Congestion charge case

Bristol’s horrendous traffic continues to lower our health, wellbeing and quality of life. This will continue to damage present and future generations if we don’t do something soon that is effective. I’m therefore glad that Bristol's Mayor George Ferguson has not ruled out introducing a congestion charge for the city (see here and here).

Bristol’s transport problems are serious: every day too many vehicles are trying to use local roads; there are very limited possibilities for building more roads and in any case more roads bring more traffic and more damage; drivers spend half their time crawling in jammed traffic; congestion is costing business very large amounts of money; traffic congestion generates more air pollution and produces more climate change causing carbon emissions; congestion causes frustration and raises stress levels.

A congestion charge would ideally try to achieve: significantly reduced traffic in the most congested areas; similarly reduced delays; shorter journey times; reliable delivery times; the saving of many hours of journey time; the raising of large sums of money for re-investment in transport, especially public transport; switching to sustainable transport modes; a boost for public transport use; a system that pays for itself over time.

Lessons from London’s congestion charge should encourage us. Boris would have got rid of it altogether if it did not have merit. Congestion and traffic levels there would be worse without it. Numbers of cars and car movements would be even higher. Movements of buses, coaches and taxis would be more resticted. Tens of thousands fewer bus passengers would not enter the charge zone during the morning peak. Bus reliability and journey times would be worse and the time passengers wait at bus stops would be longer. Disruption on bus routes due to traffic would be worse.

We clearly have a serious problem in Bristol. We need to both provide a disincentive to car use and raise money to improve the public transport and other alternatives. If the details of any congestion charge scheme for Bristol are right, the decision making processes are fair and we can implement the scheme properly then I'm strongly in favour.

Eco-Bristol?

Bristol will continue with its 'green' plans even though it suffered a Green Capital loss (see story here). One commenter on the story (YourLakeshore)  said "...it is great news that Bristol came 2nd in the whole of Europe - particularly as it had tough competition and Bristol has made it to the final twice. It also presents Bristol as being the green city of the UK..."

If Bristol is the green city of the UK why then is its ecological footprint only 17th best out of 60 in the country (see ranking and figures here)? Why is Bristol's ecological footprint set to rise with new road building, loss of green spaces, increase in population...? Doesn't there need to be a committment to cut this footprint significantly if Bristol is to be credible in its green claims? It is after all 2.9 times bigger than a sustainable level!

Also, its not really about being in competition with every other city in the 'whole of Europe' but only about competing against those who entered - and on criteria still a very long way from genuinely sustainable cities.

Tackling transport

Copy of my comment on this story, trying to bring Bristol City Council Cabinet Member and Cllr Gary Hopkins (pictured) back reality through proper transport performance indicators for our city:

@ gary_hopkins - can I remind you that we need to see positive transport outcomes in Bristol eg traffic reduction, significantly lower congestion and delay, much lower air pollution, carbon emissions falling in line with what best science says is needed and in line with the Climate Change Act...We simply aren't seeing significant improvements in the major performance indicators. I also remind you that part of the current transport plans includes building new roads - hardly likely to produce the transport outcomes I've indicated. If you have solid evidence to the contrary then I'd like to hear it.

Cllr Hopkins reply simply made no comments at all about traffic reduction - and no comments at all about carbon emissions. On congestion he said, rather lamely, ‘...conjestion [his spelling] and delays are down but not by as much as they should be because the dividends of these are for the time being being swallowed by First instead of being passed on to customers.’ This appears not to be about overall congestion and delays but in any case admits there is no significant reduction.

On air pollution he admits there is still a problem but that the European green capital assessment rates Bristol as best (!!!). In his words, ‘Air pollution is still a problem but it was interesting that the technical assesment for European green capital rated us best of any entrant on that area. The BRT will run on non fossil fuel and will make a significant contribution.’

Green capital assessment rates Bristol’s air pollution as best! This only goes to show how low their standards are. No evidence in his comment to back the claim that BRT will make a 'significant contribution'. It’s mere assertion therefore.

