But not quite yet. Starting from 2020 according to the report.
www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/15587372.Petrol_and_diesel_cars_to_be_banned_in_city_centre_from_2020/
Non-electric vehicles are to be banned from Oxford city centre by 2035 in what is believed to be the world's first Zero Emissions Zone.
The new zone will see all petrol and diesel taxis, cars and buses excluded from six central streets including Queen Street from 2020.
That area will then be expanded in 2025 and 2030 to encompass the entire city centre, including George Street, St Aldate's and most of High Street.
Finally, in 2035, HGVs will be banned from the same zone.
|
|
Words first zero emmisions zone? Rubbish, Google Zermatt. They have been doing it for decades.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 11 Oct 17 at 09:29
|
There's no such thing as zero emissions, it's just nimbyism, rather it's politics, promises made my people most of whom will be dead or long retired by the time comes around.
Major breakthroughs are needed in EV tech before this is practical, in the meantime ICEs are getting more efficient all of the time.
So rather than state 15 years ahead what the favoured tech will be, much better to let the techs compete as it's competition that drives progress.
|
|
Oxford has always been at the forefront of anti car politics.
|
My home city.
The only surprise is that it's taken this long. Oxford City Council has been making life difficult for car drivers for as long as I can remember. Goes down well with a certain voting demographic there.
That said, nobody drives into Oxford city centre, unless they happen to live there. Exorbitantly priced, inadequate parking and road closures have ensured that Park and Ride is the most popular way in. Either that, or people opt to drive their car to a more car friendly out of town shopping area, or another town or city entirely. Swindon and Milton Keynes both do well out of Oxford residents.
Last edited by: DP on Wed 11 Oct 17 at 11:24
|
Oxford to Milton Keynes just for a bit of shopping?
People must be desperate to do that - it's at least an hour... and don't get me started again on why anyone would want to go to MK.
|
>> Oxford to Milton Keynes just for a bit of shopping?
>>
>> People must be desperate to do that - it's at least an hour... and don't
>> get me started again on why anyone would want to go to MK.
>>
Personally, I don't understand why you wouldn't just shop online and have the stuff delivered to your house next day. The whole concept of "going shopping" is nuts in my view. SWMBO loves it though, as do most of her friends.
|
I'm with you DP, I hate going shopping and do it all online!
Pat
|
>> Personally, I don't understand why you wouldn't just shop online and have the stuff delivered to your house next day.
I'd sooner rummage through the fruit and veg and select my own apples, etc rather than letting some supermarket oik do it for me and pick up any old rubbish that may well be battered and bruised.
|
pick up any old rubbish
>> that may well be battered and bruised.
By the shoppers that rummage through the apples.........
|
>> Personally, I don't understand why you wouldn't just shop online and have the stuff delivered
>> to your house next day. The whole concept of "going shopping" is nuts in my
>> view. SWMBO loves it though, as do most of her friends.
My missus has single handedly contributed to carbon miles. She will see stuff on line, order it, try it, send it back, then drive to town to buy it in another size. Or the other way round.
Count the number of individual delivery company vans that ply up and down any suburban street! Shopping on line is ecological madness.
|
>> Count the number of individual delivery company vans that ply up and down any suburban
>> street! Shopping on line is ecological madness.
>>
Offset in a significant part by the reduction in the number of people travelling to a town centre or an out of town shopping village.
The logistics industry is still playing catch-up with the explosion in online shopping. It will rationalise and become more efficient as we go forward
|
>> Offset in a significant part by the reduction in the number of people travelling to
>> a town centre or an out of town shopping village.
No I don't believe that to be the case. A single trip into town would include shopping at many outlets and maybe lunch and coffee.
Now the many outlets all separately deliver, and the coffee and lunch still happens. Town centre car parks are not empty wastelands.
|
>> The logistics industry is still playing catch-up with the explosion in online shopping. It will
>> rationalise and become more efficient as we go forward
In a world of joined up thinking the logistics industry needs to be licensed by area or nationalised. One street, one van.
Its a pity that regulation and nationalisation carry such inefficient burdens. Logically it should be possible to run a nationalised industry just like a lean private one. Never happens tho
|
>> In a world of joined up thinking the logistics industry needs to be licensed by
>> area or nationalised. One street, one van.
Tell you what, let's give it her Maj's blessing and call it Royal Mail.....
|
>> >> In a world of joined up thinking the logistics industry needs to be licensed
>> by
>> >> area or nationalised. One street, one van.
