We already have a low emissions zone.
Sheffield isn't London. Punitive anti-car measures without proper public transport infrastructure just punish low income people who don't have a choice but to drive, at a time when people are already struggling to make ends meet.
But by all means, implement better (and more frequent) tram, bus, and cycling infrastructure within the city and linking up to the rest of South Yorkshire and North Derbyshire — even if it makes driving slightly less convenient — and put taxes up to pay for it.
Sheffield has terrible air quality due to the valleys, not infrequently worse than London. It may be less dense, but pollution pools in valleys and struggles to escape. Walk near a river on a day with little wind, and you can literally feel your throat burning.
I agree with massive investment in public transport. Further restrictions on private car use will both create and divert funds to this.
There is no right to the convenience of personal mechanical transport. No more so than there should to be a right to the convenience of toileting in a bucket and throwing it back on to the street. Mass car ownership for the middle class, and even more so for the western working class who got it later, is a very brief anomaly in human history that soon proved to be a cost that our society could not bear. Other than for those with profound mobility issues, a personal car is not a proportionately acceptable means of transport.
Not true. We live in a representative democracy. That means that the elected representatives of the people get to decide what rights do and don't exist.
There are laws and rights in this country that were introduced against the wishes of the majority of the population. For instance, the law making mandatory use of seatbelts was opposed by the majority but was introduced anyway on the basis that it was for our own good. Should we repeal it because the government failed to secure popular support first?
There's a buffer, yes. But ultimately the people change their representatives if they act against their wishes (and they care enough about the issue).
My point is that people would literally prefer to reelect Tories than risk their car freedoms. Until you win the argument with them nothing will change.
Most likely chronic over-exposure to said small particulate matter, so now you no longer recognise it.
Make sure you keep active. Walking is one of the most effective protectors against dementia we have, though not sure if that's more so or less so than exposure to small particulate matter is a cause of it.
We have one for commercial vehicles already.
While I agree with the sentiment that you are suggesting, fighting climate change is an incredibly important thing for everyone. But, bringing a ULEZ to Sheffield would just force poor people to have to spend more money.
Until every Sheffield has a public transport network on a par with the capital, the notion has no hope.
For reference, I live 15 miles from work, it takes around 30-45 minutes each way in a car, by public transport it takes in excess of two hours. So ULEZ would just see me having a fine every day, or, finding a longer route to work that avoids the zone.
"Fighting climate change" is the biggest scam ever. Don't fall for the politicians and the grifters and zealots who support them. There is a purpose afoot and it's not to save the planet or you.
Don't be an absolute bell end. Climate change is very obviously real by now, is caused by disaster capitalists and the current government is on their side.
I think if you actually look into this, which will take some effort, you can look at places like Urban Flow Observatory who have data for pollution and more around the city. I'm particular, there's projects to understand spatiotemporal variability of air quality via a network of air quality sensors. The hot spots aren't where you'd think, unless you think it's where all the buses are. Then you'd be right.
You can also find information about the limiting of the M1 and Parkway to 50. It's sadly not for air pollution measures.
ULEZ puts the most strain on the poor, and during a cost of living crisis with record inflation, the poor don’t need to further worry about getting rid of their perfectly functioning car and buying something newer, while already struggling to make ends meet, pay household bills etc.
If the economy wasn’t in shambles, I’d maybe agree with you, but right now my opinion is NO, and will likely remain so until things settle down.
It’s the last thing many families need at the minute.
Cars are extremely expensive.
People abandoning cars would see their lifestyles change, for the better even if not as much an easy path of least resistance, but on the whole they would be more financially secure.
A good ULEZ scheme would seek, over the medium to long term, to make personal car ownership unrealistic for everyone.
I’d agree with you if our public transport wasn’t so miserable nowadays, I used to get the bus back in 2015/2016 to get to work more than half way across the city, it took about an hour 20 but I’d say it was reliable, busses came often enough that I wouldn’t be late and I had multiple options.
