Sheffield Clean Air Zone

[Annie Bynnol 612]

16 minutes ago, AndrewC said:

It's a fallacy to assume vehicular traffic is always displaced 100% as-is to different roads when some kind of new restriction comes along. If and when this scheme is extended to private vehicles for example, you'll see several different responses:

• Some people with non-exempt cars will simply continue as normal and pay the fine
• Some people with non-exempt cars will still travel but find an alternative route
• Some people will start to leave their car at home more and use alternatives (public transport & active travel)
• Some people will simply stay at home altogether and rule non-essential trips out altogether
• Some people will look at buying an exempt vehicle

Despite the weaknesses of some of those responses, particularly the potential for rat-running, the argument for would be that any traffic & pollution caused by the rat-running would be offset by the increase in cleaner vehicles, reduced trips overall (as more people ditch cars & use alternatives), and therefore reduced congestion on those roads.

 

When this comes in for LGVs, HGVs, etc covering businesses & industry, we'll see a similar spread of options:

• Some fleets are exempt vehicles already
• Some fleets will be upgraded quickly to exempt vehicles
• Some fleets won't be upgraded and potentially attempt rat-running
• Some fleets won't be upgraded, continue to use the CAZ and take the fee, factoring the fee in to their costs.
• Some businesses will adapt themselves completely in other ways (for example it's not inconceivable that a business might turn down jobs on the far side of the city centre, if the cost of the CAZ fee, or the additional time/petrol of taking a roundabout route outweighs the potential profit etc.)

Long story short, apart from the early days of the scheme when there is always a period of adaptation, these things tend to iron themselves out. If rat-running really becomes that big of a problem, expect more restrictions to come in to place (though generally, I'm struggling to think of many places peripheral to the CAZ area that don't already have restrictions in place to discourage through traffic).

Stop "...struggling to think of many places peripheral to the CAZ area that don't already have restrictions in place to discourage through traffic)." Take for example the situation in Broomhill- which doesn't  have restrictions in place to discourage through or any other traffic.

 

We have amongst the highest  levels(greater than the City Centre) of air pollution in very densely populated, housing, hospitals, schools, universities, sheltered and care home etc. offices etc.

We have the 'highest walk' to work numbers in the City.

Deliberately subjecting these populations to even higher levels of harmful pollution would be 'illegal' if European legislation applied.

Can the Council justify further damaging the health of sick children, pregnant women, cancer sufferers, sick attendees at outpatients and clinics?

Can the Council justify further damaging the health of the thousands of nursery, primary and secondary children?

Can the Council justify increasing the air pollution  while encouraging pedestrians and cyclists?

Can the Council justify further damaging the health of residents whose homes will suffer increases in air and noise pollution?

Can the Council justify the increase in death and injury due to an increase in traffic and the heavier vehicles? 

Can the Council justify spreading and increasing  problem to Crookes, Walkley, Hunters Bar, Crosspool etc.?

 

While agreeing with all the points made about CAZ, the dismissal of the "...potential for rat-running..." is not receiving the attention it demands.

At the very least the air range, accuracy, quantity and quality of the measurements need have to improve so that binding targets and levels and measures must be set and agreed to, to reduce current levels of pollution before the ring road rules are implemented.

If at any time after the  ring road is included, any of the air quality parameters are breached then the inclusion of the ring road in the CAZ must be revoked immediately and permanently until a full scale impact assessment is conducted independently and if necessary legal action taken.

 

It is unacceptable that CAZ implementation to improve the health and quality of life in one area results to increase in health problems for ten of thousands more in the surrounding area.

 

 

 

 

[AndrewC 307]

4 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Stop "...struggling to think of many places peripheral to the CAZ area that don't already have restrictions in place to discourage through traffic)." Take for example the situation in Broomhill- which doesn't  have restrictions in place to discourage through or any other traffic.

 

While agreeing with all the points made about CAZ, the dismissal of the "...potential for rat-running..." is not receiving the attention it demands.

 

It is unacceptable that CAZ implementation to improve the health and quality of life in one area results to increase in health problems for ten of thousands more in the surrounding area.

 

 

I get the feeling you think I'm being dismissive of the potential displacement of traffic and it's adverse affects on neighbouring areas entirely - I promise you that couldn't be further from the truth. If you knew me then you'd know I'm very passionate about the subject of car-dependency, the noise & air quality impacts of car use, and the impacts - positive and negative - of things like CAZs and LTNs (Low Traffic Neighbourhoods).

 

My previous post was specifically wanting to address the catastrophising predictions that a CAZ that includes the inner ring-road would simply displace all/most traffic as it is to other surrounding roads, which isn't true, and isn't a fair reflection of the desired outcomes and likely reality of what will happen - that's not to say it wouldn't displace some of the traffic in to surrounding areas, or that that wouldn't be a serious issue in it's own right; of course it would.