>>
>> Tell you what, let's give it her Maj's blessing and call it Royal Mail.....
And that is exactly what it should be doing, is set up to do, and would be very good at it. Except the left wing unions are resisting it and destroying it.
|
>>Except the left wing unions are resisting it and
>> destroying it.
Come to think of it, I have just answered my musing as to why nationalising stuff never works in practise.
|
|
Wouldn't that give them a monopoly on delivering parcels?
|
>> Wouldn't that give them a monopoly on delivering parcels?
Yes but that doesn't have to be a bad thing if its done for ecological reasons.
|
> Yes but that doesn't have to be a bad thing if its done for ecological
>> reasons.
>>
That's what I thought, I'm surprised to hear the unions are against a nationalised monopoly.
|
>> And that is exactly what it should be doing, is set up to do, and
>> would be very good at it. Except the left wing unions are resisting it and
>> destroying it.
>>
Plus, whilst it's reasonably good at doing its core job (delivering letters and small parcels) it would struggle, without considerable modification to its operating structure, to amalgamate all the perishables into the mix.
|
>> Count the number of individual delivery company vans that ply up and down any suburban
>> street! Shopping on line is ecological madness.
Not sure about that...if I go to Milton Keynes to look for a pair of shoes, I do 40 miles round trip. And I might not find any I like.
I ordered some from ASOS that came yesterday. If the parcel van has 120 drops, it's probably only 1 or 2 miles per parcel from the nearest depot. If I had it sent to my nearest Collect+ point, it might save a bit of fuel, until I drive 3 miles each way to collect it.
Unfortunately the shoes were too small so I drove 3 miles each way to the PO to send them back...
I see even more grocery deliveries here than parcel carriers.
I'm not sure how much more efficient the logistics can get, unless density further increases. The hub and spoke system looks bonkers when you consider miles per parcel versus the point to point distance but it is easily the most efficient way to do it.
|
>> Swindon and Milton Keynes both do well out of Oxford residents.
As do Witney, Newbury, and no doubt Bicester Village.
|
Can't see any HGV drivers shedding a tear about being banned from the centre of Oxford.
Bring it on; and for a lot of other cities of that ilk too.
But don't whine when the shops shut,and cite high overheads like increased delivery costs, that's all.
|
|
I can't see much point in banning non-electric cars unless they also prohibit people from buying electricity from non-renewable sources.
|
Never walked through a congested city street and thought that breathing vehicle fumes is not doing me any good and doing even less good to children who have to breathe the stuff day in day out?
|
|
It must be the Scandinavians complaining, with our prevailing winds most of our pollution ends up there as acid rain. It does not do their trees any good.
|
>> Never walked through a congested city street and thought that breathing vehicle fumes is not doing me any good and doing even less good to children who have to breathe
>> the stuff day in day out?
>>
The air in our cities is infinitely cleaner than in the 80s, yet alone the 50s.
We have always taken some risks for convenience, adventure and prosperity, should we decide to stay at home rather than risk breathing in 0.000000000000000001% of something dirty? Should we wrap ourselves in cotton wool, gas masks and anti-bac ...
We have lives to lead and in doing so we create waste and we create risk, both should be minimised though they will never be eliminated.
|
Why not just take the perfectly reasonable step to eliminate the major source of air pollution in cities by a specified date?
Drives progress and the economy and makes fo a healthier environment. I find it hard to comprehend why anyone would have a problem with that. Unless you really like breathing diesel fumes.
|
>> Why not just take the perfectly reasonable step to eliminate the major source of air
>> pollution in cities by a specified date?
>>
I'll repeat what I said above, major breakthroughs are needed in EV tech before this is practical, in the meantime ICEs are getting more efficient all of the time. So rather than state 15 years ahead what the favoured tech will be, much better to let the techs compete as it's competition that drives progress.
|
>>rather than state 15 years ahead what the favoured tech will be, much better to let the techs compete as it's competition that drives progress
Competition for what? Sales, I guess. How do you increase sales? Well, amongst other things, by trying to anticipate what people will want and then to fulfil that demand.
If loads of councils come out and say EVs only in the future, then loads of people are going to be interested in EVs. -> demand -> development -> sales -> change.
It is exactly the same as the principle involved in the demise of diesels. Remember ages ago when I said that there was no need for anti-diesel laws, simply saying they were being considered would be enough to cause the demand to drop?
The same thing here. One doesn't need to pass laws, one just needs to say they are being considered.
