Congestion charge in Sheffield

[tinfoilhat 11]

It matters not whether it's 500, 5,000 or 50. If we don't do something about deaths due to poor air quality then deaths will continue.

 

Would you have bought into the scheme had the term "some deaths" rather than "500 deaths" been used?

 

---------- Post added 15-11-2018 at 13:18 ----------

 

 

So how many child road deaths would you consider acceptable?

 

No child deaths are acceptable. How many do you find acceptable?

 

EDIT: yeah, I'd have found "some" deaths far more acceptable. Putting a very specific number on an area like this is stretching credibility in my view. Saying XX amount of particles are in the air and that's too high and it can cause health issues, I agree with that completely. But 500, not 50 or 507 seems arbitrary and a bit daft.

Edited November 15, 2018 by tinfoilhat

[apelike 10]

How many deaths would you think acceptable before you realise that something needs doing?

 

I think most people already know that pollution needs to be reduced and something needs doing. Some here and in the SCC report though seem to be ardent in quoting the 500 deaths figure as fact to bolster their reasons why this is a necessary step. If SCC had any sense it would have been better to give that bit a miss as people will only question those stats.

[Cyclone 10]

No child deaths are acceptable. How many do you find acceptable?

 

EDIT: yeah, I'd have found "some" deaths far more acceptable. Putting a very specific number on an area like this is stretching credibility in my view. Saying XX amount of particles are in the air and that's too high and it can cause health issues, I agree with that completely. But 500, not 50 or 507 seems arbitrary and a bit daft.

 

It's not arbitrary though is it. It's calculated, based on the impact of the pollution on health, the population of the area and so on.

No single person will be given "cause of death - air pollution", but 500 deaths a year could be avoided.

Now, when you start to get deeper into that, it's actually really interesting.

500 deaths of people who were probably elderly or very young, already infirm and had some kind of respiratory issue were (statistically) exacerbated. BUT... If air pollution disappeared, they might have lived one or two years longer. They were all going to die though. We are ALL going to die. So over a longer span, call it 120 years, the death rate is intrinsically and unbreakably linked to the birth rate.

[lil-minx92 10]

I think most people already know that pollution needs to be reduced and something needs doing. Some here and in the SCC report though seem to be ardent in quoting the 500 deaths figure as fact to bolster their reasons why this is a necessary step. If SCC had any sense it would have been better to give that bit a miss as people will only question those stats.

 

Here here!

 

They really need to employ some PR people. It would make their lives so much easier!

[Planner1 438]

Is it? I cant see any mention or costings of how much it will cost to put the necessary infrastructure in place only that £40+ million is being asked for. It does not go into any detail as to how the set-up money will be spent and vaguely states what the charge money will be for only stating its to be spent on improving air quality. Its not surprising that the Leeds one has been rejected as not value for money. People are vary wary of having charges imposed without much transparency beforehand as to how that money will be spent. They also know that once charges are in place it is then an easy target for increasing them.

 

You can also telly that this has not been costed properly as the areas that want a charge in place are all basically wanting to charge the same amount regardless of size.

Remember that this is just an initial proposal to government. There is bound to be some negotiation and further refinement on projected costs and income as things progress.

 

They know how much the camera systems and signing cost and they also know how much it costs to upgrade vehicles to improve emission standards. At the current stage, they will be using initial budget estimates which will be refined further as the projects progress. That's the process that the Councils and the government follow. It's standard project management process.

 

What expertise do you have in evaluating whether this or any other proposal offers good value for money? The government are the funders, they will decide what they want to fund.

 

The government have instructed the Councils to carry out the studies and implement the clean air zones. The extent of the zones and who gets charged appear to be the only points for discussion. The government set the rules on what the income can be used for.

 

Government have set up funding pots which Councils can bid for, which cover the implementation of the zones and supporting measures. The cities are telling the government that it won't work without financial support being offered to subsidise / encourage vehicle owners to upgrade them to meet higher emissions standards.

