Sheffield Congestion Charge From Feb 27th 2023

[carosio]

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]

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]

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!

[sheffbag]

18 hours 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.

Neither can I. So why did she? what could SCC gain by not telling the truth?

16 hours ago, Dannyno said:

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:

 

 

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.

 

 

Excellent post and backs up the situation in Sheffield. Within the CAZ there are only a few places where individually the air is over 40 according to SCC. They are centred around arundal gate where the bus lane is now going in and on Sheaf St next to the train station which SCC admit is over 40 due "primarily to the diesel trains and the taxi rank" (SCC clean air strategy 2017)

 

When the CAZ was first imposed/suggested the air quality was a lot worse but this has improved dramatically since 2015.

 

Overall for 2020 and 2021 the air has been legal within the CAZ zone. SCC own documented results bear that out and the CAz is based on the annual mean for all tubes and monitoring within the CAZ (source SCC FOI request, happy to post the link but its a 238 page document)

 

So to take your comments

Leeds - Air quality below - Same as Sheffield in 2020 and 2021

Nottingham - Showed that they intended to bring better air quality by introducing a scheme with no evidence of its impact. -  Sheffield is introducing the bus lane at one of the few points where individually a tube is over 40

Derby - Only one place over 40 - Sheffield ring road has only one place over 40 in 2020 and 2021 and this place is acknowledged by SCC as not due to road traffic. As a result the whole of the ring road is in the CAZ

Leicester - Air quality below - Same as Sheffield in 2020 and 2021

 

So you are right, there is no trick to it. Sheffield is no different to those cities in terms of its air quality or planned traffic measures. 

But it still has a CAZ in place

[sheffbag]

On 16/04/2023 at 09:38, Planner1 said:

If I recall correctly the committee chair in the radio interview said the area covered by the CAZ ( ie including the inner ring road) was set by the government. So, the extent of the scheme wasn’t up for discussion.

", it is proposed that the Sheffield CAZ will cover the area bounded by the inner ringroad. The inner ringroad itself would be included in the CAZ and therefore non-compliant buses, coaches, taxis (London-style hackneys and private hire), HGVs and LGVs would be charged a daily rate for entering and moving within the zone."

Source SCC outline business case, govt didnt set the Ring road in it. SCC did

[HeHasRisen]

More CAZ campaigning on the official FB page, I see:

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1801903783494447/permalink/2015861522098671/

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1801903783494447/permalink/2016196545398502/

 

May as well rename the group Conspiracy Nut Central

[Planner1]

1 hour ago, sheffbag said:

", it is proposed that the Sheffield CAZ will cover the area bounded by the inner ringroad. The inner ringroad itself would be included in the CAZ and therefore non-compliant buses, coaches, taxis (London-style hackneys and private hire), HGVs and LGVs would be charged a daily rate for entering and moving within the zone."

Source SCC outline business case, govt didnt set the Ring road in it. SCC did

Sorry but that doesn’t confirm whether or not the IRR was included due to government direction.

 

When a business case is being developed, a lot of discussion goes on behind the scenes.

 

SCC aren’t going to submit something in the business case that isn’t acceptable to the government or isn’t going to achieve the target.

[mike1961]

7 hours ago, HeHasRisen said:

More CAZ campaigning on the official FB page, I see:

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1801903783494447/permalink/2015861522098671/

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1801903783494447/permalink/2016196545398502/

 

May as well rename the group Conspiracy Nut Central

You've obviously nothing better to do

[HeHasRisen]

10 minutes ago, mike1961 said:

You've obviously nothing better to do

Here he is!  Dont let my posts get to you, mate. 

[RollingJ]

1 minute ago, HeHasRisen said:

Here he is!  Dont let my posts get to you, mate. 

Best suggestion you've made all da.

 

@mike1961-you've met the forum wind-up merchant?