Incidentally I got a proposal to vote on the other day proposing changing Park Lane southbound into park land with cafes which I think would be nice. (https://www.westminster.gov.uk/sites/default/files/mayfair_n... p32)
It is unlikely to be happen due to the 'solutions' proposed in section 3.3.10 through to 3.3.13 (pg33). Which states that there is no will to implement any measures on this part of the thoroughfare by the incumbent landowners ─ any attempts to do so, have been thwarted for more than a century. The well heeled clientèle, do not particularly need a bohemian cafe culture at the doorstep nor do they care about pedestrians, especially when they arrive at the affluent hotels/hedge fund offices/ ballrooms/casinos, in their luxury automobiles to work & play. The addition of having access to exclusive shopping districts, restaurants, entertainment within spitting distance in any direction, further erodes any case for pedestrianisation.
However, there is a good case for lowering speed limit, modernising the subway access and creating more ways to cross between the central reservation, across to Hyde Park.
p33 says "Some of these solutions have been considered in the past, but have foundered, principally due to lack of resource" but that could change.
The road was expanded in the 60s:
>a major reconstruction programme in the early 1960s that transformed the road into a three-lane dual carriageway by removing a 20-acre (8.1 ha) section of Hyde Park
but I'm guessing the trends are a bit the other way now - less towards cars, more towards pedestrians.
People should not be downvoting your comment.
There are plans to extend the ULEZ all the way to the North and South Circular ring roads, which will really make an impact. But won’t happen until Oct 2021.
Hopefully the good results here may help them push this date forward.
Here’s info on ULEZ Phase 2 Expansion, which I really want to see implemented :
It's also not at all clear to me that replacing one semi with 20 van-sized vehicles is an improvement.
Are you sure that trade-off of many smaller vehicles rather than one big vehicle makes sense, in terms of pollution and congestion? I'm not as sure as you are, but who knows.
Basically a bike with a long cargo compartment in the front, some have logos for international mail carriers on them.
I have absolutely no idea why this doesn't happen.
In north and east London, it's the canals and rivers that prevent a lot of rat-running. The Lee / Lea river and its reservoirs, all the way to the canals in Islington, down into Limehouse, cut out most alternative east-west routes - you need to cross those waterways by bridges, and only the bigger roads have bridges. And there are east-west canals too, that reduce the options north-south on the east side of the city.
They have a permit system. Owners can drive their cars to their homes, but are limited to 15 min of parking.
They are basically pedestrian malls now.
Cities that get this right have good adaptations for disabled travellers - generally by permitting them as exceptional traffic (and not through traffic).
Plus, for example, door-to-door bike lanes are also good for powerchairs. You will see a lot more wheelchair users getting about anywhere in the Netherlands than you do anywhere in the UK.
For example in soho Frith street could be fully pedestrianised, while the neighbouring greek street only accessible to taxis
The first half of the book covers some of the chemistry of air pollution along with a review of the impact that this can have on health (particularly scary is the discovery that PM0.1 can be found in the blood and may be attributed to cardiovascular disease). Later chapters then talk about how air pollution has been addressed in different places and finally there is some guidance on what you can do reduce your exposure.
I discovered this book from one of the episodes of Inside Science featuring the shortlisted books: it's still up if you want to listen yourself: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0008jf1
Furthermore the vast majority of traffic circulating in C. London traffic all day are busses, Taxies, phvs and commercial vehicles. Not private vehicles.
There is nothing in that note which indicates how, when they came to these conclusions. It's pretty much impossible for the headline claim to be true as a result of the ulez.
Where is the supporting collateral? This is political grandstanding.
Isn't that proof that the Congestion/ULEZ charges are working effectively?
They are saying over a recent six month period that that this ulez has reduced something by 33%. That's pretty much impossible as private vehicles largely affected by this ulez program are a fraction of the circulating traffic (which are vastly more pollution/no2 producing vehicles.
According to the report, only 9% of all vehicles were exempt (38% of non-compliant vehicles, which were 23.2% of all vehicles in September). Everyone else either pays the charge (£100 per day for lorries, buses, and coaches), incurs a penalty, or upgrades their vehicles.
