Upload
buinhu
View
224
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Development, Transport & Environment
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ Newcastle / Gateshead Low Emission Zone Feasibility Study
September 2013
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
Quality Management
Quality Management
Job No CS/054827-01
Project Low Emission Zone Feasibility Study
Location Newcastle / Gateshead
Title Newcastle / Gateshead Low Emission Zone Feasibility Study
Document Ref Final Issue / Revision 2
Date September 2013
Prepared by 1 N Bryan Signature (for file)
Prepared by 2 A Key Signature (for file)
Checked by S. Clarke Signature (for file)
Authorised by S. Clarke Signature (for file)
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
Contents
i
Contents 1. Executive Summary 1
2. Introduction 2 2.1 The Commission 2 2.2 Newcastle University Involvement 3
3. Background 5 3.1 Low Emission Zones (LEZs) 5 3.2 Air Quality - Targets 5 3.3 Air Quality - Health 6 3.4 Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) 8 3.5 Vehicle Emission Standards 11 3.6 Local Policy 15
4. Review of Best Practice 17 4.1 Effectiveness of LEZs 17 4.2 Operation of Existing LEZ’s 19 4.3 Aim of an LEZ 24 4.4 Public Acceptability 24 4.5 Consultation 26 4.6 Economic Impacts 28 4.7 Implementation 30 4.8 Monitoring 30 4.9 Enforcement 31 4.10 Costs 33
5. Modelling 36 5.1 Tyne and Wear Transport Planning Model 37 5.2 PITHEM Emissions Model 37 5.3 ADMS-Urban Air Quality Dispersion Model 37 5.4 Development of Public Transport (Bus) Model 37 5.5 Analysis 38 5.6 Modelling Limitations 44
6. Options 48 6.1 Option 1 – Newcastle/Gateshead LEZ 48 6.2 Option 2 – Direct Operator Engagement 50 6.3 Additional supporting measures 53
7. Outcomes 55 7.1 Recommendations 55 7.2 Preferred Option 55 7.3 Future LEZ 55 7.4 Future Work 55
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
Contents
ii
Appendices Appendix A - Newcastle University Modelling Report
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
Contents
iii
Glossary
ADMS Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling System
AQMA Air Quality Management Areas
AM Morning peak period
AURN Automatic Urban and Rural Network
BQC Bus Quality Contract
CERC Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants
COPERT4 MS Windows software program aiming at the calculation of air
pollutant emissions from road transport
DaSTS Delivering a sustainable Transport System
DECC Department of Energy & Climate Change
DfT Department for Transport
DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
DPF Diesel Particulate Filters - exhaust technology
DTM Digital Terrain Model
EFT Emissions Factor Toolkit
EGR Exhaust Gas Recirculation
Euro 1,2,3 … applies to Cars and LGV
Euro I, II, III, IV… applies to HGVs and buses
FCC Freight Consolidation Centre
FORS The Fleet Operator Recognition Scheme
FP Tyne & Wear Freight Partnership
GEH Global Environmental Health
GIS Geographical Information System
GRS Generic Reaction Set
HC Hydro Carbons
IGCB DEFRA Interdepartmental Group on Costs and Benefits
IP Inter Peak Period
LA Local Authority
LAQM Local Air Quality Management
LEEZEN Low Emission & Environment Zones in Europe Network
LNT Lean NOX Trap
LTP Local Transport Plan
ME2 Matrix Update Process
NAEI National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory
NAQS National Air Quality Strategy
NMHC Non-Methane Hydrocarbons
NUTS4 Nomenclature of Units for Territorial Statistics – Observatory District
and Unitary level
OS Ordnance Survey
PCN Penalty Charge Notice
PITHEM Platform for Integrated Traffic, Health and Emissions Modelling
PM Evening Peak Period
PM10 ‘Coarse fraction’ Particulate Matter
PM2.5 'Fine fraction’ Particulate Matter
PT Passenger Transport
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
Contents
iv
PTE Passenger Transport Executive
PTW Powered Two Wheelers
RGF Regional Growth Fund
RPC Reduced Pollution Certificate
SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction - exhaust technology
SI Statutory Instrument
THC Total Hydrocarbons
TOID TOpographic IDentifier
TPM Tyne and Wear Transport Planning Model
TRL Transport Research Laboratory
TWFP The Tyne and Wear Freight Partnership
UCAP NewcastleGateshead Urban Core Action Plan
VED Vehicle Excise Duty
VKM Vehicle Kilometres
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
1
1. Executive Summary
This report is commissioned by Newcastle City Council and Gateshead Metropolitan Borough
Council to investigate the feasibility of a Low Emission Zone (LEZ) for Newcastle and
Gateshead.
Newcastle University modelled 9 different scenarios containing a Base 2010, a “Business as
Usual” 2021 Base scenario, and several Do Something 2021 scenarios. The scenarios were
based upon changes in traffic composition and modelled using the existing TPM model for
Newcastle and Gateshead.
The LEZ 2 scenario (All vehicles Euro 6/VI) resulted in the greatest decrease in emissions
followed by the LEZ 5 scenario (All buses Euro VI). The modelling results also showed the
existing NO2 exceedences necessitating the respective AQMA’s in Newcastle and Gateshead
may be resolved through “natural” vehicle replacement.
Research into existing LEZ across Europe and modelling outcomes of Newcastle University
have resulted in the recommendation to not go ahead with a Low Emission Zone for
Newcastle and Gateshead.
Enhanced air quality improvements can be achieved through a number of measures including;
the redistribution of traffic via the proposed Newcastle Urban Distributor route, promotion of
sustainable transport modes with development of their infrastructure potentially from Local
Sustainable Transport Funding (LSTF) and through direct operator engagement with Freight
Quality Partnership (FQP) and Taxi Licensing. On a voluntary level, a Bus Quality Contract
(BQC) partnership may be utilised to improve air quality within the region.
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
2
2. Introduction
2.1 The Commission
Capita Symonds has been commissioned by Newcastle City Council to undertake a feasibility
study to determine the appropriateness of introducing a LEZ for Newcastle and Gateshead in
an area which suffers from current exceedences in local air quality standards. It is recognised
that these exceedences are resulting from vehicle borne emissions.
The commission is a collaborative study between Capita Symonds, Newcastle City Council
(NCC), Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (GMBC) and the University of Newcastle.
Newcastle University’s main role was providing the quantitative impacts of delivering a LEZ for
Newcastle and Gateshead. The University have utilised the Tyne & Wear TPM model from
which traffic flows for all roads in Tyne & Wear were taken and used to develop the air quality
model and associated tools.
The modelling has identified the specific extents of Newcastle and Gateshead where NO2 levels
are predicted to exceed annual mean objective levels. Through interpreting the model outputs it
has been possible to identify the traffic flow make-up based on Euro emission classification on
each link. This allowed for consideration across the board in order to identify areas of concern
in particular those with high NO2 levels.
At the outset, it was predicted that for this commission the study group would concentrate on
developing a LEZ strategy for the regulation of access by HGV’s and buses. However, this
objective has been reviewed periodically through the life of the commission to ensure any
recommendations put forward are appropriate for the air quality challenges facing Newcastle
and Gateshead within the study area.
The initial key deliverables of this commission are listed below;
1. Undertake a Desktop Review of Baseline Information
The full review was undertaken of the historical information available relating to the designation
of the current AQMA for Newcastle and Gateshead, including the reasoning for the designation
as an AQMA, the causation and the geographical extents. In additional the commission sought
to review the approach adopted by other areas in delivering a LEZ.
The findings of the desk top study will be used to develop an initial presentation to be used
within the first stakeholder focus group including Freight Quality Partnership representatives /
Freight Operators, Large Retailers, Bus Operators, Elected members with Environmental and
Transport portfolios, UTMC management and other relevant Council Officers. The aim of this
group would be to better understand the operational challenges faced with delivering a LEZ and
ultimately achieve a general consensus on the approach to delivering a LEZ within Newcastle &
Gateshead. The operational challenges to delivering a LEZ and the options to meet these
challenges were categorised into the following key themes. It was proposed that a
comprehensive review of each of the key theme would be undertaken, including how other LEZ
met these challenges and the appropriateness for adopting these approaches when delivering a
LEZ for Newcastle & Gateshead.
2. Review of Regulation Requirements
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
3
The initial approach adopted was to consult with NCC and GMBC legal services to establish the requirements for preparing the Traffic Regulation Order for the LEZ. In addition, it was proposed to establish the mandatory infrastructure requirements associated with delivering the LEZ TRO, timescales and costs.
3. Enforcement & Compliance
There are several possible approaches to enforcement of an LEZ including, Automatic Number
Plate Recognition (ANPR), and Mobile Enforcement units. Through consultation with the
respective enforcement agencies for Newcastle & Gateshead it was proposed that Capita
Symonds provide a detailed review of which system is most appropriate for Newcastle and
Gateshead and the challenges to delivery
4. Monitoring
Capita Symonds were also asked to consider the application of a continual programme of
monitoring based on compliance (no. of fines issued) and air quality monitoring. This would
involve regularly analysing what types of vehicles frequently offend and determining why this is.
5. Option Package Appraisal & Costs
The final aspect of the commission was undertaking an appraisal of the options as a “fit” for
Newcastle and Gateshead. The intention was to provide budgetary costs for the delivery of a
LEZ in Newcastle / Gateshead which would include;
a. Design Costs
b. Capital Costs
c. Operational Costs
d. Maintenance Costs
It became clear as the commission progressed that the initial objectives of the commission
would need to be refocused to reflect the stage Newcastle and Gateshead were at in terms of
developing a strategy for implementing a LEZ. The commission was therefore refocused to
address the following challenges;
How can we define the extents of the potential LEZ for Newcastle & Gateshead?
What is the impact of future improvements to vehicle emissions going to have on the
viability of the LEZ for the current air quality issues? Will there need to be a LEZ or will
the issues change, i.e. a reduction in NOX but an increase in other pollutants such as
particulates and how will this affect the approach adopted?
How will the LEZ be incorporated into NCC and GMBC’s wider aspirations outlined in
their emerging Local Development Framework Plan?
The commission has therefore evolved to answer the key questions listed above. In addition,
comprehensive research into current LEZ’s and recommendations on the strategy which should
be adopted for delivery in Newcastle City Centre and Gateshead have been provided.
2.2 Newcastle University Involvement
Newcastle University was initially commissioned to produce the following elements towards the
overall goal of the feasibility study:
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
4
1. A traffic emission inventory, by vehicle type and fleet age for Nitrogen Dioxide,
Particulate Matter and Carbon Dioxide, for Newcastle and Gateshead Air Quality
Management Areas (AQMAs);
2. A baseline assessment of existing air quality across the Newcastle and Gateshead
AQMAs, for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and Particulate Matter (PM);
3. A baseline source apportionment analysis of emissions within the AQMA areas;
4. The remodelling of air-quality to show the effectiveness of the proposed LEZ for two
time periods (2 years and 5 years after implementation). Remodelling to include the
effects of road impacts and potential displacement of vehicles;
However, this document presents final work that differs slightly to the original outlined in the
study proposal. The primary difference being that, rather than remodelling two future time
periods of the selected LEZ option, multiple LEZ options are presented for a single, future year
period (2021). Additionally, the potential for displacement of vehicles from the LEZ areas has
not been fully addressed in the modelling work to date.
These changes were agreed with the client and primarily a result of:
issues in the initial development of the baseline assessment model; and
major changes to the emissions factors used during the study period, leading to
subsequent re-development of all original modelling;
The assessment procedure outlined above falls within the scope of the Screening and
Intermediate Assessment guidance for Emissions and Air Quality Impact Assessment outlined
in DEFRA’s ‘Local Air Quality Management Practical Guidance 2: Practical Guidance to Local
Authorities on Low Emissions Zones’.
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
5
3. Background
3.1 Low Emission Zones (LEZs)
A Low Emission Zone or LEZ may be defined as a pollution control scheme, where certain
vehicles are forbidden to enter, or charged to enter a particular area. It aims to accelerate the
uptake of low emission vehicles which will affect both the zone itself, and the wider fleet. As the
aim of an LEZ is to reduce concentrations of air-pollutants within its boundaries, generally those
vehicles with the largest gross contribution to emissions are targeted initially.
Many early LEZ (pre-2005) were aimed solely at reducing particulate matter from heavy duty
vehicles, as this was the most cost effective way of implementation, and particulates were a
primary health concern. However, the improved availability of de-NOX technologies across all
vehicle sectors has enabled more recent proposals to cover both PM and NOX. Given that the
AQMAs in Newcastle/Gateshead are declared for NO2, the focus of this study has been on LEZ
options that aim to reduce NOX, whilst being mindful of the ‘exposure reduction’ policy for
particulate matter. Indirectly, measures introduced to combat NOX and NO2 emissions will also
have an effect on Ozone (O3) concentrations, due to complex photochemical reactions between
these pollutants.
3.2 Air Quality - Targets
Legally binding limits and exceedence values for pollutants are, presented in The Statutory Instrument (SI) ‘Environmental Protection: The Air Quality Standards Regulations SI 2010’ and set down in EU Directive 2008/50/EC for the United Kingdom.
Table 3.1 shows the current scheduled pollutants from the Air Quality Standards Regulations
associated with road transport, the limit values associated with pollutants and the averaging
periods used in assessment.
Table 3.1 Key transport-related pollutants and relevant limit values (from Environmental
Protection: The Air Quality Standards Regulations SI 2010 No. 1001, Schedule 2,
Regulation 17(1) and (2))
Pollutant Averaging Period Limit Value
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1-hour
Calendar Year
200 μg/m3 not to be exceeded more than
18 times a calendar year
40 μg/m3
Particulate Matter
(aerodynamic diameter
<10μm) (PM10)
One day
Calendar Year
50 μg/m3 not to be exceeded more than
35 times a calendar year
40 μg/m3
Particulate Matter
(aerodynamic diameter
<2.5μm) (PM2.5)
Calendar Year 25 μg/m3 (target for 1
st January 2005.
Tolerance limit of 20% of this value
commences 11th
June 2008, and
decreases the next 1st January and every
12 months thereafter by equal annual
percentages to reach 0% by 1st January
2015)
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
6
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maximum 8-hour daily mean 10 mg/m3
Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) One hour 350 μg/m3 not to be exceeded more than
3 times a calendar year
125 μg/m3 not to be exceeded more than
24 times a calendar year
Benzene (C6H6) Calendar Year 5 μg/m3
Lead (Pb) Calendar Year 0.5 μg/m3
Changes in both vehicle fuel and emission control technologies have lessened the impact of
transport on local concentrations of all but three of the pollutants to within limit values. The three
pertinent pollutants are; Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), ‘coarse fraction’ Particulate Matter (PM10) and
‘fine fraction’ Particulate Matter (PM2.5).
The ‘Environment Act’ of 1995 paved the way for the introduction of the ‘National Air Quality
Strategy’ (NAQS). This document provides an overview of UK Government policy towards
achieving the ambient air quality standards. It is recognised within the strategy that national and
international efforts are required to reduce pollution. However many local air quality issues are
caused by transport, especially road transport, and Local Authorities (LAs) have a major role to
play in their amelioration.
A statutory duty is placed on Local Authorities within England via the Environment Act to manage local air quality within their areas, through a regime of regular monitoring and assessment against the air quality objectives. Where it is considered likely that a particular objective will not be met, the LA should declare by order an ‘Air Quality Management Area’ (AQMA). The LA should subsequently proceed to develop and implement an ‘Air Quality Action Plan’ to achieve compliance in that area. Each AQMA is both defined by its geographic extent, and the pollutants for which exceedences are expected to occur. ‘Policy Measure G’, outlined within NAQS, specifically addressed the suggested implementation of low-emissions zones in London (now implemented, albeit in a different form to that originally envisaged in the NAQS) and seven other urban areas in the UK – including Newcastle.
The Local Government Association, Localism Bill has significant fines associated with it should the UK fail to meet its EU air quality limits. The Government’s localism agenda threatens to reduce the top-down governance of LAQM whilst also introducing the potential for EU fines to be passed to local authorities where limit values are exceeded.
3.3 Air Quality - Health
It is widely documented that poor air quality can have an adverse effect on human health. Air
quality is affected by numerous anthropogenic sources from point sources such as incinerators
or coal power plants to mobile sources such as road traffic or diffuse sources such as
households or smokers. Road traffic though is one of the worst offenders and is thought to be
one of the biggest contributors to CO and NOX pollutants in the air. The main concerns for
Newcastle and Gateshead are Particulate Matter and NOX and their associated health effects,
see Table 3.2.
