From Lesley Mackay
Tuesday, 26 February 2008

The Action Plan prepared by Calderdale Council to address the poor quality of air on the A646 in Hebden Bridge has now been sent out for consultation. You can access it here on the web (pdf).

The poor air quality is a real concern for all those who walk along the road, who visit or work in the shops and businesses along the road and for all those who sit breathing in the polluted air as they wait in the traffic jams they have helped create. The problem is not solely in Hebden Bridge. More Air Quality Management Areas are soon to be declared with the next one to be at Luddenden Foot. The problem is that the whole of the A646 is full to bursting with traffic, all of it contributing to the air pollution.

It doesn’t need scare-mongering words to alert us all to the potential damage this could do to our local economy, to our quality of life and to the health of us all.

So what is to be done? What can be done? The options seem to be fairly limited. Necessarily the Council has come up with fairly general recommendations and actions which are not much different for Hebden Bridge than those recommended for Sowerby Bridge. Is there anything you can suggest? Do you know of strategies which have been applied in other parts of the country which we could consider here?

Please do come along to a public meeting which has been arranged for Tuesday 11th March 2008 at 7.30pm in the Council Chambers.

Posted by Ian M
Wednesday, 27 February 2008

One minor point. The traffic jams in Hebden are not created by the cars passing through but by the parking spaces along Market street blocking the road on one side and forcing traffic to move slowly through the town.
Is it any coincidence the monitoring equipment was put opposite this bottle neck?

The answer is simple - remove the obstruction, traffic flows freely, pollution is reduced

Posted by Janice S
Thursday, 28 February 2008

Ian, I agree. I went to the Co-op at 8.15 this morning when there were no cars parked on Market Street and the traffic was flowing smoothly.

Also, the traffic lights at the end of Albert Street were out briefly on Saturday morning. This really improved the traffic flow at the east end of town. Perhaps the Highways Dept could experiment with temporarily covering the Albert Street traffic lights and see if this helps traffic flow.

Posted by Rev Tony Buglass
Thursday, 28 February 2008

I see from the paper this morning that the 20mph zone goes live on Monday. That will add to the pollution, because it will cause its on bottleneck and slow down traffic on those occasions when it could flow through unimpeded. It will also mean most cars will be forced into lower gears in order to stay below the limit, thus increasing engine revs, burning more fuel, creating more exhaust.

I take the point that the aim was pedestrian safety. It seems to me to have taken a small step to solving one problem by exacerbating another.

Posted by Janice S
Thursday, 28 February 2008

I'm hoping that the 20 mph limit will cause cars to at least reduce their speed to 30 mph as they're heading towards the Commercial Street junction. I'm afraid many drivers travelling east(frustrated by the Market Street congestion?) just see a clear road out of town and seem to want to get out asap. Mind you, from my experiences of watching people drive the wrong way up Albert Street despite the 'Road Closed' sign (including one woman who just drove on the pavement to avoid oncoming traffic) I doubt whether some of them will notice the signs.

At least with the air quality monitors, we'll be able to see the effect of any traffic changes quite quickly.

From Lesley Mackay
Thursday, 28 February 2008

The pollution along the A646 has been monitored and found from the end of Station Road to Bridge Lanes. Pollution is caused by too many motor vehicles, pure and simple. If you were not in your car there would be less pollution. If you were walking you would be causing no pollution. It is a fairly simple equation. It is not one which any car driver wants to hear. Get out of your car and get a life. Walk or cycle. Share a Car. Take a bus or train. Work from home. Don't make the journey. Don't take the kids to school by car. Chill a little and enjoy a quality of life that is not to be found by the fat flounders in their four by fours, labouring their way through the traffic jams that they create. More cars, more congestion. Simple, isn't it?

Posted by Ian M
Sunday, 2 March 2008

Lesley,
It is not a simple as you believe. I leave for work at 6am. My company has recently moved to a location 2hrs away. I cannot get a direct rail link to where I work because one does not exist. The only rail option would take 3 hours each way MY car is MY only option. And before you say it I do not want to move, I like it here.

