Bad air alert for homes near roads

Bad air alert for homes near roads

Bad air alert for homes near roads

First published in Letters by

KEITH MASSEY (Letters, April 8) is concerned about air quality in hotels and public buildings.

I wonder if he is aware that our poor air quality is leading to planning conditions on developments fronting York’s main roads specifying sealed windows (with mechanical ventilation from the rear of the building)?

Recent widespread air pollution in southern England was caused by wind unusually bringing polluted air from Europe – a natural occurrence that happens whether or not we are in the EU.

To address this serious health issue, EU governments are required by the air-quality directive to develop an action plan to cut pollution, largely caused by vehicle fumes.

The government faces major fines for lack of effective action to protect our citizens – with the demise of the Lendal Bridge trial, other bold measures will be required. Last week, Paris banned 50 per cent of vehicles on alternate days – perhaps extreme but effective.

What solutions would those who opposed the botched bridge closure scheme prefer to tackle this serious health issue linked to congestion in York?

Coun Andy D’Agorne, Green Party, Broadway West, York.

Comments (10)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:08pm Fri 11 Apr 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Andy, whilst blaming car drivers and conveniently forgetting about the Saharan sand, I see you still haven't read your own council report that says:-

YCC Low Emission Strategy Oct 2012 says: -
“Traffic levels in the city have been reduced 2002 to 2005.
Peak period traffic levels have remained stable since 2006.”
“NO2 ug/m2 (pollution in York) increases 2005 to 2010
"Inside AQMA 33 to 49” = 48% pollution increase.
"Outside AQMA 27 to 36” = 33% pollution increase.
“After an initial decline in NO2 concentrations between 2002 and 2005, concentrations of NO2 have since risen year on year in York, a trend that must be reversed. The main, but not sole factor, are traffic related emissions, which give rise to almost three quarters of the NO2 arising in some congested areas of the city.”

So with no increase in traffic volume we have massive increases in pollution. With no increases in traffic volume we have experienced massive increases in congestion in York.

So it would appear that the councils previous "bold measures" like the constraining of the road network (as described by Mr Merrett) with things like closing and narrowing roads and deliberately setting traffic lights short to dissuade drivers from using roads in York, as the council say they do in other reports which you perhaps have also not read may, it could be argued, be the very cause of the pollution problems you say you give the appearance care so much about.

So my suggestion would be look at all of the changes made to dissuade car divers in York which cause stop start vehicle movement and idling time which increases fuel consumption by up to 400% and extended journeys and take them out again. This should result in lower pollution levels than in 2005 as government statistics, which you may not have read, say we now drive less polluting and smaller cars.
There you go job done I look forward to seeing the results.
Andy, whilst blaming car drivers and conveniently forgetting about the Saharan sand, I see you still haven't read your own council report that says:- YCC Low Emission Strategy Oct 2012 says: - “Traffic levels in the city have been reduced 2002 to 2005. Peak period traffic levels have remained stable since 2006.” “NO2 ug/m2 (pollution in York) increases 2005 to 2010 "Inside AQMA 33 to 49” = 48% pollution increase. "Outside AQMA 27 to 36” = 33% pollution increase. “After an initial decline in NO2 concentrations between 2002 and 2005, concentrations of NO2 have since risen year on year in York, a trend that must be reversed. The main, but not sole factor, are traffic related emissions, which give rise to almost three quarters of the NO2 arising in some congested areas of the city.” So with no increase in traffic volume we have massive increases in pollution. With no increases in traffic volume we have experienced massive increases in congestion in York. So it would appear that the councils previous "bold measures" like the constraining of the road network (as described by Mr Merrett) with things like closing and narrowing roads and deliberately setting traffic lights short to dissuade drivers from using roads in York, as the council say they do in other reports which you perhaps have also not read may, it could be argued, be the very cause of the pollution problems you say you give the appearance care so much about. So my suggestion would be look at all of the changes made to dissuade car divers in York which cause stop start vehicle movement and idling time which increases fuel consumption by up to 400% and extended journeys and take them out again. This should result in lower pollution levels than in 2005 as government statistics, which you may not have read, say we now drive less polluting and smaller cars. There you go job done I look forward to seeing the results. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -21

3:12pm Fri 11 Apr 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Sorry above should have read.

you give the appearance you care so much about.
Sorry above should have read. you give the appearance you care so much about. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -28

3:59pm Fri 11 Apr 14

Dave Taylor says...

Hopefully the sand was a bit of a one-off!
Air pollution is an on-going problem in York and other cities. In York, we have no heavy industry so it is caused, almost exclusively by vehicle exhausts.
Idling in traffic doesn't help - you're quite right - so part of the strategy has been to stop vehicles idling in the parts of York where the pollution is worst.

eg: Traffic is 'held' at Hospital Fields Road on the A19 to ease the congestion and pollution outside Fishergate School/Mecca Bingo where it is breaching safety guidelines.

Similarly the closure of Lendal Bridge eased congestion on Gillygate where the pollution was breaching safety guidelines. That may have diverted congestion elsewhere, but that's what the trial was supposed to discover. I don't think the Council has collected all the relevant data about where all the traffic went so that may be a moot point, but certainly Gillygate was less congested. It'll be interesting to see the air quality analysis.
Hopefully the sand was a bit of a one-off! Air pollution is an on-going problem in York and other cities. In York, we have no heavy industry so it is caused, almost exclusively by vehicle exhausts. Idling in traffic doesn't help - you're quite right - so part of the strategy has been to stop vehicles idling in the parts of York where the pollution is worst. eg: Traffic is 'held' at Hospital Fields Road on the A19 to ease the congestion and pollution outside Fishergate School/Mecca Bingo where it is breaching safety guidelines. Similarly the closure of Lendal Bridge eased congestion on Gillygate where the pollution was breaching safety guidelines. That may have diverted congestion elsewhere, but that's what the trial was supposed to discover. I don't think the Council has collected all the relevant data about where all the traffic went so that may be a moot point, but certainly Gillygate was less congested. It'll be interesting to see the air quality analysis. Dave Taylor
  • Score: 9

5:14pm Fri 11 Apr 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

Dave, the sand isn't a one off. The first time I remember experiencing it was February 1978 but it happened before and several times since. It is quite natural and no carbon taxes or Ethanol contamination of petrol will change that.
Now you also say that ' the closure of Lendal Bridge eased congestion on Gillygate where the pollution was breaching safety guidelines. That may have diverted congestion elsewhere.' No Dave, it did divert traffic elsewhere so all the trial did was to make some people travel further and hence burn more fuel. Madness!
Dave, the sand isn't a one off. The first time I remember experiencing it was February 1978 but it happened before and several times since. It is quite natural and no carbon taxes or Ethanol contamination of petrol will change that. Now you also say that ' the closure of Lendal Bridge eased congestion on Gillygate where the pollution was breaching safety guidelines. That may have diverted congestion elsewhere.' No Dave, it did divert traffic elsewhere so all the trial did was to make some people travel further and hence burn more fuel. Madness! ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: -14

5:59pm Fri 11 Apr 14

strangebuttrue? says...

At least Dave (who I am assuming is Councillor Dave Taylor Green Party) has been honest about the council holding up traffic which is more than can be said for others who just try to kid us that it is our own fault. Perhaps a little more honesty and a little less misleading would be helpful to all concerned?

In the case he quotes you can see the logic but I dare say that the holding goes a little further than it needs to and in other places where you can see traffic being held there is no obvious logical explanation other than "encouraging modal change". Maybe if some thought was given to improving the flow of vehicles past the mecca bingo that may help like having only one lane coming in from Fawcett Street (the right lane) tuning onto Fishergate and no give way at the Mecca Junction for vehicles approaching from Fulford and then allow the vehicles to merge or change lanes as they head off down Fishergate. I may be wrong, but don't think I am, but seem to recall that it used to be like that many years ago just before they changed it to it's current configuration and the congestion problems started? Goodness I am on fire today with solutions!!!