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
7
Table 3.2 Pollutant’s Health Impacts
Pollutant Health Impacts
Particulate Matter (PM10) Can affect central nervous system
Can affect reproductive system
Can cause or worsen cardiovascular
diseases, heart attacks or arrhythmias
Can cause cancer
Can cause premature death
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Can affect the liver, lungs, spleen and
blood
Can worsen lung diseases increasing the
risk of respiratory systems and increased
susceptibility to respiratory infection
The Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) estimate that on average up
to 24,000 people in the UK die prematurely every year as a result of short-term exposure to air
pollution and thousands more are hospitalised (COMEAP (2009) Long-Term Exposure to Air
Pollution: Effect on Mortality. A report by the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air
Pollutants).
It estimated that particulate matter reduces life expectancy by around seven to eight months,
averaged over the whole population of the UK. This figure is an average and for individuals who
are particularly sensitive and are exposed to the poorest air quality the reduction in life
expectancy could be as high as 9 years. The Department of Health commissioned work from
the Institute of Occupational Medicine to compare the benefits of eliminating man-made PM2.5
with the elimination of motor vehicle traffic accidents and the elimination of exposure to passive
smoking. The results are shown in Table 3.3 below.
Table 3.3 Comparison of the benefits of reducing PM2.5 by 10 µg/m3
Reduction in PM2.5
Elimination of Road Traffic Accidents
Elimination of Passive Smoking
Expected gain in life expectancy 7-8 months 1-3 months 2-3 months
These health impacts can be aided by Local Authorities who in fact have some devolved
funding to tackle health problems. Hence, air quality and its associated health problems needs
to be made more of a priority in order to tackle the issue.
Currently there are no health based quantification figures or costs for air quality in Newcastle
and Gateshead. There needs to be a better understanding of the public health impact of air
quality in the region to support the prioritisation and funding of air quality as a public health
concern. If national figures are applicable to Newcastle and Gateshead air quality may cause
similar or greater levels of mortality and morbidity as passive smoking, road traffic accidents or
obesity.
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
8
3.4 Air Quality Management Area (AQMA)
Historically a number of AQMAs have been declared by Newcastle City Council. These have
included:
1. The City Centre,
2. Quayside, adjacent to the A1058 Jesmond Road/Cradlewell,
3. Blue House Roundabout and
4. Areas of the A189 and B1318 Gosforth High Street.
The three former, and the two latter AQMAs now currently form two larger AQMAs, both
declared for exceedence of the NO2 annual mean standard (i.e. 40 μg/m3 from Table 3.1).
Within this study, the two areas are colloquially referred to as the Newcastle City Centre and
Gosforth AQMAs.
There are two AQMAs currently declared within Gateshead; Gateshead Town Centre and an
area adjacent to services on the A1 (M) at Birtley in the south of the region. As with Newcastle,
both of these areas were declared for exceedence of the NO2 annual mean standard. Within
this study the two areas are colloquially referred to as the Gateshead and Birtley AQMAs.
In support of the declared Air Quality Management Areas, and subsequent Air Quality Action
Plans, two air quality monitoring stations are run by Newcastle City Council – one sited in the
city centre, adjacent to the council offices at Newcastle Civic Centre, and one to the east of the
city centre at Cradlewell. Both of these monitoring stations form part of the UK’s Automatic
Urban and Rural Network (AURN) for air-quality. Data from these sites has been used in
support of the modelling work undertaken.
Both councils also possess and operate a number of non-AURN monitors for various pollutants,
and undertake regular assessments of NO2. Data from non-fixed sites has been made available
to Newcastle University, by both Gateshead and Newcastle City Councils, although it has not
been used directly. Figure 3.1 below highlights the current AQMA’s in operation in Newcastle
and Gateshead.
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
9
Figure 3.1 Declared Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) in Newcastle and Gateshead
with all roads and locations of Automatic and Rural Network monitoring (AURN) sites
shown
Newcastle and Gateshead Councils recognise the inter dependency of their two areas, in
particular their economic importance to the North East of England as a whole, and the present
need for sustained economic growth. A coherent and combined approach to local development
planning is given in the joint ‘NewcastleGateshead One Core Strategy’. The urban core of
NewcastleGateshead is recognised as possessing ‘high levels of accessibility and
sustainability’, focused on the ‘government, higher education, business, shopping, leisure and
tourism’ sectors. In order to focus development of the ‘One Core Strategy’ a key ‘Urban Core
Area’, encompassing both Newcastle and Gateshead’s historic centres, has been identified.
This Core Area, shown in Figure 3.2, has been adopted in the Council’s joint ‘Urban Core
Action Plan’ (UCAP), and shows a high degree of overlap with the Newcastle City Centre and
Gateshead AQMAs.
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
10
Figure 3.2 Newcastle and Gateshead Urban Core Area
Given the overlap between the core area, and the central AQMAs, the ‘Urban Core Action Plan’
puts forward a number of Objectives and Policy Options that would potentially impact or
influence the design of any Low Emission Zone (LEZ) options. Transport-related Objectives and
Options include:
‘Objective 6’: The adoption of a general prioritised hierarchy of travel modes within the Core
Area (in order: Walking, Cycling, Public Transport (including taxis), service vehicles and general
traffic). This objective influences subsequent policy options, including;
‘Policy Option 7: Pedestrians and Cycling’, advocating the greater prioritisation of
pedestrians and cycling infrastructure at the expense of general car traffic;
‘Policy Option 8: Public Transport’ inclusive of measures:
o for buses including, freeing up road space through priority measures, utilising
Urban Traffic Management and Control (UTMC) systems to improve journey
time reliability and services generally, working with bus operators to reduce
carbon and other emissions;
o for vehicles including, rationalising movements of vehicles around Newcastle
Central Station, exploring relocation of Newcastle Coach Station to Central
Station to form a transportation hub and interchange, introducing ‘layover’
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
11
facilities for coaches attending city centre events and improving facilities for
taxis;
‘Policy Option 9: General Traffic, Parking and Servicing’, including:
o Traffic routing improvements through use of UTMC and focusing of traffic
entering the centre onto strategic routes along the A189, A167 and A184
o Freight via introduction of ‘freight consolidation’ methods for the city centre and
prioritisation of freight traffic over general car traffic, and reducing car traffic to a
‘more sustainable level’;
o Development of a comprehensive parking strategy, including long-stay and
peak-demand, park-and-ride options out of the Core Area, accommodation of
short and medium stay parking off-street within the Core Area and a general
reduction of private, non-residential parking for commuters.
The original LEZ feasibility study brief suggests that the following, example measures are within
the general scope of a low emission strategy for Newcastle and Gateshead:
Demand management actions;
Bus priority lanes;
Bus quality partnerships;
Freight quality partnerships;
Electric vehicle charging points.
Whilst these measures are not directly covered in this document, the detailed design and
assessment of any LEZ options affecting the NewcastleGateshead Urban Core Area must be
considerate of, and complementary to, the LTP and UCAP proposals.
3.5 Vehicle Emission Standards
Within the European Union (EU), vehicle emissions are controlled at source through the
application of the ‘Euro Standards’, which proscribe set limits by pollutant on tailpipe emissions,
over a particular test ‘drive cycle’. Meeting these limits is required for type approval of new
vehicles being sold within the EU. Initially the standards covered only Carbon Monoxide (CO),
Hydrocarbons (HC), NOX and Particulate Matter, but have subsequently been expanded to
cover Total Hydrocarbons (THC), Non-Methane Hydrocarbons (NMHC), Total NOX, and
particulate number and/or smoke.
DEFRA guidance on LEZs recommends that LEZs implemented from 2010 and 2012 should
consider higher standards than Euro 3/III as a minimum. However, ‘local source apportionment’
should be used to identify target vehicles.
Whilst the implementation of the standards has been instrumental in reducing urban pollution,
there has been concern in recent years that ambient NOX and NO2 concentrations adjacent to
roads have not reduced in commensurate fashion with the NOX emissions standards, nor have
previously modelled air-quality benefits materialised. The ‘Science for Environmental Policy’
bulletin of the European Commission DG Environment, recently stated that ‘the most recent
Euro 5 standard, adopted in 2009… did not produce the desired reduction in on-road
emissions’.
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
12
3.5.1 Present and Future NOX Emissions
The UK vehicle speed-related emissions factors for NOX were based on the findings of a series
of reports produced by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), on behalf of the Department
for Transport (DfT).
3.5.2 Retrofitting Vehicles
In addition to the application of emission control technologies as standard to new vehicles,
existing vehicle fleets may be ‘retrofitted’ with Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF) or Selective
Catalytic Reduction (SCR) exhaust technologies.
For LEZ modelling, there is a need to understand how such retrofitted technologies impact
emissions from older vehicles. The latest Emissions Factor Toolkit (EFT) incorporates
emissions factors that suggest better NOX performance from retrofitted Euro II, III and IV buses,
than for new Euro V SCR buses at speeds below 35km/h. Data for retrofitting of heavy vehicles
other than buses is limited, and these are not considered in the latest EFT.
Retrofitting also leads to the potential of a vehicle meeting one set of standards for a particular
pollutant, but not for others (e.g. a retrofitted DPF may mean that a bus meets Euro III or IV for
PM, but not for NOX). This has implications for LEZ design if a ‘split’ approach is taken
regarding different pollutants.
Examples of retrofitting for NOX reduction to meet LEZ criteria include Phase 5 of the London
LEZ (implementation in 2015). As of 13th February 2013, this has been amended to only apply
to TfL operated buses in 2015, rather than heavy duty vehicles, but will involve the retrofitting of
900 EURO III buses with SCR systems, replacement of another 900 EURO III buses with
EURO VI equivalents and the introduction of 600 hybrid buses by 2015 (with a further 600
introduced in 2016). It is estimated that the revised scheme will still ‘deliver 75% of the NOX
reductions of the original scheme’.
3.5.3 Emissions Standards
Euro 6 is the highest current diesel engine emission standard being targeted by the European Commission. From January 2014 all new trucks and buses must meet these stringent levels. Since 1993, when the very first 'Euro 1' legislation was introduced, the EU has regulated the amount of pollutants coming out of the tailpipe of a diesel engine. In particular, the Commission identified two key constituents within the exhaust stream – oxides of nitrogen or 'NOx', and Particulate Matter or 'PM' as being harmful, and which needed to be controlled and reduced. As a result, over the past 20 years, European engine makers have invested heavily in developing new components, which has seen the levels of NOx and PM (as well as other elements such as unburned hydrocarbons) in the exhaust of all new diesel-engine trucks and buses falling dramatically. Each step has seen a technology leap.
2001 – Euro 3
In the third phase of the emissions legislation, engines were required to meet their emission levels during actual on-road driving. A 'transient' test cycle (which in part, mimics on-road operations) was also introduced along with a split two-phase implementation process for new type approvals one year ahead of new vehicle registrations.
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
13
2006 – Euro 4 As exhaust limit values continued to fall even lower, after-treatment systems were required for the first time. Two alternative strategies using either selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems or cooled exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) were adopted by manufacturers. The new standards also required on-board diagnostics (OBD) to monitor the engine's emission control and alert the operator to any fault within it. In some cases the OBD could even limit power/torque if the fault was found to be due to tampering with the NOX control system.
2009 – Euro 5
Introduced just three years after Euro 4, Euro 5 imposed even further reductions in NOX and PM as well as other emissions. The preferred solution for truck and bus manufacturers was to use improved versions of the SCR or EGR systems they had adopted at Euro 4 in order to maintain fuel consumption levels while offering a cleaner exhaust.
2014 – Euro 6
The lowest levels set for emission levels yet, it is expected that most manufacturers will adopt a combination of both SCR and EGR, together with a diesel particulate filter (DPF), to meet the new EU regulations. Such has been the response of the manufacturers to the challenge of reducing exhaust emissions that the air coming out of the tailpipe of a Euro 6 diesel engine will be cleaner than ever before, with permitted NOX levels reduced by 75% compared with the current already-low Euro 5 standard. And due to changes governing the way particulates have to be measured, the reduction in PM will be closer to 99%.
3.5.4 The Challenge of Euro 6
To ensure that Euro 6 powered vehicles meet the legislation in day-to-day operation, the EU has included new features in the legislation that drive additional improvements for engine manufacturers:
With the introduction of the Euro 6 regulation, this is the first time a 'World Harmonised Test Cycle' has been used for engine certification. This move means that the engine testing is much closer to real-world vehicle operation than the previous more theoretical cycles. Ensuring the after treatment operates efficiently is more difficult under this new testing regime, with efficiency being closely linked with the heat management of the system;
The addition of particulate count measurement has driven all manufacturers to use particulate filtration in their exhaust systems. The previous measurement process is no longer capable of accurately measuring the extremely low particulate levels required by Euro 6. New measuring equipment has been specified for test cells to get to the required ultra low levels and complete the engine certification;
The EU is introducing portable emissions measurement systems for in-service vehicle testing. This is to ensure that they remain compliant under normal operating conditions during the useful life of the vehicle, which is seven years or 700,000km;
The in-service testing will be backed up by more stringent on-board diagnostic (OBD) regulations, measuring exhaust emissions during vehicle operation. A threshold on particulate emissions will be included for the first time. Tougher emissions and anti tampering limits will be introduced. There is a phasing in period of OBD limits from 2013 to 2015, which needs to be managed beyond the initial legislated date;
Manufacturers are required to issue repair and maintenance information to ensure emissions and OBD compliance is sustained throughout the vehicle life. Detailed product
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
14
and service information needs to be published to enable the effective repair of the engine and after treatment system;
The enforcement of OBD failures is dependent on individual EU member states and how they implement it into law. This could involve roadside checks or be part of periodic inspections such as the MOT in the UK. An active malfunction indicator lamp (MIL) or long-term fault could result in failure of the periodic inspection or even fines for the operator;
The introduction of a lower ammonia emission limit – ammonia being a by-product of the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) exhaust after treatment process;
The inclusion of a crank-case emission limit if a closed system is not used. Any blow-by oil emissions are now counted in the overall emissions measurement.
Euro 6 has required significant investment in product development and methodologies for
testing vehicle emissions. The additional requirements set out by the EU should bring about
real-world improvements in air quality and will improve on the estimates of real world emission
reduction though improvements in test cycles (Public Service Review, 2013).
Table 3.4 and Table 3.5 show the introduction dates for vehicle classes and the vehicle
distribution for 2012 if we assume the same time lag between introduction of Euro 6 and 50 %
of passenger cars being Euro 6 compliant, this will be reached in 2021 the proposed
introduction of the LEZ for Newcastle/Gateshead.
Table 3.4 Euro Class Standard Introduction Dates
Euro 1 Euro 2 Euro 3 Euro 4 Euro 5 Euro 6
Passenger Cars
July 1992 Jan 1996 Jan 2000 Jan 2005 Sept 2009 Sept 2014
Light Commercial Vehicles (N1- I)
Oct 1994 Jan 1998 Jan 2000 Jan 2005 Sept 2010 Sept 2015 (diesel only)
Light Commercial Vehicles (N1-II & III)
Oct 1994 Jan 1998 Jan 2001 Jan 2006 Sept 2010 Sept 2015 (diesel only)
Trucks and Buses
1992 1995 1999 2005 2008
Motorcycles 2000 2004 2007
Mopeds 2000 2004
Table 3.5 Euro Class Vehicle Distribution
2012 Petrol Cars
Diesel Cars
Petrol LGV
Diesel LGV
Rigid HGV
Artic HV Bus
Pre-Euro 1
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Euro 1 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1%
Euro 2 7% 2% 7% 7% 7% 3% 9%
Euro 3 (with DPF)
12% 19% (4%) 21% 21% 27% 26% 30%
Euro 4 (with
52% 33% (8%) 52% 52% 18% 19% 18%
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
15
DPF)
Euro 5 28% 34% 19% 19% 49% 52% 42%
Euro 6 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
3.6 Local Policy
Tyne & Wear LTP contains several wider policy measures that compliment the aim to reduce emissions and improve air quality. These include:-
Policy UC8 Freight and Servicing
The Tyne & Wear LTP includes the proposal for a Freight Management Area Boundary. The Urban Core Distributor Roads forms a natural boundary and the area within it can be influenced and controlled by UTMC. As the boundary is based on the UCDR, the Freight Management Area aligns with other transport policies contained within the LTP, and the objective to enhance the pedestrian and cycling environment within the central area by reducing traffic flows and speeds. The Freight Management Area excludes major parks and residential areas. The Freight Management Area is also similar to the Newcastle City Council Extended AQMA and therefore supports the need to reduce emissions in this area. This measure supports Policy UC8 Freight and Servicing, which aims promote sustainable freight movement and minimise the impact on the environment and quality of place.