Cllr Hopkin’s denied it was mere assertion and gave some additional waffle and opinion but did not actually give any data or reference to data to back his assertions. It’s note-able that he simply did not comment at all on traffic reduction and on carbon emissions from transport which I specified along with air pollution and congestion as performance indicators. What forecasting/modelling has been done that shows that current transport plans will produce significant reductions in these? Does Cllr Hopkins have this data??

What Cllr Hopkins seems unwilling to recognise and acknowledge is that key transport outcomes such as overall traffic flow, air pollution, congestion and delay and carbon emissions are very unlikely to significantly improve under current transport plans such as GBBN and BRT with its associated road building. In fact some of them may well get worse. An RAC Foundation report in 2011 said there will be four million more cars will be on the roads in the next 25 years. It goes on to forecast a 43% rise in traffic volume by 2035. Department for Transport figures show that by 2035 traffic will rise by nearly 50% and delays more than 50%on average (more here). To make real and lasting improvements realities have first to be acknowledged.

Some useful information on transport in Bristol here.

Crystal ball forecasting

60,000 new jobs from the new transport plans in and around Bristol?? Story here. This will sound like a gross exaggeration to many people. On what basis have they made this claim exactly? Crystal ball gazing? This is an argument technique many use to try to justify schemes, such as new roads, that many local people have concerns about. Chief executive of Bristol Airport and transport lead for the Local Enterprise Partnership Robert Sinclair say they believe this is the figure but of course they have an interest in talking up developments they favour - and the only people backing them up in the report are business and political figures who have the same interest, so they add no weight to the claim at all. So, all we are left with is a jobs figure a few say they believe in and no substance.

Bristol: Carbon City

Really Cllr Kent is deluded - he blows his trumpet very loudly indeed when he says Bristol will get the transport system it deserves. Cllrs love it when they can announce they've got money for something almost no matter what it is. For a start building a new road will ultimately add to the congestion and pollution existing now at high levels - its already very costly to business in pounds and costly to people in health and the environment in lost quality and quantity. Bus Rapid Transit is often not the best technology - and persistently asking just a few questions at public meetings on BRT reveals environmental decision making 'systems' that are simply not joined up thinking. Whatever happened to building a low carbon city with a high quality of life for all, the aim of Bristol Green Capital?

See http://www.bristol247.com/2011/12/15/bristol-to-finally-get-transport-system-it-deserves-15367/

South Bristol link road bulldozed through (along with many others)

The Treasury neatly side-stepped a year's work by experts, campaigners and civil servants on 45 local transport projects in the DfT's 'development pool'...as the Chancellor announced he was providing funding for all 45 schemes and gave the go-ahead to the Kingskerswell Bypass and the South Bristol Link Road to grab headlines...

...As well as the Kingskerswell Bypass and the South Bristol Link Road, the go-ahead was also given to the Lincoln Eastern Bypass, the A164 Humber Bridge to Beverley, and the A43 Corby Link Road...

We are all justifiably angry as ourselves, the Kingskerswell Alliance and Transport for Greater Bristol had hired consultants to produce an evidence-based response to the funding bids showing major flaws in the plans. Instead it appears the schemes have been bulldozed through to allow the Chancellor to do some headline grabbing posturing today.

Analysis of the Kingskerswell Bypass showed that it would simply move traffic jams further down the road. It would also be environmentally devastating, trashing the habitats of rare bats, birds and newts. The South Bristol Link Road will at best shave just 2 minutes off journey times, and passes through Common Land and the green belt.

This is unlikely to be the end of the road for the campaigns as there are grounds for legal challenges now, and later there will most likely be protests.

