Greenpeace calling for bus free days...
Discussion
...is part of ITV's coverage of a challenge from the ABD as set out by PH's own MMC:
[quote=ITV]The ABD is suggesting that Greenpeace should call for a bus-free day in London to demonstrate that cars are not the ones causing all the pollution.
"Buses are a major source of the fine particles that are clogging London's air and Londoners' lungs," says ABD spokesman Mark McArthur-Christie. "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."
The ABD's position on the London Congestion Charge is that it has made pollution levels worse than ever. According to a statement, "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."[/quote]
Full website coverage [url]here|http://www.itv-motoring.com/news/2005/may/30/6206.asp[/url]
"particularly bad for particulates" :hehe:
[quote=ITV]The ABD is suggesting that Greenpeace should call for a bus-free day in London to demonstrate that cars are not the ones causing all the pollution.
"Buses are a major source of the fine particles that are clogging London's air and Londoners' lungs," says ABD spokesman Mark McArthur-Christie. "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."
The ABD's position on the London Congestion Charge is that it has made pollution levels worse than ever. According to a statement, "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."[/quote]
Full website coverage [url]here|http://www.itv-motoring.com/news/2005/may/30/6206.asp[/url]
"particularly bad for particulates" :hehe:
Gazboy said:Yes they have proper names - while they're probably in your garden if you have one, the names aren't common as it were:
Do these chemicals have proper common/garden names?
3-NBA =
3-nitrobenzanthrone
1,8-DNP =
1,8-dinitropyrene
Not much chance that Greenpeas will respond in an appropriate manner, the ABD are still awaiting a response from Mr Palin and his T2000 outfit, to their open letter on pollution from public transport:
The ABD said:
Dear Mr Palin
In view of recent attacks on the popular BBC TV programme 'Top Gear' by Transport 2000, in which — amongst other things — it was suggested that there should be a more environmentally sound and safety conscious approach, involving test drives of buses rather than Ferraris, we have four questions for you to answer:
1. Transport 2000 claims that public transport is environmentally friendly, yet exhaust emissions from the large diesel engines in buses and trains have been shown to contain the two most carcinogenic chemicals known to science. These are far worse than the banned food colouring Sudan 1. Researchers point out that one is very likely to be the cause of thousands of lung cancer cases in urban areas. Petrol or small diesel engines as found in cars do not have this specific problem. So, why should 620 foodstuffs be taken from shelves in the High Street shops of towns and cities, when buses and trains continue to emit far more genotoxic carcinogens in High Streets and railway stations?
2. In terms of energy (fuel) consumption as well as the resulting emissions, public transport once again has to concede to the car. Professor Roger Kemp of Lancaster University studied the energy consumption of trains compared to cars, and found that trains, such as inter-city services, are not as energy efficient. This result prompted the Editor of Modern Railways magazine (the ironically named Mr Ford) to write:
"I know this will generate howls of protest, but at present a family of four going by car is about as environmentally friendly as you can get".
This finding is in keeping with a result from Automotive Advisers and Associates of Hilden, Germany, that compared to cars, public transport consumes 60% more energy per person transported and takes up 200% more public space per person transported. So, why does Transport 2000 claim that public transport is more environmentally friendly than the car?
3. In terms of safety, buses and coaches kill 13 times more pedestrians per mile travelled than 'white van man', and 10 times more than cars including 4 x 4s, according to data from the DfT. So, why does Transport 2000 suggest that cars and motorists are unsafe while championing buses?
4. The ABD is funded by subscriptions and donations from members. What are the sources of funding for the Transport 2000 organisations? Where can details of funding sources and supporting or link organisations be found on your website?
We look forward to receiving your detailed reply.
Yours sincerely,
The Association of British Drivers
I'm amazed someone hasn't done some kind of survey into the efficiency of buses (as a method of transport as well as an environmental issue), and chopped whole swathes of them out of the timetable.