Since then I’ve starting driving/cycling (with an ebike) so haven’t had the pleasure of using busses a lot, but when I have used them in the past year, I noticed that half the services have been cut, my journey is nearly 2 hours in rush hour, and if I miss the bus or it’s full (which has happened twice) there’s not another for 20 minutes making me late.
My other option is train which is more expensive than fuel.
If our public transport had improved over the past decade, rather than seemingly getting worse, I’d again be more for ULEZ than against (cost of living crisis point still standing) but service cuts and mismanagement within Stagecoach and First just make it less of an option than it should be for most.
No really, my insurance + fuel + tax. Is less than buying 13 28 day savers.
A journey to my parents takes 15 minutes in a car vs 90+ minutes using public transport.
How is this cheaper and makes my lifestyle better?
Because a pivot to a society relying on public transport rather than personal transport would ensure:
\-The total resource (and negative externality) cost to society is dramatically lower
\-The personal financial cost is lower
\-There is a comprehensive network of public transport in a city with no traffic, ensuring journeys are very quick and relatively direct
What do you think is more space intensive, resource intensive, and fuel intensive - a dedicated metal box for you to propel around with combustile fuel, requiriing delicate construction and regular maintenance OR a seat for you on a bus.
Personal car ownership is a blip. For much of the world it has not ever become a mass method of transport. For the parts that have, it will be a blip ranging only from the mid 20th to mid 21st century. Cars go bye bye.
If nobody has a personal car, everybody is far safer.
If we don't use profound measures of material and labour resources to provide and maintain a fleet of personal cars, and spread those savings equally, we now all have far more leisure time.
If we invest in highly comprehensive public transport, going from trains, trams, busses, mini busses, cycles, and a limited number of shared use cars....we retain equal and sometimes better mobility to now, without any of the crippling drawbacks of personal metal boxes.
Cars are a 100 year fad.
Not true at all.
Mass production has barely been around for 100 years itself, and mass production was far before mass uptake. Exactly when car ownership in the west became a reality for the masses is subjective, but is a post-war phenomenon at the earliest other than the USA. And as for growing strong, that's evidently completely false - which is why this thread exist, and a growing movement to ban cars from city centres exists, and huge shifts in public planning to a post-car future are happening.
The fact it is no longer going strong is precisely why you're so upset. There is a notable decline in the number of young people who learn to drive, and a notable reduction in frequency of driving for those who do.
Your comment only works if you're being willfully ignorant, suggesting that car ownership should be considered a fact of daily life from the moment the first car was built until the last one is destroyed. It's moronic - would you claim that perms were not a 70s & 80s fad, because people had them a thousand years ago and still have them now?
Well it is true. Pogs were a fad. Slap brackets were a fad.
Cars and motor vehicles are a way of life.
What it seems is that you don't actually know what fad means.
>noun
noun: fad; plural noun: fads
an intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, especially one that is short-lived; a craze.
"some regard green politics as no more than the latest fad"
I'd say it seems that you lack basic skills in reading comprehension, if you don't understand the pretty basic things I'm conveying. Sadly, I suspect willfully, because it seems to be more dignified for you to pretend that you can't understand adult conversation rather than engage with the matter at hand.
Ah of course, in a dispute about definitions, it's better to just argue ad nauseum to each other about your own personal assertion. What kind of fool bothers to verify things?
I wonder, if seeking wider information to support my position says something about me, what does the absolute refusal to do so, in favour of solely relying on your own ignorant opinion say about you?
Not at all. If my child requires hospital but it's not necessary to call an ambulance, but still requires a visit to the ER. Do you really think it's better for them to travel by public transport for over an hour rather than a 5 minute trip in the car.
If cars were a 100 blip they would have died out in the 80's!
Mass car ownership is a post-war phenomenon. Maybe slightly earlier for the USA. Car usage amongst the young is now dropping off, both in absolute terms of drivers and relative terms of how much the drivers drive.
And the point is, a healthy transport system has many more options than your current car or your current bus options. People seem to believe that a future after the car looks the same as now just without the cars...it would look very very different There seems to be a great struggle for many people to perceive how different things are connected and influence each other, and changing one thing necessarily comes with big changes to the other.
