Forum Topic

Cars, Cherry Trees, Chiswick and Carbon

The last-minute cancellation of the planting of 16 cherry trees on Turnham Green, the unfortunate saga that has become known as ‘cherrygate’ got me thinking about carbon capture by trees. How much do trees actually mitigate climate change and how much carbon do they absorb? What was the effect of Councillor Biddolph's  last-minute intervention to stop the planting in environmental terms?I should declare my conflict of interest as ownership and occasional use of a family car as well as regular cyclist.I’ve posted recently on here about cars and Chiswick. I wonder why we have to put up with quite so much motorised traffic on the Chiswick High Road, when a much of it is travelling through our neck of the woods to avoid congestion on the A4 and A40 and contributing nothing to the local economy, whilst making the place noisy, polluted, more dangerous and less pleasant. Similarly why do we put up at all with cut through traffic in the roads where many of us live, our residential side streets. Side streets could be turned in to low-traffic neighbourhoods which could be driven in and out of and through. Perhaps Kings Street and Chiswick High Road could be restricted more to local Hammersmith/ Chiswick/ Brentford traffic and electric buses.Anyway back to trees:According to an academic article in ‘Forestry’ in 1999, The average car (driving 12,000 miles a year) then produced 1.1 tonnes of carbon a year. And interestingly real world emissions from cars has only reduced slightly since then then, perhaps because larger cars are more fashionable. (see Chiswick)The author calculates that to absorb the annual carbon emissions from the average car, THIRTY-TWO widely-spaced wild cherry trees would be required. Thirty-eight oak trees would do the same or forty-two poplars. So on Turnham Green, if the donated sixteen cherry trees had been planted as agreed by the Friends of Turnham Green, and they has similar capacity, they would have absorbed about half the CO2 produced by an average family car per year and would have done the equivalent of this every year for about 45 years.We’ve got a couple of cherry trees in our garden which we love (sadly not big enough to be widely-spaced, but never mind). So assuming roughly the same CO2 absorbing capacity this gives me roughly 750km (466miles) of car driving a year. This highlighted a couple of things to me. Firstly that Councillor Biddolph’s cancelling of the planting has prevented the carbon offsetting over the trees over their lifetime of the equivalent of driving a one family car for about 20 years.Secondly that quite that a lot of trees are actually required to offset the average car, so obviously it’s best not to drive or catch Ubers if other options are easily available. A third of trips by car in London are under 2 kilometres and one in seven under 1 kilometer (which takes about 10 minutes for someone healthy to walk) so the message needs to gain a bit more traction.Just for fun and giving the cherrygate councillor's previous hostility to people cycling and protected cycle paths: The CO2 emissions from cycling are approximately 5% of those of driving. The carbon dioxide in this situation comes from the fuel used to power muscles i.e. food (and methane from animal and human guts!)  So we can calculate that 16 cherry trees would offset the carbon produced by one person cycling 120,000 km per year (which is round the world three times) or alternatively 16 cherry trees can offset carbon emissions for about 50 people cycling into central London and back daily Monday to Friday for 42 weeks a year.