The congestion you refer to is caused by people who do not drive trying to force those of us who do out of cars by clogging up perfectly good roads with hair brained traffic management schemes. More traffic lights, more speed bumps, more road blocking parking - more congestion. Let traffic flow freely and you will soon see a reduction in pollution.

From Lesley Mackay
Tuesday, 4 March 2008

Yes, the solution is as simple as I think. You can get out of your car. I used to work in Durham and managed the train journey (often with two changes) very well. It did take longer than going by car but the time spent on the train was time I could work in, rather than the dead time which you spend behind the wheel of a car getting all stressed. Yes, I did take my car sometimes because my job demanded it but the hours sitting fruitlessly in another traffic jam on the A1 or the M62 and always on the A646 soon convinced me that letting someone else 'take the strain' was the answer. You don't have to move. We have a great train service here - not perfect but pretty reliable. We also have a polluted local road with a rising number of serious and fatal accidents. You have a choice, clearly you are exercising it.

From Robert Collins
Tuesday, 4 March 2008

Lesley, did you do that train journey to Durham very often? I've just put that route into train enquiries, looking to get to Durham station in time for a typical 9AM start.

The best journey I was offered was a train arriving at 7:58, which seems reasonable enough. Unfortunately I would have had to depart Hebden Bridge at 00:03!

From Graham Barker
Tuesday, 4 March 2008

Thanks Lesley for bringing the council’s report on air quality to wider attention. But while it’s entirely plausible that air quality in the centre of Hebden Bridge is poor, after reading the report I’m not convinced that this is the right stick for us to be beating ourselves with. The real stick is much bigger.

The air quality data in the report are based not on actual measurements but on fairly rough estimates, as the writers (not credited - hopefully not expensive consultants) openly admit. The actual research also seems limited; for example, the morning rush hour is identified as the worst time for pollution but we’re not told whether this varies during school holidays or at different times of year. More refined data might help us identify possible solutions. As it stands, the report invites measures to crack a very specific problem that may or may not exist and affects only half a mile or so of road.

For me, the most significant section of the report is this:

‘The Report notes the significant rise in commuter traffic over recent years. Census data shows that between 1991 and 2001 commuting to work from Hebden Bridge to other parts of Calderdale increased by 65% and commuting to Hebden Bridge from other parts of Calderdale increased by 72%. Similarly travel to work journeys between Calderdale and Greater Manchester and the North West increased by 60% outbound and 54% inbound. These statistics give a broad indication of traffic growth but the Report identifies a need for a greater understanding of the numbers and patterns of journeys being made from, to, through and within Hebden Bridge in order for any effective interventions to be planned.’

Assuming the data here are more solid than the pollution data, there are just too many vehicle journeys being made to and from Hebden Bridge. That’s the problem we’ve got to tackle, not air pollution in the middle of town. We could have better public transport but, as Lesley points out, it’s pretty good already, so would flooding the place with buses make much difference without other, more fundamental changes? We probably need more working from home (talked about for decades but never really taken seriously), more local businesses offering quality employment rather than minimum wages, more affordable housing (otherwise why the steep rise in inward commuting?) and perhaps less car-dependent tourism. None of these concerns is new, but they’re so big and controversial that everyone backs off tackling them. In that context, fiddling about to reduce unsubstantiated levels of pollution over a very short section of road may be a bit of a red herring.

From Lesley Mackay
Tuesday, 4 March 2008

Graham you are of course correct. The declaration of the Air Quality Management Area is based on very limited data. The measurement is not sufficiently sensitive to detect when or where the pollution occurs. The monitors are well above head height when they should arguably be at the level of five-year-old's head (because children regularly walk along the A646 to go to primary schools. The measurement of air quality is affected by a whole range of factors such as wind direction, level of rainfall etc. As you say, the problem of air quality is really one of too much traffic. Tackling the level of traffic will also help tackle the air quality - although the topography of this valley may always present challenges to improving air quality.