So, far from ineffective, stating what the favoured tech in 15 years time is EXACTLY the correct approach if one wishes to influence the market without going to all the hard work and political exposure of actually legislating.
|
>>
>> So, far from ineffective, stating what the favoured tech in 15 years time is EXACTLY
>> the correct approach if one wishes to influence the market without going to all the
>> hard work and political exposure of actually legislating.
>>
I couldn't disagree more.
Setting a target is fine - then differing technologies, and developers thereof, can compete to meet the target at the lowest cost or beat the target at a set cost.
Though to state the preferred tech 15 years ahead, to the exclusion of all other existing techs, and anything that might be developed in the intervening time, is lunacy.
Let's say that late 1800s Oxford had had enough of horses and the poo all over and the streets and the council had said that all transport will be by steam in 15 years, and them along came the ICE ...
|
>>I couldn't disagree more
With what? Oxford Council's tactics or my explanation of them?
Because my explanation is exactly correct. And given the desires and goals of Oxford City Council, I think their tactics are sound.
I think its the working, or the desires, of the political mind in Oxford which eludes you.
To try again;
What laws have been passed against diesel engined cars in the UK in the last 2 years?
What has happened to the demand for diesel engined road cars in the same time frame?
So, if enough cities say the same as Oxford, what would you logically expect to happen to the demand for EVs and correspondingly the demand for internal combustion engined vehicles?
You should also notice that "non-electric" is a phrase used by the Newspaper, the council referred to diesel & petrol being penalised, not promoting the alternatives. So seemingly anything other than petrol and diesel will apparently be acceptable.
You may or may not want to see the demise of the petrol and diesel engines, but Oxford Council clearly does, and given that desire their approach is spot on.
|
>> With what? Oxford Council's tactics or my explanation of them?
>>
I guess both TBH, specifically your last paragraph that I quoted.
>> I think its the working, or the desires, of the political mind in Oxford which
>> eludes you.
>>
I understand your example re diesel - bad press has had an influence on demand, that's clear though that's not the point.
The point is that there is no such thing as Zero emissions, it's simply a matter of where the emissions are emitted, at a power station somewhere or out the back of the vehicle. Even wind, hydro, solar and tidal etc have a carbon cost.
And then there is the embedded, or embodied, carbon - the carbon consumed in manufacture, something that is still ignored in respect of EVs and hybrids.
And then there is the possibility of ICE technology improving in efficiency to the extent that it is a much more compelling choice than lugging carbon expensive batteries around, such as carbon capture meaning that the point of use emissions would be all but zero.
So to repeat, it should be about allowing technologies to compete, if that is what Oxford are saying then fine - though it has been stated that the objective is to ban petrol and diesel engine vehicles by whatever date ...
Last edited by: Hard Cheese on Thu 12 Oct 17 at 13:18
|
www.transportinmotion.com/
There is a really good article in here with a lot of information about what's being trialled in the HGV world.
It's too long to copy and paste it so you can download and read it if you're interested!
Pat
|
>> >> With what? Oxford Council's tactics or my explanation of them?
>> I guess both TBH, specifically your last paragraph that I quoted.
Perhaps you failed to note the context I gave, now in bold.
"> So, far from ineffective, stating what the favoured tech in 15 years time is EXACTLY
>> the correct approach IF one wishes to influence the market without going to all the
>> hard work and political exposure of actually legislating"".
>> I understand your example re diesel - bad press has had an influence on demand,
>> that's clear though that's not the point.
It is mine.
>> The point is that there is no such thing as Zero emissions, it's simply a
>> matter of where the emissions are emitted, at a power station somewhere or out the
>> back of the vehicle. Even wind, hydro, solar and tidal etc have a carbon cost.
True, clearly so. But not your earlier point which was, I think, that goals should be set and technologies should be allowed/forced to compete - which is what should probably happen.
>> So to repeat, it should be about allowing technologies to compete, if that is what
>> Oxford are saying then fine - though it has been stated that the objective is
>> to ban petrol and diesel engine vehicles by whatever date ...
It has also been stated that there is a Double Decker on the Moon, although I am led to believe that is not in fact true.
The council, who let's be clear are a bunch of car hating, sandal wearing, gits, and I know several of them*, have said they want zero emissions in 15 years. Clearly they mean zero LOCAL emissions.
They'll get a lot closer to it than they would have by saying nothing. And they are at no political risk at all. Quite smart really.
*Note: possibly "knew" rather than "know", I've not been involved there for a while.
|
>> The council, who let's be clear are a bunch of car hating, sandal wearing, gits,
>> and I know several of them*, have said they want zero emissions in 15 years.
