This article is setting off red flags for me. The whole conflating traffic, traffic jams and pollution seems slimy and the really short quote excerpts seem to indicate the author is trying to take the politician's statements out of context. Urban pollution has several facets (heavy trucks vs cars, particulate vs Nox, local climate, etc, etc,) and none of them are mentioned. Conflating residents in the affected zone voting for "the other guy" with specifically supporting the existing policy is seems dishonest.
Is there someone who actually knows this issue and can tell me what the article is omitting? I don't know what I don't know but the way this article is written makes me think there's a lot of nuance being glossed over.
I think my non-native English prevents me from fully understanding your question, but I'd say in general terms what is described in the article is what happened:
- Party A takes the council 4 years ago
- Party A implements the low emissions zone
- Party B goes into elections campaign championing a reverse of the LEZ. The quote about they saying pollution and jams are part of the city's identity is true.
- Party B does not win the election but, because of how the system works, they could take the council by joining forces with other parties (who were also against the LEZ)
- If last point indeed happens, then they will revert the LZE
Actually, it is very possible that the LZE cannot be reverted because of EU's restrictions and fines for pollution quotas. Some media that are sided to Party B and were very critical of Party A and the LZE are now changing headlines to blame EU for the LZE, in what looks like a damage control operation now that they realise the possibility of their promise being not able to be fulfilled.
Source: I live somewhere some consider is Spain and some not.
Is there someone who actually knows this issue and can tell me what the article is omitting
A few things:
- The zone was set with a few months notice, creating a huge problem for many that have been quickly dismissed. Usability of prohibition is terrible. I've heard there are loopholes like a dozen persons renting a single flat and selling their permits to rich people.
- The zone includes a variety on neighborhoods, from far-left still not gentrified ones, to offices mostly, main street and luxury homes.
- There's a lot of people living outside and working inside. Most use public transportation, but not everybody can do that: salesmen, suppliers... and there are a lot of private complementary schools (things like music schools) that are going bankrupt because parents can't get their children in or out.
- Some measurements indicate that pollution has in fact raised. There were no measures to replace the forbidden traffic.
- Reverting it is dead simple. Saying otherwise is plainly dishonest, but I'm reading it a lot.
I actually believe that a measure like that is necessary sooner or later, but it needs to be done right: transport alternatives, long enough notice, well chosen exceptions and specially doing the data based homework. As it is, it's propaganda.
You read flags are working OK, I found the article dishonest. I live in Madrid (suburban town to the north of the city) and I think the El Pais article mentioned in another response to your comment is much better, I read it several days ago in the spanish version. I actually think the no traffic area might be a good idea.
Cars are no better than trucks in a locale that penalizes gasoline as fuel. The reason why American cities have cleaned up significantly over the last 40 years is that gasoline emissions controls are far more comprehensive than those for diesel.
I had a similar feeling when reading it. I know little about the details of the underlying issue, but the article makes it sound like the politician in question is advocating for pollution and traffic jams. I guess anything is possible, but I suspect liberal out of context quoting.
For example, "previous setup was better (because A, B, C). Yes, we also had 3AM traffic jams, but we lived with it, it was not the end of the world" could get tranlated into "3AM traffic jams are good". My 2c.
The plan was to create a 4kmˆ2 ring bordering the important landmarks of the royal palace, museo del prado, buen retiro, Atocha station etc. The interior has quite a number of Metro stations and is thus quite navigable by foot.
Car-driving populism to revert a policy barely 6 months old seems to have prevailed. As can be seen from the guardian article's photo, Gran Via is a pretty major thoroughfare leading to the heart of the city, Puerta del Sol.
- You are rich and can buy a new electric/hybrid car.
- You live in the center of Madrid and are allowed to use your car.
However, if you are "poor" and work in the center of the city:
- If your car is not a low-emission vehicle, you are limited to go to work (only can by public transport).
- If you are a deliverer of packages, you'd have to buy a new car that fulfill the emission restrictions without any kind of tax-exemption from the government.
This low-emissions zone creation has been a show without any kind of planning and without consulting the citizens. i.e. there has not been any type of car renovation plan or tax exemptions that could have helped citizens with this restriction.
I understand the ecology and health-care point of view, but tell that to somebody whose work depends on reaching to the center of the city to deliver some packages (for example).
Just as a side note to the article, the Madrid city and state government are going through heavy negotiations right now, along the Barcelona city and Spanish government coalitions, so it's too early to say the LEZ "is set" to be wiped out.