 

But the truth is, it's the situation we have now - unabated petrol/diesel car/van/lorry use city wide - that is what is damaging the health of the thousands of nursery, primary and secondary children,  creating higher levels of air pollution, and causing traffic congestion and safety issues.

 

There are few easy answers, and virtually no options which don't - in the short and medium term - cause a shift of some of the issue to other areas, but longer-term they do improve the situation for everybody. Councils really have few options now but to use the stick (there is little money left for carrot) to coerce people out of their cars and/or get people to choose cleaner cars.

 

The CAZ is much more than just an attempt to clean up pollution in the city centre. It is the first step towards addressing petrol/diesel car use, and overall car use right across Sheffield. Much of the through traffic you see in Broomhill will be vehicles travelling to the city centre (or potentially beyond the city centre, but using the inner ring-road to do so). If the CAZ was extended to private vehicles, those who travel via Broomhill to do so are likely to question whether making that trip in a non-exempt vehicle is worth it. The likely outcome - coupled with improved public transport and greater traffic calming measures in Broomhill and other are - is an overall reduction in car use across all of Sheffield, and/or a switch by most people to cleaner vehicles.

 

Coincidentally, so you know I'm not just talking from a privileged position where none of this really affects me - I live on a road (not far from Broomhill) which would almost certainly see an increase in traffic if this CAZ comes in, particularly if it is extended to private vehicles in the future, and near another main road which also sees some of the highest levels of pollution in Sheffield outside of the city centre. It's a very real issue to me, as it is to everyone.

 

 

Finally, if you haven't already, I urge you to raise all the points you've made with the council. It does help them build a picture of the public's view of both this scheme and the potential future issues that will need addressing, whether they go ahead with it or not.

[Annie Bynnol 612]

15 hours ago, AndrewC said:

 

I get the feeling you think I'm being dismissive of the potential displacement of traffic and it's adverse affects on neighbouring areas entirely - I promise you that couldn't be further from the truth. If you knew me then you'd know I'm very passionate about the subject of car-dependency, the noise & air quality impacts of car use, and the impacts - positive and negative - of things like CAZs and LTNs (Low Traffic Neighbourhoods).

 

My previous post was specifically wanting to address the catastrophising predictions that a CAZ that includes the inner ring-road would simply displace all/most traffic as it is to other surrounding roads, which isn't true, and isn't a fair reflection of the desired outcomes and likely reality of what will happen - that's not to say it wouldn't displace some of the traffic in to surrounding areas, or that that wouldn't be a serious issue in it's own right; of course it would.

 

But the truth is, it's the situation we have now - unabated petrol/diesel car/van/lorry use city wide - that is what is damaging the health of the thousands of nursery, primary and secondary children,  creating higher levels of air pollution, and causing traffic congestion and safety issues.

 

There are few easy answers, and virtually no options which don't - in the short and medium term - cause a shift of some of the issue to other areas, but longer-term they do improve the situation for everybody. Councils really have few options now but to use the stick (there is little money left for carrot) to coerce people out of their cars and/or get people to choose cleaner cars.

 

The CAZ is much more than just an attempt to clean up pollution in the city centre. It is the first step towards addressing petrol/diesel car use, and overall car use right across Sheffield. Much of the through traffic you see in Broomhill will be vehicles travelling to the city centre (or potentially beyond the city centre, but using the inner ring-road to do so). If the CAZ was extended to private vehicles, those who travel via Broomhill to do so are likely to question whether making that trip in a non-exempt vehicle is worth it. The likely outcome - coupled with improved public transport and greater traffic calming measures in Broomhill and other are - is an overall reduction in car use across all of Sheffield, and/or a switch by most people to cleaner vehicles.

 

Coincidentally, so you know I'm not just talking from a privileged position where none of this really affects me - I live on a road (not far from Broomhill) which would almost certainly see an increase in traffic if this CAZ comes in, particularly if it is extended to private vehicles in the future, and near another main road which also sees some of the highest levels of pollution in Sheffield outside of the city centre. It's a very real issue to me, as it is to everyone.

 

 

Finally, if you haven't already, I urge you to raise all the points you've made with the council. It does help them build a picture of the public's view of both this scheme and the potential future issues that will need addressing, whether they go ahead with it or not.

Thank you for your reply and we agree with you an nearly everything apart from the timing.

The CAZ is required.

That the CAZ should include the inner ring road-not yet.

 

You say  that there are "...no options which don't - in the short and medium term - cause a shift of some of the issue to other areas, but longer-term they do improve the situation for everybody."

