Bristol Clean Air Zone proposals

[whole diary]

[Bmblbzzz]

I am looking at a change of car early next year: the latest version by the manufacturer (begins with 'S') of the car I currently have is proving rather tempting. The current car I have is 1.6TDI (diesel) but they appear to no longer be doing 1.6TDI so possibly 1.5TSI but there is also now a Hybrid version: I am likely to try both before I decide.

Seat? Suzuki? Subaru? Stutz?

Saab? Skoda? Simca? Sunbeam? Steyr-Puch? Swallow Sidecar?

[eightonedee]

Quote from: Red Squirrel on Today at 08:59:35 am
Quote from: DaveHarries on Today at 12:09:42 am
I am looking at a change of car early next year: the latest version by the manufacturer (begins with 'S') of the car I currently have is proving rather tempting. The current car I have is 1.6TDI (diesel) but they appear to no longer be doing 1.6TDI so possibly 1.5TSI but there is also now a Hybrid version: I am likely to try both before I decide.

Seat? Suzuki? Subaru? Stutz?
Saab? Skoda? Simca? Sunbeam? Steyr-Puch? Swallow Sidecar?

We could make this an advent quiz.....

[Western Pathfinder]

Skoda part of the VW Audi group is the manufacturer in question from the models listed.

[TonyK]

As far as Birmingham's plans go I saw a social media post about it the other day: a number of people in reply were accusing Birmingham CC of imposing the congestion charge to enter the city centre as a stealth tax and saying that they will not venture into the city by any means as a result.

Mission accomplished, some might say. Plus, it's a pretty poor stab at a "stealth tax" if I know about it in Devon.

If work sends me to Birmingham / Wolverhampton and I have to get from one end to the other the tram is my preferred option: a single on the train from Wolverhampton to Birmingham NS is currently ?4.90 (O/Pk Day Rtn ?6.10; Peak Day Rtn ?8.20) but the Midland Metro will do a day ticket with unlimited trips for a mere 4.40 (after 9:30am: before 9:30am it is 6.00) but both are bargains and no-brainers. Singles and returns can also be had though for journeys on smaller parts of the route. It is worth noting that buses in Birmingham have a fare cap of around 2.40. There is also, lastly, a combined bus and tram day ticket (5.60 after 9:30am, also a bargain) for unlimited bus (NatEx WM) and tram travel for the day. Fares as given on https://westmidlandsmetro.com/fare-finder/

Making public transport reliable and cheap, as per Birmingham, is the only way to make people use it: Bristol has a good lot to learn and Birmingham seems to be a good place to start learning it. Marvie and co. aren't even half way there IMO^▸ (in my opinion). Anyway, sorry for digressing off-topic a bit.

Cheers,
Dave

If you are going by train, you might want to get a PlusBus ticket next time. At ?3.40, or ?2.20 with a railcard, it is a real bargain for Birmingham's trams and buses.

Whilst no apologist for Marv, I don't think he is responsible for public transport any more. I believe too that First Bus have now started the capped fare thing in Bristol using contactless credit / debit cards too. But I'm in Devon, and Stagecoach doesn't.

[DaveHarries]

Skoda part of the VW Audi group is the manufacturer in question from the models listed.

And is indeed the brand in question. I was trying to avoid anything that might be taken as advertising.

As far as Birmingham's plans go I saw a social media post about it the other day: a number of people in reply were accusing Birmingham CC of imposing the congestion charge to enter the city centre as a stealth tax and saying that they will not venture into the city by any means as a result.

Mission accomplished, some might say. Plus, it's a pretty poor stab at a "stealth tax" if I know about it in Devon.

Indeed but the shopkeepers don't need any reduction in trade that might subsequently follow, however small.

Dave

[Red Squirrel]

...but the shopkeepers don't need any reduction in trade that might subsequently follow, however small.

The evidence suggests that reducing motor traffic has the reverse effect. It is odd how shopkeepers imagine that the traffic roaring (or crawling) past their premises somehow equates to trade.

[TonyK]

The evidence suggests that reducing motor traffic has the reverse effect. It is odd how shopkeepers imagine that the traffic roaring (or crawling) past their premises somehow equates to trade.

I was about to say similar myself. I am not a subscriber to this myth of "retail therapy", where one spends money one doesn't have on things one doesn't need in the hope that it will creating sufficient happiness to offset the arrival of the credit card statement, but I do find myself shopping occasionally. If a bulky item is to be collected, then the car is pressed into service, usually somewhere out of town. For Bristol's central shopping area, the choice is drive, then try to get everything done against the clock before the parking charge hits a tenner, or catch the bus, walk around quietly, cup of coffee, maybe a substantial meal and one of them pints. All it needs is decent transport across the whole city to make it more attractive to everyone.

[johnneyw]

...but the shopkeepers don't need any reduction in trade that might subsequently follow, however small.