 

The larger cities do work together on transport initiatives and its perfectly logical that they will jointly research pricing policy and have a similar stance on supporting measures.

[choogling 14]

How many deaths would you think acceptable before you realise that something needs doing?

 

I would say no deaths can possibly be directly attributed to Sheffield's traffic driving inside the inner ring road area .

[tinfoilhat 11]

It's not arbitrary though is it. It's calculated, based on the impact of the pollution on health, the population of the area and so on.

No single person will be given "cause of death - air pollution", but 500 deaths a year could be avoided.

Now, when you start to get deeper into that, it's actually really interesting.

500 deaths of people who were probably elderly or very young, already infirm and had some kind of respiratory issue were (statistically) exacerbated. BUT... If air pollution disappeared, they might have lived one or two years longer. They were all going to die though. We are ALL going to die. So over a longer span, call it 120 years, the death rate is intrinsically and unbreakably linked to the birth rate.

 

So next after the changes it could be 497 or 503 if it hasn't worked. I'll wager it will be still a nice round arbitrary figure.

 

But if we're bringing the elderly into, surely working 40 years dahn pit will have greater impact on someone's respiratory system, more so if they smoked. So potentially they're a death linked to air quality, industrial disease and smoking. Do they go on all three sets of figures?

[apelike 10]

What expertise do you have in evaluating whether this or any other proposal offers good value for money?

 

None as the costing figures are not forthcoming and what is given is only estimates. But.. going by the rejection of the Leeds proposed one because it is not good value for money, and as SCC have almost the same proposal I think it says a great deal.

 

One question given your expertise, do you think that this is the best way to control pollution given the investment that may be made? Not forgetting that it may take at least 3 years to implement, and that its well know in the UK that estimates usually fall well short of targets.

[geared 319]

How else do you kerb NOx pollution??

 

There needs to be a fairly drastic reduction as well.

[Planner1 438]

None as the costing figures are not forthcoming and what is given is only estimates. But.. going by the rejection of the Leeds proposed one because it is not good value for money, and as SCC have almost the same proposal I think it says a great deal.

 

One question given your expertise, do you think that this is the best way to control pollution given the investment that may be made? Not forgetting that it may take at least 3 years to implement, and that its well know in the UK that estimates usually fall well short of targets.

 

The only report I've seen about the Leeds rejection says that basically the government don't want to spend that much money there so they have asked Leeds to come back with a cheaper scheme. See: https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/leeds-news/leeds-clean-air-zone-plans-15416907

 

The government often describe things they don't want to fund as "not offering good value for money". Strangely enough they can decide to fund projects which have low benefit / cost ratios when it suits them (the politicians).

 

I think that targeting the highest polluters first is as good a way as any of approaching it. However, I'd suspect it might be necessary to charge cars as well in order to meet the air quality targets.

 

The problem is that nothing that practically can be done to deal with air pollution is going to be popular with the electorate (because it either puts restrictions on them or costs them money). Hence politicians are reluctant to grasp the nettle and do what's necessary if it's going to mean they won't get re-elected.

 

The government are saying they want it all in place by 2021. Bearing in mind that extensive public consultation will have to take place in 2019 and the scope of the project, what it actually contains and who's paying for it is as yet uncertain, that's quite a demanding target.

[geared 319]

Yea but when it comes to meeting targets the Government are hardly a shining example of efficiency and timeliness.

[apelike 10]

The problem is that nothing that practically can be done to deal with air pollution is going to be popular with the electorate (because it either puts restrictions on them or costs them money). Hence politicians are reluctant to grasp the nettle and do what's necessary if it's going to mean they won't get re-elected.

 

There is one practical thing I believe that would be popular with the electorate and that is to not to waste the estimated £56 billion on HS2. That money could be better used towards grants for upgrading vehicles and thus cutting pollution quickly. No need to waste money on putting the CAZ charging infrastructure in place then.

 

Yeah I know, pie in the sky stuff..