
Madrid bans polluting vehicles from city centre - purple_ducks
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/nov/30/its-the-only-way-forward-madrid-bans-polluting-vehicles-from-city-centre
======
angarg12
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.

~~~
tom_mellior
I agree with your assessment, but I don't agree that this ban is it. The
headline really oversells it. The actual rule from the article's body is: "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."

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.

~~~
jgtrosh
Isn't this similar to the variable ban that's been in Paris for the past year
or so?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crit%27air](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crit%27air)

~~~
tinco
Yes, Amsterdam also has it. No diesels from before 2001 I think is the rule.
It's going to be implemented in other cities in NL as well. My dad got kind of
screwed because he converted an old van into a camper, for traveling around,
and now he won't be able to use it to get into cities anymore.

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.

~~~
pxtail
> 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

------
esotericn
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).

~~~
paganel
This is basically a regressive tax as it will affect more the poorer segment
of the population, meaning those that don’t have money to purchase newer cars
(let alone EVs). The same applies to Paris and Northern Italy, where similar
measures are in place.

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.

~~~
Brakenshire
Poor people in Inner London (the future expanded area of the scheme being
discussed) use public transport. Only 35-40% of households there own a car,
and those are concentrated in wealthy households. It is expensive to have a
parking space yourself and expensive to park at your destination.

~~~
paganel
I’ve coomented elsewhere about poorer people being left out of car ownership
because of the current tax system, which is also pretty regressive. Afaik the
cost for a public transport pass can easily reach 200 pounds per month
(anyway, I’m pretty sure it’s more than 100 pounds per month) at which point
it would be a lot better from a financial point of view for a poor person to
purchase a 15-year old 1,000 pound Vauxhall Corsa and use that instead. But
that financial alternative is made non-viable by the current tax system
because of the high taxes on gasoline, because of higher taxes on older, more
polluting cars and one can also add the higher insurance premiums affecting
the younger (and so poorer) people more.

~~~
jogjayr
> it would be a lot better from a financial point of view for a poor person to
> purchase a 15-year old 1,000 pound Vauxhall Corsa

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.

~~~
ghaff
>GBP 200/month for a transport pass

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.

~~~
icebraining
Still sounds expensive. You can take a train + bus/tram/subway from Waterloo
to central Brussels for about $125/month. A bus pass in Luxembourg to the city
center costs like $30/month. Lisbon will cap all public transport passes (even
multi-modal) to $50/month, or $100/month for a whole family.

------
DoreenMichele
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
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
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
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.

~~~
DoreenMichele
_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_

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.

------
Improvotter
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.

~~~
stabbles
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...](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jul/29/how-groningen-
invented-a-cycling-template-for-cities-all-over-the-world)

~~~
notimetorelax
It’s quite impressive what they did. They divided the city into 4 sectors and
it’s impossible to get from one sector to another without using the motorway
around the city, which lengthens these trips. Bicycles can travel freely.

Here’s the sectors map: [https://stad.gent/mobiliteitsplan/het-
circulatieplan/princip...](https://stad.gent/mobiliteitsplan/het-
circulatieplan/principes-van-het-circulatieplan)

------
sharpercoder
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
>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.

~~~
simion314
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
Yes but these people had a choice. Poor people don't.

~~~
jack_pp
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
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
>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.

------
jesperlang
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!

------
jacquesm
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.

~~~
narag
Not only young people, this measure hits hard a lot of people with just a few
months warning. There are many sectors that will be affected: live music (no
way to move sound gear), tour operators (buses from the airport to the
centre), repairmen, music schools... not to talk about regular people working
in the center with no money to replace their cars.

I'm not against this measure in the long term, but the way it has been put in
place is terrible.

~~~
Brakenshire
Did they really introduce it with a few months warning? The London equivalents
slowly ramp up and are made public half a decade before implementation.

~~~
narag
The situation in the council is peculiar. The major's party is a far left
coalition with the support of PSOE, the party of prime minister Sánchez. While
PSOE is a mature party, Ahora Madrid is a melting pot of radical people with
some interesting ideas and no experience. They've shown very little management
ability and an "us vs. them" mindset.

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.

------
ransom1538
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
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.

------
rini17
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
Half of it is from brakes. Electric cars mostly brake using the engines so
they also improve this aspect.

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

~~~
posixplz
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
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
Tbf, I'm not sure we have a long run at this point

