Sheffield Clean Air Zone

[*_ash_* 88]

5 hours ago, Weredoomed said:

Well *_ash_*, it seems pretty clear that taxis will be paying, as unfortunately you're effectively a captive audience to help fill the coffers of SCC. I don't doubt they'd squeeze you dry if they could. I feel for you mate.

 

If there is pollution at the station, why can't SCC charge the train operators to enter the zone as well as bus and taxi operators? Isn't that being prejudiced against one group whilst favouring another? How can that be justified?

 

Although again, if the problem areas are only as you state, it's questionable why SCC are proposing the zone boundaries that they are doing - much of the zone doesn't suffer air quality problems if your quoted locations are correct. In which case, why is the zone so big, other than to generate income for SCC? How can that be justified?

 

So what options are SCC going to propose other than eventually charging everyone and totally killing off the city centre? They won't propose any other option, will they? Because they want the money, short-sighted that they are...

 

SCC anti-car? Why would anyone think that? Unless they lived in cloud-cuckoo land...

-- Slowly does it.

 

If SCC charged public now, there would be uproar as I've said before. Once the cameras up, every decision to who is charged will be available.

 

They won't start with everyone. They'll sneak it in at £1. Then add more vehicles in. Then increase cost.

 

-- re: station and any enforcement... not much chance of that, EM Trains don't enforce the current zone hence so much traffic build up.

 

-- I personally don't think it will kill the city centre off, as doing things in slow stages, means people get used to it.

 

- case in hand (Planner1 will no doubt remember my predictions years ago) - with Broomhill parking. 20p is just to move people along, and stop all day parking. Then it was more and more, and people just pay it, because they alter the rules slightly to make it palatable. Like 5 mins free, then 50p etc.

 

It's no different.

 

-- as for SCC being anti-car, in this case they aren't... YET! They're targeting low earning self-employed taxi drivers because is an easy target but everyone hates us. Let's not beat around the bush. LGV HGV carrying big freight or big companies will pass the charge on to YOU (the public). Self-employed LGV will suffer and probably finish them off, or be passed onto YOU (the public). I seen it and heard it on radio with people like me, ringing to radio phone ins, saying they are electricians, plumbers etc. in London, who are going to pass on the £15 charge to the customer.

 

That's all that will happen, taxis will be more expensive, buses will be more expensive, stuff people order online will be more expensive, etc etc.

 

-

 

The council already dictate what vehicles we can drive, and always have in my 19 years. Now the stakes have changed.

 

-- re: reasons for it.

 

Cllr Scott at the meeting when asked why don't they object to something that is clearly illogical? His answer was that it was government policy. (meaning the nasty Tories)

 

- well my answer would have been, ''why don't you stand up to them and think up a better plan?!!''

****ing useless excuse that was for me.

And clearly because they can't argue against something with 'CLEAN, AIR, POOR, CHILDREN, etc. all in the same reports because they will lose votes to the Greens, and is a good vote winner for 3000 voters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[*_ash_* 88]

10 hours ago, Cyclone said:

I don't understand that quote, what's the context and what is it commenting on?

I didn't write it, but I read it as meaning that if keeping the ring road flowing is a priority, then why are they going to be charged when using it, rather than ENTERING the city.

 

This has always been a bit of talking point, as a ring road (in my opinion and seems completely logical) is that ring roads were designed to keep traffic out of  centres.

 

That's always been the argument response, when people say 'why is this road or that route shut now?'... it was to stop drivers 'rat-running' through the centre, to make it better pollution wise.

 

However, now, the ring road is now considered to be polluting the city?! I just don't get the logic here.

 

Either they made a mistake with the city ring road (which isn't £70 a week my fault),

or they lied (which isn't £70 a week my fault),

or they are now lying (which isn't £70 a week my fault)

 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, geared said:

 

 

 

 

 

Also of note is the contribution to the emissions figures from the citys own waste incinerator, which if correct is quite significant.

Well I took the figures from the .gov site and linked in last post +1 one.

 

If the sensors can differentiate between pollution levels from what is from traffic and what the incinerator [and industry] exhausts, then I would be very impressed!

 

 

5 hours ago, ads36 said:

this is a draft, a proposal, for consultation, and inevitably - revision. The latest petrol  and diesel engines will almost certainly be exempt from any charge.

 

Meadowhall, where you park outside, and walk in. If SCC suggested something similar for the city centre, people's heads would explode.

 

imagine how awful meadowhall would be if we were allowed to drive through it - which is roughly the current state of the city centre.

bold - earlier in this thread, you said 'you knew about this and should have prepared' - or words to that effect (I would quote it directly, but you can't search thread like when vbulletin (which I have reported))

 

underlined - 'almost certainly?'

You were advising me into buying a 40k car the other day, now you use terms like 'almost certainly'?

 

When I bought my last one, I was almost certain I would be able to drive it and try and make a living, since it was in the list of cars that could be plated. Turns out I was wrong!

 

ALL the drivers that bought Hybrids were PRETTY ****ING CERTAIN that their 24k investments would see them for 3-9 years.  What about them?

 

-

 

You can answer if you want, but I'm not wasting anymore of my time responding to your obvious lack of knowledge or any kind of thoughts.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 22, 2019 by *_ash_*

[ads36 213]

9 hours ago, *_ash_* said:

or words to that effect

yes, words to that effect. measures to reduce air pollution have been a long time coming. We've had plenty of time to look at the numbers, and buy cleaner cars.

 

(the 2nd hand volvo I bought in 2005 had been developed with a view to reducing particulate emissions)

 

I can't guarantee anything that SCC might do, and I can understand why you feel anxious about all this, but really? does anyone believe for a second that SCC are going to include the latest petrol/diesel/hybrid cars in the charge?

