NE Mayoral Candidates at the Transport Hustings 5 March 2024. From left to right Guy Renner-Thompson (Conservative), Jamie Driscoll (Independent), Andrew Gray (Green Party), Paul Donaghy (Reform UK), Aidan King (Liberal Democrat) and Kim McGuinness (Labour Party).

In May 2024 voters in NE England will choose a new NE Mayor as part of the region’s North East devolution deal, with new powers over transport, housing and skills. In our previous blog we look at what the deal means for transport in the NE and at what other Mayors have committed to elsewhere in the UK. In this blog we look at the candidates’ manifestos to see what they are promising.

Six candidates are standing in the election. They are Jamie Driscoll, the current North of Tyne Mayor who is standing as an independent having been excluded from the Labour Party shortlist, Kim McGuinness (Labour Party), Guy Renner-Thompson (Conservative), Aidan King (Liberal Democrat), Paul Donaghy (Reform UK) and Andrew Gray (Green Party).

Thank you to all candidates for setting out their policies in detailed manifestos and for attending many hustings and public meetings to set out their case.

Walking and Cycling

The NE devolution deal commits the authority to prioritise investment in cycling and walking networks, making “sustainable travel the first choice for short trips, or as part of a longer journey”. The new Mayor will have significant powers available to achieve this being responsible both for “all local roads maintenance funding” in the region and for maintenance of a Key Route Network of local authority roads.

Kim McGuinness (Labour Party) and Jamie Driscoll (Independent) both explicitly commit to new walking and cycling routes, though neither have committed to any targets for how big that network should be.

Our small twitter poll showed a strong preference for 1,800 mile walking and cycling network like Manchester, with several people suggesting it should be even larger as the NE covers a much bigger area.

Jamie Driscoll (Independent) says he will “support local authorities to roll out more and better walking and cycling routes that stay off the roads and avoid dangerous crossings” and will “establish a bike hire network at key public transport interchanges and secure cycle locker parking across the network.” He will “support more initiatives to help kids walk or cycle safely to school, like the great success we’ve seen at Hotspur Primary in Heaton”.

On Saturday, I joined @cycling_minds and @SustransNorth on a cycle ride through the #TyneValley. We need cycling superhighways to make #cycling safer, easier and more convenient. 1/2#ActiveTravel #Sustrans #bike pic.twitter.com/zYGssHlSiA

— Mayor Jamie Driscoll (@MayorJD) May 1, 2023

It isn’t entirely clear how useful this commitment will be, as most local destinations like schools, shops and workplaces are all on roads, so wouldn’t be accessible from routes that ‘stay off the roads’.

Kim McGuinness (Labour Party) is the only candidate to commit to appoint an Active Travel Champion, which we presume is the “Active Travel Commissioner” referred to in the devolution deal. She promises to “work to expand our cycle network and introduce an electric bike hire scheme …, making sure bike and walking routes are joined up and active travel hubs are introduced” and will “start by working with local authorities to make sure it’s safe for families to walk or cycle to school”. 

Hi, I think your question was really important. We need much better, more joined up active travel network that is designed for our region and properly planned. At the mo, the approach from govt has forced councils into bidding for one off bits of cash to do small schemes that…

— Kim McGuinness (@KiMcGuinness) April 7, 2024

Andrew Gray (Green Party) says he will “support for the redesign of town and city centre streets, to give priority to pedestrians and cyclists”, will “improve commitments on pedestrian infrastructure” and will establish local freight depots to enable the use of delivery by cargo bike and smaller electric vehicles.

Paul Donaghy (Reform UK) makes a limited commitment to “work with local authorities and educational trusts to develop walking & cycling to school schemes” and “will introduce parking permit schemes in residential areas close to schools which will encourage parents to leave the car at home.” He doesn’t clarify what the “schemes” will be so these could be improvements to make roads safer, or may just be more badges for children who walk to school but do nothing to make roads safer.

Neither Aidan King (Liberal Democrat) nor Guy Renner-Thompson (Conservative) mention walking or cycling in their manifesto. Guy Renner-Thompson (Conservative) does says he will discourage “any developments that hinder car access to our cities”, which could limit pedestrianisation schemes or parking controls.

Aidan King (Liberal Democrat) did comment on the now removed Jesmond LTN in his Council election leaflet (he is also standing for Councillor in South Jesmond ward) saying he is “pleased the [Labour] Council has finally seen sense and removed the bollards.” A majority (55%) of South Jesmond residents that responded to the consultation supported retaining the bollards.

Public Transport

The new Mayor will have access to bus franchising powers. This will allow the Mayor to decide which bus services should be provided and agree with bus operators to provide those services.

All candidates (other than Aidan King (Liberal Democrat) who doesn’t mention transport in his manifesto other than the Leamside line) commit to improvements in the public transport network, to introduce integrated fares and more buses in areas that are currently not well served by public transport. 

Jamie Driscoll (Independent) and Kim McGuinness (Labour Party) also both commit to bus franchising and aim to make transport free for under 18s. Paul Donaghy (Reform UK) proposes “free transport for school age children during term time”.

Andrew Gray (Green Party) commits to “using new powers to regulate the buses” but doesn’t mention fares.

Aidan King (Liberal Democrat) does mention public transport in his entry in the official election booklet, saying he will deliver “simple, cheap ticketing and a service residents can rely on to get from A to B”.

Guy Renner-Thompson (Conservative) says he will work with bus companies but doesn’t propose to take advantage of bus franchising powers. Paul Donaghy (Reform UK) proposes a hybrid “partial public ownership” model.

None of the candidates mention what compromises they will make in order to achieve a wider coverage of bus routes and lower fares. This would have to be via additional funding or by removing services from existing routes.

NE Transport Map from the NE Transport Plan

Net Zero Transport

The devolution deal sets the expectation that “the Local Transport Plan will implement quantifiable carbon reductions”.

Candidates’ manifestos offer lots of promises to improve alternatives to driving but none propose any policies to constrain total miles driven, which will need to reduce by 20% in addition to a rapid transition to electric vehicles to achieve UK carbon budgets.

How much less will we use our cars in future?

Recent studies show the shift to electric vehicles will not be sufficient for the UK to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

Our latest blog looks at what that might mean. https://t.co/BPTMBs1bhz pic.twitter.com/UVNr4nN0nX

— space for gosforth (@space4gosforth) February 12, 2022

Paul Donaghy (Reform UK) is the most explicit in rejecting net zero, claiming the “Net Zero Agenda” is destructive and is “making us poorer”.  Clearly this is nonsense. Walking or cycling are both the cheapest and most environmentally-friendly forms of transport.

Guy Renner-Thompson (Conservative) says he will discourage “any developments that hinder car access” and will prioritise key road dualling and junction upgrades. All of which will lead to increased emissions.

Kim McGuinness (Labour Party) wants to implement “largest electric vehicle charging network in the country” but also says she will “back the much-needed Bowburn Bypass and continue the fight to finally secure the backing we need to dual the A1 to Scotland”. According to estimates by National Highways, dualling Morpeth to Ellingham alone will release an additional 1.4m tonnes CO2e into the atmosphere.

Jamie Driscoll (Independent) also boasts he “worked with Government to divert cancelled HS2 money to dual the A1”, saying that when upgraded “it can be the spine of a fast, reliable Northumberland bus service.” Extra buses won’t offset the additional 1.4m tonnes CO2e though, and arguably there are much better uses for the ~£400m that A1 dualling will cost.

Jamie Driscoll (Independent)’s claim that he will “build a low-carbon transport system that is so good that thousands of people will voluntarily give up owning cars” is a good ambition but without other policies to reduce car use is unlikely to lead to a reduction in total miles driven – which is what is important for reducing emissions.

Andrew Gray (Green Party) is the only candidate with a policy on roads that doesn’t propose expanding the road network, instead focusing on a “wider network of Electric Vehicle (EV) charging points” and “Vehicle scrappage schemes”. At the Transport Hustings held in Newcastle at the start of March he said “We do need to use sticks as well as carrots. We need to really start to move away from road traffic and reduce transport overall so people don’t have to travel as much as they do overall.”

Thank you @ChronicleLive for airing our and many other people's concerns about the massive unmitigatable increase in greenhouse gas emissions that A1 dualling will cause in Northumberland. https://t.co/g080vgGiqy

— space for gosforth (@space4gosforth) April 16, 2024

Newcastle’s Clean Air Zone

The Clean Air Zone in Newcastle, implemented at the start of 2023, was required by the Conservative Government to ensure air quality in the city should meet legal limits. This isn’t something the new Mayor will have any powers over but candidates shared their views at the Transport Hustings, which gives a bit of insight into their thinking.

• Guy Renner Thompson (Conservative) who has previously said he wanted to scrap the Clean Air Zone said “the Government said air quality had to be improved but they didn’t say how to do it – that was up to Newcastle City Council.” This isn’t entirely true. Government technical guidance was quite specific about the need for a Clean Air Zone and what vehicles should be charged. The Government did say Councils could propose alternative approaches but they had to achieve legal limits in the same or quicker timescales, so almost certainly would have required some form of financial disincentive.
• Paul Donaghy (Reform UK) claimed the CAZ was a “stealth tax on the working class and on businesses.” and that “pollution doesn’t stop because you pay the council a few quid.” As well as being wrong to suggest CAZ don’t work (there is plenty of evidence they do), arguably, asthma and other poor health due to air pollution are much more of a stealth tax. It is well documented that poorer people emit the least but suffer most from air pollution.
• Kim McGuinness (Labour) didn’t say if she supported the CAZ but she did say: “Someone in a £70,000 Range Rover won’t have to pay, but a person who can’t afford a new car will. It’s a regressive tax.” Actually neither would have to pay as the zone doesn’t charge for private vehicles, and even if cars were charged most second-hand petrol cars are compliant.
• Jamie Driscoll (Independent) said the clean air zone was a “very bad way of achieving a very good thing. The solution is better public transport, more active travel, and a far better charging network.” These would all help, but wouldn’t have achieved legal limits in the required timescales.
• One of two candidates to fully support the CAZ was Aidan King (Liberal Democrats), a doctor working at the RVI. He said “My patients dying early because of dirty air that Guy is going to let be exposed to is something I’m not keen on at all. In dense urban areas clean air zones are absolutely essential public health measures to improve the lives of our people.”
• Andrew Gray (Green Party) also supported the CAZ. He said: “One person’s choice is somebody else’s asthma or injury. If we don’t get this right, we’re limiting other people’s choices.”

Road Safety

Despite the Mayor being responsible for the future Key Road Network, which will take a large proportion of the region’s traffic, only Andrew Gray (Green Party) mentions “Roads maintenance to improve safety for all road users.”

