Diesel users to pay £20 to enter London

[kambites]

ORD said:

Interesting statistic, but I bet the actual difference (as regards pollution) between those journeys taking place by bus and by the alternatives (walk, cycle, drive, train) would be pretty small.

I expect that you could have a lot of car journeys without equalling the pollution produced by a bus in a day. Perhaps hundreds.

The figures are out there - the average occupancy for TFL buses is 17 passengers per bus; the average fuel economy is about 5.5mpg. So they're averaging about 90 passenger miles per gallon. Average car occupancy in central London is about 1.5 so with current usage, you'd need cars to average 60mpg (in city traffic conditions) to match the average bus. Of course there's also the slight problem that you probably don't have enough road space to replace every bus with ~12 cars.

I don't know, I'd imagine the tube is significantly more efficient than the bus network in terms of power consumption per passenger mile.

Edited by kambites on Tuesday 5th August 09:39

[ORD]

kambites said:

ORD said:

Interesting statistic, but I bet the actual difference (as regards pollution) between those journeys taking place by bus and by the alternatives (walk, cycle, drive, train) would be pretty small.

I expect that you could have a lot of car journeys without equalling the pollution produced by a bus in a day. Perhaps hundreds.

The figures are out there - the average occupancy for TFL buses is 17 passengers per bus; the average fuel economy is about 5.5mpg. So they're averaging about 90 passenger miles per gallon. Average car occupancy in central London is about 1.5 so with current usage, you'd need cars to average 60mpg (in city traffic conditions) to match the average bus. Of course there's also the slight problem that you probably don't have enough road space to replace every bus with ~12 cars.

I don't know, I'd imagine the tube is significantly more efficient than the bus network in terms of power consumption per passenger mile.

Edited by kambites on Tuesday 5th August 09:39

But that assumes that all bus journeys would be replaced with car journeys. If you assume 1/3 car, 1/3 walk/cycle and 1/3 tube, it becomes questionable whether or not buses are overall less polluting.

I am not suggesting that we get rid of buses, just that they are absurdly polluting and may not even be less so than the alternatives.

[kambites]

ORD said:

But that assumes that all bus journeys would be replaced with car journeys. If you assume 1/3 car, 1/3 walk/cycle and 1/3 tube, it becomes questionable whether or not buses are overall less polluting.

Well yes, but I don't think anyone is arguing that buses are more economical than walking/cycling! Buses are (on average in London) more economical than cars. Buses are less economical than trains or walking/cycling. The best way to reduce city air pollution is to move as many people as possible down the Car > Bus > Train > Walk > Cycle scale.

ETA: Of course in terms of city air pollution, the tube is near enough zero-emission since the power is generated elsewhere.

Edited by kambites on Tuesday 5th August 09:48

[otolith]

FiF said:

There has been a price premium on diesel fuel via duty for decade or more.

Duty is the same on petrol and diesel, and has been since 1999.

http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/do...

[Lowtimer]

Correct. Diesel's higher pre-tax price is down to supply and demand.

[FiF]

Fair enough I sit corrected, though there's a gnat's more VAT payable.

[kambites]

FiF said:

Fair enough I sit corrected, though there's a gnat's more VAT payable.

Indeed, although the fact that fixed duty is the same means a lower proportion of the cost of diesel is tax.

[otolith]

And because it's a bit denser than petrol, and contains a bit more carbon per litre, it's taxed a little less per kg of fuel or per g of CO2 emitted.

[DiscoColin]

Lowtimer said:

Correct. Diesel's higher pre-tax price is down to supply and demand.

I was fairly sure that it is because it ultimately takes a tiny bit more actual crude oil to make a litre of tractor juice than petrol actually? That is or course intrinsically linked to it being denser...

[Lowtimer]

Dunno about that. What is undisputed is that petrol consumption has been heading steadily down in Europe for the last several years, and diesel demand heading steadily up (especially including jet fuel, which is basically the same stuff as diesel fuel pre additives).

[Pan Pan]

Just a general question on this. I am assuming cars built in, and for use in the EU, must be to the same EU wide vehicle construction and use specifications.
I also assume that a congested city is a congested city, regardless of where, or which country it is in. Therefore have any other EU countries been issued with the same requirements regarding their emissions, or is this just aimed at the UK?
This surely cannot be a requirement issued solely to the UK/London as all other cities in the EU, are likely to have similar congestion and pollution levels.

[otolith]

Pan Pan said:

Just a general question on this. I am assuming cars built in, and for use in the EU, must be to the same EU wide vehicle construction and use specifications.
I also assume that a congested city is a congested city, regardless of where, or which country it is in. Therefore have any other EU countries been issued with the same requirements regarding their emissions, or is this just aimed at the UK?
This surely cannot be a requirement issued solely to the UK/London as all other cities in the EU, are likely to have similar congestion and pollution levels.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/20/air-pollution-european-commission-legal-action-uk-nitrogen-dioxide

grauniad said:

Other European countries have also failed to meet the air quality directive – that should have been adopted in 2008 – but the EU environment commissioner, Janez Potočnik, has singled Britain out for its "persistent" breaches of the air quality directive. The government has been sent a letter of formal notice of the intention to take Britain to court. The UK has been given two months to respond.

There are other cases on this list, though;

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/press_en...

[otolith]

Tell you what, I'm not keen on that Janez Potočnik, I'm definitely not voting for him again. Though strangely, I don't recall being given the option last time. Of course, having a Slovenian quangocrat making decisions on UK domestic policy is just what we all want.

[Pan Pan]

ORD said:

Lowtimer said:

There are about 8,000 London buses on TfL contracts. Between them they do 6.5 million passenger journeys a day. Each bus on average provides more than 800 passenger journeys every day.