Big boss comes down. We floated telling London businesses this is a cost we're passing on. Every single one laughed and said they'd move to our competitors if we send a new contract through with increased prices. I'm supposed to deliver Q3 growth figures, "half our bloody London customers walked" is not growth. So, make a pool of vehicles that are compliant and make sure every London delivery uses that pool of vehicles.
Bingo, the eight year old truck that was scheduled to go to Charing Cross tomorrow is now headed to Derby and a six month old truck goes to Charing Cross. It's not a _lot_ but added up across the whole of the ULEZ it makes a difference.
What competitor complies can offer better prices while also paying the charge for the ULEZ? Does that competitor have electric vans and trucks?
I would be _astonished_ if some and maybe all actual companies in that game hadn't gone "Oh, we need to ensure only our compliant trucks enter the ULEZ" back when this rule was written, long before it came into effect. The UK is full of archaic stuff that makes it awkward for a not-so-smart logistics company so "We mustn't send old trucks to central London" probably isn't even on the top ten weirdest scheduling constraints they deal with.
Given a meaningful incentive to do something within its means, a company will either do that thing or lose business to companies that do.
But that doesn't make the headline claim true
The black cab lobby enjoys a disproportionate amount of power when it comes to policy-making on transport. Most Londoners would not miss them if black cabs disappeared overnight but somehow huge allowances are made to ensure they continue to operate the way they do, often at the expense of everyone else.
> bus lanes
This exemption is completely ridiculous.
I recently asked "What would the outcome be of a total taxi ban in a major city" in a similar thread . An interesting answer was the disabled would struggle. I've since discovered Dial-a-Ride , which is good to see and now strengthens my convictions against black cabs in London.
Which does nothing to help visitors. My own trips to London would be significantly more problematic without black cabs.
> The resulting financial incentive for diesel cars helped to prompt a "dash for diesel" after it came into effect in 2001 and was extended in further years. This particularly happened within company car fleets which were responsible for a substantial proportion of new car purchases.
> There are now 12 million diesel cars on Britain's roads, while back in 2000 there were only three million. And in recent years diesels have accounted for around half the new car market, whereas in 2000 only one in seven new cars was a diesel model.
This was a massive 180 by government, which explains some of the exceptions for black cabs.
However, anyone who bought a car after they realised the mistake and repealed it, deserves less sympathy. I wish the ULEZ exception took that into account.
Huh? A black cab seems like the great equalizer. People of almost all social classes, professions, rich and poor, get the same cabs.
In fact, the wealthy are probably the only people not taking cabs I would have thought, as they have their own cars and chauffeurs.
When I'm in London I can put my toddler in the back, still in the buggy.
Outside of London most places have ordinary taxies, I can either bring along a carseat, or hold my toddler which is not as safe.
Uber taxies are just ordinary cars and have the same problem.
Although I have seen an improvement in density of taxis idling their engines while waiting, though I now regularly ask normal drivers to turn off their engines when why’re clearly just waiting, often getting angry or hostile reactions.
So many drivers aren’t even aware that they shouldn’t run their engine while parked. At least in most London boroughs idling has become illegal with on-the-spot fines.
Some boroughs let you report any idling vehicles, eg Westminster :
I dare say the old ones will trundle around a while yet. Nothing's prefect.
According to that, max age of a black cab is 15 years. On the plus side, given the age distribution shown, then about 10% of the black cabs will already be 0 emission.
So it isn't overnight, it's gradual, it will accelerate fleet replacement significantly, but not 20% of the fleet overnight.
Ugh. I don't know anyone who at some point or other doesn't use cabs.
I do use uber or other private hire in London on occasion - when shifting lots of stuff around, but Black Cabs?
I'm mostly an Uber user now, but even I still end up in a taxi on (very rare) occasions at home and more often when travelling and unable to use Uber or another ridesharing app for some reason.
There's also a decent population of older people who don't use rideshare apps and depend on the taxi system (I write from the perspective of an Australian, not a Londoner, but I'm guessing it may be similar there).
Addison Lee works in London.
There used to be loads of taxi offices, you would go in and talk to a human and outside you would get into a taxi.
Now, the offices still exist - but if you go in, it's just an empty room with a phone for you to speak to some central room.
Uber has killed all these small businesses.
Demonstrably false. I have taken an Uber while my friends jumped in a black cab, both going to the exact same destination(because stupidly you cannot order 2 ubers at the same time), and yes, the "base price" for uber was cheaper, but the final bill was a good few quid higher than the black cab.
