One Year Of Sheffield's Clean Air Zone: Polluting Vehicles Fall By Two-Thirds

[Prettytom]

55 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

That comes across as a very callous statement.

 

For someone of genuinely limited means, changing their vehicle can be a significant issue.

 

 

It isn’t wrong though

 

We don’t accept poverty as an excuse for driving a mechanically unroadworthy car. Or for driving uninsured.

 

It would be helpful if the schemes gave more assistance to those genuinely in need. It wouldn’t cost much, there are plenty of cheapish CAZ compliant cars out there.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, SheffieldForum said:

What specifically?

 

Now the SY Mayor has transport in their portfolio they are taking back control of the trams and have pledged to look at bringing buses back into public control when they can.

 

Active travel measures are being built all the time (see the Connecting Sheffield programme, for instance), despite the constant complaints from people who think they are entitled to the most direct and convenient car journey possible.

My bold:   The sooner the better  -   that has been a very long time coming especially to those who remember when we had a transport system to match any in the country.

[hackey lad]

7 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

My bold:   The sooner the better  -   that has been a very long time coming especially to those who remember when we had a transport system to match any in the country.

Can you see it improving  ?

[Prettytom]

10 hours ago, The_DADDY said:

You're being silly now. It's absolutely no secret what so ever how bad mining for the minerals to make batteries is for the environment.  And for the kids who have to mine some of the minerals. 

Also, how do you think these batteries are charged?

Yup, "fossil fuels" for the most part.

Oh, and don't forget how dangerous these batteries are. Surely you've seen them bursting into flames? There are videos aplenty all over the internet. 

Have a look why don't you. These fires are very difficult to extinguish too but I guess I'm making all that up too? 

 

Have a look at this and if it sparks your interest you'll find out what you need to know. If it doesn't,  you won't. 

 

https://www.automotiveworld.com/?p=321157

Thanks for the article. It’s a bit one eyed, isn’t it.

 

The costs of mineral mining are substantial, both financially and environmentally, but have you seen the filth created by the petrochemical industry?

 

Anyway, any rational LCA would have to be much more nuanced than just saying that mining is bad. It would need to consider the entire life of the vehicle ,  from raw materials to recyling. Any analysis that I’ve ever seen suggests that evs are between 50 and 75% less polluting over their lifetime. Thats likely to increase as batteries get recycled, rather than mining new minerals.

 

Here’s a relatively straightforward article that shows how complex the calculation is:

 

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-do-electric-vehicles-become-cleaner-than-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/

 

Here’s a Guardian article for everyone to mock. It’s good though:

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2023/dec/23/do-electric-cars-really-produce-fewer-carbon-emissions-than-petrol-or-diesel-vehicles

 

 

 

And here’s the proper science part:

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-14715-8

 

[sheffbag]

21 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

My bold:   The sooner the better  -   that has been a very long time coming especially to those who remember when we had a transport system to match any in the country.

so you are now the mayor, what changes would you make

 

[Planner1]

53 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

I fail to see why.   What a silly argument.

Do you think people's poverty is considered as a matter of course when government or council decisions are made ?

There are people with nowhere to live  -  isn't that more important than having a car ?

There are already people without vehicles because they can't afford one   -  are you going to lead a drive to ensure they all gat one ?

Not silly at all.

 

Yes, poverty / deprivation is factored into decision making at local, regional and national levels. Policies and strategies adopted by councils, MCA’s etc tend to have something about equity in them. Decisions are linked to policies and strategies. You’ll see this specifically mentioned in reports to council bodies / committees / decision makers, which contain specific questions about the impacts on equity.

 

As others have pointed out on here, imposing a measure which requires people to swap to a newer vehicle disproportionately affects those on lower incomes. 
 

Existing taxes and regulations are what they are. When politicians are introducing something new, they will consider the impacts.

 

 

[sheffbag]

22 hours ago, SheffieldForum said:

 

Where are the figures to support this? 

If its dropped by 64 percent then how is this measured and where are the results. The cameras were not in use prior to the CAZ so how was the benchmark set?

What boundaries is he using for "just around the CAZ" and again how is the number of vehicles monitored? 

Why have the figures for 2023 diffusion testing not been released yet? They shoudl show a decrease given the above.

How much pollution has been generated within the caz by all the roadworks and crawling of traffic (just look at the state of affairs around the fire museum)

"The CAZ wasnt installed as a permanent measure" - utter b***ks. The CAZ will never be rescinded as it includes the train station monitoring which will never go below 40 even if you took all the cars off the road below is an extract from Sheffields own paper on clean air.

"The Clean Air Zone will be evaluated by the Joint Air Quality Unit (JAQU), Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), Government, after 12 months of operation. Evidence needs to be provided to JAQU that show legal air quality levels for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) have been met and that these can be maintained for a subsequent two consecutive years after legal levels of Nitrogen Dioxide have been achieved, as a minimum. Therefore, it is likely that the CAZ will operate into and possibly beyond 2025"

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2023-02/cap-caz-information-sheet-final.pdf

 

By putting the train station in the CAZ will never have all stations below 40

[Planner1]

19 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

Can you see it improving  ?

The things that might improve could be:

 

Branding - all the vehicles would have the same livery, the vehicles would be to an agreed standard, there would be a single source of timetable information.

 

Ticketing- there would be a single ticketing structure

 

Downsides would be that there’s a big financial risk. If the tenders for operating the routes come back more expensive than the authorities estimate, decisions have to be made on what can be cut or where the extra money is coming from. Politicians won’t be able to point to operators anymore, they will have to take responsibility.

 

People on here with industry knowledge will tell you that the public ownership / operation of public transport led to poor standards of safety / vehicles / maintenance and deregulation was in part caused by this.

[RollingJ]

1 minute ago, Planner1 said:

The things that might improve could be:

 

Branding - all the vehicles would have the same livery, the vehicles would be to an agreed standard, there would be a single source of timetable information. (1)

 

Ticketing- there would be a single ticketing structure (2)

 

Downsides would be that there’s a big financial risk. If the tenders for operating the routes come back more expensive than the authorities estimate, decisions have to be made on what can be cut or where the extra money is coming from. Politicians won’t be able to point to operators anymore, they will have to take responsibility.

 

People on here with industry knowledge will tell you that the public ownership / operation of public transport led to poor standards of safety / vehicles / maintenance and deregulation was in part caused by this.

(1) Does it matter what livery the buses have - the important information is the destination screen. The vehicles are compliant with PSV laws/rules already, otherwise they wouldn't be on the road - I recall the mass removal of ex-Sheffield Transport vehicles for failing by the Traffic Commissioners when they did an inspection just after the 'Mainline' operation started.

There is already a single source of timetable information - ever heard of TSY?

 

(2)What - massive - difference is there between operators ticket pricing?

[hackey lad]

7 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

The things that might improve could be:

 

Branding - all the vehicles would have the same livery, the vehicles would be to an agreed standard, there would be a single source of timetable information.

 

Ticketing- there would be a single ticketing structure

 

Downsides would be that there’s a big financial risk. If the tenders for operating the routes come back more expensive than the authorities estimate, decisions have to be made on what can be cut or where the extra money is coming from. Politicians won’t be able to point to operators anymore, they will have to take responsibility.

 

People on here with industry knowledge will tell you that the public ownership / operation of public transport led to poor standards of safety / vehicles / maintenance and deregulation was in part caused by this.

Would think most people aren’t bothered about branding .  Being more regular and on time are the things people want . Plus the dot matrix at tram stops working real time . 
Ticketing would be good.