back
30 comments
This article is setting off red flags for me. The whole conflating traffic, traffic jams and pollution seems slimy and the really short quote excerpts seem to indicate the author is trying to take the politician's statements out of context. Urban pollution has several facets (heavy trucks vs cars, particulate vs Nox, local climate, etc, etc,) and none of them are mentioned. Conflating residents in the affected zone voting for "the other guy" with specifically supporting the existing policy is seems dishonest.

Is there someone who actually knows this issue and can tell me what the article is omitting? I don't know what I don't know but the way this article is written makes me think there's a lot of nuance being glossed over.

I think my non-native English prevents me from fully understanding your question, but I'd say in general terms what is described in the article is what happened:

- Party A takes the council 4 years ago

- Party A implements the low emissions zone

- Party B goes into elections campaign championing a reverse of the LEZ. The quote about they saying pollution and jams are part of the city's identity is true.

- Party B does not win the election but, because of how the system works, they could take the council by joining forces with other parties (who were also against the LEZ)

- If last point indeed happens, then they will revert the LZE

Actually, it is very possible that the LZE cannot be reverted because of EU's restrictions and fines for pollution quotas. Some media that are sided to Party B and were very critical of Party A and the LZE are now changing headlines to blame EU for the LZE, in what looks like a damage control operation now that they realise the possibility of their promise being not able to be fulfilled.

Source: I live somewhere some consider is Spain and some not.

Source: I live somewhere some consider is Spain and some not.

Gibraltar?

In Spain, there are multiple things GP could be referring to. Many people in Catalonia consider themselves to not be part of Spain. This could also apply to País Vasco, a.k.a. Basque Country.
About Basque Country:

- New Poll shows rising number of Basque Country residents want to remain in Spain [1]

- Only 26.9% of Basques want independence from Spain (2017) [2]

- 23% of Basques want independence (2019) [3]

[1] https://www.euroweeklynews.com/2018/12/07/new-poll-shows-ris...

[2] https://elpais.com/politica/2017/06/23/actualidad/1498213521...

[3] https://www.lavanguardia.com/local/paisvasco/20190412/461599...

LOL, nobody considers Gibraltar as Spain.

Source: I was born somewhere some consider is Spain and some not.

and do you know WHY they want to reverse the LEZ? are there any real reasons further than the opposing party implemented it so I must be against it?
Car-centric mindset. Some people it's their birthright to drive anywhere and park their cars for free in front of the place.
> Party B does not win the election but, because of how the system works, they could take the council by joining forces with other parties (who were also against the LEZ)

Isn't that how democracy works? I know that the system maybe could be improved but that's how the game is. In fact, the current Prime Minister started its government the same way.

People hated the LEZ. Things were going well, more or less, for Party A until they implemented it. They made the huge mistake of implementing the LEZ right before the election and they got rightly sacked. The council should work for its citizens. This is just democracy at work.
That interpretation is absolutely wrong. The current mayor lost 2 crucial seats that undermined her re-election, 1 was due to the internal feuds in her own leftist coalition (about 40k votes) and at least another seat from the center-left who lost votes to the liberals and even the far-right in their own strongholds.

All of that happened in very low income neighborhoods that are not significantly impacted by the LEZ and outside the M30. In fact, she even got a small but meaningful vote boost from LEZ residents.

Why did people hate the LEZ in your opinion?

EDIT: Article says “City centre residents are happy with the LEZ “

It's probably residents far from the city center that hate the LEZ. Most residents in the center would likely prefer the whole center to be closed to cars, as public transportation is quite good there.

Notice that the politician in question is not a candidate for mayor of the city, it's the candidate governor of the whole region around the city.

> Most residents in the center would likely prefer the whole center to be closed to cars, as public transportation is quite good there.

Are you speaking specifically about residents from Madrid center or just generic city center residents?

They wanted to be able to use their cars, obviously. Why else?
you have a weird definition of democracy if you think that the councils should do whatever their citizens want as a majority.

thousands of people are dying in big cities from pollution and the local government should take unpopular actions to tackle climate change. of course nobody wants to be affected in any way by climate change, they want other people to do it.

>you have a weird definition of democracy if you think that the councils should do whatever their citizens want as a majority.

How is that a "weird definition of democracy"? That's literally what democracy means!

Yes, if a majority of people want policies which result in them dying by the thousands from pollution, then in a democratic system, that's what you have to give them. If the politicians do something highly unpopular, even though it's for the good of the society, they get voted out (assuming there's competing politicians who promise to give the people what they want). That's how democracy works. This is why democratic systems don't work very well when the populace is uneducated and stupid.

democracy doesn't mean that the majority do what they want. they can't violate the rights of minorities. even from ancient Greece from the first democracies these issues were taken into account.
Is there someone who actually knows this issue and can tell me what the article is omitting

A few things:

- The zone was set with a few months notice, creating a huge problem for many that have been quickly dismissed. Usability of prohibition is terrible. I've heard there are loopholes like a dozen persons renting a single flat and selling their permits to rich people.

- The zone includes a variety on neighborhoods, from far-left still not gentrified ones, to offices mostly, main street and luxury homes.

- There's a lot of people living outside and working inside. Most use public transportation, but not everybody can do that: salesmen, suppliers... and there are a lot of private complementary schools (things like music schools) that are going bankrupt because parents can't get their children in or out.

- Some measurements indicate that pollution has in fact raised. There were no measures to replace the forbidden traffic.

