Manchester Toxic Air Zone

ratherbeintobago
Posts: 974
Joined: 5 Dec 2010, 6:31pm

Re: Manchester Toxic Air Zone

Post by ratherbeintobago »

Pete Owens wrote: 26 May 2022, 3:10pm
saudidave wrote: 26 May 2022, 2:27pm I've read through this post and it's all about cars

The Manchester clean air zone doesn't include private cars,motorcycles or mopeds, they are exempt! Only commercial vehicles are affected so it is effectively discouraging commerce and industry throughout Greater Manchester. It's a great way to destroy the economy of the region.

What left wing tree hugger thought this one up in the first place? It's akin to licencing roadside flower sellers. You raise a couple of quid from said licences and then bankrupt all the florists and lose a thousand times more in business rates
The original scheme was intended to include private cars. The decision to exclude them was an earlier act of backsliding from Andy Burnam.
Are you suggesting the King of the North backslides? You'll be telling me the slow Beeline roll-out isn't entirely the fault of the councils next.
saudidave
Posts: 583
Joined: 16 Jan 2009, 12:22am

Re: Manchester Toxic Air Zone

Post by saudidave »

Pete Owens wrote: 26 May 2022, 3:10pm
saudidave wrote: 26 May 2022, 2:27pm I've read through this post and it's all about cars

The Manchester clean air zone doesn't include private cars,motorcycles or mopeds, they are exempt! Only commercial vehicles are affected so it is effectively discouraging commerce and industry throughout Greater Manchester. It's a great way to destroy the economy of the region.

What left wing tree hugger thought this one up in the first place? It's akin to licencing roadside flower sellers. You raise a couple of quid from said licences and then bankrupt all the florists and lose a thousand times more in business rates
The original scheme was intended to include private cars. The decision to exclude them was an earlier act of backsliding from Andy Burnam.
Yes I know it was. In its original format it would have raised lots of money and helped create a clean air environment. It would however have penalised the poorest members of society most because they don't have the wherewithal to purchase a low or zero enission vehicle. In its current proposed format it won't clean up a lot of the air at all and it won't raise much revenue either, whist damaging the economy so it's all an ill considered cock up. They've wasted a fortune on all the signposts already. Then a shed load more on top putting stickers on the signposts saying under review or something along those lines
ratherbeintobago
Posts: 974
Joined: 5 Dec 2010, 6:31pm

Re: Manchester Toxic Air Zone

Post by ratherbeintobago »

saudidave wrote: 26 May 2022, 3:58pmIt would however have penalised the poorest members of society most because they don't have the wherewithal to purchase a low or zero enission vehicle.
It’s at this point that someone points out that ¼ of UK households don’t have a car at all, which is a strong market for deprivation.
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6259
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Manchester Toxic Air Zone

Post by Bmblbzzz »

Tory and Labour are not really useful labels in the context of CAZes. It's more about hierarchy. National government is introducing standards which must be met (and which, I believe, are originally taken from higher up still, ie the EU) but they themselves are not doing anything to make our air clean. They are imposing this task on local and regional government. This is how most central governments in the UK have approached environmental and transport issues over the last 30 years or so. I imagine the argument goes something along the lines of "PM, we need to do something about air pollution. Here's the latest report: n million dying of related diseases, etc. Main causes include... motor vehicles... " "Gosh, yes. What can we do?" "Well PM, I suggest we stop people driving into city centres. We've modelled the effects and we'd have clean, healthy air by 1994." "But that would be a disaster! No one would ever vote for us again!" "How about if we made the city councils do it themselves? Then the voters won't blame us." "Genius idea!"
Pete Owens
Posts: 2442
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Manchester Toxic Air Zone

Post by Pete Owens »

ratherbeintobago wrote: 26 May 2022, 4:54pm
saudidave wrote: 26 May 2022, 3:58pmIt would however have penalised the poorest members of society most because they don't have the wherewithal to purchase a low or zero enission vehicle.
It’s at this point that someone points out that ¼ of UK households don’t have a car at all, which is a strong market for deprivation.
Absolutely, and another indicator of deprivation is lliving in a polluted area. Those with the wherewithal can afford to live in a nice clean village in the countryside and afford to buy a private car to transport themselves about. Deprived folk are forced to live in the cheapest houses near busy roads and tend to rely on buses (which were still going to be charged even when private cars were not).
Pete Owens
Posts: 2442
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Manchester Toxic Air Zone

