11 ms·

Madrid set to become first European city to scrap low-emissions zone

70 points by lentil_soup 7y ago

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
This article is setting off red flags for me. The whole conflating traffic, traffic jams and pollution seems slimy and the really short quote excerpts seem to indicate the author is trying to take the politician's statements out of context. Urban pollution has several facets (heavy trucks vs cars, particulate vs Nox, local climate, etc, etc,) and none of them are mentioned. Conflating residents in the affected zone voting for "the other guy" with specifically supporting the existing policy is seems dishonest. Is there someone who actually knows this issue and can tell me what the article is omitting? I don't know what I don't know but the way this article is written makes me think there's a lot of nuance being glossed over.
- pjc50 7y ago
  It links to the El Pais article (English): https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/05/28/inenglish/1559039652_586222.html https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/05/28/inenglish/1559039652_58... It does explicitly quote NO2 statistics?
- gerardvivancos 7y ago
  I think my non-native English prevents me from fully understanding your question, but I'd say in general terms what is described in the article is what happened: - Party A takes the council 4 years ago - Party A implements the low emissions zone - Party B goes into elections campaign championing a reverse of the LEZ. The quote about they saying pollution and jams are part of the city's identity is true. - Party B does not win the election but, because of how the system works, they could take the council by joining forces with other parties (who were also against the LEZ) - If last point indeed happens, then they will revert the LZE Actually, it is very possible that the LZE cannot be reverted because of EU's restrictions and fines for pollution quotas. Some media that are sided to Party B and were very critical of Party A and the LZE are now changing headlines to blame EU for the LZE, in what looks like a damage control operation now that they realise the possibility of their promise being not able to be fulfilled. Source: I live somewhere some consider is Spain and some not.
  - lentil_soup 7y ago
    and do you know WHY they want to reverse the LEZ? are there any real reasons further than the opposing party implemented it so I must be against it?
    - mezod 7y ago
      for the same reason Trump doesn't believe in climate change, because they are douches who only think of the $ in their pockets
    - ihaveajob 7y ago
      Car-centric mindset. Some people it's their birthright to drive anywhere and park their cars for free in front of the place.
  - gman83 7y ago
    Source: I live somewhere some consider is Spain and some not. Gibraltar?
    - g_sch 7y ago
      In Spain, there are multiple things GP could be referring to. Many people in Catalonia consider themselves to not be part of Spain. This could also apply to País Vasco, a.k.a. Basque Country.
      - cernunos 7y ago
        About Basque Country: - New Poll shows rising number of Basque Country residents want to remain in Spain [1] - Only 26.9% of Basques want independence from Spain (2017) [2] - 23% of Basques want independence (2019) [3] [1] https://www.euroweeklynews.com/2018/12/07/new-poll-shows-rising-number-of-basque-country-residents-want-to-remain-in-spain https://www.euroweeklynews.com/2018/12/07/new-poll-shows-ris... [2] https://elpais.com/politica/2017/06/23/actualidad/1498213521_535228.html https://elpais.com/politica/2017/06/23/actualidad/1498213521... [3] https://www.lavanguardia.com/local/paisvasco/20190412/461599804919/sociometro-vascos-independencia-euskadi-encuesta.html https://www.lavanguardia.com/local/paisvasco/20190412/461599...
- plafl 7y ago
  You read flags are working OK, I found the article dishonest. I live in Madrid (suburban town to the north of the city) and I think the El Pais article mentioned in another response to your comment is much better, I read it several days ago in the spanish version. I actually think the no traffic area might be a good idea.
- spoovy 7y ago
  Articles in the Guardian aren't designed to inform, they're just there to inflate it's readership's self-righteous indignation about "rightwing politicians" winning votes (how very dare they).
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  Cars are no better than trucks in a locale that penalizes gasoline as fuel. The reason why American cities have cleaned up significantly over the last 40 years is that gasoline emissions controls are far more comprehensive than those for diesel.
- ptero 7y ago
  I had a similar feeling when reading it. I know little about the details of the underlying issue, but the article makes it sound like the politician in question is advocating for pollution and traffic jams. I guess anything is possible, but I suspect liberal out of context quoting. For example, "previous setup was better (because A, B, C). Yes, we also had 3AM traffic jams, but we lived with it, it was not the end of the world" could get tranlated into "3AM traffic jams are good". My 2c.
  - gerardvivancos 7y ago
