Sheffield Clean Air Zone

[*_ash_* 88]

The signs on the Maxtrix boards has this message on it...

 

http://bit.ly/0114air   Have your say.

 

What are people's thoughts on the Sheffield Clean Air Zone?

 

As a taxi, I obviously object to it as completely ludicrous and unfair!

The general consensus I see on social media is yes they agree with it, because they dislike taxis.

 

I tell them, 'you'll be next'. They are just doing it this way around to get away with it. If this was ALL vehicles except buses and taxis, there would be absolute uproar! I can't even find a thread about it!

So the plan is working well so far.

 

-

 

I saw the sign and this is the first time I saw this page. Lots of interesting things in it.

 

Quote

Under these proposals, we need the most polluting taxis, vans, HGVs, buses and coaches to upgrade. These are currently 20% of the vehicles on our roads but cause 50% of the NO₂ pollution.  To help support people who depend on a vehicle for their livelihood, we are proposing  range of support packages.

Any thoughts?

 

(couldn't find any other threads using search, but must be one about it, so merge)

Edited July 8, 2019 by Groose

[Longcol 592]

I think it has been mentioned a few times but - like may things on SF - in a thread not directly applicable.

 

Initial thought from someone living in France.

 

This is happening (has happened) in most major cities over here - but only when pollution hits a critical level - and then with the exception that "inner ring roads" / urban motorways are not included so the highest polluting vehicles crossing cities are kept out of city centres.

 

Including the IRR to me is just going to encourage people paying the charge to go through the centre rather than round. (Before anyone goes on about one way streets in the centre, Sheffield centre is a doddle compared to all sizeable European city centres I've driven in - many have extensive one way systems in suburbs - never mind the centre!)

 

Either that or they are going to have to make seriously extensive detours and spread pollution more extensively than now.

[*_ash_* 88]

14 minutes ago, Longcol said:

1. I think it has been mentioned a few times but - like may things on SF - in a thread not directly applicable.

 

Initial thought from someone living in France.

 

2. This is happening (has happened) in most major cities over here - but only when pollution hits a critical level - and then with the exception that "inner ring roads" / urban motorways are not included so the highest polluting vehicles crossing cities are kept out of city centres.

 

3. Including the IRR to me is just going to encourage people paying the charge to go through the centre rather than round. (Before anyone goes on about one way streets in the centre, Sheffield centre is a doddle compared to all sizeable European city centres I've driven in - many have extensive one way systems in suburbs - never mind the centre!)

 

Either that or they are going to have to make seriously extensive detours and spread pollution more extensively than now.

I can't multi-quote anymore, apols Longcol, so I numbered instead.

 

1. Yes, I've definitely posted about this before. Mainly to make sure my predictions that everyone will get stung by this eventually, and I want it dated!!

I know what will happen, as written before, they'll start with 10 yo diesels or older who have to pay. then 9 8 7 then some old petrols etc, you get the picture. A bit like the NMW in some ways - vote me in and I'll give you £10 an hour, next guy, vote me in and I'll get you £11...

 

In this case though, it will be once the £42million ANPR system is right around the ring road, and we'll be voting for people arguing to keep the most vehicles out of the payment!

 

2. Yes, the ring road is key for me. I thought the ring road was designed to keep traffic out of the city centre?

 

Planner1 has answered this already, that there are too many entrances into the city to put cameras on every entrance.

 

Not good enough for me this. I drive my car when I'm not working, and still will be charged £12.50. So I will have to take a route through urban areas to avoid charge. x this by 3000 licensed taxis in Sheffield. PLUS the 500+ 'out of towners' (Sheffield drivers who can't pass the knowledge test so go to other towns to get licensed) they also have days off and driving around. Lots more pollution because of this.

 

More pollution because to take this charge, I will have to work an extra 2 hours a day. x3000 again. Clean Air? pfft.

 

I know what people will say (because I've seen it hundreds of times already) - buy a hybrid,  hundreds have spent 20k plus of these vehicles! Guess what, each council sets the limits on what they allow. Sheffield has ordered that NOx levels be under 75. Pruis? 76.

 

ok I'll shut up for now, no one likely to read these days Longcol other than you! (planner will be along though )

 

3. see above

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2019 by *_ash_*

[Lex Luthor 10]

I am disgusted, having seen the exemptions, that disabled persons / blue badge holders are not exempt.  Many of whom rely on diesel vans / minibuses to get around with their chairs /mobility vehicles and simply cannot afford to convert vehicles, or buy new ones.  

 

The council should exempt them, or pay for conversions from the revenue raised from this scheme. 

 

A taxi driver said to me 'we need to work, we need to get in to the city centre, we will obviously pay the charge, so tell me, how is this helping the environment?'. He has a point, doesn't he? 

[ads36 213]

 

11 hours ago, *_ash_* said:

These are currently 20% of the vehicles on our roads but cause 50% of the NO₂ pollution.

sounds like a good reason to do something about it.

