Letter

Dear L Sanders,

I am writing to see if you can help me raise my concerns effectively regarding the Oxfordshire Transport Plan. I have been following the issue of air pollution in Oxford for a number of years and made enquiries (or tried to at least - a good 80% of local and national government officials seem to ignore emails) with members of the city council, county council, DEFRA and the local health organisations. This has all come to no avail.

The present situation regarding levels of Nitrogen Oxides and Ozone in Oxford are completely unacceptable. There is a proven severe health risk and the objectives that are supposed to be followed (as set by the EU and DEFRA) are being flagrantly ignored.

I would ask if you have not already to read the 2006 survey here which states that air quality is a top priority for residents of Oxford:

http://www.oxford.gov.uk/community/talkback-panel-reports.cfm

Then to read chapter 15 of the Oxfordshire County Transport Strategy amounts to Oxford's response to this requirement, EU and National government directives.

The first thing about the transport strategy you could notice is the poor spelling, quality of writing and the way that the authors have tucked away dealing with air quality to the last parts of each chapter throughout the report. Big words about the environment are used throughout but when you finally find some words that should amount to something more concrete there is nothing. What's more the language used ('may be a problem') flies in the face of the evidence on Oxford City Council's own web site:

http://www.oxford.gov.uk/environment/air-pollution.cfm

And according to National Statistics Oxford has some of the worst air quality in the UK (which can't leave it being one of the worst places anywhere).

Oxford is denying it has a problem. It is refusing to deal with it because it is stuck in some 1980s vision of the economy. It is still being ignorant enough to do what is right on some antiquated and frankly corrupt view of 'the economy'.

There is not a single economy, it is not a static concept. What the report is saying is that the version of 'the economy' which we subscribe to, our current vested interests considered is one where we feel we must continue polluting. And if you are wondering why I use the word corrupt it is simply because there is absolutely no indication of the cost to the NHS of the air pollution in the budget model, neither is their reference to macro-economic models such as the Stern report.

I would ask you as my representative within the local government to help me take these issues further. I regard this transport plan utterly unacceptable. I am determined that these bogus arguments are not allowed to come part of a strategy that fails to deal with real issues, and what's more costs residents of Oxford millions of pounds.

In short, I would like to organise a meeting with yourself or someone you feel better suited to deal with these concerns. I also stress that time is of the essence as far as I can work out this document is currently being reviewed by the national transport department. If my concerns are to have any effect then they will need to be raised with the right people at the earliest opportunity.

Yours sincerely,

Howard Noble

Houses

Completed on the 8 Vincent Ave. sale today. Got A&L mortgage agreed. So will redeem mortgage and go down the 'getting the exchange' path on Cricket Road.

Since I am selling and buying in such a short space of time then I will never really get into credit.

Funny how on the face of things we never seem to own anything. Other people always seem to own our money, we're always in debt, renting and being managed by people further up the supply chain.

Anyway, I will own a house so that is nice. My own space.

Cricket Road

Is has damp but is a robust house.

This Oxford campaign

Just before I run away for two weeks in Spain I want to reflect a bit on where I am in my research and thinking on dealing with pollution in Oxford.

Well Oxford is still very polluted. I am still frustrated at how hard it is to get information out of local and central government:

• Nothing from John at county council on the LTP
  
• Nothing from Evan Harris my MP
• Nothing from air watch on whether the way air quality measurements have been changed
• Nothing on why the cost of pollution on the economy from central government
  

I think it would be interesting to find out the history of decision-making in terms of roads and traffic have been made over the last 100 years, particuarly how much say the car manufacturers have had. Morris, Rover and now BMWs mini must have powerful sway over decision-making considering revenue and jobs.

I still need to find out specifics about the vulnerable people in Oxford.

I still need to plan my campaign with FOE.

I still need to do the survey to find why people come to Oxford and how they get there.

Charles Street

Is damp.

The Oxford Local Transport Plan

Letter to Oxford County Council:

Dear John,

Thank you for your response. I am pleased to read there will be more clean buses and this is a small step in the right direction but I have a many other concerns

Please bear with me - this is not my job so I do not have as much time as I want to dedicate to these issues.

