Great Western Coffee Shop

I thought we had a thread on this, but can't find it, so am putting this here. Two schemes have been put forward, a consultation is now going on to choose one – or perhaps to draw up a third with elements of both.
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/your-say-what-clean-air-3039530

The consultation is here: https://bristol.citizenspace.com/growth-regeneration/traffic-clean-air-zone/

I can never work out the logic of why a bus should be charged and private cars not... Especially as a reasonably filled (passenger wise), Euro 6 vehicle will let out less NOx and particulate emissions per person compared to a car, even more so with the new CNG vehicles in the city... Having a daily charge on a bus just makes the operational costs even more leading to even more cuts in the long run...

I can't imagine option 2 being popular with locals (I'm not a fan either) so suspect it will be option 1 (or atleast delay option 2 implementation).

There are some funny areas including in the zone though. For example Brunel Way and the bridge over Cumberland basin appears to be included even if a lorry just wants to continue on the A4.

According to Bristol Civic Society, the Sustainable Transport Network (a group of Bristol Green Capital Partnership) is preparing a response to these proposals - I'll post it when they've finalised it.

Among other things, they are likely to say:

Indeed. I live in south Bristol and have an old VW camper van that I drive infrequently.

Unless they exempt them, the way that things stand, I'm going to have to pay £9 or indulge in some extensive detours, and if they go for the larger zone, I won't even be able to drive it along York Road to be serviced in Bedminster. I know I'm a niche case, but along with a lot of people I know, I'm a responsible car driver, only driving infrequently for journeys that I can't do by public transport, and I feel like I'm being penalised. 

I can see that people are worried about pollution, but at the same time, there is a big financial and environmental cost of enforcement. Over time it's going to get better on its own anyway as older vehicles will inevitably be scrapped (oh yes, and the scrappage scheme they are touting will only include those who work in town, not if you're a carer who lives on Knowle West and works in Filton). If you really want to make a difference, why not impose a workplace parking levy on workers in the city centre and reduce the numbers of on-street parking places in favour of shared spaces? Surely if you remove a load of car-based commuters you'll make a massive improvement?

Is your van diesel? I'd be able to drive in in my 1971 vw beetle but unable to drive in in my newer diesel car.

The larger zone, Option 1, does not apply to private cars so would not stop you driving your camper van anywhere.

Source: Bristol24/7

If BCC cannot even get started building a station at the Portway P&R long after already being given the funding from the government’s New Stations Fund and receiving the necessary government planning/building permissions, then what are the chances of them producing a Clean Air Proposals report on time?

Yep, seems crazy doesn't it? I find it hard to believe that the air is really much worse than in my 1970's/80's childhood, when there was still leaded petrol, traffic jams abounded, vehicles belched out god knows what and all around us were adults smoking away like chimneys.   

Of course it's not worse - it's far better. For particulates, I found a some long-run data for London, showing total level (microgrammes/m³) for all sizes: this rose slowly from the middle ages (as coal usage rose) to a peak of 600 just before 1900, then fell to 200 in 1952, 30 in 1992, and is now below 15. Projections based on the new standards for combustion equipment (including vehicles) show that reducing still further.

I think there are two recent changes in our understanding of the effects of air pollution that give the impression things are getting worse - one about the harmfulness (direct and indirect, by making particles) of NO_x, and the other about fine particles (PM_2.5) and their ability to get deep into the lungs and then further into the body. But just because the concern is recent, that doesn't mean their levels have been going up - they haven't, in general.

One other recent worry has been the non-combustion sources of PM_2.5, and how they will be dominant once (whenever) the switch to electric vehicles has got a long way. Well, yes, but all vehicle sources produce well under 10% of these fine particulates.

Our plug-in hybrid car has now done around 70,000 km and, at it's most recent MoT, showed 30% brake pad wear at the front and 20% at the rear - from new, which suggests that a lot of energy that could have gone into producing fine particulates has instead gone into recharging the traction battery.

I take the point that tyre wear (and therefore particulates from this source) is increased by heavy batteries, though. As people make the move to electric cars they will need to think hard about how big a battery they really need - it probably doesn't make sense to lug a tonne of battery around with you if drive less than 200 km a day and can charge at home, for instance, and the environmental cost of an electric car is probably always going to be proportional to its range.