The lack of focus on road safety is extremely disappointing. As we said in our recent Traffic Crash Injury 2023 blog, there were 50 fatalities, 628 serious injuries and 2,233 slight injuries in the NE in 2023.

In the first two months of 2024 there have already been 3 people killed, 76 seriously injured and a further 290 people with slight injuries. When the March data is published it will include the death of Andrew Murphy from Gosforth who was killed in a traffic collision at the end of March. Yet most candidates have no policies to address road danger.

He died at the scene of a road traffic collision in the early hours of Thursday morninghttps://t.co/Gz9qQpwfB4

— The Chronicle (@ChronicleLive) March 29, 2024

Based on Department of Transport estimates, in addition to the personal costs to people who were killed or injured and their friends and families, deaths and injuries from road traffic collisions will have cost the NE region £315 million in 2023.

Full Manifestos

If you are interested and want to see what the candidates have written in their own words, both for transport and in other areas, please have a read through the full manifestos. If you spot any important points we have missed please let us know.

• Jamie Driscoll (Independent) https://jamiedriscoll.co.uk
• Kim McGuinness (Labour Party) https://www.kimmcguinness.org
• Guy Renner-Thompson (Conservative) https://www.guyrennerthompson.uk
• Aidan King (Liberal Democrat) https://www.northeastlibdems.org.uk
• Paul Donaghy (Reform UK) https://www.pauldonaghy.co.uk
• Andrew Gray (Green Party) https://northeast.greenparty.org.uk

Other Sources of Information

• The https://www.devolutionnortheast.com website has also been set up to explain the devolution deal.
• The Combined Authority Returning Officer has set up the https://necaro.co.uk website to provide information on the election including candidates and, from 15 April, an electronic version of the election booklet which will be sent by post to all registered voters.
• The Institute of Government have written an explainer for the NE Mayor Elections.

Related ChronicleLive Articles

• ‘The buses need to make sense’ – Rural transport issues discussed at North East mayoral debate ChronicleLive
• ‘Integrated’ transport system at the heart of pledges at mayoral hustings event ChronicleLive
• North East mayoral candidates clash over clean air zones and car use ChronicleLive
• Tory mayoral candidate wants to scrap Newcastle Clean Air Zone tolls – but councils insist he can’t ChronicleLive
• Mayoral candidates have their say on what they would do to combat Tyne Bridge disruption ChronicleLive

The post NE Mayor Elections 2 May 2024 appeared first on SPACE for Gosforth.

The main pollutant of concern in Newcastle is Nitrogen Dioxide (NO₂). The legal maximum for NO₂ is 40μg/m³ averaged over a calendar year. In 2021, the highest reading was 98μg/m³, over double the limit. The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommend NO₂ should be no more than 10μg/m³ averaged over a year.

2021 Highlights:

• Overall, pollution was less than 2016-2019, but still didn’t meet UK legal limits.
• St James’ Park, home of Newcastle United Football Club, was the most polluted location in the city centre.
• The worst pollution recorded across Newcastle was 98μg/m³ on The Coast Road by the junction with Jesmond Park West.
• Measurements from Gosforth and The West End were all within UK legal limits for the second year running, though still substantially over the WHO’s recommendation.
• The Clean Air Zone, originally planned for January 2020, has still not been implemented.
• Traffic levels remain lower than pre-Covid in many areas though back to pre-Covid levels on some of the main commuter routes.

Newcastle City Centre

In the city centre, Strawberry Place next to St James’ Park was the most polluted with a Nitrogen Dioxide (NO₂) reading of 54.1μg/m³, substantially above both the 40μg/m³ legal maximum for the UK and the WHO recommendation.

City Centre Air Quality Management Area (AQMA)

These are the city centre locations where air pollution exceeded the legal limit in 2021

• 54.1μg/m³, DT25 (Strawberry Place between St James Park and Nine Bar)
• 50.8μg/m³, DT29/DT30/DT31 (triplicate co-location site, Percy Street)
• 48.7μg/m³, DT12 (8 Mosley Street)
• 45.4μg/m³, DT20 (Newgate Street/Grainger Street)
• 45.4μg/m³, DT65 (Blackett Street, Old Eldon Square)
• 44.2μg/m³, DT5 (St. Mary’s Place/John Dobson Street)
• 42.1μg/m³, DT13 (Neville Street/Westgate Road)
• 41.2μg/m³, DT7 (Blackett Street/Northumberland Street)

In 2019 (pre-Covid), Blackett Street was the most polluted location in the city centre with a measurement of 71μg/m³. Also higher in 2019 were Central Station (69μg/m³), Haymarket (66μg/m³) and Grainger Street (65μg/m³).

Air pollution on Blackett Street in 2021, including from buses, was measured at 45μg/m3.

Reduced levels of pollution in the city centre could be due less traffic, possibly also due to bus companies investing in cleaner vehicles ahead of the Clean Air Zone. For examples, Go North East launched two all-electric bus routes in November 2020, with support from the Government’s Ultra-Low Emission Bus Fund.

Crowds and cars on Strawberry Place on the day of the NUFC takeover announcement.

One big question is why through-traffic is still allowed through the city centre adding to the pollution, when the Council’s Urban Core Plan (adopted in 2015) said “Policies will direct traffic which does not need to travel into the Urban Core onto major routes around the edge of the Urban Core.” Google Maps, for example, still shows the quickest driving routes from Redheugh Bridge to Blue House roundabout are directly through the city centre via Percy Street or via Newcastle Central Station.

Google Maps showing driving routes from Redheugh Bridge to Blue House roundabout.

PM2.5, very small particulate matter pollution, is also measured in the city centre at the Civic Centre. In 2021 the reading was 7.1μg/m³, which is less than the UK Legal limit 20μg/m³, but higher than WHO guidance that the annual average should be no more than 5μg/m³.

Plans for a cycle lane on Percy Street, long one of the most polluted streets in the city, were shelved in 2019 because the space would be needed by buses re-routed from Blackett Street. Now the Blackett Street plans have been put off is it time to look again at Percy Street?

Plans for a cycle lane on Percy street were shelved in 2019.

Central Motorway and Coast Road

The Council’s pollution plan analysis from 2019 was that air quality on The Coast Road would be compliant in 2021 and that no additional measures would be required. Clearly that hasn’t worked out as two locations were still above legal limits, one substantially so (almost 2.5 times the limits).

These are the central motorway and coast road locations where air pollution exceeded the legal limit in 2021

• 97.7μg/m³, DT81 (Stephenson Road, entrance to Jesmond Park West)
• 43.4μg/m³, DT80 (A167 AQ Mesh)
• 42.9μg/m³, DT79 (Tyne Bridge)
• 42.4μg/m³, DT84 (A1058 Coast Road, Wills Building)

Drivers and car passengers who use this route every day will be exposing themselves to significant levels of pollution, especially as pollution levels within vehicles are typically much higher than the air outside.

The Coast Road (46,000 vehicles a day in 2021) and Tyne Bridge (53,000 vehicles) are two of the busiest vehicle routes in the city. Achieving pollution limits without cutting vehicle volumes is going to prove very hard at these locations. For comparison, Gosforth High Street had 15,200 vehicles a day on average in 2021.

A1058 Corner House/ Stephenson Road, westbound, the earlier broken down white Audi A3 that was obstructing the exit for Heaton Road has now moved on.#Newcastle pic.twitter.com/2M1s0pwxj1

— North East Live Traffic (@NELiveTraffic) November 3, 2022

We often hear people saying we should add extra lanes or remove traffic lights to “let the traffic flow” but all that ever means is bigger queues and more pollution at the next junction, as it is not possible to completely eliminate junctions in a city.

Many cities across the world are now considering removing urban motorways including Glasgow where there is a campaign to replace the M8.

A167(M) Central Motorway, southbound delays and traffic building up under the Swan House roundabout with tail backs forming.#Newcastle pic.twitter.com/DsSOtXGZCl

— North East Live Traffic (@NELiveTraffic) November 2, 2022

Gosforth

In 2021, all Gosforth High Street monitors recorded pollution levels within legal limits, thoroughly debunking irresponsible scaremongering claims of “significantly more toxic fumes” due to the High Street Covid scheme. These were the second lowest readings since the Salters Road junction was remodelled in 2016.

Gosforth Air Quality Management Area (AQMA)

The four pollution measurements shown in Gosforth (all within UK legal limits) are:

• 37.4μg/m³, DT50 (84 Station Road)
• 34.6μg/m³, DT43 (53 High Street, Gosforth)
• 28.7μg/m³, DT44 (102 – 104 High Street, Gosforth)
• 32.9μg/m³, DT45 (201 Gosforth High St)

We noted in our We still love Gosforth High Street blog that if air pollution measurements in 2021 were less than the legal limit, the Council would be bound by the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 to “ensure that [pollution] levels are maintained below those limit values” in future.

The main reason for the lower pollution levels is likely to be because there was less traffic on Gosforth High Street in 2021. The new layout may have contributed to this.

The graph below shows that air pollution at the three High Street monitoring sites and average daily traffic measured just north of The Grove are clearly linked. Because of this, doing anything that increases vehicle capacity on Gosforth High Street would potentially be in violation of the Air Quality Regulations.

Air pollution and average daily traffic on Gosforth High Street

Average daily traffic in 2022, up to the end of September, is still less than 16,000 vehicles a day so pollution in 2022 is likely to be slightly higher but still be under the limit.

Whatever the actual cause of the reduction in air pollution, it is clear that less traffic means less pollution.

The Council have also confirmed the Covid road layout hasn’t had any significant impact on journey times for people driving.

An electric bus and cycle lane on Gosforth High Street. Picture taken September 2022.

Air pollution at Haddricks Mill, 37.4μg/m³ in 2021, is broadly unchanged from previous years. This isn’t a bad result given traffic levels were suppressed during the Killingworth Road closure, but it should be much lower.

In the Chronicle article below, the Council said they aimed to cut pollution by “reducing congestion [and] by better managing the flow of vehicles at junctions” like Haddricks Mill. There isn’t good evidence that this approach will work.  The Government’s own Air Quality Plan said about measures to optimise traffic flow that “there is considerable uncertainty on the real world impacts of such actions.“

Fears pollution levels will be dangerously high again at controversial Killingworth Roadhttps://t.co/eAJBUIAUOb

— The Chronicle (@ChronicleLive) June 4, 2019

Denton Burn

Like Gosforth, all the readings west of the city were also within legal limits, although Cowgate roundabout was very close to the limit.