As for my journeys to Durham, Robert, I used to do them around two or three times per week, leaving HB just after 6am and arriving in Durham for just after a 9am start. This commuting was admittedly four years ago now. The rail timetables have, of course, changed since then. For example, the early morning train I used to get at 5.30ish when I was working in London has long gone. The relatively late start of our trains is a matter to be bemoaned for long-distance commuters. However, I think I could still get to Durham for just after 9 o'clock. I did that commuting for three years.

The bottom line is, if you want to use public transport you can normally find a way to get there which is not too inconveniencing. It is usually a lot better than taking your car!

From Janet Oosthuysen
Tuesday, 4 March 2008

The plans for the AQMA is a start but as Lesley says, very general in their recommendations and what is needed is a far more radical approach to the issue.

Graham you are entirely right. The problem is not just a relatively small stretch of road in Hebden but one of changing many of our habits including our working, driving, paying, shopping... (A fully integrated public transport policy would help too). Are we prepared to do so?

Some of us will be but we have to recognise that many will not and so,in my view, we have to start with smaller changes first. That's why I've been looking at improving facilities for cyclists, and improving bus services. We also need to look at out-of- town parking, park and ride schemes, car clubs and car sharing schemes. And go to the meeting Lesley mentions on the 11th and make a real difference in our area.

From Cllr Janet Battye
Wednesday, 5 March 2008

It really is important that people read the report and come along to the meeting next week (Tues March 11th) because this will be a good opportunity to talk with Calderdale Officers about the proposals during the consultation period. Environmental Health officers should be there (they wrote the report) and I'm trying to get Highways to come too.

As others have been saying, while this is about air pollution, it's also about much more than that given that the A646 is the main road through Hebden Bridge and the issues are around transport and its impact on people.

From Adam B
Wednesday, 5 March 2008

I agree with Janet's ideas on the situation. Trying to be too radical too quickly will only succeed in alienating people, if we try the kind of steps she suggests they may lead to bigger things.

Also, the public transport system around Hebden Bridge is good but there is room for improvement (for example, having travelled on those trains at rush hour I am assured that there would be no chance of using the time to do some work - it's hard enough getting a seat!).

Regarding the good example of 'The Durham Commute' as a public transport alternative, this could be viable if; one commutes to a single place of work, always starts work at 09:00, always finishes work at 17:00. I've only ever had one job which came close to this and I used to walk the 2.5 miles (incidentally, because I didn't like the overcrowded and unreliable public transport).

Regarding the question of working from home, this is not necessarily a good answer. I used to work from home and frankly I hated it! I certainly would not consider doing it now.

It's a good discussion to have and we could end up with some excellent plans from it - but there is no simple answer to the question (life is rarely as 'black and white' as that).

From Coun Susan Press
Wednesday, 5 March 2008

I don't drive. Two days a week I teach in Huddersfield and more often than not I get a lift in by car. The days I don't, I get the bus . 900 leaves HB 7.30 and gets to Hudds 8.45am. A breathtaking drive over the moors..... less idyllic but equally do-able is the two-bus journey to Halifax and out again which costs just £3.50 return. And buses in both directions every 10 minutes peak time. People make excuses. That's a major reason why why we've got a problem. How many people drive to the Co-op when they could walk? Or to the pub? Yes let's have more cycling facilities and better transport systems. But speaking as someone who relies almost solely on public transport it's a lot better than a lot of people think.

From Myra James
Wednesday, 5 March 2008

It is refreshing to hear from Councillor Press about how good public transport can be. Yes, we can all think of things that could be better but, really, we're pretty well served here, especially by buses along the main valley route. They are frequent and reliable - any unreliability usually caused by their being caught up in the congestion created by what? - too many cars, of course!

From Robert Collins
Wednesday, 5 March 2008

Bearing in that this entire plan revolves around meeting a government target for nitrogen oxide concentration, I took the trouble to do a little research on NOx emissions from different transport types.

A modern petrol engined car, meeting the Euro IV emissions standards must produce no more than 0.08grams of NOx per kilometre. Even Euro III cars (IE post 1/1/2000 manufacture) are subject to a legal maximum NOx emission of 0.15gram/km

In comparison a diesel sprinter train produces 0.208grams NOx per kilometre per seat. The class 43 High Speed Trains are even worse at 0.413 grams NOx per kilometre per seat.