Edward Seaton ● 2446d35 Comments

Chiswick isn't an economic island, it is an integral part of a large city so you can't plan transport for it in isolation.Closing or restricting through traffic is just going to divert the problem from an A road (the A315) to B roads because at some point in the diversion they will have to be used.The problem with a lot of the proposed solutions is that they ignore the inelasticity of demand for motor vehicle journeys. The DfT figures for the last decade (up to 2018) show that in London both car and over all motor vehicle miles travelled have been within a fairly narrow range.At the same time our roads have become steadily more congested as more capacity has been devoted to buses and bikes. I'm not against this policy as we clearly need to rebalance transport but, at the same time, we shouldn't be ignoring the cost and the fact that if demand is static and capacity is reduced there will be more traffic and more pollution.The idea of traffic evaporation is a nonsense one and demonstrably isn't working in London over the last decade so you can't reduce road use by reducing road capacity.Edward posted an important stat earlier on which showed that 14% of vehicle journeys in London are under 1km. In terms of miles travelled you probably have to at least halve that number so in terms of distance travelled let's say 5% of vehicle journeys are under 1km. These are the journeys that are potentially most substitutable and could be converted into carbon free alternatives but a large proportion of them won't be substitutable for a variety of reasons e.g. someone is doing a big shop, they have mobility issues, they need to transport something more heavy than they can carry. At least half if not the majority of short journeys will be non-substitutable so even if you managed to get all the rest to switch you would only be making a dent in the total overall journey miles in London.We have to accept some hard realities here. Successes in reducing vehicle use in London earlier in the century have stopped working over the last decade and it is going to be very hard to develop policies that bring about further reductions without substantial economic cost, giving road space to alternative means of transport is something that has to be considered but if increased journey times overall are the result then it may not be the answer at a local level, particularly in this part of London we are going to see significant population growth which inevitably will lead to increased demand for road space, that same road space is not growing in fact its capacity is being reduced in certain circumstances. The only practical way to reduce the congestion that will inevitably result is improved mass transit systems but we know for the next decade at least in our neck of the woods that isn't going to happen and with the government's policy of 'levelling up' London's transport infrastructure is going to be starved of capital. In fact what has happened in Chiswick is that there has been a substantial reduction in capacity on the bus network which might have short term benefits in terms of traffic flow and air quality but will have negative consequences longer term as people switch back to cars from buses.We probably just have to accept that until technology kicks in that reduces congestion, rather than increasing it like Waze does, we are entering a period of increased traffic in this part of London and the only policy option that we have that is practical and affordable is planting more trees.

Mark Evans ● 2445d

Hi Mark,You make some interesting points but I think a number are contradicted by evidence."The idea of traffic evaporation is a nonsense one "Do you have any evidence for this statement? There are a very large number of examples all over the world that show it does happen.  This isn't anything new.  This journal paper is from 2002 and cites dozens of examples. http://www.onestreet.org/images/stories/Disappearing_traffic.pdfSince Hammersmith Bridge closed to motor traffic there are about 9k-10k fewer cars on the road compared to before.  Yes, there has been displacement with more traffic over the adjacent bridges but this increase is less than the previous traffic over Hammersmith bridge.  The difference of about 9k or so has "disappeared". This is the same as happened with the bridge closure in the 1990s, in percentage terms."you can't reduce road use by reducing road capacity."Again, this has been demonstrated time and time again.  Just as building new roads induces people to travel more, reducing capacity of roads has the opposite effect.  Chiswick High Road had over 20,000 vehicles per day on average in 2000.  Now it is down to just over 14,000. There are lots of reasons for this decrease but one is the reduction of road capacity for general traffic because of bus lanes."Edward posted an important stat earlier on which showed that 14% of vehicle journeys in London are under 1km. "To add to this, about a third of car journeys in London are under 2km."a large proportion of them won't be substitutable for a variety of reasons"There is information on this. TfL analysis of motorised trips in London was that more than half of trips made by motorised modes could be cycled.  Non-cyclable trips had a range of criteria including: carrying heavy load, longer than 8km, cycling would take more than 20% extra time, traveller is under five or over 64 or disabled and trip is made between 8pm and 6am.  Some people may argue with thise criteria!"even if you managed to get all the rest to switch you would only be making a dent in the total overall journey miles"It doesn't take a big reduction to make a difference.  You must have noticed the difference in traffic during school holidays.I think a key point will be to reduce through traffic rat-running along residential streets by putting in place road closures, banning turns and the like.  This is likely to increase traffic marginally on arterial roads but that it what these roads are there for.  Residential streets can't carry a great deal of traffic which is why they get jammed up so easily.A question is the role of Chiswick High Road.  It is a through road, an alternative to the A4? Or should through traffic be discouraged?

Michael Robinson ● 2445d

You may think it is a “logical fallacy” but I’ve given a reference to dozens of examples where traffic evaporation has happened so there must be a flaw in your logic.Of course some people will give up driving if journeys become more inconvenient. People aren’t brainless automata that do the same thing all the time if it no longer makes sense.  Traffic is just the sum of thousands of human decisions and people can decide to do things differently.Clearly other things will affect driving as well. No point driving if there is nowhere to park and parking space has been reduced in London. Market forces - Developers can make more per square foot from other uses than they can from parking and no need to provide much parking if there are alternatives.What is the source of your claim that journey miles have remained static?The latest TfL Transport in London report shows a steady decline in car traffic levels. It has flattened over the last 2 years, perhaps because of the large number of Ubers driving around and around.http://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-report-12.pdfYou are misunderstanding the point about traffic evaporation. If road capacity is reduced, fewer people drive. That doesn’t mean that things get much better for the people still driving, it just means there are fewer of them.If you want to really free up space on the road, that will need some form of road pricing. I think that will be inevitable within the next 10 years.Also you seem to be thinking about road capacity in term of numbers of metal boxes rather than numbers of people. At the peak, the cycle lane on the Embankment  carries more people than the other 3 lanes put together.Private cats with an average of about 1.1 people per car are a hugely inefficient use of road space, even more so when you factor in parking space.