 

other cities are further along with their clean-air-zone projects than Sheffield, as a result fleet managers are already moving their older, more polluting vehicles to Sheffield.

 

I've heard this called 'bus-dumping'. 

 

1 hour ago, Lex Luthor said:

A taxi driver said to me 'we need to work, we need to get in to the city centre, we will obviously pay the charge, so tell me, how is this helping the environment?'. He has a point, doesn't he? 

it'll make newer/cleaner cars more economical.

 

£10/day is over £200/month. add on the cost of buying fuel, and maintenance, and you're over half way to leasing a tesla.

 

you'd think a business man would be able to see that.

 

if someone has just spent a lot of money on a new diesel taxi: A) they're an idiot, and B) it'll be exempt from these charges.

Edited July 8, 2019 by ads36

[Cyclone 10]

2 hours ago, Lex Luthor said:

A taxi driver said to me 'we need to work, we need to get in to the city centre, we will obviously pay the charge, so tell me, how is this helping the environment?'. He has a point, doesn't he? 

It will encourage the use of greener vehicles won't it.  Certainly when a taxi comes to the end of its life and is being replaced they'll do what they can to get a vehicle that avoids the charge.

 

Ash suggested that he will simply work more hours (and thus drive more miles) to pay for the charge, but that doesn't work for everyone.  The number of passenger miles available to serve will not increase, so no more pollution will be generated, but if everyone works longer hours then they will sit around for slightly longer being idle.

 

Re: the entire proposal, well, I don't disagree with the principle of improving air quality.  I do worry that Ash is entirely correct and that in 5 years time the criteria will change to include private cars.  And as the zone is so broad it would make a journey to my parents (once a week) about twice as long to avoid it.  I'd probably have to go north to the motorway then south 5 junctions, instead of through the city and south 2 junctions.

 

It'd be interesting to see the data on that "50% of NOx comes from these vehicles".  Because it's entirely possible that 49% comes from the lorries, vans and buses (although unlikely).

36 minutes ago, ads36 said:

 

sounds like a good reason to do something about it.

 

other cities are further along with their clean-air-zone projects than Sheffield, as a result fleet managers are already moving their older, more polluting vehicles to Sheffield.

 

I've heard this called 'bus-dumping'. 

 

it'll make newer/cleaner cars more economical.

 

£10/day is over £200/month. add on the cost of buying fuel, and maintenance, and you're over half way to leasing a tesla.

 

you'd think a business man would be able to see that.

 

if someone has just spent a lot of money on a new diesel taxi: A) they're an idiot, and B) it'll be exempt from these charges.

Teslas don't run for free of course, and they still need maintenance (unless that's included in the lease).  But the key thing for a taxi is presumably that they want to be able to drive considerably further in a shift than a Tesla can manage...

[Chez2 10]

I really can't see the point of excluding private cars. 

 

As Cyclone points out, electric vehicles can't cope with the mileage some people need to drive between charging times, that's why we didn't get an electric company vehicle . We did have a hybrid car but the battery space left insufficient boot space to carry essential work gear. 

[Cyclone 10]

Presumably they don't want to be immediately voted out of office (or at the next available chance)...

[geared 298]

The problem is in many cities there just isn't any alternative.  Sheffield has a decent tram system, but the park and ride facilities are a total joke.

The story is the same in many places, Leeds is far worse, all they've got is a load of smelly buses that no-one wants anyway.

 

This is what happens when the government prioritises investment money in the capital.

[geared 298]

11 hours ago, *_ash_* said:

Sheffield. PLUS the 500+ 'out of towners' (Sheffield drivers who can't pass the knowledge test so go to other towns to get licensed) 

 

 

If I remember this was a massive problem when the plans were first announced, there was no country-wide database of licenced taxi's so our council didn't actually have the ability to fine out of town cabs.

 

Obviously when a CAZ is implemented loads more people will switch to other licences to avoid the fine and you won't see the pollution decreases because the vehicles will still be on the road.

[vwkittie 10]

44 minutes ago, geared said:

The problem is in many cities there just isn't any alternative.  Sheffield has a decent tram system, but the park and ride facilities are a total joke.

The story is the same in many places, Leeds is far worse, all they've got is a load of smelly buses that no-one wants anyway.

 

This is what happens when the government prioritises investment money in the capital.

Just out of interest, what's up with the P&R facilities? I use Middlewood and think it's really good - loads of spaces and reasonable pricing.

[geared 298]

10 minutes ago, vwkittie said:

Just out of interest, what's up with the P&R facilities? I use Middlewood and think it's really good - loads of spaces and reasonable pricing.

It's the access at peak times (when you want them to be used)

 

Middlewood is decent, but it can be a slog to get there at rush hour, especially if you're coming from out of town.

Nunnery square is just amazingly poorly placed, by the time you've queued right down the parkway to reach it you may as well just continue on to where you were going.

Meadowhall is well located, but everyone knows the station car park is rammed by 8am, it's clearly far too small for the number of people who want to use it.