Roads blog Campaign for Better Transport

Opposing the 'South Bristol Link' (ring road)

Passing on details of this group and campaign (campaign postcards are now available I think): For the past five years, Transport for Greater Bristol Alliance has opposed the West of England Partnership's proposal to build a new road through South Bristol and its greenbelt. A previous application to build a road by North Somerset was turned down by the Government in 2002 as 'poor value for money'. As originally proposed in 2006, the road was seen as completion of the Ring Road, a dual carriageway running between Long Ashton through South Bristol to link up with the existing Ring Road at Hicks Gate. The Council decided to drop Stage 3 (Hartcliffe to Hicks Gate) due to strong local opposition. The road was renamed the 'South Bristol Link' and a Bus Rapid Transit has been added. The SBL is now being sold as an essential part of a wider BRT network. We continue to oppose the current scheme.

On 9th Sept 2011, the Partnership (four local councils) is applying for funding to the Department for Transport (DfT) for this £45m scheme along with BRT2 (Long Ashton P and R to Cabot Circus) and BRT3 (Northern fringe to Hengrove). TfGB has produced postcards addressed to Norman Baker, Under-Secretary of State for Transport for members of the public to use to object to SBL (deadline 7th October). You can get postcards and further information from pip_sheard@hotmail.co.uk. On the campaigns page is a four page briefing outlining details of the current scheme and why we believe the combined road and Bus Rapid Transit is poor public transport value for money and environmentally damaging and should be rejected by the DfT.

Transport for Greater Bristol

BRT = Build Ring-road Tomorrow

Millions of pounds on what is supposed to be an integrated, 'seamless' approach to public transport - and the bendy buses wont even stop at Temple Meads! No joined up thinking there then.

BRISTOL City Council's flagship Ashton Vale to Temple Meads bendy bus route will not actually stop at the station, it has emerged.

The £50 million scheme is one of three rapid transit routes the council is finalising, ahead of submitting funding bids to government in September.

The idea is that the three routes will make life much easier for people who want to get from one end of the city to another.

It is also supposed to be part of an integrated approach to transport, so buses, rail and rapid transit all work seamlessly together.

The problem is that the latest version of the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads route doesn't stop at Temple Meads because there isn't enough money to pay for a stop there.

That means people arriving into Bristol by train won't just be able to just jump on the bendy bus or vice versa.

Instead the stop for the Temple Meads area is actually outside the KPMG building in Temple Street, the other side of the Temple Circus roundabout.

So anyone who wants to get from the bendy bus to catch a train has at least a five-minute walk across one of the busiest roundabouts in Bristol and several sets of traffic lights...

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/New-bendy-buses-stop-Bristol-Temple-Meads-station/story-13003610-detail/story.html

I'm not a fan of bus rapid transit Bristol-style - especially as it involves new road building. The Lib Dem Cabinet member in charge, Cllr Kent, says "They will cut congestion, reduce CO2 emissions into the atmosphere" There is no evidence for this. I persistently asked questions at public meetings about modelling and projections that had been done and the 'answers' given to me were totally inadequate. Where was the early, timely, high quality information when it was being asked for?? Increasing the capacity of the road network has on all past occasions increased total carbon emissions as the space fills with traffic and becomes congested and this 'link' - as their spin is now calling it - will do likewise.

Cllr Kent has also referred to 'massive public transport improvements'. Massive? No - and certainly not matching the scale of Bristol's transport problems. Improvements? Evidence of this is seriously lacking. Developments like a transport hub at Temple Meads and an integrated transport authority would begin to bring significant improvements - but these dont appear to be on the table at all due to political failures over decades.

Cllr Kent and Libe Dem colleagues seem to have forgotten that its hardly green to build over green space that is finite in supply, with its consequent loss of biodiversity, aesthetic and health benefits - and of course the greenery is no longer there to soak up carbon dioxide emissions.

Let's talk: Transport Matters | Travel+

Let's talk: Transport Matters Travel+

The West of England Councils are working together to produce a new transport plan for the area.

Transport is an important issue, affecting everyone, and we want your views on it.

The Liberal Democrats: just what do they stand for??

