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.

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.

Our first blog set out our review of the Council’s proposed measures. In our second blog we proposed measures for the city as a whole and in our third blog we proposed measures for the Gosforth Air Quality Management Area (AQMA).

In our final blog we respond to the Councils’ questions about future funding and implementing air quality measures. Measures to meet air quality targets will need to be funded by Central Government, but if part of those measures include a toll or clean air charge there is the opportunity to use that money to further improve air quality and transport in the city.

SPACE for Gosforth response to the Council’s Clean Air consultation: Part 4

Priorities for future funding

The Government have stated that surplus money received through charging or tolls must be spent on transport improvements.

The Council has decided a set of criteria for these transport improvements that they should:

1. Improve public health in our area in the shortest possible time;
2. Enable future economic growth and sustain jobs and communities in the region; and
3. Promote a fairer society and not detrimentally impact vulnerable populations.

We support the Council using these objectives to judge and prioritise schemes for future investment.

Walking and cycling schemes would score highly on this basis. Evidence is available that demonstrates investment in good quality walking and cycling facilities would achieve all three objectives and can be implemented quickly. Seville, for example, implemented a good quality traffic-free cycling network in under two years.

The UK Health Alliance has some useful information about how air pollution, inactivity and obesity, all major public health risks, can be tackled by enabling more active travel http://www.ukhealthalliance.org/tackling-obesity-and-air-pollution-on-the-go/

SPACE for Gosforth has already completed a Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) assessment of Gosforth / north Newcastle. Selected extracts are provided in Appendix E, with the full blog here: https://www.spaceforgosforth.com/lcwip/

A key priority for Gosforth will be to improve walking and cycling access to the Gosforth “Plus” cluster of destinations for the benefit of residents, visitors and businesses operating in the area. That might include the extension of Trinity Square across West Avenue and Ivy Road, potentially with additional planting, a bigger event space, outdoor seating or even play equipment for children.

A similar approach could be taken to other locations where through traffic is no longer allowed both in Gosforth and in the city centre, especially on Grey Street and Blackett Street.

In order to achieve objectives (b) and (c), the cycling network should be usable by children, by businesses e.g. using cargo bikes, by older people or by people with disabilities. The Council need quickly to implement a design standard to avoid the mistakes it is about to make at Haddricks Mill where the proposed routes are slow, inconvenient, create conflict with people walking and require lots of tight turning and starting and stopping.

The SPACE for Gosforth review of how local cycling facilities support inclusive cycling (or not) would be a good starting point for future investment. A similar review for public transport would be beneficial. https://www.spaceforgosforth.com/inclusive-cycling-in-gosforth-the-ok-the-bad-and-the-ugly/

SPACE for Gosforth has also completed its own survey of what people would support to make Gosforth a better place to live and travel locally. Our proposals in section 7 include many of these elements.

Figure 6 – Residents’ priorities for building a better Gosforth

More trees and greenery was a very popular option and we hope more greenery can be incorporated as part of plans to create low-traffic neighbourhoods.

Other ideas for funding, in addition to those listed in figure 6, might include:

• Ensuring cycle routes can be used through the winter, especially when icy
• On-street bicycle lockers where requested by 3-4 households or more
• Routes to and secure cycle parking facilities at major destinations and transport hubs
• Implementing additional ‘school streets’

The SPACE for Gosforth assessment of the Council’s proposed longer-term measures is set out in the table below.

Implementation and Monitoring

Even without the specific ministerial direction issued by the Government, the law is clear that limits must be achieved in the shortest possible timescales. The Council’s planning and project delivery should support that. This means in particular that work needs to start as soon as possible and that the Council should request from government the necessary resources to expedite the implementation of its proposed plan.

