Madrid bans polluting vehicles from city centre
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
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.
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.
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.
You mean, they didn’t like the “politics” of a company installing devices in their cars whose only purpose was to cheat emissions tests, and then afterward lying about it?
Yes, it’s not really so much about the “environment” per se, and more about the criminal cheating followed by criminal coverup.
I think that for once, the US regulations are stricter than the EU ones. Diesel emissions standards are higher in the US than Europe.
Yeah, the governments are either not thinking about the long-term survival of the population and the planet, or they would rather just placate their citizenry by making sure they have jobs. Because a jobless populace will vote you out of the office, so, fuck the environment?
Pushing non-EV vehicles out of cities isn't the only viable measure, but it is by far the easiest and quickest and has very positive side effects for quality of life in the city. And with VW getting more serious about EVs the lobbying may well reverse direction in a few years. After all once you sell an attractive EV lineup, getting every city dweller to replace their petrol car with an EV is great for your bottom line.
They only plan to ban enough polluting vehicles to "cut nitrogen dioxide levels by 23% in 2020", so this is a very far cry from EV only. I think this is a step in the right direction, but it seems like a convoluted one that could be a whole lot more ambitious.
Of course it is objectively a good thing, especially when they implement the export restrictions so they won't all simply be offloaded to Africa.
Why export restrictions (especially to Africa) is a good thing? I think that it is quite opposite:
* from looking at basic car sales statistics EV are basically non-existent in Africa, there is no infrastructure etc. (apart from fact that almost nobody could afford them)
* 2000-ish cars are usually quite simple to repair, no advanced electronic etc.
* producing new car probably will waste more resources and emit more pollution than using and repairing old one
Still can't wrap my head around that.
1990s 50cc japanese scooters are indestructible, esp. Hondas, as are later, early-2000s Yamaha/MBK 100cc models. They are not going anywhere until there appears a 80 kg, 12" wheel electric model that can go 100km on a single charge and carry two people at a cruise speed of 70-80 km/h. And charge from zero in at most 15 minutes.
I love the smell of burning 2T oil in the morning.
Check NIU, they are getting close.
I believe the expensive version on the electric vespa can do 100km
They installed a new sound on public buses, which sounds like a nice old bell and is less noisy than the usual car horn. It should exist on all cars.
Seriously, no one gives a f* than someone is stuck in traffic, and yet it alerts everyone on a 200 meters radius, which is many people in a city's density.
So, anything that is not hybrid/EV is actually effectively banned.
Are you saying that it's OK for (certain) polluting vehicles to enter the zone to visit someone and park in a garage, but it's not OK for them to pass straight through the zone and out at the other end? That would be possible, but it sounds even more convoluted.
https://elpais.com/sociedad/2018/11/23/actualidad/1542985455...
> Sí, se puede llegar al centro de la capital en vehículo privado. Los residentes tienen permiso para entrar y aparcar en su barrio. Los coches de los no residentes, siempre y cuando cuente con etiqueta ambiental, pueden entrar a Madrid Central. La clave es dónde aparca el vehículo: la medida prohíbe aparcar en superficie excepto a residentes o coches Eco o 0 emisiones. Los vehículos B y C podrán aparcar en cualquier parking de acceso público.
Here's another article that makes it a little clearer - http://www.telemadrid.es/madrid-central/Madrid-Central-pregu...
No vivo en el centro. ¿Puedo circular?
Depende de varias circunstancias y del etiquetado de tu vehículo:
* Sí, aunque no seas residente, siempre que tu vehículo sea 0 emisiones o ECO.
* Si tu vehículo tiene la categoría C o B, sólo puedes acceder para estacionar en aparcamientos de rotación.
* Si tienes movilidad reducida, también puedes acceder, independientemente de la etiqueta.
If this experiment works, then new, more aggressive ones will be put in place elsewhere.
That seems intuitive for a big capital city... but would it be the same for all neighborhoods?
Actually, I'd say the ban on those cities I mention is in some ways more restrictive than what was just implemented in Madrid. It's much simpler to accomplish due to their size, though.
Still, I would like to share your optimism. Let's rid our cities of cars completely.
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).
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.
Ah, gotcha. I didn't realise that, thanks.
This doesn't take away from ypur point, I'm just saying that real performance cars don't compete on emissions, and subsequently will be affected by all these bans (eg in Belgium when road tax eas changes to reflect emissions 6 years ago, performance cars became significantly more expensive, while some suvs (like my x3 :) ) became significantly cheaper)
Apparently the current models Huracáne and Aventador are Euro6 according to their website.
