2y ago

London’s latest effort to clear bad air is contested but necessary: The scheme obliges drivers of the most polluting vehicles inside the ultra-low emission zones to pay £12.50 ($16) a day.

www.economist.com

London’s latest effort to clear bad air is contested but necessary

41 comments

That must be good for the quality of air, no?
Despite the backlash, expect other cities to copy that.
- Some might, some won't. It'd be stupid in Berlin because of the Bezirken (which have people of all incomes), but in Amsterdam (where only rich people live in the centre) it'd be fine.
So, those $16 surely go to offsetting CO2 emissions of that car?
- Maybe. But the fee mostly reduces the amount of trips done by car in the first place, causing less CO2 to be emitted in the first place, whoch is even better.
  
  I really hope that less emitted CO2 in that ultra-low zone saves the world! 🤞
- I would guess that this deals with NO2 or particulate matter, not carbon dioxide. The first two have local effects.
- Like Subsidiarizes the local transport network yes
Laws against the poor...
- For context, virtually all petrol cars built after 2006 comply with the new rules. There was a scrappage scheme that paid you to get rid of your polluting vehicle.
  In Haringey- one of the outer London boroughs affected by the ULEZ expansion 60% of families don’t have cars.
  It’s not the poor who are driving around the borough
- Make it "x" percent of your income then, so rich people have to pay an amount that hurts them and poor people have to pay an amount that hurts them, so everyone is hurt and thinks about using public transport and then make public transport on top cheaper for the poor.
  
  Problem is, poor people already don't live in the city and need cars because they come from outside the city where public transport is a joke, but in theory yours is a lot better.
- Poor people can afford $40000 vehicles, but they can’t afford a $1500 e bike?
  
  Can a E-Bike carry your three children to school? Your groceries for 5 people? Does it protect you from rain and shitty weather?
  And 4k for a car... Idk i could get a working car for 1k...
- Given that money from congestion taxes most often go to fund public transportation, which poorer people use to a larger extent, this is not a law against the poor.
- London has one of the best transit systems in the world. A car is not necessary.
  If you want to take up a shitload of extra space and pollute everywhere you go with fumes and noise then you get to pay extra. It's a choice, not a necessity.
  
  London, poor people live outside and drive in to work...
- This is idiotic. Im not talking about piss poor homeless people inside London, im talking about those that cant afford to live in London and therefore live outside where there is virtually no public transport or it would take 3 times longer than with the car.
- I agree that is not great but in some places for example in Barcelona have a similar thing, they have exceptions for the low income people or some other situations.
  
  There are low emissions zones in Barcelona?
- Do the poor have cars? Don't they ride the bus?
  
  Or the tube, or trains, or the clipper, or the DLR, or the overground...
  There is absolutely no need for a vehicle (aside from work gear/deliveries) for most people (I can think of a few cases, but largely its quite accessible) inside the ULEZ.
  Public transport is easier, cheaper, and faster, and would be even more so if there weren't as many cars.
  
  Or the Tube, or the train. London has fantastic public transport. You don't need a car.
  
  Uh most don't...
- I imagine poor people will appreciate better air quality and less noisy cars around too.
  London has pretty good public transport, people shouldn't be driving.

41 comments