Now the A1 Scotswood to North Brunton road widening has been completed (10 October 20222) roads leading to and from the A1 are likely to get busier as traffic increases due to induced demand from the additional capacity on the A1.

Denton Burn air pollution readings

The Clean Air Zone

The Clean Air Zone (CAZ) is now due to come into force from January 2023, so it is possible that two years from now we might finally have some good news – eighteen years after UK Air Quality Limits should have been met in Newcastle!

This Government’s Air Quality Technical Guidance states that charging the most polluting vehicles is one of the most effective ways to reduce pollution, so the CAZ is likely to be effective to cut pollution in the city centre.

Cleaner buses, taxis, vans and HGVs will also benefit roads outside the city centre, but we don’t know whether that will be sufficient for air quality, for example on Central Motorway or The Coast Road.

The table below shows the split of traffic on The Coast Road, St James’ Boulevard, Tyne Bridge and Gosforth High Street. As it shows, Gosforth High Street has the highest proportion of buses, HGVs and heavy vans so is likely to gain the most. Coast Road traffic is only 3-4% buses, HGVs or heavy vans so may not benefit as much.

* “cars” includes taxis and light vans. 

We hope the Council will be able to release air pollution monitoring data sooner in future, so that we can find out quickly what impact the CAZ has had.

SPACE for Gosforth has previously summarised official air pollution measurements for 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017 and 2016.

The post Air Quality Update 2021 appeared first on SPACE for Gosforth.

It should be no surprise to anybody that air quality temporarily improved in 2020. In March 2020, the Guardian reported that that the Coronavirus pandemic had led to a huge drop in air pollution right around the world. Newcastle was no different.

The graph below, from the urban observatory, shows that traffic in Newcastle dipped to 40% of normal levels in March 2020 before slowly increasing again as restrictions were lifted. 40% of current traffic levels is what a child in the 1970s would have experienced when growing up. In 1974 traffic levels were about 40% of what they were in 2019. By May this had increased to 50% (~1983 traffic levels), by June it was 60% (~1987) and in July and August at about 80% (~1998).

Traffic volumes in Newcastle March 2020 – May 2021

Across Newcastle, this led to some of the lowest ever pollution readings ever recorded with only two locations in Newcastle at or exceeding the UK legal limit of 40μg/m³ in 2020.

Gosforth

In Gosforth, the highest annual average reading in 2020 was 28μg/m³, about half the level recorded in 2019.

Newcastle City Centre

In the City Centre, only Percy Street next to Haymarket bus station was at the UK legal limit (39.5μg/m³ before rounding up). St Mary’s Place, Strawberry Place and Blackett Street were all very close to the limit.

Denton Burn

Denton Burn, west of Newcastle, showed a similar reduction to Gosforth. In 2019, the reading at Cowgate roundabout was 51μg/m³.

The Coast Road and Byker

In 2020, the highest recorded level of air pollution was the same as 2019, at the entrance to Jesmond Park West near People’s Theatre. This was 57μg/m³ compared to 93μg/m³ in 2019. Only the monthly reading for April 2020 was under the annual limit, and that was still 36μg/m³.

In 2019 we said “Newcastle and North Tyneside Councils need to urgently consider measures to address air pollution on The Coast Road as a CAZ [Clean Air Zone] by itself is unlikely to reduce air pollution levels.” To date, no additional proposals have been announced for The Coast Road.

Temporary Respite

Almost certainly these reductions will be short-lived. The Chronicle reported in September 2020 that “Experts warn Newcastle traffic and air pollution ‘back to pre-Covid levels’ – and could get worse“. Monitoring from the Urban Observatory suggests that traffic levels in 2021 are back at the level they were before Covid.

More recently, the World Health Organisation (WHO) cut its recommended maximum pollution levels from 40μg/m³ to 10μg/m³. Virtually nowhere in Newcastle currently meets this target.

The WHO also revised its guidance for PM2.5, very small particulate matter pollution, from 10μg/m³ to 5μg/m³. In Newcastle this is only measured outside the Civic Centre. The 2020 reading was 5.5μg/m³.

The Guardian reported in the same article that “Scientists stressed that even the new [WHO] limits should not be considered safe, as there appears to be no level at which pollutants stop causing damage. They said reducing pollution would boost health even in nations with relatively clean air” and that “A 2019 review concluded that air pollution may be damaging every organ in the body, causing heart and lung disease, diabetes and dementia and reducing intelligence.”

A recent report from Imperial College has also concluded that “Exposure to air pollution before the pandemic increased the risk of hospital admissions if a person became infected with COVID-19.”

The current expected launch date for Newcastle’s Clean Air Zone is now July 2022.

SPACE for Gosforth has previously summarised results for 2019, 2018, 2017 and 2016.

The post Air Quality Update 2020 appeared first on SPACE for Gosforth.

Grey skies on Gosforth High Street, May 2019

Air quality in Newcastle and Gosforth remains poor and, despite a 2018 court order requiring government to ensure legal limits are met as soon as possible, the Government has still not confirmed that Newcastle can implement its Air Pollution Plan to rid Newcastle of illegal air pollution. Since 2010, when current regulations took effect, thousands of people have died and many more made ill because of the failure to address air pollution in Newcastle.

This blog summarises the official NO₂ air pollution measurements for the calendar year 2019, which were published in October 2020.

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO₂) air pollution is easy to miss. It’s invisible and odourless but kills 360 people a year in Newcastle, Gateshead and North Tyneside and makes many more ill from asthma and other heart and lung conditions. Health effects are worse in the young and old, with people who drive for a living including bus and taxi drivers most likely to be at risk from higher exposure. In July, the Guardian reported that “there is also “compelling” evidence that air pollution significantly increases coronavirus infections, hospital admissions and deaths.”

Key points

• At most measured locations NO₂ air pollution in 2019 was worse than in 2018.
• The most significant source of this pollution continues to be emissions from road traffic.
• New monitoring has revealed further illegal levels of air pollution on the West Road and on Ponteland Road, west of the city centre.
• The worst reading in 2019 was 93 micrograms per cubic metre (μg/m³) by People’s Theatre on The Coast Road at the exit from Jesmond Park West. This is over twice the annual legal limit of 40μg/m³.
• The worst reading on Gosforth High Street in 2019 was 50μg/m³, which is higher than 2018 (44μg/m³) but less than 2017 (59μg/m³) or 2016 (51μg/m³).
• Newcastle City Council did not introduce any new measures in 2019 to improve air quality.
• No change to traffic levels on Gosforth High Street, but traffic levels across Newcastle and the North East as a whole increased in 2019.
• New readings suggest a substantial amount of ‘optimism bias‘ in the air quality model the Council is using to justify its plan to meet legal limits for air quality.

Air Pollution in Gosforth

Air pollution on Gosforth High Street remains over the annual legal limit of 40μg/m³ with the worst reading, as in previous years, at the end of Woodbine Road by Jan Forster estate agent.

No changes were made to Gosforth High Street during 2019 but changes were made to Killingworth Road, which provides an alternative driving route into Newcastle city centre for people living in north of the city. In 2017 Killingworth Road was closed for roadworks but, as we have shown previously, this didn’t lead to additional traffic on the Great North Road.

On that basis we wouldn’t expect any substantial reduction in traffic once Killingworth Road opened again to two-way traffic at the end of July 2019.

Many people have argued, incorrectly, that main-road vehicle traffic should be allowed to use local bridges, which are all on minor roads, to “relieve congestion” and “reduce pollution” on main roads. If that worked then we should have seen a reduction in traffic on Gosforth High Street and improved air quality after July 2019 when Killingworth Road re-opened, but vehicle volumes after July were little different from 2018 and pollution levels were no better. 

Air pollution in Gosforth, 2019

The 2019 measurements were all taken before the impact of Covid-19, and before changes were introduced to Gosforth High Street to support social distancing in August 2020. We have also looked at air quality in September 2020 compared to the previous two Septembers using Urban Observatory monitors to see if predictions (and claimed observations) of heightened levels of pollution due to the new changes were justified. Based on these measurements, air quality in September 2020 was generally better than in previous years, so it is not true to say pollution is worse than before. 

Urban Observatory Air Pollution averages for September 2018, 2019 and 2020. Higher values = more pollution.

Inevitably, unless the Council takes action to constrain traffic growth and emissions, traffic levels will increase again and the lower levels of pollution we experienced over the summer of 2020 will be short-lived.

In our blog Air Quality – What Works? we summarised the measures that have been shown to be effective in reducing air pollution. We used these to create a set of proposals for Gosforth as part of our response to the Newcastle City Council air quality proposal. All but two of these proposals could have been implemented prior to February 2020 so would not have been impacted by delays due to Covid-19.

Air Pollution in Newcastle City Centre

In Newcastle city centre, the Orchard Street taxi rank next to Central Station, had the worst pollution reading in 2018 of 95.6μg/m³. In 2019, this location was not monitored but a nearby monitor on Neville Street recorded 69μg/m³, the second worst reading in the city centre after Old Eldon Square on Blackett Street. In July it was reported that “Orchard Street tunnel would be pedestrianised under the station redesign plans.” 

Air quality in Newcastle City Centre

In January 2020, the Council also consulted on changes to pedestrianise Blackett Street, which would lead to much improved air quality at this busy city centre location. You can see the SPACE for Gosforth response to this consultation here. This in itself would not address wider air quality issues in the city centre though. 

The plan that should address those wider issues was to create a city centre Charging Clean Air Zone (CAZ) where drivers/operators of buses, taxis and HGVs that do not meet modern emissions standards would be required to pay a fee every day they enter the CAZ. CAZ have been described by the Government as one of the most effective ways of addressing air pollution. The proposed CAZ should help address poor air quality where buses and taxis are a high proportion of overall traffic levels as on Blackett Street and by the Central Station taxi rank. 

The Council have recently confirmed that this plan will not be implemented in January 2021 as originally intended but will be delayed to later in the year. Given current restrictions due to Covid-19 and government funding for public transport totalling over £700m so far in 2020, it is likely that the Government will need to provide further subsidy for engine upgrades if bus companies are to invest in cleaner engines.

We know that Go North East are investing in lower emission Euro 6 diesel engines and are trialling electric buses, but haven’t yet seen any plans from Stagecoach or Arriva North East who operate routes through Gosforth High Street.  

Tolls of up to £50 per day for some high-polluting to drive into Newcastle will NOT be introduced in Januaryhttps://t.co/kVO9zE1SPW

— The Chronicle (@ChronicleLive) October 22, 2020

The Council have also confirmed that plans to address air pollution on the Central Motorway by reducing the number of general traffic lanes on The Tyne Bridge have also been delayed. 

Air pollution at the south end of the Tyne Bridge was measured to be 42μg/m³ in 2019 by Gateshead Council.

Air Pollution on The Coast Road

As we said in our 2018 update, the Council’s pollution plan analysis predicted that air quality on The Coast Road would be compliant in 2021 and that no additional measures were required.

In 2019, no additional measures were implemented but rather than decreasing, pollution levels at the entrance to Jesmond Park West near People’s Theatre increased from 84μg/m³ to 93μg/m³, the worst recorded level of pollution in all of Newcastle and no doubt also the North East as a whole.

Newcastle and North Tyneside Councils need to urgently consider measures to address air pollution on The Coast Road as a CAZ by itself is unlikely to reduce air pollution levels from 93μg/m³ to 40μg/m³.

Air quality along The Coast Road and Byker

North Tyneside Council had not published its 2019 air pollution measurements at the time of writing.

Small increases in air pollution linked to rise in depression, finds study https://t.co/GBL9xyNuv2

— Guardian Environment (@guardianeco) October 24, 2020

Air Pollution in Newcastle’s West End

For the first time in 2019, Newcastle recorded measurements of air pollution at Cowgate roundabout, Ponteland Road and on the West Road. Air pollution exceeded legal limits at all three locations.

Highways England have previously confirmed to us their belief that their £139m to £184m scheme to add an additional traffic lane between Scotswood and North Brunton would resolve known air quality issues on the A1 Western Bypass, although the scheme’s Notice of Determination suggests Highways England believe an environmental impact is not necessary.

It will most likely though lead to higher levels of traffic using both Ponteland Road and West Road which, unless other measures are adopted, could make pollution levels at both locations even worse. This could be made worse still on Ponteland Road if Newcastle City Council implements its plans to ‘upgrade’ junctions that will encourage even more traffic.

Air quality in the West End of Newcastle

New Challenges

These results, for the West End and the city as a whole create a number of challenges for Newcastle City Council. 

1. A need to reassess its air quality model to remove optimism bias – as evidenced by the model prediction that air quality limits would be met by 2021 on The Coast Road even without any further intervention.
2. The need for additional measures for The Coast Road, Gosforth High Street and the West End where the CAZ by itself is unlikely to be sufficient and air pollution is unlikely to meet legal limits in 2021 without any further intervention. 
3. The need for additional funding and resources to implement these measures in the shortest possible timescales, as required by the UK High Court.
4. How to counter-act the negative environmental (and road safety) impacts of the A1 changes on local roads leading to it. 

Measurements are taken from official monitoring by Newcastle, Gateshead and North Tyneside Councils. Not all measurements are shown.

SPACE for Gosforth has previously summarised results for 2018, 2017 and 2016.

Road traffic statistics for Newcastle and the North East can be found here. These show that total miles driven in 2019 was 1,209 million miles, an increase from 1,174.6 million miles in 2018. In 2008, when Newcastle’s Air Quality Management Areas were established, it was 1084.7 million miles. Research has shown that greenhouse gas emissions are correlated with vehicle miles driven so this increase also poses a challenge for Newcastle City Council’s net zero climate plan. The same research showed no correlation between green house gas emissions and congestion.

Air Quality Monitoring Links

• Newcastle 2020 Air Quality Report
• Gateshead 2020 Air Quality Report
• North Tyneside 2020 Air Quality Report
• Newcastle Urban Observatory

For anyone interested in details of how deaths from air pollution are estimated in the UK, the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication has produced a guide.

A frequently used figure comes from a Royal College of Physicians report that concluded “Each year in the UK, around 40,000 deaths are attributable to exposure to outdoor air pollution which plays a role in many of the major health challenges of our day. It has been linked to cancer, asthma, stroke and heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and changes linked to dementia. The health problems resulting from exposure to air pollution have a high cost to people who suffer from illness and premature death, to our health services and to business. In the UK, these costs add up to more than £20 billion every year.”

A more recent report by the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) gives a similar high figure saying “the range of estimates of the annual mortality burden of human-made air pollution in the UK is estimated as an effect equivalent to 28,000 to 36,000 deaths.”

The post Air Quality Update 2019 appeared first on SPACE for Gosforth.

Newcastle’s Grey Street: “One of the country’s most beautiful car parks”

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO₂) air pollution is easy to miss. It’s invisible and odourless but kills 360 people a year in Newcastle, Gateshead and North Tyneside and makes many more ill from asthma and other heart and lung conditions.

This blog summarises the official NO₂ air pollution measurements for the calendar year 2018, which were published in October 2019.

Key points

• In 2018, illegal levels of air pollution were recorded in Newcastle, Gateshead and in North Tyneside.
• In 2017 the worst reading across all three local authorities was 59μg/m³ (micrograms per cubic metre). In 2018, sIx locations in Newcastle had even higher measurements.
• The worst location for air pollution in 2018 was at the Orchard Street taxi rank by Central Station, with a reading of 96μg/m³. We believe this is the worst NO₂ air pollution measurement ever recorded in Newcastle.
• Air pollution on Gosforth High Street has improved but still does not meet legal limits.
• Despite the ongoing illegal levels of air pollution, Newcastle City Council did not introduce any new measures in 2018 to improve air quality.

Air Pollution in Gosforth

In 2017, the worst pollution measurement for NO₂ was 59μg/m³ at the north end of Gosforth High Street. In 2018 pollution levels at the north end of Gosforth High Street have substantially improved to 44μg/m³ although this is still over the annual legal maximum of 40μg/m³.

In a previous blog we showed that pollution levels in 2016 and 2017 were strongly correlated to traffic volumes, however this doesn’t appear to be the case for Gosforth High Street in 2018. The only change we are aware of that may have contributed to this improvement is the introduction of newer buses in late 2017.

Previously two measurements had been taken by Haddricks Mill roundabout. In 2018, when Killingworth Road was closed for the full year, no measurements were taken on Killingworth Road. Almost certainly, because of the lack of traffic, the air quality there would have been well within the limits.

Air quality on Station Road improved as well and was 36μg/m³ in 2018.  In 2016, the last full calendar year in which Killingworth Road was open, it was 42μg/m³. Potentially in 2020, now Killingworth Road has reopened, it will return to its previous higher level.

Although not shown on the map, the North Tyneside measurement by the Four Lane Ends traffic lights also improved from 35μg/m³ in 2017 to 24μg/m³ in 2018. We have seen some people suggest that air pollution has been worse in Longbenton due to the ongoing Killingworth Road roadworks, but this is not reflected in the official measurements.

Air Pollution in Newcastle City Centre

While most monitors in the city centre showed lower readings, at some locations there were substantial increases in measured air pollution.The biggest increases were:

• Market Street [Location code DT8] 50 to 66μg/m³ 
• Newgate Street / Grainger Street [DT20] 42 to 54μg/m³ 
• Strawberry Place [DT25] 45 to 56μg/m³
• Blackett Street/Northumberland Street [DT7] 49 to 55μg/m³
• Pilgrim Street [DT13] 53 to 58μg/m³ 

Strawberry Place was added into the proposed Clean Air Zone in the most recent Council consultation.  It is also the subject of a recent planning application for high rise offices and apartments that could create a “street canyon” potentially making air pollution levels even worse in future.

These still weren’t the highest readings in the city centre though, with the highest three readings coming from new monitors.

The worst pollution in Newcastle city centre in 2018

1. Orchard Street Taxi Rank [DT74] 96μg/m³
2. Orchard Street Taxi Rank [DT75] 79μg/m³
3. Old Eldon Square [DT65] 71μg/m³
4. Market Street [DT8] 66μg/m³
5. Mosley Street [DT12] 62μg/m³

These locations suggest the Council are right to tackle air pollution from buses and taxis, as buses and taxis make up a large proportion of traffic at all these locations. According to the Council’s report, locations with an annual measurement over 60μg/m³ are also considered to be at risk of exceeding the legal hourly maximum of 200μg/m³.

These figures also suggest that city centre taxi and bus drivers could be amongst the most at risk from ill heath due to air pollution. In the SPACE for Gosforth response to the Council’s consultation we proposed a measure [our ref D08] to “Implement a program of air quality monitoring covering the insides of taxis and buses operating in the city centre. [and] Consider providing additional health advice for bus and taxi drivers.”

Drivers are exposed to the highest levels of harmful air pollution. And there’s evidence that traffic-related air pollution causes greater adverse health effects compared to other sources. https://t.co/wpwVDgRIit

— The Conversation (@ConversationUK) October 1, 2019

We also suggested that the Council “Remove through traffic from the Urban Core as per Council Policy UC9, with exemptions for buses” [Reference B08]. In many cities traffic crossing the city centre uses a ring road and it would not be unreasonable for the same to happen in Newcastle, leaving the city centre streets clearer for buses and vehicles accessing city centre destinations.

The Council has talked about removing parking from Grey Street (Cars could be banned from Newcastle’s Grey Street), which was also our proposal B03, although our suggested deadline for that to be implemented has already been missed.

Air Pollution on The Coast Road

The second highest pollution measurement in 2018, at 84μg/m³, was on The Coast Road at the entrance to Jesmond Park West near The People’s Theatre. The Council’s pollution plan analysis  is that air quality on The Coast Road will be compliant in 2021 and that no additional measures are required. We believe the modelling has come to this conclusion as a result of an assumption that more people will be buying petrol vehicles in future compared to diesels. We also believe this modelling will not have taken into account the high readings by Jesmond Park West as pollution at this location was only measured for the first time in 2018.

Will the Council’s Pollution Plan be effective?

The Council’s plan is based on a model of traffic flows that forecasts pollution levels. In the air quality modelling report that supports the final plan it gives forecast measurements at a range of locations across Newcastle, North Tyneside and Gateshead.

This is something we hope to look at further in future, but comparing modelled and actual pollution measurements on the Central Motorway suggests actual pollution is still quite a bit higher than forecast. We hope the Council will continue to monitor actual pollution levels to see how this varies from its forecasts and will update its plan accordingly.

Measurements are taken from official monitoring by Newcastle, Gateshead and North Tyneside Councils. Not all measurements are shown.

SPACE for Gosforth has previously summarised results for 2017 and 2016.

The post Pollution 2018 appeared first on SPACE for Gosforth.

As we have said many times before, this plan must by law (a) achieve air quality limits in the shortest possible timescales; (b) reduce exposure as quickly as possible; and (c) ensure compliance is likely rather than just possible.

In this blog we describe the Council’s final (watered-down) plan and why we think it unlikely that these legal tests will be met in full without further measures in addition to those proposed.

