Sheffield Congestion Charge From Feb 27th 2023

[sheffbag 230]

4 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

The code of conduct is here

 

Report them to the Monitoring Officer and provide details of the complaint.

 

The procedure is in Appendix A of this document 

thanks for that but i note that  no action would be taken if 

"A significant amount of time has elapsed since the events which are the subject of the complaint."

 

i would fancy that it would be argued that this happened pre implementation and now cant be changed, but i'll find the relelvant audio links and see what happens.

[hackey lad 3,996]

1 hour ago, AndrewC said:

Could I answer your question? Why am I treated to that moody response? I never engaged with you, I was replying to HumbleNarrator? Why aren't you asking Planner1, or HumblerNarrator, or Sheffbag why they haven't answered your question (HN didn't answer your question, just went on a weird rant about liberalism or something)?

 

Since you asked though;

 

Tricky. A very circuitous route. The best is probably taking Bernard St to the don valley, cut across to Sutherland Street/Gower Street, up Burngreave Road, then down Rutland Road. You can then get across Penistone Road from there in to Upperthorpe/Netherthorpe without using the ring road.

 

I imagine by and large though, that most tradesmen are using the ring road and either paying the charge, and/or working on getting an exempt vehicle, if they haven't got one already (which many have).

Apologies, I thought you knew about these things.  It wasn’t a “moody response “ . 

[Planner1 443]

14 minutes ago, sheffbag said:

Planner- with all due respect

She said once mandated it couldnt be changed. Five cities were mandated to introduce a Clean Air Zone - Birmingham, Leeds, Nottingham, Derby and Southampton.

Of those mandated cities,

Leeds - https://news.leeds.gov.uk/news/leeds-clean-air-zone-has-achieved-its-aims-early-and-is-no-longer-required-joint-review-finds. air quality below legal limit. Central govt removed the mandate

Nottingham - https://www.transportnottingham.com/no-clean-air-zone-for-nottingham/ - Air qulaity projected to be under legal limit, Mandate removed

Derby - Doing a local traffic scheme instead of a CAZ - Mandate removed

Southampton - Local govt approved a local NO2 plan instead of a CAZ. Mandate removed.

 

I would also throw in Leicester who were mandated at a different time

Leicester - https://airqualitynews.com/cars-freight-transport/leicesters-clean-air-zone-plans-have-been-scrapped/ -  Air quality below legal limit, Mandate removed

 

So if what she was saying was correct how did those 5 cities get their mandate removed?  Leeds and Manchester have both kept the funding and infrastructure supplied with no claw back by the govt. I really cant be bothered to check on any funding for the others as those 2 alone blow her claim out of the water

 

she said if SCC didnt implement a scheme "the govt would step in and run one for us". there is no evidence anywhere within any government clean air strategy or anywhere (as you verified when raised earlier in the thread) to substantiate her claim. toby even said "let them then, it will save us cash" but she tried to change the subject at that point.

 

She never said on what evidence they "went back and asked for it to be stopped". to be fair Toby should have drilled down on that but all we got were "we asked"

 

There are two verifiable claims within the interview she did with toby foster which were either misinformed, misleading or just a lie. I could listen back and fact check all the other ones.

 

People did want to talk to politicians but if you remember Terry Fox wouldnt be interviewed about the scheme until after it was implemented and Maz Iqbal didnt even know the rules of the scheme such as when the charging times were.

 

Dont get me wrong, Maz was thrown under the bus by SCC and tried to be as positive as he could be but as the customer facing rep of the council on the scheme he was woefully under informed on it

 

you are right, its not a one-sze fits all solution, so why didnt SCC explore the other opportunities such as a non charging one. If its good enough for cities the size of Manchester and Liverpool then why didnt SCC explore this. there is no information anywhere in SCC minutes or business cases ruling out a non charging scheme

 

 

I have no idea how the other cities managed to get things changed. I would expect that all the cities mandated would have been talking to each other and sharing intelligence.

 

My understanding was that they did look at all the options and chose the scheme that produced the right results ( there would have been a lot of modelling work done to see estimates of  how these options worked). A good business case explains how all the options have been assessed. That’s the process the government expects scheme promoters to follow.

 

The councillor said that the government reasoning was that we were further along in the process than the others. I don’t know the facts on that so I can’t comment.