    Not a counter argument but just bringing the facts. There's an article[1] containing a video with the actual words from her (in Spanish of course). "I don't like traffic jams. Nobody does. Maybe I'm weird but I don't like traffic jams. I don't like a jammed world. But there's something that Madrid has and that few cities in the world have, which is nightlife. I've never met a city like Madrid where you can go out at 3AM and see that much life on the streets. And that life comes with traffic jams. And that's not the kind of jam that depletes your energy as opposed to the one you find yourself in when going to work and you're late to a meeting or your child is going to miss their first school hour. The one that you find yourself in when going out to dinner on weekends is not the one you hate the most. Do I like jams? Obviously not, but they're part of Madrid's life. They were part of Madrid's life. If Podemos [the ones who implemented the LEZ] keeps Madrid's council, there won't be jams at night but at day there will everywhere. They're not a matter of enjoyment, but they're an identity sign of our city. They mean that the streets are alive, always. Moreover, for women, at least for me, that I've gone out and enjoyed my city with passion, going out to have dinner and a drink and see that amount of life makes me very proud of my city. And I believe jams are to be eradicated, of course, but that is not done by preventing neighbours' and commerces' mobility. Moreover this is being managed very sloppily." My opinion starts here, and it is that she's mixing a lot of stuff (nightlife with shops that open only in the morning and afternoon, jams not happening inside the LEZ with ones happening outside of it, or implying that without nightly jams there's no people going out) in order to criticise the implementation of the LEZ because they defend freedom of using your car as you wish. And that brings her to having to criticise even the good aspects of it (no jams in the LEZ) with an appeal to emotions, which ends up in having to say she misses traffic jams. Actually, she never says that previous setup was better because of anything outside that she felt the city was more crowded at night. [1]: https://www.elconfidencial.com/espana/madrid/2019-04-24/isabel-diaz-ayuso-partido-popular-atascos-sena-identidad-madrid-central_1960386/ https://www.elconfidencial.com/espana/madrid/2019-04-24/isab...
- narag 7y ago
  Is there someone who actually knows this issue and can tell me what the article is omitting A few things: - The zone was set with a few months notice, creating a huge problem for many that have been quickly dismissed. Usability of prohibition is terrible. I've heard there are loopholes like a dozen persons renting a single flat and selling their permits to rich people. - The zone includes a variety on neighborhoods, from far-left still not gentrified ones, to offices mostly, main street and luxury homes. - There's a lot of people living outside and working inside. Most use public transportation, but not everybody can do that: salesmen, suppliers... and there are a lot of private complementary schools (things like music schools) that are going bankrupt because parents can't get their children in or out. - Some measurements indicate that pollution has in fact raised. There were no measures to replace the forbidden traffic. - Reverting it is dead simple. Saying otherwise is plainly dishonest, but I'm reading it a lot. I actually believe that a measure like that is necessary sooner or later, but it needs to be done right: transport alternatives, long enough notice, well chosen exceptions and specially doing the data based homework. As it is, it's propaganda.
pdimitar 7y ago
Tourism money > ecological concerns? Unless the article is deliberately manipulated to send the wrong message, my above is how I'd summarise it.
- magduf 7y ago
  I don't know about other tourists, but as a tourist myself, I like to visit cities that are clean and where I can easily get around using public transit. If I have to drive everywhere and there's lots of pollution, I pick someplace better to spend my time and money. In fact, the last thing I want to do in a foreign country is deal with driving a car: the traffic rules are all different (esp. in LHD countries), the customs different, and there's the question of liability. I don't even like touring American cities because of this (combined with the public transit being so awful), even though I live in this country; I'd rather go to Asia or western Europe where the public transit is excellent.
vemv 7y ago
'Fortunately' the only reason that lead to this change was that it was a rival political party who created the zone in the first place. Similarly to how Trump would intend to demolish Obamacare. So there are no big lessons for the rest of the world to learn.
petecox 7y ago
Article from last November with a map of the affected area (in Spanish). The areas in yellow were already covered by vehicle restrictions. https://elpais.com/ccaa/2018/11/26/madrid/1543235492_515611.html https://elpais.com/ccaa/2018/11/26/madrid/1543235492_515611.... The plan was to create a 4kmˆ2 ring bordering the important landmarks of the royal palace, museo del prado, buen retiro, Atocha station etc. The interior has quite a number of Metro stations and is thus quite navigable by foot. Car-driving populism to revert a policy barely 6 months old seems to have prevailed. As can be seen from the guardian article's photo, Gran Via is a pretty major thoroughfare leading to the heart of the city, Puerta del Sol.
ojosilva 7y ago
Just as a side note to the article, the Madrid city and state government are going through heavy negotiations right now, along the Barcelona city and Spanish government coalitions, so it's too early to say the LEZ "is set" to be wiped out.
cernunos 7y ago
That kind of prohibition is nice if: - You are rich and can buy a new electric/hybrid car. - You live in the center of Madrid and are allowed to use your car. However, if you are "poor" and work in the center of the city: - If your car is not a low-emission vehicle, you are limited to go to work (only can by public transport). - If you are a deliverer of packages, you'd have to buy a new car that fulfill the emission restrictions without any kind of tax-exemption from the government. This low-emissions zone creation has been a show without any kind of planning and without consulting the citizens. i.e. there has not been any type of car renovation plan or tax exemptions that could have helped citizens with this restriction. I understand the ecology and health-care point of view, but tell that to somebody whose work depends on reaching to the center of the city to deliver some packages (for example).

