Sheffield Clean Air Zone

[HeHasRisen]

48 minutes ago, Anna B said:

I'm glad private cars are not included (yet) but larger vehicles will include a lot of delivery vans etc so you can bet the charge will be passed on to the customers, putting prices up again, so it will affect everyone.. 

What percentage of delivery vans from the likes of DPD, DHL, Amazon etc....would have to pay the charge currently? Same question for the lorries covering supermarkets and shops?

 

You do realise that its fairly easy for them to adapt, dont you? Their newer fee-exempt fleet serves postcodes covered by the charges and the older fleet does the rest. 

Edited October 26, 2022 by HeHasRisen

[Guest busdriver1]

19 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

What percentage of delivery vans from the likes of DPD, DHL, Amazon etc....would have to pay the charge currently? Same question for the lorries covering supermarkets and shops?

 

You do realise that its fairly easy for them to adapt, dont you? Their newer fee-exempt fleet serves postcodes covered by the charges and the older fleet does the rest. 

with the greatest respect this reply indicates you have no knowledge of the workings of delivery firms. To think that a vehicle could be restricted to only delivering in a set area is completely impractical. Most vehicles will have timed deliveries and this will involve them going to many areas to cover them. 95% of amazon drivers are dubiously "self employed" so the onus would be on them to kit up with the latest vehicles. This premium would be passed on to Amazon who would then pass it on to the customers. No delivery driver would be happy if he was told he was only delivering in Sheffield, that I am very sure of. As for the lorries delivering to Supermarkets the same applies, they wont just do one drop and their other drop will depend on the space on the lorry combined with the size of any orders to be delivered so they could well do one in Sheffield and one in Barnsley or even further afield.

One delivery company I am aware of has a fleet of 35 vans and on any day at least 20 of them would deliver in Sheffield alongside other places, next day to keep it fair, most of them would deliver outside Sheffield and so on, so they would require a full fleet upgrade.

[HeHasRisen]

26 minutes ago, busdriver1 said:

with the greatest respect this reply indicates you have no knowledge of the workings of delivery firms. To think that a vehicle could be restricted to only delivering in a set area is completely impractical. Most vehicles will have timed deliveries and this will involve them going to many areas to cover them. 95% of amazon drivers are dubiously "self employed" so the onus would be on them to kit up with the latest vehicles. This premium would be passed on to Amazon who would then pass it on to the customers. No delivery driver would be happy if he was told he was only delivering in Sheffield, that I am very sure of. As for the lorries delivering to Supermarkets the same applies, they wont just do one drop and their other drop will depend on the space on the lorry combined with the size of any orders to be delivered so they could well do one in Sheffield and one in Barnsley or even further afield.

One delivery company I am aware of has a fleet of 35 vans and on any day at least 20 of them would deliver in Sheffield alongside other places, next day to keep it fair, most of them would deliver outside Sheffield and so on, so they would require a full fleet upgrade.

Ok, how new is the fleet of the big delivery companies like DHL?

[Guest busdriver1]

2 hours ago, HeHasRisen said:

Ok, how new is the fleet of the big delivery companies like DHL?

1 - 8 years 

Edited October 26, 2022 by busdriver1

[HeHasRisen]

7 minutes ago, busdriver1 said:

1 - 8 years 

So not really ancient then.

[*_ash_*]

7 hours ago, AndrewC said:

The reference to ring-roads was in relation to decades-old practice of limiting through-routes in central urban areas. It didn't relate specifically to CAZs or Sheffield CAZ, and was one of a number of various types of traffic management schemes I was giving to illustrate that things like this have been happening since the mid-to-late 20th century.

 

The point is none of this is new, and people adapt.

 

 

My personal opinion? Ideally the Sheffield scheme would not include the ring road, at least not to begin with, but as has been discussed above, the scheme is a legal requirement, and the ring road clearly falls within the remit necessary. We've seen only the other week in the Star that some schools in Sheffield are in near-illegal areas of pollution and one of those was Netherthorpe Primary School, right by the ring road.

