Don't expect much upgrading to lines going through the oldest part of the tube at stations like Edgware Rd

At the top of page 13 of the report,  it has some very warm and woolly words about a 21st century tube system but it lacks any radical moves.  As Tony Travers suggested in last night’s ES, its more “steady as it goes”.   Furthermore,  it doesn’t marry up with a response I got from the Mayor this month on the unreliability of the services in Central London, which makes for a very telling admission.

The service along the oldest bits of the tube won’t be improved until 2018; well after the next political term which is now being contested.  Do we really have to wait more then another political term of the Mayoralty before the signal box at Edgware Rd dating back to 1928 is replaced once and for all, and the 1950’s programming of Earls Court station is sorted out?  

Despite this, I’m sure it won’t stop Boris celebrating the 150th birthday of the oldest part of the tube this summer (between Paddington & Farringdon); still, while the younger lines with their new extensions like the Jubilee  line, despite their upgrades still cause problems. 

Whether inside or outside the PPP,  lines like the Circle, District and Hammersmith & City lines have all had a bum deal so far.  Unfortunately this looks set to continue for another political term or so if we have another under Boris administration.

You only have to see a double deck A380 landing at Heathrow to realise the airlines are expanding

With all the talk about the coalition government reconsidering its position with Heathrow in today’s sundays papers, all assume that Heathrow is not expanding and ignores Londoners concerns about noise and air pollution.

While Heathrow may have reached its upper limit of flight numbers to and from its runways, the actual numbers of passengers passing through its terminals is most certainly increasing. You only have to witness an A380 plane land at Heathrow, off-loading 500 plus passengers to realize that Heathrow expansion is a practical reality.  If all aircraft passing through Heathrow were on the same scale, then it would be much easier to contemplate the extra tens of millions more passengers which could potentially use the airport.  Currently, it can handle around 66 million passengers and once the redevelopment and construction of the five terminals are completed it will be able to cope with 90-95 million passengers a year. So whos says Heathrow isn’t getting bigger.

Interestingly its the Arab and Asian airlines who have been bringing in the extra passengers with A380, with them offering connections with other flights in Middle Eastern hubs like Dubai. Clearly responding to the demands of  their customers both business & lesiure, without demanding more slots and thus capacity at Heathrow while offering us the connections still. So while direct flights maybe not on offer by these airlines, you are certainly been offered very convenient connections and the full plane loads suggest customers are happy with this arrangement.

The major concerns is the impact which this increasing capacity will have on the immediate local environmental in terms of air quality and noise.  After Central London, Heathrow airport is the second major hot spot for poor air quality in London particularly with Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2).  Poor air quality is leading to the early deaths of at least 4,300 Londoners a year, and the UK is already facing legal action and fines of £300 million for its breaches of EU air pollution limits.  While much attention is rightly given to this major public health issue in London, little is directed specifically at Heathrow. 

The environmental impact of Heathrow is not exclusive to west London.  Although, it is acknowledged that 28 per cent of all people in Europe affected by aircraft noise live under the Heathrow flight paths, that’s some 700,000 people; this does not account for those affected by operational freedom trials currently taking place in Heathrow, on places like Wandsworth, where some 500 plus noise complaints have been made since the start of the trials last November.  The flight noise problem has clearly spread across London, but before we begin to address these issues, there must be an honest and informed analysis of the status quo and the problems.  Furthermore, this needs to be done before the Government’s consultation on night flights begins towards the end of the year.

In this respect the recent, the Environment Committee report “Plane Speaking – A growing Heathrow &  its noise and air pollution” attempts to begin to deal with these issues in a very significant year for aviation in London.  

The report highlights surface transport concerns in and around Heathrow which can make a major contribution in reducing the local environmental impact. This has to be improved otherwise increased passenger numbers will generate more road traffic, the a major source of the air pollution around the airport. This includes: making better use of the Piccadilly tube line connection; making sure Crossrail offers the service levels to take on the growing numbers of passengers coming into central London; that it’s appropriately linked to the new planned High Speed Rail 2 (HS2) has links to the North in order to minimize long car journeys to the airport.  Finally and fundamentally we must begin to accept that Heathrow is a major transport hub for modes other than air transport alone, attracting as much traffic from ThamesValley, further West as it does from centralLondon.  This clearly has knock-on effects for transport provision planning and infrastructure in London as well as consequences for the environment including air quality and road noise.

So while the current focus maybe on whether we should build new runways in London & the South-East, we should not forget that with the advancement of technology and the steer towards bigger aircraft, in reality, Heathrow is expanding, carrying more passengers with all the side effects this brings.  What we must do is work out how to manage the resulting air and noise pollution without further burdening Londoners living around the area and beyond in Greater London and be consist across the whole of London. 2012 will be a decisive year for aircraft noise sufferers with the publication of the Government consultation on the new night flight regime expected in the spring.  So plainly speaking, Heathrow is expanding anyway by passenger numbers certainly and residents concerns about noise and poor air quality still need to be addressed.

Read this post here.