>> Clearly they mean zero LOCAL emissions.
>>
So add "nimby" between "sandal wearing" and "gits" then ...
|
>>So add "nimby"....
To distinguish them from who else?
Nimbyism is standard human behaviour, is it not?
|
>> >>So add "nimby"....
>>
>> To distinguish them from who else?
>>
>> Nimbyism is standard human behaviour, is it not?
>>
Depends on the context, the arrival of travellers, rubbish tips, incinerators, young offender's institutions etc perhaps induces the nimby in all of us. Though in the context of this thread a nimby is one happy for the emissions to be emitted on someone else's door step.
|
Rubbish.
Pollution needs managing wherever it is, and the current petrol diesel approach is just bad.
As always, resistance to change is always the challenge.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 12 Oct 17 at 16:13
|
|
To get back on track, I don't see it as resistance to change, rather it's being open minded as there are lots of possible alternatives, carbon capture being just one.
|
>> I couldn't disagree more.
>>
>> Setting a target is fine - then differing technologies, and developers thereof, can compete to
>> meet the target at the lowest cost or beat the target at a set cost.
And that is exactly what Oxford Council have done. They have not mandated or banned technology, merely set a target - Zero Emissions
If you can invent an ICE with zero emissions, its useable in Oxford.
|
>> Why not just take the perfectly reasonable step to eliminate the major source of air
>> pollution in cities by a specified date?
You can do that. Remove the people.
Piling people into a small place is unhealthy, always has been, always will be, and there is rugger all you can do to change it.
|
City centres are changing. they are increasingly becoming where people want to live. They are becoming full of flats, coffee houses restaurants etc. Their role as shopping centres and location of offices which people visited and then left leaving a deserted city centre is becoming obsolete.
It is perfectly possible to have a clean and healthy city. It just needs a little vision and and ability to accept change.
Just because we have been been breathing polluted air for the last century doesn't mean we have to continue doing it for the nest 100 years.
|
>> City centres are changing. they are increasingly becoming where people want to live.
>>
Do you have any backing statistics for this CG?
I would take issue with the idea that people want to live in a big city , they may have to live in the city because that's where their work is but I cannot understand people wanting to live in a city centre
We lived in the centre of Glasgow when I was little (1955-1966) and were glad to get out of it, we then lived about 5 miles out of the city centre although still in Glasgow and the pollution etc was much lower, as it still is 50 years later.
I would not, in any circumstances want to live in a major city, I have to work in them sometimes, but live in and bring up a family in, no thanks.
|
>> Never walked through a congested city street and thought that breathing vehicle fumes is not
>> doing me any good and doing even less good to children who have to breathe
>> the stuff day in day out?
>>
What do you define as a congested city?
I have walked to work in central London, most recently Waterloo or Aldgate areas, and in rush hour the pollution is very thick and urgently needs action, while in Oxford, I have never experiences such levels of pollution.
There are some councils taking "pollution" measures for political reasons when the levels of pollution are at far lower levels than really congested major cities.
And yes I know that not all pollution is visible.
|
>> Never walked through a congested city street and thought that breathing vehicle fumes is not
>> doing me any good and doing even less good to children who have to breathe
>> the stuff day in day out?
>>
>
Of course. But the full benefit of electric cars is only realised if the electricity is generated cleanly. Otherwise it's just an exercise in dispersing the pollution hoping that if it can be spread evenly around the world than it doesn't matter.
|
|
The immediate benefit of electric cars in cities is tha people living their will not suffer dangerous levels of pollution in the air they breathe. Why you would want city dwellers to have to wait until all electricity is generated by non polluting fuels before they can breathe cleaner air?
|
Could it be because those of us living near where polluting electricity is generated are having to breathe the polluting air?
You don't tend to find power stations in cities.
Us country dwellers value our cleaner air.
Pat
|
Power stations I would think are on the fringes on urban areas I don't think there are many in the middle of nowhere.
I think a small increase in output from power stations (presumably from EVs) is hardly felt especially balanced off against a big drop in fumes in cities.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Thu 12 Oct 17 at 19:34
|
>>Us country dwellers value our cleaner air
Abso-lutely m8 .. I droved through St Blazey, Tywardreath, Penpillick, Lostwithiel, Doublebois, Dobwalls and Liskeard yesterday, thinking howl much nicer they sound (and look!) than Bermondsey, Peckham, Lambeth, and Lewisham.
