Congestion charge in Sheffield

[26b-6 16]

13 hours ago, Planner1 said:

The imperative to introduce these charging zones is coming from central government. Councils across the country are being forced to do this, despite them feeling it is a central government issue that should be addressed by them..

I bet SCC are fuming! Powerless to do nothing but take more money from us motorists.   

As you say, nothing at all to do with every solution to these ’big negative consequences' requiring more and increased taxes...

13 hours ago, Planner1 said:

The aim is to reduce air pollution by forcing drivers / owners to upgrade the emission standards of their vehicles, as compliant vehicles will not pay any charge.

I see, how silly of me.  The aims of central government and SCC is because they care too much about our-well being, there's too much  love in their hearts.  How stupid of us all thinking the aim is just about increasing revenue...

13 hours ago, Planner1 said:

 

People are not generally going to spend money upgrading unless they can see a financial benefit. That's human nature.

Of course, central government ENFORCERS these measures and SCC are powerless to do anything about it. They’re purely there so we see the financial benefits to these ’big negative consequences'  It has nothing at all do with every solution requiring more and increased taxes from motorists...

6 hours ago, *_ash_* said:

also,

 

ah bless em...😪

 

Why is this Labour council not opposing it? It makes absolutely no sense, and anyone with any sense can see it.

 

Well, since it's obviously a rhetorical question, I'll answer it: It's because it's called the 'Clean Air ...' so it sounds nice to voters... especially as taxis are gonna get stung, even though we were encouraged a few years ago to buy 'eco friendly diesels'.  I'm going to be stuck for 5 years now with my car, that is better on fuel than most hybrids, and far cleaner just visibly, from my days driving around town all day for my work.

 

-

 

When questioned about the pollution around the station, it was stated by Cllr Jack Scott  'well, the non-electrification of the network has led to blah blah... rubbish. Inept decision making, poor planning, and figures pulled out of thin air... any one can see the problem here.

 

the pollution problem at the station can be seen in this film that I made,.. I doubt anyone will watch it all the way through. If you can manage to watch it 4 or 5 times in a row, you'll realise whether you could be a taxi driver in Sheffield 😂. The facebook and twit people win council arguments though, with thousands of posts blaming taxis. The problem here as shown is people queuing in the drop off area to pick up, hence causing a complete standstill every time a busy train arrives.

 

 

 

just noticed a spelling mistake in my closing conclusions

 

My spelling software doesn't work on win movie maker! 😆

Jeez man I waited that long for any action i thought I'd paused the video!

[ads36 219]

We've know about the problems with diesel particulates for a long time now. Certainly since my old Volvo was built, back in 2000 - it wasn't the most efficient car on the market, the engine had been designed to produce fewer particles, rather than just optimise mpg.

 

Now, we've had plenty of time, and we've entirely failed to do any meaningful to address the issue. We've also known that local pollution charging had been on the cards for a similar long time.

 

Nobody has grounds to claim to be surprised that local authorities are talking about local pollution control measures. Unless 20 years isn't enough time to plan?

[Bargepole23 337]

2 hours ago, 26b-6 said:

I bet SCC are fuming! Powerless to do nothing but take more money from us motorists.   

As you say, nothing at all to do with every solution to these ’big negative consequences' requiring more and increased taxes...

I see, how silly of me.  The aims of central government and SCC is because they care too much about our-well being, there's too much  love in their hearts.  How stupid of us all thinking the aim is just about increasing revenue...

Of course, central government ENFORCERS these measures and SCC are powerless to do anything about it. They’re purely there so we see the financial benefits to these ’big negative consequences'  It has nothing at all do with every solution requiring more and increased taxes from motorists...

Jeez man I waited that long for any action i thought I'd paused the video!

"Blah blah blah" says self entitled motorist.

[Planner1 438]

4 hours ago, 26b-6 said:

I bet SCC are fuming! Powerless to do nothing but take more money from us motorists.   

They won't be taking any money from ordinary motorists under the current proposal as they aren't proposing to tax cars.

 

The solutions being proposed in all major cities require considerable government investment, so they will no doubt want to recoup it somehow.

 

I haven't heard anyone come up with a sensible, workable alternative to some kind of charge based on emissions. What's your alternative?

[*_ash_* 88]

9 hours ago, Planner1 said:

 

 

All taxis will have to comply, not just Sheffield licensed ones.

That wasn't was originally suggested, and at the meeting on Monday Cllr Scott ducked this. Now it seems OOTs WILL be charged (according to yesterday's meeting).