Watching Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg on The Politics Show this weekend I was disappointed that he was not challenged on the [lack of] consistency and conviction behind Lib Dem policies and action. There’s no shortage of examples:

*Economic policy
Nick Clegg says he wants a fair society BUT has recently stressed his admiration for monetarist, ‘no such thing as society’ Margaret Thatcher! This presumeably will help his work for savage cuts in public services.

The LibDems [so-called] “green tax switch” promises to “cut income tax and switch to green taxes on pollution instead” BUT no serious Green would contemplate this. We need income taxation to pay for schools, hospitals, public services… So-called green tax revenue in place of income taxation means keeping the pollution going, to keep the revenue coming in, so that we don’t then have less money for schools, hospitals, public services…

*Democratic reform policy
Nationally say they want voters to have the power to sack MPs through a recall system BUT in Bristol Lib Dems opposed a Green motion to introduce recall locally.

*Transport policy
Norman Baker has said a LibDem government would stop spending on road building BUT his colleagues in Lancashire support the Lancaster Northern bypass.

Lib Dems wanted a moratorium on road building BUT then wholeartedly supported the Newbury bypass, the Batheaston bypass, the M74 extension in Scotland…

They favour congestion charging nationally BUT are against it in Edinburgh, Manchester and York.

Lib Dem MP Norman Baker has [rightly] complained that British rail passengers pay the highest fares in Europe BUT then he said the LibDems would improve matters by freezing UK rail fares - at the highest level in Europe!

Lib Dems opposed the expansion of Heathrow BUT have been happy to expand Birmingham, Carlisle, Exeter, Liverpool and Norwich airports – and enthused about Manchester airport’s second runway (except Lib Dems in Stockport, under the flightpath!).

*Waste management policy
LibDems in Sheffield argued for a new incinerator BUT in Hull fought against an incinerator. They stopped incineration in Bristol BUT have supported incinerator projects in Exeter, Plymouth and Barnstaple, and also in Essex.

*Energy policy
Say they want a zero carbon economy by 2050 BUT have opposed windfarm proposals in Cornwall, Cumbria, Devon and Worcestershire and in Lewisham the they voted against a Green Party budget package to insulate 25,000 homes for free. (They have until this year opposed Bristol Green Cllr Charlie Bolton’s budget amendments allocating more money for insulation.)

They say the environment is at the ‘heart of everything’ they do BUT the party is built on flip flopping opportunism not ecological principles. This explains their lack of joined up (systems) thinking, the root of all truly Green politics.

The Highways Agency’s billion pound traffic gamble

New roads (like the planned south Bristol 'link' as its now been rebranded) dont produce the claimed benefits and actually cause new problems according to research unearthed by the Campaign for Better Transport (see extract from report 'The Highways Agency’s billion pound traffic gamble' below). Little or no joined up (systems) thinking is what I consistently find when I ask questions at meetings about transport issues - many millions of pounds are ineffectively spent as a result.

The Highways Agency reviews its trunk road schemes, one year and five years after they open, to assess how accurate original forecasts were.

These reviews have shown that forecasts are wrong and forecasting is not being improved. The Agency’s forecasts underestimate the effect on traffic, air quality, noise and greenhouse gas emissions. They also fail to predict the economic impact and whether schemes will be good value
for money.

Until the Highways Agency makes some major changes, spending on new roads will remain a very expensive gamble.

Full details here:

http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/system/files/HA-billion-pound-gamble.pdf

Government incompetence over car emissions forecasts

Not only do we have Government and political system incompetence in running the economy, or in making decisions over what to do about MPs expenses (to put it very kindly), we also have official incompetence in pollution forecasting - a very important part environmental decision making.

This report from FT.com shows that the Government's Highway's Agency, part of the Dept of Transport, thought new roads schemes since 2002 would produce an extra 11,240 tonnes of carbon emissions. The actual increase turned out to be 21,870 tonnes - this is clearly a whapping inaccuracy not just an underestimate, given that its almost twice as much!

Conclusion: their method is rubbish and they dont know how to work out what carbon emissions will be. How can we have decent trust in any official estimates of carbon emissions that will result from major developments, local or national, eg road traffic due to expanding Heathrow or building a South Bristol ring road??