So even if every car has only one occupant and every train runs at 100% capacity, the car still compares pretty favourably versus the train. At least where NOx (The pollutant referenced in the plan) is concerned.

(Source: "Structure of costs and charges review - Environmental costs of rail transport" Final report to the office of rail regulation, August 2005. Table 3.9)

Posted by Janice S
Thursday, 6 March 2008

Yet the same report on Environmental Costs of Rail Transport states, just above Table 3.9, "As can be seen from the above graphs, rail transport has significantly lower emissions of regulated air pollutants than road transport when emissions are compared on a “per passenger kilometre” or “per tonne kilometre” basis."

From Robert Collins
Thursday, 6 March 2008

Janice, the graph you refer to is based on data for from 2002 and crucially is averaged across vehicles of all ages that were in use at that time. Remember that in 2002, the EuroIII emissions standard for cars had only just come into force.

Keep in mind also that we are talking only about NOx emissions, since that is the only pollutant referenced in the plan.

Prior to 2000 there was no legal limit on NOx in car exhausts.

The much tighter Euro IV standard has been in place now since 2005 and there are far fewer pre-2000 cars on the road today.

In comparison, the sprinter trains are old technology. They were built in the mid 1980s and the newer express sprinters in 1989-1992. The NOx emission performance of the express sprinter looks to be little better than the older type - detailed emissions figures are hard to come by and I feel like I'm beginning to understand why.

Posted by Janice S
Friday, 7 March 2008

Robert, I assume all the tables, including the table showing sprinter train emissions, were based on data from the same year. Perhaps we should also investigate the possibility of getting newer trains through the valley. However, I'm less concerned about NO2 emissions from sprinter trains as they don't run down Market Street, where the NO2 levels are particularly bad.

From Lesley Mackay
Friday, 7 March 2008

Hello Robert,

Well I'm glad you've been alerted to the fact that we have rather tired railstock around here. Yorkshire receives a proportionately small amount of national transport funding and Calderdale receives a proportionately small amount of Yorkshire transport funding. Time to start lobbying for better trains and carriages as Janice suggests.

Trains have a problem with NOX emissions, the Air Quality Management Area is concerned with NO2 emissions. The problem of road pollution is clearly greater than that caused by trains, simply by virtue of numbers alone.

You cannot dodge it, we have to reduce the number of vehicles using the A646. Somebody has to get out of their car or their van. It probably isn't going to be you but at least now you know there is a problem.

From Robert Collins
Saturday, 8 March 2008

Lesley, the difference in terminology between "NOx" and "NO2" is simply due to the difference in the point of measurement.

If you measure directly at the tail-pipe of an engine, you see a mixture of different oxides of nitrogen; N2O, NO, NO2. These are lumped together under the catch-all term NOx.

If you measure from out in the open air (as the diffusion-tube surveys did) you find that all those oxides have reacted with the oxygen in the air to form NO2. *NOx and NO2 are just two ways of calculating the same pollutant*

"...at least now you know there is a problem."

Looking at the massaged figures in that report I am less convinced than ever that there is a real problem.

Janice, are you suggesting that those 20-year-old trains are somehow cleaner now than in 2002? I think you're missing the point that modern road cars have improved massively in terms of emissions. They have now reached the point of being cleaner than the ageing diesel trains that Lesley was exhorting us all to use instead.

I disagree strongly with your comment about it being OK for trains to pollute more than cars because trains don't run down Market Street. Plenty of people live close to the railway line. Are you saying it's OK for them to suffer increased pollution from more trains? So long as less private cars use the A646 that's fine with you?

From Maureen Brian
Saturday, 8 March 2008

Perhaps it is time to campaign for a discount on the community charge for those of us who live happy and productive lives in Hebden Bridge without running a car.

We do, after all, pay for other people's parking space, their traffic management and their road repairs. We also breathe in their emissions.

