New London Low Emission Zone

[flecc]

As I see things, just because they are not the largest part of the problem doesn't seem to make them not a problem. I assume when you say they are not a problem, that includes the things like refrigeration units which often also run on diesel and produce their contributions?

Now you are really struggling, refrigeration plants!

Of course all i.c. vehicles are a problem, but that isn't what I'm posting about. I'm posting about the most effective solution, and that is emphatically dealing with the vast number of cars, compared to the relatively very small number of large trucks.

To once again repeat, the serious pollution hotspots affecting people the most are in cities where the great majority of the people and their cars live. Conversely the great majority of the distribution truck mileage is far outside of the cities and towns where their polution is dispersed and naturally cleansed.

It's clear you are desperately struggling to put all the blame on trucks and avoid any action against cars. It won't work, the authorities aren't daft and will continue to act where it's not only most effective but also easiest to achieve.

Just consider how difficult it is to deal with truck pollution and the tiny gains when you do since there's so few trucks comparatively and so little of their pollution is in urban areas.

Then consider how easy it is to deal with car pollution due to the variety of solutions. First solution which is happening now is getting back to petrol engines, diesel sales now slumped. Then there's hybrids reducing consumption. Then there's PHEVs which for many people are enabling them to do most of their trips, which are short, on electric drive only. Then there's fully electric cars with sales constantly increasing as they've become more capable. Then there's the city car share schemes, we have some in London. Then there's public transport, which in London has been growing continuously for the decade or so, the bus fleet doubled, a tram system installed and expanding and a new Crossrail underground railway.
.

 

[oyster]

It's clear you are desperately struggling to put all the blame on trucks and avoid any action against cars.

I am not desperate. Whether to put the blame on trucks or to avoid action against cars.

It just seems obvious to address all polluting vehicles.

The refrigeration unit issue is significant.

AIR POLLUTION AND RED DIESEL

• Session: 2016-17
• Date tabled: 15.03.2017
• Primary sponsor: Mulholland, Greg
• Sponsors:
  • Meale, Alan
  • Salmond, Alex
  • MacNeil, Angus
  • Gray, Neil

That this House welcomes the Chancellor of the Exchequer's review of red diesel usage announced in the Spring Budget 2017 statement; expresses concern at the amount of air pollution caused by diesel-powered transport refrigeration units; notes that those units can emit up to six times as much nitrogen oxide and almost 30 times as much particulate matter as a Euro 6 truck engine; further notes that those units are often run on red diesel, which is subsidised by HM Treasury; believes that subsidising red diesel inhibits the Government's plans to support the development and take-up of cleaner technologies; notes that if the UK's 84,000 transport refrigeration units became zero emission it would equate to taking 4 million Euro 6 diesel cars off the UK's roads; and therefore urges the Government to act and end red diesel subsidies for transport refrigeration units.

 

[flecc]

notes that if the UK's 84,000 transport refrigeration units became zero emission it would equate to taking 4 million Euro 6 diesel cars off the UK's roads; and therefore urges the Government to act and end red diesel subsidies for transport refrigeration units.

Of course one should tackle all sources of pollution and I've never posted otherwise. All I'm stressing is that the great majority of the road vehicle pollution that's causing the real problem comes from the huge number of cars and that, as I've shown, they are the easiest to deal with to get results. That's why I cannot understand why you continue to argue what isn't under discussion.

Your example amuses, ending red diesel subsidies for truck refrigeration units isn't going to them them switched off due to their essential nature. It's largely tokenism since they cannot become zero emission to get that diesel cars equivalent stated, and the diesel cars are coming off the road anyway with sales already collapsing.
.

 

[Zlatan]

Of course one should tackle all sources of pollution and I've never posted otherwise. All I'm stressing is that the great majority of the road vehicle pollution that's causing the real problem comes from the huge number of cars and that, as I've shown, they are the easiest to deal with to get results. That's why I cannot understand why you continue to argue what isn't under discussion.