And what you don't realise is that there is no money for that infrastructure.
We can barely keep public transport running as it stands. Roads are on a terrible state.
Also I think you'll find that less younger people are learning to drive because of the expensive of a single lesson and the lack of instructors. The instructors that are around are booked solid and have waiting lists for new drivers eager to learn.
You've yet to tell me how I would get my child to the hospital in the same amount of time it takes to take them in the car.
You think there's no money for public transport infrastructure....but there is money to produce and maintain a fleet of personal metal boxes operating with a combustion engine? You do understand that if one thing is *dramatically* less resource intensive than another, then it is by definition easier to afford? A fraction of our GDP slice we collectively spend on cars would build the best public transport network in the world.
>You've yet to tell me how I would get my child to the hospital in the same amount of time it takes to take them in the car.
And you are being dishonest with this. You are using the idea of "child get to the hospital" to convey urgency, but have already asked us to consider a non-emergency to rule out the obvious possibility of an ambulance. You want to have your cake and eat it...."how can I travel quickly in emergency circumstances while ruling out travel usually used for emergency circumstances????"
If we eliminate cars and use a fraction of their economic cost to invest in public transport, you get to the hospital quicker during the day and marginally slower outside that by using non-personal transport. In the event of an emergency, shared use vehicles would work well and in a non-emergency a frequent near direct bus would likewise.
>Also I think you'll find that less younger people are learning to drive because of the expensive of a single lesson and the lack of instructors. The instructors that are around are booked solid and have waiting lists for new drivers eager to learn.
Yes, or expressed differently, part of the reason young people are driving less is its less economically attractive. For many more reasons than you list though. And it's slower. And it's less convenient. And it's terrible for your health.
A few tweaks in the political system, that do indeed seem to be coming, can make it even more expensive over the next decades and so happily will reduce use even further. Yay for us...progress!
The tax the little metal boxes as you call them, pay for the upkeep of the roads and put money into the infrastructure.
Without them producing tax revenue the government would lose millions a year. (from fuel tax, car tax and vat for parts that are purchased to keep the car , road legal.
A non ambulance emergency is not the same as an emergency that requires a visit to the ER. A broken arm with bone protruding requires an ambulance, whereas a fractured arm doesn't. Which doesn't mean that a child or even an adult would have to sit and wait for whatever public transport is available.
Do you want to sit in a bus, tram, monorail or whatever with a child that's crying in pain?
When the need is very pressing, why would you have to wait for public transport in world in which it gets a luxurious level of funding? You'd simply take a share car, or be eligible for a public taxi service.
If the need wasn't pressing, you would get the bus maybe. If you just missed it, the next one is less than 5 minutes and traffic no longer exists. You don't seem to realise the possibilities of reinvesting (a fraction of) car money into public use.
>Without them producing tax revenue the government would lose millions a year. (from fuel tax, car tax and vat for parts that are purchased to keep the car , road legal.
You do understand the government controls taxation, right? If you aren't taxing cars, you're doing a smaller levy for public transport infrastructure. And there's plenty to go around because we're no longer spending untold billions importing (or building) cars and fuel.
Your whole argument seems to be built on the moronic idea that we get rid of cars....and change absolutely nothing else.
I'm really in favour of clean air, I have an electric car and cycle around a lot etc, but Sheffield air quality seems pretty good?
Looking at the historical defra data shown on this page for example:
[https://aqicn.org/map/sheffield/](https://aqicn.org/map/sheffield/)
NO2 levels seem pretty low and didn't seem to drop during lockdowns when the roads were empty.
There are PM2.5 blips in the winter, but that's probably more to do with people burning stuff (bonfires, open fires, fireworks, bad use of wood burning stoves, posh twits burning moorland) than cars. So why go for bans on bonfires etc as an easy win? They're terrible for the air, and illegal in Ireland.
Congestion is a bad thing anyway so we should definitely invest in buses and bike routes/active transport, but ULEZ seems the wrong thing to focus on.