The same model stagecoach used after buses were privatised in the UK.
In the black cab I can leave my toddler belted into the buggy, which is much safer.
I won't take her in an Uber as without bringing a car-seat it's not safe.
1) Worse to use (standing in the rain with you arm out in the hopes someone will stop, let alone trying to get one on a side street)
2) Based around getting lost (taxi drivers are too arrogant to use technology so will drive into roadworks and traffic jams when modern cars use things like waze or whatever to avoid them)
3) More expensive
4) Less safe (who's driving? Who knows! Lets hope it's not John Worboys)
The fact that Uber hasn't yet broken laws in the UK doesn't make using them more defensible. Would you accept a babysitter that only abused children when on holiday in Thailand?
Undermining unionisation and actively promoting the casualisation of labour in the way they have are to be discouraged whether legal or not.
Uber service is better and cheaper. Why would you ever use a black cab when they're so expensive and often refuse fares or try to scam you by going weird routes?
And its common for groups to use cabs in London and also for those with heavy luggage or who are disabled Black cabs a re a godsend in London
Also, the old terrible diesels still have lots of time left where they are allowed on the road.
Taxis are awful at lining up outside entrances to stations (e.g. kings cross and at pancras) and leave their engines running as they slowly slowly creep forward picking up fares. There are often 20 or 30 diesels basically just idling right outside the main entrance to major stations.
Or you can also take photographs and report them to the TfL.
Even as hybrids, I guess the engine can run more efficiently, only runinng as needed and never idling so it must be a win.
Even if they theoretically get 80 miles of electric only range, and can be plugged in, the reality is the drivers force the engines to run to provide cab heating, avoid downtime while charging, and to avoid wear on the battery.
My guess is in the real world, even excluding manufacturing, these produce more CO2 per mile than the TX4.
One of the main reasons to go all electric, maybe there’s some design slight of hand that can be used to increase the time electric power is used.
The reality is due to a series of poor design choices, that's rarely the case. Normally due to certifications on the braking system, the regen braking isn't actually hooked up to the brake pedal, so most braking is done with the regular friction brakes. The engine also doesn't normally run at the most efficient RPM because users don't want to hear the sound of the engine revving while they're stationary. Combine that with the fact there are efficiency losses in the battery and electric motors and the added weight of the battery, and you suddenly have a system worse than a regular car.
The US was right to be suspicious of diesel.
Regarding diesel, it's important to remember that it was a byproduct of oil refinery that had to be used somehow (instead of being discarded and trashed in the nearby river). Some industrial engines and boats have been designed to use it (and are actually better run on diesel engines). Diesel car engine also became a thing, but was originally emitting more small particles. Specific catalytic converters have been introduced to remove those particles decades ago, with very high efficiency (95+%). Those converters are alas not so efficient at lower speed. That's why we don't want too many diesel cars in our cities.
That isn’t correct, because electric cars mostly use regenerative braking which eliminates brake emissions. Also, this is only for particulates, NOx also emissions are totally eliminated by the switch.
Back in college a few years ago I wrote a paper trying to compare the environmental cost of maintaining and operating 90s cars vs buying and replacing electric car batteries measured by co2 emitted (typically written co2e). This was written around 2012 but I found the break even around 10 years. That is, electric cars were measured as a fairly flat line (not fully flat, assuming some non zero co2e for electricity generation). There was of course a ton of hand waiving but the gas car was assumed to have a y intercept near zero and to be operated for 10 or 15k miles/year (can't remember exactly but I know it was in that range). I would link it but I'm currently not in the same country as the hard drive that might still have a copy of it. Of course I would prefer to have a peer reviewed publication on this, but I had a lot of trouble researching the manufacturing/mining estimates back when I wrote it.
For some reason, people are particularly hostile to countervailing evidence when it contradicts previously swallowed feelgood propaganda.
Edit: 'Using the average CO2 output of the European electricity network, Ernst concluded that an electric car using a 60kWh battery made in Europe would have to travel some 700,000 kilometres (435,000 miles) before it is “greener than an average petrol car”. However, Ernst also says that a fully renewable European grid would reduce the EV’s CO2 lag to just 30,000km (18,640 miles). '
Also if you want to trust basic balance sheet economics, a Prius is cheaper than than Jeep Wrangler. 'splain that.