Tyne & Wear FQP
The Tyne and Wear Freight Quality Partnership (TWFQP) has been in operation since 2005. Working with freight operators has facilitated the understanding of problems and issues related to freight movement, enabling the initialisation of a coherent strategy and mechanism to tackle the identified issues and problems. The Partnership brings together transport operators, industry representatives, local authorities, the Highways Agency and key local stakeholder groups to facilitate delivery of an action plan which is targeted at improving the efficiency, safety and sustainability of freight movement.
The TWFQP fully endorses a Fleet Operator Recognition Scheme (FORS) which is an
accredited scheme for businesses operating transport fleets of all sizes. It offers impartial,
independent advice and guidance to motivate them to improve their lawfulness and
environmental, social and economic performance. Unlike many other membership and
recognition schemes, FORS membership gives an edge when bidding for work, as it provides
evidence of performance against the many regulatory and environmental requirements facing
the industry. Incentives to join the Tyne and Wear FORS include;
Training, covering topics such as Safety, Fuel Efficiency, PCNs and Urban Diving,
most of which is CPC accredited.
Driver behaviour profiling, detailing the cost of vehicle accidents and fuel usage to
companies. In-vehicle driver profiling motivating drivers to improve and save money.
Fuel advice programme, FORS offers practical tools and advice to help cut costs,
improve fleet’s efficiency, and reduce the impact of freight transport on the
environment.
Driver licence check service, freeing up time spent by operators on checking that
drivers are on the road legally.
Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) assistance, helping reduce the number of PCNs
vehicles receive and limit the impact on freight operators.
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
16
Regular industry updates, FORSight newsletter and regular bulletins help operators
keep ahead of competitors by understanding new developments in the freight sector
Discounted Products are available through the buying powers of the Freight Quality
Partnership (FQP) and targeting operators collectively (TWFP, 2013)
Bus Quality Contract / Bus Voluntary Partnership
Nexus, on behalf of the Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority (ITA) and the area’s five
local councils, are exploring the respective benefits of a new Voluntary Partnership Agreement
with bus companies, and a Quality Contracts Scheme, where all services would be offered
under franchise by a single public body. The ITA is keen to investigate a new model which will
increase the number of people using local buses as well as providing a better service which
delivers greater value for money and cheaper fares for younger people.
Currently the bus companies operate services commercially and therefore decide where and
when 90% of services go and what fares they charge. Some non commercial services (typically
during evenings and weekends), travel to more remote locations are supported by Nexus.
Profits are not generally used to support those remaining routes which, while more lightly used,
nevertheless provide part of a network of essential local services.
A BQC scheme would give local authorities greater powers to obligate operators to upgrade
their fleet to more environmentally efficient vehicles. Key bus corridors running through areas
sensitive to air quality could condition the type of vehicles acceptable to service them e.g.
low/zero emission. Therefore a BQC would provide local authorities with significant powers to
help mitigate emissions specifically propagated by buses. As yet no BQC scheme has been
adopted by PTE/ITA’s outside of London. However the London BQC scheme has been able to
set emissions standards for buses and influence service provision through contractual
obligations.
A Voluntary Partnership Agreement would require local authorities to negotiate with individual
operators to upgrade bus fleets and adopt the latest low emissions technologies. Upgrading bus
fleets has significant cost implications to operators and most phase the replacement/upgrading
of their fleets. From the perspective of the operators it is difficult to see a justifiable financial
return on investing in upgrading vehicles ahead of their natural life cycle for emission reasons.
In this scenario retrofitting would provide the greatest short-term (ahead of the natural vehicle
life cycle) opportunity for reducing vehicle emissions and would need to be encouraged by local
authorities. To encourage operators it is likely that local authorities would need to offer up some
sort of gain by way of bus priority on the highway network or enhancement to bus infrastructure.
This would be at a cost to the local authority and would need to be weighed up against the
quantifiable air quality benefits of reducing emissions.
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
17
4. Review of Best Practice
4.1 Effectiveness of LEZs
There are 152 cities in nine EU countries which have implemented LEZs, with Germany being
at the forefront of their creation. The Low Emission & Environment Zones in Europe Network
(LEEZEN) website currently lists almost 350 applied LEZ controls across the EU, dating back to
2002. However, the vast majority of these controls apply to Euro 4/IV or previous vehicles, or
consider implementation for particulate matter only, with NOX/NO2 reductions viewed as an
‘added bonus’.
Likewise, whilst there is an existing body of literature that has examined the effectiveness of
LEZs, many studies have utilised pre-implementation emissions modelling, rather than post hoc
analysis of monitored air-quality data. There appears to be some evidence that earlier LEZ
feasibility studies may have been optimistic, with expected emissions benefits on paper not
necessarily materialising in concentration reductions in the real world. Many studies have tried
to examine the impacts of the London LEZ, one reported estimated PM10 emission reductions
of 6.6%, and NOX emission reductions of 7.3% by 2012, but also concluded that predicted
changes in concentrations were ‘generally small… and would be difficult to detect in actual
monitoring data’.
A Dutch study (Boogard et al), looking at roadside and sub-urban monitoring data from five
Dutch cities, from one year before and two years after policy implementation, concluded that
‘local traffic policies including LEZ were too modest to produce significant decreases in traffic-
related air pollution’. However, where multiple measures, in addition to the LEZ were
implemented, leading to a reduction in traffic intensity of over 50%, NOX and NO2 levels fell by
39.5% and 13.4% respectively. This is compared to changes across the other sites studied of
between 21.6% for NOX, and 8.4% for NO2. Changes between sites tended to diminish when
meteorological variations are taken into consideration. It is worth noting that the non-linear
relationship of NO2 and NOX concentrations do not necessarily mean that a reduction in total
NOX leads to the same relative reduction in NO2, locations with the highest NOX levels show the
smallest reduction in NO2 as NOX emissions reduce.
Regional UK LEZs formed the heart of ‘Policy Measure G3’, reported by the DEFRA
Interdepartmental Group on Costs and Benefits (IGCB) as part of the NAQS. This policy
considered the hypothetical benefits and costs associated with the introduction of an LEZ in the
central area of Newcastle (amongst seven other cities), during the year 2010, affecting HGVs,
Buses and Coaches, bringing those vehicles to at least Euro II + RCP (Reduced Pollution
Certificate) standard. The IGCB noted that LEZ policy option G3 for the regional cities would
result in ‘significantly reduced’ benefits over the London scheme due to delayed opening of the
LEZs in the regions, in turn leading to ‘less high-polluting, older vehicles relative to the
baseline’. It was also noted that there were lower benefits per tonne of emission produced in the
regional cities due to lower population densities in comparison to London. Both statements will
hold true for implementation of a theoretical LEZ in NewcastleGateshead, the longer the delay
in implementation, the closer to the baseline the LEZ fleet will become, with a commensurate
reduction in potential benefits. Likewise, the population density in the Newcastle and Gateshead
area remains far lower than for London. The DEFRA guidance on LEZs also makes the point
that setting the earliest possible compliance date yields ‘more local air quality and emissions
benefits, but usually at higher costs’.
The IGCB concluded that LEZ options would benefit roadside concentrations in central urban
areas (reducing exceedences in terms of km of urban roads by 0-33% depending on pollutant),
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
18
potentially reduce noise levels, and possibly have a positive social justice aspect (benefitting
deprived areas adjacent to city centres). However, it was also noted that impacts on human
health and on urban ecosystems (based on critical load assessment) were negligible or not
readily quantifiable. Additionally, LEZ options were also thought to have a ‘potential negative
impact’ on competition, with ‘possible disproportionate effects on small businesses’ (though
more detailed assessment of specific implementation options was recommended to quantify
any impacts). It was noted that LEZ options disproportionally affect fleet operators
‘predominantly or solely‘ operating in covered areas, and those operators requiring specialist
vehicles (usually having longer operating and replacement cycles than regular vehicles). LEZ
operation in turn could distort the second-hand market for vehicles by reducing re-sale values of
older vehicles, affecting operators and leasing companies.
Carslaw and Beevers (2002) note that ‘even ambitious LEZ scenarios in central London
produce concentrations of nitrogen oxides that are achieved through a do nothing scenario only
five years later’, given assumptions on the performance and turnover of Pre-Euro to Euro 3
vehicles in the capital. The DEFRA guidance states that LEZ recommendations should ‘produce
three to four years’ benefits. A similar situation is likely to exist with the introduction of Euro 5
and 6 vehicles in the context of a Newcastle/Gateshead LEZ.
Based on the four conclusions of the DEFRA guidance document, the following
recommendations may be drawn:
1. Appropriate emissions standards for the LEZ must be set to achieve objectives, bearing
in mind costs to operators. Higher standards yield bigger potential reductions. For the
case of Newcastle and Gateshead (or the rest of the UK) this will generally mean
application of either the Euro 5/V or 6/VI standards;
2. When setting a base year for implementation of an LEZ, ‘earlier is better’ in terms of
emissions and local air quality outcomes, at potential greater expense. The decision of
what base year to adopt is an open one, as given the current economic climate ‘later
rather than sooner’ may be more appropriate to allow a greater economic recovery.
3. That after initial introduction of the LEZ, subsequent, more rigorous phases be
considered, ‘otherwise the benefits of the policies will be eroded by natural vehicle
replacement rates’.
4. Emission standards and implementation year need to be balanced against costs,
including ‘the level of action required to achieve the air quality objectives of the AQMA’.
Aside from using compliance with the EURO standards to control vehicle access, an alternative
strategy is that of limiting vehicles simply by age – for example the LEZs in the Swedish cities of
Gothenburg, Helsingborg and Lund limit access to vehicles under 6-8 years old. The expected
lifespan of a fleet-operated heavy-duty vehicle is typically of this order, with DfT statistics giving
the annual number of years since first registration of HGVs in the UK as 7.35 years in 2011,
with just under 3% of annual UK HGV registrations being in the North East region. For buses
the DfT Public Vehicle Survey gives the average age of fleets in English metropolitan areas as
7.9 years in 2011. The economic situation has also lead to the current car fleet being the oldest
in 14 years, with DfT statistics giving the average age since first registration as 7.54 years. A
similar situation exists with light commercial vehicles, where the average age since first
registration is 7.57 years. However, the age of a vehicle does not necessarily give a clear
indication of vehicle emissions as there is the potential to change engines or to fit SCR filter
technology, hence altering expected emissions.
DEFRA guidance also suggests consideration of LEZs based on Vehicle Excise Duty (VED).
This would have the effect of altering the fleet profile for cars depending on engine size and
CO2 emissions, giving a trend towards smaller engines and lower emissions in the LEZ.
Consideration of the handling of alternate fuel vehicles would need to be given. For heavy
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
19
goods vehicles, using VED would be the equivalent of a weight restriction, again potentially
leading to lower emissions. For light goods vehicles VED is partially based on engine size or
Euro standard already, depending on the tax class of the vehicle. Unless changes to the basis
to VED are made for the car and HGV classes, it is difficult to see how NOX/NO2 issues could
be directly tackled through its use as an LEZ criterion.
4.2 Operation of Existing LEZ’s
4.2.1 Cars
Cities in Austria, Germany, Italy, Norway and Portugal have LEZs which set emission values for
cars. The details of particular schemes are discussed below.
Austria has provided a framework for implementing an LEZ affecting diesel vehicles, although to
date no city has adopted one. There will be subsidies for heavy duty vehicles with
EURO6/"Enhanced Environmentally Friendly Vehicle" standards, when in exchange the use of
an old vehicle is abandoned. Furthermore, there are subsidies for filter retrofitting amounting to
€300 per car. Also, Graz allocated €3000 per hybrid taxi between 2009 and 2010. Currently
Graz’s parking management represents approximately 26,000 parking spaces, of which 15,000
are short-term spaces.
Germany has incentivised car users by offering a grant of €330 for people to retrofit their
vehicles. Drivers in Germany are required to purchase a sticker linked to vehicle emissions and
display this on their windscreen. The stickers are applicable in all LEZ cities and proof of
emissions standards is required when purchasing the sticker. Retrofitting of vehicles is possible
under the sticker scheme as long as a government endorsed particulate trap is used and a
certificate of its installation is presented when applying for a sticker. Enforcement is basic, if no
sticker is visible on a vehicle parked in an LEZ then a penalty is issued, likewise if a vehicle
does meet the LEZ criteria.
In Rome private vehicle traffic is progressively restricted from the periphery towards the centre.
The measures to restrict traffic in the inner city centre are predominantly inspired by tourism
related urban planning. There is a mobility centre providing technical assistance, mobility
advice, and travel plans for companies. There is a car-sharing programme with 109 vehicles, 61
parking spaces and 1,879 active members.
4.2.2 LGV
Austria, Germany, Italy, Norway, Portugal and the UK have introduced LEZ measures targeting
LGVs.
In London, owners and operators of vehicles that do not meet the required standards, see Table
4.1 have a number of options available to them to ensure they comply with the scheme,
including:
Fitting a filter to the vehicle to improve the emissions: TfL recognises accredited filter
modifications from across Europe;
Purchasing a newer vehicle that meets the standards
Reorganising a fleet so that only vehicles which meet the required emissions standards
drive within the LEZ; or
Paying the daily charge.
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
20
4.2.3 HGV
Germany has introduced a distance-based toll for all trucks of twelve tonnes gross vehicle
weight and above. The German Heavy Goods Vehicle Toll Level Ordinance (MAUT), that came
into force on 1 January 2009, assigns each vehicle one of four categories, A to D, based on its
emissions class. The new toll rates mean that trucks with the latest-generation exhaust systems
and those that have been retrofitted with particulate filters pay significantly less than high-
emission vehicles.
In Flanders, Belgium an ecological subsidy has been set up as a financial incentive for
companies investing in environmental projects, including retrofitting existing Euro I, II or III
freight trucks with diesel particulate filters (DPF). To be eligible for the subsidy, the DPF must
either be listed on the Swiss VERT list or have obtained from the Dutch RDW type approval for
wall-flow DPFs (Class A). The total cost, i.e. DPF plus installation, qualifies for the subsidy
which can represent up to 20% of the amount for small- and medium-sized companies, and up
to 10% for larger companies.
Regione Lombardia in Italy has put €10 million aside to subsidize diesel particulate filters
retrofitted on Euro 0 to Euro 2 commercial vehicles (N1, N2 and N3). A single contribution is
limited to €3000. The incentive program started on 1 December 2008 and such retrofit allows
access within the A1 Zone of the Lombardy region Low Emission Zone.
The Dutch environment ministry provides subsidies to heavy-duty vehicles owners to retrofit
them with Diesel Particulate Filters.
The Scottish Government has launched an air quality grant scheme to provide grants to local
authorities for retrofitting vehicles operated by them with emissions reduction equipment.
Sweden is in the process of introducing a national system for type approval of retrofit systems
for heavy-duty vehicles. Environmental zones for heavy-duty vehicles already exist in some
cities in Sweden, mandating operation in the zones only with reasonably new vehicles based on
Euro classes.
Studies conducted prior to the introduction of the LEZ in London found operators would be most
likely to fit exhaust modification or buy new vehicles, though a very clear message came back
that operators would use newer (compliant) vehicles in London and displace older vehicles
outside London. (LEEZEN, 2000-2005)
This may mean that operators in Newcastle and Gateshead may find it challenging and costly to
adhere to a LEZ for Newcastle and Gateshead as their newer vehicles are already in operation
in London.
4.2.4 Buses
Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, UK London, Norwich and Oxford
have introduced LEZ measure targeting buses.
In France a €1300 subsidy is granted for the retrofit of Particulate Filter on buses. It applies to
all buses put into service between 1 January 1991 and 31 December 2000 and covers filter
systems which have been evaluated by the French Environment and Energy Management
Agency (ADEME).