Views sought on the use and protection of Green Belt land around Bristol & Bath

Passing this on:

Views sought on the use and protection of Green Belt land around Bristol & Bath

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) is seeking views on use of Green Belt land in England. This is your chance to help shape the future of the countryside where you live, work or visit.

Green Belt is rural land around cities that is protected from excessive housing and other development, thus preventing urban sprawl. Around 13% of land in England is estimated to be in one of the fourteen Green Belt areas. The land is protected by planning and development policies.

Some professional groups and developers say that Green Belts are no longer needed, but a MORI poll for CPRE in 2005 found that 84% of people in England believe that Green Belt land should remain open and undeveloped, and that building on it should not be allowed.

CPRE’s Green Belt survey is launched in April 2009. Through this survey we aim to find out how people in Bristol & Bath, London and Merseyside would like to see the Green Belt used in the future, such as for farming, woodland, or recreation. We would particularly welcome the views of (a) people from inner-city areas and (b) landowners or managers based in Green Belt areas.

The information will be analysed and reported back in local media in the autumn. CPRE will use the information nationally to influence a current Government study on the use of land across England, and locally in our work with local authorities on the future planning of how we use the Green Belt.

http://www.cpre.org.uk/campaigns/planning/green-belts/green-belts-green-belts-for-a-greener-future-survey

Local contacts (particularly if you can help to distribute survey information more widely):

• Bristol: Alison Belshaw, Sustain: alison@sustainweb.org, tel: 01225 787919

• London: Suzanne Natelson, Sustain: suzanne@sustainweb.org tel: 020 7837 1228

• Merseyside: Allan Nickson, Myerscough College: anickson@myerscough.ac.uk; tel: 01995 642222

Please circulate the links to as many contacts as possible. If the information is going in to a newsletter or being sent to a large email group please let me know approximately how many people it has been circulated to. If you would like a copy of the survey that could be printed off for completion please contact me.

Many thanks,

Alison Belshaw
Eat Somerset Project Officer

Save Our Green Spaces and Green Belt, Bristol

Read about this excellent film in yesterday's local paper, found it and watched it. The save the green belt message is expressed very movingly and powerfully in it. Please watch it. Tell your friends, family and colleagues to watch it. Do as the film asks and contact your MP, Councillor, Council and Government asking them to make designating land as green belt actually mean it is protected and conserved for generations to come - this land use planning concept is supposed to be used to retain areas of largely undeveloped, wild, or agricultural land surrounding or neighbouring urban areas.
More information: http://www.saveourgreenspaces.org/

The stated objectives of green belt policy are to:

*Protect natural or semi natural environments
*Improve air quality within urban areas
*Ensure that urban dwellers have access to countryside, with consequent educational and recreational opportunities, and

*Protect the unique character of rural communities which might otherwise be absorbed by expanding suburbs.

The green belt has many benefits for people:

*Walking, camping, and biking areas close to the cities and towns
*Habitat for wild plants, animals and wildlife
*Cleaner air and water
*Better land use of areas within the bordering cities. (wikipedia)

Bring rail fares into line with those on the continent

The Post today reports that, 'Train fares in Britain cost at least 50 per cent more than on the Continent because of the way they are subsidised.

In France and Germany, the cost of rail services is regarded in the same way as roads – the cost falls mostly on the taxpayer.

But in Britain, there is a general principle that rail passengers should foot the bill for our trains.'

The Labour Govt are content with the highest rail fares in Europe. The Conservatives presided over very high rail fares last time they were in power. The Liberal Democrats Norman Baker called for a rail fare freeze - at what is currently the highest level in Europe!!

We need much better than this to get a decent, more affordable rail service.

The Greens have committed to spending the £500m a year necessary to bring UK rail fares in line with those on the continent. This is completely affordable given that we spend three times this on road building, widening and so on!

£500m more for rail is money very well spent for me!

