Manchester Toxic Air Zone
-
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am
Manchester Toxic Air Zone
Looks like Andy Burnham has come out in favour of continuing to poison the inhabitants of the city:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-m ... r-61439444
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-m ... r-61439444
Re: Manchester Toxic Air Zone
The other thing Andy Burnham is ignoring it is that just as Congestion Zones are also about clean air, so Clean Air Zones are also about congestion. Both are (fairly weak) ways of reducing the many harms of over-reliance on cars.
However, there's politics of course.
However, there's politics of course.
Mr Burnham is probably throwing the government's (or governments' as it's not just the current one) approach back at them: they say it's down to local government to achieve central government's targets, which Westminster won't pass national laws for (because votes) – so Manchester is saying or hoping that it's really a national need and should be dealt with as such. (At least, I hope that's what Burnham's hoping.)Mr Burnham said the authority was "going into a negotiation".
"The red line is we will not accept a charging Clean Air Zone in Greater Manchester," he said.
"And if that is what the government wants, it will have to impose it."
-
- Posts: 1525
- Joined: 1 Aug 2018, 8:18pm
Re: Manchester Toxic Air Zone
Surely most residents are poisoning themselves? No one is compelled to drive a car, and few people can be unaware of the armful consequences? In the end people take the easy option and damage their neighbour's children.
-
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am
Re: Manchester Toxic Air Zone
Wrong, people who drive cars are are doing the poisoning (whether or not they live in Manchester) and people who live in Greater Manchester who are being poisoned (whether or not they drive cars).
Now of course there is some overlap between the two groups, but they are not the same. And the mayor has has come out in support of the poisoners rather than the population of Manchester. I guess you could say that serves Mancunians right for electing a scouser and hoping that their longevity would figure in his list of priorities.
-
- Posts: 1525
- Joined: 1 Aug 2018, 8:18pm
Re: Manchester Toxic Air Zone
Wrong?The majority of residents own and drive a car,and are poisoning themselves and others.
-
- Posts: 1525
- Joined: 1 Aug 2018, 8:18pm
Re: Manchester Toxic Air Zone
The population of GM is not exclusively Mancunian they make up a minority of the electorate. Although an Everton supporter was born in Lancashire .,now in the borough of Sefton .Not a scouser ,to use your vernacular.Now of course there is some overlap between the two groups, but they are not the same. And the mayor has has come out in support of the poisoners rather than the population of Manchester. I guess you could say that serves Mancunians right for electing a scouser and hoping that their longevity would figure in his list of priorities.
Top
-
- Posts: 7898
- Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm
Re: Manchester Toxic Air Zone
People in cars are much better protected against the consequences if a vehicle happens to come into a collision with a pedestrian or cyclist.Pete Owens wrote: ↑24 May 2022, 4:23pm
Wrong, people who drive cars are are doing the poisoning (whether or not they live in Manchester) and people who live in Greater Manchester who are being poisoned (whether or not they drive cars).
I would not be surprised if car manufacturers began to filter the air entering a car so that it was not harmful to the occupants.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
Re: Manchester Toxic Air Zone
I thought filtering incoming air had been standard on Japanese cars at least for a few decades. No idea if it's effective though.
Re: Manchester Toxic Air Zone
You can't filter no2 (not practically at ambient temperatures anyway)
Can't easily do much about ultrafines either but that's not what the legislation is about.
Regarding this, the leaders of citys dragging their feet on this are frankly being pathetic. Paying a game of brinkmanship with DEFRA/DfT that they're never going to win whilst the poorest in your city are hit hardest is pointless both practically (you're not going to get better funding from it) and politically (your Tory leaning suburbs will still think you're 'anti car' whilst your inner city votes will look elsewhere, as Rees found out in Bristol).
The comparison here is Birmingham that realised and accepted from the start that it would need a class D zone (i.e. one that includes cars) and just got on with it. It got no less scrappage funding than Manchester or Bristol have been offered and with the zone already in a year it's now got £18m of revenue to spend on sustainable transport to help its poorest residents.
I don't think the charging zones are a particularly good solution, they're a necessary solution that's resulted from over a decade of prevarication since the 40ug no2 limit was actually introduced. A better approach would have been a decade of fairly radical urban transport changes and car restraint (and still should be long term). Even with the zones, DEFRAs classification is dubious. Their own emission rates (the ones used in all the modelling done for these zones) consider euro 6d diesels, ie the post cheatgate ones, to be slightly worse than euro 3 petrols, yet a Yreg fiesta gets charged and a brand new Chelsea tractor doesn't?