 

Councillors are human and sometimes say and do the wrong thing ( irrespective of how well briefed they are by officers) They are accountable for their actions. The radio interview was recent so I would expect there to be consequences if lies were proven to have been told. 

[AndrewC 310]

9 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

Apologies, I thought you knew about these things.  It wasn’t a “moody response “ . 

It came across rather like you had challenged me and I were ignoring you...sorry if I misread.

 

I don't know more than anyone else, really? The route I gave was from a quick look at google maps and personal knowledge.

[Planner1 443]

15 minutes ago, sheffbag said:

thanks for that but i note that  no action would be taken if 

"A significant amount of time has elapsed since the events which are the subject of the complaint."

 

i would fancy that it would be argued that this happened pre implementation and now cant be changed, but i'll find the relelvant audio links and see what happens.

I’d think the radio interview is recent enough.

 

Elected Members are expected to uphold good standards. Telling lies isn’t what’s expected.

 

Personally, I can’t see why the councillor should lie. There has been a process by which the council have arrived at the position of implementing a charging CAZ. It is all documented and has been approved by all the right bodies and people, so it shouldn’t be any problem to justify / explain how it has come about or why one option was chosen over another.

[E-Man Groovin 27]

3 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

I’d think the radio interview is recent enough.

 

Elected Members are expected to uphold good standards. Telling lies isn’t what’s expected.

 

Personally, I can’t see why the councillor should lie. There has been a process by which the council have arrived at the position of implementing a charging CAZ. It is all documented and has been approved by all the right bodies and people, so it shouldn’t be any problem to justify / explain how it has come about or why one option was chosen over another.

I'm not sure I'm bothered about your personal opinion P1. There appears to be a case to answer here.

[Planner1 443]

24 minutes ago, E-Man Groovin said:

I'm not sure I'm bothered about your personal opinion P1. There appears to be a case to answer here.

But you think we should be interested in your opinion. I see.

 

This is a discussion forum, so we’re all entitled to our opinions.

[E-Man Groovin 27]

2 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

But you think we should be interested in your opinion. I see.

 

This is a discussion forum, so we’re all entitled to our opinions.

I cast no aspersions on the motives of the party in question (unlike your post). Just that there is a case that should be answered. There is a difference.

[Dannyno 19]

1 hour ago, sheffbag said:

Planner- with all due respect

She said once mandated it couldnt be changed. Five cities were mandated to introduce a Clean Air Zone - Birmingham, Leeds, Nottingham, Derby and Southampton.

Of those mandated cities,

Leeds - https://news.leeds.gov.uk/news/leeds-clean-air-zone-has-achieved-its-aims-early-and-is-no-longer-required-joint-review-finds. air quality below legal limit. Central govt removed the mandate

Nottingham - https://www.transportnottingham.com/no-clean-air-zone-for-nottingham/ - Air qulaity projected to be under legal limit, Mandate removed

Derby - Doing a local traffic scheme instead of a CAZ - Mandate removed

Southampton - Local govt approved a local NO2 plan instead of a CAZ. Mandate removed.

 

I would also throw in Leicester who were mandated at a different time

Leicester - https://airqualitynews.com/cars-freight-transport/leicesters-clean-air-zone-plans-have-been-scrapped/ -  Air quality below legal limit, Mandate removed

 

So if what she was saying was correct how did those 5 cities get their mandate removed?  Leeds and Manchester have both kept the funding and infrastructure supplied with no claw back by the govt. I really cant be bothered to check on any funding for the others as those 2 alone blow her claim out of the water

 

she said if SCC didnt implement a scheme "the govt would step in and run one for us". there is no evidence anywhere within any government clean air strategy or anywhere (as you verified when raised earlier in the thread) to substantiate her claim. toby even said "let them then, it will save us cash" but she tried to change the subject at that point.

 

She never said on what evidence they "went back and asked for it to be stopped". to be fair Toby should have drilled down on that but all we got were "we asked"

 

There are two verifiable claims within the interview she did with toby foster which were either misinformed, misleading or just a lie. I could listen back and fact check all the other ones.

 

People did want to talk to politicians but if you remember Terry Fox wouldnt be interviewed about the scheme until after it was implemented and Maz Iqbal didnt even know the rules of the scheme such as when the charging times were.