Take part in the consultation – until Monday 25 November

The Council particularly wants to hear from bus and taxi companies and businesses that operate within the zone. These are the people and businesses that are both most affected by the charge and most at risk from poor health due to air pollution. As a recent study confirmed, drivers are exposed to the highest levels of harmful air pollution – and taxi drivers are most at risk.

1. What is the Council’s proposed Final Plan?

The main element of the plan is a Charging Clean Air Zone – Class C (CAZ C). This means that any older more polluting lorries, buses, coaches, taxis or vans will have to pay a clean air charge to enter the zone. Private cars, which would be charged in a CAZ D, are not required to pay in a CAZ C.

The zone for the CAZ C is shown in the diagram below. One change has been made from the Low Emission Zone previously consulted on, to expand the zone to include St James park and Strawberry Place.  In 2017 illegal levels of air pollution were recorded on Strawberry Place so the new boundary should help reduce pollution here.

In March, the Council’s modelling suggested that neither a CAZ C nor a CAZ D would be sufficient to meet air quality limits. In its more recent modelling, the Council has revised the model inputs to reduce the number of diesel cars compared to petrol cars. This has the effect of reducing the forecast pollution levels as petrol cars emit less nitrogen dioxide than diesels. The Council states this is to reflect a national trend for people buying new cars to buy petrol rather than diesel.

Further changes are planned on the Tyne Bridge and Central Motorway. On the Tyne Bridge the plan is to reduce traffic (and pollution) by only having one general traffic lane in each direction plus a north-bound bus lane. On the Central Motorway it will no longer be possible to merge from the New Bridge Street junction onto the A167 (M) southbound. Anyone travelling south-bound wanting to drive via Swan House roundabout will have to exit at the New Bridge Street junction.

The changes to the Tyne Bridge and Central Motorway replace the previous proposal for tolls on the Tyne bridges.

In addition to the measures to improve air quality, there are also mitigations planned, though these will depend on government funding. These include grants to upgrade vehicles that would be charged if entering the zone, and bus lanes to make journeys by bus quicker and more reliable and offset additional costs due to the charging zone. The Council previous said they were considering Red Routes again although this isn’t mentioned in the consultation.

Further details, including the other options considered, are available on the consultation website and in the report presented to Newcastle City Council Cabinet. Our assessment of the final proposal is below.

2. Has it been established beyond reasonable doubt that the proposed measures will be effective to meet limits in the shortest possible timescales?

This is an important question as the High Court ruled specifically that plans must be likely to achieve air quality limits. This ruling may feel like an obvious point but Newcastle and Gosforth Air Quality Management Areas have had plans since 2010 but air pollution is still substantially worse than the legal limit in both areas because those plans were not effective.

The Council’s plan sets 2021 as the first full year in which limits will be met. If the final plan had been completed on time by December 2018 then potentially compliance could have been brought forward to 2020, but almost certainly it is too late for that now.

In our blog Air Quality – What Works? we reviewed the evidence. Clean Air Zones are generally effective at reducing pollution from the vehicles covered by the CAZ, as are restrictions in traffic volumes such as the lane restrictions proposed on the Tyne Bridge. The CAZ C will also help ensure that buses that have been upgraded stay in Tyneside rather than being moved to other cities as has happened in the past. Council modelling suggests that a CAZ C will be sufficient to meet limits in 2021.

Having a single lane in each direction on the Tyne Bridge will result in longer queues at peak times, but this should reduce pollution where limits are currently not met as there will only be two lanes of traffic rather than four. Based on evidence from elsewhere, not least the Killingworth Road closure, it is also likely that overall traffic levels will reduce as a result.

The Council consultation asks about grace periods for certain types of vehicle. These need to be kept to an absolute minimum so they do not delay meeting limits. Grants to upgrade engines should, on the other hand, speed up the removal of older dirtier engines and, for buses, offset the potential cost of CAZ charges.

There is no independent evidence to support the use of Traffic Management measures such as proposed changes to the Central Motorway or the use of Red Routes. If these changes increase road capacity or encourage more traffic then they could result in more pollution.

3. Will the plan ensure that limits are met in all parts of the City?

The plan is likely to be effective in parts of the city centre where the majority of traffic is buses or taxis.

There are no obvious measures in the plan that would address pollution on the Coast Road or City Road where buses and taxis make up only a small proportion of the traffic. Likewise, we feel it unlikely that the plan will sufficiently address pollution on Gosforth High Street or at Haddricks Mill.

NO₂ at Corner House yesterday (17-10-2019)

24h Average: 77.76 µg/m³

7 Day Average: 84.00 µg/m³ pic.twitter.com/xM7IiVr02R

— Heaton, Corner House, Air Quality (@AirHeaton) October 18, 2019

@AirHeaton: Air Pollution on The Coast Road is consistently worse than the legal limit

We understand that the Councils’ modelling says that limits will now be met at these locations in 2021 because more people will be buying petrol rather than diesel cars. Even if cars are overall producing less nitrogen dioxide though, total pollution could still increase if there are more cars. It was recently reported in the Guardian that emissions had increased since 1990 for exactly this reason despite engines becoming far more efficient and less polluting. Previous assumptions about engine emissions were also proved wrong when it was discovered car manufacturers were installing ‘defeat devices‘ to cheat emissions tests.

At Haddricks Mill we believe counter-measures will be required as the proposed new junction there aims to increase traffic levels, which will add to traffic and air pollution in the surrounding area as well as increased carbon emissions. As we have set out previously the design of the proposed shared foot and cycle ways at Haddricks Mill is also unlikely to encourage many more people to walk or cycle, and there is no additional bus priority planned other than on Killingworth Road.

Even in the city centre, the lack of any restrictions on non-stopping through traffic means the plan is less likely to be effective and will not meet the legal requirement to reduce exposure as quickly as possible. Ghent in Belgium achieved a 20% improvement in air quality by restricting through traffic without any charging. Such an approach could be implemented quickly in Newcastle upon Tyne.

The continued promotion of free parking through Alive After 5 also presents a risk to achieving limits, and may mean that clean air charges for buses, taxis and vans need to be higher to compensate. It is hard to see how retaining this subsidy is consistent with the Council’s secondary objective of a fairer society, especially as bus passengers may face increased costs due to the CAZ C charge.

4. Is the modelling robust and are assumptions justifiable?

The Council needs to address transparently why in its March consultation it stated that neither a CAZ C nor a CAZ D would achieve air quality limits, whereas now it is stating that a CAZ C will be sufficient.

Although it is clear there is a trend nationally away from buying new diesel vehicles, the way this has been applied to the Council’s model could be seen as being suspect, especially since the High Court has ruled that plans must ensure compliance is likely rather than just possible.

More important is what happens to the older diesel vehicles. Potentially this means a glut of older more polluting diesels in the second hand market that could end up in Newcastle because in Newcastle there is currently no plan to restrict these vehicles.

Even if people are buying fewer new diesel cars the total number of diesel cars on the road in the UK is still increasing. This is especially important given the Council has demonstrated cars in Newcastle are on average older and more polluting than the national average.

#AirPollution – There are now 51 million dirty diesel cars on EU roads! Our new analysis shows an increase by 18% over the past 12 months and a 74% rise since 2016. This scandal must stop! https://t.co/kiPZFUVzlI #Dieselgate pic.twitter.com/7SwM1rVYuV

— Transport & Environment (@transenv) September 18, 2019

DEFRA has produced its own predictions for citywide average nitrogen dioxide levels that, if the assumption about cleaner engines was correct, you would expect would be reducing. Instead DEFRA’s figures suggest that citywide average pollution in 2019 will be worse than 2018 and 2017. These figures were published in the September 2019 Cabinet Report, the same meeting where the new Newcastle pollution plans were approved.

The Strategic Case produced in March also said that buses were assumed to have been upgraded (1.9.2) and taxis were modelled as being 100% compliant (1.8.19). This suggests the outputs of the March model were, if anything, likely to be optimistic. The new assumption potentially means even more optimism bias in the model and even without this issue the model is only likely to be accurate +-25%. A target level much lower than the legal limit is needed to ensure that compliance is likely to be achieved.

The one thing the Council must do therefore is to monitor air pollution levels in the run up to 2021 to check and confirm that air quality is improving in line with its predictions. If they are not then additional measures should be put in place for the start of 2021, rather than waiting for 2022 or even 2023 and delaying compliance with limits.

5. Will the Council meet its secondary objectives?

To meet the Council’s secondary objectives relating to health, economy and a fair society we would expect that

1. the Council targets pollution levels below that set in law;
2. that a principle of ‘polluter pays’ has been applied consistently across all types of vehicle; and
3. there would be a very strong focus in the plan on walking and cycling (active travel), as being low cost, non-polluting, widely accessible, effective in supporting the local economy and very beneficial for people’s health.

In the context of transport, improving public health can be best achieved by (a) targeting a lower level of air pollution than set by law and (b) by encouraging more active travel. Economic growth can be best achieved by allowing people to reduce the cost of how they travel e.g. by walking or cycling more, and by prioritising travel modes (walking, cycling and buses) that enable more people to travel in the limited space available in the city. A transport network that prioritises people rather than vehicles, and applies the ‘polluter pays’ principle would also result in a fairer society.

Choosing to use a CAZ C rather than a CAZ D could be seen as undermining the Council’s own objectives as well as making the plan overall less effective. In the Strategic Case (1.4.29) the Council stated that there was “evidence illustrating that in most cases it is private cars that are causing more pollution.” It also feels likely that the issues identified by the Council that led it to reject a CAZ D could be mitigated by setting a charge in the region of £1-£5 for cars rather than £12.50 per day.

The Council’s model outputs, that a CAZ C would mean fewer green house gas emissions compared to a CAZ D, potentially suggests some sort of problem either with the modelling or with the scenarios modelled. In the CAZ D model outputs the Council reported significant rerouting of traffic whereas in practice this is rarely as bad as predicted because of a phenomena called disappearing traffic. While it is perhaps too late to rectify this for the air pollution plan, the Council will need to look at this more closely in the context of its separate commitments on Climate Change.

Improvements for walking and cycling could also be achieved quickly and cheaply by restricting through traffic in residential areas, especially in Gosforth where pollution levels are high and where, unlike other areas of the city, residential streets are still used as if they are main routes for through traffic. Likewise, changes could be made quickly to local destinations like Gosforth High Street using temporary bolt-down kerbs to create protected cycle facilities that enable a much wider range of people to cycle than are currently able. SPACE for Gosforth’s response to the March consultation contained specific proposals to achieve this and reduce pollution in the Gosforth area.

