reminds me of Madrid. It’s a great city but I can’t take the headaches and the smell. I am amazed people can live there.
alexandercrohde 8y ago
As far as I understand, it would be relatively feasible to engineer air-filters that filter out car-exhaust. I'm glad there's finally some pressure for this externality so that we begin taking the most basic steps to help the whole.
DoreenMichele 8y ago
Something I'm not seeing commentary on: the initiative is as much about public health as public transport. “Air quality has been breaching acceptable levels for 10 years and people in the city are being exposed to air that has clear effects on their health, especially those who are most vulnerable, such as children and older people,” said Inés Sabanés, councillor for the environment and mobility. “There’s research that shows clear links between pollution peaks and hospital admissions. It has a very clear effect on health – on the number of deaths and premature births.” A lot of poor people are poor precisely because they are in poor health. It tends to simultaneously run up bills and curtail earning capacity. A city full of healthy citizens is going to be more economically vibrant at all levels.
- biztos 8y ago
  I agree with your main point, but as regards "run[ning] up bills" doesn't Spain have a pretty effective, universal, single-payer healthcare system?
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    Yeah, I've heard that (kind of) objection before. It's nonsense. That's not the only way that sick people have additional bills. If you are healthy and living on a limited budget, you cook from scratch. If you are sick, you get take out or you eat a more expensive TV dinner that further hurts your health. If you are healthy, you shop the sales, you travel a little farther to the cheaper store, etc. If you are sick, you go to the closest store because it's the only one you have the energy to make it to. Etc. ad nauseum. Even without medical bills, sick people will spend more for convenience items just to get through the damn day. There are myriad ways in which it is vastly cheaper to simply be healthy.
    - kilburn 8y ago
      I'm not saying you are wrong, but the scale is very different from the stories you hear from the US. I'm a Spaniard, from a working class family. My grandma, uncle and father died from (different) cancers in the last 3 years, yet my family didn't go broke nor anything close to that. Money was simply not an issue: all medical expenses were paid for by the state, and all of them kept receiving their (state-funded) retirement pensions until they passed away. All the things you mentioned were cared for by my mother, myself and my siblings. Not having to care (extra) about money during such tough times is a blessing, and the reason I am more than happy to pay more taxes than citizens in other countries do. Of course the system can (and should) be improved, but the US state of affairs on everything health-related sounds just crazy to me. The only poor people in Spain who are poor because of health issues are the mentally ill (including life-destroying addictions). The remainder of poor people are poor mostly because they're lacking education / accessible jobs.

250 points by purple_ducks 8y ago

Fun story. I bought a very fuel efficient diesel car (build: 2001) 3 years ago. It does 94 mpg or 1L per 30KM. Since then, many cities in my country decided to introduce "pollution zones", banning diesels of 2000 and older. My old home city decided to go one step further and ban diesels of 2004 and older. When I visit family and friends, I actually have to actively route around it. Which is ironic, since my car is more fuel efficient then most cars currently produced. But I guess the NOx exhaust also matters (which is much higher with diesels). To be frank, it surprises me that I can go around in my car still at all. Burning diesel to move people should be banned by now, especially with the market flooding with EVs.

