London girl could be first to have “air pollution” listed as cause of death

Re:London girl could be first to have “air pollution” listed... by frereubu on Saturday May 04, 2019 @04:22PM (#19829116)

I live in Brighton (55 miles south of London) and regularly come up by train. But as soon as it's more than me - my wife and daughter joining me to see an exhibition for example - it often costs more to travel by train than it does to drive (in my polluting diesel car I bought quite a while ago when people still thought they were good), including fuel, central London parking and the congestion charge, presuming we don't know three months in advance that we want to do that (when we'd be able to buy cheap super-advance off-peak tickets). The ULEZ will change that calculation a bit. But the thing I hate the very most is the reduction of government subsidies for public transport when the effective subsidies for cars - including things like NHS treatment for this poor girl - is astronomical. I would love my diesel car to be taxed out of existence. But unless there's some kind of provision for public transport (both cost and capacity) to balance that out, it's going to be a real shitshow.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:London girl could be first to have “air pollution” listed... by esotericn on Saturday May 04, 2019 @04:51PM (#19829305)

Would it not work to drive to the edge of the Oyster zone and get the train in? Somewhere around East Croydon or one of the tram stops, say? I agree that you wouldn't do it at the moment because it'd be more hassle, but if the cost went up it'd make sense right? (I'm not that familiar with the drive from Brighton but it feels like there must be a station somewhere you can use; there are tons of stations in SE London that have unrestricted parking 10 mins walk away).

I agree that National Rail pricing is absurd. We should fix that. There's this silly two-tier thing going on whereby getting a journey within the Oyster zone is trivial and getting one outside (i.e. most of the bloody country) is this escapade of finding advance tickets, finding the cheapest time, etc.

Ultimately though, things are going to get more expensive. A poster below commented something along the lines of "so only the rich should drive in London" - and that's what's going to end up happening, unless you ban driving entirely, which would be the nuclear option.

Not all problems, particularly those to do with pollution, have an easy "everyone wins" answer. It might just be the case that things we previously considered normal and standard just won't be possible if we want to preserve health and the climate.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:London girl could be first to have “air pollution” listed... by frereubu on Saturday May 04, 2019 @06:00PM (#19829656)

As I've said below, I should have been clearer that I do take the train rather than drive. My point was more about the calculations that don't make sense, and until those change in tandem with more investment in public transport (and yes, sort out those stupidly confusing fare structures on National Rail) we'll be treading water (literally, in London). I wouldn't really care if only rich people drove in London, if they paid enough to make a difference to public transport for everyone else. Even if they didn't the much cleaner air might be worth it.

There are stations like the ones you're suggesting. Forest Hill has free on-street parking less than five minutes from the station, but that would increase journey time significantly with the switch to another mode of transport with family in tow, and make a day trip much less feasible.

Fair point about some things not being possible though. Better to reduce the number of people travelling if it means a much cleaner, healthier London. I've even considered trying to commute to London from Brighton via bike during the summer, staying a night with a friend and riding back the next afternoon... That would be much nicer if I didn't feel like I was inhaling exhaust fumes for half the journey.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:London girl could be first to have “air pollution” listed... by esotericn on Saturday May 04, 2019 @07:42PM (#19830120)

Ha. So I'm not the only one that knows about Forest Hill, then.

(Feels like it'd be a bloody pain to drive to from Brighton!)

The last part of your comment is what really hits home for me.

People driving private cars around damage other modes of transport. Cycling becomes less pleasant (near passes, inhaling shit, etc); buses are caught in congestion; everything becomes less dense; etc.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:London girl could be first to have “air pollution” listed... by frereubu on Monday May 06, 2019 @03:28AM (#19837482)

Yeah, if pollution can kill that girl just because she lives near that junction, I just keep thinking what it must be like in my lungs if I'm pedalling hard and sucking in great gulps of the stuff.

(Sydenham is OK as a backup - a bit further south of the station on the side roads. Not as convenient as Forest Hill though!)

Edit: I seem to remember a study about health of cyclists (although don't have the citation so take with a pinch of salt) and it was universally better except in cities. Either crashes, pollution, or both, meant that cycling didn't make a difference to cyclists' health overall.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:London girl could be first to have “air pollution” listed... by grey-area on Saturday May 04, 2019 @04:52PM (#19829312)

The congestion charge is used to fund public transport, which has massively improved since.

Please just use the train.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:London girl could be first to have “air pollution” listed... by frereubu on Saturday May 04, 2019 @05:48PM (#19829594)

I should probably have been clear - I do use the train. (I was one of the Extinction Rebellion protesters in London recently, so have very firm beliefs about modes of transport). My point was that the vast majority of people just won't give a shit until it hits them in their pocket. I don't see that changing, so the only real way of doing anything about it in any reasonable time frame is to make driving much more expensive and public transport much cheaper.

I disagree with your point about public transport massively improving since the congestion charge though. In what respect? I've been regularly travelling in London since the mid 90s and haven't really noticed much beyond the re-opening of what used to be the East London Line. I get the feeling that things are starting to improve now, after some serious public investment, but it still feels like too little. Until peak-time commuters aren't packed into trains like sausage meat I doubt much will shift in terms of behaviour.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:London girl could be first to have “air pollution” listed... by grey-area on Sunday May 05, 2019 @07:58AM (#19832359)

Thanks for the clarification.

Buses have improved, there are far more though I wish they were electric.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:London girl could be first to have “air pollution” listed... by frereubu on Monday May 06, 2019 @03:23AM (#19837454)

Fair enough - I don't use buses regularly. Glad to hear they're better (I might try using them more if that's the case). Agree that it would be much better if they were electric, although I think a reasonable number of new ones are hybrids at least.

[ Parent | on HN ]