 

Shame I wasn't there, I would ask but you may know, how will they be identified? I don't know of any national database that is updated every week like SCC does? They can't distinguish currently ones driving through bus lane/gate cameras, so will every vehicle passing through a camera receive a fine unless they can prove that it isn't PHV?

9 hours ago, Planner1 said:

 

The government have made the law such that any fines incurred by them for breaches of air quality standards can be passed on to the relevant local authorities.

Yes, the report says '

Improving existing

vehicles

109.

As well as encouraging uptake of new cleaner vehicles, local authorities can also

consider incentives to support improvements in existing vehicles. link

'

 

So are SCC going to encourage Calderdalem NE Derbys and Rotherham vehicles to upgrade? How will they identify them?

9 hours ago, Planner1 said:

 

I think that most people can actually see that it makes eminent sense to tackle poor air quality and that those who pollute most should be the first to be targeted.

Spoken like a cllr/politician, using a nice bit of ad populum, for good measure.

 

Taxis represent 3% of all traffic.

 

When pushed at the meeting, we got the answer to this - they cannot charge the public using this unless they call it a congestion charge. Make no mistake that when this 40million doesn't claw back the money, that this may be altered, once the cameras are in place and ready to start the money rolling in. The public will be next. There isn't even any guarantee that if I go out and blow £24k on a spec vehicle that the conditions alter, it says that in the document, that further

9 hours ago, Planner1 said:

The problem is normally caused by the dozens of taxis queuing up and sometimes blocking the junction to the main road so no-one can get in. 

 

Councillor Scott is correct. Diesel trains contribute to the air quality problem in the station area.

 

There’s nothing that he and the Council can do about government decisions not to electrify the lines through Sheffield.

bold, that's enough for me to bow out, as this proves you have no idea.

9 hours ago, Planner1 said:

 

The figures they use are no plucked out of thin air, they are from government research. Do you have some better evidenced data?

 

Yes, I posted it in the last post with a film. I could do 6 of those per day. All the same, people in empty vehicles queueing to pick up in the drop off area.

 

-

 

A further question for anyone, why is it on the ring road and not the feeder roads from the ring road into the centre itself... I was under the impression that ring roads were designed to keep people out of the city and go around it instead? I know someone will say too much as too many ways in - not the case, most ways in are now closed, and I'm sure SCC could close a few smaller ones like DoncasterStreet for example.

27 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

They won't be taking any money from ordinary motorists under the current proposal as they aren't proposing to tax cars.

 

The solutions being proposed in all major cities require considerable government investment, so they will no doubt want to recoup it somehow.

 

I haven't heard anyone come up with a sensible, workable alternative to some kind of charge based on emissions. What's your alternative?

I'll give you mine:

 

1. Councils now decide on what vehicles can be licensed, so how about tightening up which vehicles can be newly licensed. All councils could be subject to this rather than just 'major cities', and hey presto, a whole country of of cleaner vehicles introduced over a few years. And 40 million saved per city (or could be used to help drivers pay for newer vehicles.

 

2. In Sheffield - Stop altering light sequences to force us to stand still when nothing moving. (top of Snig Hill - altered to 10 seconds in 2 mins for example)

 

3.  In Sheffield - Stop altering road layouts so simple journeys don't involve long journeys (example of one I did other day)

 

4. Plant trees in the centre instead to chopping them down to build large concrete spaces

5 hours ago, 26b-6 said:

 

Jeez man I waited that long for any action i thought I'd paused the video!

🤣

I spend most of my day here in paused mode.

[geared 319]

3 hours ago, ads36 said:

We've know about the problems with diesel particulates for a long time now. Certainly since my old Volvo was built, back in 2000 - it wasn't the most efficient car on the market, the engine had been designed to produce fewer particles, rather than just optimise mpg.

 

Now, we've had plenty of time, and we've entirely failed to do any meaningful to address the issue. We've also known that local pollution charging had been on the cards for a similar long time.

 

Nobody has grounds to claim to be surprised that local authorities are talking about local pollution control measures. Unless 20 years isn't enough time to plan?

We have known??  As in the public??  I think you'll find the majority of the public thought Diesel was good right up until the VW scandal broke.

The government was certainly pushing Diesel cars on the public and in return they were lapping them up.

 

Unless you have a special interest in the subject it's unlikely you will have know about the specific diesel pollution issues till very recently.