totfz 8y ago
>To be frank, it surprises me that I can go around in my car still at all. Burning diesel to move people should be banned by now, especially with the market flooding with EVs. Do you think everybody can afford to buy a new car, especially an EV? The reason these bans are in place is because they are necessary, and they are necessary because most cars are old because most people can't afford to switch. It's effectively a tax on the poor.
- esotericn 8y ago
  Everything that increases the cost of doing _anything_ is a "tax on the poor"; that's just a particularly emotional way of describing exactly what it is that poor people don't have (money/power). In a city like London there is actually no reason to drive around a diesel car in the centre. It's done for convenience only. Non-diesel vehicles exist, electric vehicles exist, very soon there'll be enough to fill the roads (Central London is really quite small), done. I don't think it should be banned - I think a tax is far more appropriate (that's actually what we're doing) - but ultimately, yes, poor people will be hit harder. We don't allow burning rubbish to heat homes either. That's a "poor tax" too.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  I own car but also take advantage of the transport networks. What I really dislike with this kind of bans is the complete disregard how people can afford to reach their usual destinations with a fragile transport network, if at all. One of the customer sites I used to travel to, takes 30m with the car and almost 2h with public transports.
  - yiyus 8y ago
    I would not call Madrid's public transportation network fragile. Not at all. For most practical cases, public transport won't take longer than if you need to park a car.
    - pjmlp 8y ago
      Not if one is lucky enough to live close enough to the city center. From my experience in Lisbon, it took me 1h to do 30 km during rush hour and 2h outside rush hour. As the trains/bus/boat connections get drastically reduced outside rush hour. Ah, and good luck returning back home after mid-night. Talking with Spanish friends, their view of Madrid network isn't much different from my experience. In any case I was talking in general, because outside the major European cities, the transports are even worse, like 1 bus connection every two hours until 8pm and such.
      - yiyus 8y ago
        I don't know Lisboa, but I can tell you this is not the case in Madrid. Neither it is in Barcelona, Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Berlin, ... There can be very particular routes for which 30km can take very long (although I do not see how a 30km trip is relevant when we're talking about the centre of the cities), but this is not common. And 8pm is not late at all, it is quite easy to move at that time. Again, I do not know Lisboa, but your generalization does not fit with my experience at all.
        pjmlp 8y ago
        Nice, I talk about the general case, and you list capitals and people living on the city center. A 30km trip is relevant, because there is a large set of population that works on the city center, yet it can only afford to buy a house 30-100km away from it, and commutes every day. I lived in middle size cities where after 8pm there are no more buses, only taxis.
- simion314 8y ago
  I am not the person you replied, taxes on pollution affect the poor, it is true but I seen people buying a 20 years BMW rather then a new or newer less cool model car, so the pollution taxes and measures should affect this purchases and push people into buying petrol, smaller engine cars.
  - hu3 8y ago
    Yes but these people had a choice. Poor people don't.
    - jack_pp 8y ago
      Europe is different from the US, we don't need cars here. I'm from Romania and I don't even have a licence. The only reason to have a car here is for work or comfort. I've travelled around the EU quite a lot and could always get around with public transport or taxis. So no, in the context of the EU, banning cars is not a tax on the poor, it is a comfort tax at best and one which increases the comfort of every other citizen while punishing "poor" people who want cheap comfort at the expense of everyone else around them.
      - majewsky 8y ago
        It depends. For city-dwellers, that's true (I'm one myself, 29, living in Germany, no driver's license either). But someone living in a village will find it pretty impossible to run their errands or bring their children to school without a car.
        simion314 8y ago
        >But someone living in a village will find it pretty impossible to run their errands or bring their children to school without a car. It is not impossible, I know people that live in villages in Romania and use public transport to go to the city where they work. Usually this people don't own a car because they don't have a driver license, there are enough such people since the common transport is profitable for the companies that offer it.
- adrianN 8y ago
  The sensible way to go about this would be making new cars with ICE progressively more expensive, starting some time twenty years ago or so, so that people naturally switch over to clean alternatives. What we get instead of incessant lobbying by car manufactures until perfectly fine, new, cars need to be banned from city centers because the air quality is too bad. Now it is too late for a painless switch to less polluting transportation and the poorest suffer most.
- wongarsu 8y ago
  > It's effectively a tax on the poor I live in a European city with comparatively bad public transport, and I still don't own a car. Sure, going somewhere by public transport often takes twice as long as going by car, but it's cheaper and I am free to do stuff in that time. In the rare case I need one I could always rent one or use a car pool and still be much cheaper than owning and operating one. In rural areas it's a different matter, but the poor in the city rarely need cars in Europe. Many want it for the convinience, but taxing luxury goods is accepted practice.
- esotericn 8y ago
