Sheffield Clean Air Zone

[*_ash_* 88]

4 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

[...]They will have large expenses in running the system and maintaining it. Also, the revenues will fall over time as older vehicles are naturally replaced with newer, less polluting  ones.

[...]

So, they are assuming they will cover costs and that the system will be decommissioned by 2025 as it won't be needed anymore.

[...]

The government are telling them that they have to introduce measures to make the city compliant with the law within the specified timescale. SCC have to convince hem that the level of CAZ proposed will do the job.

 

 

bold - or more likely, they'll start adding vehicles to it, as Q19 'suggests' in the consultation.

 

underlined - Interesting first I'd heard about decommissioning

 

underlined bold -

1. Do you consider a Pruis to be a 'dirty' vehicle btw?

2. We contribute 2% of the total NOx, even if every single driver gives up work and taxis and PHV were extinct here, it won't reduce the pollution levels to safe levels.

 

 

[Planner1 428]

13 hours ago, *_ash_* said:

 or more likely, they'll start adding vehicles to it, as Q19 'suggests' in the consultation.

 

 

 

You have to remember that the Council is run by politicians, who want to be re-elected. Therefore they will try as hard as they can to avoid having to make a very unpopular decision that affects a lot of people. They will only  include private cars if they absolutely must do to avoid being penalised by the government. It's the same picture in most Councils who are implementing these zones.

[Planner1 428]

13 hours ago, *_ash_* said:

1. Do you consider a Pruis to be a 'dirty' vehicle btw?

 

There are plenty of articles like this: https://ecofriend.org/myth-busters-is-the-toyota-prius-really-eco-friendly/ that explain that a Prius is not an eco friendly vehicle. I wouldn't have one personally.

[Planner1 428]

13 hours ago, *_ash_* said:

2. We contribute 2% of the total NOx, even if every single driver gives up work and taxis and PHV were extinct here, it won't reduce the pollution levels to safe levels.

 

 

No one is expecting that just making taxis use zero emission vehicles is going to solve the problem. It is part of a bigger picture. But, it's a very visible statement as there are a lot of them around the city centre and visitors arriving at the rail station might use them.

 

Also, the cab drivers don't do themselves any favours on the public opinion front. The public often rightly or wrongly perceive that:

• many taxis are old and kick out a lot of smoke / pollution
• taxi drivers act irresponsibly in how they drive and how they park / rank
• some taxi drivers share their license with their friend/cousin/brother/whoever

Therefore I don't see much public sympathy for the taxi drivers "plight" resulting from the CAZ proposals.

 

I also see on taxi driver forums that they are constantly moaning about the lack of work. That might be something to do with the vast increase in their numbers since the taxi market was essentially deregulated to a large extent. Will the new rules mean that some will leave the trade, leaving more work for those remaining?

[onewheeldave 22]

Quote

 

2 hours ago, Planner1 said:

There are plenty of articles like this: https://ecofriend.org/myth-busters-is-the-toyota-prius-really-eco-friendly/ that explain that a Prius is not an eco friendly vehicle. I wouldn't have one personally.

Concerning the article you link to- it seems to have some errors. For example

 

Quote

Is your Prius powered by dirty energy?

Electricity is electricity whether it’s wind, solar or coal that generates it. By itself, electricity appears to be a “clean” source of energy, but only from the consumer’s point of view. How electricity generates determines whether it’s clean or dirty.

If you recharge your Prius from an electrical outlet powered by the grid, then it is likely that dirty electricity powers your Prius. The power grid in the US utilizes coal for 37% of power. Its a fact that producing electricity with coal and natural gas pollutes the soil, water, and air and creates greenhouse gasses.

The Prius is a hybrid- why would it ever be plugged into the grid??

Having claimed that  electricity is not eco-friendly, the article then recommends people to buy an all-electric car if they want to be eco-friendly!

Edited August 10, 2019 by onewheeldave
The Prius is a hybrid- why would it ever be plugged into the grid?? Having claimed that electricity is not eco-friendly, the article then recommends people to buy an all-electric car if they want to be eco-friendly!

[onewheeldave 22]

2 hours ago, Planner1 said:

 

Therefore I don't see much public sympathy for the taxi drivers "plight" resulting from the CAZ proposals.

 

 

I'm a member of the public and I have a great deal of sympathy for the genuine plight of the taxi drivers. Most of them are already on sub-minimum wage, and now they are expected to find another £70/£80 pound a week, despite the fact that , as Ash points out, they only cause "2% of the total NOx".

[*_ash_* 88]

7 hours ago, onewheeldave said:

I'm a member of the public and I have a great deal of sympathy for the genuine plight of the taxi drivers. Most of them are already on sub-minimum wage, and now they are expected to find another £70/£80 pound a week, despite the fact that , as Ash points out, they only cause "2% of the total NOx".

 

10 hours ago, Planner1 said:

There are plenty of articles like this: https://ecofriend.org/myth-busters-is-the-toyota-prius-really-eco-friendly/ that explain that a Prius is not an eco friendly vehicle. I wouldn't have one personally.

10 hours ago, Planner1 said:

You have to remember that the Council is run by politicians, who want to be re-elected. Therefore they will try as hard as they can to avoid having to make a very unpopular decision that affects a lot of people. They will only  include private cars if they absolutely must do to avoid being penalised by the government. It's the same picture in most Councils who are implementing these zones.

Top - thanks for the support and keeping interested in it dave. It's a huge change for the city, but not really discussed. Planner1's comments about taxis in general are of course correct. Hence, I've tried to drum this in from the start that people SHOULD care, because they'll be next.

 

Middle - I suppose lucky then that they're aren't allowed! The ULEZ on the taxi licensing form says vehicles with UNDER 75mg , and the Pruis is 75 bang on! I thought that was a coincidence.