In the Netherlands and some other countries they do/did tax cars by unladen weight. Could be worth incorporating some element of that into VED for EVs.

In the UK (sigh; already it almost feels almost nostalgic to use that term...) we set VED by CO₂ emissions. Would it be that much of a stretch to incorporate particulate emissions into the formula?

If we could devise a reliable test to measure particulates from tyres and brakes.

So decision next week and it turns out they are wanting to go for both options due to one not delivering changes quick enough.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/congestion-zone-diesel-ban-council-3477818

If the Post article is not sufficiently detailed for you, you can find a lot more information here: https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=17389#mgDocuments

Edit: This presents the information in a more user-friendly format: https://www.cleanairforbristol.org/

But remember folks, the key point is that BCC can't actually bring in a diesel fuel ban under current legislation :-)

 

The scrappage scheme is interesting (as well as disappointing in various ways). Has there previously been one run by a city or local authority rather than a government or manufacturer/dealer network?

What Bristol Council seems to have forgotten is that there will still be hundreds of diesel-powered train services running through the clean air zone every day!

There are no train services running through the inner 'diesel ban' zone. Train services do however pass through the outer Clean Air zone, but (unlike boats) they don't seem to get a mention; boats - which do very much putter around within the diesel ban zone - are specifically excluded from these proposals.

I am having trouble with the map.  As shown the Plimsol Bridge appears to be in the non diesel car zone.  How will traffic from the A370 or A38 turn down Portway towards Avonmouth?

I can't see any detail about what this might be, except that it is described as "local". Has anyone found any more? My guess is that it might help people who live in (or maybe have to enter) the "small area". However, there is a list of potential exceptions to the diesel ban:

That looks to me the obvious place to have made a linkage with the scrappage scheme.

Another point about the diesel ban is that it takes no account of the lower emissions of new cars. I think I read that cars to the latest standard are cleaner than the equivalent petrol cars, for NOX at least*. Since the CAZ doesn't affect cars anyway, nothing in the scheme is based on actual vehicle emissions at all.  That could be the basis for a legal challenge, I imagine.

But then, it looks as if the modelling wasn't based on future trends in actual cars either. Mind you, that's based on a limited sampling of a huge word-heap (if you think the BCC business case documents have a poor information:verbiage ratio, you should see laqm.defra.gov.uk).

* Update: Having tracked down some of the data that support COPERT (the official calculator of emissions), they don't support that. Diesel NOX has hardly been reduced by emissions control regimes, and the Euro 5 & 6 standards were meant to reduce it threefold, but failed due to poor enforcement. The resulting staged revisions are still coming into force, but by next year that reduction is now expected to happen. But that still leaves levels three times those of petrol cars (roughly - for all figures).

...as is Temple Way, the main route to the M32. It looks like diesel-drivers living in South Bristol will have to go a very long way round if they want to head North.

I have now read most of the BCC document (a great cure for insomnia).  The marked area on the map is the monitoring zone and the roads that will be closed to diesel cars are far more restricted but I cannot determine the exact streets.

Edit at 21:30 It does appear that the diesel car exclusion ban will apply to the inner area of the map.  A map on page 758 describes this inner zone (Plimsol Bridge / Cumberland Basin to end of M32) as 'Car diesel ban area'.

The details of the scrappage scheme are:

So, anybody in those areas without one may wish to purchase and old diesel for a few hundred quid and kerchang..... 2 grand scrappage.

I'm sure it's not that simple but where there's a scheme you will get schemers.

The words are 'up to £2,000' so you would get less for an old banger.

My thoughts also! The Law of Unintended Consequences will always get you. Something else that could happen is  the formation of queues of diesel cars on the periphery, waiting for the clock to hit 3pm. Maybe five overhead traffic lights, like in the Formula 1 racing, could be installed on borders?
It also looks as though the diesel ban will be means tested with the exemptions (how could a council do anything without a list of exemptions?) including:


I spent a fair part of my working life dealing with the vagaries of means testing, and know that this could only work with a team of investigators dealing with the dishonest applications from those with two cars, one undeclared, or an undisclosed partner with a car as well as your diesel. "Low income households" will probably be defined by a certain level of tax credit or Universal Credit payment. Given that I once dealt with someone who failed to disclose earnings to get benefit to pay for a TV licence so that she wouldn't be breaking the law*, I know where that can take us.