  As a possible counterpoint, consider the following image: https://goo.gl/maps/R9aBPPb59yC2 https://goo.gl/maps/R9aBPPb59yC2 I used to drive past this block fairly often and I'd shudder every time. I can't imagine living there. (It's worse in person than in the photo, really, the building is black). Poor people are overwhelmingly more likely to live in those sorts of conditions in London - more likely to live near traffic lights, close to busy polluted roads, on major arterial routes, and generally just in the pollution hotspots. By contrast, the wealthy are more likely to live in luxury apartments with proper AC, or leafy suburbs, or just on side streets that aren't front-line pollution (compare Euston/Marylebone Road to side streets). (I say more likely, because it's true on a statistical level, but it's also just obviously true. I can afford to not live there so I don't. It's obviously horrible, look at it, there's a massive road on one side and a railway line on the other. You'd better have some bloody good sound insulation if nothing else). So actually reducing emissions is in some ways an inverse tax on the poor - because poor people inhale more of the shit anyway.
- mikeash 8y ago
  Allowing people to pollute is effectively a subsidy for them, paid for with a tax on everyone’s health. Wealthy people are more able to take advantage of this subsidy and more able to avoid some of the tax, so the old way is also a tax on the poor. Except instead of just taking their money, they’re being slowly killed.
grecy 8y ago
What car did you buy? I'm curious what car can do 1L per 30km!
- pedrocr 8y ago
  3.3L/100km doesn't seem that hard. I get 4.7 in a mid-size sedan so this is probably a small Volkswagen with a 3 cylinder engine.
  - grecy 8y ago
    The best I ever really hear about are ~4L/100km, from small VW sedans as you say. I'm curious what can get better!
    - pedrocr 8y ago
      It's probably one of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Lupo#Lupo_3L https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Lupo#Lupo_3L It also explains where the 94mpg number comes from.
pedrocr 8y ago
Not sure how you're doing the conversion but 3.3l/100km is only 71mpg according to Google. 94mpg would be 2.5l/100km or 1l per 40km.
- FartyMcFarter 8y ago
  US gallon vs Imperial gallon? It's a ~20% difference.
  - pedrocr 8y ago
    That would be 85mpg, not 94 from what I can see online
jeffwass 8y ago
Yeah, low-emissions diesel branding is a criminal oxymoron. It’s 100% the particulate and NoX emissions that are the major problems for those of us living in urban populations.
- wallace_f 8y ago
  This is one of the reasons why I was surprised Tesla revealed a semi before a city bus. Getting the air and noise pollution out of city centers alone is a big win. City busses also dont have as much energy-density issues (can swap busses or batteries) and regenerative braking would also be a big win, especially with the way bus drivers drive.
  - dotancohen 8y ago
    Semis outside the city avoid stop-and-go, which drastically affects mileage. City buses are almost strictly stop-and-go, if for nothing more than alighting of passengers.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Electric buses is a competitive business; semis less so, from what I can tell. Tesla probably has a better head start there.
Tade0 8y ago
If you're in europe(UK by chance?) then your car is built to a standard that allows 87.5% more NOx emissions, so in this regard you're polluting as much as a diesel burning over 5.6l/100km[0]. [0] Comparing to a car produced in 2006. This standard has been updated since.
thesimp 8y ago
And diesel cars like yours are THE reason why these type of legislation is being put into place. Your 2001 diesel is most likely a euro 3 emission type and that put on average 3x more NOx and 10x as much diesel particulate matter in the air per km driven than a 2010 euro 5 diesel (1). Of course you can do a calculation on how it is economically better to drive a car for a longer period of time compared to factories using resources to make new cars. But at this moment all the focus is to get NOx and particulate matter emissions down, preferably in cities. So noone, except you, cares about how fuel efficient your old car is because even the biggest modern Mercedes, BMW or Audi luxury barge is more environmentally friendly than yours. Buy any modern (less than 5 years old) normal everyday car and immediately you lower the amount the amount you pollute in your everyday driving. 1: http://ecoscore.be/nl/legislation/european http://ecoscore.be/nl/legislation/european
fyfy18 8y ago
Have you ever had the DPF replaced? On most diesels they get so clogged up after around 150,000km so that the engine can't work efficiently anymore (and it can actually break the engine if it gets clogged enough). You can pay to have it replaced (a few thousand Euro) or in a lot of countries it's quite popular to just remove the guts of it, so the there is no filter, meaning your polluting car pollutes even more. It's usually illegal, but as particulate emissions are not part of periodic inspection most European vehicles undergo, it's usually not found out. (They weren't required until Euro 5 came into affect, so maybe your car doesn't even have one.)
natch 8y ago
By thinking about the fuel efficiency of your diesel as somehow being relevant to the pollution zones shows you have made an error that is pretty commonplace. One shouldn’t confuse fuel efficiency with fewer emissions. Motorcycles for example are very fuel efficient for getting a person or two around without a lot of stuff as compared to a car, but they cause way more pollution per mile (which makes it even worse than measuring by per gallon, exactly because they are so fuel efficient, making it strikingly bad because to achieve worse emissions per mile, their emissions have to be truly extraordinarily bad). (Yes, other commenter who wants to retort that the type of motorcycle matters, it’s true that it does. This is a general point about internal combustion engines where some motorcycles are being used as an example.)
ip26 8y ago
Unfortunately optimizing combustion for fuel economy can increase emissions dramatically. Two primary examples- 1) efficiency rises with combustion temperature; however over a certain threshold temperature NOx starts to spontaneously form much more rapidly 2) efficiency rises with combustion pressure; however a high compression engine tends to have a combustion chamber shaped like a pancake instead of a sphere or cylinder, which tends to cause incomplete combustion raising particle emissions. Edit: I forgot another, a leaner mixture (more air less fuel) helps get the most complete combustion for maximum efficiency and low particulate, but the more air in the chamber, the more free oxygen and nitrogen there is to form more NOx Every engine strikes a balance between fuel economy, particulate, and NOx emissions. They are like the three corners of a project management triangle.

angarg12 8y ago

A while back I told my friends "in the next 5 years a major European city will ban non EV. And if it's a success, the flood gates will open and there will be no way back". I'm surprised (and pleased) that this initiative is being implemented in Spain, since the infrastructure for supporting EVs there is less developed than other places (say, Germany). I sincerely wish it turns out to be a success, which would quickly accelerate similar initiatives in other places.

pjmlp 8y ago
The car lobby is very strong here (Germany). And guess what, one of the punishments for them regarding diesel (selling cars at discount to affected consumers), turned out to become yet another profit, because in the end they just sell more cars anyway. Mercedes has ads across the country how they are just a nice company and want to help the planet by giving the opportunity to Euro 4/5 car owners to exchange their cars at affordable prices, while avoiding to mention why they are actually offering it.
- cmrdporcupine 8y ago
  It's a strange twist that the only country that punished VW/Audi group for dieselgate with sanctions that had any kind of teeth was the U.S. -- not exactly known for its environmentalist tendencies. There VW was forced to pay for a huge EV charging infrastructure in addition to the vehicle buyback. In Canada, the gov't did basically nothing and it was only a class action lawsuit that accomplished much, and the deal we got was far less than what they got in the U.S. Still, the money I got from dieselgate buyback paid for most of my Chevy Volt. So that's something.
  - thefounder 8y ago
    Well that may prove it was a political motivated punishment (for the US at least) not related to the environment damage. VW got fined in Europe (i.e few billions) as well but not as much as in the US.
    - 8y ago

esotericn 8y ago

Same thing in London. From April 2019, diesel cars older than ~2014 and petrol cars older than ~2005 will have to pay 12.50GBP a day to drive in the centre. A few years later, the zone will be expanded to cover an area with a radius of approximately 5-10 miles around the centre (so basically everywhere apart from far-flung suburbs). 12.50 a day is pretty much as good as a ban (for most it'd make driving into and out of London cost more than 5x more for example).

