RE: Pollution is bus-generated: ABD

RE: Pollution is bus-generated: ABD

Tuesday 31st May 2005

Pollution is bus-generated: ABD

Drivers' group throws down gauntlet to Greenpeace


Major polluter stops for  breather
Major polluter stops for breather
London's air quality has been damned for breaching EU particle emissions levels on 36 days already this year. Yet anti-car groups like Greenpeace have not called for a bus-free day that would show city-dwellers that much pollution is due to buses and not car-related.

ABD spokesman Mark McArthur-Christie said "Buses are a major source of the fine particles that are clogging London's air and Londoners' lungs. As someone who regularly cycles and rides a motorcycle in the City, I know at first hand how filthy some of them are. It's time London's authorities woke up to the better ways to get around town."

Oxford, another heavily bus-reliant city that has banned cars from its centre, has air quality that is so bad it is equivalent to smoking more than 61 cigarettes each day.

The ABD believes that the introduction of the Congestion Charge makes bus pollution even worse, with more buses on the road than ever before. This is backed by Transport for London's own figures which show that private cars make up less than half of the traffic entering the congestion charge zone. The buses, taxis, vans and trucks that make up the majority of the traffic all have the larger diesel engines that are particularly bad for particulate emissions, with bus exhausts containing the two most carcinogenic chemicals (3-NBA and 1,8-DNP) known to science.

New diesel cars have to meet stringent EU4 emission regulations from the end of 2005 which will drastically cut their contribution to the capital's particulates. Petrol cars produce negligible quantities of this pollutant.

Cars have cleaned up their act. Given that a family of four travelling by car is the most environmentally friendly way to travel, its time for buses and trains to stop polluting our towns and cities with impunity, and long overdue for Greenpeace to call for a Bus Free Day.

Author
Discussion

pounana

Original Poster:

39 posts

216 months

Tuesday 31st May 2005
quotequote all
as a committed cyclist, I hate to have to say this, but I completely agree. Cars are designed for people to bounce off them, and are driven by people who own them and care about what scratches they pick up. Also, you can stand next to a car revving up at the lights and not be engulfed in a sticky black cloud of un-burned hydrocarbons.

The buses are driven by people under time pressures, who make some very optimistic judgements at junctions, red lights and lane changes. They also throw unbelievable amounts of crap out into the air. Worse still, there's nowhere to park your bike on one (viz Montreal and various other cities).

As for goods vehicles, which certainly come in for the same criticism, why the hell are they on the roads during the day? If we could shift HGV traffic into the evenings, they could travel more efficiently, cause less traffic and would bring more of the workforce into a 24 hour economy, thereby freeing up roadspace, public transport and creating extra jobs.

In short. Private emissions testing bodies, with the balls to sue councils for breaking their own rules. As soon as the costs of maintaining their vehicles to the standards expected of the rest of us are factored in to the equation... oh, the congestion charge will go up again...

Bicycle anyone?

beanbag

7,323 posts

182 months

Tuesday 31st May 2005
quotequote all
pounana said:
Bicycle anyone?


Yes please.......for off-road use......

top brake

62 posts

202 months

Tuesday 31st May 2005
quotequote all
Another reason not to go to Oxford then...

corcoran

431 posts

215 months

Tuesday 31st May 2005
quotequote all
pounana said:
c'mon! *punches fist into the air* lead the revolution. i'm following.

buses are a complete farse, fares go up the less old people there are, i swear. plus bus drivers are mean-spirited and rude. and i'm a big fan of how park and ride buses can only pick up from designated park, and drop off in the middle of town - for a quid.. i live around the corner of such a scheme and the cheapest way for me to get to town for the day is to drive around the corner (1/4 mile) park in the park and ride, and go to town on the bus that way.

OR, thank the lord now Courts have gone bust, there's plenty of parking in their car park.. for the time being..

along with HGVs at night - any sort of vehicle not capable of doing 70 on the motorway shouldn't be allowed on during the rush hour - like the bloody crane-type thing on the M42 this morning or a Citroen Deux Chevalles.

also caravans - if you REALLY want to make the most of the bank holiday weekend, how's about travelling between 8pm and 8am? And being fined for anything in between?


joephandango

120 posts

209 months

Tuesday 31st May 2005
quotequote all
Would I be correct in thinking that in some big cities, a modern petrol engined car will actually put out cleaner air from it's exhaust than it takes in??
Advertisement

gofasterrosssco

1,118 posts

177 months

Tuesday 31st May 2005
quotequote all
joephandango said:
Would I be correct in thinking that in some big cities, a modern petrol engined car will actually put out cleaner air from it's exhaust than it takes in??