E.g. https://www.lamborghini.com/en-en/models/huracan/huracan-per...
All cars built 2004 or later are Euro 4, which is the standard for petrol cars.
These are increasing strict emissions standards for maximum quantity of various pollutants.
If you want to compare like with like, the fair basis of comparison would be the Lamborghinis against the few dozen newest cars, or the few dozen least-polluting cars.
So you can avoid it just by driving a fairly normal low polluting vehicle.
What this will also “accomplish” is that it will make these poorer people tourists in their own city/region, as the downtown areas will be more easily accessible by the “richer” people. As such, I expect revolt movements like the “gillets jaunes” protest now happening in France to become more widespread and more frequent.
So my point about this being a regressive tax stands, because it would be way cheaper for a blue collar English guy to commute using a 1000 pounds beater Vauxhall than to pay hundreds of pounds each month for public transport passes. But the current tax system prohibits this because that beater Vauxhall Corsa also pollutes the air breathed by the rich guy who pays 20 million pounds or more for a London condo, and it’s at that precise moment that you can hear that rich guy remember about “externalities” and “the tragedy of the commons”, but when his wealth manager invests in some copper company listed on the LSE that feeling about needing to cover for “externalities” totally goes above his head. Marx would have had a field day with the current political and societal situation in the West, it screams hypocrisy and “schizoid way of being” from a mile away.
It is exempt from the ULEZ charge, both the 2019 and 2021 one.
It's really not a high bar to hit. It actually should be going way further and faster.
The proposals coming into effect in 2021 will mean you need a petrol car no older than 16 years old or a diesel car no older than 7 years old, or have to pay for the privilege. Given the average age of cars in the UK is 8 years, it seems very few people would actually be affected by these changes. It's a small price to pay to improve the health for the 3.3 million people living in this area.
I used to work in Zone 4 (out of 6, 1 is the centre) and most "blue collar" people still came in by train. Even if, as was sometimes the case, the rail journey was 10-15 minutes slower than the fastest possible road journey, it was at least reliably that fast. Road journeys were regularly delayed by ½-1-2 hours!
You’re fighting a war on behalf of someone who doesn’t really exist.
The North/South Circular restrictions are actually a thing that will hit many families, especially around the borders of the area, because it is actually a lot more convenient to drive around, there are some gaps in transport, it's more suburban, it's actually a more car-oriented part of the city, most streets will have cars lining both sides, etc.
In 2021 this will happen and a non-negligible number of individuals will end up upgrading their cars (it probably won't cost them that much, a 500 quid car passes the bar).
None of this stuff is really any sort of humanitarian disaster because it's all comfort/luxury stuff. It's nice to drive about there, useful, not essential though, and yeah, the 'barrier to entry' is basically not driving a shitbox.
By contrast, "Central London" as defined by the inner ring road is an area that can be walked across in approximately an hour or cycled across in 20-30 mins, and has a bus stop on pretty much every street corner. It's plastered in traffic lights, it's difficult to even stop your car anywhere to pop into a corner shop without getting ticketed. At some point in the next few decades I can see a lot of it becoming "semi-pedestrianised" a bit like Krakow town center or something as attitudes change.
This area will be covered in a few months time by the tax (it's already covered during business hours, it'll just be extended to 24/7). Realistically, in practice, it might mean the odd journey in on a Sunday will be replaced by parking just outside the zone and getting a bus in or something.
The idea of it being a 'regressive tax' just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Barely anyone will actually end up paying it at all because it's cheaper to just get a better car. It's more like a soft-ban.
London has expensive, unaffordable, dirty and always late transportation infrastructure.
Making polluting cost more is a very explicit goal of the policy.
The 2021 changes may bring protests because they hit wide swathes of the city - existing homes with drives etc.
The 2019 ones I very much doubt - driving in Central London is more of a leisure activity than anything remotely practical.
It's fun to drive down Whitehall. Barely anyone parks outside the National Gallery for a visit.
As a central London user of mostly public transport I'm all in favour. Though I've got an old petrol car I'd be happy enough if they banned everything except zero emission vehicles. In fact I think that would be a good idea for Oxford Street. Kahn wanted to pedestrianise it but that wasn't really practical as people need to do deliveries and get from A to B but electric busses could work. (Oxford St has some of the highest NO2 in the world plus very large numbers of people standing in that https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/calls-for-action-on-t...)