- Reverting it is dead simple. Saying otherwise is plainly dishonest, but I'm reading it a lot.

I actually believe that a measure like that is necessary sooner or later, but it needs to be done right: transport alternatives, long enough notice, well chosen exceptions and specially doing the data based homework. As it is, it's propaganda.

You read flags are working OK, I found the article dishonest. I live in Madrid (suburban town to the north of the city) and I think the El Pais article mentioned in another response to your comment is much better, I read it several days ago in the spanish version. I actually think the no traffic area might be a good idea.
Cars are no better than trucks in a locale that penalizes gasoline as fuel. The reason why American cities have cleaned up significantly over the last 40 years is that gasoline emissions controls are far more comprehensive than those for diesel.
I had a similar feeling when reading it. I know little about the details of the underlying issue, but the article makes it sound like the politician in question is advocating for pollution and traffic jams. I guess anything is possible, but I suspect liberal out of context quoting.

For example, "previous setup was better (because A, B, C). Yes, we also had 3AM traffic jams, but we lived with it, it was not the end of the world" could get tranlated into "3AM traffic jams are good". My 2c.

Not a counter argument but just bringing the facts. There's an article[1] containing a video with the actual words from her (in Spanish of course).

"I don't like traffic jams. Nobody does. Maybe I'm weird but I don't like traffic jams. I don't like a jammed world.

But there's something that Madrid has and that few cities in the world have, which is nightlife. I've never met a city like Madrid where you can go out at 3AM and see that much life on the streets. And that life comes with traffic jams. And that's not the kind of jam that depletes your energy as opposed to the one you find yourself in when going to work and you're late to a meeting or your child is going to miss their first school hour. The one that you find yourself in when going out to dinner on weekends is not the one you hate the most.

Do I like jams? Obviously not, but they're part of Madrid's life. They were part of Madrid's life.

If Podemos [the ones who implemented the LEZ] keeps Madrid's council, there won't be jams at night but at day there will everywhere.

They're not a matter of enjoyment, but they're an identity sign of our city. They mean that the streets are alive, always.

Moreover, for women, at least for me, that I've gone out and enjoyed my city with passion, going out to have dinner and a drink and see that amount of life makes me very proud of my city.

And I believe jams are to be eradicated, of course, but that is not done by preventing neighbours' and commerces' mobility. Moreover this is being managed very sloppily."

My opinion starts here, and it is that she's mixing a lot of stuff (nightlife with shops that open only in the morning and afternoon, jams not happening inside the LEZ with ones happening outside of it, or implying that without nightly jams there's no people going out) in order to criticise the implementation of the LEZ because they defend freedom of using your car as you wish. And that brings her to having to criticise even the good aspects of it (no jams in the LEZ) with an appeal to emotions, which ends up in having to say she misses traffic jams.

Actually, she never says that previous setup was better because of anything outside that she felt the city was more crowded at night.

[1]: https://www.elconfidencial.com/espana/madrid/2019-04-24/isab...

It links to the El Pais article (English): https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/05/28/inenglish/1559039652_58...

It does explicitly quote NO2 statistics?

Article from last November with a map of the affected area (in Spanish). The areas in yellow were already covered by vehicle restrictions.

https://elpais.com/ccaa/2018/11/26/madrid/1543235492_515611....

The plan was to create a 4kmˆ2 ring bordering the important landmarks of the royal palace, museo del prado, buen retiro, Atocha station etc. The interior has quite a number of Metro stations and is thus quite navigable by foot.

Car-driving populism to revert a policy barely 6 months old seems to have prevailed. As can be seen from the guardian article's photo, Gran Via is a pretty major thoroughfare leading to the heart of the city, Puerta del Sol.

That kind of prohibition is nice if:

- You are rich and can buy a new electric/hybrid car.

- You live in the center of Madrid and are allowed to use your car.

However, if you are "poor" and work in the center of the city:

- If your car is not a low-emission vehicle, you are limited to go to work (only can by public transport).

- If you are a deliverer of packages, you'd have to buy a new car that fulfill the emission restrictions without any kind of tax-exemption from the government.

This low-emissions zone creation has been a show without any kind of planning and without consulting the citizens. i.e. there has not been any type of car renovation plan or tax exemptions that could have helped citizens with this restriction.

I understand the ecology and health-care point of view, but tell that to somebody whose work depends on reaching to the center of the city to deliver some packages (for example).

Just as a side note to the article, the Madrid city and state government are going through heavy negotiations right now, along the Barcelona city and Spanish government coalitions, so it's too early to say the LEZ "is set" to be wiped out.
Tourism money > ecological concerns?

Unless the article is deliberately manipulated to send the wrong message, my above is how I'd summarise it.

I don't know about other tourists, but as a tourist myself, I like to visit cities that are clean and where I can easily get around using public transit. If I have to drive everywhere and there's lots of pollution, I pick someplace better to spend my time and money. In fact, the last thing I want to do in a foreign country is deal with driving a car: the traffic rules are all different (esp. in LHD countries), the customs different, and there's the question of liability. I don't even like touring American cities because of this (combined with the public transit being so awful), even though I live in this country; I'd rather go to Asia or western Europe where the public transit is excellent.
'Fortunately' the only reason that lead to this change was that it was a rival political party who created the zone in the first place.

Similarly to how Trump would intend to demolish Obamacare.

So there are no big lessons for the rest of the world to learn.