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
21
Norwich provided funding contributions of over £150,000 for retrofitting of vehicles to help
reduce NOX emissions from older buses operating in Norwich to be achieved through a bus
operator’s agreement.
To complement their LEZ, Berlin has improved public transport bus engines, invested in
compressed gas fuels, restricted car parking in the centre, changed traffic management
arrangements, improved the cycle network and invested in public transport.
Oxford will introduce LEZ for buses entering its city centre. Direct measures to reduce existing
vehicle emissions include:
improving the percentage of newer cleaner vehicles in the vehicle fleets by voluntary
partnership agreements
limiting access in central areas only to cleaner vehicles by establishing a low emission
zone (LEZ)
improving existing flows, by reducing congestion
reducing total flows and relieving congestion
Indirect measures to reduce vehicle emissions may include:
reducing on street parking
reducing travel by private vehicles
Table 4.1 below summarises the various LEZ’s in which cars are subject to
enforcement.
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
22
4.2.5 Summary
Table 4.1 LEZ's Summary Table
LEZ Area Vehicles
Affected
Standard Scheme Type and Retrofitting Operating
Hours
Enforcement
Graz HGV’s Euro 3 - 2014 Retrofitting allowed if registered with LA. Permanent Manual (Police)
Prague HGV’s Euro 4 - 2013 Annual Sticker/Permit based system. Short
Term permits available for foreign vehicles.
Retrofitting allowed
Weekdays
08:00 – 18:00
Manual
Copenhagen HGV’s
(LGV’s
optional)
Euro 4 - 2010 Sticker based permit system applicable to
foreign vehicles also. Retrofitting allowed but
very specific criteria must be met
Permanent Manual (Police and Parking
Wardens) – Penalty fines are
in line with cost of particulate
filters, up to €10,000
Germany
(Various
Cities)
All
vehicles
Petrol Euro 1,
Diesel Euro 4
Sticker based permit system applicable to
foreign vehicles also. Government certified
retrofitting allowed only
Permanent Manual (Police) – a small fine
and penalty points are issued
Budapest HGV’s N/A Variable entry fee into the City scaled according
to Euro class. Retrofitting is not accepted.
Fee varies
based on time
of day to
encourage off-
peak deliveries
Manual
Rome All
vehicles
Petrol Cars
Euro 2, Diesel
Cars Euro 3, –
2012 HGV’s
All HGV’s banned in PM peak,
LPG/Hybrid/Electric LGV/HGV are exempt.
Retrofitting is not allowed and foreign vehicles
are enforced against
Permanent
with time
specific HGV
bans.
Manual
Amsterdam HGV
(LGV’s
optional)
Euro 4 - 2013 ANPR based system on boundary perimeter.
Retrofitting is allowed but foreign vehicles are
not enforced.
Permanent Camera
Lisbon All Euro 3 -2014 Sticker based scheme displayed on all vehicles. Mon-Sat Manual
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
23
vehicles Retrofitting is not allowed 08:00-20:00
Stockholm HGV’s &
Buses
Euro 3 –
current Euro 4
– 2016 Euro 5
- 2020
Retrofitting is allowed with approved government
systems. Scheme applies a scaled number of
years permissible to enter LEZ dependent on
first registration date of vehicle. Foreign vehicles
are also applicable.
Permanent Manual
London HGV’s
Buses &
LGV’s
HGV’s Euro 4
-2012, LGV’s
Euro 3 – 2012
Buses Euro 6
- 2015
All vehicles must register with TfL including
foreign vehicles. Retrofitting requires VOSA
certificate to be submitted to TfL
Permanent ANPR
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
24
4.3 Aim of an LEZ
As the existing NO2 exceedences necessitating the respective AQMA’s in Newcastle and
Gateshead may be resolved through “natural” vehicle replacement. It would be preferable to
adopt an approach to an LEZ that establishes a framework so that sustained benefits can be
established but the thresholds could be adaptive to current air quality concerns. A stepped
approach to an LEZ would allow the acceptable Euro class threshold of a vehicle to be altered
over time in line with tightening AQMA/EU criteria.
The predicted benefits would still be subject to concerns regarding differences between stated
performance and actual exhaust emissions associated with individual vehicles. A new
complementary test procedure which reflects real-world emissions is currently being developed
with the help of European experts and is expected to be used for type approval of cars from 1
September 2017 onwards (European Comission, 2013).
A study undertaken by the Norwegian Centre for Transport Research has highlighted the
variation between stated performance and actual real world emissions recorded. From a small
sample of Euro 5 and Euro 6 vehicles comparisons between predicted and actual emissions
were undertaken and these highlighted that whilst Euro 6 vehicles achieved significant
reductions in emissions compared to Euro 5 they were not guaranteed to fulfil their Euro 6
benchmark for emissions. The research summarised that emissions of NOX from new Euro 6
light diesel vehicles may be 5-8 times higher than the limit for type approval.
4.4 Public Acceptability
The feedback that exists in Sweden indicates a fairly positive response to the scheme. The
London study explicitly undertook stakeholder surveys to elicit views on the scheme.
The study investigated the likely response to a London LEZ by freight operators. It undertook
face-to-face and telephone interviews and a questionnaire survey with hauliers/fleet operators.
This found more concerns amongst smaller operators, who often have longer replacement
cycles, and owners of vehicles with specialist bodies (e.g. cement lorries), which also have
longer replacement cycles as these vehicles are more expensive and tend to do less mileage.
Most people questioned responded that they would comply with an LEZ. The most likely
indication of what this response would be were to fit exhaust modification or buy new vehicles,
though a very clear message came back that operators would use newer (compliant) vehicles in
London and displace older vehicles outside London. There was a wide range of responses to
the potential costs of an LEZ, with a general reaction that smaller companies were more
concerned about costs, as they typically had older vehicles and less capital to modify or change
their vehicles.
Overall, the survey indicated that operators would be broadly supportive of a London LEZ.
Operators stressed the need for adequate notification (as early as possible) of any forthcoming
LEZ, so that they could take this into account in planning their vehicle replacement strategies.
The GLA (Greater London Authority transport survey of 1,007 Londoners in Oct 2004 showed a
high level of support for London wide LEZ: 67% expressed favourable opinion. Issues raised
included the significant inequality impact that targeting cars would bring to low income
households, the large socio-economic costs from even a modest scheme and the low cost
effectiveness of their inclusion. Similar acceptability issues were raised with regard to including
LGV’s in a LEZ. This was seen as potentially impacting on a large number of small businesses.
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
25
A number of London boroughs stated that grant availability would be critical in gaining support
from their members. The main concern raised by small businesses is the increased financial
and/or administrative burden. Cost of retrofit equipment or purchase of new compliant vehicles
and the administrative burden of certification were the main issues raised. Some small
businesses are hard to reach in terms of awareness. They cannot easily be reached through
public information or trade literature.
Larger operators (hauliers/delivery companies) highlighted that if they had to pay to comply with
the scheme, enforcement would have to be strong enough to justify their investment and
provide a decent level of encouragement for other smaller operators to comply. Respondents
also expressed a wish that foreign-registered vehicles would be included in any LEZ scheme,
so that non-UK operators would not gain an operating advantage if exempted.
In terms of how companies would deal with the cost of complying with the LEZ, 38 respondents
to a survey conducted by University of Westminster said that they would pass cost increases
onto customers, while 8 said they would absorb the cost increase. Some respondents felt that
retro-fitting is not a good option for small companies as vehicles have to be off the road while
this takes place.
Many operators foresaw greater problems if LEZ’s were also introduced in other UK urban
areas rather than just in London, as this would reduce the flexibility to move their fleets around
and also result in greater cost increases. Several respondents from firms with large fleets said
that it would cause them significant problems if LEZs were also introduced in other UK urban
areas that had difference compliance arrangements to any London scheme.
In order to overcome the obstacle of stakeholder acceptance of a LEZ a number of measures
need to be considered;
Timely engagement
o Long lead in time this gives an opportunity for the message to reach all
stakeholders and reasons to be discussed and understood.
Health imperative
o Be clear and concise when communicating the need for an LEZ as people may
view this as an effective way to generate income
o Communicate the effects of pollutants on health, and the cost of implementing
the LEZ
Consultation
o Identify key stake holders
Information and dissemination
o Media campaign, explaining the reasons why an LEZ is needed, who will be
affected and what incentives are in place to ease the transition.
Clear and well planned LEZ
o Clear geographic boundary with adequate signing so that people who do not
wish to enter the zone and face charges are able to not do so.
o Why it will apply to the vehicle type/s, who will be exempt
o Use of technology to enforce(ANPR of VED for manual enforcement)
o Mechanism of enforcement (Civil Enforcement Officers)
Although the measures discussed within this report have largely been discussed in isolation,
they are often only successful when implemented as part of a wider strategy or package of
measures. A range of 'sticks and carrots' are required to ensure that measures are successful
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
26
in achieving their objectives and targets. These supporting measures or policy instruments may
be in the form of additional or alternative public transport services, increases in parking
restrictions or prices, access restrictions for certain types of vehicles, introduction of other fees
and taxes, and awareness campaigns. In the London congestion charging scheme example,
extensive public transport service improvements (buses) were implemented from the first day of
scheme operation. This provided alternative means of travel for people still requiring access to
the zone.
The case studies presented highlight the need for financial incentives in the form of grant
subsidies and a long lead in time with targeted media campaign. Deloitte’s research undertaken
as part of the London LEZ, recommends that cars be excluded from LEZ proposals due to the
very large number of vehicles it would affect, and the fact that the majority of older cars are
owned by low income households and the scheme would thus affect them disproportionately.
Deprivation statistics show, Newcastle has 43 and Gateshead has 20 Super Output Areas in
the most deprived 10% in England (Communities and Local Government, 2010). Bearing in
mind the deprivation statistics, the implementation of measures to reduce and remove all
exceedences should adopt an approach which reduces the financial burden placed upon
residents within the LEZ area and incentivise the transition with grants to be able to gain wider
public support.
The case studies also emphasise the need for suitable alternatives to be available in the way of
alternative vehicular routes and increased provision of public transport to aid with public
acceptability. This is only relevant if private cars are to be included in the LEZ and bus routing
and provision is outside the direct control of LA’s unless a BQC is decided upon by Nexus.
Nevertheless the measures for specification of vehicles operating within the LEZ area can be
pursued through the BQC & FQP. As discussed earlier incentives for small operators and SMEs
would aid the acceptability of the LEZ by this group of stakeholders.
In Newcastle and Gateshead consultation with the FQP, Bus operators through BQC/BVP and
the general public would be essential to establish a workable low cost scheme appropriate for
all stakeholders. The consultation process undertaken prior the implementation of the Norwich
LEZ and London LEZ would also be appropriate for Newcastle/Gateshead.
4.5 Consultation
4.5.1 The London LEZ Consultation Process
The public and stakeholder consultation ran for 12 weeks and TfL used a variety of communication channels to maximise awareness of and participation in the consultation. As well as widely distributing a public information leaflet that was available in a range of languages and formats, the consultation was advertised through a range of channels, including radio, newspaper and outdoor advertising. In addition, consultation materials were also posted on the TfL website and publicised on the GLA website. The consultation process was supplemented by a comprehensive process of engagement with stakeholders. The purpose of this engagement was to ensure stakeholders were well-briefed on the LEZ, hear issues and concerns, answer questions and encourage responses to the consultation. Many key stakeholders, such as the Freight Transport Association (FTA), the Road Haulage Association (RHA) and the Confederation of Passenger Transport (CPT) undertook their own research and surveys of members in developing their responses to the LEZ consultation. TfL also conducted a London wide attitudinal survey of operators, businesses and residents to ascertain how representative the consultation responses were.
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
27
Businesses, operators and the public were encouraged to take part in the consultation by completing a questionnaire that formed part of the leaflet. The questionnaire asked a number of questions about the proposal. In broad terms, the public questionnaire sought opinion on the importance of improving air quality in London; whether air quality is a problem in London, whether respondents supported the introduction of the proposed LEZ; whether the proposed standards for particulates (PM10) are appropriate; whether the standards should be extended to include oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in 2010; and which vehicles should be included in the proposed LEZ. The key stakeholders were chosen because of their importance to the governance of London and the operation of the proposed LEZ and because the proposed LEZ was expected to particularly impact on them and/or their members. It was felt that these particular groups required the opportunity to be further briefed about the proposed London LEZ.
4.5.2 The Norwich LEZ Consultation Process
The measure was implemented in stages beginning with stakeholder consultation in 2005 through to implementation in 2008. Stage 1 assessed users needs and priorities (Aug 2005 – Mar 2006) through consultation with all stakeholder groups involved (i.e. the local authorities, bus operators, emergency services, taxi operators, municipal vehicle fleet operators and local traders etc). There was also some initial direct consultation with members of the public (e.g. through focus groups) asking for their views on a Low Emission Zone. Extensive consultation with bus operators, taxi operators, businesses and the general public was undertaken to elicit views on the scheme. It was paramount that adequate notification was given to both bus and taxi operators of the implementation of a LEZ, in order for operators to take this into account in planning their vehicle replacement strategies.
The criteria for the LEZ were then developed and it was vital to determine existing bus fleet composition; this allowed Norwich to determine the number of buses which would be affected by any proposals. Following extensive consultation with both taxi and bus operators it was clear that the originally proposed Traffic Regulation Order approach to regulating the LEZ would be too rigid and onerous for the majority of bus operators to comply with. It was agreed that a Traffic Regulation Condition with a phased approach would be more achievable in the required time scale. A grant system was devised following consultation with operators Norfolk County Council whereby funding was made available (65%) towards the cost of retrofitting buses. This offer was made to all affected operators and the choice of abatement equipment was decided upon by the operators themselves. As part of the LEZ, eco-driver training (either two hour or half day courses) was also offered to all operators in Norfolk. A programme of works for the retrofitting of fire trucks and buses was devised. An evolutionary approach of introducing the Norwich Low Emission Zone has been implemented, in association with other measures for a holistic approach to air quality management. This phased approach was considered the most appropriate in order to give operators/companies adequate time to consider the options available and then take appropriate measures such as obtaining cascaded vehicles, buying new vehicles and/or devising a retrofit programme. Following advertisement of the TRC the LEZ was officially launched in July 2008. A condition of the TRC is that all affected public service vehicle operators must supply details of the emissions capability as defined by the equivalent Euro exhaust emissions standards of each vehicle within their bus fleet used on local bus services operating in Castle Meadow to Norfolk County Council.
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
28
Evaluation and monitoring with stakeholder surveys, exhibitions, face to face and telephone interviews, as well as questionnaires were undertaken. There will be on-going monitoring and evaluation of air quality due to the fact that 100% of buses needing to comply with the LEZ criteria. This was not achieved until 2010.
4.5.3 Consultation Feedback
From Swedish examples (i.e. vehicle age-based criteria), introducing a set of emissions criteria
relating to a Euro standard in a single year leads to a ‘step change’ in the number of vehicles
allowed in the zone. This leads to a number of issues for freight operators such as potential
problems due to peaks in the demand for retrofit conversion and equipment and a surplus of
non-compliant vehicles all at once.
London LEZ conducted detailed stakeholder consultation. Feedback from operators indicated
that most large fleet operators replace their Lorries every 5-6 years, with smaller operators
replacing less frequently. Specialist vehicles (cement Lorries, refuse trucks, coaches) have
much longer replacement cycles due to cost of vehicle and reduced annual mileage.
Operators in London suggested three ways in which they would likely comply with the LEZ:
retrofitting, purchase of compliant vehicles, and by using their newer and thus compliant
vehicles within the LEZ and their others outside of it. The London LEZ research indicated
difficultly in consultation with smaller companies and owner-drivers
TfL draws attention to the effect of an LEZ on blue badge holders and modified vehicles for
disabled drivers. It may be possible to retrofit such vehicles if none compliant however, the
costs of this may have negative social impacts on disabled drivers. It may be necessary to
provide grants to or exempt such vehicles. In which case, the chosen enforcement method must
have the capability to recognise those exempt from the scheme.
Deloitte’s research on behalf of the London LEZ recommends that cars be excluded from LEZ
proposals due to the very large number of vehicles it would affect, and the fact that the majority
of older cars are owned by low income households and the scheme would thus affect them
disproportionately.
