Sheffield Clean Air Zone

[Michael_N 36]

Only thing I can’t quite comprehend is why the inner ring road is included. Surely this will just create rat runs on the local side roads and cause further congestion on the ring road, which in the North East of then city is just restricted to a single carriageway between Brightside and Owlerton.

 

Guessing SCC haven’t seen the news on the mess and rat runs/additional congestion that has been occurring in Bath, since their CAZ launched…

[Resident 1,193]

2 hours ago, Michael_N said:

Only thing I can’t quite comprehend is why the inner ring road is included. Surely this will just create rat runs on the local side roads and cause further congestion on the ring road, which in the North East of then city is just restricted to a single carriageway between Brightside and Owlerton.

 

Guessing SCC haven’t seen the news on the mess and rat runs/additional congestion that has been occurring in Bath, since their CAZ launched…

Money. 

Why do you think private cars aren't (yet) included? Because they can avoid the zone for the most part. 

[ads36 217]

On 01/11/2021 at 16:31, The Manager said:

£50 a day ? Who comes up with these stupid ideas all that will happen is a Knock on affects to Prices in shops , Businesses ,Bus fares etc

The charge needs to be high enough to change behaviour.

 

for sake of argument, let's lower it to a quid : that will change nothing - remember that the council has a legal obligation to act, meaningfully, ASAP. 

 

or, let's make it £500 : my instinct says that's too high.

 

how much do you suggest? - remember that carrying on without the CAZ is not an option, and it has to make a difference.

 

 

[Planner1 438]

3 hours ago, Michael_N said:

Only thing I can’t quite comprehend is why the inner ring road is included. Surely this will just create rat runs on the local side roads and cause further congestion on the ring road, which in the North East of then city is just restricted to a single carriageway between Brightside and Owlerton.

 

Guessing SCC haven’t seen the news on the mess and rat runs/additional congestion that has been occurring in Bath, since their CAZ launched…

See posts #27 and #32

31 minutes ago, Resident said:

Money. 

Why do you think private cars aren't (yet) included? Because they can avoid the zone for the most part. 

Nothing to do with money. Private cars aren’t included because the council believe they can get the required impact without them.

[the_bloke 17]

Note that whilst large proportions of the CAZ creation are being paid for by grants, there is an expectation (as detailed amongst this) that the day to day running of the CAZ will be funded by revenue collected from polluting vehicles entering the zone.

 

So when the number of vehicles is reduced to an amount where the CAZ is a success in terms of pollution but revenue isn't enough to cover the cost of the scheme, then:

 

a) The council will have to find the money from other income streams, such as council tax

 

or

 

b) The council will have to find the money from other income streams, such as making private vehicles pay to enter the zone

 

or

 

c) The CAZ is removed

 

I predict b).

Edited November 3, 2021 by the_bloke

[AndrewC 307]

1 hour ago, the_bloke said:

Note that whilst large proportions of the CAZ creation are being paid for by grants, there is an expectation (as detailed amongst this) that the day to day running of the CAZ will be funded by revenue collected from polluting vehicles entering the zone.

 

So when the number of vehicles is reduced to an amount where the CAZ is a success in terms of pollution but revenue isn't enough to cover the cost of the scheme, then:

 

a) The council will have to find the money from other income streams, such as council tax

 

or

 

b) The council will have to find the money from other income streams, such as making private vehicles pay to enter the zone

 

or

 

c) The CAZ is removed

 

I predict b).

 

Two things;

 

If there are very few people who are actually infringing on the CAZ rules 4-5 years down the line, then operating costs are minimal and could potentially just be included in the everyday transportation budget that the council already operates.

 

Secondly, 4-5 years down the line, the number of private vehicles that wouldn't meet CAZ criteria would already be shrinking. Although car ownership continues to rise, major urban centres in the UK (and the world) are beginning to facilitate a major shift away from car use in their centres, and the numbers of hybrid & electric vehicles continue to rise too. With the 2030 ban on sales of new petrol/diesel cars on the horizon too, then it's fair to say that if and when it were to extend to private cars some time around 2024-2030 - as per your Option B - then it wouldn't be impacting the public as badly as it would right now, or say 5 years ago. 

 

So, to be honest, why shouldn't they take Option B? People driving petrol/diesel cars in to heavily populated areas & city centres are going to find themselves with fewer and fewer allies as this decade rolls on...

[Resident 1,193]

2 hours ago, ads36 said:

The charge needs to be high enough to change behaviour.