The pollution reports may not give a clear answer to the effects of the Lendal Bridge closure (sorry can't bring myself to call it a trial) as I believe we may have had an extremely wet and windy period during this trial both of which can change the pollution levels.
At least Dave (who I am assuming is Councillor Dave Taylor Green Party) has been honest about the council holding up traffic which is more than can be said for others who just try to kid us that it is our own fault. Perhaps a little more honesty and a little less misleading would be helpful to all concerned? In the case he quotes you can see the logic but I dare say that the holding goes a little further than it needs to and in other places where you can see traffic being held there is no obvious logical explanation other than "encouraging modal change". Maybe if some thought was given to improving the flow of vehicles past the mecca bingo that may help like having only one lane coming in from Fawcett Street (the right lane) tuning onto Fishergate and no give way at the Mecca Junction for vehicles approaching from Fulford and then allow the vehicles to merge or change lanes as they head off down Fishergate. I may be wrong, but don't think I am, but seem to recall that it used to be like that many years ago just before they changed it to it's current configuration and the congestion problems started? Goodness I am on fire today with solutions!!! The pollution reports may not give a clear answer to the effects of the Lendal Bridge closure (sorry can't bring myself to call it a trial) as I believe we may have had an extremely wet and windy period during this trial both of which can change the pollution levels. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -56

6:01pm Fri 11 Apr 14

strangebuttrue? says...

By the way score adjuster you have inadvertently given Dave a negative vote when he is supporting your Labour friends. Wake up!
By the way score adjuster you have inadvertently given Dave a negative vote when he is supporting your Labour friends. Wake up! strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -19

10:44pm Fri 11 Apr 14

akaroa says...

For many years York has had one of the worst contaminated atmospheres in the whole country The demise of industry, coal fires etc. has not improved the situation one iota. If drastic measures are not introduced to rectify/reduce the atmospheric pollutants, then the deaths attributed to this disgusting anomaly will rise even higher than they already are. WHO is going to accept responsibility for these fatalities? JUST WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THESE DEATHS?????
For many years York has had one of the worst contaminated atmospheres in the whole country The demise of industry, coal fires etc. has not improved the situation one iota. If drastic measures are not introduced to rectify/reduce the atmospheric pollutants, then the deaths attributed to this disgusting anomaly will rise even higher than they already are. WHO is going to accept responsibility for these fatalities? JUST WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THESE DEATHS????? akaroa
  • Score: 20

11:25pm Fri 11 Apr 14

wallman says...

akaroa wrote:
For many years York has had one of the worst contaminated atmospheres in the whole country The demise of industry, coal fires etc. has not improved the situation one iota. If drastic measures are not introduced to rectify/reduce the atmospheric pollutants, then the deaths attributed to this disgusting anomaly will rise even higher than they already are. WHO is going to accept responsibility for these fatalities? JUST WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THESE DEATHS?????
go and stand next to the green idiot what aload of crap you write
[quote][p][bold]akaroa[/bold] wrote: For many years York has had one of the worst contaminated atmospheres in the whole country The demise of industry, coal fires etc. has not improved the situation one iota. If drastic measures are not introduced to rectify/reduce the atmospheric pollutants, then the deaths attributed to this disgusting anomaly will rise even higher than they already are. WHO is going to accept responsibility for these fatalities? JUST WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THESE DEATHS?????[/p][/quote]go and stand next to the green idiot what aload of crap you write wallman
  • Score: -33

6:29pm Sat 12 Apr 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Glad to see the score adjuster woke up and corrected Dave's score.
Glad to see the score adjuster woke up and corrected Dave's score. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -4

10:16pm Sun 13 Apr 14

strangebuttrue? says...

akaroa wrote:
For many years York has had one of the worst contaminated atmospheres in the whole country The demise of industry, coal fires etc. has not improved the situation one iota. If drastic measures are not introduced to rectify/reduce the atmospheric pollutants, then the deaths attributed to this disgusting anomaly will rise even higher than they already are. WHO is going to accept responsibility for these fatalities? JUST WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THESE DEATHS?????
See first comment
[quote][p][bold]akaroa[/bold] wrote: For many years York has had one of the worst contaminated atmospheres in the whole country The demise of industry, coal fires etc. has not improved the situation one iota. If drastic measures are not introduced to rectify/reduce the atmospheric pollutants, then the deaths attributed to this disgusting anomaly will rise even higher than they already are. WHO is going to accept responsibility for these fatalities? JUST WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THESE DEATHS?????[/p][/quote]See first comment strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree