With his changes to Vehicle Excise Duty, George Osborne has just told drivers that they own the roads

"You don't even pay the Congestion Charge!" Image: Getty.

There was a time when all British taxpayers paid for our roads: when cyclists could revel in the opportunity to remind drivers they don’t own the roads. That time ended 24 hours ago, when George Osborne announced that the roads do, in fact, belong to drivers.

In yesterday’s Budget, the Chancellor announced that, in a break with Treasury tradition, road taxes were to be hypothecated for road building. “From the end of this decade,” he said, “every single penny raised in Vehicle Excise Duty will be paid into a Road Fund to pay for the sustained investment our roads so badly need.”

Creating this entitlement for car owners ignores the real problem with road taxes that they are set to plummet. It’s also economically illiterate and deeply unfair to other road users, especially cyclists, who already put up with the sense of entitlement from drivers quite enough.

The problem Osborne decided to duck, once again, is that the revenue generated by motorists is rapidly declining. Partly this is the result of ever more efficient vehicles (hybrids and electric cars really keep the Treasury up at night). It’s also partly because fuel duty has not kept pace with inflation: “fuel freezes” are popular enough to make them irresistible to politicians, as yesterday proved yet again.

Screen Shot 2015-07-09 at 11.19.24.png

The slow decline in revenues from motoring taxes. Image: RAC.

The romantic idea of a Road Fund was first used in 1920 as a way to charge drivers for construction. But it lacks economic credibility today. Ring-fencing is almost always a bad idea. As well as creating a headache for Treasury officials inundated with similar requests from other revenue raising departments, it sends mixed messages about why we tax drivers in the first place.

VED was never intended as a charge to use the roads. It was a sin tax that aimed, badly, to reduce the damage drivers cause to our health and the environment. In reality, VED is a relatively small fixed cost that has barely any influence on the choice of car purchased, and zero impact on how much you drive. The amount it raises for the Chancellor has no relationship to the cost of maintaining our roads.

Screen Shot 2015-07-09 at 08.42.53.png

The decline in the duty on road taxes. Image: RAC

But most worrying is the precedent Mr Osborne has set by re-framing VED as a literal “road tax”. He has effectively decided the roads belong to those with a car.


They don’t, of course. Roads exist to enable people to get from place to place, and buses and bikes make much more efficient use of them (moving the most people in the least space). And the fact they cost more to build and maintain than VED can ever hope to raise shows this decision to be little more than cynical politics.

At best, bringing back a road tax will discourage more people to leave their cars behind, further clogging up the roads and making cycling less appealing. It does nothing to tackle congestion which costs the economy billions each year.

At worst it put cyclists at further risk of injury from entitled drivers who can now yell with abandon that they do indeed pay for the roads. Thatcher dreamed of her “great car economy”: George Osborne is no different.

To the Conservatives cars are a mark of independence, individuality and success. Cyclists and passengers on buses, the brave and the poor, are relegated to second place. The social good that roads provide risks being forever lost to a consumer mentality.

David Brown was a transport adviser to the Labour party, and previously worked at the Department for Transport.

 

 
 
 
 

How bad is the air pollution on the average subway network?

The New York Subway. Image: Getty.

Four more major Indian cities will soon have their own metro lines, the country’s government has announced. On the other side of the Himalayas, Shanghai is building its 14th subway line, set to open in 2020, adding 38.5 km and 32 stations to the world’s largest subway network. And New Yorkers can finally enjoy their Second Avenue Subway line after waiting for almost 100 years for it to arrive.

In Europe alone, commuters in more than 60 cities use rail subways. Internationally, more than 120m people commute by them every day. We count around 4.8m riders per day in London, 5.3m in Paris, 6.8m in Tokyo, 9.7m in Moscow and 10m in Beijing.

Subways are vital for commuting in crowded cities, something that will become more and more important over time – according to a United Nations 2014 report, half of the world’s population is now urban. They can also play a part in reducing outdoor air pollution in large metropolises by helping to reduce motor-vehicle use.