 

(even if they do, and that's a huge 'if', it'll come with a generous scrappage scheme - which central government will have to fund, but they won't, so it won't happen)

 

 

i'm not allowed to dump old paint tins in the river, why are we all allowed to release exhaust fumes into the air?

[Cyclone 10]

Why and how could a scrappage scheme be linked to a single city introducing a clean air zone?

23 minutes ago, ads36 said:

i'm not allowed to dump old paint tins in the river, why are we all allowed to release exhaust fumes into the air?

A false equivalence if ever I saw one.

[RollingJ 1,976]

25 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Why and how could a scrappage scheme be linked to a single city introducing a clean air zone?

A false equivalence if ever I saw one.

Cyclone - well said.

[ads36 213]

you're right.

 

I don't drink water out of the Don, no-one does.

 

if anything, dumping old paint tins in the river would be less harmful to our health.

 

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

Why and how could a scrappage scheme be linked to a single city introducing a clean air zone?

why? - because the draft is arguably a bit too stringent. it should include mitigating measures* to help those most affected.

 

how? - London, Leeds, Birmingham, Manchester, are doing it.

 

(*or, be less stringent in the first place)

Edited July 23, 2019 by ads36

[Cyclone 10]

Those cities are making scrappage schemes available for private cars?  On what basis, how do you qualify?

 

I had a quick google and I can find nothing about a scrappage scheme in Manchester.  Nor Leeds.

 

London does, but it's business only.

 

https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/scrappage-scheme?cid=scrappage-scheme

I wouldn't call £3500 a generous scheme though, when you're talking about people having to "scrap" taxis that are only a few years old and cost north of 20k to buy...  More like throwing money away to be honest as the vehicles will be worth far more than that.

 

I know this is specific to the London scheme, but it wouldn't include taxis anyway

 

 

Quote

 

Vehicle(s) you intend to scrap must be:

• A van owned by a registered micro business, or a minibus owned by a registered charity, for more than calendar 12 months before the start of the scrappage scheme on 22 February 2019
• Insured for business use
• Road taxed with a valid MOT
• Scrapped at an approved Authorised Treatment Facility (ATF)

The vehicle that you want to scrap must also fail to meet the ULEZ emissions standards.

 

 

Edited July 23, 2019 by Cyclone

[ads36 213]

10 hours ago, Cyclone said:

Those cities are making scrappage schemes available for private cars?  

I thought I'd searched for Taxi relevant schemes...

 

The point stands, individual cities have their own schemes to help (some of) those affected.

 

£3500 is roughly the deposit on a new car. After that, the much lower running costs should cover the rest.

 

If the final Caz plan is as strict as the draft, and that's a massive if. Enormous.

Edited July 24, 2019 by ads36

[*_ash_* 88]

5 days left to drive on Castlegate

 

Castlegate shuts permanently in 5 days. This will cause a huge build up of traffic in the area, I think. It's already a bottleneck trying to cross the river over Lady's Bridge.

 

Was this in CAZ proposals to keep traffic flowing?

 

Never mind though. When I'm an out of work homeless man, I'll have lots of new 'pedestrian chill out areas' to sit and beg in comfort,  what with Fitzalan Square, Charter Square and now Sheaf Fields. Of course, we all know I'll make nothing, because no sod sits there or walks past it. 

 

I would have just put signs up saying you are now entering 'Sheaf Fields' - the origin of Sheffield's name - Please drive carefully - and saved 18.9 trillion dollars on somewhere that no one will sit, and with 57 trees that could simply have been left standing on other areas, rather than chopped down for no reason.

 

Clean Air?

 

Yes, that's £70 per week for you *_ash_*

 

Also RIP the Pepperpot triangle. Looks like last few days of it. Who cares though? What's historic about a 140 year old building? Far better to ruin the city in the name of metal and glass empty buildings.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 24, 2019 by *_ash_*

[Planner1 427]

14 hours ago, *_ash_* said:

5 days left to drive on Castlegate

 

Castlegate shuts permanently in 5 days. This will cause a huge build up of traffic in the area, I think. It's already a bottleneck trying to cross the river over Lady's Bridge.

 

Was this in CAZ proposals to keep traffic flowing?

 

 

 

 

And here’s the problem. You’re a driver and think you know what will happen, because you think you know better than the people who are actually paid to design traffic schemes and work out what will happen. Every driver thinks they are a transport planner.

 

The Council employ professional traffic engineers who have sophisticated and very expensive traffic models which will simulate what will happen. So, they’ve modelled the outcomes and clearly aren’t worried. I’d trust their judgement.

 

you also should recognise that moving traffic as quick as possible isn’t what makes a city attractive. Placemaking plays a big part in that. That’s what’s happening at Castlegate.

[tinfoilhat 11]

1 hour ago, Planner1 said:

And here’s the problem. You’re a driver and think you know what will happen, because you think you know better than the people who are actually paid to design traffic schemes and work out what will happen. Every driver thinks they are a transport planner.

 

The Council employ professional traffic engineers who have sophisticated and very expensive traffic models which will simulate what will happen. So, they’ve modelled the outcomes and clearly aren’t worried. I’d trust their judgement.

 

you also should recognise that moving traffic as quick as possible isn’t what makes a city attractive. Placemaking plays a big part in that. That’s what’s happening at Castlegate.

Well they've been paid so of course they aren't worried. They probably don't live in Sheffield so are even less worried. 

[Planner1 427]

31 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

Well they've been paid so of course they aren't worried. They probably don't live in Sheffield so are even less worried. 

Since when has living in a place been a pre-qualification for working on a project that’s happening there?

 

These are professional engineers and planners who will do a good job, wherever they happen to live.