You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Who are these urban poor anyway? Haven't they all been shipped off to far-flung sink estates/Luton so that their homes can be cleared to make way for more coffee shops?
City centres should just be closed to ALL traffic. There is no other workable solution to truly rid them of the scourge.
If you have a reasonable reason to take a vehicle in there there should be a free permit scheme.
Allowing only people that have enough disposable income to relentlessly ruin towns should not be an option.
If the poor don't have cars and the affluent buy newer cars, who the **** is driving all these polluting cars around?
Compliant petrol vehicles were introduced in 2005, and diesel 2015/16 so the faux concern about people having to buy new vehicles is misplaced.
Yep. Never ever see 64/65 plate diesel cars and vans on the road nowadays.
City centres should just be closed to ALL traffic
...
Allowing only people that have enough disposable income to relentlessly ruin towns should not be an option.
Do you mean cities, or towns?
City centres, sure. With a decent public transport alterative (park & ride buses, trams etc) there's little reason you'd need to drive into a city centre unless you lived there. If I'm visiting Manchester it's as quick to drive to an outskirts P&R and get the Metro in as it is to drive and park in the city centre, and if I'm on my own it's cheaper.
Towns though, plenty are dying. Any barrier to driving / parking would be a hammer blow. Hyndburn BC implemented a short-lived (free) disc-based parking scheme a few years ago, trade in Accrington went through the floor.
There's no one size fits all answer unless you take the hit that some towns will just finally die. For Accy it might not be a bad thing, level the centre and turn it into a greenspace. Ironically that's exactly what it used to be.
City centres should just be closed to ALL traffic. There is no other workable solution to truly rid them of the scourge.
If you have a reasonable reason to take a vehicle in there there should be a free permit scheme.
You've really not thought that through have you?
Who will be paying to administer the scheme?
How much will it cost vs what's happening now?
I live in Bath and I've been caught out. Was in a rush and I think I just did the form wrong.
Bath council ban log burners? Yeah right.
Council caved on the original plan and allowed cars. Original plan included cars. Obviously it's only aatter.of time.
I agree with you TJ in terms of averages and likelihoods. However, not everyone is an average. If the council brought it in here with the original plan (with cars and no residential exemption and, most hitting, quite short lead time) then I know people who would have struggled, But they didn't so it's a moot point.
It would be interesting to see the impact on surrounding areas. There are now 2 routes north/South avoiding it. Both through residential areas. Seems to be way more traffic there but who knows. At the same time the busiest bridge in the Caz north/South was contraflow, and that obviously makes a difference.
I cant get over the fact that people are driving vans as day to day transport for leisure purposes as in this case, for a wedding in a city centre. Whilst people keeping thinking this is Ok we don't have much chance of reducing the toxic conditions in city centres. Why don't lifestyle van drivers get the same hate as SUV drivers (which in many cases are no less efficient or polluting than the cars they are based on). Vans are generally pretty unaerodynamic and have large engines as they are designed to carry loads not lots of people.
Cougar, cities promarily, but traffic bans in other areas where it is beneficial too, some tourist hotspots with issues for example, why not? 🙂
squirrelking
You’ve really not thought that through have you?
Who will be paying to administer the scheme?
How much will it cost vs what’s happening now?
what are you refering to? are you expecting a full proposal with a cost analysis? *shrug*
either way it would eventually produce the desired results and probably cost much less to run once people adjust their habits and public services and procedures are in place to minimise any issues, real improvements will never happen with CC ULEZ CAZ or any other schemes based on charges, there is historical evidence of this.
If the poor don’t have cars and the affluent buy newer cars, who the **** is driving all these polluting cars around?
There's a third segment which TJ conveniently ignores...
The really poor don't own cars.
The rich do (and they're generally newer vehicles compliant with the latest emissions regs so they don't pay ULEZ or CAZ Class D so they can continue to drive with no further charges).