Unlikely, the unburnt particulates coming out of a heavily polluting diesel bus engine will not be combusted inside a petrol engine and just come out the other end. I stand to be corrected thou.

But maybe the efficiency of our(not mine specifically) new, clean petrol engines is being harmed by having to breath in the emissions of diesel bus engines???

SlimJ

334 posts

170 months

Tuesday 31st May 2005
quotequote all
What I really don't understand is why do we not have buses that run on alternative fuel's yet?? I was in Adelaide, Brisbane, and Sydney late last year and AFAIK all the buses were running on natural gas, far less polution and wern't belching out blake smoke everytime they pulled away!!

To be honest, the air quality in the big city of Sydney seems to be much better than London, I would like to see a comparison.

James

chris_crossley

1,164 posts

224 months

Tuesday 31st May 2005
quotequote all
gofasterrosssco said:

joephandango said:
Would I be correct in thinking that in some big cities, a modern petrol engined car will actually put out cleaner air from it's exhaust than it takes in??



Unlikely, the unburnt particulates coming out of a heavily polluting diesel bus engine will not be combusted inside a petrol engine and just come out the other end. I stand to be corrected thou.

But maybe the efficiency of our(not mine specifically) new, clean petrol engines is being harmed by having to breath in the emissions of diesel bus engines???

I should imageine that it probably does come out cleaner in a high polution environment like london. Nearly all cars are fitted with a catalitic converter which is designed to remove pollutants. They take in polluted air, add a bid more in the combustion procees. Then this is passed to the cat's. They would clean the compounded pollutants. Would be nice to see this theory check by CLARKSON

eein

353 posts

206 months

Tuesday 31st May 2005
quotequote all
The easy fix to this problem, as mentioned below, is for buses and taxis to become cleaner. I read somewhere recently (either on here or in Autocar) that many of the London taxi drivers want to buy modern cars with modern, clean engines, but that Ken won't allow it coz the Hackney carrige is a tourist attraction!

TFL or someone should pay for the people who make th black cabs to take a modern car with alternative engine (like a civic IMA or something) and stick a black cab body on top. I realise it wouldnt be as simple as that, but it must be possible.

As for busses I keep hearing of alternative fuel ones being trialed, but there needs to be more pressure (or support) applied to operators to adopt them.

B 7 VP

633 posts

183 months

Tuesday 31st May 2005
quotequote all
The ABD published a letter on 16th April sent to the chairman of Transport 2000--Michael Palin--inviting comments on the dangerous levels of particles coming from diesel buses in London.Technical info and stats were provided--NO reply was received.

Further investigation by others, found that the stringent Emission Controls for private cars , do NOT exist for Bus-Train or Marine Diesels, and any reduction in emissions is on a manufacturers Voluntary basis.Yet Global warming is due Only to the petrol engines we are constantly told.

The Silence from GreenPeace is deafening , any hope of an answer from Transport for London-T2000-or other members of the Politburo is remote.

cdp

5,662 posts

195 months

Tuesday 31st May 2005
quotequote all
Don't you listen to the environmental groups? Even if a bus with no passengers ran on coal and leaked nuclear waste it couldn't be as harmful as a modern car with all it's seats in use.

apache

39,726 posts

225 months

Tuesday 31st May 2005
quotequote all
I'm amazed a seemingly sensible chap like Palin has anything to do with these nutters, he must be either totally isolated from reality or being payed shed loads, shame really as I had him down as a gentleman not a freeloading hypocrite

cdp

5,662 posts

195 months

Tuesday 31st May 2005
quotequote all
Trainspot 2000 and Greenpiece should be arguing for the bus companies to clean up their acts.

Wait a minute. Who pays for trainspot 2000?

Oh well not much chance of that then.....

top brake

62 posts

202 months

Tuesday 31st May 2005
quotequote all
chris_crossley said:

gofasterrosssco said:


joephandango said:
Would I be correct in thinking that in some big cities, a modern petrol engined car will actually put out cleaner air from it's exhaust than it takes in??