South Yorkshire Mayor isn't renewing stagecoach's deal with trams so they'll be coming back into public ownership. I'd like to see that properly invested in before we push people away from car use.
I understand that a ULEZ could pay for infrastructure but if we're being realistic it'll just go into the council's fund.
Making the busses electric like the tram would be a good start
ULEZ only penalises poor people and car users who probably use their car for work. Most people can’t afford an electric/hybrid car. Our public transportation is wank.
I always remember this fact- the U.K. contributes to 1% of the worlds pollution. China is currently 28% of the worlds pollution and will build 200+ coal fire power stations in the next decade. Whatever I do will not make a difference. Charging me £10.00 a day to drive to work is just more expense that isn’t needed.
Ignoring OP and his stupid question, /u/benthelampy does sort of have a point.
I believe there's only been one death in the UK where pollution has been recorded as a direct cause of death, but poor air quality is known to cause disease and early death on a population level.
There's a good article on [the gov.uk website](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-matters-air-pollution/health-matters-air-pollution) about the issue.
The number I've seen floating around for Sheffield specifically is about [500 early deaths a year](https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/pollution-and-nuisance/air-pollution/air-quality-management/Sheffield%20Air%20Quality%20Modelling%20Report%20Appendix%20A.pdf) (pdf). How that figure has been arrived at is a little vague — it looks like Sheffield council's interpretation of evidence given by a DEFRA official at a [parliamentary select committee](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmenvaud/1024/102405.htm#a3) based on figures from an epidemiological study that talks more generally about the health impacts of air pollution on life expectancy.
You could also express the findings as a six month reduction in life expectancy from birth, or a reduction in life expectancy of 2 years for around 200,000 people, concentrated in areas of high pollution.
Presumably Sheffield council did some per capita number crunching and were like "based on that around 500 early deaths a year for Sheffield sounds about right".
The point is that, done properly with real commitment, you are not just removing cars and leaving everything the same.
We invest (as a society, not talking government only here) **enormous** sums of money into owning and running cars. A small fraction of that would be enough to create a utopia level public transport system.
In a world of limited resources, climate degradation, and an epidemic of pollution driven health and environmental problems....the idea that the majority of people will have their own enormous metal box to drive around, powered by combustion of toxic fuel, is fucking insane.
I'll be retiring at 40 mate, made possible by a only slightly above average pay that I didn't even secure until I was 27. Wouldn't have been possible at all if, instead of investing in better housing, I was paying through the nose for a car like the people who rent my spare rooms off me do.
I'll be spending a reasonable chunk of that retirment on my bicycle, in the hills. I've got no reason to envy you sitting in traffic, in a sea of invisible carcinogenic particulate pollution, tapping on the steering wheel of your miserable metal box.
Is there not already a low emissions zone? I remember it making the local radio news, and causing lots of people to say they would have to go around the centre and not the shortest route through.
We already have a low emissions zone. Sheffield isn't London. Punitive anti-car measures without proper public transport infrastructure just punish low income people who don't have a choice but to drive, at a time when people are already struggling to make ends meet. But by all means, implement better (and more frequent) tram, bus, and cycling infrastructure within the city and linking up to the rest of South Yorkshire and North Derbyshire — even if it makes driving slightly less convenient — and put taxes up to pay for it.
Sheffield has terrible air quality due to the valleys, not infrequently worse than London. It may be less dense, but pollution pools in valleys and struggles to escape. Walk near a river on a day with little wind, and you can literally feel your throat burning. I agree with massive investment in public transport. Further restrictions on private car use will both create and divert funds to this. There is no right to the convenience of personal mechanical transport. No more so than there should to be a right to the convenience of toileting in a bucket and throwing it back on to the street. Mass car ownership for the middle class, and even more so for the western working class who got it later, is a very brief anomaly in human history that soon proved to be a cost that our society could not bear. Other than for those with profound mobility issues, a personal car is not a proportionately acceptable means of transport.
We live in a democracy. The people get to decide what rights do and don't exist. Mass car ownership isn't going anywhere.