London LEZ consultation study estimates the need for a three year notice period for the
implantation of a LEZ. Vehicle operators would need as much notice as possible ahead of
launch in order to plan vehicle upgrades. This may affect the proposed NG LEZ launch of 2021
as this may not give enough time to operators to comply with the conditions of the LEZ.
4.6 Economic Impacts
The economic impacts caused by the implementation of an LEZ need serious consideration.
The public acceptability on an LEZ is strongly linked to the potential economic disbenefits
experienced by both individuals and businesses. The timing of implementation of an LEZ is also
heavily influenced by current economic conditions and the ability of local businesses to adapt
financially to incoming restrictions. The potential economic impacts caused by LEZ’s are
discussed below.
4.6.1 Vehicle Operators
The Prague environmental zone was successful in reducing heavy-vehicle traffic flow, and
managed to achieve a shift to lighter, less-polluting vehicles. However, fleet renewal can often
take time and it is therefore important that zone rules are set at an appropriate level, for
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
29
example if the rules are too lenient, there may not be enough pressure on operators; if too
stringent, operators may be driven out of business. (European Environment Agency, 2008).
In Newcastle/Gateshead bus operators, and delivery companies would need substantial lead in
times to allow them to prepare financially should the proposed LEZ criteria compel them to
upgrade their respective fleets. During the consultation period for the London LEZ many
delivery companies stated they would seek to pass on any additional operating costs
associated with adhering to an LEZ. This may therefore have a knock on impact on other
businesses/residents located within the LEZ extents.
Should bus operators serving the City centre choose to pass on the costs of
upgrading/retrofitting their fleet this may have implications on the cost of travel. This could
cause significant financial pain to some of the more vulnerable users in the area.
As the level of LGV’s is high in Newcastle and Gateshead it is important to be able to offer
assistance to this group in the form of incentives. If targets are to be met without having a
detrimental effect on SME’s, support in the form of financial grants for retrofitting should be
considered. This would allow businesses to continue to operate in difficult economic
circumstances without the further burden of having to upgrade their fleet/vehicle immediately.
4.6.2 Businesses within LEZ
Retail businesses large and small residing within an LEZ may suffer from a reduction in trade
dependent on what vehicles are included under the LEZ criteria. If the LEZ enforcement is
inclusive of private cars shoppers may choose to conduct their business at out of town retail
parks rather than conform to the criteria of a city centre LEZ. This could have a double impact
on local authorities directly through a loss of parking revenue and reduced business rent rates
should firms choose to relocate outside of the LEZ extents.
Retail businesses residing within an LEZ may suffer if the LEZ is inclusive of private cars as
shoppers may choose to conduct their business outside of the zone i.e. Metro Centre. The
‘Alive after Five’ parking strategy and extended opening hours introduced in 2010 is expected to
deliver a multi-million pound boost to city centre businesses. The LEZ if applicable to private
cars would potentially be at odds with “Alive after Five” strategy.
4.6.3 Wider Economic Impacts
Both private and council operated car parks located outside the LEZ boundary would potentially
become more appealing if drivers choose to divert rather than conform to the LEZ. This could
impact parking revenue and would require a review of parking charges inside and outside of the
LEZ extents. In order to maintain/increase public acceptability of a prospective LEZ, parking
charges may need to reduce in areas within the LEZ. This would act as a supporting measure
to encourage the migration toward LEZ compliant vehicles.
It is important as with any new measures that the economic impacts are kept in mind. NCC and
GMBC are therefore focusing on promoting the economy and creating new jobs. Consequently
if air quality measures were to hinder these efforts the LA’s may consider their priority as being
the economy on reflection of current economic conditions. Current figures show that shop
vacancies nationally have increased again year on year since 2010. Furthermore, in
Newcastle/Gateshead the vacancy rate is greater than the national average, demonstrating that
at present measures are still necessary to support retail and the wider business place.
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
30
4.7 Implementation
In the U.K. the Transport Act 2000 and Traffic Regulation Act 1984 provide several options for
implementing restrictions on the highway to enforce an LEZ from. These are summarised
below.
4.7.1 Traffic Regulation Order (TRO)
TRO’s were considered by TfL, however after consultation over the greater London LEZ, the
preferred option of a Scheme Order was chosen. Oxford also considered TRO’s and chose not
go down this route, as their scheme targets buses and any income generated through fines
would be low compared to the scheme operating costs.
TRO’s may be implemented under the pre-requisite of improving air quality. They can only be
used for specific roads and not for general areas which could make it difficult, costly and
resource intensive to implement to the AQMA.
Three types of TRO exist:
Permanent – remain in force until revoked or superseded
Temporary – may last up to 6 or 18 months
Experimental – may last up to 18 months with possible extensions
A TRO must not inhibit the waiting of vehicles in roads and street parking places of vehicles
displaying a disabled person’s badge and consideration must be given to these exemptions. A
TRO would require considerable signage and enforcement and would have a resource
implication for Newcastle and Gateshead.
4.7.2 Traffic Regulation Condition (TRC)
A TRC was implemented in Oxford as this LEZ targeted only public service vehicles. A TRC
regulates the operation of buses within a defined area. The TRC is enforced through bus
service registration rather than on street enforcement of traffic restrictions and can be applied to
bus services whose routes enter the LEZ.
4.7.3 Scheme Order/ Road User Charging Order
The system eventually adopted by TfL for the Greater London LEZ. Was a Road User Charging
Order. This can be applied to all roads within a specified area and implements a charge on
specific vehicles inside the area whilst not banning them from entering outright. Normally this is
applied when implementing congestion charging however it is also applicable to emissions
based charging and would therefore be applicable to the Newcastle Gateshead LEZ.
In order to pursue the improvement in air quality via an LEZ implementation, it is recommended
that a Scheme Order under RTA as in London be pursued. Using this approach means the
order can be applied to existing AQMA extents or a new area (Urban Core Distributor Route
boundary) rather than street by street as in a TRO.
4.8 Monitoring
Air quality can be monitored continuously through the use of standard or bespoke monitoring
systems from roadside enclosures through to larger "walk-in" cabins and even trailer and
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
31
vehicle based mobile laboratories. Real-time gas analysers are available for the measurement
of all major organic and inorganic pollutants. Newcastle and Gateshead currently have
roadside air quality monitoring stations and mobile air quality monitoring in association with
Newcastle University. Monitoring tailpipe emissions of retrofitted vehicles is also possible but
requires the cooperation of vehicle owners. For buses this could be pursued through a BQC or
a voluntary quality partnership.
The current LEZ in operation in Norwich since 2008 has restricted access in the Castle Meadow
area of the city to buses achieving Euro III standard or better. The LEZ was implemented on a
phased-approach of retrofitting an increasing percentage year-on-year of Euro II buses
operated within the city with SCR equipment. Grants of up to 65% of retrofit costs were offered
by the council to operators. The SCR catalysts retrofitted to the Euro II buses are claimed to
deliver NOX reductions of ‘up to 64%’. Original values stated in the case for support of the LEZ
cite potential NOX reductions of 30-70% for SCR, and 40-50% for EGR.
AMEC (one of the world’s leading engineering, project management and consultancy
companies) disregarded analysis on the costs of retrofitting Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) to
heavy duty vehicles on the basis that EGR retrofit requires ‘extensive engine rebuilds’ and trials
have led to ‘higher fuel consumption, increased PM emissions and a reduction in performance,
whilst in some cases failing to reach a target NOX reduction of 50%’. Likewise AMEC reported
‘no evidence for Lean NOX Trap (LNTs) applied as retrofit solutions for heavy duty engines has
been found’, and discounted analysis of the technology.
In light of the research Newcastle and Gateshead may find it difficult to specify retrofitting
technologies for vehicles when research presents conflicting results and may face resistance
from operators. In the case of buses and HGV’s these issues around appropriateness of
technology can be explored further through FP and BQC. It is worth noting that subsides may
be needed to help operators meet some of the costs in upgrading and retrofitting vehicles.
4.9 Enforcement
On review of existing LEZ’s in operation there are several options available when considering
how to enforce the scheme. The pros and cons of these approaches varies dependent on the
type of vehicles being enforced, the volume of these vehicles, and the level of capital available
to start-up the scheme.
Identification of a vehicle that complies with LEZ criteria can be via a paper permit, windscreen
sticker, by the VRM on the number plate or instead through requiring a vehicle to self-identify
itself, by use of a transponder or a proximity smart card. The permit and sticker based systems
represent a “low tech, low cost” approach with transponder and number plate based systems
requiring more sophisticated technologies to be adopted in enforcement.
Detection of a vehicle for subsequent identification of emission status could be carried out by a
variety of methods, sometimes in combination.
Manual methods, whereby enforcement personnel visually check vehicles travelling
within or parked within the scheme area for identification marks (VRM and/or a
permit/sticker). In the mainland Europe examples of LEZ the checks would tend to
focus on older looking vehicles and might use a mixture of manual recording and
possibly photography. Some post checking against a database of compliant vehicles
would then be necessary.
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
32
Digital cameras and ANPR – all passing number plates are recorded and using Optical
Character Recognition (OCR) for matching against a database of vehicle data. A
network of cameras would be installed on the key routes into/out of the boundary of the
scheme and possibly at key junctions within the zone if it is very large. As a
supplementary, or alternative approach, mobile ANPR cameras could be used to
monitor key junctions and/or ‘hot-spots’ of possible non-compliance.
Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC) – tags and beacons, more suitable for
schemes with relatively few and pre-determined users which comply with the scheme
criteria. Tags or proximity smartcards are commonly issued to vehicle owners for
accessing private car parks, or can be scanned through a wind-screen, and can also be
used to trigger bollards which control access on the public highway.
The benefits of manual detection methods are lower capital costs, and some flexibility over
future operating costs if enforcement levels can be reduced. Manual enforcement is suitable for
parking based schemes, whether on or off street. A drawback of manual enforcement is the limit
on the number and speed of vehicles that can be checked by a person.
The benefits of such automated enforcement systems are that high speed and volume flows of
vehicles can be detected and recorded, and that every vehicle can be checked. Drawbacks can
include the relative inflexibility of fixed camera systems once they are installed, and the up-front
capital costs.
Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras can provide one part of such an automated
system. They are able to capture 90%+ of passing number plates. Automatic Number Plate
Recognition cameras are used in the London Congestion Charge Scheme (CCS) and for the
London LEZ. In the London CCS, images are kept for checking of vehicles whose details are
not in a database of vehicles for which a charge has been paid (or registered as exempt). In
order to cover ‘hotspots’ of non-permitted vehicles within the LEZ, mobile (van-based)
enforcement units could be suitable.
It should be noted that it is not strictly necessary to achieve a 100% detection level for a
scheme to be effective. The level of compliance, and impact noncompliance has on emission
impacts, will impact on the value for money of any scheme. However, the aim should be to
achieve a balance with sufficient enforcement to provide an effective deterrent, in order to
achieve the scheme objectives.
If there is a large degree of pre-compliance the numbers to be enforced against will be relatively
small. If the economic impact of non-compliance is high, even a low level of detection will be
sufficient to influence operators who only enter the zone infrequently to upgrade their vehicles
or enter commercial arrangements which avoid them having to enter the zone. If pre-
compliance is low, a more rigorous detection regime will be required.
In summary, manual enforcement schemes, targeting heavy vehicles only, enable the quickest
introduction of an LEZ. ANPR offers a higher compliance rate (and thus greater air quality
benefits). Problems may arise in the detection of retrofitted vehicles; a database of such
vehicles would be required in order for them to be recognised through ANPR.
The application of ANPR is only financially viable if the number of vehicles being enforced
against is high. Should Newcastle/Gateshead choose to include private cars in the LEZ
proposals then using ANPR would be the most viable approach to enforcement.
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
33
4.10 Costs
Potential costs that may be incurred in the implementation and operation of a LEZ include:
Administrative costs for issuing the permits;
Enforcing the permits with patrolling police;
Permit material;
Change in traffic signals and signs; and
Loss of existing business or reduced competitiveness in attracting new businesses.
Administration work and associated costs will be incurred as a result of introducing a LEZ, as
permits for vehicles to enter the zone will need to be administered. Additional permits will also
need to be administered for vehicle exemptions, such as for maintenance.
Unlike measures such as congestion charging, no significant revenue is expected from the
introduction of a LEZ apart from the revenue from fines. This revenue would be used to reduce
the ongoing operational costs.
The Feasibility study for London LEZ suggests the following costs:
Manual enforcement scheme for HGV’s: £2.8m set-up, £4m pa running costs
ANPR: £6-10m set-up, £5-7m pa running costs (£1-4m revenue generated)
Table 4.2 Costs relating to the Enforcement of LEZ
Enforcement Option Evader Captures per 24 hours
Estimated Capex per Unit
Estimated Opex per Unit (24/7
operation)
Mobile Operator 12 £28,000 £113,000 pa
Mobile Operator Supported by Camera/ANPR
12 to 18 £35,000 £117,000pa
It is worth noting that significant cost implications apply to vehicle operators, which are likely to
exceed the costs of setting up and running an LEZ.
Table 4.3 DEFRA cost estimates for Low Emission Zone scheme using fixed ANPR
Base Scheme (access control giving priority to public transport)
Scheme A. Bus
Scheme B. HDV, Coach, Bus
Scheme C. HDV, Coach, Bus, LGV, Car, Taxi
Start –up (Capital) £
Equipment 150,000 250,000 250,000 350,000
Central System 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000
Other 70,000 100,000 200,000 250,000
Total Start-up 270,000 450,000 600,000 800,000
Operating costs (end of year 1) £
Maintenance 10,000 20,000 20,000 30,000
Central System, premises, supplies
65,000 75,000 80,000 150,000
Staff Costs 120,000 170,000 230,000 330,000
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
34
Total Operating 195,000 265,000 330,000 510,000
Total Revenue* 60,500 82,250 102,500 158,250
*estimated based on London LEZ percentage return on annual operating costs
The ongoing operating costs detailed in Table 4.3 may reduce slightly over time as efficiencies
are made. However, if the LEZ is successful the already small amount of revenue generated will
diminish over time as vehicle conformance increases. Therefore in cost benefit terms the capital
investment warranted would need to be justified by a prolonged return in revenue from fines.
This is unlikely to ever occur with an LEZ, in fact the more successful the scheme the less
justified the ongoing monitoring and associated operational costs become.
The revenue raised should not be included in a cost-benefit analysis as it is simply a transfer of
money from users via penalty fines to offset the ongoing operational costs. It is stressed that the
London LEZ scheme is not self-financing and that what revenue is generated contributes
towards the ongoing operating costs. The average rate of return on an ANPR based scheme is
30% of the annual operating costs with a manual approach returning only 10%.
Given the low rate of return, an authority considering an LEZ would need to compare these
ongoing costs against long term reductions in respiratory problems attributable to air quality.
Ultimately these health benefits could be quantified in line with WebTAG guidance but given
that these are long term benefits their consideration is not considered appropriate over a short-
term appraisal.
However as with all other transport appraisal all the monetised benefits of the scheme must be
quantified. Whilst Newcastle University have quantified the potential volumes of Carbon
reduced/removed this has not been monetised. With this in mind it can be seen how large scale
ANPR based systems can justify such significant capital investment as the high level of
compliance delivers significant emission reductions.
If the LEZ was to focus on other vehicles and hence exclude cars then ANPR would not be
viable due to the high capital costs required to start up. The most effective methods of
managing permitted vehicles would be to use existing systems and sources of information as
far as possible. Given constraints on revenue budgets, a scheme which has low operating costs
will tend to be more attractive from a whole-life cost perspective. However, this needs to be
carefully balanced against the resulting level of compliance by users with the scheme emission
standards, or the purpose and value of the scheme is undermined. Table 4.6 below provides
indicative estimated costs for a manual enforcement approach applied to
Newcastle/Gateshead.
Table 4.6 cost estimates for manual enforcement applied to Newcastle/Gateshead
Scheme A. Bus Scheme B. HGV, Coach, Bus
Scheme C. HGV, Coach, Bus, Taxi
Start –up (Capital) £
Equipment 20,000 20,000 20,000
Vehicles 30,000 30,000 30,000
Total Start-up 50,000 50,000 50,000
Operating costs (per annum) £
Administration of penalties
20,000 22,000 25,000
Staff Costs 50,000 50,000 75,000
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
35
Total Operating 70,000 72,000 100,000
Total Revenue* 7,000 7,200 10,000
*estimated based on London LEZ percentage return on annual operating costs
Should an LEZ be adopted there would come a point where the level of compliance is high
enough to warrant consideration to stop monitoring. The revenue generated should not be a
driver in ongoing monitoring as high compliance would infer significantly improved air quality. In
fact the authority would need to consider covering all costs irrespective of supplementary
revenue. This decision would require the full support of an authority toward tackling air quality
issues long term as there is no revenue based case for an LEZ therefore any authority
implementing an LEZ would have to do so at a significant cost.