 

Since the scheme still targets just larger, most polluting vehicles and not private cars, I still think the impact on traffic will be minimal, even when including the ring road.

Ring roads were designed to stop through traffic (and hence also reduce city centre traffic) and although it wasn't necessarily for air purposes when proposed, it's the same principle. 

 

I know you say people adapt etc. but essentially your example of London didn't work, as you can use the London ring road and not pay a tax.

 

On a different note, most traffic in the city centre AREN'T taxis. I could give you a better figure if I ask someone, but I know it's around 95%. 

 

Have a listen to this... start at about 1 min 15 seconds for about 8 minutes https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0d3qfyy and listen to the green party candidate in Sheffield. Though he did say he would also ideally not include the ring road, it shows several things...

1. the government said Sheffield has to deal with air pollution and Labour decided on this option (true or false? I don't know)

2. He spent five minutes looking up 'hackney carriages' and found plety of vehicles at £22k, and with a £10k grant could buy a new taxi for 12k. He obviously has no idea about the rules here, or the rules for getting a grant!

If he can find compliant black cabs for £12k, then tell him to message me, and I'll buy every one available and rent them out. I could retire in a year.

3. He says Labour is delaying the process, but this makes no sense. Why would they do  this if they suggested it? 

 

In short, it's hard to find answer sense in any of this mess. 

 

Tell me why I should buy a new cab for '£22k' to avoid the tax, but someone driving a 20 year old smoking gas guzzler can drive right into the centre for free. 

 

If you can justifuy this logic, I'm all ears!

[26b-6]

12 hours ago, AndrewC said:

It's not missing the point at all, but the fact is the two things are often dealt with separately (rightly or wrongly). As Planner1 says, there is a legal requirement for councils to start tackling inner-city pollution with schemes like the CAZ, and unfortunately it matters not if local public transport or other alternative roads (for example an 'outer ring road', not that Sheffield really has one) are up to the job of taking the slack.

 

Absolutely, if things worked well then a CAZ or LTN scheme would go hand-in-hand with public transport and active travel improvements so that as many people as possible had a genuine alternative, and you and I are in full agreement that public transport and cycling infrastructure need to be much better in this city. But Sheffield CC don't own or really control the buses and finances are limited for other improvements.

 

Though, it should be said, that we are talking about the initial Sheffield CAZ scheme, which does not cover private car use, so the question of people moving to Public Transport is irrelevant.

 

 

I have to pick you up on this notion that motorists 'overpay' for their car use. It's a fallacy. I'm not saying that motorists don't pay a lot of money to own, operate a car, but it's false to assume that must mean you've paid more than the costs your motoring inflicts on society. 

 

When you really start to dig down in to all the costs on society of car use, it actually starts to become clear quite quickly that motorists are mostly underpaying the debt they owe to society. Hard to digest that one, I know, but is actually true. For starters, some people would argue the recent increases in petrol/diesel costs are long overdue, given the ecological impact they have on the world, and that obtaining sources of petrol/diesel has helped enable slightly dubious nations maintain influence on the world.

Anyway, that's a whole other subject.

You’re still missing the point. And disappointingly turning it into a ‘us and them’ argument. We all need roads whether you drive on them or not. Instead of using excuses for supporting more taxes for motorists who have no viable alternative, How about planners and councils start defending its struggling citizens and start saying - enough is enough?  Eg Andy Burnham the Manchester Mayor proved during the pandemic you can speak out Govt legislation and help people, instead of accepting legislation which just demonises and taxes them.

 

Yes ‘Road or Emissions tax’ all goes into one big pot. This tax alone will not cover the cost of roads and 'cost to society'.  However when you include 52% +or more fuel duty + its added VAT Tax on Tax! Car-insurance, car-parts, MOT’s mechanics labour also all have added VAT. Plus motorists spend a humongous amount on parking charges, road tolls, unnecessary punitive fines, parking permits and so on,  motorists actually pay 'their way'  The focus should be improving lives for everyone, not your and Planner1's method which is to demonise folk who are already struggling, and  justifying stealing their hard earned wages.