70 points by lentil_soup 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

This article is setting off red flags for me. The whole conflating traffic, traffic jams and pollution seems slimy and the really short quote excerpts seem to indicate the author is trying to take the politician's statements out of context. Urban pollution has several facets (heavy trucks vs cars, particulate vs Nox, local climate, etc, etc,) and none of them are mentioned. Conflating residents in the affected zone voting for "the other guy" with specifically supporting the existing policy is seems dishonest. Is there someone who actually knows this issue and can tell me what the article is omitting? I don't know what I don't know but the way this article is written makes me think there's a lot of nuance being glossed over.

pjc50 7y ago
It links to the El Pais article (English): https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/05/28/inenglish/1559039652_586222.html https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/05/28/inenglish/1559039652_58... It does explicitly quote NO2 statistics?
gerardvivancos 7y ago
I think my non-native English prevents me from fully understanding your question, but I'd say in general terms what is described in the article is what happened: - Party A takes the council 4 years ago - Party A implements the low emissions zone - Party B goes into elections campaign championing a reverse of the LEZ. The quote about they saying pollution and jams are part of the city's identity is true. - Party B does not win the election but, because of how the system works, they could take the council by joining forces with other parties (who were also against the LEZ) - If last point indeed happens, then they will revert the LZE Actually, it is very possible that the LZE cannot be reverted because of EU's restrictions and fines for pollution quotas. Some media that are sided to Party B and were very critical of Party A and the LZE are now changing headlines to blame EU for the LZE, in what looks like a damage control operation now that they realise the possibility of their promise being not able to be fulfilled. Source: I live somewhere some consider is Spain and some not.
- lentil_soup 7y ago
  and do you know WHY they want to reverse the LEZ? are there any real reasons further than the opposing party implemented it so I must be against it?
  - mezod 7y ago
    for the same reason Trump doesn't believe in climate change, because they are douches who only think of the $ in their pockets
  - ihaveajob 7y ago
    Car-centric mindset. Some people it's their birthright to drive anywhere and park their cars for free in front of the place.
- gman83 7y ago
  Source: I live somewhere some consider is Spain and some not. Gibraltar?
  - g_sch 7y ago
    In Spain, there are multiple things GP could be referring to. Many people in Catalonia consider themselves to not be part of Spain. This could also apply to País Vasco, a.k.a. Basque Country.
    - cernunos 7y ago
      About Basque Country: - New Poll shows rising number of Basque Country residents want to remain in Spain [1] - Only 26.9% of Basques want independence from Spain (2017) [2] - 23% of Basques want independence (2019) [3] [1] https://www.euroweeklynews.com/2018/12/07/new-poll-shows-rising-number-of-basque-country-residents-want-to-remain-in-spain https://www.euroweeklynews.com/2018/12/07/new-poll-shows-ris... [2] https://elpais.com/politica/2017/06/23/actualidad/1498213521_535228.html https://elpais.com/politica/2017/06/23/actualidad/1498213521... [3] https://www.lavanguardia.com/local/paisvasco/20190412/461599804919/sociometro-vascos-independencia-euskadi-encuesta.html https://www.lavanguardia.com/local/paisvasco/20190412/461599...
plafl 7y ago
You read flags are working OK, I found the article dishonest. I live in Madrid (suburban town to the north of the city) and I think the El Pais article mentioned in another response to your comment is much better, I read it several days ago in the spanish version. I actually think the no traffic area might be a good idea.
spoovy 7y ago
Articles in the Guardian aren't designed to inform, they're just there to inflate it's readership's self-righteous indignation about "rightwing politicians" winning votes (how very dare they).
kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
