Air Pollution (Glasgow)
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-3461, in the name of Patrick Harvie, on air pollution in Glasgow.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises that Glasgow city centre, now designated as an Air Quality Management Area, has the most serious air pollution problems in Scotland, with a 70% reduction of nitrogen dioxide levels required in some areas if the objectives set by the Scottish Executive are to be met; is concerned at the health implications for those who live and work in the city, such as breathing problems, chronic bronchitis and many premature deaths; accepts that this problem is overwhelmingly caused by increasing road traffic levels; is further concerned that Glasgow City Council's Air Quality Action Plan does not propose measures which will reverse increases in road traffic levels or prevent further increases, and believes that the Executive should work with Glasgow City Council to ensure that Glasgow's citizens and workers can breathe air which meets the minimum standards which are the norm in other European cities.
I am grateful to the members who have stayed behind to debate with us the issue of air pollution in Glasgow, and to those who added their name and support to the motion. It has taken me about two and a half years as a member of the Scottish Parliament to get a members' business debate, so I have had a long time to pick a topic. I decided to debate air pollution in Glasgow for a number of reasons—partly because of the issue's importance and partly because of its timeliness.
One of the positive aspects of having regional MSPs in addition to constituency MSPs is that it should drag us towards a regional focus—that is my view; others might take a different view. Air pollution in Glasgow affects not only those who live in the city centre but those who work, socialise and shop there, enjoying what is an increasingly attractive city. In short, it affects millions of people across the region and beyond.
The air pollution in our city is one of the things that is undermining the attractiveness of Glasgow as a place to spend time, socialise, live, work and bring up children. If we are ambitious for our city—and for other cities that suffer from high levels of air pollution—we should not ignore the importance of improving the environment in which our citizens live their lives.
I have chosen to debate this issue now partly because of the decisive action that the Parliament and the Executive have taken on the pollution that fills our lungs when we are indoors by introducing a ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces. The ban will come into force in a few months. Once it does, a bizarre situation will emerge in which I and other Glaswegians will be able to sup a pint in our favourite pub while breathing clean air but will expose ourselves to danger when we step outside into what can no longer be called fresh air. For example, stepping out of a pub in Hope Street will be to step into the worst air pollution crisis in the country.
It should be clear to us all that, in historical terms, big improvements have been made in air quality. However, it should be equally clear that those improvements have been driven by technology. The principle is straightforward: although improvements in technology are valuable, in short order, they will be overtaken by increasing traffic levels. I believe that Glasgow has already passed the point at which increasing traffic levels overtake the improvements in air quality that come from technology. In time, the rest of Scotland will experience that. If we place our trust only in the technological fix, we risk losing the improvements in air quality that we have seen in previous decades.
Members might recall a recent campaign by Scottish Environment LINK that involved postcards with an image of a car and the message that the rear end kills far more people than the front end. In fact, it is estimated that the exhaust pipe is responsible for five times more deaths than any other part of the car. In Scotland, around 2,000 deaths a year have been estimated to be attributable to air pollution, and traffic exhaust fumes are the overwhelming cause of that pollution. That is an intolerable number of deaths, but we must not forget the additional health consequences that, although they are less serious and are not fatal, impair many people's quality of life.
What is Glasgow City Council doing about it? Because the pollution levels are so high, it designated the city centre as an air quality management area and produced an air quality action plan, with a particular focus on nitrogen dioxide. The production of the plan is a legal requirement. It specifies the measures that will be taken but, unfortunately, it does not specify measures that will address the cause of the problem, which is the rising level of road traffic.
The Executive predicts that Glasgow can look forward to continued and dramatic increases in road traffic levels. To put it simply, unless the situation is turned around, we will have no reason to hope that Glasgow's air quality will somehow magically transform.
In the past—and today—I have been accused of not giving the Executive credit for its spending on public transport, so I will do that now. We like spending on public transport. It is a good thing. We want more of it. Well done for what has been done. However, the objective should be nothing less than a modal shift away from the car and on to public transport for as many journeys as possible. If we have better public transport and rising traffic levels, we will still have chronic air pollution problems in places such as Glasgow, not to mention the contribution that that makes to climate change. Scottish ministers must sit down with councils, such as Glasgow City Council, that are not meeting the Executive's targets on air pollution and consider what measures are necessary to bring traffic levels down to improve air quality in the long run and to bring it up to the Executive's targets, to ensure that Glaswegians of the future have air that is fit to breathe.
When addressing the chamber this afternoon, the President of Malawi told us that a healthy population is a prerequisite for wealth creation. That principle applies all over the world. In the case of Glasgow, inequalities in health and wealth are equally serious concerns. Air pollution affects everyone in Glasgow, but I fear that its most serious impact will be on people living in poverty. The Executive accepts the principle of environmental justice and the link between pollution and poverty, so it should investigate the risk that the health effects of on-going problems with air pollution may compound the health consequences of poor housing, bad diet and smoking, and thus impact most heavily on people in poverty.
I thank members for staying. I hope that we have a useful debate, and I hope that it leads to greater action in the longer run to improve air quality in Glasgow.
I congratulate Patrick Harvie. I did not realise that it had taken him two and a half years to secure a members' business debate. Many people in Glasgow think that air pollution is caused by the many politicians who continually speak there. We can think about that for the future, but I assure members that I am not one of those politicians.
Quite rightly, Patrick Harvie mentioned the damaging health aspects that are associated with pollution, particularly its effect on the young, the old and the sick, who are the most vulnerable. There is no doubt that air pollution has dire chronic health consequences—not only do people suffer ill health, but they die sooner because of the terrible pollution in Glasgow city centre.
I will cite a couple of examples that we have all seen. How many times have we been in Glasgow—on Hope Street, Queen Street or around George Square—and seen 16 or more buses parked next to each other in gridlock, belching out noxious fumes? What can be seen at the traffic lights? People with children in buggies that are level with the pollution that is coming out of the buses, which damages the children's health. Those kids have no choice, because they are waiting at the traffic lights and the buses are gridlocked. As politicians, we must give them a choice.
It is up to us to ensure that walking about Glasgow and its outskirts is safer with regard to air pollution. That is why I am concerned that Glasgow City Council has not made use of every possible piece of legislation. Reducing the number of vehicles in the city centre would go some way towards creating less pollution. Glasgow City Council is progressing with some measures. I welcome the exhaust emissions tests, under which people can be fined £60 if they are pulled over by the police and their vehicle's exhaust emissions are too high. However, that does not stop the worst pollution, which is the problem. Patrick Harvie mentioned public transport—it is true that we need more of it, but the vast majority of the pollution comes from the buses in our city centre.
The heilanman's umbrella has been mentioned many times, but pollution is a problem throughout the city centre. Charlie Gordon will be familiar with Scotstoun, which is outside the city centre; buses sit outside people's houses there and run their engines for 20 minutes or half an hour, yet there is no legislation to stop that. The council has brought in legislation regarding idling vehicles under which people can be fined £20, but it applies mostly to private cars.
I accept entirely that public transport, including buses, is a contributor to the problem, but the fact that many people do not want to use the buses and would rather use their cars means that, as well as the cars, we often have empty or half-empty buses whirling round the place adding to the pollution. Modal shift away from the private car and on to public transport would improve the situation.
I was not criticising the member, but there is a two-way situation. If we have good public transport, people will use it but we do not have good public transport, which results in 16 or 20 buses being crammed in together.
Local authorities are responsible for local air pollution, but will the minister say whether legislation is planned to give the regional transport partnerships, for which the Executive will have responsibility, the power to require buses not to sit idling outside people's houses or to do something about the emissions when buses are gridlocked in the city centre, as that is where most of the pollution comes from? Patrick Harvie has suggested a long-term solution, which is fine, but in the short term we must do something about the gridlock in Glasgow. The Executive could go some way to doing that through legislation in relation to the regional transport partnerships, for which it will have responsibility.
I remind the Executive and Parliament that local authorities are not responsible for motorways and that air pollution from motorways is therefore the responsibility of the Scottish Executive. We have gridlock on the motorways round Glasgow, so pollution obviously comes into the city centre. The Executive has a role; it is not all about local authorities. The motion states that the Executive should get together with the local authority in Glasgow to resolve the situation. I echo that point; the Executive and Glasgow City Council are responsible.
I thank Patrick Harvie for the opportunity to debate the issue.
I congratulate Patrick Harvie on raising the issue and on successfully bringing the problem to the debating chamber—it may have taken him two and a half years, but it was worth waiting for.
Air pollution is a serious problem in Glasgow city centre and an issue of importance that needs to be addressed. As legislators, it is our responsibility to our constituents to look after their well-being, which includes considering how the areas in which they live affect their health. We all know that air pollution can have serious consequences for health. The nitrogen dioxide that is let out of running vehicles causes inflammation of the airwaves, which can lead to serious chronic health problems such as asthma. As well as causing health problems, the chemicals damage the ecosystem by reducing plant growth in the affected areas and promoting the formation of ground ozone. We are extremely concerned about the future of our environment and believe that it is of the highest importance that we ensure that we do not limit the ability of future generations to meet their needs or pass heavy environmental problems on to our children.
Glasgow City Council is taking measures to tackle this daunting problem. As Sandra White said, it carries out roadside checks to ensure that emissions are not a danger to the population. That is a major effort on which the council is to be congratulated. Vehicles that fail the test are driven to repair workshops—quickly, I hope—and drivers can be fined. However, the Executive needs to work with Glasgow City Council and other local authorities to find solutions to the traffic and air pollution problems. Patrick Harvie pointed out that it would be better to encourage people to use public transport. In Glasgow in recent times, public transport has increased significantly, largely as a result of the Conservative Government's privatisation measures. However, there is still a problem, which he is right to highlight.
I hesitated before I stood up, because I was merely going to suggest that the reregulation of buses in Glasgow might help to prevent the duplication of services in some areas.
I understand the point that Mr Harvie makes, but any time that I travel on the bus, which is fairly frequently, it is full. Therefore, it appears that we require the buses that we have. Nevertheless, there is a problem and he is right to highlight it.
I caution against trying to solve the problem by implementing a traffic management scheme to shut off the centre of Glasgow. That would have an adverse affect on businesses and it is not a feasible option. Barring vehicle access to that part of the city would inevitably have a negative effect on businesses and would therefore affect the city's economy. We must a find a way of successfully balancing economic growth and environmental protection, so that the best interests of our constituents are looked after.
Patrick Harvie's motion is worthy. Obviously, it does not require a decision from the Parliament but it is correct that the motion should concentrate our minds on the best way forward. Air pollution is undoubtedly a problem. I hope that this debate will encourage all agencies to get together and find a solution.
In conclusion, Presiding Officer, I apologise to you and to the minister—I have already spoken to Patrick Harvie—for the fact that I must now leave the chamber. Unfortunately, in a week in which many things have happened, I now have to go and deal with some urgent parliamentary business.
I join colleagues in thanking Patrick Harvie, who has secured his first ever members' business debate. I am sure that it will not be his last.
When I lived in Glasgow for three months during a summer in the early 1990s, I commuted daily between Argyle Street and Cathcart on my bicycle. On days when I forgot my anti-pollution mask, the experience was extremely unpleasant.
Pollution is a traffic problem and it is a major public health problem. Patrick Harvie and others have spoken about that. People are dying out there; there are 2,000 deaths every year because of air pollution. It is a problem not only for Glasgow, but for other towns and cities across Scotland. For example, it is a problem for Aberdeen and, surprisingly, for Perth, which is quite a small city. Perth is consulting on the designation of an air quality management area—primarily because it has failed to meet its 2005 pollution objectives. The reason for that, as Patrick Harvie and others have hinted, is the increase in traffic levels. Traffic has gone up by 22 per cent over the past decade. That is the story in Perth and it is the same story in many other towns and cities in Scotland.
Technology is improving and our cars are becoming more efficient and producing fewer particulates and less pollution, but that benefit is being cancelled out by the growth in traffic. I hope that Perth and Kinross Council will not take a narrow view when it comes to designate its air quality management area; I hope that the council will not simply focus its attention on the narrow area of Atholl Street and the Barrack Street junction. I hope that it will designate a much wider area to bring in parts of the city that are already close to the target limits. If traffic continues to grow in the years ahead, those parts of the city will become pollution hot spots as well and will start to breach the targets for air quality.
We must reduce traffic. Simply pushing the pollution around Perth—for example, by building a bridge over the Tay at Scone—will not tackle the problem and it certainly will not tackle the rise in greenhouse gases in the transport sector. The danger of solutions such as building the bridge at Scone is that they take money away from, for example, the four new railway stations that we need in Perthshire in the travel-to-work area—
Mr Ruskell, may I remind you that this debate is about pollution in Glasgow. Please make your comments more general; you are being very specific about Perth.
I think that my comments are relevant. Glasgow faces the same issues with public infrastructure projects such as the M74 extension. The relevance of Perth is that we have yet another demand for another bridge over the Tay at Scone. That will take money away from necessary public transport infrastructure such as the four railway stations in the Perth travel-to-work area.
The solution for Perth, as for many other towns in Scotland, is to have better integration between rail and bus services, better park-and-ride facilities, and better incentives for people to use those park-and-ride facilities. I do not believe that congestion charging is right for Perth, although in time it may be right for other cities such as Glasgow. However, the need for congestion charging in Perth will become inevitable if we do not start to tackle traffic growth and do not put in place the right packages to get people out of their cars and on to public transport.
I ask ministers to consider carefully how we use public money. Instead of spending money on fanciful proposals such as the proposed bridge at Scone, we should prioritise alternatives that will genuinely tackle pollution and reduce traffic.
I, too, congratulate Patrick Harvie on securing the debate and I pass on Robert Brown's apologies—he would have been here if he could.
Thirty years ago, traditional and visible air pollutants had been successfully abated. In the late 1970s, the received wisdom was that the concentrations of ambient particulates in the air were unlikely to cause adverse health effects. Since then, air pollution has re-emerged as a major environmental health issue. Air pollution from the combustion of traditional fossil fuels may now be present in much lower concentrations than was the case 50 years ago, but other components have gained in prominence. Perhaps surprisingly, there is photochemical air pollution, which is characterised by high ozone concentrations during warm and sunny weather. There is increasing pollution from oxides of nitrogen due to increasing numbers of motor vehicles. Moreover, the size, distribution and composition of airborne particles have changed, altering their toxicity.
Colleagues will not be surprised to learn that I took that information from an authoritative source—in fact, from a review of air pollution and health that was published in The Lancet in 2002. The first rigorous estimates of mortality from individual pollutants in British cities were presented in 2000 in a paper by Walter and FitzRoy of the University of St Andrews. Using six years of daily data from 13 main cities, they estimated that, in the UK, between 12,700 and 19,500 deaths per annum are premature deaths that are attributable to total air pollution. They produced a table showing the standardised annual number of deaths per 100,000 people. In Glasgow there were 22 deaths per 100,000 people and in Edinburgh there were 53. It is no comfort to know that the proportions in Liverpool, Southampton and Swansea were considerably higher.
Whatever the numbers, there is no doubt that the problem is real and that it is taken seriously by politicians and professionals. Earlier this year, the National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection held a workshop on air quality management. Afterwards, it said:
"Integrating air quality with climate change, local transport planning and local planning processes remains a foreseeable challenge for all involved over the next few years, as new approaches to managing air quality are explored."
It is no accident that transport planning is mentioned immediately after climate change. Modern vehicles emit vastly fewer pollutants than their predecessors, but there are many more vehicles on the road and people travel further and more often. Although both transport and industry contribute significantly to the volume of emissions, transport delivers pollution directly to the most populated areas.
Glasgow is one of three cities in Scotland that have identified air pollution levels that require the introduction of air quality management areas. The other two are Edinburgh and Aberdeen. In Aberdeen, the volume of transport-related nitrogen dioxide emissions and particles needs to be addressed and the local authority's plan to deal with the problem is being finalised.
City-centre traffic is not generated entirely by the city, so it has to be managed on a wider basis. I commend to Glasgow and other cities the effective work that has been done by the north-east Scotland transport partnership in developing a modern transport system with an integrated package of measures, including the promotion of walking, cycling and the use of public transport, as well as better traffic management. Furthermore, the proposed western peripheral route will ease congestion by taking traffic around the city rather than through it—flowing traffic is far less polluting than traffic that is stuck in traffic jams.
In conclusion, Scotland has good air quality but there is work to be done in improving it in pockets of our city centres. I will be a wee bit cheeky and mention another type of pollution, which is ubiquitous and which has adverse effects on health that are not always fully recognised—noise pollution. I hope that we will start to take noise pollution more seriously and that we will do more to alleviate it alongside other anti-pollution work.
Before I call Charlie Gordon, I remind members that this debate is specifically about air pollution in Glasgow. The motion mentions that at least three times.
Air pollution in Glasgow city centre is a challenge that has to be faced. I am just about old enough to remember Glasgow's air quality problems in the late 1950s and early 1960s, such as the killer smogs, which were eradicated in due course by the clean air legislation.
The motion moves towards the conclusion that the root of the problem in Glasgow city centre is road traffic; it calls for a reversal in the increase in road traffic in Glasgow as well as the prevention of further increases. In facing up to that proposition, I make it clear that I am opposed to any reduction in access to the city of Glasgow and to the city centre in particular. Glasgow is a great centre for retail, commerce and cultural activity and it would be wrong to stumble into measures that reduce access. When access to city centres is reduced, the beneficiaries are often out-of-town shopping malls, to which access is almost exclusively by car. That makes the overall environmental balance in the country worse.