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
36
5. Modelling
Newcastle University undertook the technical modelling work to test the impacts of different LEZ
scenarios. A detailed technical report explaining the evolution of the modelling process,
technical issues encountered and summarising the results from the scenario testing is included
in Appendix A. The following section of this report summarises the modelling approach adopted
and analyses the outputs from the scenario testing.
Figure 5.1 Proposed Modelling Methodology for the Newcastle/Gateshead LEZ Feasibility
Study
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
37
The key elements of the modelling methodology shown in Figure 5.1 above are summarised
below.
5.1 Tyne and Wear Transport Planning Model
The Transport Planning Model (TPM) is a large scale, strategic, multi-modal transport model,
covering all five metropolitan boroughs (Newcastle, Gateshead, Sunderland, North Tyneside
and South Tyneside) in Tyne and Wear. Jacobs Consultancy undertook initial development in
2006 with a remit to provide ‘a system capable of realistically representing and accurately
assessing most travel behavioural responses to transport policy in order to appraise future
transport scenarios and packages in Tyne and Wear’ and is ‘broadly based on the principles
and guidance included in DfT’s WebTAG’. The trip distribution, modal split and trip assignment
elements of the TPM are built around the CITILABS CUBE/TRIPS package.
5.2 PITHEM Emissions Model
The PITHEM model provides link-based emissions estimates from transport, based on a GIS-
centric approach. PITHEM takes period output from a suitable transport model, applies speed-
based, factor curves to vehicle kilometres travelled data to produce emissions estimates for
those periods. The software then scales period data to account for diurnal, weekly and annual
variation, and then outputs that data in a form that may be analysed by GIS, or used as input to
a suitable dispersion model.
5.3 ADMS-Urban Air Quality Dispersion Model
The ADMS (Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling System) model, from Cambridge Environmental
Research Consultants (CERC) allows the calculation of pollutant concentrations at specified
receptor points in complex urban topography, using a ‘Gaussian-type’ dispersion model. It is
‘used by, or on behalf of, over 70 UK local authorities for Review and Assessment’ purposes.
The software combines a user interface to develop emissions, inventories and databases, as
well as to set up dispersion modelling runs.
5.4 Development of Public Transport (Bus) Model
Data on weekday bus flows was received from Newcastle City Council. The data had been pre-
processed by the council to link timetabled bus stop information to OS MasterMap links.
The development of a separate bus model to that already existent in TPM was considered
necessary after analysis of the pilot results. One downside of the use of a separate model to
TPM is that the bus flows are no longer related to the PT demand and mode choice elements of
TPM, and are hence ‘static’, and not easily updated to reflect PT policy decisions affecting
routing or patronage. However, this was not considered an issue in the initial development of
LEZ scenarios. It was considered of greater importance that the bus model accurately
represented on-street flows, routes and vehicle kilometres.
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
38
5.5 Analysis
5.5.1 Base Year Model Findings
For the 2010 base year, in the Newcastle central cordon area buses appear to be the
dominant source of NOX, accounting for over 70% of emissions. In the AQMA areas the
contribution from buses appears to be around 37-45%. NOX emissions in the Newcastle
and Newcastle and Gateshead AQMAs are more dependent on the bus contribution
than for the Gosforth AQMA;
The influence of buses on NOX emissions decreases away from the urban core areas,
whilst the contribution from LGVs and HGVs increases. Around the A1/A1M HGVs
contribute towards very high (>150 µg/m3) annual NOX concentrations.
There are clearly modelled exceedences of NO2 in all of the defined AQMAs, as well as
at other locations, e.g. further along the Coast Road than the current AQMA limit,
though the use of the high NOX background should be kept in mind;
Particulate matter (either PM10 or PM2.5) does not appear to be a particular issue in
Newcastle or Gateshead, though the policy of continual exposure reduction is noted.
The modelled PM concentrations are more dependent on the choice of background
level than for NOX or NO2;
Cars play a more important role in production of PM, than for NOX, accounting for
approximately 40 – 50% of total emissions;
5.5.2 Future Year Assumptions
All of the fleets used to model the 2021 scenarios were based directly on those presented in the
NAEI fleet. The fleet data for 2021 was manipulated using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft, 2013) to
produce the LEZ fleets by elevating all vehicles of lower Euro class into the class stipulated by
the desired LEZ criteria. This potentially gives an optimistic estimate for the vehicle fleet (and
emissions changes). In reality ageing vehicles would be replaced with a mix of both second-
hand and the latest vehicles. The methodology assumes that 100% of vehicles will comply with
the LEZ criteria, whilst in reality the actual value of compliance will depend heavily on
enforcement policy. Sensitivity of LEZ effectiveness to the proportion of compliant vehicles has
not been explicitly addressed in this study.
The decision to base all scenarios off the NAEI fleets, rather than extrapolating forward from the
fleets developed from the DfT/spreadsheet model, was based on time constrains and lack of
available information on fleet turnover (new purchases versus scrappage rates). This area
should be revisited for more detailed LEZ design, based on further consultation with relevant
parties such as DfT/DVLA, DEFRA, SMMT (Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders),
NEXUS, SMEs (Small and Medium Enterprises), local fleet operators etc.
As well as the baseline fleet, two LEZ fleets are given for Euro 5/V compliance, and Euro 6/VI
compliance. After initial pollutant concentration modelling (discussed in Section 5) using these
fleets, and discussion amongst the LEZ steering group, based on the literature presented in
Two further options were developed: ‘E6/VI Fail 2021’ and ‘E6/VIF E5 LEZ 2021’. These
represent ‘worst case’ contingency scenarios if Euro 6/VI technologies fail to deliver any benefit
over Euro 5/VI. The former being the baseline 2021 fleet, but with no Euro 6/VI vehicles
present, the latter being the same, but under Euro 5/V LEZ compliance.
It is also acknowledged that bus and fleet operators tend to purchase vehicles in cycles, and
that given an operational lifespan for a vehicle of 5 to 8 years it is possible for a particular fleet
to completely ‘skip’ a Euro class.
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
39
A worst case scenario would be to assume the current fleet composition represents the most
recent “upgrade” and the next fleet replacement is not due until 2020. As Euro VI would be the
standard for all new buses being built, by default all the operators would upgrade and adhere to
the proposed 2021 scenario.
This scenario would lead to lower Euro 6 proportion values than suggested by the NAEI values
but has not been investigated further due to lack of time and supporting information on turnover
rates. Likewise, due to the unavailability of suitable emissions factors until late in the study,
options for retrofitting heavy duty vehicles with de- NOX equipment have not been investigated.
5.5.3 Scenarios
Based on discussions between LEZ steering group members, Newcastle University was
presented with a range of LEZ scenarios to model by Capita Symonds. These scenarios were
based on combinations of the vehicle fleet tables and are listed below:
BAU 1 (Business as Usual) Future year 2021 scenario – using the NAEI 2021 fleets for
all vehicle classes;
LEZ 1 – all vehicle classes are assumed Euro 5/V compliant;
LEZ 2 – all vehicle classes are assumed Euro 6/VI compliant;
LEZ 3 – all goods vehicles (i.e. petrol LGVs, diesel LGVs, rigid HGVs, articulated
HGVs) are assumed Euro 5 compliant;
LEZ 4 – as above, but all goods vehicles are assumed Euro 6 compliant;
LEZ 5 – all buses are assumed Euro VI compliant;
LEZ 6 – all passenger cars (petrol car, diesel car) are assumed Euro 6 compliant.
BAU 2 Future year 2021 - Euro 6 failure – all vehicles that were Euro 6/VI compliant in
scenario 1 above are assumed to be 5/V only;
LEZ 7 Future year 2021 - As BAU 2 above, but all vehicles comply with a minimum of
Euro 5/V.
Note that, given the uncertainties in modelling the proportions of light and heavy goods vehicles
on the roads the decision was made to treat these as a single category for LEZ compliance.
BAU 2 and LEZ 7 were developed to assess air quality under the possibility of Euro 6/VI failing
to deliver benefits over Euro 5/V, these are extreme, and are not anticipated to materialise in
reality. They are presented as a cautionary note on the potential impacts if technology fails to
deliver.
The results of the modelling of the above scenarios, together with 2010 base year conditions,
are presented in Figure 5.2 and Figure 5.3 below.
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
40
Figure 5.2 Source-apportioned NOX emissions for Newcastle City Centre AQMA, under
the various base year (2010), future year (2021) and LEZ scenarios
Figure 5.3 Source-apportioned NOX emissions for Gateshead AQMA, under the various
base year (2010), future year (2021) and LEZ scenarios
All LEZ options, assuming Euro 6/VI achieves its objectives, represent an improvement on the
baseline 2021 scenarios. As would be expected, the best option is LEZ 2, to force all vehicles to
be Euro 6/VI compliant, with total emissions only ≈25% of the 2010 baseline, and ≈60% of the
2021 future year baseline.
43.9
40.1
38.6
28.2
26.6
26.6
28.2
19.8
28.2
18.8
19.6
16.6
16.3
10.0
9.6
9.6
7.4
10.0
10.0
7.4
36.7
35.3
35.9
8.4
8.5
8.5
5.8
8.4
8.4
5.8
87.4
68.5
67.4
27.0
27.0
25.9
27.0
27.0
10.0
10.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Base
BAU 2
LEZ 7
BAU 1
LEZ 3
LEZ 1
LEZ 4
LEZ 6
LEZ 5
LEZ 2
Bas
e 20
10
E6 F
ail
E6 F
ail
All
E5
Fut
2021
G
oo
ds
E5
All
E5
Go
od
s E6
C
ars
E6 B
uss
es
E6
All
E6
Total Annual NOx Emissions in Tonnes
Sce
nar
ios
Cars LGV
HGV Buses
21
20.3
19.5
14.2
14.2
13.4
14.2
10
14.2
10
9.1
8.3
8.2
5
4.8
4.8
3.7
5
5
3.7
15.7
17.5
17.6
4.2
4.2
4.2
2.9
4.2
4.2
2.9
31.6
24
23.5
9.3
9.3
8.9
9.3
9.3
3.3
3.3
0 20 40 60 80 100
Base
BAU 2
LEZ 7
BAU 1
LEZ 3
LEZ 1
LEZ 4
LEZ 6
LEZ 5
LEZ 2
Bas
e 20
10
E6 F
ail
E6 F
ail
All
E5
Fut
2021
G
oo
ds
E5
All
E5
Go
od
s E6
C
ars
E6 B
uss
es
E6
All
E6
Total Annual NOx Emissions in Tonnes
Sce
nar
ios
Cars
LGV
HGV
Buses
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
41
What is immediately apparent from Figure 5.2 and Figure 5.3 is the important role that the Euro
6/VI standard plays in emissions reduction, especially for the heavy duty vehicle classes. The
extreme Euro VI failure results are within ≈85% of the 2010 emissions totals, whereas even the
baseline future 2021 scenario sees emissions drop to ≈40% of the 2010 totals. The figures also
show that the relative importance of cars (i.e. especially diesel cars) to NOX emissions
increases markedly between 2010 and 2021. The LEZ 3 Scenario based on all goods Euro 5/V
appears particularly ineffective. Assumed benefits to light goods vehicle compliance are partially
cancelled out by increased emissions of NOX from SCR-equipped heavy goods vehicles.
Likewise the Euro 6 failure scenarios also show increases in heavy goods NOX emissions, even
over the 2010 baseline for the category.
Table 5.1 Percentage NOX emissions changes associated with the LEZ scenarios, based
on sum of total emissions within the three AQMA areas
Scenario LEZ Compliance Relative to 2010 base Relative to 2021
BAU
Base 2010 N/A N/A +146.6%
2021 BAU N/A -59.5% N/A
LEZ 1 2021 All Euro 5 -61.1% -4.2%
LEZ 2 2021 All Euro 6 -75.8% -40.5%
LEZ 3 2021 All Goods Euro V -59.6% -0.4%
LEZ 4 2021 All Goods Euro VI -62.2% -7.0%
LEZ 5 2021 All Buses Euro VI -67.9% -21.0%
LEZ 6 2021 All Cars Euro 6 -64.5% -12.5%
2021 BAU 2 N/A – Euro 6/VI fail -13.2% +114.0%
LEZ 7 2021 E6/VI fail, All Euro 5 -14.6% +110.5%
As modelled, the most effective LEZ option targeting a single vehicle class is that for Euro VI
applied to buses. However, note for the Gosforth area, the effectiveness of LEZ 6 (cars meet
Euro 6) and LEZ 5 (buses meet Euro VI) are reversed. Additionally, the caveats given in
Section 5, namely possible bias towards bus network coverage and use of un-validated bus
flows in the council data set must be borne in mind.
5.5.4 Primary NO2
Figure 5. presents the results of the emissions total and source apportionment analysis for
primary NO2 emissions for the Newcastle Centre AQMA. Again these results should not be
considered as anything more than illustrative, given the limitations of the primary NO2
calculation methodology in the PITHEM software (i.e. scaling NOX emissions by the COPERT4
primary NO2 factors).
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
42
Figure 5.4 Source-apportioned pNO2 emissions for Newcastle City Centre AQMA under
the various base year (2010), future year (2021) and LEZ scenarios
Whilst Figure 5.3 presents a similar picture to those in Figure 5., in that the general order of
effectiveness remains relatively unchanged, with the exception that an LEZ controlling
emissions from cars to Euro 6, becomes more effective than the buses meeting Euro VI option.
This reflects the general distortion of the values by late-Euro light duty engines having higher
(>25%) primary NO2 emissions than late-Euro heavy duty engines (≈10%) in the COPERT4
factors. Indeed, for all of the 2021 options, the primary NO2 contribution from HGVs is modelled
as fairly negligible compared to contributions from the other vehicle classes.
Generally, the primary NO2 emissions for all of the 2021 scenarios that assume that the Euro
6/VI standard delivers the expected on-road emissions benefits are under 50% of the 2010
total. Under the Euro 6 failure scenarios, primary NO2 emissions remain comparable to the
2010 levels.
However, the range of potential f-NO2 values (5%-70%) for light duty vehicles presented in the
COPERT4 data must be borne in mind. The blue and red elements in Figure 5. could be almost
eight times shorter, or twice as long. More measurements and discussion in the area of primary
NO2 emissions is expected in the near future in work being undertaken by King’s College
London and Newcastle University, on behalf of the London boroughs and DEFRA. Ideally,
modelling of primary NO2 in Newcastle and Gateshead AQMAs should be revisited in future
before detailed LEZ options are evaluated.
5.5.5 Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5)
Figure 5.5 presents the results of the emissions total and source apportionment analysis for
PM10 emissions for the Newcastle Centre AQMA. As the focus of the Euro 6/VI regulation is on
NOX reduction, rather than on particulate matter (which was more the goal of earlier Euro
standards), the emissions reductions achieved are less impressive than for NOX or primary
NO2. Also changes in Euro class affect only tailpipe PM emissions, not those associated with
brake and tyre wear, or from abrasion of the road surface itself.
9.32
13.67
13.14
9.59
9.59
9.59
6.73
9.04
6.73
9.59
6.13
5.19
5.11
3.13
3.01
2.33
3.13
3.01
2.33
3.13
4.73
3.57
3.63
0.85
0.86
0.59
0.85
0.86
0.59
0.85
10.62
8.32
8.19
3.28
3.28
3.28
3.28
3.15
1.21
1.21
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Base
BAU 2
LEZ 7
BAU 1
LEZ 3
LEZ 4
LEZ 6
LEZ 1
LEZ 2
LEZ 5 B
ase
2010
E6
Fa
il
E6
Fail
All
E5
Fut
20
21
Go
od
s E5
G
oo
ds
E6
Car
s E6
A
ll E5
All
E6 B
uss
es
E6
Total Annual pNO2 Emission in Tonnes
Sce
na
rio
s
Cars
LGV
HGV
Buses
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
43
Figure 5.5 Source-apportioned PM10 emissions for Newcastle City Centre AQMA under
the various base year (2010), future year (2021) and LEZ scenarios
Table 5.2 summarises the changes in PM10 and PM2.5 emissions with each scenario. Note that
the changes associated with PM2.5 are greater than those for PM10. Generally all changes for
PM10 relative to 2010 are in the order of 30%, whilst for PM2.5 changes are over 40%. The LEZ
options generally make single digit percentage improvements over the ‘BAU 1 2021. As before,
the LEZ with all vehicles Euro 6/VI compliant is the most effective option.