Post by Pete Owens »

Bmblbzzz wrote: 26 May 2022, 5:22pm Tory and Labour are not really useful labels in the context of CAZes. It's more about hierarchy.
Pollution (just like road safety) is very much a class issue - it is something caused disproportionately by the well off and suffered disproportionately by the poor.
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6259
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Manchester Toxic Air Zone

Post by Bmblbzzz »

Broadly speaking true. But that's not at all what I meant by "hierarchy" as would have been clear from the rest of my previous post.
Stevek76
Posts: 2085
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Manchester Toxic Air Zone

Post by Stevek76 »

mjr wrote: 25 May 2022, 9:56pm
Bmblbzzz wrote: 25 May 2022, 6:13pm 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.
Did Rees get funding from national government?
Yes, all local authorities were provided with funding and it's not time limited, there were (are) two funds. An implementation fund that is essentially whatever is required in order to satisfy the court ruling about getting below the AQ limits in the shortest time possible, and a mitigation fund that is a semi competitive fund for support measures that can be demonstrated to assist (and be well targeted at) either low income households or local businesses, both those funds were handled fairly strictly.

Every area effectively had a 'default' option comprising the lowest Class of CAZ that dealt with the issue in what JAQU (joint air quality unit, the defra/dft team managing it all) considered to be a reasonable shortest time, if the area wanted anything different they had to demonstrate that it was faster, and realistically, not massively more expensive. Areas were also provided with funding for all the design/planning/modelling work and jaqu were perhaps overly relaxed about this I think, allowing (and paying for!) Bristol to run in circles chasing obviously unworkable diesel bans.

For some context, this largely started in earnest after defra lost in court for the 3rd or so time to ClientEarth in 2015ish. Local authorities were then instructed to sort it out in three tranches based on some high level modelling defra undertook as to how bad their AQ was, Birmingham was in the first tranch whilst Bristol was in the second but at most that allows them to be at most 6-9months behind.


Not sure what Burnham was on about in 2017 asking for the power to set up zones, they already had it, CAZs in England are implemented via Charging Orders under the Transport Act 2000. Strictly in GMs case those powers do lie at the council level rather than with GM but I don't believe that's changed.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Manchester Toxic Air Zone

Post by mjr »

Stevek76 wrote: 27 May 2022, 10:12am... Local authorities were then instructed to sort it out in three tranches based on some high level modelling defra undertook as to how bad their AQ was, Birmingham was in the first tranch whilst Bristol was in the second but at most that allows them to be at most 6-9months behind.


Not sure what Burnham was on about in 2017 asking for the power to set up zones, they already had it, CAZs in England are implemented via Charging Orders under the Transport Act 2000. Strictly in GMs case those powers do lie at the council level rather than with GM but I don't believe that's changed.
Answered your own question at the end there: Burnham probably wanted powers himself at GM instead of having to beg the councils.

Where can I see what tranche my local government (West Norfolk or Norfolk County) is in? And is it easy to see what they've done or is it digging through council panel minutes?
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.
rareposter
Posts: 1991
Joined: 27 Aug 2014, 2:40pm

Re: Manchester Toxic Air Zone

Post by rareposter »

Stevek76 wrote: 27 May 2022, 10:12am...
Not sure what Burnham was on about in 2017 asking for the power to set up zones, they already had it, CAZs in England are implemented via Charging Orders under the Transport Act 2000. Strictly in GMs case those powers do lie at the council level rather than with GM but I don't believe that's changed.
Manchester is a Mayoral Combined Authority with 10 councils, however unlike London, the Mayor himself actually has very little in the way of devolved powers so councils don't necessarily have to work together to agree things, they can put in their own piecemeal schemes. Most councils are already very car-centric and have this weird notion that the world would simply cease to exist if people were not free to drive what they liked, wherever and whenever they liked and sod the consequences elsewhere. So there's this awkward mix of individual councils, Greater Manchester Combined Authority and then central Government / DfT funding for the Strategic / Major Road Network.