In calling for a reduction in road traffic access to Glasgow, we have to bear in mind the fact that buses travel on the roads. Generally speaking, the streets in the centre of Glasgow that have the worst air quality are those that carry the most buses. There are difficulties with enforcement, because although anyone whose engine is idling can be asked to switch it off, once the enforcement officer goes away, they can switch it back on again.
We must not forget that, during the morning rush hour, more than 60 per cent of the people entering the city centre are using public transport. That modal share compares well with that in most European cities.
I have some regional expertise because a long time ago I was responsible for roads and transport in Glasgow city region. We need a balanced mix of measures and we should encourage walking, cycling, public transport access and park-and-ride schemes. We need measures to keep through traffic out of our city centres. During the past 15 years, I have looked at the same issues in 40 cities around the world. In my experience, cities with ring-road systems are successful in keeping extra traffic out of their centres. The completion of the M74 would assist Glasgow in that regard.
The motion is anti-car, but to be against the car is to ignore the fact that, in many parts of our country for the foreseeable future, there will have to be a role for the car in a truly integrated transport policy. The emphasis of the debate so far gives rise to the danger that we could come up with a cure that is worse than the disease.
I congratulate my colleague Patrick Harvie on securing the debate. Now that—at last—we have legislation to protect people from passive smoking, it is particularly important that we should broaden our focus and consider other aspects of air pollution. The World Health Organisation report that was published this summer on the health effects of transport-related pollution serves as a wake-up call to us all with its stark account of the thousands who die each year throughout Europe from traffic-related pollution.
The effects of passive driving—people standing or walking alongside traffic—strike mostly at the heart and not the lungs. Those effects are not clearly understood. According to the Westminster Government's Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, either an inflammation of the lung makes the blood more likely to clot or the pollutants somehow change the autonomic nervous system's control of the heartbeat. Either way, the committee says, there is a convincing association
"between daily average concentrations of a number of classical air pollutants and the number of deaths occurring daily from cardiovascular causes".
Given Glasgow's particularly poor health record, it behoves us all to look at some of the effects that can be caused by the pollution that many people are required to face daily as they walk or cycle in the city or even just move from one form of transport to another.
Pollution can kill people who are already ill and so most vulnerable, but there is an argument that it also causes considerable harm to healthy people. Therefore, we need to consider the reports from around the world that detail the impact that nitrous oxide pollution has on people.
I would like to mention briefly the situation in Aberdeen—
As an example for Glasgow?
Yes. If it is permissible, I will mention the situation in Aberdeen as an example for Glasgow.
Although Aberdeen has good air quality, it is important to recognise that, as Nora Radcliffe indicated, the assumption in both Aberdeen and Glasgow is that building more roads will reduce pollution. Unlike the current plan for Aberdeen's western peripheral route, the M74 extension will be built not out in the countryside, but right in the centre of some of Glasgow's poorest areas. Building new roads simply moves the pollution from one area to another but, in the case of Glasgow, the pollution will be moved from one deprived area to another. We need to recognise the impact on those who will be required to live with that degree of pollution not just for a few hours each day when they are out walking, but each day throughout their lives.
Those issues need to be taken into account when we think ahead about the attitude that we should have towards public transport and the balance between public transport and road development in the Executive's budget. We cannot continue with our complacency and dumbly accept the poisoning of the air that we breathe in the name of rapid transport and economic growth. In addition to traffic pollution, we still need to heed industrial pollution and the effects of the individual choices that we all make in our daily lives.
I add my congratulations to Patrick Harvie on securing his first members' business debate, which has been on an important issue. I also thank the other members who stayed to contribute to the debate.
Air quality in Scotland is generally good. In recent years, there have been significant improvements as new policy measures to reduce emissions from industry and transport have taken effect. The Executive intends to ensure that that positive trend continues.
At the same time, I acknowledge that pockets of poorer air quality still exist in some of our towns and cities. I recognise the effects that air pollution can have on the health of vulnerable members of society. People rightly expect to be able to breathe clean air. We are determined to tackle hot spots in partnership with local authorities, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and others.
Public health is, as always, a top priority for the Executive. The action that we are taking to ban smoking in public places is the clearest possible illustration of our intentions in that respect. We also take seriously the views of our expert health advisers. Their advice plays a central role in developing our policies on and targets for air quality. The message that is conveyed by the latest evidence is that we cannot afford to be complacent and we must take action to reduce pollution levels even further. We intend to do that.