In the middle is a group of "not rich but not destitute" people who are (generally) in lower paid jobs, they can get by but they're basically living month to month, paycheck to paycheck. They can't afford newer cars and as a result of their limited means they're often priced out of city centres, forced into living a long way from work and therefore forced into car ownership (due to limited/expensive public transport) which then takes up what little disposable income they have. These are the people driving the polluting cars, forced into paying another tax for doing so.
I cant get over the fact that people are driving vans as day to day transport for leisure purposes as in this case, for a wedding in a city centre. Whilst people keeping thinking this is Ok we don’t have much chance of reducing the toxic conditions in city centres. Why don’t lifestyle van drivers get the same hate as SUV drivers (which in many cases are no less efficient or polluting than the cars they are based on). Vans are generally pretty unaerodynamic and have large engines as they are designed to carry loads not lots of people.
Maybe they need a vehicle which can carry loads for the other five or six days of the week when they're working and can't justify (or afford) to buy, tax and insure a second vehicle on the off-chance that they might have a wedding to go to?
Wouldn’t it be better to ask you to pay the daily fee after the event, and then charge you £60 if you fail to pay within a certain amount of time?
Cougar, cities promarily, but traffic bans in other areas where it is beneficial too, some tourist hotspots with issues for example, why not? 🙂
I guess that's the question isn't it. Is it beneficial? Touristy places are another good shout.
"In the middle is a group of “not rich but not destitute” people who are (generally) in lower paid jobs, they can get by but they’re basically living month to month, paycheck to paycheck. They can’t afford newer cars and as a result of their limited means they’re often priced out of city centres, forced into living a long way from work and therefore forced into car ownership (due to limited/expensive public transport) which then takes up what little disposable income they have. These are the people driving the polluting cars, forced into paying another tax for doing so."
That's what I'd class myself as, Plenty of work on but living pretty much hand to mouth at the moment. Self employed decorator using a 15year old van as workhorse/car. Not prepared to lumber myself with a big debt to buy something newer when my van works just fine and I've got credit card debt to clear first. Luckily I rarely venture into central Bradford.
what are you refering to? are you expecting a full proposal with a cost analysis? *shrug*
I'm referring to the fact that you're talking about completely closing the city centre (fine) to all but essential needs (also fine) but backed by a free permit system.
Where does the money come from to administer this? Because it clearly won't pay for itself.
Why do you think it will ever cost less to run? Deliveries happen all the time.
What habits do you think are going to change via a free permit system?
As has been pointed out previously, the cost of administering a system for certain eligible users is often much greater than just allowing everyone access. If you want to discourage vehicle use then there needs to be a cost to the user.
there is no need to discourage anyone, it would simply not be a lazy option for people who do not care and/or have money to throw away. 😉
If you approach the issue from an accountants point of veiw there is little point in going further...
tell us how much it costs to implement current systems? then we have a starting point.
...then we can offset it by how effective they are perhaps?
forget the spreadsheet and look at the broader and far more important picture?
https://www.oecd.org/environment/indicators-modelling-outlooks/the-economic-consequences-of-outdoor-air-pollution-9789264257474-en.htm
a free permit system will not change habbits, being unable to use vehicles in areas that are unsuitable will
Wouldn’t it be better to ask you to pay the daily fee after the event, and then charge you £60 if you fail to pay within a certain amount of time?
That's the norm in most of Europe. Was in Sweden a while back, drove through Göteborg a few times. A week or so later got a letter stating I owed a few Kroner for the privilege, and would owe a few hundred Kroner if I didn't pay within 60 days IIRC. Paid the few Kroner direct to their bank. Simple.
Wouldn’t it be better to ask you to pay the daily fee after the event, and then charge you £60 if you fail to pay within a certain amount of time?
You'd think so wouldn't you. Wouldn't be very profitable though so...
They can’t afford newer cars and as a result of their limited means they’re often priced out of city centres, forced into living a long way from work and therefore forced into car ownership (due to limited/expensive public transport) which then takes up what little disposable income they have. These are the people driving the polluting cars, forced into paying another tax for doing so.