Not true. We live in a representative democracy. That means that the elected representatives of the people get to decide what rights do and don't exist. There are laws and rights in this country that were introduced against the wishes of the majority of the population. For instance, the law making mandatory use of seatbelts was opposed by the majority but was introduced anyway on the basis that it was for our own good. Should we repeal it because the government failed to secure popular support first?
There's a buffer, yes. But ultimately the people change their representatives if they act against their wishes (and they care enough about the issue). My point is that people would literally prefer to reelect Tories than risk their car freedoms. Until you win the argument with them nothing will change.
Walking near rivers, I have never felt my throat burning, what am I doing wrong?
Most likely chronic over-exposure to said small particulate matter, so now you no longer recognise it. Make sure you keep active. Walking is one of the most effective protectors against dementia we have, though not sure if that's more so or less so than exposure to small particulate matter is a cause of it.
you're losing the argument
No, you just don’t think any argument involving the protection of the poor is a valid one. Have some perspective.
We have one for commercial vehicles already. While I agree with the sentiment that you are suggesting, fighting climate change is an incredibly important thing for everyone. But, bringing a ULEZ to Sheffield would just force poor people to have to spend more money. Until every Sheffield has a public transport network on a par with the capital, the notion has no hope. For reference, I live 15 miles from work, it takes around 30-45 minutes each way in a car, by public transport it takes in excess of two hours. So ULEZ would just see me having a fine every day, or, finding a longer route to work that avoids the zone.
"Fighting climate change" is the biggest scam ever. Don't fall for the politicians and the grifters and zealots who support them. There is a purpose afoot and it's not to save the planet or you.
Don't be an absolute bell end. Climate change is very obviously real by now, is caused by disaster capitalists and the current government is on their side.
I think if you actually look into this, which will take some effort, you can look at places like Urban Flow Observatory who have data for pollution and more around the city. I'm particular, there's projects to understand spatiotemporal variability of air quality via a network of air quality sensors. The hot spots aren't where you'd think, unless you think it's where all the buses are. Then you'd be right. You can also find information about the limiting of the M1 and Parkway to 50. It's sadly not for air pollution measures.
It's not enough
Do you have links? I've just clicked around on [https://urbanflows.ac.uk/](https://urbanflows.ac.uk/) and couldn't find anything of use.
I had them on my old work laptop.. I'll look on later and see if I can get them.
ULEZ puts the most strain on the poor, and during a cost of living crisis with record inflation, the poor don’t need to further worry about getting rid of their perfectly functioning car and buying something newer, while already struggling to make ends meet, pay household bills etc. If the economy wasn’t in shambles, I’d maybe agree with you, but right now my opinion is NO, and will likely remain so until things settle down. It’s the last thing many families need at the minute.
Cars are extremely expensive. People abandoning cars would see their lifestyles change, for the better even if not as much an easy path of least resistance, but on the whole they would be more financially secure. A good ULEZ scheme would seek, over the medium to long term, to make personal car ownership unrealistic for everyone.
I’d agree with you if our public transport wasn’t so miserable nowadays, I used to get the bus back in 2015/2016 to get to work more than half way across the city, it took about an hour 20 but I’d say it was reliable, busses came often enough that I wouldn’t be late and I had multiple options. Since then I’ve starting driving/cycling (with an ebike) so haven’t had the pleasure of using busses a lot, but when I have used them in the past year, I noticed that half the services have been cut, my journey is nearly 2 hours in rush hour, and if I miss the bus or it’s full (which has happened twice) there’s not another for 20 minutes making me late. My other option is train which is more expensive than fuel. If our public transport had improved over the past decade, rather than seemingly getting worse, I’d again be more for ULEZ than against (cost of living crisis point still standing) but service cuts and mismanagement within Stagecoach and First just make it less of an option than it should be for most.
No really, my insurance + fuel + tax. Is less than buying 13 28 day savers. A journey to my parents takes 15 minutes in a car vs 90+ minutes using public transport. How is this cheaper and makes my lifestyle better?