[Planner1 438]

42 minutes ago, *_ash_* said:

That wasn't was originally suggested, and at the meeting on Monday Cllr Scott ducked this. Now it seems OOTs WILL be charged (according to yesterday's meeting).

 

Shame I wasn't there, I would ask but you may know, how will they be identified? I don't know of any national database that is updated every week like SCC does? They can't distinguish currently ones driving through bus lane/gate cameras, so will every vehicle passing through a camera receive a fine unless they can prove that it isn't PHV?

 

I'm not sure how it would work. They could require drivers to register, like with the London congestion charge.

 

There isn't any national database of licensed hackney cabs.

 

Not sure what you mean by: "They can't distinguish currently ones driving through bus lane/gate cameras"

 

If you mean out of town licensed hackney's / PHV's, they don't have to identify them, because they are exempt same as Sheffield licensed ones. They can only exempt a class of vehicle ie Bus, Cycle,  Hackney and /or PHV, so any Hackney or PHV is exempt in any bus lanes which allow them, anywhere in UK.

55 minutes ago, *_ash_* said:

So are SCC going to encourage Calderdalem NE Derbys and Rotherham vehicles to upgrade? How will they identify them?

I'd imagine they would if they are working in Sheffield.

 

They are also proposing supporting updates to vans/trucks an buses which work in the city, but could of course be used elsewhere too.

 

They are not yet at a stage where they need to have worked out the details, what you are seeing are just initial proposals. The details of how it could work will be worked up once funding is forthcoming from government or elsewhere.

[Mr Bloke 1,445]

1 hour ago, Planner1 said:

They won't be taking any money from ordinary motorists under the current proposal as they aren't proposing to tax cars.

 

The solutions being proposed in all major cities require considerable government investment, so they will no doubt want to recoup it somehow.

 

I haven't heard anyone come up with a sensible, workable alternative to some kind of charge based on emissions. What's your alternative?

Hmmm... really? 

 

What about the obvious one of putting yet another tax on petrol/diesel?

 

No investment in engine conversions or cameras etc needed, the area covered would be the entire country and not just a few city centres, no-one would be exempt and those that use the most fuel and therefore do the most polluting would be the ones who pay the most.

 

Problem with that of course, is that the government would be collecting the taxes and not local councils... 

[geared 319]

and you jack up the price of diesel then everyone pays when the cost of goods delivery is just passed onto the consumer.

 

In turn it does nothing for pollution as the old vehicles are still on the road and still kicking out exhaust fumes.

[Planner1 438]

1 hour ago, *_ash_* said:

Make no mistake that when this 40million doesn't claw back the money, that this may be altered, once the cameras are in place and ready to start the money rolling in. The public will be next. There isn't even any guarantee that if I go out and blow £24k on a spec vehicle that the conditions alter, it says that in the document, that further

bold, that's enough for me to bow out, as this proves you have no idea.

Not sure what you mean.

 

The £40m is a request to government for funding that most of the big cities have made. I haven't seen cost breakdowns, but I'd think it includes a significant amount to cover support for vehicle upgrades.

 

If the government do not approve and fund the proposals the major cities are currently putting forward, the cities are going to have to look at another way of addressing the issue. That could involve charging cars.

 

Government have already said Leeds proposal is too expensive, so the chances of them stumping up £40m for each city don't look good. We'll have to see what proposals emerge next.

8 minutes ago, Mr Bloke said:

Problem with that of course, is that the government would be collecting the taxes and not local councils... 

In the current proposals for clean air zone charges, the Government are in fact collecting the charges for the whole country via a centralised system. Once they have taken their slice (presumably to cover system costs and processing), they will pass what's left on to individual Councils, who will be restricted to spending it on measures which improve air quality.

[geared 319]

Does tackling congestion hotspots count as improving air quality?

[Planner1 438]

1 hour ago, *_ash_* said:

A further question for anyone, why is it on the ring road and not the feeder roads from the ring road into the centre itself... I was under the impression that ring roads were designed to keep people out of the city and go around it instead? I know someone will say too much as too many ways in - not the case, most ways in are now closed, and I'm sure SCC could close a few smaller ones like DoncasterStreet for example.

The proposal is for the Inner Ring Road, which is immediately around the city centre.

 

Clearly they are looking to address city centre air quality and want the most polluting vehicles to go around it via a route which isn't as close to the city centre, maybe the Outer Ring Road.

3 minutes ago, geared said:

Does tackling congestion hotspots count as improving air quality?

I'd guess it might, but that would need to be clarified by Government.