6. Conclusion

Our conclusions from looking at the Council’s plan are as follows.

1. That the Council’s plans will reduce pollution levels but with a significant risk that pollution will still be at illegal levels in 2021, even with the CAZ C.
2. The Council needs to expedite the measures it has proposed but in parallel continue to model other options, for example closing through routes in the city centre.
3. The Council should actively monitor pollution measurements over 2020 to determine if air pollution is reducing in line with its forecasts, and if not the Council should introduce further measures to ensure compliance in 2021.
4. We do not believe the Council plan reduces exposure as quickly as possible because none of the main measures will be implemented before 2021. The SPACE for Gosforth response set out a range of measures that could all be implemented before then and which would be effective in reducing air pollution prior to 2021.
5. The Council could achieve its secondary objectives of health, economy and a fair society if the plan included measures to enable and encourage more walking and cycling. The plan, as it stands, does not do that. The Council could, for example, implement low traffic neighbourhoods, which are proven to increase walking and cycling, very quickly and cheaply if it wished to do so.

Take part in the consultation – until Monday 25 November

Please do mention in Section 3 of the survey anything that would help you walk, cycle or take the bus more rather than driving, such as less traffic in residential areas.

Links to the SPACE for Gosforth Air Quality Consultation Response

Breathe – A review of the Council’s proposals
Breathe – In the City – SPACE for Gosforth proposals for the City Centre AQMA
Breathe – In Gosforth – SPACE for Gosforth proposals for Gosforth AQMA
Breathe – Implementation – SPACE for Gosforth proposals for how to Implement the Air Quality Plan.
Air Quality – What Works? – SPACE for Gosforth review of what measures have been shown to be effective in tackling air pollution.

The post Newcastle’s final air pollution plan has been watered down with no measures planned until 2021 appeared first on SPACE for Gosforth.

This is the second of four SPACE for Gosforth blogs that together make up our response to the Council’s Clean Air consultation.

Our first blog set out our review of the Council’s proposed measures including a charging clean air zone and an alternative approach made up of a lower emission zone where non-compliant vehicles are banned and there are tolls on the city centre bridge.

In this blog we propose measures for the city as a whole and specifically for the City Centre Air Quality Management Area (AQMA).

The approach we have taken is to adapt the Council’s proposals with the aim of reducing exposure to pollution and achieving compliance with limits as quickly as possible. As we said in our review of the Council’s proposals, we do not believe the proposals as presented meet this legal requirement.

We have also prioritised, where possible, engineering measures rather than charging. These are similar to the city of Ghent’s circulation plan, which led to a 20% improvement in air quality and has also been shown to be beneficial for the city’s economy.

Other measures are based on our review of what works to reduce air pollution.

SPACE for Gosforth response to the Council’s Clean Air consultation: Part 2

Re: Achieving compliance with legal limits for nitrogen dioxide

In this response, SPACE for Gosforth has completed a comprehensive review of the Council’s proposals. We propose additional measures, using local knowledge and the best evidence available to us, to assist the Council in meeting its objectives. These measures include:

• A variant of the Council’s proposed LEZ and tolls
• A wider Clean Air Zone covering the area between the Metro line in the north and the Tyne
• Specific measures in the city centre and Gosforth to reduce traffic and enable alternatives
• Measures that can be implemented quickly to reduce exposure prior to the implementation of a CAZ or LEZ
• Suggestions for management of the implementation to make compliance by 2021 the most likely outcome

Where possible we have tried to avoid charging, but also recognise that measures not supported by some sort of restriction or financial incentive are unlikely to be effective.

We believe the SPACE for Gosforth proposals would be likely to achieve compliance by 2021, and would reduce exposure more quickly than the measures proposed by the Council.

SPACE for Gosforth proposals to meet air quality limits

The plans proposed by the Council have a number of issues that need addressing:

1. Not achieving compliance until 2023, where the requirement is to be compliant as soon as possible.
2. Issues relating to the CAZ / LEZ boundary including traffic diverted onto residential streets.
3. Optimism bias in the modelling, in particular in relation to bus, HGV and taxi compliance.
4. Potential adverse consequences as a result of the charge level required for a CAZ D to achieve air quality limits.
5. A risk, for the LEZ scenario, that measures will not meet limits or reduce exposure sufficiently quickly on Gosforth High Street and the Coast Road.
6. A risk that diverted traffic will increase pollution in areas bordering the CAZ / LEZ.
7. Issues with fairness, in that all diesel and petrol vehicles pollute but that the measures don’t reflect that or the level to which they pollute.
8. A lack of measures to reduce exposure quickly in advance of a CAZ or LEZ being implemented.

SPACE for Gosforth wishes to propose measures to address these issues, which we believe could achieve full compliance in 2021. On that basis, we don’t believe it would be lawful for the Council to propose a plan where compliance would only be achieved in 2022 or 2023.

For convenience, we have grouped these measures into those that affect the city as a whole (listed below), those affecting Newcastle City Centre (in section 6) and those affecting the Gosforth AQMA (in section 7). We have selected measures as far as possible based on our review of evidence for what types of measure will be effective (see Appendix B).

Many of the measures can be implemented very quickly to reduce exposure prior to the compliance date. In section 10 we have set out some proposals for implementation and monitoring. To save time we suggest, where possible, that measures are initially implemented on a temporary basis then adjusted as the actual impact becomes know, rather than relying on further time-consuming and potentially inaccurate modelling.

What we are unable to do, without having the resources available to us that the Council has, is to optimise the plan for cost to meet the Government’s value for money test. So, while we are reasonably confident of the overall effect, it might be possible to achieve the same outcomes for a lower cost.

Measures proposed citywide are as follows. Target dates are estimates based on what we have seen in other cities and are set to be challenging but achievable if the Council and Government do not introduce any further delays and work to implement measures starts as quickly as possible.

Citywide Measures and Target dates for completion

A01 Public information about and better enforcement of anti- idling laws. Share messages about air quality via variable message signs to encourage people to walk, cycle or take public transport. By 09/2019

A02 High frequency bus route branding introduced to be similar to the Metro as a way of attracting new people to use the bus. To apply to routes with 5 or 10 minute frequency.  By 11/2019

A03 Implement emissions-based charging for use of the Haymarket bus station in advance of A06 below. By 01/2020

A04 Implement a taxi exemption scheme that give registered taxis access to through routes in the city centre where drivers have given a commitment to no idling, have completed low-emission driving training and support air quality monitoring set out in measure D08. Such a scheme could also include commitments not to exceed speed limits, no pavement parking and cycle awareness training. By 01/2020

A05 Retrofit bus engines to be EURO VI compliant for all buses that pass through the CAZ B in A06 below. This will result in lower emissions per bus.
Our expectation is that this will only be achieved in the shortest possible timescales if Government commits funding. By 08/2020

A06 Implement a CAZ B for buses, coaches, HGVs and taxis with area bounded by The Tyne, the A1, the Metro line and the A19, and also including Garden Village. We believe this is likely to be sufficient alongside other measures proposed but if not the Council could consider making this a CAZ C or CAZ D. By 08/2020

A07 Implement toll charges on the Tyne Bridge, Redheugh Bridge and the Swing Bridge as per the Council’s proposal. Toll prices set to achieve compliance in first full calendar year. By 08/2020

A08 LEZ for buses, coaches, HGVs and taxis but covering the Urban Core (Newcastle city centre and Spital Tongues) rather than the Council’s proposal. By 12/2020

The CAZ B (measure A06) and LEZ (measure A08) areas are shown in Figure 3 below. These areas are defined in accordance with the good practice set out in the Government’s Air Quality Plan (Annex F).

Figure 3 – SPACE for Gosforth proposals for a CAZ B / LEZ

The CAZ B boundary is the smallest area that meets the Government’s criteria for boundaries and includes within it both the Gosforth and city centre AQMAs. Further measures to apply inside the LEZ are set out in section 6 including the removal of through traffic (other than buses and taxis) and the application of a 20mph speed limit.

As well as resolving issues relating to the boundary of the LEZ / CAZ this also mitigates the risk that areas outside the zone will see increased pollution and will help to achieve limits on Gosforth High Street, at Haddricks Mill and along the Coast Road.

The Council’s Strategic Case explains that the ‘Outer’ CAZ, which covered the same area as the CAZ B above plus North Gosforth, Forest Hall, Killingworth and part of Gateshead, was unlikely to lead to air quality compliance by itself. The Council does not explain which areas specifically remained above the limit in its modelling but our expectation is that the Tyne bridges and CME were likely to be the main locations because of the high traffic volumes. For that reason we believe bridge tolls will also be required.

In ClientEarth v Secretary of State for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Case No: CO/1508/2016), the Government’s QC explained that charges would be set at a level to ensure compliance. While we are unable to judge what that level should be we can propose a structure that might better reflect the impact on air quality of each vehicle using the bridges.

With this approach, vehicles would have to be registered with the Council’s payment system to receive any of the discounts. The example charges are set so that lower emission vehicles pay less, but also recognising that even electric vehicles are the source of some emissions through brake and tyre wear.

Different charges might apply for HGVs, buses and coaches. For taxis we suggest a small discount for taxis signed up to the exemption scheme described above. Given taxis pollute just as much if not more than a private vehicle we don’t see any reason for a complete exemption.

Additional measures for the City Centre AQMA

The measures set out above address a number of the sources of air pollution in the city centre. Specifically:

• Cleaner buses will help address air pollution in most city centre locations but especially around Percy Street, John Dobson Street, Market Street, New Bridge Street and Grainger Street.
• The bridge tolls will reduce traffic levels on the main roads around the city centre and may reduce traffic heading into the city. That might reappear though in the form of other traffic heading into the city from the north, west or east.
• Cleaner taxis will help, especially around Central Station.

That still leaves a number of locations, including Percy Street and the Central Station where the Council’s modelling said even a £12.50 daily charge on older private vehicles would not achieve air quality limits. Additional measures are therefore required for these locations.

Figure 4 sets out the main measures we are proposing including the introduction of a consistent 20mph speed limit everywhere within the urban core area (marked by the updated LEZ boundary), a 40mph limit on the Central Motorway, removing through-routes for private vehicles and specific abatement including at Haymarket and by Swan House roundabout.

To determine what approach to use, we have considered what types of traffic are present in each location and what priority should be placed on each. For Percy Street, for example, traffic will mainly be a mix of:

• Buses
• Service vehicles and deliveries to Eldon Square
• Private vehicles parking in Eldon Square and Eldon Gardens car park
• Click and collect traffic
• Taxis
• Private cars travelling through north-bound but not stopping
• Cycling

Air quality measures will not be effective if their effect only changes the mix of traffic rather than to reduce overall traffic levels. For example, if through traffic is stopped but is replaced by vehicles queuing to park, that might actually increase pollution levels overall.