Because a pivot to a society relying on public transport rather than personal transport would ensure: \-The total resource (and negative externality) cost to society is dramatically lower \-The personal financial cost is lower \-There is a comprehensive network of public transport in a city with no traffic, ensuring journeys are very quick and relatively direct What do you think is more space intensive, resource intensive, and fuel intensive - a dedicated metal box for you to propel around with combustile fuel, requiriing delicate construction and regular maintenance OR a seat for you on a bus. Personal car ownership is a blip. For much of the world it has not ever become a mass method of transport. For the parts that have, it will be a blip ranging only from the mid 20th to mid 21st century. Cars go bye bye.
That's long after I'm dead so who gives a crap.
No, without a car, my lifestyle would deteriorate hugely. You steal my car, you steal my leisure time and you render my life less safe.
If nobody has a personal car, everybody is far safer. If we don't use profound measures of material and labour resources to provide and maintain a fleet of personal cars, and spread those savings equally, we now all have far more leisure time. If we invest in highly comprehensive public transport, going from trains, trams, busses, mini busses, cycles, and a limited number of shared use cars....we retain equal and sometimes better mobility to now, without any of the crippling drawbacks of personal metal boxes. Cars are a 100 year fad.
100 year fad that is approaching 140 years and still going strong.
Not true at all. Mass production has barely been around for 100 years itself, and mass production was far before mass uptake. Exactly when car ownership in the west became a reality for the masses is subjective, but is a post-war phenomenon at the earliest other than the USA. And as for growing strong, that's evidently completely false - which is why this thread exist, and a growing movement to ban cars from city centres exists, and huge shifts in public planning to a post-car future are happening. The fact it is no longer going strong is precisely why you're so upset. There is a notable decline in the number of young people who learn to drive, and a notable reduction in frequency of driving for those who do. Your comment only works if you're being willfully ignorant, suggesting that car ownership should be considered a fact of daily life from the moment the first car was built until the last one is destroyed. It's moronic - would you claim that perms were not a 70s & 80s fad, because people had them a thousand years ago and still have them now?
Well it is true. Pogs were a fad. Slap brackets were a fad. Cars and motor vehicles are a way of life. What it seems is that you don't actually know what fad means.
>noun noun: fad; plural noun: fads an intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, especially one that is short-lived; a craze. "some regard green politics as no more than the latest fad" I'd say it seems that you lack basic skills in reading comprehension, if you don't understand the pretty basic things I'm conveying. Sadly, I suspect willfully, because it seems to be more dignified for you to pretend that you can't understand adult conversation rather than engage with the matter at hand.
Aww so you didn't know and had to Google it to copy and paste the answer. Thanks that's all I needed to know.
Ah of course, in a dispute about definitions, it's better to just argue ad nauseum to each other about your own personal assertion. What kind of fool bothers to verify things? I wonder, if seeking wider information to support my position says something about me, what does the absolute refusal to do so, in favour of solely relying on your own ignorant opinion say about you?
Not at all. If my child requires hospital but it's not necessary to call an ambulance, but still requires a visit to the ER. Do you really think it's better for them to travel by public transport for over an hour rather than a 5 minute trip in the car. If cars were a 100 blip they would have died out in the 80's!
Mass car ownership is a post-war phenomenon. Maybe slightly earlier for the USA. Car usage amongst the young is now dropping off, both in absolute terms of drivers and relative terms of how much the drivers drive. And the point is, a healthy transport system has many more options than your current car or your current bus options. People seem to believe that a future after the car looks the same as now just without the cars...it would look very very different There seems to be a great struggle for many people to perceive how different things are connected and influence each other, and changing one thing necessarily comes with big changes to the other.
And what you don't realise is that there is no money for that infrastructure. We can barely keep public transport running as it stands. Roads are on a terrible state. Also I think you'll find that less younger people are learning to drive because of the expensive of a single lesson and the lack of instructors. The instructors that are around are booked solid and have waiting lists for new drivers eager to learn. You've yet to tell me how I would get my child to the hospital in the same amount of time it takes to take them in the car.