 

for sake of argument, let's lower it to a quid : that will change nothing - remember that the council has a legal obligation to act, meaningfully, ASAP. 

 

or, let's make it £500 : my instinct says that's too high.

 

how much do you suggest? - remember that carrying on without the CAZ is not an option, and it has to make a difference.

 

 

Ok. So a great solution to lowering emissions would be to get people out of private cars and onto public transport.  Fewer cars = Much lower emissions.  

A standard single deck bus holds around 60 people. Which pollutes more, 1 bus with 60 passengers or 60 single occupant cars? 

Yet this shambles has decided to charge buses £50/day per vehicle and not private cars, this will: 

1. Create a barrier to public transport users by raising fares to cover the costs of CAZ charges 
2. Encourage private vehicles in the city centre
 

2 hours ago, Planner1 said:

See posts #27 and #32

Nothing to do with money. Private cars aren’t included because the council believe they can get the required impact without them.

Oh to be you. Naive and with council supplied rose tinted spectacles. 

[Planner1 438]

50 minutes ago, Resident said:

Ok. So a great solution to lowering emissions would be to get people out of private cars and onto public transport.  Fewer cars = Much lower emissions.  

A standard single deck bus holds around 60 people. Which pollutes more, 1 bus with 60 passengers or 60 single occupant cars? 

Yet this shambles has decided to charge buses £50/day per vehicle and not private cars, this will: 

1. Create a barrier to public transport users by raising fares to cover the costs of CAZ charges 
2. Encourage private vehicles in the city centre
 

Oh to be you. Naive and with council supplied rose tinted spectacles. 

It isn’t creating a barrier to public transport. Both the major bus operators here are upgrading their fleet in advance of the zone coming into operation. First were stating they expect to be fully compliant at launch. So the investment has been made, have you noticed fares increasing as a result?

 

Bath introduced a CAZ a few months ago and within a couple of months were reporting that almost all buses using the zone were compliant and also the vast majority of the taxis. I can’t find any mention of fares increasing as a result.

Large bus operators constantly renew their fleets, the CAZ’s will just have made them concentrate the renewals in areas they need them to avoid charges. 
 

Private vehicles are exempt from the charges, so drivers won’t notice any difference. How is that going to encourage more of them into the city centre?

 

Edited November 3, 2021 by Planner1

[Planner1 438]

46 minutes ago, Resident said:

Naive and with council supplied rose tinted spectacles. 

Or, putting it another way, having first hand knowledge of the subject and working closely with the people at the Council who are working on it and the politicians who are approving it.

[Guest busdriver1]

1 hour ago, Planner1 said:

 

Bath introduced a CAZ a few months ago and within a couple of months were reporting that almost all buses using the zone were compliant and also the vast majority of the taxis. I can’t find any mention of fares increasing as a result.

Large bus operators constantly renew their fleets, the CAZ’s will just have made them concentrate the renewals in areas they need them to avoid charges. 

Both operators have prioritised new vehicles to areas with LEZ's meaning other areas get the older more polluting vehicles cascaded out into them. Globally there is no benefit to this policy but it keeps local tin pot dictators happy. The new vehicles are not "new" orders, just a juggling of existing orders in the groups continued fleet renewals.

[the_bloke 17]

2 hours ago, Planner1 said:

It isn’t creating a barrier to public transport. Both the major bus operators here are upgrading their fleet in advance of the zone coming into operation. First were stating they expect to be fully compliant at launch. So the investment has been made, have you noticed fares increasing as a result?

 

Bath introduced a CAZ a few months ago and within a couple of months were reporting that almost all buses using the zone were compliant and also the vast majority of the taxis. I can’t find any mention of fares increasing as a result.

Large bus operators constantly renew their fleets, the CAZ’s will just have made them concentrate the renewals in areas they need them to avoid charges. 
 

Private vehicles are exempt from the charges, so drivers won’t notice any difference. How is that going to encourage more of them into the city centre?

 

If you are expecting similar results to Bath and within a few months virtually no buses or taxis will be paying the charge, do you expect the revenue needed to administer the zone to come virtually entirely from delivery vans and lorries and confused camper vans trying to get round Sheffield and directed onto the ring road?

[Tony 10]

6 hours ago, Planner1 said:

Or, putting it another way, having first hand knowledge of the subject and working closely with the people at the Council who are working on it and the politicians who are approving it.

AKA first hand confirmation bias.