Your example amuses, ending red diesel subsidies for truck refrigeration units isn't going to them them switched off due to their essential nature. It's largely tokenism since they cannot become zero emission to get that diesel cars equivalent stated, and the diesel cars are coming off the road anyway with sales already collapsing.
.

That's assuming other options are not available for refrigeration units which if subsidy was removed would provide incentive to do so. It is quite ridiculous that a wagon on road has to meet Euro 6 but it's cooler unit could be 40 yr old technology spewing out more toxins than the wagon itself.
Oysters post proves it is not an insignificant problem. Cooler units could easily be powered by LPG obviously there are alternatives.
I, ve said it before but whilst ever we view pollution as a local issue we will never really improve air quality. Any policies must be nationwide. Improving air quality in London at cost of poorer elsewhere is actually ridiculous.Unless you live in London of course.
It does not make any sense whatsoever for a polluting vehicle to be banned from London only to roll up in Birmingham.
It's rather like sending your dog onto a neighbour's garden to do its business.

 

[flecc]

That's assuming other options are not available for refrigeration units which if subsidy was removed would provide incentive to do so. It is quite ridiculous that a wagon on road has to meet Euro 6 but it's cooler unit could be 40 yr old technology spewing out more toxins than the wagon itself.
Oysters post proves it is not an insignificant problem. Cooler units could easily be powered by LPG obviously there are alternatives.
I, ve said it before but whilst ever we view pollution as a local issue we will never really improve air quality. Any policies must be nationwide. Improving air quality in London at cost of poorer elsewhere is actually ridiculous.Unless you live in London of course.
It does not make any sense whatsoever for a polluting vehicle to be banned from London only to roll up in Birmingham.
It's rather like sending your dog onto a neighbour's garden to do its business.

This isn't the issue under discussion. I've simply contended that the easiest way to deal with the polution problem everywhere it is a problem, not just London, is to deal with the huge number of cars (over 25 million) rather than concentrate on the under 300 thousand trucks over 7.5 tonnes.

That's not just because of the huge numbers difference. It's because most trunking mileage is away from urban areas where the pollution problem is. It's because the cars are in the urban areas where 86% of our population live with them and where the pollution problem is. It's because there are far more solutions to car pollution than truck pollution.

I've explained all of these in detail, but Oyster still repeatedly points to the relatively minor trucks pollution problem while not addressing the cars issue. As I've said, by all means deal with trucks as well, but recognise that they cannot even begin to solve the problem. Cars can, and much more easily.
.

 

[anotherkiwi]

We have a new method: farmers are blocking access to refineries. No diesel at the pump, no pollution! Simples!

 

[ianboydsnr]

This isn't the issue under discussion. I've simply contended that the easiest way to deal with the polution problem everywhere it is a problem, not just London, is to deal with the huge number of cars (over 25 million) rather than concentrate on the under 300 thousand trucks over 7.5 tonnes.

That's not just because of the huge numbers difference. It's because most trunking mileage is away from urban areas where the pollution problem is. It's because the cars are in the urban areas where 86% of our population live with them and where the pollution problem is. It's because there are far more solutions to car pollution than truck pollution.

I've explained all of these in detail, but Oyster still repeatedly points to the relatively minor trucks pollution problem while not addressing the cars issue. As I've said, by all means deal with trucks as well, but recognise that they cannot even begin to solve the problem. Cars can, and much more easily.
.

The problem with vehicles is that half of the crap they emit is emitted whatever is used to propel them, rubber from the tyres, dust from the brake pads, then add in the natural stuff that floats around, depending on which way the wind blows, sand from the Sahara, pollution from factories, pollution from fires, the air in cities is never going to be as clean as it is out in the sticks, even if only electric cars are allowed, reduced yes, but don’t for one Minuit think that it will mean lovely clean air, or that the limits won’t be breached.

 

[oyster]

The problem with vehicles is that half of the crap they emit is emitted whatever is used to propel them, rubber from the tyres, dust from the brake pads, then add in the natural stuff that floats around, depending on which way the wind blows, sand from the Sahara, pollution from factories, pollution from fires, the air in cities is never going to be as clean as it is out in the sticks, even if only electric cars are allowed, reduced yes, but don’t for one Minuit think that it will mean lovely clean air, or that the limits won’t be breached.

