Sheffield Clean Air Zone

[HeHasRisen]

33 minutes ago, *_ash_* said:

 

HeHasrisen, I think what Jack Grey is saying is that, for example, if he moves a vehicle from outside the CAZ, and for example the next job is on the A57 Crosspool or something...

 

how would you personally drive this journey without incurring a £10 penalty? 

This is a reasonably simple journey using the ring road, and he wouldn't need to enter town. With the charge, people will have to find other longer ways, and areas around town will become more congested. 

 

 

As you said, I would go a long way round.

[Jack Grey]

37 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

As you said, I would go a long way round.

And my point was why should i have to take the long way round when i live in the city centre 👍

[HeHasRisen]

6 minutes ago, Jack Grey said:

And my point was why should i have to take the long way round when i live in the city centre 👍

Pay your tenner then, the choice is yours 🤷‍♂️

[*_ash_*]

46 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

As you said, I would go a long way round.

Great. So would I. So would Jack. So would members 1 to 100k in here. Can you not see the issue?

 

Take a probably 10 mile trip on side roads, and take twice the time, to do,  what could be done more efficiently along a ring road, that was designed for this purpose! 

 

 

[HeHasRisen]

1 minute ago, *_ash_* said:

Great. So would I. So would Jack. So would members 1 to 100k in here. Can you not see the issue?

 

Take a probably 10 mile trip on side roads, and take twice the time, to do,  what could be done more efficiently along a ring road, that was designed for this purpose! 

 

 

I dont disagree thats a problem. 

In any case as I drive an exempt car I dont really care 🤣

[*_ash_*]

1 minute ago, HeHasRisen said:

I dont disagree thats a problem. 

In any case as I drive an exempt car I dont really care 🤣

Let me correct this...

 

You have a car that is exempt now. 

 

1 year ago (though the topic got lost because of covid) - Euro 6 taxi weren't included. (and some other things that I am bored of) but even the Prius WASN'T exempt. 

 

As I've said in the other thread, once those cameras are up, and they stop taking money, the goalposts will change. 

 

Even if you own a fully electric car, don't be giggling too much... you'll be some way on that list! haha

 

 

[HeHasRisen]

Well we will cross that bridge when we get to it, I hardly drive a rustbucket 😘

[AndrewC]

13 hours ago, *_ash_* said:

Great. So would I. So would Jack. So would members 1 to 100k in here. Can you not see the issue?

 

Take a probably 10 mile trip on side roads, and take twice the time, to do,  what could be done more efficiently along a ring road, that was designed for this purpose! 

 

 

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).

Edited November 16, 2021 by AndrewC

[Annie Bynnol]

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]

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.