Greater manchester clean air zone.

[buttons]

Air quality plan for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in UK (2017)

Documents setting out the UK’s plan for reducing roadside nitrogen dioxide concentrations.

www.gov.uk

That is as maybe GJH, however it is the mayors of those city's who are picking up on the opeftunity to create huge ever growing Cash Cows from these common sense proposals by government. This is the reason that Khan is now king pin in leading mayors from other world cities.

 

[2657]

The A57 (and A628 which branches off it) has been a problem for years before the M67 was built.
One reason for building the M62 was to deal with that problem but too many commercial vehicle operators continue to use it because they don't want to pay the marginal extra fuel cost of using the M62.

Hardly marginal, using the M62 from Trafford Park to Tankersley on the M1 is an extra 24 miles, 71 miles or 47, at 8mpg this equates to around 14 litres which would cost £16 extra at todays bulk fuel price.
Haulage rates have been cut to the bone over many years and for many operators extra costs like this are not acceptable.
I was based in Rochdale and always avoided the A628 when possible, improvements to this route have been mooted for many years but always blocked by environmental and cost concerns.

 

[EuroTrotters]

No charge circumnavigating on the M 60 only charged inside this . So drive by and miss out Greater Manchester. Job done no charge. Its us poor buggers that live inside this massive area that will be penalised. £15 a day going on my invoices im not paying for it .

I Am exactly one mile from the M60 junction. The system says that will cost £60 per day. But there is supposed to be a scheme being scribbled up to cut that to £10. It’s still extortionate and unfair. If I was towing a 3,5 ton trailer with my car, there is no charge.

 

[EuroTrotters]

Hardly marginal, using the M62 from Trafford Park to Tankersley on the M1 is an extra 24 miles, 71 miles or 47, at 8mpg this equates to around 14 litres which would cost £16 extra at todays bulk fuel price.
Haulage rates have been cut to the bone over many years and for many operators extra costs like this are not acceptable.
I was based in Rochdale and always avoided the A628 when possible, improvements to this route have been mooted for many years but always blocked by environmental and cost concerns.

Bypass soon ?

 

[philann]

With both greater Manchester and Bradford that covers a lot of the east/west corridor. Getting from Devon to our daughter’s means going through Birmingham, Manchester and Bradford, I know motorways are excluded at the moment, but in the future….?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[2657]

Bypass soon ?

Plans still 'under consultation', don't hold your breath.
This bypass only alleviates part of the problem, as far as I can see, taking traffic onto the A57 to Glossop.
Most HGV traffic would still use the A628 through Hollingworth and over Woodhead.

 

[Ivory55]

It’s not just mpg when deciding on the route, time is a consideration as well. If you’re just getting a shift rate it’s foot to the floor and the quickest route.

 

[ivorantony]

Hence the reason why it's cheaper to fly than take the train.

AvGas should be taxed at a similar rate to vehicles.
If that brings short haul flights to an instant stop, then that can only be a good thing

Avgas is low leaded 100 octane petrol and is taxed way higher than car petrol,
With the exception of Logan air in the highlands I don’t know any airline using Avgas,
They are all turbo prop aircraft that use JET A fuel similar to kerosene,
JET A fuel is the one not currently taxed as high as it should, but it is taxed,

 

[Ivory55]

What do the big drones use, as I saw them being trialled for delivery of medical stuff in the Scottish islands.

 

[mofurt]

It is disingenuous to blame this on Labour.

Air pollution is a thing, and we need to get a grip on it. The current LEZ implementations are mandated by central government (or, at least, central government is telling the councils they have to reduce pollution or be fined). Who is that central government, and who has it been for over a decade? Conservative. The same ones that have been raising taxes by stealth over the last decade.

Who was in charge of London between 2008 and 2018 whilst it was the first LEZ? A certain Boris Johnson. Whilst it was put in place just before his time, he was quite happy to continue it, and for his government to make local authorities implement them outside London.

By all mean whinge about the implementation (I think Manchester is being done very badly) - but to place the overall blame outside central government and blame the party that hasn't been in power for over a decade is wrong.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Ivory55]

I think it’s because the way the pollution stuff is being done, is more stick then carrot and it’s the least well off that seems to be paying.

 

[GJH]

That is as maybe GJH, however it is the mayors of those city's who are picking up on the opeftunity to create huge ever growing Cash Cows from these common sense proposals by government. This is the reason that Khan is now king pin in leading mayors from other world cities.

Really? This article suggests the government would go further "The UK Government had proposed an expansion of the Congestion Charge to cover Greater London, though the move was rejected by Mayor Khan and a number of London-based Members of Parliament (MPs).".
Don't forget that the first mention of a ULEZ in London was by Johnson in 2014

 

[BILL 875]

I thought the idea of these zones were to make theses places heathier to live in etc if that were the case only euro 6 vehicles should be allowed at the moment you pay the charge and choke as many people as you like to death but thats ok as the local councils are raking it in. Bill.