 

Dont get me wrong, Maz was thrown under the bus by SCC and tried to be as positive as he could be but as the customer facing rep of the council on the scheme he was woefully under informed on it

 

you are right, its not a one-sze fits all solution, so why didnt SCC explore the other opportunities such as a non charging one. If its good enough for cities the size of Manchester and Liverpool then why didnt SCC explore this. there is no information anywhere in SCC minutes or business cases ruling out a non charging scheme

 

 

So the question here is how did Leeds, Nottingham, Derby, Southampton and Leicester avoid having to introduce CAZ's?  And why couldn't Sheffield do the same, therefore?

 

In the case of most of these the reason is blindingly obvious.

 

In Leeds, the switch to cleaner vehicles happened quicker than expected and air quality was within legal limits.    So the CAZ was no longer required.   If the same had been achieved in Sheffield, perhaps the same outcome would have been possible.   Perhaps Sheffield Council should have done more to try to get there?  Sheffield is offering grants  I do notice that Leeds' air quality status report mentions that:

 

Quote

higher levels of air pollution around City Square, Bishopgate Street, Neville Street and New Station Street will be addressed by the Leeds City Square Improvement Scheme. The scheme aims to reduce the volume of traffic in City Square while maintaining access to key destinations via other appropriate routes and is scheduled to start in 2022.

 

https://www.leeds.gov.uk/clean-air/air-quality-annual-report

 

The City Square project involves radically reducing traffic (https://leedscitysquare.commonplace.is/en-GB/news/city-square-enters-next-phase-of-construction-from-8-january-2023) 

 

In Nottingham, again the council could show that other measures would bring them below the air quality limits.   

 

On the link provided, among other things, it says that all Nottingham taxis and private hire vehicles would be required to be low emission, a decision that itself caused outrage: (https://www.cabdirect.com/taxi-trade-news/nottingham-drivers-outrage-at-low-emissions-order/).

 

Nottingham also have city centre "clear zones", restricting vehicle access except by permit for much of the day.  This is much more aggressive than anything I think Sheffield currently has.

https://documents.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/download/1169

 

In Derby, as you say they went down a non-charging route - "traffic management".  It's worth looking at what that involved.  Their proposal is explained here: https://www.derby.gov.uk/media/derbycitycouncil/contentassets/documents/transport/airqualityplan/clean-air-consultation-document.pdf.     First of all, it's worth noting that in Derby only one location exceeded the air quality limit.    And the "traffic management" proposal is directly aimed at that by restricting traffic flow in the area.   And given there was only the one exceeding location, that seems rational.  

 

In Southampton, their plan involved things like bringing buses up to standard, and enforcing new emissions standards for licensed taxis (https://www.southampton.gov.uk/business-licensing/licensing/taxis-private-hire/new-license-conditions/).  It took them a year to get their plans approved (https://ashden.org/news/southampton-cuts-air-pollution-without-charging-drivers-through-greener-taxis-buses-and-deliveries/).   They also banned out of town taxis from using city bus lines during peak periods.

 

And in Leicester as you say air quality is now below the limit and so a CAZ isn't required.

 

So, there's no trick to any of those.   The councils were able to come up with plans short of a charging CAZ which they could convince government would bring about better air quality "in the shortest possible time".    In some cases, air quality got better without the need for a CAZ.   Is this the case in Sheffield?    In others, other measures have been taken including strong taxi licensing measures and strict traffic control and pedestrianisation.   In  one city there was only one location exceeding the limit, so they're just enforcing measures at that point.

 

 

[carosio 187]

3 hours ago, AndrewC said:

Since you asked though;

 

Tricky. A very circuitous route. The best is probably taking Bernard St to the don valley, cut across to Sutherland Street/Gower Street, up Burngreave Road, then down Rutland Road. You can then get across Penistone Road from there in to Upperthorpe/Netherthorpe without using the ring road.

 

I imagine by and large though, that most tradesmen are using the ring road and either paying the charge, and/or working on getting an exempt vehicle, if they haven't got one already (which many have).

I presume the customer eventually ends up paying for it, and also tax-deductable?

[SheHasn'tFallen 2]

9 minutes ago, carosio said:

I presume the customer eventually ends up paying for it, and also tax-deductable?

Customer eventually ends up paying for it - possibly

Tax deductable - no

[carosio 187]

2 hours ago, SheHasn'tFallen said:

Customer eventually ends up paying for it - possibly

Tax deductable - no

In that case, customer will be definitely paying for it!