D01 Seek early funding from the Government to start work immediately. To save time we suggest where possible that measures are implemented on a temporary basis then adjusted as the actual impact becomes known, rather than relying on further time-consuming and potentially inaccurate modelling. By 07/2019

D02 Convene an Air Quality Executive board chaired by the CEO of Newcastle City Council and attended by senior representatives of North Tyneside and Gateshead that meets monthly to:

• Monitor current progress in implementing the plan and take action to rectify any delays.
• Review the effectiveness of measures and whether e.g. tweaks are required to parking charges or toll fees.
• Identify and mitigate any risks that could prevent air quality limits being met in the shortest possible timescales
• Look for opportunities to bring forward the date of compliance or to reduce exposure more quickly.
• Accept and consider representations from other Council meetings and forums.
• Be accountable for meeting air quality limits in the shortest possible timescales.

The board should publish promptly its minutes, data provided as input to the meeting and any decisions taken.

Input to the meeting should include:

• Project report(s)
• Plan updates
• Risk register
• Updated monthly traffic and air quality data
• Other forms of monitoring e.g. business surveys
• Feedback from the stakeholder forum (see below)
• Reports from the Council’s transport and planning departments

By 08/2019

D03 Appoint a dedicated programme / project lead reporting directly to Newcastle City Council CEO with a mandate to work cross-department By 08/2019

D04 Appoint other dedicated project staff to support the programme / project manager e.g. for communications & behaviour change, project planning & control and risk management By 09/2019

D05 Create a simple compelling vision for what the Council wants to achieve overall covering air quality and related policy matters such as public health, climate change, healthy streets and how we travel. By 10/2019

D06 Implement additional traffic and air quality monitoring on roads where modelling or measurement has suggested air quality is poor or where traffic might divert to. By 10/2019

D07 Convene a quarterly stakeholder workshop including interested residents stakeholder groups, transport operators and business groups to report and seek feedback on progress to date. By 10/2019

D08 Implement a program of air quality monitoring covering the insides of taxis and buses operating in the city centre. Consider providing additional health advice for bus and taxi drivers.
By 11/2019

D09 Ensure Council processes and decisions for planning, transport and in other areas prioritise meeting air quality limits in the shortest possible timescale and reducing exposure as quickly as possible. By 12/2019

D10 Complete a study of transport options to identify areas of the city, which are lacking choice for how to travel. This would take account of where local shops, services and employment sites are located and would include public transport, walking and cycling. This can be used as input to discussions on how to prioritise future funding. As an example, the study might identify that north-south access to Gosforth High Street is well served by buses but there are far fewer services operating east to west. By 03/2020

Vision for the future

Overall, if the Council wants and / or needs residents and businesses to support a transition to less polluting, more sustainable, modes of transport then the Council needs to set out its vision in a simple, clear and compelling way.

The Council needs to own that vision, not blame the Government for ‘making us do it’.
Then the Council needs to implement that vision with determination, confidence and consistency. And above all it needs to act quickly because people are continuing to die from air pollution at a rate of about one a day in Tyneside, and many more are being made ill for the same reason.

If the Council isn’t confident in its vision then it needs to say so and do something about it.

If the Council wants examples from other cities, or evidence of effects or benefits, there is plenty to choose from. If the Council wants evidence for how voters reward politicians for cleaner, healthier, safer streets then there’s plenty of that too.

If the Council wants a transport policy that addresses cancer, heart disease, obesity, inactivity, diabetes, mental health, social isolation, lack of access to work opportunities, road danger, making the city attractive for families, helping older children to travel safely and independently, climate change, poor performing high streets, the answers are broadly the same.

The Council just needs to get on with it.

The post Breathe – Implementation appeared first on SPACE for Gosforth.

This is the third 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. In our second blog we proposed measures for the city as a whole and specifically for the City Centre Air Quality Management Area (AQMA).

In this blog we propose specific measures for the Gosforth Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) which covers Gosforth High Street, Jesmond Dene Road, Haddricks Mill Road and the Haddricks Mill junction.

Some of the measures described in our second blog for the city as a whole will also reduce air pollution in Gosforth, though we don’t believe these will be sufficient by themselves to meet air quality limits. These include:

• Retrofitting bus engines so they are EURO VI compliant.
• A clean air zone for buses, coaches, taxis and HGVs covering the area between the Tyne in the south and the Metro line in the north.
• High frequency bus route branding, including for Gosforth High Street / the Great North Road.
• Public information and better enforcement of anti-idling laws.

