Bingley Relief Road - Letters to KDIS

Letters...

"Your results are Useless..." - BESG (5/1/98)

"Your results are Useless..." (5/1/98)

Dear KDIS,

Re: Bingley Relief Road Air Quality Forecast -

Your report appears to ignore the reduction in pollution which would arise from the increase in the average speed on the relief road from 35 to 80 kph. At that speed most engines are running at their maximum efficiency. I have seen the results of actual road tests which show impressive reduction in pollution emissions.

By ignoring a significant factor in your calculations the results presented are useless as a guide to pollution levels after the completion of the relief road, if that was the intended purpose of your report.

The Bingley Environmental Study Group has committed itself to examine the arguments put forward in the Bingley Relief Road debate with the objective of revealing and eliminating inaccuracies and misinformation.

I look forward to your comments, and remain,

Yours sincerely

Alan.V.Whetton, Secretary, Bingley Environmental Study Group

116 Primorose Lane, Gilstead, Bingley BD16 4QS

KDIS Replies:

The report did indeed take into account the vehicle speed correction factors in emission production, as this is an integral part of the standard model used. The NOx Speed correction factor for light vehicles at 35 Km/hr is 0.83, whilst for similar vehicles at 80 Km/hr it's 0.79. The corresponding factors for heavy vehicles are significantly higher 1.06 and 0.70. This explains why predicted kerbside emissions in year 2000, produced by total peak hour traffic of 3170 vehicles on the "Relief Rd" is slightly less than predicted kerbside emissions from 1900 vehicles on the Main Street (with no Relief Rd).

There can be no argument as to the veracity of these figures or calculations, because this study was done after consultation with Andrew Walmsley, the Pollution Control Officer at Shipley Town Hall who did the original study for Chris Leslie. We used the Councils own figures and assumptions, and the same standard mathematical model. We simply did the calculations over several points instead of just one.

There can be no doubt that, overall, pollution levels in Bingley will rise with the Relief Rd. The question is, by how much. Here is where the argument starts.

For example, members of BETA (Bingley Environmental Transport Association) do not accept the figures for projected traffic flows and speeds proposed by the Council. They argue, for instance, that average vehicle speeds on the Relief Rd in 2000 will be nearer 110 Km/hr, giving a speed correction factor for light vehicles of 1.15. This would produce 70% more emissions than a speed of 80 Km/hr - very significant.

Also, the model ignores the contribution from all traffic except the Main St. and the Relief Rd. Traffic on Park Rd is ignored, for instance. Yet this would add significantly to pollution levels at Bingley C of E First School (probably pushing background levels above the National Standard).

If you are concerned with the true facts, you should ask why the Council chose only to study the effects at a single point - kerbside at Main St., and ignored others. Thus their result gives an entirely misleading picture. You should also join with us in asking the Council to conduct a similar study of the effects on pollution levels at Saltaire of the Relief Rd.

MP's claims fallacious - BETA (2/1/97)

Dear KDIS

Your calculations are most helpful. I understand they have been released to the T & A and the Aire Valley Target but they have given them their usual biased treatment! I hope you will not mind if I take the liberty of copying them direct to John Prescott, MP?

I attach below a copy of what we sent to John Prescott on 8 December (ahead of his meeting with Chris Leslie and to brief him). You will see we have many criticisms of the input data used by the Council's Specialist Pollution Team, but please do not interpret this as my also knocking your calculations. It is not, rather it is to let you know we also have been attacking the Leslie campaign. You will have recognised, as did the Council officers concerned, that your analysis relates to particular sites on a transaction in Bingley and to a particular year, and not to the whole settlement and the full appraisal period of 30 years for a road scheme. Your conclusions are only reinforced when the wider Bingley settlement and the full appraisal period are considered. Your analysis knocks their case using their own criteria!

Here is what we sent to Prescott on 8 Dec as part of a briefing letter:

"The claims that Chris Leslie MP will make about the proposed Bingley 'Relief' road reducing pollution in Bingley are even more fallacious. The analysis he asked Bradford Council's Specialist Pollution Team to perform for him relates solely to the pollution levels on a short part of the existing A650 Main Street in the years 1997 and 2000. This analysis and related conclusions are not sound for the following reasons:

It is a manual calculation for only a single observer point, not the whole length of road nor the 2Wedale corridor affected. In practice the Council's analysis needs to relate to the whole 5 km of the proposed Bingley 'Relief' road, and to areas in Airedale adjacent to connecting roads in Shipley, Saltaire, Riddlesden and Keighley which will experience adverse environmental effects associated with incremental traffic diverted and generated by the proposed Bingley 'Relief road.

Naturally emission levels fall in the immediate vicinity of Main Street when much of the traffic is diverted temporarily to a parallel new road about 80 meters away, but that part of Main Street cannot be considered in isolation from the proposed Bingley 'Relief' road as Chris Leslie would have us do: it is the combined emissions from the existing Main Street AND the proposed Bingley 'Relief' road, taking account of the substantial increases in generated and diverted traffic resulting from the latter, that needs to be considered.

The Council's emission predictions relate to just one year, the year 2000, when emissions over the appraisal life of the road (30 years) should be considered (say years 2000 to 2030).

The predicted emission changes have not distinguished between those owing to technological change and those attributable to the proposed Bingley 'Relief' road yet the model used does permit such distinction.

With predicted traffic growth, the emissions levels would increase on both the existing A650 and the proposed Bingley 'Relief road if the road were built; without the proposed Bingley 'Relief' road, emission levels would tend to flatten in future years owing to the capacity constraint of the existing road.

The Council have said they used "ballpark" guestimates of the changes in vehicle speeds that might occur with and without the proposed Bingley 'Relief' road. The results are therefore also guesses. A substantial underestimate was used of likely speed on the proposed Bingley 'Relief' road thereby exaggerating the likely reduction in emission levels that may be expected in the year 2000. None of the speeds used would be applicable to other sections of the Bingley corridor.

The analysis undertaken was for a peak hour flow and not for the 24 hours in the day, so failed to relate to the four-fifths of the day when non-peak hours flows pertain.

The Council analysis used traffic flows and assignments which are not consistent with those made by the Highways Agency which is said by Council officials to have a superior data base and models.

The analysis takes no account of the fact half the traffic in the Bingley corridor turns on or off the existing A650 and that that results in emissions, and that those turning movements would disrupt the flow of through traffic with and without the proposed Bingley Relief road.

The analysis takes no account of the redistribution of about 13,000 vehicles over longer routes through the side roads in north Bingley and their incremental emissions which would result from the proposed Bingley Relief road.

In short, the analysis requested of Bradford Council was partial, deceptive and does not permit any conclusions to be drawn regarding the overall impact of the proposed Bingley 'Relief' road on emissions in the Bingley corridor or more generally in Airedale.

We trust you will avoid being misled by our young MP. It is sad to see someone who was elected in the hope of bringing a fresh forward looking approach to local transport issues has allowed himself to be so easily captured by backward looking local interests and simply to continue in the dim footsteps of Sir Marcus Fox."

It was good to learn of your interest in these matters and 1 am sure it would be beneficial to meet at a mutually convenient date. We look forward to hearing further from you.

Yours sincerely,

A.J.Plumbe. (Chairman, Bingley Environmental Transport Association)

25 Oakwood Drive, Bingley.

[KDIS: This letter has been edited]

Top of Page

Back to Main Story