Taxi Driver Online

Suspect there will be a similar shift to PHVs in the likes of Glasgow. And I'm sure the council there have 'modelled' that shift

And unlike Glasgow, doesn't look like non-compliant vehicles are actually banned in Bristol - they just have to pay a £9 per day charge

But £100 for an HGV, making a delivery, say?


Bristol blue cab drivers warn of fewer accessible taxis as city's clean air zone begins

https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/20 ... taxis-fall

Blue taxi drivers in Bristol are warning there may be fewer accessible cabs for people with disabilities in the future as the city's clean air zone comes into effect.

The zone is designed to improve air quality in Bristol by charging those driving the most polluting vehicles, with fines of up to £120.

It officially came into effect yesterday (29 November) though some temporary exemptions are in place until the end of March to allow people to get prepared.

But those driving the city's blue hackney carriages have warned the zone may lead to fewer accessible taxis as drivers swap their non-compliant wheelchair-friendly cars for smaller, private cars.

Mohammad Islam, from the Bristol Blue Licensed Taxi Association, said: "Lots of drivers do the school run for the disabled or the wheelchair users' children and people will be, especially with the elderly people, people with special needs, people with the wheelchair, they will be in difficulties to find a blue car [sic]."

Another cabbie, Jante Mohemed, agreed, saying he has seen many of his colleagues swap their blue cars for private hire vehicles.

"It's affected a lot of drivers," Jante said.

"A lot of drivers - they bought a small car. Usually, we've got the wheelchair, but no one can afford to buy the wheelchair car, because it must be an electric one.

"So, everyone goes to private cars and buys small cars and less Hackneys," he added.

Charges range depending on the type of vehicle being driven, with older, non-compliant cars being charged £9 a day, the same price a taxi will face.

The drivers of older light goods vehicles (LGVs) will also pay £9, but polluting heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) must pay £100, along with busses and coaches.

People who fail to pay will be issued with a penalty charge notice of £120, which is reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days.

The scheme will now apply 24 hours a day, seven days a week and is believed to affect an estimated 75,000 drivers a day.

Bristol City Council, who introduced the scheme, has said that more than seven in ten drivers will be unaffected by the clean air zone as they already meet emission standards. They expect this figure to rise as more people switch to cleaner vehicles or different methods of transport.

The council hopes the scheme will improve air quality by reducing harmful emissions.

It has provided exemptions for certain eligible groups such as residents and people working within the zone, those earning less than £26,000 a year as well as Blue Badge holders. Those visiting and attending hospitals in the city are also exempt.

The council says all the information regarding the zone, including whether a vehicle is exempt, can be accessed on its website.

A similar kind of shift was envisaged when the 1995 Dis Act came about.

The act however did have provisions that would allow a council to opt out of the taxi WAV bit of the act if it could be shown that hackneys would all go PH rather than license a WAV.

How times change.

_________________
IDFIMH

the trouble is it is incredibly lucrative for councils. Within 5 years I suspect that all of the UK's major cities will have a CAZ.

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

For now it is.

It will backfire on them. Interventionist policies always do.

It's the law of cause and effect.

The repercussions of these policies will be as follows.

1) People outside the cities who travel in their cars to these CAZs will over time go elsewhere such as a small town nearby without the charges. People that use the cities for restaurants and shopping for clothes etc. Many people use cities who actually do not live in them. Myself included.
2) This will have a big effect on businesses in the city centres such as restaurants who will see their revenues fall dramatically over time.
3) Some of those businesses will close due to the lack of trade from lower volume of spending in the cities.
4) This will leave many empty business premises with local average rental prices going down to attract potential entrepreneurs which will reflect the lower volume of people spending in the city
5) Empty shops equals no revenue from business rates on the premises for councils.
6) Less cars visiting the cities will result in less revenue from parking in council parking areas and less revenue from speed camera fines etc.

For taxis the repercussions are as follows:

1) Taxi drivers will pass on these extra costs to customers resulting in higher fares (on top of the high inflation we are already experiencing) or if they don't/can't some will either leave the industry or change their vehicle to a smaller cleaner one like the article above leaving a severe lack of options for the public.
2) Forcing drivers to purchase/use cleaner more expensive newer vehicles creates more barriers to entry for potential new licensed drivers along with forcing some already existing drivers off the road. It is already expensive enough to get licensed even when purchasing an older cheaper car. These policies just make it harder for people to get licensed and on the road leading to less future applicants so over time dwindling taxi driver numbers
3) Less licensed drivers means less revenue for the councils and higher fares and a more inefficient service for the public.

