Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Air quality measuring at Chiswick Roundabout | |
Posted by: | Andrew OSullivan | |
Date/Time: | 09/01/16 18:25:00 |
It is clutching at straws to think that the issue of air quality could be used to delay or prevent a third runway and a Wikipedia based article from the Guardian doesn't change that. Most of the air pollution around Heathrow comes from cars not planes and it will probably be reduced at a stroke by the imposition of a congestion charge zone and a low emission zone around the airport. Add to that the likely reduction in emissions from better engine technology and Heathrow can probably beat some fairly stringent emission targets. It may be argued that technology has done little to improve air quality over the last decade when we have also had a reduction in the number of vehicle journeys and therefore it is over optimistic to assume air will tend to get cleaner. However, this period also coincides with a big expansion of the bus fleet in London and a restriction of road space to ensure its effective operation. Even if we see no improvements in engines over the next decade the steady retirement of older more polluting vehicles, particularly buses should see emissions fall generally across London unless there is a significant increase in journeys made. Air quality may be a red herring for Heathrow but it is not for the Chiswick Curve because the timescale we are talking about is much shorter plus the increase in vehicle movements in the relatively confined area around Chiswick Roundabout is likely to be much greater in percentage terms than around Heathrow. Remember there is another huge development with a 22 storey tower and a bus garage going up at Capital Interchange Way and the new stadium and 900 flats just behind that. Bottom line is that if the Chiswick Curve can't be challenged on air quality grounds when the case against it is likely to be much stronger then opponents of Heathrow need to come up with more convincing arguments. |