Cars are no better than trucks in a locale that penalizes gasoline as fuel. The reason why American cities have cleaned up significantly over the last 40 years is that gasoline emissions controls are far more comprehensive than those for diesel.
ptero 7y ago
I had a similar feeling when reading it. I know little about the details of the underlying issue, but the article makes it sound like the politician in question is advocating for pollution and traffic jams. I guess anything is possible, but I suspect liberal out of context quoting. For example, "previous setup was better (because A, B, C). Yes, we also had 3AM traffic jams, but we lived with it, it was not the end of the world" could get tranlated into "3AM traffic jams are good". My 2c.
- gerardvivancos 7y ago
  Not a counter argument but just bringing the facts. There's an article[1] containing a video with the actual words from her (in Spanish of course). "I don't like traffic jams. Nobody does. Maybe I'm weird but I don't like traffic jams. I don't like a jammed world. But there's something that Madrid has and that few cities in the world have, which is nightlife. I've never met a city like Madrid where you can go out at 3AM and see that much life on the streets. And that life comes with traffic jams. And that's not the kind of jam that depletes your energy as opposed to the one you find yourself in when going to work and you're late to a meeting or your child is going to miss their first school hour. The one that you find yourself in when going out to dinner on weekends is not the one you hate the most. Do I like jams? Obviously not, but they're part of Madrid's life. They were part of Madrid's life. If Podemos [the ones who implemented the LEZ] keeps Madrid's council, there won't be jams at night but at day there will everywhere. They're not a matter of enjoyment, but they're an identity sign of our city. They mean that the streets are alive, always. Moreover, for women, at least for me, that I've gone out and enjoyed my city with passion, going out to have dinner and a drink and see that amount of life makes me very proud of my city. And I believe jams are to be eradicated, of course, but that is not done by preventing neighbours' and commerces' mobility. Moreover this is being managed very sloppily." My opinion starts here, and it is that she's mixing a lot of stuff (nightlife with shops that open only in the morning and afternoon, jams not happening inside the LEZ with ones happening outside of it, or implying that without nightly jams there's no people going out) in order to criticise the implementation of the LEZ because they defend freedom of using your car as you wish. And that brings her to having to criticise even the good aspects of it (no jams in the LEZ) with an appeal to emotions, which ends up in having to say she misses traffic jams. Actually, she never says that previous setup was better because of anything outside that she felt the city was more crowded at night. [1]: https://www.elconfidencial.com/espana/madrid/2019-04-24/isabel-diaz-ayuso-partido-popular-atascos-sena-identidad-madrid-central_1960386/ https://www.elconfidencial.com/espana/madrid/2019-04-24/isab...
narag 7y ago
Is there someone who actually knows this issue and can tell me what the article is omitting A few things: - The zone was set with a few months notice, creating a huge problem for many that have been quickly dismissed. Usability of prohibition is terrible. I've heard there are loopholes like a dozen persons renting a single flat and selling their permits to rich people. - The zone includes a variety on neighborhoods, from far-left still not gentrified ones, to offices mostly, main street and luxury homes. - There's a lot of people living outside and working inside. Most use public transportation, but not everybody can do that: salesmen, suppliers... and there are a lot of private complementary schools (things like music schools) that are going bankrupt because parents can't get their children in or out. - Some measurements indicate that pollution has in fact raised. There were no measures to replace the forbidden traffic. - Reverting it is dead simple. Saying otherwise is plainly dishonest, but I'm reading it a lot. I actually believe that a measure like that is necessary sooner or later, but it needs to be done right: transport alternatives, long enough notice, well chosen exceptions and specially doing the data based homework. As it is, it's propaganda.