 

[mofurt]

That is trickier. Ideally it'd be Euro 6 only, but an outright ban would have a very bad immediate impact. Any change like this is going to adversely affect the less well off, who can't afford to buy a newer vehicle to avoid being taxed.
Perhaps, as these things are automatically billed by the cameras, residents should have a "tax free allowance"? A certain number of miles per year before they get charged - so the pensioner who has an old vehicle and uses it sparingly for shopping, or the minimum wage worker using a banger to get to work doesn't get hammered, but higher mileage users do.

 

[GJH]

Hardly marginal, using the M62 from Trafford Park to Tankersley on the M1 is an extra 24 miles, 71 miles or 47, at 8mpg this equates to around 14 litres which would cost £16 extra at todays bulk fuel price.
Haulage rates have been cut to the bone over many years and for many operators extra costs like this are not acceptable.
I was based in Rochdale and always avoided the A628 when possible, improvements to this route have been mooted for many years but always blocked by environmental and cost concerns.

£16 isn't a lot when compared to the CAZ charge, which many businesses will add to bills

Plans still 'under consultation', don't hold your breath.
This bypass only alleviates part of the problem, as far as I can see, taking traffic onto the A57 to Glossop.
Most HGV traffic would still use the A628 through Hollingworth and over Woodhead.

I was brought up in the area. I'll be surprised if the bypass is ever built. They would get a quicker result by de-trunking the A57/A628 asnd putting a weight limit on the roads

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Simon Meadwell]

We were told by government to go diesel so most of did. Now diesels are causing the problem. So now buy euro 6. How long before they move the goal posts and euro 6 is charged. Not long imo.

 

[TheTwoOfUs]

What concerns me (but does not affect me as I'm retired) is how are the low paid workers who have to travel into these areas to work going to afford the daily charges. Say the £16 per day which has already been muted as a possibility? £16 x 5days = £80/wk, worse if they work 6 or 7 days per week. Many already struggle on what they are earning so how will they cope with this additional drain on their income. And don't suggest public transport, the last place I worked had no direct bus route from many of the outlying areas despite being in a suburb of Sheffield.

 

[Spriddler]

I thought the idea of these zones were to make theses places heathier to live in etc if that were the case only euro 6 vehicles should be allowed at the moment you pay the charge and choke as many people as you like to death but thats ok as the local councils are raking it in. Bill.

Little overall benefit in the same way that pollution-heavy industries purchase carbon credits from the less polluting industries rather than investing to clean up their own emissions.

We were told by government to go diesel so most of did.

No doubt influenced by diesel vehicle manufacturers' false claims. VW being the most publicised.

 

[Ivory55]

With some people wanting the population to grow at an alarming rate by any means possible it’s only going to get worse

 

[SpeedyDux]

Personally , i think we are gonna be seeing more and more of these zones being established , both here and abroad , over the next few years . Those that live within them will have no choice , but to pay , but outsiders will avoid them . The result will be the slow agonizing death of the high street . No new visitors , will see more vacant shops , and as more begin to shut , even the locals will begin to avoid the town . I already avoid my local town centre , due to problems parking . The town contains mostly take aways (one whole street has them row upon row) , and charity shops anyway . The only supermarket is an expensive John Lewis brand , with the only free parking , limited of course . The parking is only set to get worst here , with the new houses being built . At last count 5300 locally (within a mile and a half) , allowing for the standard two car family that's an extra 10 and a half thousand cars , but then the average household has three cars now . I can see a time in a few years , when a clean air zone will appear even here , they have been trying to set one up in Oxford since London's started , and that's even with Oxford having the worst reputation for shopping . Myself , i've not being there for something like 30 years , despite it being only 14 miles away . I could to be found on the outskirts until quite recently , but even that has changed , the last time was 20 years ago . We are starting to see , a seismic shift in traditional habits , and this , i personally think , will cause either unemployment or reduced car ownership , most likely both . Not everyone can afford an electric car , many at school now , may never own a car . So you have to ask the question , how will they get to work . Yes they could use the bus , if they can afford it , but even the bus costs and arm , and a leg nowadays .

The other earner for the car-hating councils is the creeping expansion of Residents' Parking Zones from city centres into the suburbs, whether residents want it or not. The money raised from permits is supposed to be used for limited statutory purposes, not the Council's general expenditure (LB Barnet was sued successfully by an action group of residents on this point.) Councils like Brizzle sell more RPZ permits than there are actual on-street parking spaces, so it's a scam. Having a RPZ doesn't mean residents not having to compete for parking spaces, or not having to park several streets away from their house. Park a MH in front of your house? Dear me, look up at that swarm of pigs with wings.

LEZ and CAZ charges add to the misery for residents living in a RPZ who don't have their own off-street parking. The goal of the Planners since the 1980s still is "car-free urbanism". It's what the powers that be also secretly want, as illustrated recently by a junior minister who was reported saying that private car ownership is so last century. (or words to that effect) Gave the game away, didn't she.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[mofurt]

I take your point, but what is the solution to parking for places with no driveways for the houses, and every household wanting two or three cars? Encourage lower car ownership ("car club" schemes, better public transport, cycling infrastructure...) or what? Demolish large areas and turn them into car parks? At least RPZ schemes prioritise the limited on street parking for locals.