Upside down price incentives

The figures in the letter from Phillip Morris, Bristol to Newcastle by train £116.70 and by plane £43.98, show a clear financial incentive to fly (‘Why take the train when the plane is so much cheaper’, Open Lines, February 10). Our society often has its financial incentives upside down because of the way it shifts the social and environmental cost burden onto society and onto future generations instead of factoring them fully into the price individuals pay now.

Phillip’s flight to Newcastle emits between 122 and 160 kg of carbon dioxide for every passenger. Going by train would emit between 37 and 59 kg of carbon dioxide pollution per passenger. The environmental advantage of the train is very clear but it is not reflected in the price paid.

We should reassess all modes of transport and adjust price incentives using a mix of regulation and taxation. Travelling by rail needs to become cheaper and flying more expensive, to reflect their total costs. The huge subsidies to the airports industry hidden in government funding for regional development, roads and airport infrastructure need to go. £9 billion a year for investment in greener transport like trains would be gained if aviation fuel was taxed and aviation transactions were subject to VAT.

Congestion charge for Bristol still on the agenda

Bristol’s horrendous traffic continues to lower our health, wellbeing and quality of life. This will continue to damage present and future generations if we don’t do something soon that is effective. I’m therefore glad that Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon has said that congestion charging for big cities is still on the agenda ( ‘ Road charge ‘on agenda’ ’, Post, February 9). Due to their no vote Manchester wont now be receiving the very large investment in public transport improvements that comes before congestion charging is introduced. However, that money is available for other cities and our need for transport investment is great, so it makes sense not to rule out options.

Bristol’s transport problems are serious: every day too many vehicles are trying to use local roads; there are very limited possibilities for building more roads and in any case more roads bring more traffic and more damage; drivers spend half their time crawling in jammed traffic; congestion is costing business very large amounts of money; traffic congestion generates more air pollution and produces more climate change causing carbon emissions; congestion causes frustration and raises stress levels.

A congestion charge would try to achieve: significantly reduced traffic in the most congested areas; similarly reduced delays; shorter journey times; reliable delivery times; the saving of many hours of journey time; the raising of large sums of money for re-investment in transport, especially public transport; switching to sustainable transport modes; a boost for public transport use; a system that pays for itself within a few years or less. Very sizeable and additional central government transport investment is promised before congestion charging is introduced.

Lessons from London’s congestion charge should encourage us. Congestion and traffic levels have reduced. The number of cars and car movements has decreased. Movements of buses, coaches and taxis has increased. Tens of thousands more bus passengers enter the charge zone during the morning peak. Bus reliability and journey times have improved and the time passengers wait at bus stops is much lower. There is much less disruption on bus routes due to traffic delay.

We clearly have a serious problem. We have congestion charge proposals that are targeted at solving at least some of the problems, backed by large amounts of money. We have clear evidence that congestion charging in London is producing some significant improvements. If the details of any scheme for Bristol are right, the decision making processes are fair and we can implement the scheme properly then I’m strongly in favour.

Further information and useful links:
http://www.roadpricing.greenisp.org/furtherreading.htm

Bristol Airport expansion plans: flying into trouble

Bristol Airport has revealed its expansion plans. I've made a few contrbutions to the online debate, including commenting here on a local newspaper blog.

By expanding air travel we are encouraging money flow out of our economy - the difference between what Britons flying abroad spent in other countries and what visitors to this country spend here produces an £11 billion a year deficit! Its important at all times but especially in a recession, that people spend money supporting their own economy.

There are huge subsidies to the airports industry hidden in government funding for regional development, roads and airport infrastructure. The UK economy loses around £9 billion a year in taxation because aviation fuel is tax-free and all aviation transactions are VAT-free.

The most frequent flyers are in the top 10% of income-earners. They benefit most from the current tax concessions. In a typical year: less than 50% of the population flies at all; the poorest 10% hardly ever fly; of those that do fly, only 11% come from poorer backgrounds; even on budget airlines, 75% of the trips are made by the upper and middle classes.