Overall, on both counts the councils will probably receive less revenue from these CAZ policies over time. What they receive in CAZ fees will probably not offset the future losses from less cars parked in the cities, less people visiting the cities and more vacant business premises creating less revenue from small businesses.

As that potential outcome gets more likely the councils will have a few options.

1) They reduce the CAZ fees to entice people back to the cities and encourage commerce etc. This is highly unlikely to work as the people who stopped going into the cities will have formed new habits and may even have realized that their new forced change of habit is more beneficial to them than previously.
2) Completely remove the CAZ to get back to previous times
3) Double down and charge higher and higher fees for the CAZ to offset the losses elsewhere.

We will probably have a mixture of all 3 scenarios from different councils around the country.

There might be a few places where the CAZ will actually work but I am not sure about that. Perhaps London will work.

I think you are under estimating the lure of big cities where a larger variety and bigger shops draws people in as there is more choice and of course the theatres and restaurants are not necessarily available else where. The high cost of fuel means trains are getting very busy again and many people will switch to public transport

Business rates go to the government not local councils and there are always people wanting to have a go at retail some of whom will succeed at least in the short to medium term. What might be a factor is if the quality of shops reduces with lots of cheap grot/poundshop type businesses replacing shops selling quality merchandise.

As for car parking ;well; in most major towns and cities it is in limited supply so fewer cars will just mean people can actually park.

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

The lure of big cities has and always will be the opportunity to earn a living. If people could earn the same on a relative basis elsewhere they would not migrate into those places.

The price of labour in the UK has been distorted which has resulted In many places especially cities becoming unaffordable to live in for regular people.

The councils are exacerbating this through their policies and they are assuming people will just sit and take it.

People will move to cheaper areas on less incomes but more disposable income due to lower living costs away from mega expensive places like London.

It's already been happening the last few years and it will gather more momentum as time goes on.

In relation to trains. Have you seen the prices of fares in this country?

They are extortionate especially on longer journeys.

There are many reasons for this and yet they have been on strike with more planned in the future.

Assuming they get their pay demands met what do you think that will do for prices?

Obviously those costs will be passed on to the customers.

The government has thrown way too much money at the semi-privatised and highly inefficient railway system.

You also need to recognize that the railway service is very poor in the North too.

London is good obviously as our economy and politicians always prioritize the capital.

I am very confident my forecasts will come to fruition but time will tell.

yes I have made a couple of longer trips this year (to the same place) did it by train costing £85.00 and by car costing £30 in fuel + running costs

the big problem with the railways is that during the privatisation process the unions threatened to derail (pun intended) the whole process and the government of the day gave them some massive concessions which are now costing the country dear.

The unions aren't going to give these up without a huge compensation package in terms of basic pay but the current government wants them to discuss giving some of them up especially the Sunday working rules. We now have other public sector workers wanting huge pay rises to bring them nearer to the likes of railway workers and the country simply cannot afford it.

I think the government might have to dig out the Serpell report and threaten the railway industry with implementing it

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

@edders23

The attempted privatization of the railways was just messy.

We have a ridiculous system where the tracks are basically owned by the state (Network Rail) and they auction off (or tender out) routes to potential Train Operating Companies.

The Department of Transport select who gets to use those routes. Some operators are owned by the government due to the fact that some routes around the country are unprofitable so no private companies bid for them.

Add to that the corrupt higher management on big salaries and even bigger pensions and for delivering a highly inefficient service that in most cases is not even profitable then you have the situation we are in.

Government direct subsidy of the railways is estimated to be around £5 billion per year. And yet they still can't deliver a reliable and fairly priced service.

If the strikes end up successful and prices stay the same then that £5 billion will increase even more.

Ain't Britain great?

when they were first privatised the infrastructure operating company was also a private enterprise. But, after a few bad accidents UKgov realised the profits before safety policy was the result and decided to create network rail who are obsessed with safety and doing things the most expensive way possible which has upped costs and provided a golden cash cow for large numbers of private companies who can charge double for rail infrastructure work compared to road infrastructure work.

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

Maybe, but in 5 years' time how many electric cars will have replaced those motors liable to pay any CAZ?

_________________
IDFIMH