Traffic jam leading into Heathrow causing air pollution

Eco Halo over Trafaglar Sq changing colours over the Olympics could be a way of telling people whether we have poor air quality

During the last Transport Committee of this term, l got an opportunity to ask a few questions about impact on air quality with all the transport preparations for this summers games in London. Unsurprisingly l got some very defensive responses from TfL and LOCOG, particularly when l questioned their claims in the previous weeks press releases.

Firstly air quality has been the biggest environment issue during the last two Olympics in Beijing and Athens, so its right to emphasis this issue. Now by TfL’s own Environment Report for 2011, its not meeting their own NOx and PM10 goals for the past few years. So for example, levels of NOx are above TfL’s own target for the third successive year. As for PM10 emissions these have exceeded TfL own targets for the second year running despite having fallen considerably under Ken. Quite honestly whos to say TfL will meet the targets over the Olympics when they can not reached their own targets for pass few years.

The reality though is that the IOC is only concerned with ozone ( check page 67/68) during the games which has not been mentioned at all in the TfL material sent out to convince us its on top of this issue. So TfL have fundamentally misunderstood what the concerns over the Olympics is actually though we should not forget NOx and PM10 and its impact to residents of London. Moreover during the Olympics, the second biggest hotspot for poor air in London is going to be Heathrow where we have been reliable informed that by BAA its expecting 50 per cent more taxis each day, 7,500 rather 5,000 taxis daily which as we all know disporportionately contribute to poor air quality. This makes me thing  if TfL has not appreciate this in the second hotspot of London who is to say it will do any better in Central London and its suburbs.

So l really do think, its should be back to the drawing board for TfL to get a handle on this critical issue over the Olympics. It certainly won’t be the greenest games ever, if we do not get on top of poor air quality during the games.

4 years of Boris has seen worsening air quality in London

One of the broken promises which Boris Johnson’s Progress Report to Londoners (pdf) conveniently forgot to mention is his poor performance relating to air quality in London.  The report looks back at his 2008 Manifesto (pdf) but it fails to highlight the true extent of his failure on what has become a critical public health issue for the capital.

 In 2008, he claimed:

“We are passionately committed to improvingLondon’s air quality. We must act to deal with the estimated 1,000 deaths per year caused by air pollution.

“The ‘polluter pays’ principle that lies behind the Low Emission Zone is fair. We believe the LEZ is a step in the right direction.”

 In fact, during his term, the estimate for premature deaths as a result of poor air quality has gone up to more than 4,000 deaths per year – 20 times the figure for road fatalities. What does this mean for Londoners’ health?

• For those who die prematurely, their life expectancy may have been shortened by up to 11 years;

• It’s made life more difficult for those with respiratory and heart conditions;

• And for young Londoners growing up along the hot spots, it can cause their lungs not to develop fully.

Furthermore, the House of Commons environment audit committee have suggested (pdf) that poor air quality is the second biggest public health risk after smoking and is linked to 1 in 5 deaths inLondon.

 While Boris may have declared a passionate commitment to improvingLondon’s air quality, he has failed miserably to deliver on his promise.  He cancelled the six-monthly inspections of black cabs (only to reinstate them after being advised its was a bad idea) and delayed the roll-out of the Low Emission Zone (LEZ) in phase 3 to light goods vehicles in order to keep the white van man happy in the suburbs.  His recent short term measures like the dust suppressant trial along major routes have yet to be noticed by local residents, although strategically placed to duck impending European Union fines; the stopping of idling engines has yet to be enforced outside the rail stations along Marylebone Road and Euston Road; and we’ve only seen one green wall put up which alone will have little impact. 

The problem is not confined to centralLondoneither as poor air respects no borough borders. Diminishing air quality in centralLondonis something which is spreading to the suburbs including areas like Putney,Neasden Laneand Brent.  Overwhelmingly, he hasn’t even begun thinking about the second hot-stop of poor air quality inLondon, which is around Heathrow airport.

So as we reach the end of this Mayoral term, the legacy we are left with is positive regression forLondon’s air quality.Londonis now four years behind on delivering a strong, effective and serious programme designed to clean up our air.  Instead, we’re left with the usual Boris of yet more charm, bluster and hot-air – this is not funny.

Read my article here in Left Foot Forward

Map showing all the various airport proposals in and around Thames Estuary

 Having come out against the Mayors Thames Estuary airport proposal today as a joint signatory of a letter to the editor in the Telegraph today, l should add l am actually against both the present proposals today in the Estuary and by implication the historical proposals also made in the Thames Estuary

Interestingly we have had proposals for an airport in the Thames Estuary since the 1940s. The one that had the most substance was put forward by the PLA on Mapling Sands as their ideal site in the early 1970s but died a death when the 1974 Labour government did not back it. (Location number 3 on the map above.)

Previous to that for historic reasons, the Isle of Sheppey has been proposed to be considered as the Third London Airport in the mid 1960’s, only to be rejected in favour of Stansted by an Interdepartment Committee. ( location 4 on the map.) Before that even we had Cliffe in Kent considered as a successor to Croydon as a London airport after WWII, only for it to lose out to Heathrow. (location 1 on the map.)   