Table 5.2 Percentage PM10 and PM2.5 emissions changes associated with the LEZ
scenarios, based on sum of total emissions within the three AQMA areas
Scenario Name PM10
Relative to
2010
PM10
Relative to
2021
PM2.5 Relative
to 2010
PM2.5
Relative to
2021
Base 2010 Baseline N/A +41.3% N/A +72.4%
BAU 1 2021 Baseline Future 1 -29.2% N/A -41.9% N/A
LEZ 1 2021 All Euro 5 -31.8% -3.6% -46.0% -7.0%
LEZ 2 2021 All Euro 6 -33.3% -5.7% -48.0% -10.2%
LEZ 3 2021 All Goods Euro V -29.7% -0.7% -42.6% -1.0%
LEZ 4 2021 All Goods Euro VI -30.0% -1.0% -42.9% -1.6%
LEZ 5 2021 All Buses Euro VI -31.1% -2.6% -45.0% -5.3%
LEZ 6 2021 All Cars Euro 6 -30.7% -2.1% -43.9% -3.4%
BAU 2 2021 Baseline Future 2 -23.7% +7.8% -34.8% +12.4%
LEZ 7 2021 E6/VI fail, All Euro 5 -26.6% +3.8% -39.2% +4.8%
5.5.6 Carbon Dioxide
While not the primary focus of this study, Newcastle University was also asked by the LEZ
Steering group to provide some feedback on the impact of the LEZs on greenhouse gas
emissions, represented here by ultimate CO2 values. Figure 5.6 presents the CO2 results for the
Newcastle City Centre AQMA.
4.36
4.00
3.86
3.86
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.86
4.00
3.86
1.8
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.4
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.0
1.0
2.7
1.2
1.1
0.9
1.2
1.2
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.5
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
Base
BAU 1
LEZ 1
LEZ 2
LEZ 3
LEZ 4
LEZ 5
LEZ 6
BAU 2
LEZ 7
Bas
e 20
10
Fut
2021
A
ll E5
A
ll E6
G
oo
ds
E5
Go
od
s E6
B
uss
es
E6
Car
s E6
E6
Fail
E6 F
ail
All
E5
Total Annual PM10 Emission in Tonnes
Sce
nar
ios
Cars
LGV
HGV
Buses
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
44
Figure 5.6 Source-apportioned CO2 emissions for Newcastle City Centre AQMA under the
various base year (2010), future year (2021) and LEZ scenarios
All of the 2021 scenarios show an increase in CO2 emissions. The downward trend in car and
LGV emissions with improved technology is more than cancelled out over the period by the
increase in VKM travelled, compounded with the increase in fuel consumption from heavy duty
vehicles with emissions control technology fitted. The LEZ 6 ‘All vehicles Euro 6 compliant’ and
LEZ 2 ‘Cars Euro 6 compliant’ options perform best. The LEZ 3 ‘All goods Euro 5’, LEZ 4 ‘All
goods Euro 6’ and LEZ 5 ‘All buses Euro 6’ all produce results within 300 tonnes of the ‘2021
BAU 1’ case. Table 5.3 summarises the µCO2 changes from each scenario option.
Table 5.3 Percentage µCO2 changes associate with the LEZ options, based on sum of
total emissions within the three AQMA areas
Scenario Name Relative to 2010 Relative to 2021
Base 2010 Baseline N/A -7.3%
BAU 1 2021 Baseline Future Scn 1 +7.9% N/A
LEZ 1 2021 All Euro 5 +7.2% -0.6%
LEZ 2 2021 All Euro 6 +5.4% -2.2%
LEZ 3 2021 All Goods Euro V +7.9% 0%
LEZ 4 2021 All Goods Euro VI +7.9% 0%
LEZ 5 2021 All Buses Euro VI +7.9% 0%
LEZ 6 2021 All Cars Euro 6 +5.4% -2.2%
BAU 2 2021 E6/VI Fail +11.1% +3.0%
LEZ 7 2021 E6/VI Fail, All Euro 5 +10.5% +2.4%
The BAU 2 ‘Euro 6 Failure’ options increase emissions over the BAU 1 ‘Baseline Future 2021’
scenario, primarily due to the assumption of no fuel consumption improvements in cars and
LGVs over Euro 5 levels.
5.6 Modelling Limitations
The choice of DfT/spreadsheet fleet, over the NAEI base fleet, leads to an approximate 10%
increase in emissions for all pollutants, except primary NO2 from cars and LGVs.
22.60
22.80
22.50
21.80
22.80
22.80
22.80
21.80
24.00
23.80
5.0
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
4.6
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
9.8
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00
Base
BAU 1
LEZ 1
LEZ 2
LEZ 3
LEZ 4
LEZ 5
LEZ 6
BAU 2
LEZ 7
Bas
e 20
10
Fut
2021
A
ll E5
A
ll E6
Go
od
s E5
G
oo
ds
E6
Bu
sses
E6
C
ars
E6
E6 F
ail E6
Fai
l A
ll E5
Total Annual µCO2 Emission in KiloTonnes
Sce
na
rio
s
Cars
LGV
HGV
Buses
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
45
Towards the edges of the network it is believed that the current framework under-predicts the
contributions from cars by up to 30%, whilst over predicting the contributions from HGVs, in all
areas, possibly by as much as 60-90%. The use of a separate model for buses also may be
slightly prejudicial. Though this effect is thought to be limited in the central areas, and the
AQMA, the values for buses in outer areas may be more heavily biased.
Whilst it is impossible to extrapolate performance of the whole modelling framework from just
two sites, the results do show that the choice of ambient background concentration makes an
enormous difference to the resulting concentrations. It is therefore recommended that the
modelling framework, as presented in this document be considered suitable for indicative
guideline purposes only, and that more detailed verification, development of correcting factors if
necessary, followed by calibration and validation is required before the framework may be
considered ‘fit for purpose’ for calculating concentrations at specific receptor locations.
5.6.1 Transport Modelling
The base year for all modelling is 2010, which is now three years ago. Whilst vehicle-
km travelled appears to be somewhat static between then and now, the fleet changes in
the period are not fully known, hence the current results are potentially limited in
application to the present situation;
The use of ME2 matrix estimation to calibrate link flows for the urban cores is not ideal,
as this distorts the original underlying OD matrices. In the case of any study relating to
transport then any uncertainties in the initial demand matrices will be propagated on to
the assignment of flows on the network. Even in a calibrated strategic transport model,
which performs well for the network as a whole, there may be large (50 %+)
discrepancies in flows on individual links, which will propagate into the emissions and
dispersion modelling. The pollution ‘picture’ as a whole may be broadly correct, but
inaccurate adjacent to specific roads;
Classified Cordon flows were checked across multiple cordons in Newcastle, but only
one cordon in Gateshead. Further validation work may be required for Gateshead;
The use of separate bus and private/fleet transport networks and models, which are
then merged with observed speed data, produces further problems and complexities in
ensuring data, is applied consistently. Further work is required to improve integration.
For example, under the current framework it is not possible to examine the effects of
changes on implementing non-car lanes, as these would generally have the same TOID
(and hence be assigned the same data) as their ‘parent’ road;
It has been assumed in the study that the bus and speed information provided by
Newcastle City Council is correct, further investigation of the accuracy, validity and
underlying assumptions of these data is warranted;
5.6.2 Emissions Modelling
For emissions modelling, using the current framework, total emissions are derived from
the number of vehicle kilometres travelled by user class. Therefore, for NOX/NO2
emissions modelling in the recent past and at present, the routes chosen by heavy duty
vehicles (or in the case of buses, the routes allocated to) are of concern, as these
vehicles at present have a disproportionate effect on emissions. For NOX/NO2
emissions in the near future, the apparent underestimation VKM for diesel cars and
LGVs becomes more important;
The use of average speed based emissions curves, and merging of speed information
with the traffic model also reduces both the spatial resolution and overall totals
produced. An alternative for detailed modelling would be the use of a traffic micro-
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
46
simulation model, coupled with an instantaneous emissions model, at the expense of
increased modelling resources due to the stochastic nature of these models;
The effects of motorcycles, taxis and coaches as separate vehicle classes in emissions
modelling have not been considered. This was primarily due to lack of information on
these classes in the transport model, and their assumed small presence in the overall
fleet. However it is noted that:
o Licensing of private hire vehicles may be a mechanism for LEZ compliance;
o Flows of coaches may be appreciable along key routes such as the A1;
o From the DfT data, motorcycles comprise over 2% of the registered vehicle
fleet, if not the VKM travelled.
No attempt has been made to investigate either the uncertainties in the emissions
curves themselves, or in the fleet inventories built using them, other than the brief
analysis in Section 5.
5.6.3 Dispersion Modelling
The low resolution of the output grid used makes accurate exceedence/LEZ boundary
definitions unfeasible. A broad indication of problem areas can be gained from the
concentration maps only. Presence of pollution hotspots is currently biased towards
receptor points falling on, or adjacent to roads, where other problem areas may be
missed. As a priority, increasing the grid resolution, and fixing issues with the current
networks and the ‘intelligent gridding’ option in ADMS-Urban should be investigated;
The choice of appropriate background level is critical to the calculation of
concentrations. Whilst the decision was taken to continue using the high background
level to provide conservative estimates of concentrations for the rest of the study, this
will incorporate an element of double counting of emissions, as well as an element of
the background that is insensitive to LEZ and f-NO2 changes;
For modelling historic and current concentrations the model is more sensitive to choice
of background level than to the f-NO2 levels selected for NOX to NO2 conversion. This
probably holds true for future year scenarios as well.
5.6.4 Analysis of Future Scenarios
Noting the limitations above, results from the scenarios suggest that;
General improvements in emissions across all non-transport sectors, plus the NAEI
assumptions about fleet turnover and Euro 6 effectiveness in reducing NOX emissions
lead to city centre concentrations for the 2021 ‘Business as Usual’ scenario are
modelled as averaging just over half of those in the 2010 base case, an average
reduction at AQMA receptor points of 10-15 µg/m3.
There is no evidence of NO2 air-quality problems in the AQMAs in the 2021 BAU
scenario – though given the low resolution of modelling, ‘hot-spots’ are likely to remain
near congested locations.
Against this background of overall low levels of NO2 the LEZ options may make up to a
further 2 µg/m3 reduction, if all vehicle types are considered to comply with Euro 6.
Other tested LEZ options offer smaller performance benefits. All tested LEZ options
offer improvements over the ‘2021 Business as usual’ scenario.
In each of the AQMA sub-domains the ‘order of preference’ for LEZ options in terms of
NOX emissions and concentration reductions appears to be fairly static, and is given
below (from best to worst):
o LEZ 2 - All vehicles Euro 6/VI;
o LEZ 5 - All buses Euro VI;
o LEZ 6 - All cars Euro 6;
o LEZ 2 - All goods vehicles Euro 6/VI;
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
47
o LEZ 1 - All vehicles Euro 5;
o LEZ 3 - All goods vehicles Euro 5/V.
The order given above may change if primary-NO2 emissions are not tackled
successfully in LGVs – with the LEZ 6 option for (cars Euro 6) possibly becoming more
attractive than LEZ 5 for buses. As above, it is noted that the PITHEM calculated f-NO2
ratios may be too high, and over emphasise LGV emissions;
Irrespective of the PITHEM pNO2 calculations, in future years, as Euro 6 HDVs become
more commonplace, NOX/NO2 air-quality issues may become more associated with
cars and LGVs;
The above benefits are highly dependent on the ability of the Euro 6/VI regulations to
deliver the expected NOX improvements at mid-to-low speeds on urban roads. If the
regulations fail to deliver, and emissions remain similar to those considered from Euro
5/V vehicles, then average NO2 concentrations may remain within 75% of 2010 levels,
and potential for exceedences of the air quality standards will remain in the central
AQMA areas;
Following from the above, given the current NAEI emissions factors, their underlying
assumptions on SCR catalyst numbers, and de-NOX performance, any LEZ based on
the Euro V standard (LEZ 1, LEZ 3 and LEZ 7) for HGVs may actually compound NOX
problems. The LEZ 3 ‘All goods Euro 5/V LEZ’ option only shows NOX improvements
due to the inclusion of LGVs into the design. Likewise, under Euro 6 failure, the LEZ 7
‘All vehicles Euro 5 LEZ’ option shows improvements due to inclusion of the other
vehicle classes;
If air quality issues do remain in the urban core areas in future, depending on the
location of problems, LEZ targeting cars or goods vehicles using the Central Motorway,
Coast Road and other radial routes would be most effective to the east of the core
areas, whilst targeting buses would be most effective within the centres themselves;
All of the tested LEZ scenarios had little impact on particulate matter within AQMAs or
the urban cores. Carbon emissions in all 2021 scenarios increase over the 2010 base
case, primarily due to the increase in vehicle kilometres by all types of vehicle, except
buses, though the impact of additional particulate trap and de- NOX technologies are
also slightly carbon negative.
5.6.5 Implications for LEZ Design
Given the scenarios as presented it is recommended that:
Any LEZ option using Euro V compliance criteria for Heavy Vehicles be examined
closely for alternatives, or even rejected, due to issues with potential ineffectiveness or
exacerbation of NOX emissions at low to medium speeds. Retrofitting of existing
vehicles may be a better option.
Ideally any LEZ (or other emissions reduction option) should target moving as many
buses as feasible towards complying with the Euro VI regulations as soon as possible.
This would reduce NO2 issues in the urban centres;
Ensuring or enabling Euro 6 compliance for cars and light goods vehicles would bring
benefits distributed across the region, not just to roads near bus-routes or primary
freight corridors. However, ‘selling’ the need for this to the public and SMEs, against the
perception (based on earlier LEZ implementations where particulate matter from heavy
duty vehicles was the primary concern), would be an issue;
As noted previously, the resolution of output from the current framework is not
considered adequate for detailed option design; it can, however, provide guidelines as
to effects of fleet changes, broad areas of potential effect, the magnitude of changes in
those areas.
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
48
6. Options
Following the review of best practice applied elsewhere and the findings of the air quality
modelling undertaken it is proposed that the following options are available to
Newcastle/Gateshead to improve air quality in the area.
Option 1 – Newcastle/Gateshead LEZ
Option 2 – Direct operator engagement with supporting measures
6.1 Option 1 – Newcastle/Gateshead LEZ
6.1.1 Extents
It would be difficult to apply the LEZ conditions to through traffic on strategic signed routes e.g.
A167 (M). Therefore the Urban Core Area bounded by the UCDR for Newcastle would be the
natural extents for an LEZ. This area would overlap with the existing extended Newcastle
AQMA. Due to the marginal levels of exceedence shown within the Gateshead AQMA and the
high potential for natural vehicle replacement rates to satisfactorily mitigate this, Gateshead
would not require inclusion as part of an LEZ.
6.1.2 Emission Thresholds, Monitoring, and Enforcement
Monitoring the effectiveness of the measure should be carried out via annual air quality surveys
at various “hot spots” within the LEZ extents and tailpipe emissions monitoring of willing
operators to establish if the modelled reductions are seen in ‘Real Life’. This would be in
conjunction with the existing permanent sites in Newcastle.
A “low tech – low cost” approach to enforcement is recommended given the marginal benefits
predicted from stringent Euro emission class restrictions. In conjunction with Newcastle’s UCDR
proposals there is likely to be a significant displacement of vehicles routing through the centre
of Newcastle and thus through the AQMA. The remaining traffic will consist mainly of HGV’s
servicing businesses/retailers, buses and taxis, and some private car trips to city centre car
parks.
The proposed enforcement approach would be to utilise existing City centre civil enforcement
officers supplemented by some additional inspectors patrolling the LEZ extents only. A sticker
based scheme applicable to all registered taxi’s, buses, and HGV’s entering the LEZ area would
be the most straightforward to administer.