pdimitar 7y ago

Tourism money > ecological concerns? Unless the article is deliberately manipulated to send the wrong message, my above is how I'd summarise it.

magduf 7y ago
I don't know about other tourists, but as a tourist myself, I like to visit cities that are clean and where I can easily get around using public transit. If I have to drive everywhere and there's lots of pollution, I pick someplace better to spend my time and money. In fact, the last thing I want to do in a foreign country is deal with driving a car: the traffic rules are all different (esp. in LHD countries), the customs different, and there's the question of liability. I don't even like touring American cities because of this (combined with the public transit being so awful), even though I live in this country; I'd rather go to Asia or western Europe where the public transit is excellent.

vemv 7y ago

'Fortunately' the only reason that lead to this change was that it was a rival political party who created the zone in the first place. Similarly to how Trump would intend to demolish Obamacare. So there are no big lessons for the rest of the world to learn.

petecox 7y ago

Article from last November with a map of the affected area (in Spanish). The areas in yellow were already covered by vehicle restrictions. https://elpais.com/ccaa/2018/11/26/madrid/1543235492_515611.html https://elpais.com/ccaa/2018/11/26/madrid/1543235492_515611.... The plan was to create a 4kmˆ2 ring bordering the important landmarks of the royal palace, museo del prado, buen retiro, Atocha station etc. The interior has quite a number of Metro stations and is thus quite navigable by foot. Car-driving populism to revert a policy barely 6 months old seems to have prevailed. As can be seen from the guardian article's photo, Gran Via is a pretty major thoroughfare leading to the heart of the city, Puerta del Sol.

ojosilva 7y ago

Just as a side note to the article, the Madrid city and state government are going through heavy negotiations right now, along the Barcelona city and Spanish government coalitions, so it's too early to say the LEZ "is set" to be wiped out.

cernunos 7y ago

That kind of prohibition is nice if: - You are rich and can buy a new electric/hybrid car. - You live in the center of Madrid and are allowed to use your car. However, if you are "poor" and work in the center of the city: - If your car is not a low-emission vehicle, you are limited to go to work (only can by public transport). - If you are a deliverer of packages, you'd have to buy a new car that fulfill the emission restrictions without any kind of tax-exemption from the government. This low-emissions zone creation has been a show without any kind of planning and without consulting the citizens. i.e. there has not been any type of car renovation plan or tax exemptions that could have helped citizens with this restriction. I understand the ecology and health-care point of view, but tell that to somebody whose work depends on reaching to the center of the city to deliver some packages (for example).