Skip directly to content

STAG 2003 pollution comparison table

Resource Description: 

The table in the 2003 STAG foundation report on Tram feasibility (skip the rest of the text if you like, and click link below this text) showing the comparisons in the pollution expected, comparing the single variable 'With Tram' to 'No tram'.

  • (Note the wording in the summary actually compares households enjoying  'Better' AND 'Unchanged' air quality, as a result of the (at that time) proposed, tram project to 'Worse' only-- We believe 'Worse' should rightly be directly compared to 'Better' off' only. The inclusion of 'unchanged' into the total of 'better off'' households merely serves as an attempt to flatter bad figures--albeit a failed one to anyone who simply looks at the figures themselves.  
  • But it is instructive to note this theme that we see in so many 'official' documents, where executive summaries and recommendations so often attempt to put a spin onto documents which, because they are documents supposed to support informed decison making by councillors, many of whom are non expert, ought to be value free and dispassionate. 

 

                   ******* Further editing additions below here ******

Also it is worth noting that the deterioration worsens across more than a decade in the prediction, the first day of the tram's running isn't the worst day--the effects do not all happen at once.

The worsening of effects, and widening across the city, is precisely a slow, chronic deterioration over a period of time--as the traffic displacement will take time to play out.  (One factor would presumably be the planners expectation that drivers left alone to negotiate their cross city journeys will continue to find new and more widley dispersed 'Rat Runs', trading distance travelled for journey time --thus increasing pollution per journey.  While using less efficient roads (residential streets not adapted to the newly increased traffic flows) adds a further pollution increasing element as engines are used at less efficient speeds, for these longer journeys.

The pollution increases shown in the table in practical terms also acts as a marker for 'noise', 'increased danger','increased disruption and degredation to daily life' and the other effects that increasing traffic creates in a street.

While attempting here in 2012(first written) to  argue the predictions are wrong and the effects are are not 'yet happening' as badly as was predicted in the attached table , is wrong headed.  

The table shows the effects were expected to worsen over a succession of years.

Indeed in the Council's latest report on traffic (Jan 2013 at time of re-editing this entry)) pollution in the city WAS up despite traffic flows being down in the latest year for which figures were available to them(?) 2010

(Even when a so far unexplained, big rise in one traffic pollutant (NO2) across the whole of Scotland in the year for which latest figures are available, is taken into account.)

Release date: 
Friday, November 28, 2003