Sorry not to have answered this before, but I was out yesterday enjoying (!) the delights of a cold, windy and wet day.Anyway, no, to answer the question, NO2 (and other pollutants) are not the same as congestion, but the two are interrelated: the higher the traffic level in a necessarily limited road space, the greater the congestion and hence the more pollution there is.The wider point, if there is one, is that I'm not sure what Ed Robinson was trying to say. However, it may be worth trying this: whether it's intended or not, congestion seems to be being used as a method to limit the level of traffic; it's a highly imperfect method because of the side effects (pollution amongst them). A much better way would be to introduce road pricing: road space is limited and drivers should pay for their use of it because of the costs they impose on other drivers - with the accompanying point that this varies: highest in peak morning and evening rush hours, lowest in the middle of the night.The idea of variable road pricing has existed for years, even before the Smeed report (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smeed_Report) in the early 1960s. The technology to implement variable road pricing didn't exist then but does now, but there are two barriers against that. The lesser one is the (not inconsiderable) cost, not just of installing the appropriate devices in each vehicle but also of the framework to monitor it.But the massive barrier is likely to be getting the government to pluck up the courage to implement the scheme, which will involve, amongst other things, taking on the motoring lobby - and good luck with that! But it, or something like it, is going to have to be done so that we can begin to tackle the twin scourges of pollution and the emission of greenhouse gases.
Richard Carter ● 884d