Burnham's Clean Air Zone Upsets the locals,,

[A100man]

LMBO..

https://andyformayor.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/CAZ-Poster-Board-225x300.jpg
____________________
Now: A100, GT250A, XJ598, FZ750

Then: Fizz, RS200, KL250, XJ550, Laverda Alpina, XJ600, FZS600

[Ste]

PIXELS!!

One, two, three, four... SIX of them!

https://i.imgur.com/IRvuxzc.png

[Jmoan]

Was andy bumham some official around the time of the mid staffordshire hospital scandal?

[ThunderGuts]

I live in the GM CAZ area; I can't decide if the "opposition groups" have a point or not. Essentially, any commercial vehicle (includes car-derived vans, minibuses, pickups etc..) will come under the scope of the scheme. If it doesn't meet certain emissions criteria (forget which "Euro" it is, but I think it's anything older than 2016) then you pay a daily charge when you use it. £10 a day for a van. This will clearly hurt although there's supposed to be a support scheme to help people "upgrade" to a cleaner vehicle.

I see both sides . . . right now further expenditure to upgrade vehicles, be it a sole-trader with a 15 year old Transit or a large company with a fleet, is not going to be welcome as the financial climate isn't great, but then air pollution is a real problem here and not just limited to the city centre either, the arterial routes, major junctions and town centres are all problem areas. There is a lot of housing (mine included) in these areas. I think something does have to be done about the pollution levels, but doing something about it is always going to have a cost (to someone, and right now with the financial legacy of the pandemic, local/national govt is hardly going to offer anything substantial).

Personal observation (not that this affects the CAZ directly as it stands), the number of single-occupant vehicles I see is vast, probably at least 90% if not 95%. If even a third of these hopped on buses/trains/trams (there is plenty of public transport in GM, yes it's less integrated than The Smoke and it's not perfect and won't work for everyone, but it's actually pretty good on the whole) then the pollution levels might actually drop sufficiently to (for now at least) remove the need for a CAZ in the first place. The improvement would be greater than the percentage reduction in vehicles would suggest as traffic would flow more freely and therefore be more efficient. This would probably improve bus times too, plus the money injected into public transport rather than forecourts would help support local, rather than national (via fuel duty), government which in turn would help the public transport infrastructure.
____________________
TG.

[Polarbear]

Whatever the reason for it first being put in place, it will become a cash cow and never be removed.
____________________
Triumph Trophy Launch Edition

[Hong Kong Phooey]

We voted on a proposed congestion charge and told them to get fucked. We didn't get a vote this time, and now they're realising local elections are looming and they're going to get fucked for making people's lives more expensive, post brexit, post covid, at a time when inflation is at its highest in a generation, as oil and gas prices spike.

They should be worried, but in reality Labour is the default position of ruined Northern towns, not that Labour have ever done much to rectify those shitholes other than vote for their own pay rises.

Paying charges to go green seems to be a massive con, plenty of people getting a cut of the greenwash money.
____________________
'81 CG125, '97 FZS600 : '99 CBR600F4, '09 KTM RC8

[Polarbear]

[A100man]