"...or my friend's 2009 VW?" When speaking of emissions output, I find it amusing that your anecdata involves a Volkswagen diesel.
This also then led to newer models emitting finer particulate which was more easily picked up by the wind and could travel into the lungs more easily instead of denser particulate which fell to the roadside.
Or, fortunately as it turned out. "Clean" diesel is a public health disaster in Europe. The US dodged a bullet by not jumping on that bandwagon.
The US just didn't provide the incentives to push people to buy them due to their efficiency. We pretty much said "yeah, keep driving that F-150".
It turned out that fuel economy was not the only important thing to consider. You could say we lucked into not increasing diesel adoption.
(I own a diesel vehicle with SCR, and an petrol engined vehicle, and an EV)
That said it is much better these days than it was perhaps 8-10 years ago in my experience. TfL have started doing some more involved cleaning at night I think - something like magnetic dusting and regular industrial vacuuming to try and control the dust.
The tunnels are also regularly cleaned; I doubt there's much if any Victorian steam train grot still floating around.
There’s an interesting difference between actual pollution levels and what is perceptible. You can’t as easily detect the odour of nitrogen dioxide or micro particles from brakes.
I imagine cigarette smoke accounts for very little pollution measured by typical methods, but walking down a busy street in London you’re likely to pass through dense clouds of it every few meters. I wonder how much difference this concentrated method of delivery makes to the effective toxicity.
Not sick or anything, just a kind of "my body knows that breathing these fumes is not a good thing".
It makes me wonder how I didn't even notice it for so many decades.
But absolutely, we need to get smog out of the places where people spend the majority of their days, if only for an improved quality of life.
The real issue is that they put east-west airport runways due east/west of the centroid of population. It’s almost as if they wanted the airports to maximally affect as many Londoners as possible.
I mean, they can't be so bloody stupid to have put the biggest airport in Europe on the western outskirts of a city and then have made a major landing strip come in from the east.
To your point, airplanes coming in basically bathe the entire city east to west in noise.
Where does this 3.7 billion figure come from?
What's the other half coming from?
NOx generally result from very high-temperature combustion -- sources such as building heat and cooking hobs won't contribute so much (though they can produce considerable net CO2 emissions, soot, and VOCs). Stationary powerplants (construction equipment, generators, compressors, pumps), and and industrial processes, typically account for much.
Landscaping equipment, especially two-cycle engines, are especially polluting due to incomplete combustion.
Sleeper to Cornwall is the one I often see but the rest is all electric for the Paddington bit - of course trains going West switch to diesel once they get off the electrified line e.g. at Swindon for Cheltenham
2. Don't cars still pollute, even under the low emission standards?
3. Car pollution is also part of business. Do you mean industrial production activity? Fossil fuel burning for heating?
Dragging trains into/out of London with an electric loco would pretty much kill the frequency of the lines. This isn't the US where we might get five long-distance passenger trains a day - London King's Cross and Euston are busy, with service patterns at breaking point as it is. There's nowhere outside the city where trains could stop and wait for a locomotive, anyway.
This also makes it possible to build bi-modal trains that run on Diesel on non-electrified tracks and use a pantograph on electrified bits (like London). That's what is being done in the UK now under the Intercity Express programme in order to replace the old Diesel trains (HST/Class 125): https://www.hitachi-rail.com/products/rolling_stock/bi_mode/... - these are the class 800/801/802 trains mentioned by vertex-four in a sibling comment.
I regularly get the Cheltenham to Paddington train, and apart from the slight extra delay at Swindon while they switch power haven't had any problems with them.
Some of the early seat covers are being replaced because they don't wear well though
Only if it's a diesel/electric, but then you're not really turning off the engine.
1. breathing polluted air sucks, and we can improve that by replacing gas vehicles with electric vehicles.
2. global warming is awful, and we can improve that by replacing our generation activity (solar, wind, hydro, nuclear) -- but if we replace it all and there's still lots of gas cars on the road, we've still got a problem.
Electric cars are part of solving both problems, although in all honesty, we probably need to accept a lower standard of living, ditching the private car, switch to e-bikes, e-scooters et all and have a robust car hire scheme for when vehicles are necessary,