Large amounts of breathable particles (particulate matter, or PM) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), produced in part by industrial emissions and road traffic, are responsible for shortening the lifespans of city dwellers. Public transportation systems such as subways have thus seemed like a solution to reduce air pollution in the urban environment.

But what is the air like that we breathe underground, on the rail platforms and inside trains?

Mixed air quality

Over the last decade, several pioneering studies have monitored subway air quality across a range of cities in Europe, Asia and the Americas. The database is incomplete, but is growing and is already valuable.

Subway, Tokyo, 2016. Image: Mildiou/Flickr/creative commons.

For example, comparing air quality on subway, bus, tram and walking journeys from the same origin to the same destination in Barcelona, revealed that subway air had higher levels of air pollution than in trams or walking in the street, but slightly lower than those in buses. Similar lower values for subway environments compared to other public transport modes have been demonstrated by studies in Hong Kong, Mexico City, Istanbul and Santiago de Chile.

Of wheels and brakes

Such differences have been attributed to different wheel materials and braking mechanisms, as well as to variations in ventilation and air conditioning systems, but may also relate to differences in measurement campaign protocols and choice of sampling sites.

Second Avenue Subway in the making, New York, 2013. Image: MTA Capital Construction/Rehema Trimiew/Wikimedia Commons.

Key factors influencing subway air pollution will include station depth, date of construction, type of ventilation (natural/air conditioning), types of brakes (electromagnetic or conventional brake pads) and wheels (rubber or steel) used on the trains, train frequency and more recently the presence or absence of platform screen-door systems.

In particular, much subway particulate matter is sourced from moving train parts such as wheels and brake pads, as well as from the steel rails and power-supply materials, making the particles dominantly iron-containing.


To date, there is no clear epidemiological indication of abnormal health effects on underground workers and commuters. New York subway workers have been exposed to such air without significant observed impacts on their health, and no increased risk of lung cancer was found among subway train drivers in the Stockholm subway system.

But a note of caution is struck by the observations of scholars who found that employees working on the platforms of Stockholm underground, where PM concentrations were greatest, tended to have higher levels of risk markers for cardiovascular disease than ticket sellers and train drivers.

The dominantly ferrous particles are mixed with particles from a range of other sources, including rock ballast from the track, biological aerosols (such as bacteria and viruses), and air from the outdoors, and driven through the tunnel system on turbulent air currents generated by the trains themselves and ventilation systems.

Comparing platforms

The most extensive measurement programme on subway platforms to date has been carried out in the Barcelona subway system, where 30 stations with differing designs were studied under the frame of IMPROVE LIFE project with additional support from the AXA Research Fund.

It reveals substantial variations in particle-matter concentrations. The stations with just a single tunnel with one rail track separated from the platform by glass barrier systems showed on average half the concentration of such particles in comparison with conventional stations, which have no barrier between the platform and tracks. The use of air-conditioning has been shown to produce lower particle-matter concentrations inside carriages.

In trains where it is possible to open the windows, such as in Athens, concentrations can be shown generally to increase inside the train when passing through tunnels and more specifically when the train enters the tunnel at high speed.

According to their construction material, you may breath different kind of particles on various platforms worldwide. Image: London Tube/Wikimedia Commons.

Monitoring stations

Although there are no existing legal controls on air quality in the subway environment, research should be moving towards realistic methods of mitigating particle pollution. Our experience in the Barcelona subway system, with its considerable range of different station designs and operating ventilation systems, is that each platform has its own specific atmospheric micro environment.

To design solutions, one will need to take into account local conditions of each station. Only then can researchers assess the influences of pollution generated from moving train parts.

The ConversationSuch research is still growing and will increase as subway operating companies are now more aware about how cleaner air leads directly to better health for city commuters.

Fulvio Amato is a tenured scientist at the Spanish National Research CouncilTeresa Moreno is a tenured scientist at the Institute of Environmental Assessment and Water Research (IDAEA), Spanish Scientific Research Council CSIC.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.