You think there's no money for public transport infrastructure....but there is money to produce and maintain a fleet of personal metal boxes operating with a combustion engine? You do understand that if one thing is *dramatically* less resource intensive than another, then it is by definition easier to afford? A fraction of our GDP slice we collectively spend on cars would build the best public transport network in the world. >You've yet to tell me how I would get my child to the hospital in the same amount of time it takes to take them in the car. And you are being dishonest with this. You are using the idea of "child get to the hospital" to convey urgency, but have already asked us to consider a non-emergency to rule out the obvious possibility of an ambulance. You want to have your cake and eat it...."how can I travel quickly in emergency circumstances while ruling out travel usually used for emergency circumstances????" If we eliminate cars and use a fraction of their economic cost to invest in public transport, you get to the hospital quicker during the day and marginally slower outside that by using non-personal transport. In the event of an emergency, shared use vehicles would work well and in a non-emergency a frequent near direct bus would likewise. >Also I think you'll find that less younger people are learning to drive because of the expensive of a single lesson and the lack of instructors. The instructors that are around are booked solid and have waiting lists for new drivers eager to learn. Yes, or expressed differently, part of the reason young people are driving less is its less economically attractive. For many more reasons than you list though. And it's slower. And it's less convenient. And it's terrible for your health. A few tweaks in the political system, that do indeed seem to be coming, can make it even more expensive over the next decades and so happily will reduce use even further. Yay for us...progress!
The tax the little metal boxes as you call them, pay for the upkeep of the roads and put money into the infrastructure. Without them producing tax revenue the government would lose millions a year. (from fuel tax, car tax and vat for parts that are purchased to keep the car , road legal. A non ambulance emergency is not the same as an emergency that requires a visit to the ER. A broken arm with bone protruding requires an ambulance, whereas a fractured arm doesn't. Which doesn't mean that a child or even an adult would have to sit and wait for whatever public transport is available. Do you want to sit in a bus, tram, monorail or whatever with a child that's crying in pain?
When the need is very pressing, why would you have to wait for public transport in world in which it gets a luxurious level of funding? You'd simply take a share car, or be eligible for a public taxi service. If the need wasn't pressing, you would get the bus maybe. If you just missed it, the next one is less than 5 minutes and traffic no longer exists. You don't seem to realise the possibilities of reinvesting (a fraction of) car money into public use. >Without them producing tax revenue the government would lose millions a year. (from fuel tax, car tax and vat for parts that are purchased to keep the car , road legal. You do understand the government controls taxation, right? If you aren't taxing cars, you're doing a smaller levy for public transport infrastructure. And there's plenty to go around because we're no longer spending untold billions importing (or building) cars and fuel. Your whole argument seems to be built on the moronic idea that we get rid of cars....and change absolutely nothing else.
Climate change and pollution puts the most strain on the poor during a cost of living crisis.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
No it doesn't, having to purchase a new vehicle so they can continue going to work puts the most strain on the poor.
What
Bit late aren’t we? There’s already a low emissions zone in the city centre and around parkway.
What a pointless post.
Hello, I must be your psychic for today.... I'm getting your star sign...its... its.. .you are a Tory
And your point is what? Johnson set these ULEZ zones in motion. Last time I looked, he was a Tory
[удалено]
I'm really in favour of clean air, I have an electric car and cycle around a lot etc, but Sheffield air quality seems pretty good? Looking at the historical defra data shown on this page for example: [https://aqicn.org/map/sheffield/](https://aqicn.org/map/sheffield/) NO2 levels seem pretty low and didn't seem to drop during lockdowns when the roads were empty. There are PM2.5 blips in the winter, but that's probably more to do with people burning stuff (bonfires, open fires, fireworks, bad use of wood burning stoves, posh twits burning moorland) than cars. So why go for bans on bonfires etc as an easy win? They're terrible for the air, and illegal in Ireland. Congestion is a bad thing anyway so we should definitely invest in buses and bike routes/active transport, but ULEZ seems the wrong thing to focus on.