To ensure that limits are met in the shortest possible timescales and exposure is reduced as quickly as possible (the legal requirement) we are proposing further measures specific to Gosforth. To do this we have looked at options that have been shown to reduce pollution and reduce people’s exposure to pollution, as well as providing for better walking and cycling access to the Gosforth High Street shops.

As we said in our review of the Council’s proposals, we do not believe the proposals as presented meet the legal requirement to meet air quality limits and reduce exposure as quickly as possible. The Council has since presented some revised options which delay implementation even further and look even less likely to meet the legal requirement.

As before we have prioritised, where possible, engineering measures rather than charging. Some sort of clean air charge for private vehicles is the most likely alternative to these proposals in Gosforth if these are not accepted.

SPACE for Gosforth response to the Council’s Clean Air consultation: Part 3

Additional measures for the Gosforth AQMA

Air quality exceedances in Gosforth have been limited to Gosforth High Street, Station Road and Killingworth Road, although Station Road and Killingworth Road were under the limit in the second half of 2017 after Killingworth Road closed for road works. Clearly there is a risk now Killingworth Road is due to re-open to traffic that those locations will be over the limit again.

That means we need measures to address air pollution at both locations.

Figure 5 – SPACE for Gosforth proposals for the Gosforth AQMA

As a priority we are asking the Council to revisit its plans for Haddricks Mill, which will encourage additional traffic in the Gosforth / North Newcastle area and provide a poor experience for people walking and cycling. The Government’s UK Air Quality Plan states that there is considerable uncertainty on the real world impacts of measures that ‘optimise traffic flow’. Potentially the current Haddricks Mill plans could increase pollution levels, which is entirely inconsistent with the Council’s legal obligation to reduce air pollution in the shortest possible timescales. Haddricks Mill is a key east-west route for all forms of transport. In light of the need to address air quality, walking, cycling and public transport all need to be prioritised at this location.

For Gosforth High Street we understand the Council’s expectation to be that there will be a knock on benefit from reduced traffic on the Tyne bridges. That may be the case, but there are also plenty of local journeys made that do not cross the Tyne that could quickly use up this extra capacity. To address this we suggest:

• Re-paint Gosforth High Street to be one lane in each direction. This also means traffic can be moved away from the pavement to reduce exposure.
• Use the available space next to the pavements for protected cycle lanes to give an additional option for people to travel to the shops without using their cars.
• At peak times, limit traffic entering the High Street from the south, using traffic lights in a similar manner to that proposed at Haddricks Mill. These lights can also be used to allow buses through.
• Mitigations on parallel residential streets so they are not used to bypass the above measures.
• Expand Trinity Square north and south to use the space no longer used by traffic.
• School streets to help reduce school-run traffic.
• Regular Clean-Air days on Gosforth High Street.
• Reviewing and updating parking charges so it is cheaper to park and ride at the northern edge of Newcastle rather than driving into the city or parking e.g. near Ilford Road or South Gosforth Metro stations.

These measures are described further below.

C01 Urgently revisit the plans for Haddricks Mill to remove the risk of induced traffic and create space for separate walking and cycling facilities. Consider if other mitigation measures are also required, to offset the impact of increased traffic levels once Killingworth Road re-opens to two-way traffic. By 06/2019

C02 Re-line Gosforth High Street up to Regent Centre as a single lane in each direction sited in the middle of the current carriageway to reduce exposure by moving traffic away from the pavement. By 08/2019

C03 Use the space created by (C02) to implement a protected cycle lane so people can travel to the shops and services on Gosforth High Street without using a car. Initially, for speed of implementation, these can be completed with temporary ‘bolt-down’ kerbs to give protection from traffic. Gosforth High Street 10/2019

C04 Change the timings on pedestrian crossings to be more responsive to reduce exposure for people waiting to cross. By 10/2019