Depends what you mean by "newer". 17 years old doesn't seem all that new.
You’d think so wouldn’t you. Wouldn’t be very profitable though so…
Councils aren't allowed to profit from these schemes.
can’t justify (or afford) to buy, tax and insure a second vehicle on the off-chance that they might have a wedding to go to?
Oh, if only there were a scheme whereby a cleaner car could be borrowed for a fee for a short period of use and then returned. 😉
Maybe they need a vehicle which can carry loads
I was waiting for that defence, in which case accept you're driving an inappropriate vehicle for the journey and cough up the charge. Or you could hire a a less polluting vehicle (although probably a lot more than the CAZ cost), or you could take public transport (probably also more expensive). Either way the fact your main source of transport is an excessively polluting one (as defined by the CAZ rules) is your problem not the residents.
And then there are all the lifestyle van drivers who couldn't possibly live without their VW van, how could they possibly carry their bikes with a car (like most of us do), where would they sleep etc. Boo hoo, don't care, your leisure choices have real world impacts so suck up the downsides if your going to drive one.
And a drop in the ocean compared to the cost of sorting the damage
That cost isn't new and will be incurred anyway.
@stumpyjon, I have a van, yes it's big but it does in fact do about 42mpg and very rarely sees urban use. It's the only vehicle I have, and going to fetch a rental car would itself be an additional significant journey into an urban area, as well as costing a fair whack. In an ideal world I'd have a small electric micro-car that could also carry a tandem or two and at least 3 people plus load of luggage etc while also allowing me and my wife to sleep comfortably (nb I'm well over 6ft tall). But funnily enough I haven't found such a vehicle yet. All suggestions welcome.
I have no great objection to paying through the nose if I drive into Manchester again next April, as I did 7 months ago. The charge could persuade me to take the train but that might be too inconvenient. I'll check it out nearer the time.
I have no great objection to paying through the nose if I drive into Manchester again next April, as I did 7 months ago. The charge could persuade me to take the train but that might be too inconvenient. I’ll check it out nearer the time
Manchester CAZ never went live, it's still under review.
At no point has anyone been charged for driving into Manchester - if you paid anything other than parking fees, you've been scammed!
I know Mancs is not live yet. I saw signs in April while driving in and was a bit alarmed about what I might be letting myself in for but a quick google reassured me. I got the impression it might be live by next year though.
Wouldn’t it be better to ask you to pay the daily fee after the event, and then charge you £60 if you fail to pay within a certain amount of time?
Have to agree with this. Additional charges should come after a reminder letter is ignored, not with the initial notification. Taxing polluters to incentivise reducing pollution needs to happen, but it needs public support/acceptance to really take off… and these big charges coming with the first letter only gets people’s backs up.
it does in fact do about 42mpg
The CAZ isn't about CO2 emmissions, it's about particulates, NOx etc.
I have no great objection to paying
That's cool then, the OP does as he's sees it as being swindled. FWIW I'd love a van but for the few times I'd use I can't justify the cost and have to pay out to rent one. You also don't need a van for most of what you suggested, my previous car which I ran from new until it finally broke did 60mpg, could happily carry 3 bikes on a towbar rack and still have loads of space for luggage and people (VW Touran). Could also take the middle seats out for extra load carrying duties or flip the jump seats up in the boot to make it a seven people car. Using a vehicle to sleep in isnt really a good reason to own a van
also allowing me and my wife to sleep comfortably
Again a lifestyle choice which doesn't negate the impact of the pollution from your van if you drive it into an urban area. If you're going to do that you pay, hopefully the money will be used to offset the impact of journey, even if it is to just plant hedges between school playgrounds and busy roads to help filter particulates.
Anyway the point is your lifestyle choices don't negate the environmental impact. You could choose not to go away on biking trips and sleep in your van which I assume would allow you to downsize your vehicle but nobodies saying you have do that.