And driving / parking remains the elephant in the room as everyone discusses how to get more / better trams or trains or buses or cycle lanes without daring to entertain the idea of mimising car traffic.
Stevek76
Posts: 2085
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Manchester Toxic Air Zone

Post by Stevek76 »

Yes but the 10 constituent counties had already agreed to co-operate on the matter and tfgm had setup a joint committee, as said that hasn't changed so I'm really not sure what he'd be doing differently if he had unilateral power over it? Especially given in the last year or two he's been backpedalling on what was previously quite promising noises regarding tackling car dominance. Shows in the 3rd round of active travel funding as well, GM still got a decent chunk but lower than they had in round 2.

Re the tranches, I'm sure it's on defra's site somewhere but can't find it easily at the moment. I don't recall either of those locations being in the 1st or second tranches though. I can't recall whether the 3rd was all others, or just those that might have problems. Not sure I'd expect more than norwich to have any >40ug NO2 spots though, it's quite a lenient limit and exceedances only tend to be in settlements large enough to increase the background level significantly, or as a result of a fairly specific set of local factors (heavy traffic in a tight street canyon perpendicular to the prevailing wind direction). All authorities have to submit annual AQ reports to defra and you can usually find something on council websites. I think responsibility for this lies at the district level for two tier counties.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
ratherbeintobago
Posts: 974
Joined: 5 Dec 2010, 6:31pm

Re: Manchester Toxic Air Zone

Post by ratherbeintobago »

Stevek76 wrote: 27 May 2022, 1:18pmShows in the 3rd round of active travel funding as well, GM still got a decent chunk but lower than they had in round 2.
While I don’t think Burnham has been as good on this as he could’ve been, a lot of this is in the hands of the councils. RMBC has very little planned.

There are some promising signs - MCC have quite a lot of detailed plans that will be going out to consultation imminently.
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6259
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Manchester Toxic Air Zone

Post by Bmblbzzz »

rareposter wrote: 27 May 2022, 1:00pm And driving / parking remains the elephant in the room as everyone discusses how to get more / better trams or trains or buses or cycle lanes without daring to entertain the idea of mimising car traffic.
x several zillion. Everyone's chasing the ghost of "better traffic" which although it does exist, will never be enough to bring the benefits of "less traffic".
User avatar
RickH
Posts: 5832
Joined: 5 Mar 2012, 6:39pm
Location: Horwich, Lancs.

Re: Manchester Toxic Air Zone

Post by RickH »

mumbojumbo wrote: 24 May 2022, 4:34pm Wrong?The majority of residents own and drive a car,and are poisoning themselves and others.
Certainly in Bolton the areas with the highest levels of pollution are almost always the areas with the lowest levels of car ownership (some parts have 60+% of households with no access to a car), mostly areas near but not in the town centre with higher levels of lower income households. So the wealthier, car-owning population is poisoning the poorer folk on their way through between home & elsewhere. I would be surprised if that isn't replicated in towns & cities throughout the UK.
Former member of the Cult of the Polystyrene Head Carbuncle.
basingstoke123
Posts: 202
Joined: 13 Feb 2008, 10:05pm

Re: Manchester Toxic Air Zone

Post by basingstoke123 »

Pete Owens wrote: 26 May 2022, 6:16pm
ratherbeintobago wrote: 26 May 2022, 4:54pm
saudidave wrote: 26 May 2022, 3:58pmIt would however have penalised the poorest members of society most because they don't have the wherewithal to purchase a low or zero enission vehicle.
It’s at this point that someone points out that ¼ of UK households don’t have a car at all, which is a strong market for deprivation.
Absolutely, and another indicator of deprivation is lliving in a polluted area. Those with the wherewithal can afford to live in a nice clean village in the countryside and afford to buy a private car to transport themselves about. Deprived folk are forced to live in the cheapest houses near busy roads and tend to rely on buses (which were still going to be charged even when private cars were not).
Poor can also live in rural areas, or even in 'nice' areas. Public transport in rural areas is often limited or insufficient, so they have little choice but to have a car, and this will be an older car which will not meet the latest emission standards. It is these who suffer the most from emission charges. It is a tax on the poor, as the wealthier usually replace their cars with new or newer models and so will never pay emission charges.

All new housing developments now have to include a proportion of affordable homes, including those on the edge of towns, and are essentially car dependent due to their location and transport access design. Vrtually nothing within walking distance, cycle access only along very busy roads, or infeasible detours, and poor bus services.
Post Reply