C05 Install hedges as barriers where space exists e.g. on Trinity Square / outside Gosforth shopping centre. By 10/2019

C06 Clean Air Saturdays – once a month, close Gosforth High Street between St Nicholas Avenue and Church Road to all traffic except buses. By 10/2019

C07 Reconsider the location of bus stops so they still provide good access to the shops but passengers do not have to wait in the most polluted areas. Also ensure that bus stops are fit for purpose and provide weather protection for waiting passengers. By 01/2020

C08 Use traffic lights at the south end of Gosforth High Street next to the Town Moor to control traffic levels entering the High Street during peak hours, similar to the Council’s Haddricks Mill proposal. Initially, for speed of implementation this might require some manual control. By 01/2020

C09 Make changes to the following roads to prevent through traffic using them as an alternative to the High Street to avoid measure C08: Linden, Moor Road North and South, Ilford Road, Regent Road North/Hedley terrace, Westfield Grove, West Avenue, Ivy Road. The ends of West Avenue and Ivy Road could be combined with Trinity Square to create a much larger public event space. The specific locations have been chosen as far as possible to minimise additional journey time for residents living in those neighbourhoods. By 01/2020

C10 Enable and fund local schools in Gosforth and the north of the city to implement school streets where streets next to schools are closed to through traffic during drop off and pick up times. By 01/2020

C11 Review of parking and parking charges so that when entering by car from the north of the city it is cheapest to park and ride from Great Park, and more expensive to park closer to the city centre. Currently it is cheaper and quicker to park near Ilford Road Metro than to use the Great Park or Regent Centre park and ride facilities. By 01/2020 (Review implemented)

C12 Implement 20mph from the Gosforth Traders roundabout at the south end of Jubilee Road to Haddricks Mill roundabout. By 02/2020

C13 Install traffic-free cycle lanes on Station Road between Saint Nicholas Avenue and Haddricks Mill roundabout. This may need to divert from the main road at the final stretch approaching the roundabout due to lane width. By 03/2020

C14 Install traffic-free cycle lanes on Benton Park Road between Haddricks Mill roundabout and St Mary’s Catholic School and the Benton Park View government site. Initially, for speed of implementation, these can be completed with temporary ‘bolt-down’ kerbs to give protection from traffic. By 03/2020

The post Breathe – In Gosforth 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.

Newcastle City Council have released the Air Quality Feasibility Study that will be used for its forthcoming consultation. Whatever the final plan that is chosen, it must by law meet air quality limits within the shortest possible timescale. The question for the consultation therefore is how should that be achieved.

In addition to the main objective of meeting air quality limits in the shortest possible timescale, the Council has chosen three secondary objectives:

1. to improve public health in our area in the shortest possible time;
2. to enable future economic growth and sustain jobs and communities in the region; and
3. to promote a fairer society and not detrimentally impact vulnerable populations.

Substantially the whole consultation is about how to improve public health. Air pollution is a major public health issue linked to multiple conditions including asthma, lung disease, heart disease, cancer, psychotic experiences such as  hearing voices or intense paranoia, children’s cognitive development, dementia, low fertility and sperm damage. We are interpreting the Council’s additional objective (a) as covering all of these and also including wider health benefits such as the benefit of having more exercise from walking or cycling more.

In 2016, Newcastle’s Director of Public Health Professor Eugene Milne recorded this message about air pollution and the public health impact of how we travel in Newcastle.

The Council’s consultation proposal includes two alternative options:

1. A Charging Clean Air Zone (CAZ) covering the city, Gosforth and the Coast Road. The Council are required to use this as a baseline by government, but are free to propose an alternative plan if that alternative plan will meet air quality limits in the same timescales or quicker; or
2. Tolls on the Tyne Bridge, Swing Bridge and Redheugh Bridge that apply to all motor vehicles. This differs from the charging CAZ as in a CAZ only the most polluting vehicles would have to pay.

Both options also include upgrading local buses, including all those running on Gosforth High Street, to the latest EURO emissions standard, and the introduction of integrated public transport ticketing.

