TRANSPORT/HEALTH FORUM - TRANSPORT JUNGLE

Drake House, 6.30 p.m. 13 July 2000
Panel: Dr Yvonne Doyle (YD), Director Public Health, MSW Health Authority
Mike Barrett (MB), LBM Manager of Environmental
Malcolm Watson (MW), Technical Co-ordinator UK Petroleum Industry
Asscn.
Pat McGivern (PM), Head of Experimental Vehicle Dept, Peugeot Cars.
Chairs: John Ellison, Bert Johnson

Subject Pollution: can we ever clean up the transport jungle.

Opening remarks: MW said last decade had seen pollution from road transport
halved. Catalytic converters had cut 85% of pollutants and would cut 97% by
2006. So next decade would halve it again. MB said Merton would not meet
nitrogen dioxide government standards by 2005 without taking further action.
New action plan proposed for next year. But Merton could not act alone. Much
depended on London mayor, other boroughs and individual action by public. It
was imperative to improve public transport to acceptable levels and change
public attitudes so that walking, cycling and car-sharing became accepted
behaviour. PM said emissions from ten cars today only equalled emission
from one Ford Fiesta ten years ago. There was a finite limit to how a fossil
fuel engine could be improved. Within ten years, fuel cell technology would
produce cars using hydrogen in liquid form. A new generation of fuel cell
engines using hydrogen fuel would be marketed by Honda in 2003, Peugeot in
2004. All in the industry admitted adverse effect of global warming in a time
of global warming. YD applauded the good news but stressed the essential
benefits of exercise particularly among young. Walking or biking to school
was as health effective as a training routine for which people paid a lot of
money. The health advantages of cycling outweighed the risk of injury by a
ratio of 20 to one. Meanwhile greatest risk was badly maintained cars and -
worse - bad maintenance on public transport.

Question 1 (Barbara Kostrewski): were risks of pollution sufficiently
understood and were pollution controls adequate?

MB said there was recognition that changes had to come but important to underline to the public that if pollution standards were to be met, a concerted effort from both agencies involved and public was required. YD said more was now known about medical effects (it does not, in fact, cause asthma or lung cancer to any degree). People with respiratory illness were at risk. PM said there was increased public awareness and criticised earlier government tax schemes which increased tax concessions for company car owners as mileage driven increased. Result: some would drive 20,000 miles to cut tax bill! MW said current efforts to analyse precise risks posed by car pollution would allow us to set limits on what was known to be safe for all. People had to be
re-educated to understand that not everyone might be able to drive around as
freely as they might wish. Impact of cars, buses and lorries must be limited.
Pollution had been halved in past decade and similar reduction to be attained
in the next. But incoming EU pollution regulations (unlike current UK ones)
would be legally binding. Floor pointed out paradox of parents who complained
about pollution but continued to drive children on short journeys to school:
comment from Friends of the Earth on the summer risks to trees (which
absorbed pollution) and a claim that the Council, while inserting watering
conduits on young trees, sometimes failed to meet the commitment by providing sufficient water.

Question Two (Janet Kos) quoted Sheikh Yamani that oil age was
ending because within a decade cars would be fuel-cell driven - but could the
oil or motor industries accept such a situation?

PM said new technology would develop slowly, allowing both people and economics to adjust. Motoring public were hostile to sudden change but in 10/15 years we would pump hydrogen rather than petrol/diesel into your car. Cost and weight/size of fuel-cell technology were the main problems. Needed to reduce cost by a factor of 10, weight/size by a factor of five. But Peugeot would achieve a viable commercial car by 2002. MW said the oil industry was involved in research to respond to the situation. They saw themselves principally as Energy Suppliers. They would thus adapt to become the principal providers of hydrogen, the principal fuel for new car technology. YD applauded change but "not instant sunshine".
Information needed to be built into traffic strategies in next 10-15 years.
Called for taxes taken from road industry to be put into better public
transport. People could not be treated like cattle on public transport.
Politicians could not play cheap tricks on us. MB praised new technology but
said many owned old cars which lasted longer today. We would not thus see end of petrol vehicles for many years.

Chair (BJ) called for modern, effective, non pollutant public transport systems so that people could manage without using their cars. Floor vote showed approx 50-50 split between those walking home and using their car with only three using public transport.

Question 3. (Jean Matthews): Drivers complain at cost of petrol but
should polluters not pay since motor vehicles pose greater overall health
risks than cigarette smokers?

YD agreed in principle but should smokers not pay for their health care? MB said cars provide important social service, we could not live without them. People who could not afford the price of petrol were often the people who needed the car most. Without alternative public transport there was a heavy dependence on the car. MW said lorries, buses, vans (essential to all) were just as polluting as cars. YD said poorly maintained vehicles (among them buses) were worst health risk. Floor raised question of road humps - did they not increase pollution levels? Which areas of Merton failed to comply with air quality regulations? Did parents who insisted on taking their children to school in cars not contribute to pollution levels. MB (on worst pollution areas) listed A24 coming in through Kingston road, A217 through Mitcham and feeder roads, A3 bypass and Grand Drive. On school run he said tests showed a 20% increase in traffic levels as a result of school run at 8.50 a.m. in Merton. MW remarked that European studies showed even 5% increase could make difference between fluid and congested traffic. YD school run not only contributed to road pollution but was threatening the health of our children. There was increasing concern at level of child fitness: all concerned should encourage them to walk or get on their bike to school It was a national issue. Parents were "too risk averse", over estimated risks of abduction, injury. Children meanwhile were storing up risk of cardiovascular disease.

Meeting ended 8.10 p.m.