Unlikely, the unburnt particulates coming out of a heavily polluting diesel bus engine will not be combusted inside a petrol engine and just come out the other end. I stand to be corrected thou.

But maybe the efficiency of our(not mine specifically) new, clean petrol engines is being harmed by having to breath in the emissions of diesel bus engines???


I should imageine that it probably does come out cleaner in a high polution environment like london. Nearly all cars are fitted with a catalitic converter which is designed to remove pollutants. They take in polluted air, add a bid more in the combustion procees. Then this is passed to the cat's. They would clean the compounded pollutants. Would be nice to see this theory check by CLARKSON


this was done in Top Gear a few years ago and the Porsche did emit cleaner air

JoeKing

33 posts

169 months

Tuesday 31st May 2005
quotequote all
cdp said:
Don't you listen to the environmental groups? Even if a bus with no passengers ran on coal and leaked nuclear waste it couldn't be as harmful as a modern car with all it's seats in use.



Werd...

In the socialist utopia envisioned by the eco-nazi...private transport is a greedy self-indulgence used only by capitalistic swine contrary to the interest of the collective...

To criticize mass-transite is a blasphemous sacrilege...comrade

GrahamG

1,085 posts

208 months

Tuesday 31st May 2005
quotequote all
Sloganising from one side of the debate or the other is no different imo, both sides are equally responsible for some awful old cobblers.

Actually in London the debate on black cabs isn't about cleaner new vehicles it's about cheaper new vehicles.

There's already a programme of cleaning up the emissions of black cabs with the owners / drivers being compewnsated for their investment through a fares surcharge.

On buses its even simpler (and we've been here before on these pages) the average car in London is roughly twice as polluting in terms of CO2 per passenger km than the average bus (SMMTs figures).

More to the point just how quickly do you think we'd all get anywhere in London without the bus network.

thirsty

726 posts

205 months

Tuesday 31st May 2005
quotequote all
GrahamG said:

On buses its even simpler (and we've been here before on these pages) the average car in London is roughly twice as polluting in terms of CO2 per passenger km than the average bus (SMMTs figures).



What does CO2 have to do with it? That number is for the global warming crowd. It's the diesel emmisions that is causing the problem. Having traveled to most cities in Europe and the middle east, there are only a couple of places worse than London for air quality.

When I moved to the UK, I never knew I had asthma until I had an attack in central London. Now that I have left, I have no problems... even in smoggy LA. It's the oil burners in busses and taxis that cause the bad air, not modern cars with proper emmision controls.

JoeKing

33 posts

169 months

Tuesday 31st May 2005
quotequote all
GrahamG said:


On buses its even simpler (and we've been here before on these pages) the average car in London is roughly twice as polluting in terms of CO2 per passenger km than the average bus (SMMTs figures).





CO2 is a colorless odorless gas..which makes plants grow...a pollutant(?)..a HIGHLY debatable contributant to the questionable theory of global warming. This article is about diesel particulate emissions, which gas powered vehicles don't emit.

nickw

85 posts

224 months

Tuesday 31st May 2005
quotequote all
Have some of you gone stark staring mad bonkers? Since when has life had a binary answer?? Get this: both cars AND buses are polluters. They pollute differently, but they both pollute.

Now, for the really tricky one: whomever says that global warming caused by CO2 is "highly debatable" is nuts. Bonkers. Barking. There is evidence to suggest its true. You can never prove it but the conseuqneces of it being true are so devastating, you have to assume they are true because its something we can do something about (in theory). If we are proven wrong then great - no harm done.

grrrrr

apache

39,726 posts

225 months

Tuesday 31st May 2005
quotequote all
nickw said:
Have some of you gone stark staring mad bonkers? Since when has life had a binary answer?? Get this: both cars AND buses are polluters. They pollute differently, but they both pollute.

Now, for the really tricky one: whomever says that global warming caused by CO2 is "highly debatable" is nuts. Bonkers. Barking. There is evidence to suggest its true. You can never prove it but the conseuqneces of it being true are so devastating, you have to assume they are true because its something we can do something about (in theory). If we are proven wrong then great - no harm done.

grrrrr




Really? care to expound? there is plenty of evidence to the contrary too, concentrating on pollution from one source is pretty barmy, especially when you consider the actual amount generated by cars is insignificant compared to natures efforts


1 - 1 = 0



>> Edited by apache on Tuesday 31st May 19:31