andrepd 8y ago
I don't like that very much. It's equivalent to saying "only the rich can drive in the city", another example of cities being turned into "playgrounds of the rich". Why should the gas-guzzling obnoxious Lamborghini get to drive and not my comparatively clean city car? Just say "vehicles with more emissions than x are banned" rather than pricing them out or even going by fabrication year.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- esotericn 8y ago
  I think you've missed something here - the emissions bands are based on, well, emissions. (I used years, but it's not model year, it's Euro emissions standards, which happen to track model year fairly closely (hence the ~)). A clean car will be allowed in free. A dirty car will have to pay. A new Lambo is Euro 6, just as a new city car would be. It's not about fuel efficiency but particulate emissions, i.e. stuff people breathe in that's bad for them. If it's the 'pay for it' aspect you're bothered about - eh. I like the idea that if I want, I can pay to drive in the city. Most of the time I won't, but if my Grandma comes to visit, we'll use my car.
  - andrepd 8y ago
    >the emissions bands are based on, well, emissions. (I used years, but it's not model year, it's Euro emissions standards, which happen to track model year fairly closely (hence the ~)) Ah, gotcha. I didn't realise that, thanks.

jesperlang 8y ago

bans some polluting vehicles: > The plan, known as Madrid Central, establishes a low-emissions zone that covers 472 hectares (1,166 acres). All petrol vehicles registered before 2000 and diesel ones registered before 2006 will be banned from the area, unless they are used by residents of the area or meet other exemptions. Nevertheless a good step!

Improvotter 8y ago

I wouldn't say Madrid is the first. I live in Ghent (Belgium) and only taxis and public transit are allowed in the city centre. In Antwerp only cars with low emissions are allowed in the city centre, or have to pay iirc. Ghent is awesome to live in thanks to this, everyone bikes everywhere when you live in Ghent regardless. There also are a ton of UberEATS, Deliveroo, Takeaway, and Bubblepost (post delivered by bike) in the city centre.

chrisseaton 8y ago
> I live in Ghent (Belgium) and only taxis and public transit are allowed in the city centre. How do they deliver stock to shops, collect waste, or do construction?
- tinco 8y ago
  Most Dutch cities have automatic gates, so that kind of traffic, we call it 'destination transport' for some reason, can use a remote control to open the gates and enter the city. For example police and ambulances can also enter the city. Of the moderate size cities I've recently been to only Amsterdam still allows regular traffic in its center, and I think that's because it has such a large center for a Dutch city. You can't really park at the edge and then walk in.
stabbles 8y ago
Another example is Groningen in The Netherlands where roughly 60% of the journeys within the city are by bike [1] and cars are banned from the city center. > In 1977, the traffic circulation plan was implemented over a single night. Hundreds of new signs were put up to create one-way streets or change their direction. Overnight, the centre of Groningen became impenetrable for cars. The next morning, hostesses greeted confused motorists with flowers and leaflets that explained the new situation. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jul/29/how-groningen-invented-a-cycling-template-for-cities-all-over-the-world https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jul/29/how-groningen...
- notimetorelax 8y ago

jacquesm 8y ago

Quite a few young people without a degree or other good secondary education that do not have a lot of money make their living as couriers. Because courier companies are in a powerful position compared to their couriers everybody is classed as 'independent contractor' and they are required to bring their own vehicle. They can't afford new ones so they end up buying older ones, and as couriers they drive a lot so they end up buying diesels, which, given the form factor of their cars (small delivery vans) is usually the only option. At their income level the only cars they can afford are the older diesels, which are now no longer legal to drive in the cities where they have their work. Effectively these rules put a whole slew of kids out of a job.

cagenut 8y ago
I can't stand this kind of inane climate science denialism every time there's one micro shred of progress. ALL diesel (and oil, and coal, and gas) has to be banned from EVERYWHERE within your and my lifetime. Quit lending your voice to reactionary concern trolling.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  It's just a fact, no need to get your panties in a twist and no need to make it seem like I deny climate change. I've seen a couple of kids in exactly that situation and this is what happened to them. Any kind of rule has unintended side effects, it does not hurt to point those out even when you are in support of the rule. Quit jumping to conclusions. FWIW I built a house that was off the grid powered by windmill and solar and experimented with building electric vehicles before Tesla came around because I believe that to be the future. To call me a climate change denier is hilarious.
- burlesona 8y ago
  The OP said this eliminates some jobs. I saw nothing about climate denial. Your post seems really over-reactive.
- mrlatinos 8y ago
  Are you replying to the same comment that I just read? He's just pointing out the potential economic impact of a hyper-targeted restriction. Seems to me like "any ban on diesel is good" is not a great approach to policy making, Mr. Gore.

rini17 8y ago

Soot from old diesel cars is undeniably a problem, but large part of particulate matter is from tyres, not from engines. It will be interesting to see if and how that's going to be resolved.