Michael Robinson ● 2445d

To your point, Ed, about number plate recognition and to Michael's point about road pricing, some stretch of CHR could be limited to local traffic only. The stretch of CHR from Goldhawk to Chiswick Lane is a segment of the connection from the A40 to the A4. If number plate recognition were to begin at this junction, anyone passing through that barrier who was not local would be issued a penalty. It would be a sort of mini-congestion zone. There would need to be a western barrier as well, maybe Chiswick Business Park. This is also an issue in the states in/near NYC. Communities just outside the Lincoln Tunnel and GW Bridge in New Jersey have forever been dealing with commuters rat running due to traffic and they are struggling to find ways to limit road use to locals only. One problem is flexibility in case of emergency. Sometimes a crossing gets closed so obviously it creates an issue so folks shouldn't be penalized for having to take an alternate route because of circumstances beyond their control. Other forms of road pricing will also become inevitable such as cycle license fees. Free infrastructure will ostensibly be the promotional gambit but once government realizes revenue decreases with fewer private vehicles, it will need to close the gap somehow. If fees go up for commercial use be it Uber or lorry deliveries, those increases would be passed to the end user/customer.As for developers and parking, ask estate agents about this. New builds with limited parking are  difficult to shift. Perhaps parking is limited only to electric vehicles. But parking space is a commodity and comes at a price. That price might be astronomical, but it could also be used to generate public funds. Makes me think I just bought some LED bulbs. We have a VAT number so we weren't charged VAT but we were charged an Ecotax which I questioned. It was new to me. So even though we bought LED low-energy bulbs in a sense we were penalized because any form of lighting MIGHT use energy from less efficient suppliers. Or a bit like a cigarette tax.

David Lesniak ● 2445d

These figures look wrong to me. Overall in London there are about 60,000 car commuting journeys each day compared to over a million on public transport. There is every reason why Hackney would have a lower than average level of commuting by car e.g. geography, demographics so I very much doubt a fifth of Hackney residents commute by car. This is not to deny there has been a rise in bike use and improved cycling infrastructure will have helped but gentrification will also have been a factor. There was a fall of over 10% in car use in the period you mention in Hackney according to DfT figures and this has continued up to 2018. As this sort of fall isn't happening in other London Boroughs the primary reason is probably demographic. The younger more prosperous people who have taken up residence in the last two decades are much less likely to own a car than the previous residents. It is right that investment is made in cycling to accommodate them and this will reinforce the positive trend but wouldn't be sufficient on its own to continue the decline in car use and Hounslow wouldn't be able to achieve these sort of traffic reduction in the absence of similar population profile changes. To the extent that demographic change is driving the reduction in car journeys, the traffic isn't evaporating, it is just moving elsewhere. The other figure that needs to be treated with caution is the claim that 9,000 daily journeys have 'evaporated' because of the closure of Hammersmith Bridge. This figure is calculated by counting the number of vehicles crossing the other bridges and, fantastically, is being used to claim that the bridge closure is a positive. Any sensible person would recognise that the claim of 9,000 journeys disappearing is spurious. People in Hammersmith and Barnes now ordering takeaways from their side of the river will account for a good portion and many bus routes just gave up serving north and south of the Thames but the main changes will have come in delivery routes and supply chains which have been reorganised to avoid a river crossing. There probably has been some reduction overall in journeys overall but the number will be a fraction of 9.000 and the decline will be offset by longer travel times which probably mean there are more cars on west London roads at any given time than there were before the bridge closure. Try telling the people of Putney, Wandsworth, Barnes and Kew how amazing traffic evaporation is and you will get pretty short shrift. It is a dangerous and ill-founded theory that will lead to bad policy decisions if it is given any credence.

Andrew OSullivan ● 2445d