We have also drawn out a basic cycle network structure as a starting point that can be built on when future funding becomes available. This is to ensure that cycling into the city is possible via traffic-free routes from all directions, and that it is possible to access destinations around the city once there. Additional routes to Science Central and the west of the city will also need to be provided.

Figure 4 – SPACE for Gosforth proposals for the City Centre AQMA

A large part of the traffic across the city centre is there to visit rather than to pass through. Asking non- stopping traffic to use the ring road instead (Council policy UC9) is not unreasonable and will help reduce traffic levels and pollution inside the ring road. It is also low cost, quick to implement and will reduce traffic queues and potentially create space for wider pavements or cycle facilities.

Measures also need to be considered for visiting traffic, so that it doesn’t grow to take the space vacated by through-traffic. This can be managed through the use of parking restrictions and fees. The right level for parking charges would have to be determined but this is something that can be monitored monthly with tweaks made at relatively short notice to ensure compliance with air quality limits.

Pricing on-street parking to encourage people to use the major car parks can reduce traffic circulating to look for on-street parking spaces. Best practice suggests that pricing should aim to have at least 20% of on- street spaces free at any given time so that people who need it can easily find a space to park.

More details of the SPACE for Gosforth proposals for the city centre are included in the table below. Most urgently we are asking the Council to revisit the Percy Street proposals that are designed to enable large volumes of through traffic, and where people cycling are expected to share the road with cars, buses and lorries.

B01 Pause and review Percy Street plans. Re-plan based on lower vehicle volumes and look for opportunities to improve facilities for active travel (walking and cycling). By 06/2019

B02 Monthly Clean Air Days – Blackett St in 2019 prior to full bus loop implementation (measure B10). By 08/2019

B03 Remove on-street parking on Grey Street. By 09/2019

B04 Ban the use of portable diesel generators within the City Centre AQMA. By 09/2019

B05 Increase parking charges at Eldon Square / Eldon Garden car parks, including Alive After 5, set to a level so there is no queuing and air quality limits are met. By 10/2019

B06 Any remaining on-street parking charges set to target 20% spaces being free at peak times, to reduce circulation looking for spaces. Fees should be higher than for off-street parking to encourage people to use main car parks. By 10/2019

B07 Install hedges to reduce exposure, especially at Haymarket, Central station, the Swan house roundabout and Coast Road. By 10/2019

B08 Remove through traffic from the Urban Core as per Council Policy UC9, with exemptions for buses. Suggested locations are marked on figure 4. By 01/2020

B09 Taxi exemptions from measure B08 for EURO VI compliant taxis that also commit to and comply with a new Taxi Driving quality standard described in measure A04. By 01/2020

B10 Implement the City Centre “bus loop” to remove all traffic from Blackett Street (except cycles). By 01/2020

B11 A new free-to-use city centre low/zero-emission shuttle bus connecting key locations but especially Central Station, Haymarket Bus Station and the RVI. By 01/2020

B12 Implement a taxi ban on Grainger Street. By01/2020

B13 All roads within the Urban Core set to 20mph. By 01/2020

B14 Lower the speed limit on the Central Motorway to 40mph. By 01/2020

B15 Cycling improvements especially to connect with the Tyne Bridge, Quayside and roads west of the city, and to improve access to Central Station. Initially, for speed of implementation, these can be completed with temporary ‘bolt-down’ kerbs to give protection from traffic. By 03/2020

These proposals should be positive for buses, taxis and cycling:

• For buses, less traffic should mean fewer delays in the city centre. Increased parking fees and the bridge tolls also make buses more attractive compared to private vehicles so should encourage greater use.
• Taxis also benefit from reduced traffic in the city centre. In section 6 we set out an idea for an ‘exemption scheme’ for taxis and would suggest that any taxis registered with this scheme would also be able to use new bus gates that enforce the new measures B08. The quid pro quo is that taxis would no longer be able to access Grainger Street in order to improve air quality there.
• Safer better-connected cycle routes will help access major destinations within the city. These will need to be linked to a good quality citywide network so people can make their whole journey in safety.
• People who wish to use private vehicles may in future have to pay a little more for the privilege but in return will get a better experience because it will be easier to find a parking space with shorter queues to enter car parks. The free city centre bus shuttles, similar to those implemented in Manchester, will mean quicker access from car parks to locations across the city rather than having to drive around the city to a car park on the far side. The city environment when they get there will also be improved by having less traffic; not least the air quality will be better.

The post Breathe – In the City appeared first on SPACE for Gosforth.

SPACE for Gosforth responded to the Council’s Air Quality consultation. This blog covers the part of the response in which we review the Council’s proposals. SPACE for Gosforth also made a number of proposals for how to achieve compliance by 2021, which we will publish separately.

Re: Achieving compliance with legal limits for nitrogen dioxide

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Council’s proposals to meet air quality limits in the shortest possible timescales.

Morally, it is indefensible that so many people have been made ill or have had their lives cut short by the Government’s failure to tackle air pollution.

The Council has an opportunity to rectify this now, to prioritise those people who are suffering today from the ill effects of air pollution, and those that will suffer in future if action is not taken.

These are our friends, our neighbours, and they are the people that you represent and work on behalf of.

It is important therefore that the plan is effective, that it ensures that compliance with limits is achieved in the shortest possible timescales, and that the route to compliance reduces exposure as quickly as possible.

We do not believe the Council’s current proposals achieve these aims. Substantially the major components are in place but much more could be done. In particular, the plan should contain sufficient measures to ensure that compliance by 2021 is the most likely outcome and additional measures to reduce exposure in the meantime.

Nobody wants air pollution but in the past, efforts stalled over disagreements about how to achieve better air quality or by prioritising “nice” but ineffective measures over those that work. We need to put that behind us now, as the law requires that the new plan must include the most effective measures.

The Council has a mandate, and an opportunity for action, and it must act urgently to achieve the best outcome for residents, businesses and visitors to Newcastle upon Tyne.

We look forward to discussing these proposals with you further and would welcome the opportunity to meet once you have had the opportunity to consider consultation feedback.

Yours sincerely,

SPACE for Gosforth

The Challenge / How we have approached the consultation

The Government has required that the Council produce a plan that (a) ensures compliance with legal limits for nitrogen dioxide in the shortest possible timescales and (b) provides a route to compliance that reduces exposure as quickly as possible. That plan cannot prioritise other factors e.g. cost, economy or popularity of measures ahead of effectiveness in meeting limits, but the Council can include in its plan measures such as walking and cycling improvements which are cheap, popular and economically beneficial.

SPACE for Gosforth has reviewed the Council’s plan and proposed additional measures to achieve the following objectives:

• To be effective – meeting limits and reducing exposure as quickly as possible; using measures that can be implemented and which evidence shows are likely to be effective;
• To be fair – applying the “polluter pays” principle; not disadvantaging the poorest who are most likely to be reliant on public transport and least likely to drive;
• To achieve wider benefits – e.g. safer, less noisy, more people-friendly streets; improving choice for how people travel; providing opportunities for every-day physical activity; boosting local retail; reducing greenhouse gases;

These are closely aligned to the Council’s legal obligation to meet air quality limits and its secondary policy objectives to improve public health, enable future economic growth and promote a fairer society.

Arguably the most effective plan will also be the fairest plan, as the least fair aspect of air pollution is that people are being made ill, and in some cases losing years from their lives, because Government failed to honour its commitment to meet air quality limits by 2010.

The proposed CAZ D

We understand that for both of the Council’s proposals, modelling predicts that legal limits will only be achieved across all of Newcastle, North Tyneside and Gateshead in 2023.

This itself is the most serious issue. Any plan that takes until 2023 to meet air quality limits cannot possibly be achieving the ‘shortest possible timescales’. We would also expect there to be a plan of measures to be introduced well before the compliance date to reduce exposure as quickly as possible in advance of the CAZ becoming operational.

The Strategic Case document only talks about the status as at 2021. For the CAZ D modelled it states:

• The CME and roads approaching Central Station would still be above limit values in 2021. [1.12.4]
• Limit values will not be met in Newcastle City Centre, particularly Percy Street. [1.12.7]
• Air quality on the A1 will be worse due to re-routing. [1.13.3]
• Air quality will become worse in some parts of Newcastle, although not to the extent that limits will be breached in those areas [1.15.2]

It is not clear from the Strategic Case how confident the Council are of this analysis, for example in relation to:

• The actual level of compliance for buses and taxis, modelled as being 100% compliance.
• DEFRA’s stated modelling accuracy of +-29%.
• The offsetting impact of the planned additional lane on the A1 and capacity increases at A1 junctions, the capacity increase planned for Haddricks Mill and new housing developments on the edge of the city with limited access to public transport or good quality cycling routes.

Any possible optimism bias in the plan needs to be addressed as the requirement is to produce a plan that will ensure compliance in the shortest possible timescales rather than one where compliance is just one of a number of possible outcomes.

The layout of the proposed CAZ also leads to two main issues, shown diagrammatically in figure 1 below:

Figure 1 – The Council’s proposed CAZ D

1. The route around the northern edge of the CAZ for non-compliant vehicles appears to be made up of residential streets including Henry Street, Regent Road North and Hollywood Avenue.
2. A number of areas including most of Jesmond, part of Shieldfield and the Gosforth ‘Terraces’ north of Church Road aren’t part of the CAZ but it is not possible to exit and re-enter those areas by car without travelling through the CAZ.

Point 1 seems at odds with the Government’s Air Quality Plan (Annex F), which says that the edge of a CAZ should be either (a) a natural boundary (e.g. a river), (b) a ring road where possible; or (c) if no ring-road then A-roads, where suitable or larger B roads. It also says smaller and residential roads should be avoided as far as possible.

The guidance saying that “If there are small clusters of exceedances over a larger area (metropolitan area) then several smaller distinct CAZs may be appropriate (rather than one large CAZ)” feels more relevant. It is unlikely that the charge needed for the north of the city will be the same as the charge needed for the city centre and Tyne crossings, so two separate CAZ might be more appropriate.

The Council’s analysis that air quality limits would not be met even with the charge of £12.50 for private vehicles, suggests that the necessary charge to meet limits would have to be higher still. While most people will accept that it is reasonable to pay for transport, such a high charge introduced without corresponding investment in public transport or cycle provision could potentially have adverse consequences. One potential consequence might be a greater use of taxis for shorter trips, as journeys within Newcastle generally cost less than £12.50. This would lead to even more emissions because of the extra miles driven by taxis between customer journeys.

The onus therefore sits with the Council to demonstrate that its alternative proposal will meet air quality limits in the same timescale and reduce exposure at least as quickly, or to propose additional measures that either reduce the need for such a high charge or mitigate the side effects.

Point 2 is relevant if residents of the CAZ will benefit from exemptions or support of some form but those outside would not. If the CAZ is to go ahead as proposed then it would seem reasonable to extend the exemptions or support to residents of Jesmond, Shieldfield and the Gosforth Terraces.

It is also possible the CAZ layout might lead to people parking just outside the CAZ because the boundaries are close to Regent Centre and other Metro stations.

The Council has raised the question of fairness on the basis that the less well off (if they do own a vehicle) are likely to own an older vehicle; hence the separate proposal for bridge tolls applying to all vehicles.

There is also the case that someone who travels once a week with an older car will pollute far less than a person who travels every day in a more modern ‘compliant’ vehicle, but will be charged more for the privilege.

The proposed LEZ and tolls

The proposed LEZ is most similar to the CAZ B modelling scenario in that it impacts the same types of vehicle and, in the modelling, taxis and buses are assumed to be 100% compliant. The Strategic Case states that for a CAZ B:

• The CME and roads approaching Central Station would still be above limit values in 2021 as per the CAZ D
• In addition the approach to the Tyne Bridge will also be above limit values in 2021. [1.12.2]
• Generally we would also expect that pollution levels elsewhere would be higher than for the CAZ D, other perhaps than on the A1.

We do not believe therefore that the LEZ option, by itself or with the addition of bridge tolls, reduces exposure as quickly as possible because the CAZ D will reduce exposure more quickly across a wider area. Given the choice of two plans, the Council must by law choose the one that reduces exposure most quickly. This would rule out the LEZ / tolls option unless it is supplemented by additional measures.

As with the CAZ proposal, there are also a number of modelling assumptions that suggest an unwarranted level of optimism in the analysis. Specifically:

• That buses and taxis will be 100% compliant with the LEZ standards.
• That all HGVs will be compliant with LEZ standards.
• That spare capacity generated by the bridge tolls on the Coast Road or Gosforth High Street won’t be claimed by other traffic as with the Council’s modelling of the Tyne Bridge. That new traffic may also be older or more polluting than the traffic it replaces.

Figure 2 – The Council’s proposed LEZ and bridge tolls

It is also concerning that the most likely route for non-compliant taxis and HGVs crossing the city centre will be via the main entrance to the RVI. Also air pollution on Strawberry Place exceeds the legal limit now so adding additional non-compliant traffic is unlikely to assist.

The proposed additional measures

The Council has proposed three additional measures:

• Timed restrictions for lorries and vans using Central Motorway
• Restricting access for all vehicles on Central Motorway
• Other measures e.g. install moss walls

We have not found evidence that any of these measures will be effective in combating air pollution.

Timed restrictions might reduce peak emissions but are likely to be less effective in reducing emissions averaged over the year, which is the limit that Newcastle needs to meet.

Restricting access could have the effect of just moving the issue to a different junction. An alternative approach to limit through traffic through the city centre, which is already Council policy, could achieve the same outcomes without re-engineering junctions.

Financial support and exemptions

We suggest applying the same tests to support and exemptions as we have applied to the measures themselves i.e. that they should:

• Support meeting air quality limits in the shortest possible timescales.
• Apply fairly; and
• Help to achieve wider benefits.

Support and exemptions that are required to meet air quality limits should be funded. An example might be the upgrade of bus engines to the latest EURO standard.

Support that might lead to more pollution should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. For example:

• It would be preferable to invest in a low/zero emission last-mile delivery service rather than pay to upgrade individual HGVs or LGVs.
• It would be preferable to encourage people to take public transport, or a combination of public transport and taxi, rather than pay to upgrade taxis. For example someone living in north Gosforth could get the Metro to Regent Centre and a taxi for the last part of their journey.
• It would be preferable to support a low-emission city centre shuttle bus to make it easier for people to use public transport rather than pay for car scrappage schemes.
•  

The law requires that the Council’s plan achieves compliance by the soonest date possible, that it must reduce exposure as quickly as possible, and that meeting the value limits is not just possible, but likely. On that basis, exemptions would not be lawful if they might delay compliance, prevent exposure being reduced as quickly as possible or make achievement of limits less likely.

The Council also needs to consider that providing an exemption to one group might mean it needs to apply greater restrictions, which might include higher costs, for all others not in that group.

Consideration does need to be given to support people who have to travel when public transport is not operational.

To be fair, support should not depend on owning a current vehicle and should avoid giving one business a competitive advantage over another if the other has already upgraded its vehicles using its own funds.

Where it is provided, support should enable choice so that people can use public transport, walking or cycling depending on the journeys they need to take e.g. rather than be restricted to public transport. Options might include vouchers for an e-Bike or discounted car club membership.

Support should be focused on those that are most reliant on a car through no fault of their own, or for those that provide essential services for people who cannot travel any other way, for example hospital or community transport schemes. Support could include the provision of specialist zero-emission transport and could, for example, include support to expand the Cycling Without Age initiative. It could also include making public transport more accessible for people with disabilities.

If the Council wishes to support the less well off it needs to recognise that poorer people in general travel less than richer people, rely more on public transport, and will benefit if road-pricing revenues are used to enhance public transport, walking or cycling.

Support should not be ‘gameable’ e.g. if it would allow someone buys an old car for £500 and then trade it for £1000 worth of public transport vouchers.

Support should not make it cheaper for someone to continue to drive compared to if they were to use public transport for the same journey.

The Council should also be encouraging people to change how they travel now in advance of any LEZ or CAZ being implemented rather than waiting until it is implemented and then offering a grace period.

If a CAZ D is implemented then it would be reasonable to offer a reduced charge for a short grace period and / or additional support to residents and businesses within the CAZ who have fewer options to avoid the zone. Ideally support should be available prior to the CAZ being implemented, but without delaying that implementation.

Consideration would also need to be given to the operation of the RVI to ensure no unintended effects e.g. additional calls to the ambulance service because people who could make there own way to A&E do not wish to pay the charge. Care would need to be taken to ensure any support or exemptions given are fair on those that do not call an ambulance, in particular those that have to pay for a taxi or public transport because they don’t own their own vehicle.

Review of the Economic Case

The Economic Case is not a consideration for choosing which measures to use, other than where there are two options that are equally effective to meet air quality limits and which both reduce exposure as quickly as possible. If the Council is going to produce an economic assessment though, we would like to propose some ways in which that assessment might be improved to better reflect the likely outcome of the measures to be implemented.

Our suggestions are as follows.

• The assessment appears to mix costs to individuals with costs to government without taking into account that the charges would be revenue for (local) government that would offset the costs. Likewise new costs incurred e.g. in using public transport would be revenue for local public transport operators.
• Given the charges will be ring-fenced for investment in transport, it would be appropriate also to consider the gain from that investment rather than just the cost. For the best possible economic case investments could be targeted towards walking and cycling. In 2014 the Department of Transport produced a report that said typical benefit-cost ratios for walking and cycling investments are considerably greater than 4:1.
• The Royal College of Physicians estimated a benefit of £22.6bn nationally if air quality is improved. Even scaling for regional level, this is substantially higher than the Council’s estimate and we recommend the Council investigate to see if any benefits have been missed in its economic case.
• Given the ‘rule of half’ appears to account for a substantial part of the cost, a more detailed look at this aspect might be beneficial e.g.
  1. To look at situations where people save money or achieve other benefits compared to now e.g. if cycling or walking instead of driving, or if a family might no longer need to keep a second car so makes savings by using one car and other transport options.
  2. To look at the similar situation where journeys by car are still made but, for example, people car-share so using one vehicle instead of two, or trip-chain so doing one journey instead of two. Again, the benefit of the journey is achieved but at a lower cost.
  3. Similar to (1) and (2) to look at the situation where the benefit of the journey is still achieved but without travelling at all, for example someone might choose to work at home one day a week or hold a meeting on the telephone rather than face to face.
  4. To include the wider benefit of addressing market failure in vehicle transport. This market failure exists currently as the costs to an individual of travelling by private car are substantially less than the total costs including externalities such as pollution, noise, traffic collisions etc.
  5. To look at other cities where road pricing has been implemented to see what the actual costs and benefits are.

Appendix A. The legal requirement for clean air

Legal limits for air quality were put in place, initially via the 1997 National Air Quality Strategy, to protect the general public from illness and early death as a result of long-term exposure to air pollution.

The National Air Quality Objectives show that these limits should have been met in 2005.

The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 state that where levels of nitrogen dioxide exceed limit values, the Secretary of State must draw up and implement an air quality plan so as to achieve that limit value or target value. That air quality plan must include measures intended to ensure compliance with any relevant limit value within the shortest possible time.

In ClientEarth v Secretary of State for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Case No: CO/1508/2016), Mr Justice Garnham ruled that the Government’s then plan be quashed and that the Secretary of State must aim to achieve compliance by the soonest date possible, that she must choose a route to that objective which reduces exposure as quickly as possible, and that she must take steps which mean meeting the value limits is not just possible, but likely.

On 27 July 2017, the Government issued a direction to Newcastle City Council, North Tyneside Council and Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council to produce a final plan by 31 December 2018 at the latest. In this plan the Councils should identify the preferred option for delivering compliance in the shortest possible time, and set out value for money considerations and implementation arrangements.

We note that the Councils’ current target for submitting a final plan is 12 July 2019, some seven months after this initial deadline, and fourteen years after the targets should have first been met.

In the Government’s UK Air Pollution Detail Plan it further clarifies that in order to qualify for funding the Councils’ plan must show that:

1. It is likely to cause NO2 levels in the area to reach legal compliance within the shortest time possible (and provides a route to compliance which reduces exposure as quickly as possible);
2. The effects and impacts on local residents and businesses have been assessed, including on disadvantaged groups, and there are no unintended consequences;
3. Proposals that request UK government funding support demonstrate value for money; and
4. The local measures have been carefully analysed using detailed local evidence and local air quality modelling tools and analysis methods, improving on the analysis at national level.

While it is reasonable for the Council to consider value for money, the measure or measures chosen must be the ones that will be most effective in meeting limits in the shortest possible timescale. Mr Justice Garnham was very clear when he said “I reject any suggestion that the state can have any regard to cost in fixing the target date for compliance or in determining the route by which the compliance can be achieved.”

See also

• Air Quality Update 2017
• Air Quality – What Works

The post Breathe appeared first on SPACE for Gosforth.