The total number of bus passenger journeys is nearly twice what the London Underground manages (about 3.5 million passenger journeys a day.)

They are not running around empty all day.

Interesting statistic, but I bet the actual difference (as regards pollution) between those journeys taking place by bus and by the alternatives (walk, cycle, drive, train) would be pretty small.

I expect that you could have a lot of car journeys without equalling the pollution produced by a bus in a day. Perhaps hundreds.

It strange how polarized views can become, whether a vehicle is petrol or diesel powered it really doesn't make that much difference in terms of emissions (except when the vehicle is a diesel powered bus)
I would not like be kept in a congested city (or in a closed room, in the gas chambers sense) with a vehicle with its motor running, regardless of whether it is petrol, or diesel powered.
As posted before London,if anything is cleaner than it has been before. Anyone remember the London pea souper fogs that killed thousands and lasted for days, that came from coal fired chimneys, Or how about being up to your ankles in horse sh*t and flies, when most of the transport was horse driven? AS posted before the surprise is that someone who lives and works in a congested city like London is upset about the condition there. If someone jumps into a cesspit, they can hardly be surprised if they then come up smelling of sh*t! the trick is to avoid going in there in the first place. The £20 penalty might be enough to convince a lot more people to stop going to these places, period.

[Pan Pan]

otolith said:

Pan Pan said:

Just a general question on this. I am assuming cars built in, and for use in the EU, must be to the same EU wide vehicle construction and use specifications.
I also assume that a congested city is a congested city, regardless of where, or which country it is in. Therefore have any other EU countries been issued with the same requirements regarding their emissions, or is this just aimed at the UK?
This surely cannot be a requirement issued solely to the UK/London as all other cities in the EU, are likely to have similar congestion and pollution levels.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/20/air-pollution-european-commission-legal-action-uk-nitrogen-dioxide

grauniad said:

Other European countries have also failed to meet the air quality directive – that should have been adopted in 2008 – but the EU environment commissioner, Janez Potocnik, has singled Britain out for its "persistent" breaches of the air quality directive. The government has been sent a letter of formal notice of the intention to take Britain to court. The UK has been given two months to respond.

There are other cases on this list, though;

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/press_en...

With the population density in the UK being the highest in the EU, it can hardly be surprising that the UK has greater difficulty in meeting emissions targets.
Still does not give Mr Potocnik the right to single out one country,for punitive emission standards. Perhaps the EU should legislate on balancing population densities across all the countries in the EU.
to create a fairer spread of people across the countries of the EU. BEFORE they apply emissions standards. Wonder why people keep wanting to come here??????

[Pixelpeep7r]

I think it's unfair that everyone has to pay the congestion charge.

You should be allowed xx free journeys in a month - Like if you only go to london a few times a year, why should you have to pay towards the 'congestion' that is mostly buses, lorries and fking addison Lee people carriers?

I get 'you are not stuck in traffic, you ARE traffic' but to charge someone the same as someone that is regularly congesting london is a bit much.

in other news, my friend found out to his cost what the 'low emissions zone (LEZ)' is all about.

£500 fine, PER DAY for driving an old van (2004 transit 3.6 ton) into london. Sorry, when i say london i mean ROMFORD. yes, the LEZ starts at romford.

[otolith]

Pan Pan said:

Still does not give Mr Potocnik the right to single out one country,for punitive emission standards.

Quite so - you won't be voting for him either, I assume?

[Pan Pan]

Pixelpeep7r said:

I think it's unfair that everyone has to pay the congestion charge.

You should be allowed xx free journeys in a month - Like if you only go to london a few times a year, why should you have to pay towards the 'congestion' that is mostly buses, lorries and fking addison Lee people carriers?

I get 'you are not stuck in traffic, you ARE traffic' but to charge someone the same as someone that is regularly congesting london is a bit much.

in other news, my friend found out to his cost what the 'low emissions zone (LEZ)' is all about.

£500 fine, PER DAY for driving an old van (2004 transit 3.6 ton) into london. Sorry, when i say london i mean ROMFORD. yes, the LEZ starts at romford.

As posted before I try to avoid any city / town etc that wants to charge me for going there, or those places that charge extortionate parking fees for the dubious privelege of parking there.
If as many as possible did this, trade would fall as has happened in some towns, to the extent the local authority was forced to amend or remove completely the charges they imposed, such places should be boycotted as far as possible.

[Pan Pan]

otolith said:

Pan Pan said:

Still does not give Mr Potocnik the right to single out one country,for punitive emission standards.

Quite so - you won't be voting for him either, I assume?

Quite (not that I was ever given the chance to do so in the first place!) but it just shows the non democratic, corrupt, partisan nature of some factions of the EU elite.

[ORD]

Pan Pan said:

Pixelpeep7r said:

I think it's unfair that everyone has to pay the congestion charge.

You should be allowed xx free journeys in a month - Like if you only go to london a few times a year, why should you have to pay towards the 'congestion' that is mostly buses, lorries and fking addison Lee people carriers?

I get 'you are not stuck in traffic, you ARE traffic' but to charge someone the same as someone that is regularly congesting london is a bit much.

in other news, my friend found out to his cost what the 'low emissions zone (LEZ)' is all about.

£500 fine, PER DAY for driving an old van (2004 transit 3.6 ton) into london. Sorry, when i say london i mean ROMFORD. yes, the LEZ starts at romford.

As posted before I try to avoid any city / town etc that wants to charge me for going there, or those places that charge extortionate parking fees for the dubious privelege of parking there.
If as many as possible did this, trade would fall as has happened in some towns, to the extent the local authority was forced to amend or remove completely the charges they imposed, such places should be boycotted as far as possible.

I doubt more than 1% of those who pay the congestion charge are visiting London - they are the poor buggers for whom driving to work is the least bad option.