Luvly day too, which helps. I had the use of a 3 cylinder Suzuki Swift 1.2 for the day, this years model with just 3000m miles on the clock. Quit a nice little car, I thought, Fun to drive - I could live with one.
|
>> Never walked through a congested city street and thought that breathing vehicle fumes is not
>> doing me any good and doing even less good to children who have to breathe
>> the stuff day in day out?
Nope!
|
>> >> Never walked through a congested city street and thought that breathing vehicle fumes is
>> not
>> >> doing me any good and doing even less good to children who have to
>> breathe
>> >> the stuff day in day out?
>>
>> Nope!
I find that hard to believe.
|
>> Oxford has always been at the forefront of anti car politics.
As Jeremy Clarkson once said, Oxford - the car hating capital of the Country.
|
|
Interesting list, some cities in there I wouldn't have guessed, especially stanford le hope as I've never even heard of it!
|
Stanford le Hope, used to go there on business, 25 ish years ago, lot's of container traffic so I guess above average HGV movements.
|
|
You should have been there when the unregulated cement works were pouring out crap.
|
|
Just read elsewhere that there is an electric bus been trailed on a rural route...
|
>> Just read elsewhere that there is an electric bus been trailed on a rural route...
>>
>>
And not for the first time....
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nottinghamshire_and_Derbyshire_Tramways_Company
|
"Stanford le Hope,"
Known to the locals, with good reason, as 'Stanford no Hope'.
|
|
Cornmarket Street in Oxford in the 80s and 90s had air that you could chew. An endless stream of old, dirty diesel buses and high buildings stopping any meaningful air circulation. Now it's pedestrianised, it's far more pleasant.
|
>>Now it's pedestrianised, it's far more pleasant
I agree. I think all town centres should be pedestrianised, Park & Ride should be pushed everywhere and parking your own car in town should be b***** expensive and difficult, though conversely it should be much easier and cheaper in the evening..
I do think Oxford got a bit carried away with the 20mph limits though.
|
|
Its relatively easy and cheap to park in Radley, and toddle up one stop to Oxford on the train. Thats my preferred option.
|
>> Its relatively easy and cheap to park in Radley, and toddle up one stop to
>> Oxford on the train. Thats my preferred option.
I used to use the Bicester / Oxford line a lot. And the Park & Ride by the A34 is ok too.
|
>> I used to use the Bicester / Oxford line a lot. And the Park &
>> Ride by the A34 is ok too.
Which now of course has a new station at Bicester Village (free parking) New station at Oxford Parkway with lots of (paid) parking, and the new interconnecting rail link (the Bicester chord) to the old Midland mainline between Birmingham and Marylebone.
|
I did not have a problem parking when son was there. I did had a few privileges like parking in his college, needing to scatter the tourists to get to the gates or parking on the pavement with a chitty. :-))
Just for loading / unloading you understand.
Otherwise i parked in St Clements road car park by Magdalen Bridge ( I am used to London prices )
The Park n Ride nearest London is surprise surprise often full and it is a long trek to the next nearest one. I tried it just once .
My daughter was only in college accommodation for two years but again I could park long enough without getting a ticket .
I did once take a short cut down The High when a barrier was left up and I paid the significant cost of a low res photo :-(
|
Oh, and the world will be a far better place with the demise of the internal combustion powered cars, once we have viable and more suitable replacements.
Clearly we are not there yet, but I'll welcome the day..
|
"Non electric cars to be banned in Oxford city."
The City Fathers of Oxford are Onanists.
That's one reason why that sort of thinking is helping city and town centres to die- the other is the stupidly expensive parking generally charged, even on on-street parking.
We avoid going into Sheffield city centre because of the cost of parking and the lack of decent places to leave one's car. We simply go to Meadowhall. Free parking and plenty of it.
I'm not interested in park and ride, or the Supertram: I want to drive to my destination in comfort and park there, preferably free.
I even resent the 60p per hour in the car-park owned by our local Priory Centre. They don't even provide public toilets there - shut, allegedly, because of the cost of policing and cleaning them. They are happy to employ enforcement bodies to check out car park tickets though.
|
|
Re Sheffield, the Q-Parks at Rockingham St and Charles St are good, the former has particularly large spaces.
|
|
I think it depends on the town/city centre, I doubt it'll have much impact on Oxford it's a prosperous area. Other areas are no doubt more affected by parking costs.
|
>That's one reason why that sort of thinking is helping city and town centres to die
I guess you don't go to Oxford much. That is a very not-dead town centre.
|
Non electric cars to be banned in Oxford city - Old Navy
