Great Western Coffee Shop

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/road-charging-high-pollution-vehicles-10614947

Also Leeds

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/top-stories/leeds-to-get-congestion-charge-for-gas-guzzling-vehicles-1-7629904

(but that refers only to older buses ... as I suspect the Birmingham story might!)

More evidence of the war on public transport?

Indeed. Up go fares & costs pf consumables in the city centres, while out of town shops get another boost

Not totally wrongheaded, but mostly so.

The Birmingham Mail's poll too, with its options of "They need to be got off the roads" and "It's unfair on drivers who can't afford a new vehicle".

There's a surreal quantity of stuff from the DEFRA - which doesn't help to find something specific. I've looked for a justification for charging buses, but not cars (outside London) but not found it.

Here's something a bit relevant, though. In the West Midlands document (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/air-quality-plan-for-reducing-nitrogen-dioxide-no2-in-west-midlands-uk0035) Figure B2 (p 22), plots "Annual mean roadside NOX source apportionment plots for all roads exceeding the annual mean NO2 limit value in 2013". For the trunk roads, which are the worst, heavy vehicles collectively emit a lot more than cars, but buses alone emit only half as much. So a justification is called for.

In among the welter of economic theory about how owners will react, I think the idea is that buses will be redeployed (by big national companies) or traded (between smaller local ones) so the naughty buses end up where the charges don't apply. This has cost implications, but not perhaps as bad as the zone charge being added to fares. Something similar can be done with HGVs.

One other point visible in the predicted roadside NOX levels is that the reductions in most places (where zones are not seen as necessary) are from just over 40 to just under, mainly due to tighter standards. For those places to get zones, it goes from a bit higher but still to just under - not a huge effect. For West Midlands, the figures are 47 without and 39 with the zone in 2020. London has to be different, as the levels now are far higher. (Details in the Technical Report (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/487072/aq-plan-2015-technical-report.pdf), p 46.)

Why not private cars? They may emit less individually, but there are alot more of them, it all adds up. Not a good policiy for encouraging modal shift to public transport.

Bring back the trolleybuses.  :P

We should probably be thankful that there is no proposal (that I can see) to introduce charging for diesel trains entering these city centres.

Full list of cities involved in this initiative, according to The Mirror (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/five-cities-charge-lorries-buses-7030439)

Birmingham, Leeds, Southampton, Nottingham and Derby.

is this not just a cack-handed way of targeting diesels over petrol engines to meet some short term target at the expense of long term modal shift?

...while not being seen as "prosecuting the war on the motorist". But so far, it's just an announcement; quite likely, the legislation might not even be passed.

Hasn't it already been passed?

Ah, the War on the Motorist - I remember it well; it started in 1997 and ended in ignominious defeat in 2000...

Don't know actually. The Birm Mail starts with "The Government will pass laws requiring Birmingham to introduce road charging for taxis, coaches and commercial vehicles in an attempt to cut pollution" and then says "Birmingham City Council will have to introduce the charges under laws introduced by the Government - but the authority said it welcomed the announcement." So not yet, but yes already.

So long?

It turns out there is another, quite separate, local plan for a Birmingham congestion charge.
http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/news/regional-affairs/congestion-charge-plan-hidden-birmingham-10584966

Possibly this congestion charge, which seems to have been dropped anyway, was prompted by the Central Gov plans.

This should not be seen as a war on motorists. The technical report is quite clear on the reasons for this proposal as staving pointed us to.

So why not penalise diesel car drivers? Well perhaps because for many years governments have been encouraging Diesel cars and if they suddenly starting put additional charges on them there might be a bit of a push back.

Bus and truck owners are also seen as more able to upgrade their vehicles.  I know in Oxford City Centre the buses are a major cause of pollution (as cars are not allowed in most places in the centre) and the pollution from them has been seen as an issue for many years. 

I'm not suggesting penalising diesel car drivers, I'm suggesting charging all cars for the greenhouse gasses they emit.

