Clean Air Zone in Marple and Marple Bridge

[Dave]

Yet another new development- this time a postponement: see https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/04/greater-manchester-clean-air-zone-rollout-delayed-until-summer

Let’s hope that as well as delaying the introduction of the scheme, those responsible will come to their senses and design a scheme which only applies to city and town centres, like every other such scheme in the country. 

[GM]

Whilst some movement is welcome, nothing has been bagreed to other than more empty promises.

Even the article says they've offered the cameras to GMP for ANPR usage.

[Dave]

The latest development seems to be this:  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-60245387.amp

So Andy Burnham now say the CAZ is temporary, and will be removed ‘as soon as we achieve compliance with clean air limits’.

As we are already compliant in Marple then that is surely an admission, in effect, that it should not be imposed here at all. 

[GM]

Probably because Burnham has visions of being like Sadiq but ended up more along the lines of the Sheriff of Nottingham.

I'll let you choose which of the many iterations, probably more the BBC version with Keith Allen

[admin]

What do those schemes have in common?  They are small, maybe two or three square miles each, and focussed in the centres of the cities, where the problem of excess NOx emissions actually exists.  They do not cover 500 square miles of land including many places where there is no problem.

Absolutely, there are several ring-roads around the city and they could have chosen any one of these, even inside the M60 would have made more sense than what they have come up with.

[corium]

Not that  listen to every last word on BBC News & Radio 4 so may have missed something but where I have heard this issue being discussed over the last 2/3 days the reports all seem to be under the impression the GM scheme is a city centre scheme like the others, not GM wide.

M

[Dave]

Bath:  https://beta.bathnes.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Bath%20Clean%20Air%20Zone%20map.pdf

every council has been told to do something. 

Correct. And here are some of the clean air 'somethings' that other places have chosen to implement:

Bath:  https://beta.bathnes.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Bath%20Clean%20Air%20Zone%20map.pdf

Birmingham: https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/info/20076/pollution/1763/a_clean_air_zone_for_birmingham/3

Portsmouth: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-53360366

Bradford:  https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/18650037.mixed-response-plans-clean-air-zone-bradford/

What do those schemes have in common?  They are small, maybe two or three square miles each, and focussed in the centres of the cities, where the problem of excess NOx emissions actually exists.  They do not cover 500 square miles of land including many places where there is no problem. 

[GM]

Well the "Do something", would be to look at those locations that failed the emission level.

How many failed that ?.

[andrewbowden]

I don't think that's entirely correct. Yes, the government is requiring cities to introduce clean air zones, and for good reasons, IMHO. What they are not requiring is that our zone - unlike all the others - should cover ten local authorities and an entire 500-square mile area, including rural and semi-rural areas such as ours.   It's ridiculous.

1) every council has been told to do something.  All ten.  Not one.  Ten. I repeat - because it's important - ALL TEN COUNCILS HAVE BEEN TOLD TO DO SOMETHING.  You can argue whether every council should have been told to do that until you are blue in the teeth.  You may have a point.  But they have been told. The law set by Westminster said "DO IT".  This isn't Andy Burnham going "ha ha lets make van owners suffer."  This is a response to all ten councils being told to do something. All ten councils that form Greater Manchester.

2) for some reason, the councils thought it better to do one single scheme rather than ten individual ones.  Can't imagine why...  Having ten separate schemes would be far better, wouldn't it?

3) as soon as you start only including some areas, you drive traffic elsewhere.  You move the pollution.  So the boundaries have to change.  Let's picture what would happen if the A6 through High Lane was in the zone, but Marple town wasn't.  What do you think would happen to the traffic on the A6?  would all of it stay on the A6, or would some of it divert through Marple and Strines to avoid the charge?  That's one close to home example.  How many examples like that would be in the borough of Stockport alone.

Repeat after me: It's absolutely ridiculously easy to criticise.  It's far harder to actually come up with solutions that suit everyone.

[Dave]

And yet the reason the ten Greater Manchester councils are being forced to introduce this scheme is because it's the law set by the government in Westminster.

I don't think that's entirely correct. Yes, the government is requiring cities to introduce clean air zones, and for good reasons, IMHO. What they are not requiring is that our zone - unlike all the others - should cover ten local authorities and an entire 500-square mile area, including rural and semi-rural areas such as ours.   It's ridiculous. 

[GM]

Whilst it might be a government scheme, it is to be implemented by 2024 not by May this year.

Which could have allowed manchester to phase in the system, starting with busses as they have already been encouraged by additional funding to retrofit exhaust systems.

This would have had the advantage of giving actual real world data showing if it did achieve there aim of improving ait quality in the very miniscule areas where it was exceeded, two places wasn't it ?

[andrewbowden]

So the ridiculous 500 square mile GM clean air zone came up at Prime Ministers Questions yesterday. See https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-60233153.amp

I don’t think I’ve ever agreed with Johnson before……… 😳

And yet the reason the ten Greater Manchester councils are being forced to introduce this scheme is because it's the law set by the government in Westminster.  A government headed by Johnson. 

Still, he'll say anything if he thinks it's what people want to hear.

[Dave]

So the ridiculous 500 square mile GM clean air zone came up at Prime Ministers Questions yesterday. See https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-60233153.amp

I don’t think I’ve ever agreed with Johnson before……… 😳

[tonysheldon]

There's a lovely animation called "Over The Hedge" that came out some years ago. The small creatures in the film see a 4WD heading towards them on the road. "Wow," says the squirrel "Look at the size of that car! How many can they get inside that thing? His friend answers " Normally?- just the one!" 
Just about sums it up!

[Cyberman]

And what’s that, Cyberman?

Selfishness, basically.

Excessive contribution of emissions of CO2, NO2 and particulates (hence my mentioning it in this thread) - due to their large mass, inefficient 4WD transmissions and poor aerodynamics. Quote from the BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56647128 "A study by the International Energy Agency said increasing demand for SUVs is the second biggest contributor to the growth in carbon emissions" (and therefore probably other pollutants).

Excessive use of energy and material resources in their manufacture. Larger bodies, tyres, engines...

Excessive contribution to pollution from tyre and brake dust.

Increased risk of severe injury to other road users, pedestrians and cyclists when struck by these vehicles as compared with smaller vehicles with lower bonnet height.

Disproportionate use of road space when parked. This causes problems in roadside parking in areas such as where I live, where most parking is on-road and parking space is at a premium. Also in car parks where these vehicles are often too large for the parking bays.

I accept that some owners need this type of vehicle to drive in snow and along muddy tracks and poorly surfaced roads (speed humps don't count). But I don't think they should be the vehicle of choice for commuting in Greater Manchester.