Seeking a corresponding increase in the charge for car owners is politically unrealistic, I know, but the case could be made.

From Robert Collins
Saturday, 8 March 2008

Maureen, have you never heard of fuel duty? Vehicle excise duty? Insurance premium tax? How about the VAT that is charged on fuel - A tax on a tax!

Chances are you are already benefiting from reduced council tax thanks to the cash bonanza of decriminalised parking. If there's even a grain of truth in this Times article.

From Ian M
Saturday, 8 March 2008

Lesley
I am amazed at how easily you can state that I can take the train without knowing anything about my circumstances.

For the record my company has moved its location over two hours away to a new site. There is no train station within thirty minutes of that site, it is at the side of a motorway - the train is not an option - simple. I cannot work from home - unless you can think of a way of moving a 12 acre manufaturing site into my spare room.
I am assuming that you are now retired and can potter about Hebden on foot with plenty of time on your hands whilst the rest of us who have to be somewhere on a timescale have to drive! I wonder if your arguments would be strong if you were still driving?

Maureen
Do I qualify for a discount because I have never been in a hospital in my life (apart from when I was born)
I have never claimed a benefit in my life either, another discount there.

If I think about about it, I have never sat on a bench in the town, or used the skate park and I'm pretty sure I haven't used the new footpath on Albert street yet.
Robert is correct. Motorists contribute far more in tax than non drivers do

From Anne Handley
Saturday, 8 March 2008

Maureen. You may think that everyone else is creating the pollution and you (as a non-car user) are not, but the fact is that you could not live a happy and productive life in Hebden Bridge without the help of people who do use cars and lorries. Just a few examples being: vans and lorries bringing stock to all the local shops, pubs and businesses; post vans; online shopping deliveries; plumbers, builders, gas men etc.; and a whole host of carers, social workers, nurses etc. visiting the elderly and other vulnerable people who don't have cars themselves.

As for driving to and from work (causing a peak in pollution at rush hour) I think all those who can use the trains and buses - or share cars - should at least try to do so. Double the number of cars produces twice the pollution, but a full train or bus does not produce twice as much pollution as a half full train or bus. Everyone needs to think what they can do to improve things - not everyone can get rid of their car, but most could use it less.

Posted by Janice S
Sunday, 9 March 2008

Robert, I did mention that perhaps we should be asking for newer trains to run through the valley.

Whatever the levels of pollution from trains, the fact is that the HB AQMA does not include the railway line. Also, the reason that the air quality in Market Street is particularly bad is because of the narrowness of the road and the high buildings on either side - the railway line is wider, the trains don't often queue up, there aren't high buildings on either side, and, most important, there aren't children walking beside the line.

If you think trains are causing more pollution than cars and are a greater threat to people's health, please campaign for better trains. If there isn't a problem with NO2 pollution from cars, then why is the air quality in Market Street so poor? Should we just wait until everyone gets a Euro IV compliant car to see if the situation improves?

From Lesley Mackay
Sunday, 9 March 2008

A lovely spring day today, sunshine and showers and the A646 is full to bursting with people coming to visit the town. They are mainly coming by car. They see a nice day and they think 'let's go and sit in our cars'. And so they sit in their cars in traffic jams all along the A646 where residents dare not open their front windows and shop-keepers are best advised to keep their doors closed. Go along the road and smell the air. It smells nasty and it has done for many years, long before the Air Quality Management Area was declared. Is it where children should be walking or babies in their pushchairs, not so very much higher than the level of exhaust pipes. We do need to find a cleaner way to move around. We do need to try to reduce the traffic. Economic viability decreases with every additional traffic queue. We are looking for suggestions, helpful ones, to try to get us out of this mess. There is to be a public meeting at the council chambers in Hebden Bridge on Tuesday 11th March at 7.30pm. Do come along.

From Robert Collins
Tuesday, 11 March 2008

Lesley, are you saying that you can smell NO2 at less than 40microgram/m3? Its odour theshold is greater than 1800 microgram/m3. (Source)

From Jacob G
Tuesday, 11 March 2008

Robert, you are correct. NO2 is pretty much odourless, as is carbon monoxide, even up to levels that might endanger our health so, while we may be breathing these in, its not these that Lesley can smell. More likely, its a combination of hydrocarbons, benzene, nitromethane, partly unburnt fuel and particulate matter... so that'll be ok then?

