Oxford City Council - 2013 Air Quality Action Consultation
Response submitted on 11 September 2013,
following discussion with the New Marston Wildlife Group Committee,
by Dr Curt Lamberth, Ecological Consultant (and Chairman of NMWG) to
Roger Pitman M(Med)Sci, Environmental Development Officer, Oxford City Council
Dear Roger,
I have made some comments on the 2013 Air Quality Action Plan Consultation Draft below.
I have not consulted the wider New Marston Wildlife Group members in this process.
It is good to see that you have covered most of my points and I support the strategies you have outlined. I have made points below to support your proposals. It is a difficult task to achieve and will, in some areas, be unwelcome. I support a slightly tougher approach to traffic generally as a long term resident of Oxford. Indeed, as a wildlife group we have noted to increase in eutrophication levels close to all roads which added to that of dog excreta along paths and in parklands has a long term and detrimental effect on both terrestrial and epiphytic vegetation ecosystems.
1/ Efforts to reduce emissions have been noted.
2/ Reduction of maximum vehicle speed for reasons of safety from 30mph to 20mph, and or the combined (and dangerous) intention to mix all cycle and vehicle traffic (e.g. Cowley Road) have increased emissions considerably. There is a balance to be struck here - but 'free' traffic flow, reduction of standing traffic and elimination of vehicles continuously on idle (taxis) would reduce emissions. I note that the pan-company electronic ticketing system (like the Oyster card in London) would be an excellent idea for buses.
3/ Inversion layers and Oxford's valley location will exacerbate pollution levels. You can't change this.
4/ Target offenders. Ramn Spectroscopy methods have been used to monitor vehicle exhausts in-situ. I note that the academic world has been working on this in Oxford, see:
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/biohealth/research/divisions/aes/newsevents/newsrecords/2013/Jul/Vehicle-emission-remote-sensing-roadshow.aspx
Emissions of particulates especially from badly maintained taxis and contractor vehicles perhaps running illegally on recycled vegetable oils or heavy fuel oil mix would contribute a major proportion of the total emissions. Of course you could focus on buses and coaches which together accounted for 65% of the NOx emissions?
5/ In Oxford we still have a problem encouraging the use of bicycles. As a cyclist the one major problem is that the cycle policy and implementation of that policy within Oxford appears at times badly thought out (e.g. cycle routes from St Aldates to Headington on London Road), and disjointed. The overall policy should be walk/cycle first, public transport second, and car third. How we reflect this in visitor/resident attitudes is difficult, but I think this may be more of a national problem where the 'car' considers cyclists as annoying. ( I am ignoring the terrible attitude of some cyclists to the presence of other road users and the Highway Code). I note you have covered all of these points.
6/ As a side thought, I wonder if both noise and emissions go together? Perhaps you should monitor noise as well as emissions, it's a very small cost in terms of dataloggers and appropriately weighted sensors. Noise and light are forms of pollution we rarely consider.
7/ The encouragement of parents to walk/cycle children to school.
8/ Can we stagger freight transport times? This must have been done elsewhere in Europe?
9/ Future population growth.
Integrated ticketing, park & ride expansion, improved rail services, traffic management, cleaner green vehicles are all good. However, whether they can succeed in even maintaining pollution in Oxford at its current level is debatable, firstly because of the city's rising population and secondly because it will be difficult to persuade more people to change their mode of transport, especially the elderly, those transporting children, as well those disinclined to suffer the inconveniences of public transport. The data on Oxford City Council's population statistics are interesting reading, See:
http://www.oxford.gov.uk/PageRender/decC/Population_statistics_occw.htm
So will the current Air Quality Action Plan or other plans cope with this population increase?
If not, then they should do so.
I have made some comments on the 2013 Air Quality Action Plan Consultation Draft below.
I have not consulted the wider New Marston Wildlife Group members in this process.
It is good to see that you have covered most of my points and I support the strategies you have outlined. I have made points below to support your proposals. It is a difficult task to achieve and will, in some areas, be unwelcome. I support a slightly tougher approach to traffic generally as a long term resident of Oxford. Indeed, as a wildlife group we have noted to increase in eutrophication levels close to all roads which added to that of dog excreta along paths and in parklands has a long term and detrimental effect on both terrestrial and epiphytic vegetation ecosystems.
1/ Efforts to reduce emissions have been noted.
2/ Reduction of maximum vehicle speed for reasons of safety from 30mph to 20mph, and or the combined (and dangerous) intention to mix all cycle and vehicle traffic (e.g. Cowley Road) have increased emissions considerably. There is a balance to be struck here - but 'free' traffic flow, reduction of standing traffic and elimination of vehicles continuously on idle (taxis) would reduce emissions. I note that the pan-company electronic ticketing system (like the Oyster card in London) would be an excellent idea for buses.
3/ Inversion layers and Oxford's valley location will exacerbate pollution levels. You can't change this.
4/ Target offenders. Ramn Spectroscopy methods have been used to monitor vehicle exhausts in-situ. I note that the academic world has been working on this in Oxford, see:
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/biohealth/research/divisions/aes/newsevents/newsrecords/2013/Jul/Vehicle-emission-remote-sensing-roadshow.aspx
Emissions of particulates especially from badly maintained taxis and contractor vehicles perhaps running illegally on recycled vegetable oils or heavy fuel oil mix would contribute a major proportion of the total emissions. Of course you could focus on buses and coaches which together accounted for 65% of the NOx emissions?
5/ In Oxford we still have a problem encouraging the use of bicycles. As a cyclist the one major problem is that the cycle policy and implementation of that policy within Oxford appears at times badly thought out (e.g. cycle routes from St Aldates to Headington on London Road), and disjointed. The overall policy should be walk/cycle first, public transport second, and car third. How we reflect this in visitor/resident attitudes is difficult, but I think this may be more of a national problem where the 'car' considers cyclists as annoying. ( I am ignoring the terrible attitude of some cyclists to the presence of other road users and the Highway Code). I note you have covered all of these points.
6/ As a side thought, I wonder if both noise and emissions go together? Perhaps you should monitor noise as well as emissions, it's a very small cost in terms of dataloggers and appropriately weighted sensors. Noise and light are forms of pollution we rarely consider.
7/ The encouragement of parents to walk/cycle children to school.
8/ Can we stagger freight transport times? This must have been done elsewhere in Europe?
9/ Future population growth.
Integrated ticketing, park & ride expansion, improved rail services, traffic management, cleaner green vehicles are all good. However, whether they can succeed in even maintaining pollution in Oxford at its current level is debatable, firstly because of the city's rising population and secondly because it will be difficult to persuade more people to change their mode of transport, especially the elderly, those transporting children, as well those disinclined to suffer the inconveniences of public transport. The data on Oxford City Council's population statistics are interesting reading, See:
http://www.oxford.gov.uk/PageRender/decC/Population_statistics_occw.htm
So will the current Air Quality Action Plan or other plans cope with this population increase?
If not, then they should do so.