 

[Ivory55]

Every household wanting 2 or 3 cars? I would say need is more like it if they want to get to work.

 

[mofurt]

Need/want is semantics (even you say they "want" to get to work, not "need" to get work ); the point is that in many areas (especially older ones) there physically isn't enough space for the number of vehicles as nobody owned cars when they were built. If trying to limit parking to residents through an RPZ isn't acceptable, then what is the solution? It has to be either fewer vehicles or make more parking space available by repurposing local land (demolish houses? Turn children's parks into car parks?) - councils can't magic car parking out of nothing, no matter how hard we wish or complain.

 

[Ivory55]

Need/want is semantics (even you say they "want" to get to work, not "need" to get work ); the point is that in many areas (especially older ones) there physically isn't enough space for the number of vehicles as nobody owned cars when they were built. If trying to limit parking to residents through an RPZ isn't acceptable, then what is the solution? It has to be either fewer vehicles or make more parking space available by repurposing local land (demolish houses? Turn children's parks into car parks?) - councils can't magic car parking out of nothing, no matter how hard we wish or complain.

Less people

 

[GJH]

Every household wanting 2 or 3 cars? I would say need is more like it if they want to get to work.

That highlights another problem of some people's own making - they don't want to live within walking/public transport distance of their work nor to get a house with sufficient off road parking

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Ivory55]

That highlights another problem of some people's own making - they don't want to live within walking/public transport distance of their work nor to get a house with sufficient off road parking

I think it’s cannot afford to buy near their work etc, or even leave home and buy but live with their parents.

 

[SpeedyDux]

I take your point, but what is the solution to parking for places with no driveways for the houses, and every household wanting two or three cars? Encourage lower car ownership ("car club" schemes, better public transport, cycling infrastructure...) or what? Demolish large areas and turn them into car parks? At least RPZ schemes prioritise the limited on street parking for locals.

My view is that RPZ schemes provide an illusion that locals will find somewhere to park if they buy permits. In reality, the number of on-street parking spaces in a RPZ is lower than the number of on-street parking spaces that existed before the scheme. Councils do that in various ways, including adding yellow lines, extending pavements, adding street furniture etc. I expect many residents who supported the RPZ scheme thinking that it would solve their parking problems end up disillusioned and poorer.

The solution must include reducing demand by banning HMOs, and forcing students to live on campus, for example. Also, changing the current Planning policies that permit developers to build high density residential developments with access roads that are too narrow to enable on-street parking without blocking access for emergency services. Counting new tiny garages that are unfit for modern cars as off-street parking spaces is a farce.

 

[dunnah01]

That highlights another problem of some people's own making - they don't want to live within walking/public transport distance of their work nor to get a house with sufficient off road parking

What is this public transport you speak of - sounds like a great idea, where do I find it?

 

[EuroTrotters]

Every household wanting 2 or 3 cars? I would say need is more like it if they want to get to work.

Only two or three ?

Should see our drive

 

[Figaro]

Avgas is low leaded 100 octane petrol and is taxed way higher than car petrol,
With the exception of Logan air in the highlands I don’t know any airline using Avgas,
They are all turbo prop aircraft that use JET A fuel similar to kerosene,
JET A fuel is the one not currently taxed as high as it should, but it is taxed,

BRIEFING PAPER Number 523, 22 October 2019 Taxing aviation fuel
At present, although road fuel is charged excise duty, which represents a substantial proportion of the pump price paid by motorists, aviation kerosene (AVTUR) which is used in jet engines is exempt from tax.
Many commentators have argued that this is an indefensible anomaly, given that aviation accounts for a growing share of greenhouse gas emissions. However, there are several obstacles to taxing aviation fuel. First, it is probable that unilateral moves by the UK to impose duty on this category of fuel would be contrary to EU law. Second, it is likely that even an EU-wide agreement on taxing this fuel would have a limited effect. Imposing duty on all flights - not just domestic ones within the EU - would pose the threat of ‘tankering’ – that is, carriers filling their aircraft as full as possible whenever they landed outside the EU to avoid paying tax, and so increasing the level of aviation emissions. Finally, the tax-exemption of aviation fuel is subject to long-standing international agreements, and although there have been some discussion as to the case for amending these, progress has been very slow.1 In its 2003 white paper on aviation the Labour Government argued that bringing aviation within the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) represented the most effective response to the growth in emissions.2 In December 2007 Member States agreed that aviation would come into the scheme from 2012,3 and this approach to controlling emissions was endorsed by for its part by the Coalition Government. 4 In answer to a recent PQ on the case for charging excise duty and VAT on aviation fuel, Treasury Minister Robert Jenrick said, “members of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), including the United Kingdom, are prevented from taxing international aviation fuel, or any proxies for fuel, under the Chicago Convention. However, Air Passenger Duty – which raised £3.4bn in 2017/18 – ensures that the air travel sector contributes to the cost of public services.”5 Last year the current Government published a green paper on its long-term aviation strategy. The relative share of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions from aviation is forecast

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}