Aviation is a very rapidly growing contributor to climate change. Planes are very heavy users of fossil fuel. The way that jet engines burn fuel produces nitrous oxides and high level clouds - tripling climate change impacts. Flying contributes 3.5% of climate changing emissions world-wide now, rising to perhaps 15% by 2050 on past trends. If expansion plans continue aviation emissions will scupper Government targets on climate change in the Bill that only recently became law.

Ecosystems, buildings and people’s health are at risk across the country. Air pollution around airports will continue to rise. Expansion is also generating more car traffic and invariably new or wider roads are proposed and built – adding to impacts in both construction and use.

The noise experienced by people living around airports or under flight paths will grow. There is no prospect of significantly quieter planes coming on-stream over the next 30 years. Already people under the flight paths to the busiest airports have to endure a plane every 90 seconds. They say it is 'like living under a sky of sound.'

The impact of aviation expansion on poor people in the developing world will be devastating unless we act. These are the people who: are worst affected by the changing climate; have few rights; have little choice about where they live; who are the least likely people on the planet to set foot aboard an aeroplane!!

The Government has said that it expects the number of passengers using UK airports to nearly treble by 2030. To meet this demand means new runways are needed at Stansted, Heathrow, Birmingham, Edinburgh and most likely Glasgow. Many of the country's other airports would see significant expansion, such as that proposed for Bristol. Government has provided a charter for the aviation industry and developers to proceed with airport expansion despite its new legislation on climate change, with a target of cutting emissions from 1990 levels by 80% by 2050!!

Further information:

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/aviation.html

http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/z_sys_PublicationDetail.aspx?PID=261

http://www.planestupid.com/?q=reasons

http://www.nobristolairportexpansion.co.uk/questions.php

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/index.php

Ecological footprinting: living in a dome

Copy of a briefing I've written on ecological footprinting for possible inclusion in a book:

Picture a city totally enclosed by a transparent dome. The city’s people would obviously be unable to survive for long inside it unless they had access to air, water and other essential resources from outside. Think through how far the dome would have to extend in order to keep the city going indefinitely given a certain level of consumption, energy and resource supply and technological development and you are ecological footprinting. London was found to have a footprint of 49 million hectares, about the land area of Spain (!) in a study by Best Foot Forward in 2002. You could also picture a dome totally enclosing a person, a house, factories, offices, a country, group of countries – or indeed a planet! You could draw a boundary around various products, say beef or cars, and assess the ecological footprint of the product’s lifecycle.

An ecological footprint is the total land and sea area required to supply the resources and safely absorb the wastes and pollutants from a certain lifestyle and can be thought of at a range of levels. The unit of land area used is global hectares, where one global hectare is equal to one hectare (2.47 acres) of world average biological productivity with current technology. Some, like WWF, use ‘planets’ as a unit, which is good because any footprint greater than one immediately illustrates the unsustainability, excess demand or ecological debt (world footprint is now 1.3 planets and if current patterns are not changed we are heading for a 2 planet footprint by 2035). Land and sea is needed for: crop, animal and forest products; for housing and infrastructure; to absorb carbon emissions from fuel burning; biodiversity preservation; human wellbeing and quality of life.

William Rees came up with the ecological footprint idea, publishing the first academic paper on the subject*. Personal Environmental Impact Accounting, a concept closely related to ecological footprinting, was developed in the early 1990s by Don Lotter and released in 1992 as EnviroAccount software which became Earth Aware software in 1996 (still available as a free download from the internet). Rees worked on footprinting with Mathis Wackernagel in the early 1990’s at the University of British Columbia, Canada, the two publishing a book Our Ecological Footprint in 1996 explaining the concept. Much work has since followed eg the book Sharing Nature’s Interest published in 2000, written by Wackernagel, Nicky Chambers and Craig Simmons.