Ah, it is an issue of framing the debate is it? I've not read the report, just the title, but by looking at nitrogen oxide emissions, diesel engines become the enemy and the motorist gets away with it, potentially increasing carbon dioxide emissions as bus travel becomes more expensive as a result and modal shift goes in the wrong direction.

Oxford wasn't mentioned on the list of cites included in the scheme though, and the posts so far suggest that cars are permitted in the areas concerned. In city centres public transport is generally far more available than in rural areas so I would have thought modal shift is more achievable in city centres. If you are also taking action to reduce (congestion charge) or ban car use in city centres then adding incentives for buses to reduce (or even eliminate at point of use, by going electric) their emissions is sensible.

But these charging zones are targeted quite specifically at reducing NOX levels in places where they are not going to come down under the agreed limit level otherwise. It's not about CO2 - that has the same effect wherever it is emitted. It looks to me like a "what's the least we can get away with doing" kind of measure.

It's not about congestion either - several cities have been thinking about charging zones for this for several years. I think the interaction between the two is probably that having both with different boundaries is going to be confusing, very unpopular, and make the councillors look a bit silly.

The issue is that the UK has not been dealing with air quality (or in the case of the London low emission zone - not sufficiently dealing with it), merely measuring it. This is not just a small environmental issue it is actually leading to premature deaths or to put it bluntly we are killing people. I could have put it that we are not complying with an EU directive but that might unhelpfully politicise what is a major public health issue. The technical report just talks about how they achieve the levels required by the directive so fails to mention this.  

So here we are trying to balance carbon dioxide emissions (which almost certainly* indirectly affect people through global warming) with other Pollutants which are directly affecting people now.  

* Sorry scientist in me - we will never be absolutely certain until its far too late

It is not banning diesels either it is introducing charges with exemptions for those with the least pollution (Euro VI/6 Diesels and Euro 4 Petrol are exempt).  In London (with the most serious problem) this will also apply to private cars.  


In Oxford the problem is less serious much more localised.  But the council have been trying voluntary measures so contract buses (e.g. the Park & Ride are low emission vehicles if I recall correctly.

Part of the problem would seem to be that in the UK we have failed to deal with the public health issue and only taken notice of political directives.

Yes so what happens if we come out of the EU and do not do Norway type deal (which would mean we would have to abide by environmental directives anyway)?

Would we just make our own laws to do exactly the same or would we just poison ourselves and our neighbours? 

Cars/Road vehicles are immeasurably cleaner than they used to be in environmental terms. Demand for petrol/diesel is virtually price inelastic in any case. Raise prices with yet more taxes and all it will achieve will be to disproportionately affect the lower paid. 

Of course this only deals with pollution from road diesel vehicles.  I assume there will now be a major programme of electrification in London, Birmingham, Leeds, Southampton, Nottingham and Derby to deal with the emissions from rail!

............I dread to think how much that would cost/how long it would take judging by the progress on the electrification of the FGW region!

Oh, I agree that it is important to tackle NOX emissions as well as CO2. My concern is that this policy could lead to an increase in CO2, rather than reducing both NOX and CO2 together.

Unfortunately, some words of warning from rail minister Claire Perry suggests the government might be losing faith in electrification http://www.passengertransport.co.uk/2015/11/perry-denies-sparks-effect-of-electrification/  (http://www.passengertransport.co.uk/2015/11/perry-denies-sparks-effect-of-electrification/) although they've already locked-in diesel on most of the Great Western for most of the next 30yrs with their bi-mode and psudeo-electric units.

While the GW electrification does appear to be a mess, I don't recall reading/hearing about any problems with the Airdrie-Bathgate Rail Link project (which is electrified) and the Paisley Canal electrification project was praised (although the electrification of the latter and possible the former isn't suitable for a main line).

Yet electrification has the capability to remove both CO2 and NOX pollution (depending how you generate the power).

The power exists for the Government to request this charging, and this is what was issued the other day. The cities have until 2020 to implement