1. The LTP was up for review on a public web site, how long was this for, how many people from the public sent in comments, was this a representative sample of people from Oxford? My concern here is that generally I have found using the county, national and oxford government web sites extremely arduous (mostly due to them being PDF dumping grounds and having very poor navigation) so I doubt whether there are more than a handful of people that are even able to work out what you are doing in this area.
2. You say that the county (and I assume Oxford) councils are taking the situation of air pollution in Oxford seriously. Why then is the first mention of any actions in for Oxford on p.183. Why also on this page does it use the language: "Oxford revealed a number of locations where air pollutant levels may have exceeded national air quality objectives" and "The only air quality objective that is exceeded in Oxford is the national objective for the annual mean concentration of nitrogen dioxide..." I am sure you are as aware as I am that Oxford is probably the most polluted city in the whole of the UK. It has consistently been worse than the two other offenders namely Bath and Marylebone High Street. If you are serious about fixing this issue surely it would be more appropriate to use language like: "Oxford has a very serious air pollution problem, it has exceeded all air pollution objectives consistently over the last ten years and has a very serious problem with Nitrogen Oxides. Consequently the levels of Ozone pollution in Oxford are also very serious. Ozone and Nitrogen Oxides are a serious health problem meaning vulnerable people with asthma and heart disease are at a serious risk of being hospitalised or dying and the cost to the NHS is substantial. All cities around the world with levels of Ozone and Nitrogen Oxides on a par with Oxford see increased fatalities in the range thousands people per year. data source:

http://www.airquality.co.uk/archive/reports/cat05/0601311639_Air_Pollution_in_the_UK_2004_-_Part_2_Statistics.pdf

My point here is that it does not help if the people regulating air quality appear NOT to not be taking the issue seriously and especially if they are obscuring the facts. (While Ozone is not a regulated pollutant ("transboundary pollutant") it nevertheless is very high in Oxford and the levels of NOx cannot be ignored as a contributing factor).

3. Why is air pollution or quality only the 4th priority in the transport plan (after congestion, accessibility, and safety. It seems to me that if the local government will solve air pollution by the only way that can every have an effect - which is to drastically reduce the number cars and buses driving around the city then congestion and the other priorities will not be a solved as a consequence.

It seems to me that this is lots of not very innovative steps that are not measurable. With the seriousness of climate change then it is enourmous steps that are needed. It is time to say that bus companies are responsible for the pollution they create. That bus companies MUST share tickets. That cars cannot drive whereever they want and many more streets need closing. Car parks need to be replaced with more parks and sustainable housing. etc.

This report smacks of the same old thing, too little and too late. Oxford has been a serious air quality offender for the last ten years, there has been ample warning, and the measures that have been taken have only ensured traffic flow or tackled congestion and not done anything to make Oxford a more sustainable and healthy city to live in.

As a resident I am ashed to live in the most polluted city in the UK. I was brushed off by the Oxford City Council when I raised this last year. The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1292524,00.html
was rubished by a member of the transport department team. I now see that the governments own statisticss back these findings up so I was right to be appalled.

In short what I need reassuring is that the action plan will produce measurable results in making oxford a cleaner, healthier and more sustainable city. I want to to be reassured that Oxford will stop micro-tinkering and make some bold decisions that will actually have an effect.

My next avenue of research is into any effect the local car manufacturing plants have had on oxford's governance. I dearly hope oxford has stood up to the kinds of commercial corruption that so abhors us when we read about it in stories from America. I very much doubt it, I am sure that Oxford's problems are caused by much more than it being in a low-lying dip in a vale and that there have been priorities given to interests that are far from democratic.

I look forward to your responses,

Regards, Howard Noble

Pollution web page

So since wikipedia deleted my page on air pollution in oxford for being 'original research' and too local or specific I will have to get the research hosted somewhere else on the web. I'll try wet paint first and have created a site cleverly called NOZONE.

Pollution

Traffic
Originally uploaded by KT Lindsay.

A seemingly harmless scene, a few cars and a bus carrying people to London. Unfortunately our excessively liberal attitude towards motorised transport is making one of the most polluted cities in the UK - Oxford, a dangerous place to live.

Air pollution kills tens of thousands of people each year and causes misery to many millions. Oxides of nitrogen and ozone damage all of our lungs and hearts, cause cancer and increase miscarriage rates.

Yet, we love driving around, we love convenience, we love status.

So 80s, so tacky.

Spoken to DEFRA

After being pinged around the houses a bit I managed to speak to a very helpful Carol Tidmarsh who I think is at DEFRA. She explained the governance of Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) to me which basically amounts to: (1) areas with a pollution problem are nominated as AQMAs. These areas must submit a Local Transport Plan to the National Transport Department who have hired consultants who offer a service to support AQMAs in improving air quality. Areas that do not work with the national transport department can be taken under administration by the secretary of state.

In terms of reporting The EU is about to submity a new Air Quality Objective that means all EU states are accountable and will be fined for not meeting targets.

I also learnt that Ozone is not a local air pollutant objective but the reason given that Ozone can blow in from europe ("transboundary pollutant") is obviously not right - so can PM10 and that is a local objective. Also Ozone levels are effected very much by local conditions like vehicles as they are a by-product of nitrogen oxide emissions. Anyway the review and assessment helpdesk confirmed it is not a local objective but the reason given was fuzzy, it just is because it is deemed that local management cannot effect the levels of Ozone - worth following this one up!.

Some hopefully helpful advice is that I should contact Oxford's "primary care trust" for stats on respiratory and other diseases in Oxford.

I have also just spoken to one of the 3 helpdesks that support this whole convoluted process:

1. The review and assessment helpdesk who support AQMAs in the compilation of reports in a 3 year process cycle
   
2. Bureau Veritas helpdesk who work with AQMAs to create action plans that feature in the Local Transport Policy document
3. The Local Authority Air Quality Support who provide support on monitoring, modelling and emissions.

So the plot thickens!

Air quality in Oxford, England

I'll use this thread to keep a history of my activities and research into the dire pollution problem in Oxford. I am starting this slightly after the event and want to capture everything, so first an update:

1. Here are the banding targets for different airbourne pollutants.
2. Tried to use the DEFRA wiki but to no avail (email'd support email address, but no reply)
   
3. I have read up on pollution and respiratory diseases and rather satisfyingly the DEFRA web site does not avoid the issue but states that pollutants like NOx and Ozone (O3) do worsen diseases like asthma. I have found medical research articles that state that these and other pollutants may actually cause the onset of these and other diseases. But there is obviously nonesense like this flying about.
   
4. Finally I have surfed and downloaded the PDF nightmare that is government websites and found a report that provides the direction and summary of the situation in Oxford in the 'A Breathe of Fresh Air (ironic name)' report.
5. I have written to the people who maintain the Oxford airwatch website:

In response to your queries, in turn:-

1) We are aware of this, it is being dealt with, following changes to the site structures.

2) Yellow dots are passive monitors (diffusion tubes) giving an average result over a month; green dots are automated monitoring stations providing continuous hourly data.

3) We are listed on pages linked to the DEFRA website, but under Midlands, not the South East

http://www.stanger.co.uk/siteinfo/

http://www.stanger.co.uk/siteinfo/MonitoringSite.asp?ID=77

4) http://www.airquality.co.uk/archive/standards.php#band

the above link gives you explanation of the banding system

5) We think it's unrealistic to publish long documents as anything other than pdf. With respect it's nothing to do with keeping material hidden, but everything to do with keeping the web pages manageable.

I hope these brief comments are helpful, if you have any other questions please do not hesitate to come back to me,

best wishes

deleted contact details

---

---

Posted At: 18 August 2006 19:27
Posted To: feedback@oxford.gov.uk
Conversation: hello
Subject: hello

just using your web site and i have the following:

1. the last link on your general information page is broken
2. i wanted to get data for a recording station that is close to where I work but don't seem to be able to (one of the yellow dots on your map). i generally do not understand the difference between the green and yellow dots. how many recording stations are there in oxford, 3 or nearly 100?
3. i also do not understand why on the DEFRA site Oxford is not sited as a city where recording is being done and forecasts are available. according to your own 2005 report it seems oxford should be as it appears to have pollution levels well above the average (in all 5 categories) and seems to be on a par with marylebone high street in london - very bad news!
4. lastly could you point me towards a document that shows me how DEFRA arrived at the bandings and so decided what levels are save. i am particuarly concerned that targets are being set based on mean rather than peak or maximum levels since this would seem to have more medical significance (the body tends to work on chemical triggers or switches rather than mean levels).
5. your web site would be a lot easier to use if you published directly to the web i.e. using HTML or wiki markup rather than PDFs. HTML is more accessible, easier to search, easier to cite sections. PDFs generally come across as a medium people want to hide data inside of and discourage readership and analysis.

I am sorry to be so succinct here and please don't see this as discouraging because i think your service is a giant step in the right direction. i am chasing this because I think an aweful lot more needs to happen though.

6. Finally I have written to my local MP using the writetothem.com website:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

                                      Sunday 20 August 2006

Dear Evan Harris,

I am writing with many years of frustration at Oxford's seeming
inability to deal with its severe air quality problem. I like many
millions of people am an asthmatic and suffer greatly when the
pollution levels are high. Before coming to Oxford I had my condition
pretty much under control but over the last three years the summer
months have been hell with me being on the border of being admitted to
hospital and having to take steroid pills.

According to the central government's own statements NOx and Ozone are
major contributors to respiratory diseases along with the three
pollutants that are supposed to be under control as sanctioned by
DEFRA.

I have spent a considerable amount of time researching what Oxford is
doing (or supposed to have done) to improve air quality and I am
extremely disappointed. From my readings then I think there are a
number of failures that need addressing and this is where I would like
your support:

1. Targets must be adhered to and if they are exceeded the responsible
bodies must pay. It is the buses that the councillors reports say are
causing the problems. The bus companies must be set emission targets
and they should pay if they exceed them.

2. Ensure the costs to the NHS are being factored into the
calculations. It may well be cheaper to have a diesel powered bus fleet
and to allow tourist buses to not install exhaust technologies BUT the
knock on effect is greater costs to the NHS in the form of time with
GPs, hospital beds and drugs. (This is not mentioning the economic
argument that surrounds loss of productivity in the workplace caused by
illness).

3. Ensure the ethical argument is made. The government's primary role
is to protect its citizens. It is not acceptable to support an economic
framework that puts transport to shopping streets in the centre of town
above the health of what is not even a minority (MILLIONS of people
suffer from respiratory problems that are worsened by pollution AND
there is even evidence that pollution CAUSES disease).

4. Promote MUCH greater clarity in communications as to what our local
government is doing. It is not acceptable to just throw PDF documents
of minutes and reports onto an already confusing website. All the
general public like myself cares about are the statements that show the
services they can expect to receive. In this case it means the
decisions that have been made written in a form that we can measure if
they have been achieved. To my reading the only measurable targets that
have been set have been (1) to encourage shared ticketing between bus
companies (2) to encourage adoption of exhaust technologies on all
buses and taxis. Unfortunately I could not find any evidence that these
objectives set in 2004 have been met.

What I suggest is the local government adopts a Wiki and forum approach
in much the same way that central government has begun to do:

http://wiki.defra.gov.uk/Environmental%20Contract%20pages

This is well established technology, easy to install and maintain,
free, and well accepted by millions of the general public. It also
allows the public to comment more easily than they currently can.

Like many people this is an enormously important issue for me. Policies
towards environmental sustainability are ones that I measure a
political party by as they are not only the most important but also
demonstrate a political party's ability to show innovation and
leadership of the form that is admirable (rather than say Tony Blair's
war mongering).

Thank you for your time and I look forward to reading your response in
the near future.

Yours sincerely,

(deleted my details)

5d702165f6ee8624c0c2/60e7ecd654d5cdd13e14
(Signed with an electronic signature in accordance with subsection 7(3)
of the Electronic Communications Act 2000.)

So lets see where I get to...