None of which is to say that I disagree with the idea, even if a few parts of it seem a little counter-intuitive.

(*The magistrates saw the irony, but not the funny side.)

I reckon there's a lesson there and it's in the benefits of visible and invisible enforcement. TV licences are (or were, I'm assuming this was back in the olden days) visibly enforced with warning letters and detector vans. In fact, the detector vans didn't really detect anything, they were just for show. The only way you could actually be caught without a licence was by admitting you had a TV or being caught watching, but most people, understandably, believed in the electromagnetic power of the detector vans, so coughed up.

Whereas enforcement of benefit regulations did/does not involve any showy tech but is probably far more effective.

So in the case of a Clean Air Zone, you might need for instance lots of signs at the perimeter to state boldly and clearly the rules along with bright yellow cameras, and more discreet cameras within the CAZ to track movements of vehicles within it. Or some other sort of dual strategy.

You're also going need to a very clear explanation of the two different zones, along with the time element which is bound to confuse some.

That's assuming it all goes ahead, of course. There's plenty of time for amendments yet, and the need for an act of parliament to allow for the diesel ban.

I wouldn't say that necessarily. When I did it, I had the benefit of a decent radio network with covert stuff both in the car and wearable, some cameras that I used only once, and the biggest database in Europe. It has become more sophisticated since. I shan't go into great detail, but I have seen video recorded by a camera hidden in a plastic water bottle, used to considerable effect, and I think now in the public domain. Record matching between government computer systems has been extremely effective too.


I would imagine that the current camera network would provide some information, but Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) will have to be used to be able to distinguish between fuel types, unless someone is going to develop a brand new sniffer technology. That could open a further can of worms - I recall DVLA showing off their then new first ANPR camera in Bristol, the first able to connect in real time to the various databases. They action took place on the footbridge over Temple Way, pointing towards the M32. The chap was pointing the camera at passing traffic and explaining how it worked, when the reporter asked what the beeping nose was. Uninsured cars, said our man, which astonished the reporter as there was one every three or four seconds. For the record, I am all for pulling such vehicles and their off the road, should permission be given to allow use for general traffic matters, not just the CAZ.

Your cameras and so on were discreet. Perhaps it would have been more accurate if I'd said overt enforcement rather than "showy tech".

Yeah, that's the next-layer problem of enforcement. What do you do about the vehicles with false registrations and so on? Detection is not necessarily enforcement.

One for somebody above my pay grade to decide. Uninsured vehicle is much more serious that diesel in the wrong place, but you can solve the latter with a letter. Uninsured driver really deserves handcuffs, tow truck and possibly crusher, but takes time that could be spent ungluing people from public transport vehicles.

I am waiting for the first M5 closure when the stream of vehicles comes up Portway and turns right down the A370.  All the diesel cars will be illegal and the lorries and coaches will be charged.  They will have to remove the Plimsoll bridge from the scheme.

The documentation makes no reference to the effect of the scheme on through traffic.

Hello.. new around here.  Forgive my ignorance, but it looks like there is no way to be dropped off or park at Temple Meads during the hours that diesel cars are banned.  Is that really sensible  ???

Welcome to the forum, 2+4!

There are so many eccentricities in this scheme that it seems hard to believe that it will not be greatly altered before it is implemented.

Bristol need Westminster to pass legislation to permit fuel discrimination.

I can't see anyone in Westminster lifting a finger to support it, it's such a massive can of worms. I've already seen a number of tweets pointing out that a tiny diesel Citroen will be illegal but a hulking petrol muscle car will not.

Residents' Parking and anti-car policies were one of the things that saw George Ferguson thrown out, Marvin is going the same way. Arguably, despite his party, the Conservative candidate would have a fair chance of winning just by touring "White Van Man" Bristol and repeating a mantra of "no diesel ban, forget the western harbour, the arena can sort itself out, more money for schools, removing graffiti and decent social services for your elderly relatives"

Welcome indeed, 2+4, and a good spot. There does seem to be great  potential for mucking everything up, and applying the Law of Unintended Consequences. Some of these may be ironed out, as Red Squirrel says, probably when someone points out the irony of not being able to drive to a station in a diesel car to catch a diesel train.