I have a crappy old petrol car because it makes economic sense for me to do so. It's sometimes cheaper than public transport, sometimes not, but overall I have it because it has a lower TCO than a less polluting vehicle would.
"It's a regressive tax" is a flawed appeal to emotion because poor people don't really have cars. Really poor people don't even have parking spaces because they're in unregistered flatshares or whatever and they can't get a permit.
Zone 1 driving is a leisure activity. It really is. I love it - I do it, it's gorgeous to bomb it down the river or wave to tourists at Harrods. But the idea that large numbers of individuals will suffer in an economic sense by restricting it is just bonkers, it's trivially disprovable by living here for about a week and trying to drive about and park with a car.
My car which cost about 300 quid is _still_ within the ULEZ recommendations. It's really not an issue at all.
The solution would be to create new downtown areas close to the places where the poorer people live, meaning areas with cinemas, theaters, libraries etc and leave the current downtown area for tourists, rich people and foreigners who want to launder their money.
That said, you seem to have a weird obsession with driving.
I can afford it and I don't drive into London because it just doesn't make sense. I've done it. Drive in to the West End, takes me way longer than cycling or taking a bus/tube, and then.... oh, it's going to take me 15 minutes to even find a parking spot.
It's more of a hobbyist/enthusiast thing. It's fun. I sometimes do it because one day you just know it won't be allowed any more.
I've lived centrally before and probably will again at some point. I'd sell the car, because it'd be pointless. Not because of cost, but because the only journeys that would make more sense to do by car are massive supermarket runs and country getaways.
Everything else is faster, quicker, and less stressful via public transport in London.
London is not one city that grew. It's not even two cities that grew (London and Westminster). It's tens of towns, plus hundreds of villages, sometimes very old and now grown together, sometimes planned in the 19th or 20th century and now part of the greater city.
Example cinemas from one franchise: https://www.odeon.co.uk/cinemas/london/
People do not drive cars in to their jobs in Central London. It's just not done. Not even CEOs. The vast, vast, vast majority of people take public transport in because it's completely impractical to drive and not for cost reasons.
I would be completely unsurprised if there were less than 1 parking spot per _building_ inside the inner ring road.
Wander about, find a big, multimillion suburban house in Zone 3. You may well see a fancy car.
That fancy car barely ever sees the inside of London. It's for the country jaunt, the holiday, the supermarket run.
[1] https://londontransportdata.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/week...
I haven't seen trains on roads much.
Perhaps in Croydon.
Most employment is in the core of the city (Central London), which is where the charge currently applies. People commuting there overwhelmingly use public transport, across all classes. Parking costs £30 a day.
Also, by the time the charge applies to Inner London (2021), the minimum standard for petrol cars will be Euro 4, which at that point will be 16 years old. Households at in income level to be operating a 17 year old car would be priced out of car ownership in London by other factors, and would be using the bus, the trains or the tube.
Do you want to make it cheaper and easier to own a car?
What's the endgame? London turns in to a complete gridlock, we all breathe in more crap and get ill, and of course, climate change accelerates a bit more.
It's fairer, but everyone is worse off. Why?
(As an aside, no, it's not cheaper to drive a car in to London for work, and it wouldn't be without taxes, because you'd spend more _per day_ on parking than you would on transport for the _week_).
Are you sure about that? Are you taking into account petrol, maintenance (a 15-year old car will need a lot of it), parking, insurance, registration fees? Those would cost at least another GBP 100/month + unproductive time spent in traffic. Not to mention the poor person would first need to save up GBP 1000 to be able to afford the car (or pay interest and more insurance).
GBP 200/month for a transport pass sounds insane though, so maybe they should focus on funding that better.
Seems pretty normal depending upon the type of transport covered. If I bought monthly passes to commute into Boston from my house, I'd be something like $600/month between commuter rail, commuter rail parking, and subway/bus. Driving to subway parking (which fills up by 7 something) would still cost something $100/month plus about $10/day for parking. Commuting into most big cities in the West isn't cheap even if you use public transportation.
The fares for outer zones on the Tube are deliberately expensive as a way to reduce demand. There are explicit discounts for avoiding Zone 1 to ease congestion.
So whilst there probably do exist people spending 200 GBP a month on transport on minimum wage, it's not really intended, more of an ephemeral state whilst someone finds a job closer to home.
Funnily enough, London's public transport is actually pretty _cheap_ when compared with e.g. intercity rail. It's only expensive when compared with other countries, and I think it's difficult to compare due to London's high CoL in general and the age of the network.