I'd have modified them into a 'Class D+' which included all diesel cars and also a general, but lower, congestion charge. Proceeds to wholesale roadspace reallocation away from private cars.
Can't easily do much about ultrafines either but that's not what the legislation is about.
Regarding this, the leaders of citys dragging their feet on this are frankly being pathetic. Paying a game of brinkmanship with DEFRA/DfT that they're never going to win whilst the poorest in your city are hit hardest is pointless both practically (you're not going to get better funding from it) and politically (your Tory leaning suburbs will still think you're 'anti car' whilst your inner city votes will look elsewhere, as Rees found out in Bristol).
The comparison here is Birmingham that realised and accepted from the start that it would need a class D zone (i.e. one that includes cars) and just got on with it. It got no less scrappage funding than Manchester or Bristol have been offered and with the zone already in a year it's now got £18m of revenue to spend on sustainable transport to help its poorest residents.
I don't think the charging zones are a particularly good solution, they're a necessary solution that's resulted from over a decade of prevarication since the 40ug no2 limit was actually introduced. A better approach would have been a decade of fairly radical urban transport changes and car restraint (and still should be long term). Even with the zones, DEFRAs classification is dubious. Their own emission rates (the ones used in all the modelling done for these zones) consider euro 6d diesels, ie the post cheatgate ones, to be slightly worse than euro 3 petrols, yet a Yreg fiesta gets charged and a brand new Chelsea tractor doesn't?
I'd have modified them into a 'Class D+' which included all diesel cars and also a general, but lower, congestion charge. Proceeds to wholesale roadspace reallocation away from private cars.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
-
- Posts: 981
- Joined: 5 Dec 2010, 6:31pm
Re: Manchester Toxic Air Zone
This is a complete failure of political leadership.
Essentially, having come up with a bad scheme (revenue-earning vehicles only, no effect on private cars even on Deansgate) he's then backed down in the face of people (who probably weren't going to vote for him anyway) demanding the right to drive smoky old vans wherever and whenever they want. I suppose you could make the case that light commercials are more polluting than private cars because they've never had a scrappage scheme, but still.
Essentially, having come up with a bad scheme (revenue-earning vehicles only, no effect on private cars even on Deansgate) he's then backed down in the face of people (who probably weren't going to vote for him anyway) demanding the right to drive smoky old vans wherever and whenever they want. I suppose you could make the case that light commercials are more polluting than private cars because they've never had a scrappage scheme, but still.
Re: Manchester Toxic Air Zone
I strongly agree.Stevek76 wrote: ↑25 May 2022, 11:52am I don't think the charging zones are a particularly good solution, they're a necessary solution that's resulted from over a decade of prevarication since the 40ug no2 limit was actually introduced. A better approach would have been a decade of fairly radical urban transport changes and car restraint (and still should be long term).
-
- Posts: 981
- Joined: 5 Dec 2010, 6:31pm
Re: Manchester Toxic Air Zone
This is a big thing here that seems to be lost on Lab politicians - ¼ of households have no access to a car (⅓ in Rochdale), something which is strongly correlated with deprivation and which iOS only going to get worse as the cost of energy crisis bites. And yet anything that reduces people's car use is taboo.The comparison here is Birmingham that realised and accepted from the start that it would need a class D zone (i.e. one that includes cars) and just got on with it. It got no less scrappage funding than Manchester or Bristol have been offered and with the zone already in a year it's now got £18m of revenue to spend on sustainable transport to help its poorest residents.
Re: Manchester Toxic Air Zone
One might speculate that the political party of the mayors might be part of why Birmingham was able to get on with it without national government or newspapers making as much trouble.ratherbeintobago wrote: ↑25 May 2022, 2:11pmThis is a big thing here that seems to be lost on Lab politicians - ¼ of households have no access to a car (⅓ in Rochdale), something which is strongly correlated with deprivation and which iOS only going to get worse as the cost of energy crisis bites. And yet anything that reduces people's car use is taboo.The comparison here is Birmingham that realised and accepted from the start that it would need a class D zone (i.e. one that includes cars) and just got on with it. It got no less scrappage funding than Manchester or Bristol have been offered and with the zone already in a year it's now got £18m of revenue to spend on sustainable transport to help its poorest residents.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Re: Manchester Toxic Air Zone
Seems unlikely. In the case of Rees, the only trouble from national government has been of the "you should have done this years ago" sort, and there hasn't been a concerted media opposition.
-
- Posts: 981
- Joined: 5 Dec 2010, 6:31pm
Re: Manchester Toxic Air Zone
Probably hasn’t done any good that local Tories in GM have been willing to stir up trouble for a mayor from an opposing party?