I mean, seriously, outside of London I can't honestly think of any buses that run with an efficient persons-to-emissions ratio between the hours of, say, 10AM and 3.30PM, then between 7PM and 7AM, and yet they run, full-force, all the time, making them about as efficient as a school-run mum ditching her Range Rover for an Aussie Road Train.
In those times, IMO either cars sould actively be prioritised over buses, or they should cut down their services by a couple of thirds. Alternative, rail-based city transport can handle the rest (and I'm still not giving up on Maglev monorails!).
I mean, seriously, outside of London I can't honestly think of any buses that run with an efficient persons-to-emissions ratio between the hours of, say, 10AM and 3.30PM, then between 7PM and 7AM, and yet they run, full-force, all the time, making them about as efficient as a school-run mum ditching her Range Rover for an Aussie Road Train.
In those times, IMO either cars sould actively be prioritised over buses, or they should cut down their services by a couple of thirds. Alternative, rail-based city transport can handle the rest (and I'm still not giving up on Maglev monorails!).
hornet said:Yes, there was a Transport Research Lab report commissioned on just that proposal (TRL431) which concluded "restrictions on cars on air quality grounds have been shown not to be warranted by this study" so hopefully Greenpeas will be alongside Jezza and the Top Gear crew chained to a routemaster at Hammersmith Bus Station
Whilst not being a Ken Livingstone supporter in the slightest, isn't he planning a "low emissions zone" for London to tackle bus and taxi emissions? I'm sure if Greenpeace can be bothered to respond, they'll just point to that, then go and chain themselves to something.
Twincam16 said:
I'm amazed someone hasn't done some kind of survey into the efficiency of buses (as a method of transport as well as an environmental issue), and chopped whole swathes of them out of the timetable.
This is a general rant,not aimed at you personally, but using your post as an example.
Read the bloody previous posts before replying !
the ABD said:
In terms of energy (fuel) consumption as well as the resulting emissions, public transport once again has to concede to the car. Professor Roger Kemp of Lancaster University studied the energy consumption of trains compared to cars, and found that trains, such as inter-city services, are not as energy efficient. This result prompted the Editor of Modern Railways magazine (the ironically named Mr Ford) to write:
"I know this will generate howls of protest, but at present a family of four going by car is about as environmentally friendly as you can get".
This finding is in keeping with a result from Automotive Advisers and Associates of Hilden, Germany, that compared to cars, public transport consumes 60% more energy per person transported and takes up 200% more public space per person transported. So, why does Transport 2000 claim that public transport is more environmentally friendly than the car?
>> Edited by DocJock on Monday 30th May 13:25
DocJock said:
I'm amazed someone hasn't done some kind of survey into the efficiency of buses (as a method of transport as well as an environmental issue), and chopped whole swathes of them out of the timetable.
This is a general rant,not aimed at you personally, but using your post as an example.
Read the bloody previous posts before replying !
the ABD said:
In terms of energy (fuel) consumption as well as the resulting emissions, public transport once again has to concede to the car. Professor Roger Kemp of Lancaster University studied the energy consumption of trains compared to cars, and found that trains, such as inter-city services, are not as energy efficient. This result prompted the Editor of Modern Railways magazine (the ironically named Mr Ford) to write:
"I know this will generate howls of protest, but at present a family of four going by car is about as environmentally friendly as you can get".
This finding is in keeping with a result from Automotive Advisers and Associates of Hilden, Germany, that compared to cars, public transport consumes 60% more energy per person transported and takes up 200% more public space per person transported. So, why does Transport 2000 claim that public transport is more environmentally friendly than the car?
>> Edited by DocJock on Monday 30th May 13:25
Sorry, perhaps I should've made it more clear - I meant someone from the government should do a survey.
I mean, they're desperately attacking motorists in the vain hope they might reduce spurious carbon dioxide emissions by some minute amount, without realising that the main culprit so far as road transport emissions go is right under their noses (pardon the pun)
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff