Clean Air Zone in Marple and Marple Bridge

[wheels]

Well I would have liked to have seen a much wider scheme than the new proposal. A huge lorry coming up Station Rd to deliver at ASDA should still in my view be subject to some sort of penalty be it via a CAZ or in some other way.

[Dave]

So after wasting God knows how much time and money on a gigantic clean air zone scheme covering 500 square miles of Greater Manchester, it now looks likely that we will end up doing the same as everywhere else, i.e. introducing a city centre scheme.  See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-61659406

[jimblob]

Ok. You’ve convinced me that the estimated 1,100+ deaths per year in GM attributable to man made air pollution is no biggie.

the stats are that there are 1100+preamature deaths to which air pollution potentially contributes! that's a whole world away from air pollution killing them.

[GM]

A pretty good summary.

The solution has primarily been implemented by those with the largest emissions such as busses and hgv, they are predominantly used the most in comparison to trades people who might go from job to job but they are not clocking up the miles and hours like hgv's and busses.

You could also say something similar for diesel electric trains as they have something like a 19 litre diesel engine that's only tier 3 Vs the average tier 5 for most diesel road vehicles.

[Dave]

Interesting paper - thanks GM.  So to paraphrase it, this report concludes that excess NO2 has a marginal detrimental effect on life expectancy, mainly for those with pre-existing medical conditions, heavy smokers etc, but it points out that NO2 and other pollution in cities has been falling for decades, and that this is therefore 'not what we would usually think of as a crisis.'  However, the paper points out that 'it can still be good to seek improvements in air quality, but only provided these are based on a careful analysis of the costs per life-year saved.'

So given the marginal benefits to be gained, is it really justifiable to impose these additional costs on minicab drivers and self employed plumbers, electricians etc in an area like Marple which does not have high levels of NO2, at a time when we are all facing significant price rises, increases in interest rates, and increased NI contributions.   The 'cost per life year saved' would surely be excessive. 

[GM]

I would however say the following article does paint a slightly better picture of the scary headline and a pretty balanced report.

Which is not actual deaths but a possibility of increased risk, so no actual deaths!.

https://wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk/news/does-air-pollution-kill-40000-people-each-year-uk/

[GM]

Cleanairgm use the word contribute.

Claiming 1100+ people a year die through air pollution is just hysterical hyperbole.

[Belly]

Ok. You’ve convinced me that the estimated 1,100+ deaths per year in GM attributable to man made air pollution is no biggie.

[GM]

Well Belly, if you get bored why not read the 2018 "Greater Manchester Annual Status Report 2018".

I'll summarise it briefly, all monitoring sites have seen a reduction since 2016 including No2, PM2.5 etc.

3 sites exceeded NO2 in 2018.

1. Salford M60
2. Manchester Oxford Road
3. Tameside Mottram Moor.

What's the obvious thing among all 3, traffic jams.

[Belly]

“The unemployment and economic desolation which would result from the scheme affects everyone.”

Really? That isn’t just being a touch over-dramatic?

So, do we just carry on doing nothing then?

This cannot be an issue where the only answer is ‘no’.

What is the alternative proposal that we can all get on board with?



 

[Condate]

What do you want?  Ten small schemes or a joined up one? 

The ideal would be to scrap the requirement and there needs to be a campaign to do just that. It is insane to require ten independent and very different areas to implement something and I assume it is part of a plan to try and impose a false Greater Manchester identity on the ten councils.

However, if there must be something, then ten schemes are better, as each area is, or ought to be, completely independent of the others. Perhaps some coordination, but with each council having the final say. If they have any sense, each council would do the absolute minimum required.  The more each council asserts its independence, the better it is in this and all other matters.

Since I drive a car and would not be directly affected by the existing plan does not mean I would not be affected at all. The unemployment and economic desolation which would result from the scheme affects everyone.

[Dave]

Yes it's a tricky issue, as andrew has forcefully pointed out several times in this thread  .  But as far as I am aware, no other urban area in the country is tackling it in the way that we are in GM. 

In London, the ULEZ zone is defined by the north and south circular roads.  Here it is:  https://lruc.content.tfl.gov.uk/ulez-boundary-map-main.pdf

Now anyone who knows London knows that outside the zone lie vast areas of densely populated urban area with heavy traffic, innumerable HGVs, and levels of NO2 at least as high as those in our town and city centres here in GM.   But the ULEZ does not even cover those, let alone extend out into the outer suburbs and countryside, as ours does.

It may be that waiting to study what other comparable extended urban areas do, when their turn comes, might help GM to find a solution.  In the Black Country, for example, currently Wolverhampton, Walsall, Sandwell and Dudley etc are not implementing CAZs, but presumably they will sooner or later, and it will be interesting to see how they tackle it. 

[GM]

Do you really think Burnham and his delusions of grandeur would have stopped there, your kidding yourself.

From what I've heard in the transport industry they were pushing for it to include all SK postcodes which includes the rather remote Buxton in their plans!

[andrewbowden]

Or to put it a different way...

If all the legal requirements could have been met by simply putting a charging zone around Manchester City Centre, don't you think that's what they would have done from the outset?

[andrewbowden]

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

I will tell you what else those schemes have in common.  They cover the area controlled by one council.  Not ten councils that make up a whole county. 

But let's run with it.  Okay so we have small targeted schemes.

Except as I will point out until I am blue in the face because I am not sure people are getting this... Stockport has to have one.  Rochdale has to has to have one. Tameside has to have one.  Wigan has to have one.  And so on.  They have to because all ten councils have been told to do something.  If just Manchester had been told to do something, that's easy.  We have a small scheme in the City Centre.  But all ten councils in a county have been told to do something.  A scheme in Manchester City Centre does little for Rochdale and Wigan's requirements.

So we have ten small schemes.  Yeah?  Okay.  Fine.  So you travel between Stockport and Ashton and you have to deal with Stockport's scheme and you have to deal with Tameside's scheme.

What do you want?  Ten small schemes or a joined up one? 


And yes it's been paused.  But not scrapped.  And it's telling that the message from the Environment Secretary, given in today's Guardian, says simply:

"In making this decision, the environment secretary has made it clear that it is his priority to fulfil the government’s legal obligations to deliver compliance with NO2 limits in the shortest time possible.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/04/greater-manchester-clean-air-zone-rollout-delayed-until-summer

Tweaks may be in their way, but it doesn't look like the government are in any hurry to lift the legal requirement to implement something.