Congestion charge in Sheffield

[woodview 10]

Doesn't make sense to me. A bus that is 'more' polluting but is carrying ,say, 30 people, surely is better than 30 individual cars?

(depends on the how proprtionately bad the bus is of course)

[rayggb 13]

The licensing authority will push hackney cabs to buy or lease the new electric cabs which are now available at £60 thousand pounds to buy (probably £90k interest )or lease one for £168 per week then after 5yrs it's still not yours. All very well if the business is there and plenty of charging points but,neither of those things are evident at the moment.the licensing section tell me they are running on a shoe string manpower wise and probably financially so I can't see anything happening soon.the council themselves seem to be the ones responsible for the congestion in the first place. Ps can't help thinking about the 6 year old little boys being forced to mine for the cobalt needed for the power packs in the Congo.ah such is progress!.pps the electric cabs have had electrical glitches already (engine management lights coming on),test fail!

[dutch 68]

Sheffield is by far the least congested of the last three cities I lived in.

 

Calling it a congestion charge is a political lie. If they called it a polution charge and admitted that they are desperate for money and want some for something that isnt going to change soon anyway I could understand it.

[ads36 214]

the council themselves seem to be the ones responsible for the congestion in the first place.

 

eh?

 

too many journeys by car, that's what causes congestion.

 

no city on earth has ever solved their congestion problems by encouraging car use.

 

more and better public transport, more journeys on foot and bike, that's how you solve congestion.

 

so maybe, you're right! , the council *is* responsible for congestion, by not doing nearly enough (anything?) to improve the non-car options.

[woodview 10]

eh?

 

too many journeys by car, that's what causes congestion.

 

no city on earth has ever solved their congestion problems by encouraging car use.

 

more and better public transport, more journeys on foot and bike, that's how you solve congestion.

 

so maybe, you're right! , the council *is* responsible for congestion, by not doing nearly enough (anything?) to improve the non-car options.

Perhaps they'll be using the money raised to provide parking at out-of-town bus and train stations, with comfier waiting facilities, to encourage more people to use them? Or perhaps they won't.......

[Planner1 428]

The licensing authority will push hackney cabs to buy or lease the new electric cabs which are now available at £60 thousand pounds to buy (probably £90k interest )or lease one for £168 per week then after 5yrs it's still not yours. All very well if the business is there and plenty of charging points but neither of those things are evident at the moment.

 

The Council are buying in 10 electric cabs which operators can rent to try them out and installing rapid charger so they can operate:

 

"Electric Taxi Leasing – enabling hackney drivers to try electric cab vehicles. 10 electric taxis will be available and the scheme will be launched in Spring 2019.

 

12 rapid charge points – to encourage drivers to switch to electric vehicles"

 

They're also saying:

 

"We will be working with the taxi sector in Sheffield and government to introduce a major retrofitting and upgrade programme for the city’s taxis"

 

This will be part of the £40m bid for government funding, so it might be possible to upgrade existing cabs at reasonable / no cost to the owner if they get the government funding.

 

---------- Post added 13-11-2018 at 14:01 ----------

 

If they called it a polution charge and admitted that they are desperate for money and want some for something that isnt going to change soon anyway I could understand it.

 

The Council are absolutely not looking to do this to raise money.

 

They are doing it because the government are compelling them to.

[geared 303]

EURO 6 I believe.

 

They'll never retrofit some of the old ones to that, no chance. There's stuff out there from early 2000's.

Mind you it's not like there's the capacity to check the emissions on current vehicles anyway, basic smoke test is all a diesel engined vehicle gets.

 

---------- Post added 13-11-2018 at 14:17 ----------

 

Doesn't make sense to me. A bus that is 'more' polluting but is carrying ,say, 30 people, surely is better than 30 individual cars?

(depends on the how proprtionately bad the bus is of course)

 

Well (according to Euro Standards) and on Diesel NOx alone

 

A Euro 3 car is equal to six Euro 6 cars

 

A Euro 3 bus is equal to 10 Euro 3 cars or 62 Euro 6 cars

A Euro 6 bus is equal to (less than one) Euro 3 car or five Euro 6 cars

 

So basically the older buses are mega bad and even if it was pretty full would still be worse (per person) than someone in a new car.

Edited November 13, 2018 by geared

[woodmally 10]

They'll never retrofit some of the old ones to that, no chance. There's stuff out there from early 2000's.

Mind you it's not like there's the capacity to check the emissions on current vehicles anyway, basic smoke test is all a diesel engined vehicle gets.

 

---------- Post added 13-11-2018 at 14:17 ----------

 

 

Well (according to Euro Standards) and on Diesel NOx alone

 

A Euro 3 car is equal to six Euro 6 cars

 

A Euro 3 bus is equal to 10 Euro 3 cars or 62 Euro 6 cars

A Euro 6 bus is equal to (less than one) Euro 3 car or five Euro 6 cars

 

So basically the older buses are mega bad and even if it was pretty full would still be worse (per person) than someone in a new car.

 

But the vast majority of buses on our roads are from two or three companies. So isnt it like using a sledghammer to crack a nut. The main bus companies are already investing in greener buses anyway so why do they need to implement this charge for the one or two odd older buses. They could instead use this scheme for cars instead. Yes older buses are worse than cars but there is not that many around surely?

[rogets 137]

1- The 500 deaths/year statistic is pure guesswork0/yr

 

 

There were 497.54 deaths

[dutch 68]

The Council are absolutely not looking to do this to raise money.

 

They are doing it because the government are compelling them to.

 

I called it a political lie. Government is politics.

[Phili Buster 10]

eh?

 

too many journeys by car, that's what causes congestion.

 

no city on earth has ever solved their congestion problems by encouraging car use.

 

more and better public transport, more journeys on foot and bike, that's how you solve congestion.

 

so maybe, you're right! , the council *is* responsible for congestion, by not doing nearly enough (anything?) to improve the non-car options.

 

One big problem is caused by the badly synchronised traffic lights. Of course this doesn't apply to most buses as they completely ignore what colour the lights are and blast through regardless.

 

Notice that nothing is mentioned about the heavily polluting trains, some of which sit for long hours of the day with engines running but going nowhere.

[lil-minx92 10]

There were 497.54 deaths

 

.54? Did one just pass out?

 

Looks to me like they've put an arbitrary figure on a national number of deaths (finger in the air stuff), divided it by the population of the country then multiplied it by the number of people in Sheffield- and there's your statistic.

 

Ignores the fact that the pollution isnt averaged equally over every square meter of the country and ignores many other factors that might be relevant.

 

Basically the statistic is baseless and useless (apart from being used to justify a new tax).