Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 6th September 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Air pollution at city centre hot spots soaring above EU targets



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 05 May 2008
NEARLY half of Edinburgh's busiest streets are failing to meet European air quality targets, as pollution in the city worsens.
Latest figures released by the city council under freedom of information laws show emissions levels across the city have got worse. Average levels of nitrogen dioxide on Torphichen Place and West Maitland Street, close to Haymarket Station, and at a
westbound section of St John's Road in Corstorphine, came in at more than twice the EU target.

Among the new pollution hotspots are Easter Road and Bernard Street in Leith, together with Roseburn Terrace.

Long-term exposure to nitrogen dioxide can affect lung function and increase the risk of respiratory symptoms such as bronchitis – especially in children.

In 2010, the EU targets on air quality become mandatory, and the council faces being hit by fines of thousands of pounds.

City leaders today said trams and an increased focus on park-and-rides would help cut pollution levels across the city. But opposition and environmental groups said the worsening of air pollution could be traced back to the failure of 2005's road tolls referendum.

Mark Sydenham, spokesman for Friends of the Earth Edinburgh, said: "This probably won't please a lot of people, but air pollution was one of the key arguments for congestion charging in the referendum, and it looks as if the worst that was predicted then is now happening.

"These levels are deeply concerning, especially given the fact we will be facing EU fines within a few years."

The EU annual average objective for nitrogen dioxide is 40 micrograms per cubic metre.

West Maitland Street and Palmerston Place came in at 86 micrograms – the worst level in the city. Eighteen out of the 41 monitored streets in Edinburgh are now failing EU pollution targets. Council officials are currently working on a air quality action plan aimed at introducing measures to cut nitrogen dioxide levels.

Councillor Robert Aldridge, the city's environment leader, said: "There is currently a pattern being observed in many cities that shows nitrogen dioxide levels are not falling in line with predicted emissions. There are many suggestions as to why this might be. One is that the increasing number of diesel vehicles on our roads are emitting higher levels of nitrogen dioxide.

"We have introduced a number of measures aimed at improving air quality in the city in recent years – for example the introduction of a number of park-and-ride sites.

"Infrastructure is currently being developed for the introduction of trams which will carry up to 200 passengers at a time with zero emissions. We also try to encourage residents to use public transport, walk or cycle rather than driving."

Councillor Maureen Child, the city's Labour environment spokeswoman, said air quality was a "big challenge".

"It is one which we predicted during the congestion charge debate," she said. "Sadly I think the chickens are coming home to roost and I still see no way we can make serious inroads into the air pollution problem.

"Congestion charging is off the agenda but I personally feel we will be forced to look again at this."

Weblink

Edinburrgh City Council



The full article contains 532 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 05 May 2008 2:28 PM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Environment
 
1

Dileas,

05/05/2008 11:53:14
I can understand the eco-loonies claiming that poor air quality is the result of losing the bid to apply "congestion charging" but the fact is that air quality in Princes Street has not improved since it was closed to all but buses and taxis - diesel engines being the main offenders!

Bus routes will improve their air quality only when an alternative fuel is used in buses. Or edinburgh's ludricrously expensive trams remove the buses from the roads.

So, much as the lefty Greens might have liked road tolls, these would have made no difference to bus routes.

The eco-loonies should get out their sandwich boards again - "the end of the world is (still) nigh"!

Idiots!
2

Mallory,

Edinburgh 05/05/2008 12:33:34
And don't forget the impact of all these 'traffic calming' measures which cause delays not to mention detours and trips looking for parking spots.
A cynic might believe this was all part of 'Prof' David Begg's longterm insane plan to force us onto public transport.

No doubt a TIE person will appear to say that Trams don't create particulates - so will they replace all the diesel buses?


3

Bill MacD,

05/05/2008 12:52:06
The city needs to be made totally car free to make it a liveable space for everyone. The right wing selfish mob like 1 above shout loudly about their greedy wish to pollute everyone else's life for their own convenience. But responsible politicians should do what's right for the city as a whole and not just the nasty element that shouts ME loudest.
4

,

05/05/2008 13:00:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia,

05/05/2008 13:03:03
Unlike Foo, I am an extreme nutter, and believe that instead of using cars, people should commute to work on giant bars of soap.

6

Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia,

05/05/2008 13:03:14
Particularly on wet days.
7

Dragonlord,

05/05/2008 15:46:25
Do the figures take into account the road works, delaying traffic and causing hold ups?
There was recently a bus drivers strike, and the council grudgingly admitted that traffic flowed better without the bus lanes. However, what they will not admit to is, air quality improved drasticly too.
Lothian buses recently bought 35 new buses. Did they look at alternative fuels? LPG would be cheaper and produces lower emissions, so why did they not go down that route?

As for freinds of the earth, lets jump on the band wagon and blame everyone for not wanting to waste money on a congestion charge.

The polution in Edinburgh is caused mainly by buses and anyone that doesn't beleive me, try standing on princess st during the rush hour.
8

Robbierunciman,

Romney Marsh 05/05/2008 16:03:19
like the above, I believe that pollution arrives by magic and has nothing to do with the numpties cluttering up the streets with their diesel cars carrying one person.

If the pollution does come from my car, its got to be someone elses fault - my god a pedestrian crossing - what is that all about? a set of traffic lights - my journey is much more important than the people coming down that other road? A bus, my goodness its only go 10 people on it, thats a scandalous waste of resources - thats got lots of empty seats, there are only three in my car!

This type of person still believe in magic, fairies at the bottom of the garden and hold victorian values.

The latter means that they believe its far better that children suffer allergies, asthma and other breathing diseases, rather than that they face up to the the 'inconvenience' of using the car less and travelling 'smarter'.

I think the difference between an 'eco-loony' and this type of person, is that the former understand science and know how to act on what it is telling them.
9

Scotish Exile,

05/05/2008 16:33:38
Pollution comes from buses, taxis and lorries, you see them every day belching out noxious black fumes, you seldom see a car with black smoke reeking out of its exhausts, do something about the real polluters, its not the car drivers fault.
10

celtic4,

USA 05/05/2008 17:29:35
#3 A city the size of Edinburgh without vehicles? Please. And #9, plenty of cars make exhaust as well as buses and lorries. The air pollution factor is a problem that involves everyone. In Memphis TN, there is just one section in all of the city where no cars are allowed. The rest is crammed. We have to deal with traffic daily, and getting rid of buses and lorries will not solve that problem. The solution is to minimize emissions on ALL vehicles or we'll all end up unable to breathe.
11

Goat Boy,

05/05/2008 18:08:50
I love it when we get a report that warns people about pollution and how it is affecting our kids and how it is killing the elderly, yet we get only 11 comments, and some of them are not exactly useful. But if Alex Salmond changes his tie, there's a national debate. Now what does that say about the way we think? Robbierunciman (8) sums it up nicely - and I will add, if you travel in any form of vehicle that is powered by fossil fuel – car, bus, motorcycle, plane or train - you are part of the problem.
12

,

05/05/2008 18:22:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
13

Charles MN,

05/05/2008 19:16:06
#11 Car free Princes St has 50% greater NOx levels than (largely) bus free Queen St. Princes St levels are rising, Queen St levels are reducing. It is easy to see where the NOx problems are coming from.
14

Julian,

EDINBURGH 05/05/2008 22:30:50
#12 Goat Boy,

So if everyone travelled around on motrcycles we would still have this problem? You're not a car and plane user by any chance?

#9 Scottish exile,
Did nobody ever tell you, most of the pollutants produced by cars are invisible? Please refrain from making these types of comments. Somebody might end up believing them.
15

Julian,

EDINBURGH 05/05/2008 22:33:38
"Maureen Child said It is one which we predicted during the congestion charge debate," she said. "Sadly I think the chickens are coming home to roost"

Councillor Child, it's just a pity you and your party were not able to predict that a tolls referendum didn't have a chance of going through.

Whereas Ken Livingston in London.....
16

Dileas,

05/05/2008 23:04:10
Sorry Julian #15 - You are wrong to say "Did nobody ever tell you, most of the pollutants produced by cars are invisible? Please refrain from making these types of comments. Somebody might end up believing them."

Since 1995, all new cars have had to have a catalyser fitted which burns off almost all impurities in the exhaust, so cars can be attacked only for their CO2 emissions - what has been described as plant food, because all plants absorb Co2, converting it back into oxygen. Not only are "pollutants produced by cars" invisible - they are non-existent! Not that the eco-loonies will accept that! Deluded idiots!

And, Foo #4 - apart from claiming I am an "extreme nutter" exactly what in my post#1 do your challenge? Or are you just a bigot who hates cars? Now is that because you are an eco-loony or because you are a lefty? These are surely the only two sorts of people who could take exception to my post!
17

Dileas,

05/05/2008 23:06:09
But Julian - I do have to agree with your post #16!
18

Julian,

EDINBURGH 06/05/2008 02:39:31
Dileas #17

Sorry, but catalytic converters do not eliminate harmful emmissions, they only reduce them, even when working at peak efficiency.

And for the first few miles you drive they are very ineffectual. Also, if they do not have the optimum fuel/air mixture their effectiveness goes down as well.
19

Goat Boy,

06/05/2008 09:00:56
Dileas you started off okay in 17, then you lost it. You're right, you can't see the pollutants the article refers to, and there are several 100 others that aren't mentioned. Like the particulate matter (that can induce hear attacks), the heavy metals (from Cats), the VOCs, the PAHs and the unburnt hydocarbons. And I can assure you, some of these can be detrimental to health and in extreme cases can lead to - death . And what about the kids and adults who suffer from asthma attacks brought on by pollution. I suggest that you go and speak to people who have asthma – I have.

As for the congestion charging farce - they knew it was going to fail. It was badly sold to the public and now the residents of Edinburgh are having to pay the Council to keep commuters from parking in their streets.
20

Koffindodger,

Edinburgh 06/05/2008 13:59:40
14 Charles MN,

"#11 Car free Princes St has 50% greater NOx levels than (largely) bus free Queen St. Princes St levels are rising, Queen St levels are reducing. It is easy to see where the NOx problems are coming from."

I notice that no one has seen fit to comment on your posting as it does not seem to agree with the anti car/pro public transport accepted wisdom at all.

Could someone tell me if Charles is correct?

21

Julian,

EDINBURGH 06/05/2008 15:24:50
Goat Boy,

I don't think I've ever read a comment that I agreed with more. Not only that, you built upon my limited knowledge of pollutants and catalytic converters to truly destroy the ridiculous statement that:-

"pollutants are not produced by cars"

It's attitudes like that which make you wonder if we're ever going to progress.
22

Padraig,

06/05/2008 15:37:49
Koffindodger #21 - CharlesMN is correct - the anti-car/pro public transport argument is political - left wingers want everryone to travel by public transport. It's called the politics of envy.
23

Julian,

EDINBURGH 07/05/2008 00:20:09
#23 Padraig,

It's also called the politics of giving a sh!t about the planet and trying to do something about it.

Your attitude is just frankly self-deluding. You try to make yourself feel better by concluding that the people pushing public transport are, in fact, not trying to do good but are actually just motivated by jealousy. Salves your conscience, doesn't it.

So where's your evidence that all these people can't afford to run a car? Councillors and MP's, the people who are at the forefront of pushing public transport, are certainly not in this category...all of them have cars.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.