Residents' Parking Zones aren't as unpopular as you assume, Noggin. Those who used to clog up residential streets as a free car park seem to have managed to find a way to work since that option was removed from them, to the delight of those households within the RPZ who own one or fewer cars. There are problems around some MetroBust stops and noticeably more cars parked in the daytime on the edges of the RPZ, but the forecasts of widespread redundancies, closures of businesses and plagues of locusts have not come to pass. The "more money for schools" promise on the side of any election bus would have to be tempered by the penalties Bristol will suffer if clean air policies are not implemented, which is probably why Marvin had to introduce the idea now, weith only months remaining to the next Mayoral election. He might be following a strategy of using watering down of the scheme as a vote-winning tool, which could be dodgy. It would be nice to hear of some carrot to balance the stick, in the form of real improvements to public transport in the city, rather than the probable diet of extra MetroBust.

It does seem eccentric that Euro 6 vehicles are included in this ban. Surely this will change? The London ULEZ allows petrol cars of Euro 4 and above, and Euro 6 diesels. That seems sensible.


Those of us who have the misfortune to live just outside the Residents' Parking Zones are spitting teeth that populist politics won the day before the outer zones could be established. Experts - that is to say, people who have a better understanding of how things work than the average voter - reckoned that if the zone was too small, people living on the (reduced) periphery would have to put up with a disproportionate amount of displaced parking. This has proved to be the case.

As an aside, isn't 'anti-car' just another way of saying 'pro-people'? I like people, me!


I suppose we should never say never, but I can't really imagine a world in which a Conservative could become Mayor of Bristol...

This could be the concession to be made to get everyone saying what a fair-minded man Marvin is, in the run-up to the May hustings.


Proof of what I said, from someone affected by it!


It does stretch the imagination somewhat, especially in these current times.

The earlier point of national government not sanctioning such a plan is a moot one. The outgoing government used to be Conservative, but drifted on the rudderless ship of no overall control for its latter days. If a Conservative majority is returned next month, then once the major elephant has been shooed out of the room, the newly strengthened leader can turn his attention to what to do with dissenting cities. If a majority government from a different party is returned, it can turn its thoughts to how it should help its friends in the provinces. I doubt very much that either would do anything to stop this. Firstly, it could affect the party nationally, unless it does nothing. Secondly, it affirms commitment to localism. Thirdly, it would stir up the environmental lobby again, with people stuck to public transport everywhere you look. Fourthly, and most importantly, it provides a laboratory in which to conduct an experiment, possibly developing national policy further.

Bristol isn't alone in this endeavour - Birmingham, with just over one and a half times urban Bristol's population and more than double the wider metropolitan area population, is rolling out a similar project. That will include petrol vehicles in the controls, with money raised being used specifically for public transport. Birmingham has the advantage of more developed transport infrastructure and governance, with Transport for West Midlands in charge, eight distinct commuter rail lines linking 70 stations, a tram between New Street and Wolverhampton, and buses, some operated under franchise. It has also done a much better job of planning and explaining its ideas, resulting in more support and less opposition than is to be seen in Bristol. Maybe DfT want to see how two schemes, one good and one hair-brained, work out.

Meanwhile:

Source Bristol 24/7 (https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/city-council-spends-almost-3m-on-fleet-of-new-diesel-vehicles/)

But if the payments to enter the zone go the council then it won't actual cost them anything. Other than the complete loss of credibility and goodwill with the electorate of course.

I have a suspicion the council expect the legislation necessary to implement a ban by fuel type will not be passed, giving them another year or so to come with yet another plan.

A dangerous game! How funny would it be if the new government (let's assume for the moment that it isn't Liberal Democrat) said "Like it! What a radical scheme you lefty Malay-loving Marxists* have come up with, which will surely get Bristol some sort of award or a visit from a Swede. Go on then, let's see how it works out!". Not impossible, because who in their right minds would get in the way of local policies for local people? Plus it is one less distraction for the new government to have to deal with, frankly. Being fair, it would be a very useful experiment for a national government of any party to let run, and watch. If it works well, they can say "It works well, and we let it happen! Aren't we good?" And if it doesn't work out well, they can say "They told us that they knew what they were doing, like when they begged us for MetroBust. Not our fault, but we did warn you. We have asked Malaysia to extradite the mayor, and we will hang him out to dry when they do."

This localism is a funny old business, fraught with peril.

* Marvin Rees, the Bristol Mayor, isn't, for the benefit of outsiders, much of a Marxist, not unless it's Groucho. Having won the gig from George Ferguson, he acquiesced in the matter of MetroBust, started spending a lot of time in Kuala Lumpur, and scrubbed the Arenal, the long awaited 12,000 seater venue next door to Temple Meads with lots of transport on the doorstep with planning permission and funding in place. His favoured option is for a new Arenal to be built in the Brabazon hangar at the former Filton airfield by the new owners YTL, noted for never having sold a company that they bought. YTL is Malaysian, based in Kuala Lumpur. YTL owns Wessex Water, whose chairman Colin Skellett was the Chairman of the West of England Local Enterprise Partnership that bulldozed through the £230 million MetroBust scheme that enabled the airfield to be sold for development and gain permission for housing, and which will build an Arenal free of charge on the site. Colin Skellett stood down from the LEP that approved the transport blueprint that allowed the new housing to be built to avoid any conflict of interest when he became the non-executive director of YTL Land and Property UK, which owns the former Filton Airfield, which will build the new housing enabled by the transport blueprint.

That last option of a free Arenal is subject to proper road links being provided by the local authorities at a cost of millions. Bristol City Council will then benefit from business rates after the accountants have finished with the paperwork, as they do from Facebook and Amazon, instead of benefiting long term from the undoubted profits that would have accrued.

I don't know what to make of it all, except to say that I am instinctively against Marvin's stance on transport and the Arenal. I have never met him, although I have friends who know and like him. He is a member of a church I used to frequent in Bristol, so should be kosher (no pun intended) but his actions as Mayor seem to be indulgent of others in a way that has been shown in the past to be self-serving. Like Marvin, I have been to Kuala Lumpur, and I can tell you that is no place to search for answers to airborne pollution. It is hot, smokey, and full of concrete. It has a wonderful metro system, but the bulk of travel is by private car, and so not an appropriate model for Bristol. This leads me to ask if anyone else knows what Marvin is - bad, mad, or genius? Driven by a desire to show that he can ruin a city so that he can go on to be a MP and ruin a country? That last seems unlikely. I met George Ferguson a couple of times, who had some very good ideas and a few bad ones, but who took the flak for a few policies that saw him binned, but which have not been rolled back by the next administration. He at least had not wish for national politics.

The current Prime Minister was formerly a mayor of a leading city, but a number of mayors of leading authorities were formerly members of Parliament, and seem to be making more difference in that latter job, tossing aside the party label to actually do some good.

I don't want to breach the "no politics" rule here, and I hope that I don't. If I infer any criticism of Marvin, it isn't because of his political credentials. I am sure that the other parties could make just as bad a job of running the city as he has done, possibly worse, and I am curious as to whether his approach is one of simply reaching out to foreign investors, or more dangerous. 

I have just spent a few days in Manchester, which confirmed my ideas about how public transport should be done, but I have solved my Bristol issues by moving to Devon.

I nominate the Tony K's post above for the first annual GWR Coffeeshop 'Post script longer than the post' Award.
 ;D

I second that!

Although I'm not sure I can really vote.

It was really done to avoid politics, as a one-liner, but I got carried away.

Regarding the new arena that was to have been built in central Bristol, but is now proposed to be built at Filton, outside Bristol, this is IMHO regrettable but not surprising.
A venue that will attract large crowds should have been built near a major station in order that a majority of those attending could use trains, local buses that already serve the station, or walk/cycle to the venue. Only minimal parking was proposed.

The Filton site will have plenty of parking and presumes that large numbers will drive thereto and add to pollution.

A couple of years ago I met at a social event a few local political figures, two of whom were strongly opposed to the building of the arena near the station, and strongly in favour of the Filton site.
The main arguments put forward were the limited parking at the station and the perceived inability of "the railway" to cope with the crowds expected at a major venue.

In more detail, they said;

1) The railway cant cope with bank holiday traffic, so how will they cope with the thousands expected to attend the arena ?
2) Concerts often finish in the late evening, too late for rail travel.
3) Major events are planned well over a year in advance, how will the organisers of such events know that far in advance "if the trains will be running" on the relevant dates. (a then recent closure of the Brighton main line, announced AFTER people had booked airline tickets was mentioned)
4) A general criticism of "new shorter trains"

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=19768.0 (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=19768.0)

Edited to add link to my earlier and related post.

1) The railway tends to close on bank holidays if engineering work needs doing.
2) Having been to a concert at the O2 in Bristol recently, I got a bus to Temple Meads and caught the 2306 EXD train home. I could have opted for the 2337.
3) Organisers could try talking to train operating companies. How do they know, a year in advance, that the M5 won't be closed on the night?
4) I share the view of short trains.

What happened at that social event was people finding excuses. The Massive Attack show at Filton resulted in Massive traffic chaos as soon as the lights went up, with public transport nowhere to be seen. It sounds as if the powers that be are building somewhere accessible only by private transport, whilst no doubt planning events there to celebrate their declaration of a climate emergency. Within a 10 minute walk of Temple Meads are many thousands of spaces in car parks.

I was in Manchester a few days ago. They must be a bit daft up there, building their arena right next door to Victoria Station. and on a tram route too. Using the Bristol model, it should have been somewhere miles away, next to a motorway junction.

Perhaps the question we should ask ourselves is how can we turn crony capitalism to our collective advantages? I mean, if YTL can steam-roller through MetroBus, perhaps we could find a way to have them require it to be converted to a tram? And perhaps they might have a subsidiary that could get us some rail electrification on the never-never?

Not a bad idea. Like the Mayor of Bristol, I have visited Kuala Lumpur. It has an excellent metro system.

Meanwhile...

Source and full article: Bristol 24/7 (https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/council-pauses-new-diesel-fleet-rollout/)

You're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't, as Bart Simpson once said. The council has given in to the populist clamour as usual. The old diesels will continue to spew their fumes and soot until after the election, when the council will have to decide whether to break the contract they have entered into, with financial costs, or stick with the Euro 6 diesels. If they switch to electric, they will show the good people of Bristol (and the bad ones too) that they mean do as they do as well as do as they say. But they will need the charging infrastructure to back it all up, plus a new contract for electricity supply because Bristol Electricity is too expensive for its owners to use.

Electric vehicles should be the weapon of choice for local and national government bodies. Let's face it, they don't go far in the average day.

Charging points are probably not a problem for council vehicles. They are used in regular shifts so have all night to charge; rapid chargers, which are expensive (and have not yet settled on one standardised design) won't be necessary for them.

Which is the most immediate thing. I drove a LPG powered vehicle for a while, which (occasionally, usually in France) involved using an adaptor to refill. It still worked better than VHS or Betamax, or 8-track versus  USB. Councils, and other government bodies, should look into whether or not electric vehicles are actually affordable. If they are, they should look into joint charging or even sharing of vehicles, something which is highly unlikely. It will take a few years before the world decides on a standard for recharging by electric, but the world has long ago decided on standards for refuelling by fossil fuels.

So well-standardised that it is even possible to put diesel fuel in a petrol car, and vice-versa. Just imagine if electric chargers had evolved that way... others may be better-placed to say what would happen if you plugged a DC rapid charger into an AC charging circuit.

I thought it was possible to put petrol in a diesel car but not diesel in a petrol car, because post-unleaded, petrol fillers have been smaller than diesel?

Trust me people still do both ,we get at least one a month !..

Yes, well, I didn't account for the human brain, which seems to have evolved little over the millennia.


I believe that the different sized nozzles were to prevent leaded petrol (remember that?) going into an unleaded tank, and so ruining the expensive catalytic converter. Cars taking only unleaded petrol were new, so it was possible to incorporate the design, whereas rejigging 21 million filler nozzles isn't. It won't be a problem for long, as the end of the new private diesel car is nigh.

That's what I remember too. An unintended consequence being that, as petrol filler caps and pump nozzles are now smaller than those for diesel, it's possible to put petrol in a diesel car but not the other way round. Which sounds bad but, as it's generally more damaging to put petrol in a diesel engine than vice versa, but before that it was equally possible to make both sorts of mistake.

With both York and, more surprisingly, Birmingham putting forward proposals to ban all cars within their city centres, Bristol's diesel ban is beginning to look tame.

But the difference is that both York and Birmingham's are realistic. Because of Bristol's geography and the way the road network was built, the best you could probably do is limit traffic within Temple Way/Anchor Road/Cumberland Road to essential traffic and residents, which will of course do sweet FA for emissions and cut off the (relatively impoverished) South Bristol from North Bristol. It will also make it even more likely that if people want to go shopping, they will drive to Bath or Cribbs Causeway.

Define "essential". There aren't that many residents within that area of Bristol and most of the traffic is, I suspect, either commuters, shoppers or passing through on its way to other parts. Precisely the sort of traffic we need to displace and replace.

York's plan is within the city walls. I don't really know York – haven't been there since I was 11(!) (but a trip planned this summer) – but that sounds like a small and tightly defined area. Brum's seems a little vaguer: file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Transport_Plan_v7.pdf
but probably there are more definite plans in existence.

Bmblbzzz's link is to a local file, so won't work. Try this: https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/info/20076/pollution/1763/a_clean_air_zone_for_birmingham/2

Sorry! And thank you. What I tried to link to was a pdf which can be downloaded from this site:
https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/transportplan
under the "Download draft Birmingham Transport Plan document" button.

But what Red Squirrel linked to was, despite being older, in some ways more useful in that it included a map. But do note the Eye of Sauron in the draft document! Those Brummies do have a sense of irony.

I see from the BBC that diesel access will now be allowed from the M32 to the Cabot Circus car parks and from the A370 over the Plimsoll Bridge to the A4.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-51348017

So the council is "protecting" shoppers in Cabot Circus by allowing them to drive their diesel cars from the M32 to the car park? Is that what Claire Hiscott means? Or did she say that arguing for the car park to be taken out of the zone and her quote has been put in a misleading context by the BBC? Or what?  ???

Source: Bristol Live (https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/council-working-new-bigger-bolder-4305421)

The article is rather light on detail and doesn't indicate where or when Mayor Rees said this. I can't find any other reference to it, and Bristol Live's attempts to get more information drew a blank.

Worth noting that the reported 'bigger and bolder' plan brings compliance a whole year earlier than the current one. Rees is still insistent that private car owners should be excluded from the scheme, because he feels that this will disproportionately affect the poorest families. I wonder if he's read this:

https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/air-pollution-hurts-poorest-most

Acceleration? Didn't we read just this week that the closures (which in any case are only partial closures) of Bristol Bridge and Baldwin Street have been delayed until August?

This often happens with early election material. It will get more vague as we approach May 2021's ballot, with purdah being cited as the reason. A feasibility study will no doubt report next June.

Who knows - but arguably it was residents parking that did for George Ferguson, at least in part - if Marv starts to mess with the ability to drive through the city then he might well find the 'red walls' of South Bristol starting to crumble.

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.

For my part I (fortunately) live in Bristol, rather than Birmingham which is not a place I venture to unless work decides to send me up there. However I give them credit for their implementation of the Metro scheme (a proper one that runs on rails, not a [...] one that runs on guidewheels with double-deck buses as in Bristol) which network they are expanding at present in 4 locations: at least they are bringing in a viable alternative, unlike Bristol.

Dave

True! Actual trams and buses which are simply buses rather 'JustaBusWithAFancyName'!

(And of course Bristol's diesel ban has now been abandoned.)

Yep. 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.

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. Anyway, sorry for digressing off-topic a bit.

Cheers,
Dave

Seat? Suzuki? Subaru? Stutz?

I'm sure you'll be aware of this, but there's hybrids and there's hybrids. So-called 'self-charging hybrids' are 20-year-old technology and, in essence [une blague pour les francophones!], just a slightly more complex, slightly more efficient petrol engine. Plug-in hybrids on the other hand generally have around 20 miles of pure electric range, so if you have somewhere to plug one in then that might work for you. You may find you can pre-heat it while it's plugged in too, which will stop the car gassing your neighbours on cold mornings.

We've had a plug-in hybrid for five years. If we get another car, it'll be a pure electric.


If we insisted on members staying on topic, this would be a dull place!

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

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

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

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


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.