Edited October 27, 2022 by 26b-6

[AndrewC]

8 hours ago, 26b-6 said:

You’re still missing the point. And disappointingly turning it into a ‘us and them’ argument. We all need roads whether you drive on them or not. Instead of using excuses for supporting more taxes for motorists who have no viable alternative, How about planners and councils start defending its struggling citizens and start saying - enough is enough?  Eg Andy Burnham the Manchester Mayor proved during the pandemic you can speak out Govt legislation and help people, instead of accepting legislation which just demonises and taxes them.

 

Yes ‘Road or Emissions tax’ all goes into one big pot. This tax alone will not cover the cost of roads and 'cost to society'.  However when you include 52% +or more fuel duty + its added VAT Tax on Tax! Car-insurance, car-parts, MOT’s mechanics labour also all have added VAT. Plus motorists spend a humongous amount on parking charges, road tolls, unnecessary punitive fines, parking permits and so on,  motorists actually pay 'their way'  The focus should be improving lives for everyone, not your and Planner1's method which is to demonise folk who are already struggling, and  justifying stealing their hard earned wages.

I drive semi-regularly - it's not 'us & them'. When I talk about 'drivers', I include myself and anyone else who has ever spent time behind a wheel.

It's I just fully appreciate the true costs of my driving, and accept that I have to pay them.

 

It pains me that we've built a world where so many people have to rely on car ownership to get about their daily lives - cars are a money pit and you can thank the car industry and governments/councils who have doubled-down on policies of road-building and suburbanisation for so long for that.

 

[Planner1]

On 27/10/2022 at 10:19, 26b-6 said:

You’re still missing the point. And disappointingly turning it into a ‘us and them’ argument. We all need roads whether you drive on them or not. Instead of using excuses for supporting more taxes for motorists who have no viable alternative, How about planners and councils start defending its struggling citizens and start saying - enough is enough?  Eg Andy Burnham the Manchester Mayor proved during the pandemic you can speak out Govt legislation and help people, instead of accepting legislation which just demonises and taxes them.

 

Yes ‘Road or Emissions tax’ all goes into one big pot. This tax alone will not cover the cost of roads and 'cost to society'.  However when you include 52% +or more fuel duty + its added VAT Tax on Tax! Car-insurance, car-parts, MOT’s mechanics labour also all have added VAT. Plus motorists spend a humongous amount on parking charges, road tolls, unnecessary punitive fines, parking permits and so on,  motorists actually pay 'their way'  The focus should be improving lives for everyone, not your and Planner1's method which is to demonise folk who are already struggling, and  justifying stealing their hard earned wages.

What was it that Andy Burnham did that was so wonderful?

 

Unfortunately there’s no “fair” way of addressing the air pollution issue. 
 

Who is actually being “demonised” and how?

 

It can be argued that the CAZ’s are fair in that they target the most polluting vehicles. Polluter pays, it’s a simple concept. 
 

Who exactly is having their wages “stolen”?

 

Price is an effective way of managing demand. People generally have choices. For example I don’t like paying for parking, so I park outside areas where I’d pay and walk a bit. That’s ok for me but might not suit others, but there’s a choice. 

Regarding the Sheffield CAZ, I have some sympathy for the hackney cab drivers, who tend not to be too well off ,  but the truth is that their vehicles are one of the most polluting, so if we want a solution which deals with the problem, they must be part of it. That might mean the cost of using cabs increases, but if we want better public health, that’s what has to happen.  Nothing is free and there is never an easy way to address these issues. 
 

If you can think of a better way, let’s hear it.

 

[HeHasRisen]

1 hour ago, Planner1 said:

 

If you can think of a better way, let’s hear it.

 

Now now, you know thats a silly question on a forum where people want a free for all, a world where you can still park up right outside the Lyceum, no bus gates etc etc.