Tepix 8y ago
Half of it is from brakes. Electric cars mostly brake using the engines so they also improve this aspect.

donatj 8y ago

You want to know how you get populists uprisings? Regressive taxes that hurt the poor.

posixplz 8y ago
You want to know how we save the planet? Force people, including the working class, to stop relying on dirty fossil fuels. If there’s no forcing function, nothing will change.
- donatj 8y ago
  Believe it or not, people don’t respond well to force. Force only breeds contempt. It simply hurts your cause in the long run.
  - truculent 8y ago
    Tbf, I'm not sure we have a long run at this point
kace91 8y ago
The poor in European capitals don't go around in cars, they use public transportation. Unlike the US, moving around in a car is somewhat of an unneeded luxury, as the city is perfectly livable using subway and buses - and more recently, the myriad of bikes, electric scooters and the like that you can rent with apps and leave wherever.
truculent 8y ago
also: running out of food and habitable space on the planet

ransom1538 8y ago

Madrid is completely covered in the smell of diesel fuel. When I smell a diesel car drive by it reminds me of Madrid. It’s a great city but I can’t take the headaches and the smell. I am amazed people can live there.

alexandercrohde 8y ago

As far as I understand, it would be relatively feasible to engineer air-filters that filter out car-exhaust. I'm glad there's finally some pressure for this externality so that we begin taking the most basic steps to help the whole.

DoreenMichele 8y ago

Something I'm not seeing commentary on: the initiative is as much about public health as public transport. “Air quality has been breaching acceptable levels for 10 years and people in the city are being exposed to air that has clear effects on their health, especially those who are most vulnerable, such as children and older people,” said Inés Sabanés, councillor for the environment and mobility. “There’s research that shows clear links between pollution peaks and hospital admissions. It has a very clear effect on health – on the number of deaths and premature births.” A lot of poor people are poor precisely because they are in poor health. It tends to simultaneously run up bills and curtail earning capacity. A city full of healthy citizens is going to be more economically vibrant at all levels.

biztos 8y ago
I agree with your main point, but as regards "run[ning] up bills" doesn't Spain have a pretty effective, universal, single-payer healthcare system?
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  Yeah, I've heard that (kind of) objection before. It's nonsense. That's not the only way that sick people have additional bills. If you are healthy and living on a limited budget, you cook from scratch. If you are sick, you get take out or you eat a more expensive TV dinner that further hurts your health. If you are healthy, you shop the sales, you travel a little farther to the cheaper store, etc. If you are sick, you go to the closest store because it's the only one you have the energy to make it to. Etc. ad nauseum. Even without medical bills, sick people will spend more for convenience items just to get through the damn day. There are myriad ways in which it is vastly cheaper to simply be healthy.
  - kilburn 8y ago
    I'm not saying you are wrong, but the scale is very different from the stories you hear from the US. I'm a Spaniard, from a working class family. My grandma, uncle and father died from (different) cancers in the last 3 years, yet my family didn't go broke nor anything close to that. Money was simply not an issue: all medical expenses were paid for by the state, and all of them kept receiving their (state-funded) retirement pensions until they passed away. All the things you mentioned were cared for by my mother, myself and my siblings. Not having to care (extra) about money during such tough times is a blessing, and the reason I am more than happy to pay more taxes than citizens in other countries do. Of course the system can (and should) be improved, but the US state of affairs on everything health-related sounds just crazy to me. The only poor people in Spain who are poor because of health issues are the mentally ill (including life-destroying addictions). The remainder of poor people are poor mostly because they're lacking education / accessible jobs.