Now we are left with two proposals in the Thames Estuary, one of course from the Mayor in the Shivering Sands proposed in 2008 (location no 5 on map) and finally the other from Fosters in the Grain with his Thames Hub idea (location no 2 on the map.)  

And whilst the Mayors & the Foster proposal is hanging around, we have Southend (London) International airport off the A13 in Essex. Though its not on the map above, its  just recently changed hands and is expanding its flight facilities for Easyjet ready for the Olympics. At least this one is on land and is actually happening with private backing while the others lie around as just pipe dreams for their respective backers.

The

Acton factory provides high quality services to the electronics’ market and offers employees a unique working environment in which they can fulfil their potential. It is one of 36 plants in the UK set to close as a direct result of the government’s decision to substantially reduce funding to Remploy and comes at a time of economic hardship and high unemployment.

Murad

said in Ealing. The type of working environment offered by Remploy is particularly suited to some people who can do very productive work in a supported environment. Whilst I am supportive of improving access to work for all, the reality of the current economic climate is that there will be little prospect for those who lose their jobs finding new employment if the closure goes ahead."

End

Murad Qureshi

is a London-wide Labour Assembly Member

For more information please contact

Notes

<dir><dir></dir></dir> Nikki Salih, on 020 7983 4400."this announcement is a body blow to some of my most vulnerable

Bosses of the proposed east-to-west rail link have applied to use thousands of large articulated lorries over the next 14 months.

Fears have been raised by local councillors about the safety implications of such a move and now a number of waterways bodies have criticised Crossrail for failing to use the canal instead of blocking the roads.

In a planning report to Westminster Council, the London Waterways Commission said: “Crossrail threatens severe congestion in west London that can easily be averted using the canal.

“This is an opportunity for using water transport. However, without proper consideration and based on inaccurate reports, the contractor has dismissed this option as being unviable.”

The commission claims transporting the tunnel segments by canal is “perfectly feasible”.

British Waterways says the canal is a “serious option for moving bulk materials” and Crossrail has been informed that it is “a viable option”.

This opinion is supported by the Inland Waterways Association which says it is “concerned about the way in which the option for the use of waterborne transport is dismissed”.

It says the proposed lorry routes are “already congested” and using the canal would save residents from “a substantial number of additional and unwanted lorry movements”.

The tunnel segments are to be transported to Crossrail’s Westbourne Park site on Great Western Road.

London Assembly member Murad Qureshi said he was always worried that the canal option had been dismissed too quickly.

He said: “The lorry option is clearly the cheapest but it is to the detriment of the local community.”

However, a Crossrail spokesman said the canal option had been investigated but is “not practically possible”. She added: “Crossrail is removing all excavated material from its western tunnels by rail and river meaning that at least 50,000 lorry journeys will not be needed.”

“There is not enough rail capacity at Westbourne Park to also transport the concrete tunnel segments from Old Oak Common.”

Last week project bosses confirmed independent bed maker Big Table, which is also located on Great Western Road, would no longer need to be bulldozed to make way for Crossrail.

Click here to view article

Now if there is one issue that could explode onto the arena of the GLA election on the 3rd of May, is if all the talk of war actually results in a pre-emptive strike against Iran before the date of the election.   

Having been elected on the London Assembly for the first time in 2004, where by far the dominant issue was the Iraq war at the time, we have already seen in the short life of the GLA how a global issue can dominant an essentially London election about issues like transport fares, policing of London and building more housing. Then it cost labour 2 seats in the London Assembly and l only just got in myself on the night, while Ken was against the intervention in Iraq got back in with reasonable margin of  comfort.

Interestingly while some in the press like the Telegraph have highlight the significance of the Obama & Netanyahu meeting earlier in the week, others like the Economist have been alot more caution. Its leader last week suggested the case for the wars success is hard to make. If Iran is intent in getting a bomb, an attack would delay but not stop it. Indeed, using Western bombs as a tool to prevent nuclear proliferation risks making Iran more determined to build a weapon – and more dangerous when it gets one. While the ES suggested last night that diplomacy has along way to go yet, advising Cameron to use his influence on Obama on this front.

So what do are present mayoral candidates say about this all? Interestingly the present  Mayor, Boris Johnson did write a column in the Telegraph with the header” We must not let Bush wage war against Iran” which says it all. So I reckon the question now would be whether he would say the same thing about Benjamin Netanyha. Logic tells us that by the same token he should be saying ” We must not let Netanyahu wage war against Iran ” but as we know there is nothing logical about the present incumbent of the Mayor of London! While with Ken we can expect him to say something in line with his previous sentiments on Iraq war on any further intervention in Iran.  And as Phillip Stephens says in the FT very well today in his article, Don’t play politics with the bomb. He says instead of banging drum for war, Mr Netanyahu should be making peace with Palestinians. Clearly while it might not yet be dominating the London elections, its clearly dominating the pages of our broadsheets and thats no bad thing at all, as we hear warnings against any pre-emptive strike.