The evidence suggests that reducing motor traffic has the reverse effect. It is odd how shopkeepers imagine that the traffic roaring (or crawling) past their premises somehow equates to trade.

I recall there were various cases of outcry by shop traders in some SW coastal resorts when pedestrianisation of the shopping streets was suggested yet where it was carried out, shopping trade increased.
More than once in such resorts, I've been swept along by the the tide of humanity herded onto the narrow pavements by passing traffic whilst trying to look into a shop window.

[broadgage]

...but the shopkeepers don't need any reduction in trade that might subsequently follow, however small.

The evidence suggests that reducing motor traffic has the reverse effect. It is odd how shopkeepers imagine that the traffic roaring (or crawling) past their premises somehow equates to trade.

I agree. It is also worth remembering that even before the challenges resulting from the pandemic, that a great many shops, and bars, cafes, and restaurants went bust each year. I have heard but can not substantiate, that over half of new small busineses fail in the first year.
It is easy for those whose new enterprise has failed, to blame this on pedestrianisation, too much traffic, unfair competition, brexit, failure to achieve brexit, left wing politics, right wing politics, etc.

On balance I think that less traffic is good for trade. Also safer for pedestrians, cyclists, and the like. The reduction in carbon emmisions is also helpful in meeting the various targets.

I would prefer to see pedestrian zones enforced by fines, including draconian fines for repeat offenders. I have misgivings about physical barriers as the work of the emergency services is thereby held up.

[Red Squirrel]

...but the shopkeepers don't need any reduction in trade that might subsequently follow, however small.

The evidence suggests that reducing motor traffic has the reverse effect. It is odd how shopkeepers imagine that the traffic roaring (or crawling) past their premises somehow equates to trade.

I agree. It is also worth remembering that even before the challenges resulting from the pandemic, that a great many shops, and bars, cafes, and restaurants went bust each year. I have heard but can not substantiate, that over half of new small busineses fail in the first year.
It is easy for those whose new enterprise has failed, to blame this on pedestrianisation, too much traffic, unfair competition, brexit, failure to achieve brexit, left wing politics, right wing politics, etc.

On balance I think that less traffic is good for trade. Also safer for pedestrians, cyclists, and the like. The reduction in carbon emmisions is also helpful in meeting the various targets.

I would prefer to see pedestrian zones enforced by fines, including draconian fines for repeat offenders. I have misgivings about physical barriers as the work of the emergency services is thereby held up.

I can remember the outcry when Broadmead, Bristol was pedestrianised in the '70s. It beggars belief that shopkeepers in those days really thought that their customers were happy to trade squeezing onto narrow pavements, dodging cars, buses and trucks, along with their noise and fumes, for the remote chance that some of them might be able to park within a quarter mile of a given shop. Well it would beggar belief, until you hear shopkeepers on St Mark's Road making the same arguments in 2020.

Of course these schemes have to be well-designed. There have been instances where emergency (and disabled) access has not initially been properly thought through; these have generally been sorted out quickly though.

[TonyK]

I can remember the outcry when Broadmead, Bristol was pedestrianised in the '70s. It beggars belief that shopkeepers in those days really thought that their customers were happy to trade squeezing onto narrow pavements, dodging cars, buses and trucks, along with their noise and fumes, for the remote chance that some of them might be able to park within a quarter mile of a given shop. Well it would beggar belief, until you hear shopkeepers on St Mark's Road making the same arguments in 2020.

In fairness, St Marks Road doesn't have a selection of multi-storey car parks around it, and is still a residential street. I'm not saying this just because I want to be able to park near Sweetmart next time I'm up that way, and it does have an excellent railway station practically next door, it's just not the same thing as Broadmead.

[Red Squirrel]

I came upon this on Facebook. Not totally relevant, but I liked it and thought I'd share it:

[broadgage]

Splendid, a proper tram.
Faked picture, but still nice.

[Bmblbzzz]

Implementation of Bristol's CAZ^▸ (Clean Air Zone) may be delayed again due to an unspecified change in national bus lane regulations:

A national change to bus lane regulations could result in the start date of Bristol’s clean air zone (CAZ) being pushed back yet again.


Marvin Rees revealed the setback during a press briefing on Wednesday, saying the council is currently seeking clarification on what the implications will be for long-awaited plans to tackle the city’s toxic air pollution.

The mayor said the change in regulations has resulted in one of the suppliers tasked with implementing the CAZ changing its work programme, potentially causing “some issues” with the process.

https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/implementation-bristols-clean-air-zone-could-be-delayed-again/

[TonyK]

At this rate, all vehicles will be electric before the CAZ^▸ (Clean Air Zone) is implemented. The typical Bristol way with innovation seems to be to wait until just before the new idea becomes obsolete, or every other city has one, whichever comes last.