 

To dismiss the increase in exposure of thousands of people already exposed to the highest levels of toxins  to even higher high levels of toxins as an "issue" is bad enough.

To ask people to accept an increase in toxin levels for an indefinite period in the hope of long term gain is not a defence. 

To coerce people into thinking that in accepting an increase in toxins they are they are sharing a burden is morally wrong.

 

To plan and execute a scheme to knowingly and deliberately expose people to high levels of toxins should (if it is not already) a criminal offence as it is in at least three European countries I know well.

 

The flows of traffic at the most sensitive morning peak suggest that highly polluting short distance double journeys to and from schools by cars are the biggest contributor. That needs another solution. 

 

HGV and large trucks and van are much less in evidence here than elsewhere. When the ring road restriction starts there will be a new flow of the most polluting of these vehicles going across the radial roads in places like Broomhill, Crookes, Walkley etc. as well the safety and amenity issues currently concerning out of control parking and heavily used residential roads.

 

I do not accept that the only solution is to expose tens of thousands of people in Broomhill who currently endure much higher levels of toxins than the city centre to even higher levels.

 

 

[*_ash_* 88]

On 16/11/2021 at 18:11, AndrewC said:

 

 

 

My previous post was specifically wanting to address the catastrophising predictions that a CAZ that includes the inner ring-road would simply displace all/most traffic as it is to other surrounding roads, which isn't true, and isn't a fair reflection of the desired outcomes and likely reality of what will happen - that's not to say it wouldn't displace some of the traffic in to surrounding areas, or that that wouldn't be a serious issue in it's own right; of course it would.

 

But the truth is, it's the situation we have now - unabated petrol/diesel car/van/lorry use city wide - that is what is damaging the health of the thousands of nursery, primary and secondary children,  creating higher levels of air pollution, and causing traffic congestion and safety issues.

 

 

Just to be clear, if this is including me, as you just quoted me then wrote this, then I said absolutely nothing of the sort. 

 

I know 90+% of vehicles aren't affected.  So they will continue as normal. 

 

The most polluting vehicles, if it works out cheaper, will use the surrounding areas to move around. That's what I gave an example of. 

 

And as you say, then next move will be more road restrictions to compensate. And more traffic jams on main roads for all drivers. 

 

 

[MunXy 10]

I would like to ask people to post

A. If they visit town at least once a week.

B. How they get into town i.e. Public transport, car, walk or bike/motorcycle.

C. Business or pleasure , work or shopping.

D. Do you think the Clean Air Zone is a good or bad idea.

im not trying to start arguments, I will delete any posts trolling others, I just want a simple thread of discussion and what sheffield people, not the people that are migrant or non perminent residents think to this SCC idea and possibly if they believe it will make a difference to quality of life here in this once great city.

please keep it civil.

[spilldig 189]

Doesn't really matter what anyone thinks though because they are only asking for our opinion after it's all been decided.

[Flanker7 20]

1 hour ago, MunXy said:

I would like to ask people to post

A. If they visit town at least once a week.

B. How they get into town i.e. Public transport, car, walk or bike/motorcycle.

C. Business or pleasure , work or shopping.

D. Do you think the Clean Air Zone is a good or bad idea.

im not trying to start arguments, I will delete any posts trolling others, I just want a simple thread of discussion and what sheffield people, not the people that are migrant or non perminent residents think to this SCC idea and possibly if they believe it will make a difference to quality of life here in this once great city.

please keep it civil.

A - Yes 

B - Walk, bike and occaisionally car

C - Shopping

D - I think the clean air zone is a good idea.

 

Why is the inner ring road within the zone?

We have a campervan and never take it into the city. However,  the inclusion of the inner ring road within the zone will cause us a big inconvenience. To the south and east we will have to divert to the outer ring road and to the north and west its almost not worth  it and a route via Derbyshire! is easiest. 

[The Joker 10]

I have a great idea for a clean air zone:

 

Force everybody to stay at home, except for me.

 

It would cut my commuting time (and stress levels) from 40 minutes down to just 10 minutes.

 

[HeHasRisen 3,405]

1 hour ago, MunXy said:

 

im not trying to start arguments, I will delete any posts trolling others

How are you going to delete other people's posts?

 

And we already have a thread on this.

[Thirsty Relic 215]

4 hours ago, spilldig said:

Doesn't really matter what anyone thinks though because they are only asking for our opinion after it's all been decided.

Agree, but ...  

A Yes 

B Bus 

C Shopping

D No

[SFBeca 194]

MOD: merged new thread with existing one

[dutch 68]

Sheffield council now says the delays costs them 1.2 million in lost income. 

Did think the clean air was the real issue for this expensive zone.