Given that many current generation (ha!) electric vehicles are heavy and quite a few have impressive acceleration, we might see tyre and brake pad pollution increase.

Mind, don't get the impression that air in the country is always so wonderfully clean! The dust and fine chaff thrown up by harvesting is phenomenal.

 

[ianboydsnr]

Given that many current generation (ha!) electric vehicles are heavy and quite a few have impressive acceleration, we might see tyre and brake pad pollution increase.

Mind, don't get the impression that air in the country is always so wonderfully clean! The dust and fine chaff thrown up by harvesting is phenomenal.

The point I am making is that pollution levels in cities isn’t going past the set limits every day, or every week, but traffic levels are pretty constant, so the variable is something else, sure they can do something about the low hanging fruit, but once picked, then most pollution is unfixable, the air nowerdays in city’s must be much cleaner than it once was, there is no longer the smog outs of the 60’s due to the amount of coal burning, or huge swathes of the midlands covered in black dust from industry, hence called the Black Country, the air quality in London has to be much better than those past days.

 

[Zlatan]

This isn't the issue under discussion. I've simply contended that the easiest way to deal with the polution problem everywhere it is a problem, not just London, is to deal with the huge number of cars (over 25 million) rather than concentrate on the under 300 thousand trucks over 7.5 tonnes.

That's not just because of the huge numbers difference. It's because most trunking mileage is away from urban areas where the pollution problem is. It's because the cars are in the urban areas where 86% of our population live with them and where the pollution problem is. It's because there are far more solutions to car pollution than truck pollution.

I've explained all of these in detail, but Oyster still repeatedly points to the relatively minor trucks pollution problem while not addressing the cars issue. As I've said, by all means deal with trucks as well, but recognise that they cannot even begin to solve the problem. Cars can, and much more easily.
.

It's my no means minor flecc. Also targeting the car as the culprit in inner cities is not exactly fair. Cars are being put to a use within them they were not quite designed to perform, that is crawling through traffic at average speeds little above walking pace. The system is also to blame. Discounting trucks, refrigeration units etc etc is missing big picture.
We should be passing laws to clean up the entire country's air, including London. Could those same penalties be introduced in Leeds, Sheffield etc etc. I doubt it. It would simply compound those cities economic problems. London can introduce these things only because it's wealthy. It's another example of north, south divide and one of not in our back yard.
Pushing dirty cars to other parts of the country is not the answer, highly unfair and divisive.

 

[flecc]

the air quality in London has to be much better than those past days.

It's in confined pockets that the severe pollution problems exist, often made worse by large and tall buildings creating canyons like the Euston Road and Oxford Street. They are the hotspots I've been posting about and which can't be cured by dealing with trucks. Cars, taxis, vans and buses are the big contributors to the problem, and cars and taxis the easiest to deal with to get a very big improvement. That's already happening of course.
.

 

[flecc]

It's my no means minor flecc. Also targeting the car as the culprit in inner cities is not exactly fair. Cars are being put to a use within them they were not quite designed to perform, that is crawling through traffic at average speeds little above walking pace. The system is also to blame. Discounting trucks, refrigeration units etc etc is missing big picture.
We should be passing laws to clean up the entire country's air, including London. Could those same penalties be introduced in Leeds, Sheffield etc etc. I doubt it. It would simply compound those cities economic problems. London can introduce these things only because it's wealthy. It's another example of north, south divide and one of not in our back yard.
Pushing dirty cars to other parts of the country is not the answer, highly unfair and divisive.

Fortunately the government isn't listening to you, instead taking sensible actions, albeit not enough of them.
.

 

[Zlatan]

Fortunately the government isn't listening to you, instead taking sensible actions, albeit not enough of them.
.

If you call pushing dirty cars to other cities sensible I suppose so.

 

[flecc]

If you call pushing dirty cars to other cities sensible I suppose so.