 

Bottom - Nottingham argued it.

 

Quote

Nottingham City Council has ditched plans to introduce a clean air zone (CAZ) after modelling showed it could reduce air pollution to below the legal limit within two years.

Nottingham was one of five cities, including Leeds, Southampton, Derby and Birmingham, ordered by Government to introduce a clean air zone (CAZ) to meet emission limits for nitrogen dioxide.

Nottingham had been planning to introduce a Class B CAZ – which would have affected HGVs, buses and taxis. But Cllr Longford said: “The actions we’re taking will have a positive impact across the whole city, rather than just in one area.

“Our priority has always been the health of our citizens, rather than meeting Government targets, and this hasn’t changed.

Personally, I think these sound like they're doing a better job, I'd vote for changes to benefit all, but don't just pick up a few groups (SME with vans, taxis and buses)

 

They worked on a plan, which SCC could have done, and 'ditched it' too couldn't they, even though ordered by the government.

 

I'm not sure if Nottingham has an incinerator in the city though.

 

 

was from last year link to full article

Quote

 

 

 

[Planner1 428]

10 hours ago, *_ash_* said:

Bottom - Nottingham argued it.

 

Personally, I think these sound like they're doing a better job, I'd vote for changes to benefit all, but don't just pick up a few groups (SME with vans, taxis and buses)

 

They worked on a plan, which SCC could have done, and 'ditched it' too couldn't they, even though ordered by the government.

 

I'm not sure if Nottingham has an incinerator in the city though.

 

 

was from last year link to full article

 

 

Sheffield will have done the same modelling as Nottingham.

 

The outcome is clearly different. We don't know why that is, do we? Maybe the circumstances in Nottingham are different.

[geared 300]

On 11/08/2019 at 07:50, Planner1 said:

Sheffield will have done the same modelling as Nottingham.

 

The outcome is clearly different. We don't know why that is, do we? Maybe the circumstances in Nottingham are different.

From the above article is looks like they found flaws with the data provided by the Government which in turn lead to poor results in the pollution model.

When they punched in the correct numbers they saw that the measures they had planned will work.

 

Obviously we've no idea if there were similar discrepancies in the data for our city, but it's a worrying finding never the less.

 

[*_ash_* 88]

6 hours ago, geared said:

From the above article is looks like they found flaws with the data provided by the Government which in turn lead to poor results in the pollution model.

When they punched in the correct numbers they saw that the measures they had planned will work.

 

Obviously we've no idea if there were similar discrepancies in the data for our city, but it's a worrying finding never the less.

 

 

Well, one can't comment on this of course, geared

 

However, in stats wise, all available and linked in my earlier posts,

 

I've written nothing that I haven't shown with links

 

-

 

Earlier I posted all the key sites for pollution in the data, and provided my answer to why I thought the levels were higher in these areas, and I don't think anyone argued this post. Not even planner1

 

They were all major junctions, or the station (or near the incinerator which is absolved of all pollution figures in the CAZ consultation questions) ...

 

that the government, not SCC have proposed.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 12, 2019 by *_ash_*

[Weredoomed 10]

We are not talking about through traffic, we are talking about commuter traffic being forced onto a single, vulnerable route that is prone to gridlock in the event of an incident.  I note planner1 carefully ignores that aspect of the situation. It is also highly short-sighted to block roads that can act as alternative routes in the event of an incident on the only available major route around the city, as I have already mentioned.

 

If the CAZ scheme is going to be decommissioned by 2025 - only 6 years hence - the obvious question is why go to the expense of installing and running the scheme for such a short period of time in the first place. Particularly as not a single spade has been put in the ground yet to actually install a single sign or camera. I doubt the scheme will be operational, at best, until some time in 2021, so only operational for around 4 years - an even shorter period of time. Which makes the 2025 date highly likely to not be correct - or even a downright lie?

 

My predictions:

 

1) The income from the scheme will be comparatively small initially.

2) Cars will have to be added as the scheme won't be meeting it's targets.

3) There will be some excuse trotted out to NOT remove it in 2025 but "sadly" SCC will be compelled to keep it in place for several years afterwards.

4) I strongly suspect we are unlikely to see the back of the CAZ any time before 2030, or ever.

5) As the saying goes, "££KERCHINNNGGGG££"

 

Oh, and no mention of the SCC incinerator that seems to be producing a significant percentage of the pollution in the first place. Why is the closure of that plant not being proposed? It would seem the obvious solution to stop the air quality problem at one fell stroke.

On 10/08/2019 at 10:46, Planner1 said:

You have to remember that the Council is run by politicians, who want to be re-elected. Therefore they will try as hard as they can to avoid having to make a very unpopular decision that affects a lot of people. They will only  include private cars if they absolutely must do to avoid being penalised by the government. It's the same picture in most Councils who are implementing these zones.

Whilst we voters "Have to remember", you seem to forget that we are also aware that SCC has a budget to find from somewhere. To suggest they won't milk the motorist and not find an excuse to do so is and for us to not realise what they are doing is frankly, either utterly naive or grossly insulting.

Edited August 13, 2019 by Weredoomed

[Planner1 428]

2 hours ago, Weredoomed said:

Whilst we voters "Have to remember", you seem to forget that we are also aware that SCC has a budget to find from somewhere. To suggest they won't milk the motorist and not find an excuse to do so is and for us to not realise what they are doing is frankly, either utterly naive or grossly insulting.

The government are giving Councils a grant to fund the implementation of the CAZ’s, so finding money to do it isn’t an issue. 

 

Any surplus from the CAZ has to be spent on measures which improve air quality, so it isn’t the answer to any overall Council budget problems