Sheffield Congestion Charge From Feb 27th 2023

[Chekhov]

5 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Bearing in mind all edicts have  a cost somewhere along the line, if hardly anyone is getting killed doing something why bother doing anything about it ?

Sorry,can I just contradict myself. In modern society, with its excessive risk aversion and "I want to be safe at all costs, regardless of cost" (but I'll still drive my car and overeat), such sense does not apply. 

[sheffbag]

3 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

Lets all return if that happens then, I will get outraged about it then.

I dont drive a bus, or a lorry, or take Hackney cabs anyway, so I am not prepared to get outraged now.

 

As for London, only an idiot drives into central London and my car is compliant for the outer zone.

not just london, Bristol and Birmingham charge private cars too already

[HeHasRisen]

1 minute ago, sheffbag said:

not just london, Bristol and Birmingham charge private cars too already

I believe the latter two did so from the start.  

Like I said, lets all come back if the Sheffield scheme changes, and we can seethe about it then. Life is too short to moan about something that may not happen.

Edited December 19, 2022 by HeHasRisen

[Resident]

26 minutes ago, sheffbag said:

I remember  about a month/6Weeks ago Radio Sheffield had a person from one of the Sheffield Clean Air projects come on to talk about the scheme and his thoughts was that it wasnt needed as Sheffield had improved its air quality already to below the limits set out (40) that it was required to hit. If the clean air people are saying its not needed then why arent the council going back to the govt and saying they have already hit the target?

 

Even looking at the 2021 results the only are in the centre over 40 is the train station (not surprising but SCC wont be charging trains) and the interchange where multiple buses are stood emitting fumes. 

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/pollution-nuisance/air-quality (you want the tube results excel file on the right hand side)

Worth mentioning that as soon as Leeds fell below the max level for pollution they cancelled their CAZ and pollution levels have remained at the same level. 

So if Sheffield's air quality has greatly improved to the point it's now below the levels of CAZ, why are SCC hell-bent on forging ahead? 

https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/leeds-news/leeds-clean-air-zone-scrapped-19094803

[sheffbag]

6 minutes ago, Resident said:

Worth mentioning that as soon as Leeds fell below the max level for pollution they cancelled their CAZ and pollution levels have remained at the same level. 

So if Sheffield's air quality has greatly improved to the point it's now below the levels of CAZ, why are SCC hell-bent on forging ahead? 

https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/leeds-news/leeds-clean-air-zone-scrapped-19094803

because they are hiding behind the line of " the govt is forcing us to do it". 

[Rockers rule]

3 hours ago, RollingJ said:

And government policy is 'always correct' of course?

 

Slightly off topic, but closely related is a situation I have direct knowledge of.  A few years ago - maybe eight or nine, can't quite remember,  someone did a lead level' survey in my very local - i.e. my little road and the adjacent one and found the level was 'above safe levels', so they would have to rip up 40+ mature gardens and install membrane on 'all exposed areas'.

 

Those of us who had lived in the area for a while - probably about half the affected residents, knew there had been lead mills all the way down the river in the past, so knew there would be lead in the soil.

 

Now comes the interesting bit - directly adjacent to the river, there were the gardens for two of our four cottages - which had been vegetable gardens up to about 20 years previously - and a very large market traders vegetable garden. My grandparents, and others, used to grow their own vegetables in this 'polluted' soil, and never suffered any ill effects - in fact at the time my grandfather died, a lot of the people around were in their 70s/80s and had eaten produce from this 'polluted' soil with zero ill effects.

The membrane - in many areas - was laid at about 5/6" depth and is a b**ger to cut, so nothing can really be planted - even if it would grow in the alien, clay-heavy replacement topsoil.

Great planning, eh? And yes, it may have been Yorkshire Water that carried out the initial survey, but it was SCC in their wisdom that thought something that had been around for about 200 years had suddenly become a 'major health hazard' - if it wasn't so tragic, I would have laughed, but it seriously was a major unneeded exercise I nearly ended up crying.

Didn't water taste better out of't lead pipes 

[RollingJ]

48 minutes ago, Resident said:

Worth mentioning that as soon as Leeds fell below the max level for pollution they cancelled their CAZ and pollution levels have remained at the same level. 

So if Sheffield's air quality has greatly improved to the point it's now below the levels of CAZ, why are SCC hell-bent on forging ahead? 

https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/leeds-news/leeds-clean-air-zone-scrapped-19094803

Exactly - SCC have an agenda, and there is no way on earth you are going to change that, even in the face of evidence that it is not required.

[Planner1]

46 minutes ago, Resident said:

Worth mentioning that as soon as Leeds fell below the max level for pollution they cancelled their CAZ and pollution levels have remained at the same level. 

So if Sheffield's air quality has greatly improved to the point it's now below the levels of CAZ, why are SCC hell-bent on forging ahead? 

https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/leeds-news/leeds-clean-air-zone-scrapped-19094803

Leeds decided they didn’t need it before they implemented it. Leeds are banning through traffic from much of the city centre and giving the space over to pedestrians, cycles and buses. Bradford are doing the same and their centre is very car dominated at the moment.

 

Once a CAZ is in place, for it to be removed the whole of the zone needs to be fully compliant for 3 years if I remember the rules correctly. Most of it being compliant won’t do.

[Resident]

41 minutes ago, sheffbag said:

because they are hiding behind the line of " the govt is forcing us to do it". 

I wonder if the same legal challenges would apply here. One of the main reasons Leeds chose to cancel was the potential litigation due to it not being needed anymore

[AndrewC]

I don't think it's inevitable that private cars will be included in this scheme in the future, but I do think it's likely. The scheme as it is now in this first phase keeps Sheffield compliant with current acceptable pollution levels in the city centre, but as with all things climate change, those limits are likely to become more strict as people get used to them and as standards improve anyway (today's air pollution standards are much higher than 100 years ago for example, but so they should be).

 

At that point, it may be necessary to enforce the CAZ on private cars in order to help meet those new targets? Unless some major alternatives are used instead - for example if there's massive investment in public transport in Sheffield that helps a natural decrease in car use anyway.

 

Either way, we're probably talking 5, 10 years down the line minimum? At which point, given the slow rise in electric car ownership (keep in mind the ban on sales of new petrol/diesel engines from 2030 anyway) the situation will probably look a lot like this first phase, i.e. a large portion of the impacted cars actually being exempt already anyway.

 

 

3 hours ago, RollingJ said:

And government policy is 'always correct' of course?

No, but that doesn't matter if the council have any obligation to stay in line with said policy.

 

As it happens, I think it's quite right that we're putting the pressure on urban areas to tackle ever increasing petrol/diesel vehicle use (problems such as congestion, road safety, noise pollution, pavement parking, etc. all necessitate it too, quite aside from the air quality), but yeah, if the Government have a quality standard level that they say has to be met, then it has to be met, whatever the Council think about it.