The journey towards clean air is delayed (again)
On September 18th, Greater Manchester announced an update to its Clean Air Plan, effectively pushing back the date that we will reach compliance with the UK legal limits on nitrogen dioxide in the city region.
Clean Cities, Mums for Lungs, Friends of the Earth Manchester, Walk Ride GM, Let’s Talk Clean Air Whalley Range and Asthma + Lung UK say that further delay is unacceptable and call on local authorities to act now to protect the health of everyone in the city region.
These legal limits were supposed to be met over a decade ago, and whilst other cities have taken action, endless delay has led to Greater Manchester continuing to suffer some of the worst air pollution in the country. More delay clearly shows that air quality is not being taken seriously in the city region. The latest data shows that locations across GM continue to break the UK legal limit for the toxic pollutant nitrogen dioxide, a limit which is itself four times higher than World Health Organization guidelines.
The plan for cleaner buses and taxis was very welcome but we always knew this would not be enough to clean up the air and this delay confirms that. As a result our health continues to be compromised, and especially the health of children, old people and those with underlying conditions. This is a serious inequalities issue too, with the poorest communities often exposed to the most toxic air.
The government should refuse to allow any further delay, and instead ensure Greater Manchester meets its legal obligations to clean up our air in the shortest possible time. Bus electrification is not enough to meet the challenge and there is plenty of evidence from other cities on what else is needed - such as limiting the most polluting vehicles in the city centre, giving buses more priority on our roads and delivering far better walking and cycling routes. When the cost of inaction is so serious, further delay cannot be an option.
We ask that the following questions are raised at the Joint Clean Air Scrutiny Committee on September 26th in order to ensure this latest delay is fully scrutinised.
As this update has demonstrated, delays with funding and procurement of zero emissions buses risks prolonging the time that we are breathing illegal levels of pollution. There is a shortfall in funding required to cover the costs of transitioning to a sufficient number of zero emissions buses required to meet the air pollution reduction requirements. In addition, problems with the electrification of depots have already shown to lead to delays. How will these risks be mitigated? How will the remaining zero emission buses be funded, and what is the timeline for their procurement in order to ensure we stay on track to meet the deadline for full electrification?
Even if the proposed plan succeeds, many sites remain at risk of exceedance (over 35μg/m3). These levels are significantly higher than the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines of 10μg/m3 and pose serious health risks to all, but particularly those with existing vulnerabilities. Greater Manchester has made a commitment to the WHO guidelines through its Places for Everyone Plan. What are the additional proposals that will take us below such high levels and put us on course to meet the WHO guidelines?
The case for the investment-led plan is partly based on comparison with modelling for a benchmark CAZ scenario, where nitrogen dioxide reductions modelled in the CAZ option are minimal. Real world monitoring of existing Clean Air Zones shows that they have been effective in reducing nitrogen dioxide levels by around 20%, which suggests that comparison with a city centre CAZ that also includes private cars would have been a more appropriate comparison given the scale of exceedances. Are members and officers confident that the CAZ modelled is a sufficient comparator?
The update claims that air quality is improving in the city region because the number of sites exceeding the legal limits is down. However, there were 184 fewer sites monitored in 2023 than in 2022, “including sites where monitored concentrations had shown a low risk of exceeding the legal limit”. Given the fall in number of sites measured, and the fact that the annual status report has not yet been published, how can officers be sure that air quality is improving compared to previous years?