As context for the proposed charges, the Independent reported in 2015 that between 1980 and 2014 the cost of motoring fell by 14 per cent in real terms but, in the same period, bus fares increased by 58 per cent and rail fares by 63%, substantially due to government policy.

Option 1: Charging Clean Air Zone

In the Council’s modelling the Charging Clean Air Zone – Class D (CAZ-D) came out as the most effective at meeting air quality limits in the shortest possible timescales. Class D means that private cars that are non-compliant will be charged in addition to buses, taxis, HGVs and vans. In Newcastle, about 17% of petrol cars and 77% of diesel cars are estimated to be non-compliant and would therefore have to pay the charge if driving through the CAZ.

The Council’s analysis is also that people in low-income areas are more likely to have non-compliant cars compared to areas like Gosforth, which in the map below has 20-40% non compliance compared to 80-100% in some parts of the West End. That doesn’t mean there are more non-compliant vehicles in the West End as higher-income areas tend also to have far more vehicles. In the 2011 census, Parklands ward had the most vehicles with 83% of households owning one or more vehicles vs 28% for Westgate.

The analysis of the CAZ-D also showed that other areas surrounding the CAZ boundary might in some cases have increased air pollution as a result of the most polluting vehicles diverting to other routes. The map below gives some indication of this, although there is no suggestion that this will cause any of these areas to go over the legal limit.

Air Quality if a CAZ-D is implemented vs the ‘Do Minimum’ scenario. Green = better; Purple – worse

For these reasons, the Council is proposing its alternative option.

Option 2: Tyne Crossing Tolls

The proposed tolls would only apply to Tyne Bridge, Swing Bridge and Redheugh Bridge, so there would be no charge for driving elsewhere in the city or in Gosforth.

While the effect on Gosforth or the Coast Road is therefore less certain, the are some potential advantages to the tolls:

1. Even with the CAZ-D, and with the vast majority of traffic being compliant with emissions standards, the Central Motorway would still be over the limit in 2021.  The Council estimates the CAZ will reduce non-compliant vehicles by 70%, but total traffic levels will only reduce by 9% as other compliant, but still polluting, vehicles will fill the space left. This means there needs to be some additional disincentive to reduce overall traffic levels in order to meet air quality limits.
2. The charge for the toll could be a lot less than for a CAZ (£1.70 vs £12.50 for the CAZ according to the Chronicle). For comparison, a one-way Metro ticket from Monument to Gateshead would cost £1.50 per person vs £1.70 for up to 5 people in most cars.
3. Buses could continue to use the High Level bridge with no charge, and other exemptions can also be agreed. The government’s CAZ approach requires that if non-compliant private cars are charged then buses, HGVs, LGVs and taxis must also be charged. If all buses are upgraded (as per the Council modelling assumption) then this would make less of a difference.
4. Charges can be varied depending on the time of day e.g. to be higher during rush hour and cheaper when the roads would otherwise be quiet.

That said, we don’t know at this stage whether tolls will be effective in reducing pollution as the Council hasn’t yet completed its modelling of this option. The legal requirement is for a plan that is demonstrably likely to meet air quality targets. If the modelling does not support the required timescales then this option would automatically be ruled out unless it can be supplemented by other measures.

The most likely case is that it will be effective in the area close to the bridges, but less so further away. Clearly, for Gosforth this is a concern. There will be vehicles that travel down Gosforth High Street or via Haddricks Mill to the Tyne Bridge, and the toll might reduce the number of vehicles doing that. That effect would be limited though as there would be nothing stopping other, possibly more polluting, vehicles from taking their place.

If the tolls aren’t sufficient then the Council would need to consider further options for  Gosforth High Street and in other areas where limits are currently breached. One possibility might be a local Charging Clean Air Zone covering just Gosforth.

Another option to reduce pollution but without charging might be to restrict traffic flow along Gosforth High Street.  SPACE for Gosforth’s analysis of Council data showed that the air was less polluted on Gosforth High Street during roadworks in 2016 when traffic was restricted, compared to the same period the following year when there was no restriction. The same analysis also showed that the temporary closure of Killingworth Road led to a substantial reduction in overall traffic levels.