Central to the Executive's efforts to address poor quality is a system of local air quality management. All local authorities in Scotland are required regularly to review and assess air quality in their areas and to take action where the air quality objectives are unlikely to be met within a set timescale. That gives us access to a comprehensive record of air quality throughout Scotland. The vast majority of authorities will be able to meet all eight objectives. Even in hot spots, most objectives will be achieved.
Where objectives are unlikely to be achieved, the local authorities concerned must declare air quality management areas and draw up action plans that indicate how they intend to address the problems that have been identified.
We all agree with the minister about the process for declaring management areas and producing action plans. Does she accept what Glasgow City Council says in its action plan—that even with the actions that it proposes to take it does not expect to meet the Executive's targets on NO2? If so, what measures does she think would be enough for the city to achieve the Executive's targets?
The air quality management plan that Glasgow has developed has been agreed with the Executive and with stakeholders. We recognise that the air quality issues that we face in Glasgow are particularly challenging. However, the city is not alone; Aberdeen and Edinburgh are in a similar position, as are many places elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Glasgow compares relatively favourably with other similar cities. However, there are particular issues that face Glasgow, and we need to continue to work closely with it. What we are doing to develop a Scotland-wide transport strategy should support efforts to improve air quality and to reduce emissions from vehicles by 2020. It is important to remember that we face a fairly unique situation in Glasgow, as the M8 runs through the city centre. That presents us with a particularly challenging set of circumstances. We are working closely with Glasgow City Council to address air quality.
The review and assessment work has shown that nitrogen dioxide levels exceed the relevant air quality objective. By far the largest contributor to those emissions is road transport. We know that high levels of nitrogen dioxide are significant for human health. They can cause lung inflammation and may exacerbate the symptoms of people with asthma, as members have mentioned this evening. Members have noted that the issue is particularly significant for vulnerable groups, such as children, people with health problems and the elderly.
The council has declared an air quality management area in the city centre and has produced an action plan that outlines a comprehensive set of measures aimed at reducing nitrogen dioxide emissions. Sandra White asked a question about buses. As Charlie Gordon mentioned, buses can be fined for emissions caused by their engines idling.
I will give one or two examples of the measures that Glasgow is taking. Glasgow is introducing eight new quality bus corridors across the city. The Larkhall to Milngavie rail link is now operational. The council is also participating in the vehicle emissions testing scheme that is funded by the Executive. Reports suggest that that is having a positive effect in raising public awareness of air quality issues. Significant funding is being invested in upgrading cycle path and footpath networks. We and the council are confident that the plan will deliver significant improvements in air quality to the people of Glasgow, as those and other measures take effect.
Research that compares air pollution to cigarette smoking has been referred to. It is important to bear in mind that those are two entirely separate public health issues. In each case, different combinations of pollutants are involved. The ways in which those pollutants enter the body and their effects vary, as do exposure levels of individuals and groups. Therefore, we are not comparing like with like.
Both ambient air pollution and cigarettes—whether for the smoker or for those breathing second-hand smoke—are damaging to health. Population exposure to each is being addressed in Scotland.
I want to touch on transport issues and the M74. As members are aware, the Executive is investing more than ever in major transport projects such as new rail lines, airport links and improvements to bus services. We now spend more than two thirds of our transport budget on buses, trains, ferries, cycling, walking and other forms of public transport, yet at the same time, we cannot neglect our road network.
Targeted road improvements reduce congestion and travel times and make vehicle operation more efficient, both in terms of fuel economy and reduced emissions.
The completion of the M74 will provide an important missing link in the network. It will remove more than 20,000 vehicles a day from the M8 and city centre streets—the areas where we face the biggest air quality challenges. That reduction in congestion and the removal of through traffic from city streets will improve air quality in the centre of Glasgow. It will also ease congestion on the M8 and other roads, contributing to improved economic competitiveness in the west of Scotland. In addition, it will deliver health and quality-of-life benefits to residents in the vicinity of the new road, as traffic is removed from shopping and residential areas. Ministers remain convinced of the benefits that the project will bring not only to Glasgow but to the wider area.
The Executive is committed to tackling poor air quality. Policies introduced over recent years are taking effect and will continue to do so. New measures in the future will provide further momentum, but there is still work to be done if we are to reduce further the detrimental effects of air pollution on health.
The initiatives that I have outlined in Glasgow and the rest of Scotland signal the Executive's determination to continue delivering cuts in air pollution levels and to improve the health and well-being of all our communities.
Meeting closed at 17:51.