From Graham Barker
Tuesday, 11 March 2008

Robert: It might help if you restrict your criticism to what people have said, not what they haven't said. I've read Lesley's 9 March post a few times and can't find anything that says she can smell NO2. Perhaps you could identify the relevant passage for us?

I think a sentence in Anne Handley's post just about sums everything up: 'Everyone needs to think what they can do to improve things - not everyone can get rid of their car, but most could use it less.'

From Robert Collins
Tuesday, 11 March 2008

Jacob - NO2 is certainly not odourless.

It is however the only pollutant referenced as being above guidelines in the air quality management plan.

I refer you to this report where the other substances you mention are addressed.

Graham, you are right about criticising what people have said rather than what they haven't said. Perhaps you will pay me the same courtesy by re-reading my question to Lesley.

You will see there is no criticism. I asked the question if it was NO2 she was claiming to smell. A simple question and a fair one since that is, as I say, the only pollutant that is significant to the plan.

Posted by Janice S
Thursday, 13 March 2008

The draft Plan says that one of the main sources of NO2 in the AQMA is from HGV movements, particularly when there is a problem on the M62 and HGVs use the A646 as an alternative route. Apparently this is a 'preferred route' for HGVs. Does anyone have any suggestions on possible alternative 'preferred routes'?

The meeting was very encouraging - thanks to Lesley for organising it and to Dave Proctor and Peter Broadbent from Calderdale Council who came along to explain the background and answer questions (although it was worrying to find that the NO2 levels in Market Street are worse than at Ainley Top).

Posted by Bill Smithson
Friday, 14 March 2008

I'm not an expert but I think I know the reason why air quality is better at Ainley Top rather than Hebden Bridge. When traffic is allowed to move without artificial stops, the pollution is less. Place traffic lights, 20 mph limits and junctions, as well as parked cars on the main road, traffic slows, and pollution increases. I'm sure the Traffic Engineers of Calderdale Council know this, but for political reasons very little will change in Hebden to improve the situation.

Posted by Andrew Hall
Friday, 14 March 2008

It is somewhat ironic that, on the day of the meeting organised by Dr Mackay, and at a time when we are all being urged to leave our cars at home and use public transport, a whole community in Hebden Bridge suddenly, and with no warning, lost its popular bus service. That community is Eaves and Mytholm.

The reason given is that children have been seen playing in or near the bus turning area. This is deemed to be too much of a health and safety issue, despite the fact that buses have been coming up here without incident for decades.

It's a classic example of people 'talking the talk' but not 'walking the walk' (sorry about the 80's American management speak!). We can all convince ourselves through talking that action is needed, but when it comes to taking action, this is the sort of thing that seems to happen (and it's not the first time).

The closure of this route won't affect a large number of people, but those it will affect are the elderly, families without their own transport, and those who have cars but try to support public transport whenever possible. And it's going to be one that's very hard to campaign against; how can you possibly argue with a company (First) who cite child safety as a reason for their actions?

But it's a drip, drip, drip. It's a chip, chip, chip. Slowly but surely, little decisions such as the one at Eaves, are going to make a mockery of any genuine and lasting commitment to clean air in the valley. (Another impending change is the withdrawal of the 900 service to Oxenhope on a Sunday).

I've quite a few years yet before I qualify for my free bus pass. I don't think any future goverment would dare withdraw that concession. I do wonder though, how many buses there will be left to travel on.

Posted by Tim B
Friday, 14 March 2008

Bill - I think the lower pollution levels at Ainley to are more likely due to the location - its always windy up there! Therfore pollution is blown away. Valley bottom in Hebden is much more sheltered, with more winter temperature inversions trapping the pollution for us all to breathe!

See also

Public meeting report (March 2008)

Draft Action Plan

Hebweb Forum 2006
Air Quality Management Area