Any revenue from the Charging CAZ or tolls has to be used by the Council for transport improvements, which could include further support to enable more people to use public transport, walking or cycling.

Other Measures 

The Council have listed other measures they plan to consider for implementation in addition to either of the main options of a Charging CAZ or bridge tolls:

• A low emission zone covering Newcastle City Centre where non-compliant lorries, buses and taxis can only enter at certain times
• A ban on HGVs and LGVs using the Central Motorway in peak hours
• Junction changes on the Central Motorway to reduce queuing
• Walking and cycling infrastructure
• More moss walls or other local abatement
• Incentives for retrofit / scrappage of non-compliant cars, taxis, HGVs and LGVs
• Travel credits for people on lower incomes e.g. to use public transport
• A public campaign to encourage people to change how they travel and
• Exemptions for emergency service vehicles and blue badge holders.

No doubt it will be possible to suggest other measures in response to the consultation. In our recent blog Your Right to Clean Air, we set out some of our ideas that we hope will be considered. Whatever the chosen measures are though they will need to contribute to meeting air quality limits by 2021, ideally also contributing to the Council’s secondary objectives.

As above, the Council have already included an assumption that all buses will be upgraded to the latest EURO standard. This will be helpful for air quality on Gosforth High Street given there are 49 buses travelling in each direction every hour. In 2013 Newcastle University estimated that 28% of NO₂ pollution on Gosforth High Street was generated by buses. Upgrading buses is therefore an important way to help meet air quality limits on Gosforth High Street but other measures would also be required.

Walking and Cycling

There is plenty of evidence available for what will be effective to encourage people to cycle or to walk more. For cycling this requires the creation of a network of routes that are safe and feel safe, avoid conflict with other road users, and provide direct access to the places people want to go. For children there is even research as to what type of route parents prefer and might be willing to use to get to school or on other journeys.

Studies have also shown that the benefits of cycling and walking ‘outweigh air pollution risk’ in cities even if cycling or walking on busy streets.

Improvements for walking, like reducing the wait times at crossings, can be implemented within a few weeks. Other cities have also shown that it is possible to implement good quality cycle networks very quickly. See for example Seville, Calgary and Macon in the USA.

The more choice people have for how to travel the easier it will be to meet air quality targets. Where people are made to be car-dependent, because there is no public transport, no safe cycle routes and local services are too far away to walk, then behaviour change initiatives will be far less effective.

Walking and cycling will also help meet all three of the Council’s secondary objectives. In our blog The Case for Healthy Streets we shared links to evidence for how walking and cycling can benefit health, support local retail and economic growth, extend the reach of public transport, and improve access to employment opportunities for the unemployed.

Consultation

The Council consultation will run from 6 March 2019 until 17 May. For further information see Newcastle City Council’s Air Quality webpage.

Following the consultation, the Council will produce its final plan, which must be submitted to government by 12 July 2019. In order for this plan to be approved by government, and considered for funding support, it will have to demonstrate that:

1. It is likely to cause NO₂ pollution levels 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.

As it stands the Council has not yet completed its modelling so we don’t know which of the two options will best meet the criteria for government approval and funding. If one achieves compliance quicker than the other then that is the option that must be chosen to reduce the risk to public health as quickly as possible.

Source Information

Newcastle City Council, Gateshead and North Tyneside were all directed by the government to complete and submit air quality plans in accordance with the government’s Air Quality Plan for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO₂) in UK (2017).

Most of the information for this blog is sourced from the Council’s Tyneside Air Quality Feasibility Study. The final version of the Feasibility Study is available from the Cabinet Committee agenda  (item 7).

This table, also from the Feasibility Study shows the percentage of vehicles that are non-compliant with CAZ standards nationally and locally.

The post Which works best – Tolls or a Clean Air Zone? appeared first on SPACE for Gosforth.