Greater Manchester Clean Air Zone is poorly thought out.

[py_megapixel]

Looking at what vehicles are and aren't included in the CAZ for Greater Manchester, it seems to be not thought out at all.

Apparently vans below a certain Euro certification are included, despite the fact that most van drivers are going to be either wheelchair users (with specially converted vehicles) or tradespeople - who to me are definitely in the category of needing to drive.
Buses are included, which will surely push the fares up and make buses less attractive - why would you want to do that?
Taxis are also included, which I don't really understand at all - how are they more polluting than a private car of the same size?

For some reason, despite them making up the vast majority of traffic on the roads, private cars are indiscriminately ignored. Which means that someone could drive to work entirely along a bus route, and the bus company would pay the charge and they wouldn't, despite their car being worse for the environment overall.

What they seem to have done is looked at pollution caused per vehicle without taking into consideration the overall causes of pollution or who may or may not need to drive.

It really is a shame to see this from GM, because overall their transport strategy seems to have been quite ambitious and progressive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Most disabled people don't use things that are legally vans. They are typically van-derived cars - Berlingos, Tourneo Connects, Tourneo Customs and the likes. These, despite looking van-like, are class B vehicles.

I support including buses because the whole bus network needs electrifying. Old diesel vehicles, even a few of them, cause a lot of harm.

 

[py_megapixel]

I support including buses because the whole bus network needs electrifying. Old diesel vehicles, even a few of them, cause a lot of harm.

That's a fair point, but the GMCA's target for full electrification (or, more accurately, zero-emission-ication) is 2032. I think if they are going to be charged for the CAZ that date really needs to be brought forward, significantly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's a fair point, but the GMCA's target for full electrification (or, more accurately, zero-emission-ication) is 2032. I think if they are going to be charged for the CAZ that date really needs to be brought forward, significantly.

It's not a ZEZ, though, is it? So it'll just require newer buses with cleaner engines to be used?

 

[Domh245]

It's not a ZEZ, though, is it? So it'll just require newer buses with cleaner engines to be used?

Indeed - all of the CAZs (Birmingham & Bath currently, Bradford, Manchester and Portsmouth coming soon) have got the same minimum emissions (but not applied to all vehicles). Buses, coaches and HGVs must be Euro VI (~2012 and newer), whilst all other "light" vehicles must be Euro 6 for Diesels (mid 2015 plates for cars & small vans, mid 2016 plates for larger LCVs) or Euro 4 for petrol (2006 plate and newer)

CAZs aren't primarily about reducing the number of vehicles on the road, only the sorts of vehicles that are on the road. Very specifically they target NOx & PM* which is why old diesel buses are being "singled out", whilst modern passenger cars aren't. Whilst Euro 6 diesel cars still aren't clean, you need about 12 of them before they become dirtier than a Euro V (2008) bus in terms of NOx, and 21 before they kick out more particulates.**

*point 5 of the introduction to the CAZ framework calls out NO2 and PM. The first mention of modal shifts is top of page 6

**using a 2016 BMW 320d's fuel efficiency of 4.5l/100km as a conversion, and assuming I've done my calculations the right way around! Small vehicles are quoted in g/km, buses & HGVs deal in g/kWh

Spoiler: Calculations!

assume 10.6kWh/l of diesel
assume 4.5 l/100km fuel efficiency
10.6*4.5 = 47.7 kWh/100km

0.08 g NOx/km permitted under Euro 6 =8g/100km
8g/100km / 47.7kWh/100km = 0.17 g/kWh 'limit' for Euro 6
Contrast Euro V limit of 2g/kWh = Euro V is 11.9 times 'dirtier'

Repeat for PM - 0.0045g/km (6) and 0.2g/kWh (V) respectively, Euro V is 21 times 'dirtier'

 

[deltic]

Looking at what vehicles are and aren't included in the CAZ for Greater Manchester, it seems to be not thought out at all.

Apparently vans below a certain Euro certification are included, despite the fact that most van drivers are going to be either wheelchair users (with specially converted vehicles) or tradespeople - who to me are definitely in the category of needing to drive.
Buses are included, which will surely push the fares up and make buses less attractive - why would you want to do that?
Taxis are also included, which I don't really understand at all - how are they more polluting than a private car of the same size?

For some reason, despite them making up the vast majority of traffic on the roads, private cars are indiscriminately ignored. Which means that someone could drive to work entirely along a bus route, and the bus company would pay the charge and they wouldn't, despite their car being worse for the environment overall.

What they seem to have done is looked at pollution caused per vehicle without taking into consideration the overall causes of pollution or who may or may not need to drive.

It really is a shame to see this from GM, because overall their transport strategy seems to have been quite ambitious and progressive.

I can assure you it has been thought out very carefully indeed.

Whether you need to drive or not is irrelevant - it is supposedly tackling air pollution not aimed at reducing vehicle use per se

Cars are excluded on purely political grounds

 

[py_megapixel]

Whether you need to drive or not is irrelevant - it is supposedly tackling air pollution not aimed at reducing vehicle use per se

To the policy-makers, maybe. It's not to irrelevant to reality though.

Cars are excluded on purely political grounds

Well, clearly. There is no other reason to do so.

 

[deltic]

To the policy-makers, maybe. It's not to irrelevant to reality though.

Not sure the point you are making here.

The whole point of low emission zones is to reduce emissions by nudging via price people to change behaviours. Either to replace their vehicles or to no longer to enter the zone. Some people will lose out others will benefit but there is a clear rationale for what is being put in place.

 

[Starmill]

The Clean Air Plan has been pretty extensively consulted upon last year. The Clean Bus Fund provided significant grants to operators to ensure compliance with the standard.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Nov 2021 ==

For some reason, despite them making up the vast majority of traffic on the roads, private cars are indiscriminately ignored.

The charges are quite large. Private cars aren't included in the first years, it's true. But the modelling shows that there's an improvement in air quality commensurate with the requirement.

 

[py_megapixel]

Not sure the point you are making here.

The point I am making is that clearly it has been determined that Greater Manchester can only cope long-term with X% of its current emissions if the air quality is to be acceptable.
There are some people who really need to be part of that X%. So in a rational world, it would surely not be them you should be penalising.

There are people, stereotypically those who live in the richer parts of south Manchester (e.g. Bramhall, Cheadle Hulme and some parts of Altrincham), who drive their vehicles into the city despite being perfectly capable of using their clean, efficient, electric public transport services. They'll get off scot-free despite the fact they are most definitely contributing to poor air quality.

 

[Starmill]

They'll get off scot-free despite the fact they are most definitely contributing to poor air quality

They will yes. A Clean Air Plan unfortunately isn't a good way to disincentivse this. A workplace parking level or "boundary charge" might be more appropriate.

 

[deltic]

The point I am making is that clearly it has been determined that Greater Manchester can only cope long-term with X% of its current emissions if the air quality is to be acceptable.
There are some people who really need to be part of that X%. So in a rational world, it would surely not be them you should be penalising.

There are people, stereotypically those who live in the richer parts of south Manchester (e.g. Bramhall, Cheadle Hulme and some parts of Altrincham), who drive their vehicles into the city despite being perfectly capable of using their clean, efficient, electric public transport services. They'll get off scot-free despite the fact they are most definitely contributing to poor air quality.

Understood - sadly the memories of Manchester's congestion charge referendum defeat are seared deep into politicians minds and hence they declined to extend the charge to private cars.