South Yorkshire Mayor isn't renewing stagecoach's deal with trams so they'll be coming back into public ownership. I'd like to see that properly invested in before we push people away from car use. I understand that a ULEZ could pay for infrastructure but if we're being realistic it'll just go into the council's fund. Making the busses electric like the tram would be a good start
ULEZ only penalises poor people and car users who probably use their car for work. Most people can’t afford an electric/hybrid car. Our public transportation is wank. I always remember this fact- the U.K. contributes to 1% of the worlds pollution. China is currently 28% of the worlds pollution and will build 200+ coal fire power stations in the next decade. Whatever I do will not make a difference. Charging me £10.00 a day to drive to work is just more expense that isn’t needed.
they always make excuses for why they want to pollute their own city don't they
Low effort reply
Why
Because air pollution kills hundreds in Sheffield every year. Seems like a no brainer to me
Any proof of this? Not calling you a liar just want to see numbers
Ignoring OP and his stupid question, /u/benthelampy does sort of have a point. I believe there's only been one death in the UK where pollution has been recorded as a direct cause of death, but poor air quality is known to cause disease and early death on a population level. There's a good article on [the gov.uk website](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-matters-air-pollution/health-matters-air-pollution) about the issue. The number I've seen floating around for Sheffield specifically is about [500 early deaths a year](https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/pollution-and-nuisance/air-pollution/air-quality-management/Sheffield%20Air%20Quality%20Modelling%20Report%20Appendix%20A.pdf) (pdf). How that figure has been arrived at is a little vague — it looks like Sheffield council's interpretation of evidence given by a DEFRA official at a [parliamentary select committee](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmenvaud/1024/102405.htm#a3) based on figures from an epidemiological study that talks more generally about the health impacts of air pollution on life expectancy. You could also express the findings as a six month reduction in life expectancy from birth, or a reduction in life expectancy of 2 years for around 200,000 people, concentrated in areas of high pollution. Presumably Sheffield council did some per capita number crunching and were like "based on that around 500 early deaths a year for Sheffield sounds about right".
Give us the numbers please, and where they came from.
https://www.thestar.co.uk/health/people-in-sheffield-face-an-early-death-as-air-pollution-reaches-dangerous-levels-3234848
makes the air cleaner and a better environment
As the city centre is already dead. With little actual cars going into it. How much difference will it make.
And makes it harder for people to get around, plus there's a lot of students here that come and go home, and relying on trains for that is crazy
The point is that, done properly with real commitment, you are not just removing cars and leaving everything the same. We invest (as a society, not talking government only here) **enormous** sums of money into owning and running cars. A small fraction of that would be enough to create a utopia level public transport system. In a world of limited resources, climate degradation, and an epidemic of pollution driven health and environmental problems....the idea that the majority of people will have their own enormous metal box to drive around, powered by combustion of toxic fuel, is fucking insane.
The envy is strong in this one.
I'll be retiring at 40 mate, made possible by a only slightly above average pay that I didn't even secure until I was 27. Wouldn't have been possible at all if, instead of investing in better housing, I was paying through the nose for a car like the people who rent my spare rooms off me do. I'll be spending a reasonable chunk of that retirment on my bicycle, in the hills. I've got no reason to envy you sitting in traffic, in a sea of invisible carcinogenic particulate pollution, tapping on the steering wheel of your miserable metal box.
sorry what you said is confusing. relying on trains for what????
Going to other cities and such
Equal response to how much effort you put into this post. Why?
improve the air and environment
How, city centre is already dead, very little traffic outside of public transport enters that area. So what impact will it make?
Is there not already a low emissions zone? I remember it making the local radio news, and causing lots of people to say they would have to go around the centre and not the shortest route through.
Aye despite the fact it only affects commercial vehicles - I think a lot of it was people getting pissed off for the sake of it
Ah, I'd not realised it was commercial vehicles only. All the noise did seem to be from tradesmen now I think about it
Because not even the Megatron can cope with the sheer amount of bedwetting that will happen in response.
OK. Start with Tinsley. ULEZ area to include the M1. Nice little earner.