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

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

Dave

The evidence suggests (http://cidadanialxmob.tripod.com/shoppersandhowtheytravel.pdf) 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

(https://scontent-lhr8-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/142373684_10159063932304715_4709997024800718894_o.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=2&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=cyxZbJco73YAX9dq85C&_nc_ht=scontent-lhr8-1.xx&oh=53270dcddb5f7d8d6d125fa1119a986a&oe=6032C996)

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

Implementation of Bristol's CAZ may be delayed again due to an unspecified change in national bus lane regulations:
https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/implementation-bristols-clean-air-zone-could-be-delayed-again/

At this rate, all vehicles will be electric before the CAZ 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.

Curious as to what these changes in national bus lane regulations were, I searched and found this from neighbouring Bath and North-East Somerset:
https://newsroom.bathnes.gov.uk/news/changes-bus-lane-enforcement

Bus lanes and a number of other traffic regulations can now be enforced by councils, not only police, using ANPR. I can see how this might affect the enforcement of the CAZ but not its implementation, and the change can hardly be a surprise to Bristol city council. Or maybe there's another change I've missed?

I struggle to see how the increase in fines or transfer of responsibility for enforcement of bus lanes can have affected a council contractor so profoundly. I would imaging  the council was given a heads up on this months ago, even before the citizens of Bristol and elsewhere were told what they wanted in a consultation.

Quite.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/20/old-cars-forced-off-road-as-europes-clean-air-zones-nearly-double

<hollow laugh>

One thing I note from looking at the map is that the CAZ boundary includes the A4 Portway between Bridge Valley Road and Hotwells as well as the swing bridges.

This will, presumably, raise money for BCC by catching people in non-exempt vehicles who get diverted off the M5 South should it get closed and I wonder if that is why they include those routes above. IMO anyone in an unexempt vehicle who is forced to divert onto the A4 Portway by closure of the M5 should be exempted as the diversion is forced. Even though I wouldn't incur a charge for entering the CAZ - my car is a '20' plate - I have replied to BCC on a Facebook post seeking clarification as to whether any exemption would apply but, knowing BCC, I suspect the answer will be no because BCC want money.

Slightly biased opinion perhaps? Well he would, wouldn't he. ::)

Dave

If the purpose of the CAZ is to raise money, why have BCC been dragging their feet? You’d think they would have implemented it as soon as they could, rather than continually delaying it…

The inclusion of the A4 Trunk Road is questionable to say the least,as the area is not highly populated,and the area around the Cumberland Basin itself is in the main open space,and has not ever been shown to suffer from poor air quality as far as I can find out.
The Portway and the A370 on Plimsole bridge/way being major roads ,are being included incorrectly,in my opinion they are in the scheme purely as a method of revenue generation.
This is just another way of hitting the motorist where it hurts in the pocket.
Those of us who drive,be it for work or for domestic,social purposes,and maintain our vehicles to a safe and roadworthy standard and pass emissions test & Mot,are effectively being penalised for going about our lawful daily lives.
I am intending to research further as to the legal position of this being applied to a major part of the road network.

Feedback/opinions/recommendations,all, most welcome.

Major roads are where the most traffic is, so they have to be included if the scheme is to be effective in reducing air pollution to within UK legal limits.

I will be itnerested to see what you come up with. I personally think that penalising motorists who are diverted along a route where no other alternative is available (for example the only possible diversion from the M5 at Jcn 18 is the A4 and A370 to rejoin at Jcn 21 if the M5 is closed) is merely a money-making exercise and no more and should thereby not be legal.

No answer as yet to my question to BCC regarding exemption of vehicles so diverted.

Dave

The majority of drivers (BCC says 71%) will not pay a penny.
There are also various exemptions for residents within the zone, the disabled, those on below-average incomes and those attending the Bristol Royal Informary.
https://www.bristol.gov.uk/streets-travel/bristol-caz/charges-and-checker
Those who do have to pay are not being penalised for going about their lawful daily lives, they're paying to pollute air that everybody breathes.

With so many exemptions, I'm doubtful the scheme will work, but we'll find that out once it's been in place for a while.

Edited by Rogerw to clarify BRI

I thought the object was to save money - you know, set up a CAZ like the government told you, or get fined etc. If the object was to clean the air up a bit, then there is still much to do. Changing an existing scheme to include different years is going to be easier than setting one up, though, so it could be a step in the right direction.


Well... it wouldn't be Bristol without a long list of exemptions, would it? I doubt very many members here will be stung for it.