Footprinting’s methodology for the national level is detailed in the 2006 Living Planet Report and the Global Footprint Network's method paper. The Global Footprint Network has clearly indicated how research should be used to improve the method. This is important because different methods have been used in various studies with respect to: sea area; fossil fuels; imports and exports; and nuclear power. Data sources used have varied. Whether to use average global numbers or local numbers when looking at a specific area has been an issue. Including space for biodiversity has been debated. Footprint standards, are bringing methods closer together, making data more consistent and comparable. EU assessment of footprinting has been positive and ackonwledges the work being done to perfect methods.

When consideraring footprint data it is important to remember what they don’t tell us in addition to what they do. The footprint concept is itself inevitably a simplification of reality. The computer models used to calculate footprints are further inevitable simplifications. This is both a plus and a minus of course. Footprints do not deal with that which it is difficult or impossible to convert to a land area: pollutant toxicity; health impacts; the depletion of non-renewable resources (though it does account for the energy, land and resources needed to process them); socio-economic impacts; noise and visual impacts, for instance.

Keeping in mind its limitations, ecological footprinting is an excellent tool for awareness raising, getting a sense of the overall scale of unsustainability by comparing it with actual land area. The biological capacity of an area indicates resources that can indefinitely regenerate without depletion or degradation. Most industrialised countries have insufficient capacity to support their population eg Netherlands (average footprint 4.8 gha/person, land area 0.8gha/person in 1999) unless they have large land areas and low population densities eg Canada (footprint 2.7 gha/person, land area 8.8 gha/person, in 1999). The world as a whole went into ecological debt (where consumption exceeds regerative capacity) on 19 Dec 1987 and because of unsustainable living we enter into this debt earlier every year – in 2008 we went into debt on 23 Sept!

*Rees, William E.(October 1992). "Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out". Environment and Urbanisation 4 (2): 121–130.

Further questioning Bristol City Council on green spaces and transport

The question below has been submitted by me to the next full Bristol City Council meeting (13 Jan 2009) for Cllr Rosalie Walker. It follows up on a series of questions I put to the November Cabinet meeting (see B1 on the list if you follow the link) and follows my complaint to the council that official green spaces policy is not being followed.

Note that a 31 page, 13,000 word document of complaint was sent to the Local Government Ombudsman by me this morning saying: that Bristol City Council has not followed its own green spaces policy and procedures; that senior officers have taken ad hoc decisions; that prominent figures with a vested interest in developments have had undue access to officers and influence over decisions; that officers and councillors did not respond adequately and promptly to communications; that the decision on not conducting an environmental impact assessment on the 'cycle house' plans may not have been taken on a proper basis; that dealing with my complaint was consistently delayed, lacking in detail, lacking in references, lacking in explanation and lacking in direct response from those with the most specific expertise; that current consultations are sorely lacking compared to official policy.

I've been compiling this document as the issue has developed over weeks/months and every time I've thought it was complete another relevant development has occurred eg the 'consultation' referred to in the question below (very ably criticised by the Bristol Greengage and Green Bristol Blog).

Q. Consultations have begun over the sale/lease of land on the Bristol to Bath Railway Path to property developers Squarepeg, though the process appears to be a very, very poor substitute for the Area Green Space Plan process laid out in official policy, the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy and appears to focus in much more on the development issue via leading questions than on the land sale/lease: can you explain why the Area GreenSpace Plan process, now underway in several parts of Bristol, was not brought forward for the locality encompassing this land ??


Follow-up questions to Cllr Mark Bradshaw on transport issues in South Bristol also submitted to the same meeting:

Q1. In response to questions I put to the November Cabinet [see C2, C3, C4 on the link] meeting about the South Bristol Link you informed me that estimates of the impact on air pollution and congestion in the Knowle/Brislington area had not been released: what are your thoughts on the importance of information such asthis being made widely available asap during a consultation period??

Q2. In response to questions I put to the November Cabinet meeting you confirmed that you may use Cycling City cash to buy land along the Callington Rd Link (intended to be part of a strategic road network): will cash be returned to the cycling budget if a road is built there??


Further detail on previous green spaces and transport questions here and here.