That isn't the problem you imagine it to be, it's scarcely contributing to it. Also it's up to those other cities to introduce controls, instead of being like Manchester, moaning like hell about their traffic problem but refusing to introduce a congestion charge when they had the chance. They are volunteering to be victims.
.

 

[Zlatan]

That isn't the problem you imagine it to be, it's scarcely contributing to it. Also it's up to those other cities to introduce controls, instead of being like Manchester, moaning like hell about their traffic problem but refusing to introduce a congestion charge when they had the chance. They are volunteering to be victims.
.

So what happens to the cars that are sold as a result of incurring charges?
The whole point is to reduce pollution not move it elsewhere. If everybody simply pays then air quality will stay same. The only possible improvement simply means the opposite elsewhere. If it's an insignificant problem it's because the strategy is raising money and not "moving" pollution.

 

[flecc]

So what happens to the cars that are sold as a result of incurring charges?
The whole point is to reduce pollution not move it elsewhere. If everybody simply pays then air quality will stay same. The only possible improvement simply means the opposite elsewhere. If it's an insignificant problem it's because the strategy is raising money and not "moving" pollution.

You seem obsessed with this non-problem, ignoring what is being done that is already reducing the problem. And once again a reminder, the subject in my thread is London Air Pollution and its pollution hotspots. It would help if you confined to that and not introduce your own pet subjects which I'm not posting about.

If you want to discuss those, why not start your own thread?
.

 

[Zlatan]

You seem obsessed with this non-problem, ignoring what is being done that is already reducing the problem. And once again a reminder, the subject in my thread is London Air Pollution and its pollution hotspots. It would help if you confined to that and not introduce your own pet subjects which I'm not posting about.

If you want to discuss those, why not start your own thread?
.

Because it's relevant to yours.

 

[Wicky]

Whoever sets transport policy and whatever actions are taken against car owners have to tread carefully if they want to be (re)elected as many car drivers have grown up with the attitude that it is their right rather than a privilege to drive and park where they like - so low hanging targets nibble away at the pollution / vehicle density problem unlike places like China's system which can came up with longer term radical plans, like how they implemented 1 child policy to deal with population control.

Last week on Thursday I chose to travel into London city (South Bank National Theatre) by m/c from Colchester at 11am and it took 1.5 hours - Leaving the city at 5pm it took 1½ hours to travel the first 20 miles (even with despatch rider mode in effect through mainly car & van gridlock!) and 3/4 hours for last 40 miles. Horrible dirty experience I won't repeat in a hurry as the other alternative was getting the train and getting jammed in overcrowded commuter cattle train.

 

[flecc]

Whoever sets transport policy and whatever actions are taken against car owners have to tread carefully if they want to be (re)elected as many car drivers have grown up with the attitude that it is their right rather than a privilege to drive and park where they like

Not really as politically difficult as it might seem, since all three main parties and the Greens share a common policy.

The London Congestion Charge was introduced by Labour, the pollution zone charges by Tories and their London public transport policies have largely merged over time. And the policies are working far better than many might appreciate.

London car ownership is falling continuously and is by far the lowest in the country. Over 70% of households now don't have any car and car share schemes have been growing. I've seen this at first hand since at one time all my London friends owned a car but now only two do, and one of those on the fringe.

They've found they just don't need them any more with public transport expansion. Our bus fleet has now doubled (9000) from its low point (4500), we have an expanding southern tram system and the Docklands Light Railway. The tube has been extended in recent decades and now Crossrail is opening.

And our cycling has trebled due to the right policies, with some 600,000 daily commuting trips. On many commuting routes bicycles are over a third of the vehicles and TfL reckon at the present rate of growth bikes will equal cars in about three years.

And all this without the latest measures, such as the full effect of the pollution zone high charges that are about to start and only taxis running on electric allowed in the most polluted areas soon.

You found your trip bad as I'd expect for someone from Wales, but imagine how much worse it would have been if none of these measures had ever been taken.
.

 

[anotherkiwi]

Meanwhile in the EU: The Netherlands to invest a further 100 million € in cycling infrastructure to get another 200 k people out of cars for their commute.