I don't know about other tourists, but as a tourist myself, I like to visit cities that are clean and where I can easily get around using public transit. If I have to drive everywhere and there's lots of pollution, I pick someplace better to spend my time and money. In fact, the last thing I want to do in a foreign country is deal with driving a car: the traffic rules are all different (esp. in LHD countries), the customs different, and there's the question of liability. I don't even like touring American cities because of this (combined with the public transit being so awful), even though I live in this country; I'd rather go to Asia or western Europe where the public transit is excellent.
[+] [-] dsfyu404ed|6 years ago|reply
Is there someone who actually knows this issue and can tell me what the article is omitting? I don't know what I don't know but the way this article is written makes me think there's a lot of nuance being glossed over.
[+] [-] gerardvivancos|6 years ago|reply
- Party A takes the council 4 years ago
- Party A implements the low emissions zone
- Party B goes into elections campaign championing a reverse of the LEZ. The quote about they saying pollution and jams are part of the city's identity is true.
- Party B does not win the election but, because of how the system works, they could take the council by joining forces with other parties (who were also against the LEZ)
- If last point indeed happens, then they will revert the LZE
Actually, it is very possible that the LZE cannot be reverted because of EU's restrictions and fines for pollution quotas. Some media that are sided to Party B and were very critical of Party A and the LZE are now changing headlines to blame EU for the LZE, in what looks like a damage control operation now that they realise the possibility of their promise being not able to be fulfilled.
Source: I live somewhere some consider is Spain and some not.
[+] [-] narag|6 years ago|reply
A few things:
- The zone was set with a few months notice, creating a huge problem for many that have been quickly dismissed. Usability of prohibition is terrible. I've heard there are loopholes like a dozen persons renting a single flat and selling their permits to rich people.
- The zone includes a variety on neighborhoods, from far-left still not gentrified ones, to offices mostly, main street and luxury homes.
- There's a lot of people living outside and working inside. Most use public transportation, but not everybody can do that: salesmen, suppliers... and there are a lot of private complementary schools (things like music schools) that are going bankrupt because parents can't get their children in or out.
- Some measurements indicate that pollution has in fact raised. There were no measures to replace the forbidden traffic.
- Reverting it is dead simple. Saying otherwise is plainly dishonest, but I'm reading it a lot.
I actually believe that a measure like that is necessary sooner or later, but it needs to be done right: transport alternatives, long enough notice, well chosen exceptions and specially doing the data based homework. As it is, it's propaganda.
[+] [-] plafl|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevin_thibedeau|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ptero|6 years ago|reply
For example, "previous setup was better (because A, B, C). Yes, we also had 3AM traffic jams, but we lived with it, it was not the end of the world" could get tranlated into "3AM traffic jams are good". My 2c.
[+] [-] pjc50|6 years ago|reply
It does explicitly quote NO2 statistics?
[+] [-] spoovy|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] petecox|6 years ago|reply
https://elpais.com/ccaa/2018/11/26/madrid/1543235492_515611....
The plan was to create a 4kmˆ2 ring bordering the important landmarks of the royal palace, museo del prado, buen retiro, Atocha station etc. The interior has quite a number of Metro stations and is thus quite navigable by foot.
Car-driving populism to revert a policy barely 6 months old seems to have prevailed. As can be seen from the guardian article's photo, Gran Via is a pretty major thoroughfare leading to the heart of the city, Puerta del Sol.
[+] [-] cernunos|6 years ago|reply
- You are rich and can buy a new electric/hybrid car.
- You live in the center of Madrid and are allowed to use your car.
However, if you are "poor" and work in the center of the city:
- If your car is not a low-emission vehicle, you are limited to go to work (only can by public transport).
- If you are a deliverer of packages, you'd have to buy a new car that fulfill the emission restrictions without any kind of tax-exemption from the government.
This low-emissions zone creation has been a show without any kind of planning and without consulting the citizens. i.e. there has not been any type of car renovation plan or tax exemptions that could have helped citizens with this restriction.
I understand the ecology and health-care point of view, but tell that to somebody whose work depends on reaching to the center of the city to deliver some packages (for example).
[+] [-] ojosilva|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pdimitar|6 years ago|reply
Unless the article is deliberately manipulated to send the wrong message, my above is how I'd summarise it.
[+] [-] magduf|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] vemv|6 years ago|reply
Similarly to how Trump would intend to demolish Obamacare.
So there are no big lessons for the rest of the world to learn.