The walk-up prices for trains are basically robbery. If it's outside of the Oyster zone, you're either driving, booking it well in advance, or it's a business trip so you take the hit anyway.
Obviously there are some companies with parking spaces of their own, but companies with parking spaces in the restricted areas of central London aren't giving them to employees they don't pay enough for them to afford public transport. You're unlikely to be poor or limited in your transport options if you've got resident's parking in the Congestion Charge zone either
(Would England have been economically dominant without the industrial revolution? Could the industrial revolution have happened under today's emission laws? We're pulling up the rope ladder after we climbed it.)
It's been difficult for people in first-world countries to see this effect, since it mostly happens slowly, and far away. I'm glad this is starting to hit closer to home, and on timescales that impact us directly. I don't have a solution, either, but perhaps the new immediacy will help drive progress in this area.
Most societies make armed robbery illegal. Is that a "regressive tax" too, because a poor guy is more likely to physically steal my wallet? If so, I accept that. Fuck him. Fuck the rich guy who steals in other ways, sure. But being poor doesn't mean you deserve to screw everybody else, any more than being rich does. My point is that going to the hospital with an asthma attack (or a cracked skull and internal bleeding) is not a good way to subsidize the poor or redistribute wealth. If that's what somebody wants to do, they should just write a check. It's much cleaner.
In England, that's about 20% nuclear, 38% natural gas, 35% coal, and remainder other.
Overall, the electric vehicle is cleaner and less impactful on global warming.
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.
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.
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.
All the things you mentioned were cared for by my mother, myself and my siblings
I've known people in countries with state funded healthcare, like Canada, with serious health problems in the family, especially among minor children. I've heard how much of a hardship that can be even if medical bills are not part of the picture.
I'm glad your family was fortunate in that regard. But your assumption that I am projecting the American experience onto foreigners is in error.
It's certainly better to not also have the medical bills. But being unable to work full time while having greater than average need remains a hardship, even in countries where the state covers all medical bills.
It's just vastly better to be healthy, even if medical care is completely free.
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.
How do they deliver stock to shops, collect waste, or do construction?
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.
> 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...
Here’s the sectors map: https://stad.gent/mobiliteitsplan/het-circulatieplan/princip...
However, the 'traffic circulation plan' is a horror. There are so many one-way streets without a logic to it, that finding your way is near impossible. Really, without some navigation system, there is no navigating the smaller streets here.
I recall hearing (no source sadly) that is was one of the first 'calculated' traffic plans. Apparently, that calculation didn't take robustness of the solution into account.
The policy against cars is great, but the 'traffic circulation plan' really isn't. There is a long standing plan for light rail transport, but a lot of resistance from those living near the proposed rail.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In what middle sized cities can people only afford to buy a house 30-100km from it?
http://m.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/wohnen/haus/immobilienma...
For me major doesn't necessary mean country/region capital.
Example Coimbra and Porto are major European cities, and good luck getting in less than 1h if you happen to live outside of the happy path of bus/subway lines.
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.
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.
I know what I am talking about since my family is not rich, in my extended family (in Romania) nobody bought a new car. I think is OK to sacrifice electric windows, parking camera, other non essential comfort features and getting a cleaner car.
Do you have a better idea on how we push things in the right direction , except the vague "free market and deregulation solves everything bullshit"
If a poor person needs to replace a broken car, the new laws will limit the valid options to 2006 or newer cars. You can buy a 2006 car for cheap nowadays.
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.
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.
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.
I'm curious what can get better!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Lupo#Lupo_3L
It also explains where the 94mpg number comes from.
It’s 100% the particulate and NoX emissions that are the major problems for those of us living in urban populations.
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.
[0] Comparing to a car produced in 2006. This standard has been updated since.
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.
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.)
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.)
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.
> 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!
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.
The 'gig economy' is one ugly aspect of the un-bundling of the social contract and this has only just begun. You can look forward to an ever larger number of jobs re-classed as independent contractor.
This is already happening in health care, contracting, taxi driving and so on. The long term effects are most likely very negative but still over the horizon. Companies love it because they get all the benefits of having employees without the downsides.
I'm not against this measure in the long term, but the way it has been put in place is terrible.
It was surprising that PSOE refused the offer from former major's party (PP) to govern without conditions and instead voted for AM without even entering the council gov. team. That would have brought some experienced people and softened the politics.
Oh and BTW, a few hours ago PSOE has sunk and lost government in Andalusia, their main vote silo. It seems that their erratic pacts politics (they're governing Spain with the votes of anti-Spain separatist parties) is harming them.