The proposed thresholds to be applied within the LEZ would be Euro VI to buses and HGV’s
with LGV’s and cars remaining exempt. This would deliver air quality benefits ahead of the
standard replacement rate curve for several years. Implementing the low cost option
6.1.3 Recommended Consultation Approach
The Press and Media Section of Newcastle and Gateshead councils can help to devise an appropriate media campaign to raise awareness and seek business and community support. A consultation process similar to that of Norwich would be adopted due to the size of Newcastle and Gateshead’s Urban Core.
Suggested outline for consultation/implantation:
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
49
Start Finish Description
Year Month Year Month
0 May N/A N/A Decision made to go ahead
0 May 1 March Formalise business case, draft TRO, draft
environmental report, draft agreement
1 April 1 August Consult stakeholders and public. Followed
by a 9 month public inquiry
2 May N/A N/A Inspectors report after Inquiry
2 May 2 July Analysis of Report, Changes to TRO
3 Feb Go Live
6.1.4 Costs
The work undertaken as part of this feasibility study has not monetised the predicted reductions in emissions making it difficult to conclude if a LEZ would present value for money. The long term health benefits generated from reductions in air quality related respiratory illness could also be included in a cost benefit analysis. Either of these factors could lead to a significant swing toward a positive benefit cost ratio.
However based on the modelling outputs it can be seen that any LEZ scenario would only deliver temporary emission benefits ahead of the natural fleet replacement curve. Therefore any capital costs invested should be minimised as should operational costs through supplementing existing civil enforcement operations.
6.1.5 Risks
All emissions and concentration reductions associated with LEZ options are considerably smaller than the changes reflected through general fleet renewal and introduction of Euro 6/VI vehicles onto the roads. Almost all of the predicted air-quality benefits are due to the assumed effectiveness of the Euro 6/VI regulations in reducing NOX emissions for new vehicles. If these benefits do not materialise (along with expected improvements in other sectors) then the potential exists for the air-quality situation in the Newcastle/Gateshead region to be only marginally improved on that of today.
There are a number of concerns regarding the reliability of the modelling outputs, these include:-
The potential over-prediction of VKM travelled for heavy goods vehicles and under
prediction of VMK travelled by cars;
The issue of background concentrations from local road sources, applied through
ADMS-Urban, be investigated further – this may be done alongside extension of
framework verification and calibration against monitored concentrations;
That potentially fleet uptake rates be revised considerably, to reflect the cyclical nature
of freight and public transport operators, and that de-NOX retrofitting options are
examined;
That NOX and primary NO2 emissions from cars and light goods vehicles be examined
further, in the light of new research data, as this appears.
TRO approach may require loading bays to ban use in Peak periods impacting vans
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
50
As discussed in the previous section the existing NO2 exceedences necessitating the respective AQMA’s in Newcastle and Gateshead may be resolved through “natural” vehicle replacement. Changes in vehicle flow have a significantly greater impact at reducing/removing exceedences from within an AQMA than even the most rigorous LEZ criteria. The Newcastle Urban Core Distributor Road proposals will take traffic away from the centre and redistribute it around the edge of the urban core of Newcastle. Combined with the Regional Growth Fund scheme at the Central Station this will significantly reduce potential for exceedences in this AQMA area. Neither of these schemes has been considered in the modelling exercise.
There are concerns regarding both the potential underperformance of Euro VI vehicles in “real world” conditions and the potential for a change of focus on AQMA’s from NOX to PM. Therefore there may still be the need to adopt an LEZ based approach to tackling air quality in the future, in particular if private cars and LGV’s require action.
6.2 Option 2 – Direct Operator Engagement
Adopting a direct approach to engaging and working together with those vehicle classes most
responsible for exceedences within the AQMA’s according to the source apportionment would
not necessarily be limited to a set geographic extent. The source apportionment identified that
bus operators and hauliers could be targeted via an LEZ based approach to improve air quality
ahead of the curve. However it would not be necessary to enforce this through the creation of
an LEZ as existing partnerships exist.
6.2.1 Tyne & Wear Freight Partnership
This partnership between major north east hauliers and the Tyne & Wear authorities represents
the best opportunity to engage operators regarding vehicle emissions. The partnership already
encourages benchmarking to increase efficiency and enhance fuel economy and members
appear receptive.
Whilst any agreements on benchmarking vehicle emission levels would not be contractual,
encouraging efficiency savings that provide financial rewards has the potential to be successful.
Operators delivering to key retailers/industries within the Newcastle/Gateshead AQMA’s could
be encouraged to utilise their best (lowest emission) vehicles to perform these deliveries. This
would build upon the success of the FORS (Fleet Operator Recognition Scheme) which
provides a competitive advantage when bidding for work.
The FP offers the best opportunity for engagement and encouragement to improve rather than
an LEZ mandate which could also alienate and penalise local businesses. Through continued
encouragement and potential incentivising Tyne & Wear could help steer operators towards
vehicle technologies that deliver significant emission benefits above those associated with the
Euro VI class. Diesel hybrid vehicles could deliver up to 40% reductions in CO2 compared to a
Euro V diesel with SCR.
There is also the potential for a Tyne & Wear Freight Consolidation Centre (FCC) which would
significantly reduce the number of HGV journeys travelling through the AQMA’s. This option
requires significant buy-in from both local and national hauliers and the LA’s but in the future
could deliver associated air quality benefits above and beyond vehicle upgrading. It can provide
a number of key benefits for the Tyne and Wear region including; reduction in lorry miles within
the city centre, contribution to reduction in carbon and noise, as well as freeing up road space
for public transport. On top of this there are benefits for the retail sector itself with the
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
51
introduction of a FCC such as a reduced need for onsite storage and the potential to carry out
pre-retail activities before goods reach the stores.
NCC/GMBC needs to be seen to support existing business whilst attracting new business. An LEZ may be seen as a deterrent to this and so it would be preferable to use softer measures as part of the planning process to mitigate this instead. For new developments mitigation on a site by site basis should consider Section 106 requirements including the contribution toward/condition the use of a Freight Consolidation Centre.
6.2.2 Bus Quality Contract (pending)
Nexus are currently considering a proposal for adopting a Bus Quality Contract for Tyne & Wear
which would see operators become more uniform in fares, upgrade vehicles, and an investment
by Nexus / LA’s in Real Time Information and bus infrastructure.
As part of the Quality Contracts scheme operators would agree to upgrade existing fleets in
terms of cleanliness, security, and crucially efficiency. It is envisaged that specific vehicle
emissions requirements will be agreed with all operators with the rolling replacement of the
current fleets within set timescales. This gives the LA’s the opportunity to encourage and
influence the operators’ decisions and push for low emission vehicles to operate on set
corridors or within AQMA’s.
There is however another alternative in the form of Bus Quality Partnerships if the Bus Quality
Contract was to not go ahead. The Bus Quality Partnership is predominantly a commitment
between a local authority and travel company to deliver an improved bus service for a particular
region; this is based entirely on a voluntary joint working partnership. The scheme is reliant on
a full commitment from all the parties involved. In order to aid this, a clear purpose, set of
objectives and necessary duties are required to be set out before the partnership begins.
However, unlike the contract, enforcement can be an issue as the scheme is on a voluntary
basis. It is therefore important that it is clear from the start, the necessary expectations of each
party to ensure the smooth running of the partnership.
The proposed Urban Core Distributer Road would also contribute to reduced emissions as bus
journey times would be reduced/more reliable due to less traffic in the city centre. If a Euro VI
specification for buses is enforced then the second favourable Scenario LEZ 5 would be met
and achieve removal of exceedences in the urban core area. There are also conditions for
operators to meet bus DDA requirements, now superseded by the EA act of 2010, which may
also require vehicles to be replaced. Should these vehicles be replaced with new buses they
are likely to be powered by an engine in line with the most current Euro class.
The Department for Transport (DfT) is inviting local authorities in England to apply for Clean
Bus Technology grants of a maximum of £1,000,000 towards reducing oxides of nitrogen (NOX)
emissions from local buses. Newcastle and Gateshead are intending to submit a bid for these
grants which if successful would provide funds for retrofitting the least efficient buses operating
within the existing AQMA’s.
6.2.3 Taxi Licensing
The Taxis operating in Newcastle and Gateshead could be easily engaged and
encouraged/mandated to adhere to emissions standards over and above standard vehicles.
This could be done as a condition of issuing the licenses for Hackney Carriage and Private Hire
vehicles operating in Newcastle and Gateshead. Currently Hackney Carriages are stipulated to
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
52
use vehicles no more than 5 years old, however private hire vehicles do not currently have to
fulfil this requirement. As these vehicles are likely to make multiple trips daily within the urban
core area and AQMA’s of Newcastle and Gateshead it makes sense that they should be
targeted and engaged.
The existing licensing policy has the mechanism to enforce more stringently against emission
levels of vehicles. Given the age based condition imposed on Hackney Carriage vehicles these
vehicles are most likely to operate at acceptable levels of emissions. Private Hire companies
will need to be engaged and support from the LA’s by way of retrofitting grants is
recommended. Ideally if larger private hire firms are engaged they should be encouraged to set
a benchmark for a percentage of their fleet that is dual fuelled/hybrid/LPG.
The inclusion and monitoring of taxis may be enabled by the frequency of MOT’s as specified
by the local authority. Unlike heavy vehicles, it is extremely difficult to enforce emission
standards for taxis, as there is no reduced pollution certificate equivalent. Instead a maximum
vehicle age limit is suggested, with older vehicles required to demonstrate lower emissions
through use of approved technologies, such as alternative fuels.
Gateshead currently has an 8-year age limit on all Private Hire and Hackney Cabs licensed in
the borough, with new licences only available for vehicles less than 3 years old. There is
currently no taxi emission standard for taxis or private hire vehicles operating in Newcastle.
When Newcastle City Council revise their taxi emission policy consideration will be given to
applying a minimum emission standard of Euro 4. This standard would then be reviewed
regularly with the policy. A Taxi emission threshold should be set in accordance with Euro
standards and more detailed review of the existing private hire fleets would be required before
setting this.
6.2.4 Emission Thresholds, Monitoring, and Enforcement
Monitoring the effectiveness of the measure should be carried out via annual air quality surveys
at various “hot spots” within the LEZ extents and tailpipe emissions monitoring of willing
operators to establish if the modelled reductions are seen in ‘Real Life’. This would be in
conjunction with the existing permanent sites in Newcastle and Gateshead. The existing ANPR
network would be used where possible to reduce initial start up costs and the ongoing
monitoring would also utilise existing CEO’s.
The proposed thresholds to be applied would initially be Euro VI for buses and HGV’s in line
with those highlighted in Option 1. Taxis would need to have an alternative threshold agreed but
this would likely be Euro 5 unless significant economic hardship on self employed drivers was
identified. This would deliver air quality benefits ahead of the standard replacement rate curve
for several years.
Enforcement would be through voluntary agreement as is established in Norwich and Oxford.
However this would need to be reviewed and other legal frameworks pursued if emissions
reductions cannot be secured through voluntary means. Monitoring of HGV’s and Bus fleets
would need to occur periodically with evidence provided from operators regarding fleet Euro
class breakdowns and associated replacement plans.
6.2.5 Risks
As with Option 1 there is a risk that the predicted improvements in air quality associated with
each Euro class are not achievable in “real world” conditions. Furthermore whilst an LEZ
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
53
approach would be legislative with consistent penalties for non-compliance this may not be
possible through direct operator engagement. Individual agreements would need to be reached
with the Freight Partnership member operators and ultimately the LA’s would not hold any
powers to enforce against non-compliance.
With regards to taxis and buses the operators can be penalised but not necessarily financially
for non-compliance. For example non-compliant taxis could be taken off the road until they can
demonstrate satisfactory emission standards. Through the Bus Quality Contracts scheme it may
be possible to set agreed financial penalties for non-compliance.
6.3 Additional supporting measures
In addition to implementing either of the previously discussed options there are several existing
frameworks from which air quality exceedences can be complementarily addressed.
6.3.1 LTP/ LAQM Action Plan
Local Air Quality Action Plans were produced for Newcastle and Gateshead centres in 2005
and 2007 respectively. The action plans described the processes that were in place and set out
the measures that were considered at the time necessary to deliver improvements in air quality.
As road transport has the greatest impact on air quality in Newcastle and Gateshead, the action
plans have now been incorporated into the Tyne & Wear Local Transport Plan (LTP3).
Measures included in the action plan to tackle air quality include:-
Parking Strategy to reduce attractiveness of car
Improve Public Transport Infrastructure to promote alternative travel modes
Pedestrian Priority measures
Cycle network improvements
ITS (Intelligent Transport Solutions) – reduction in journey time and delays
Park & Ride from site outside urban core area
Travel Planning to promote alternatives and reduce car use
6.3.2 LSTF Measures
Tyne & Wear were recently awarded DfT Local Sustainable Transport Funding to help relieve
congestion on the A1 Western Bypass and Newcastle City Centre. The money is being used to
invest in measures to promote sustainable transport across Tyne & Wear, and in particular
around the A1 Western Bypass. The measures will be achieved through the delivery of four
scheme packages:-
Improved Infrastructure – bus priority, cycle and pedestrian route enhancement, and
cycle parking at interchanges
Improved Travel Information – real time passenger information and marketing
Behaviour Change Measures – direct engagement with businesses and smarter
choices initiatives
Travel Support – for jobseekers
These activities are concentrated in four main employment areas – Newcastle city centre and
Baltic Quays, Team Valley, Metrocentre and areas of Washington, where it is anticipated that
an increase in the uptake of sustainable travel to work will reduce the number of short-distance,
work-related trips along the A1 that are the primary cause of congestion and delay.
The LSTF measures specifically target peak period journey to work trips in line with when air
quality issues are most prominent. Specific measures aimed at reducing traffic on the SRN in
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
54
Gateshead associated with both the Metro Centre and Team Valley employment sites will
directly contribute to improving the air quality on the A1. Newcastle and Gateshead centre also
have specific measures aimed at achieving significant modal shift away from single car
occupancy.
As highlighted in the modelling section of the report, the key area beyond the urban core where
air quality exceedence is highest is along the A1 corridor in Gateshead. Whilst the A1 is beyond
the direct control of the LA’s the LSTF measures demonstrate that air quality mitigations can
still be implemented upon it.
6.3.3 Travel Planning / NPPF
Newcastle and Gateshead LA’s can support modal shift in all new developments through robust
travel plan targets. Primarily these will be most effective with residential and employment
planning applications and should aim to minimise journey to work trips by car. LA’s in Tyne &
Wear have begun to require a bond to be paid and held until developers can demonstrate that a
site is meeting its Travel Plan targets. This encourages developers to be far more pro-active in
reducing private vehicle trips and implementing supporting measures to encourage modal shift.
LA’s can establish a developer contribution model using section 106 contributions based upon a
tariff. The tariff would need to be linked directly to development impacts in existing AQMA’s.
Retail developments can be conditioned to achieve specific air quality targets for delivery and
servicing vehicles. This approach can be applied to any planning proposal generating vehicle
trips in an AQMA. In accordance with LTP Policy UC8 Freight and Servicing major new
developments located in the designated Freight Management Area will be required to provide a
Delivery Service Plan.
6.3.4 UTMC
Urban Traffic Management and Control (UTMC) is a central electronic database which
integrates the current systems of traffic management and information in a more efficient
manner. This helps to better manage traffic flow and congestion whilst making best use of any
existing highway assets. This can provided a number of benefits including, a capacity to store
air quality data on a common database. This provides an ability to utilise such information to
inform interventions in terms of air quality, therefore, providing better management of incidents
affecting the transport network.
6.3.5 Plugged in Places
Plugged in Places began in 2010 in the North East backed by funding to install recharging
infrastructure. To date over 1100 charging points have be installed across the North East. This
means that the North East is one of the most equipped regions for electric vehicles. This means
there is an increased potential to convert current conventional vehicle drivers to electric vehicles
as there is already a large network of infrastructure already available. This could be further
increased by enforcing new developers to add to the electric vehicle network as a condition of
planning.
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
55
7. Outcomes
7.1 Recommendations
The work undertaken as a part of this study suggests that there is currently little justification for
a LEZ for Newcastle or Gateshead. This recommendation is based on the modelling outcomes
and analysis of the potential application to Newcastle and Gateshead which show;
The existing NO2 exceedences necessitating the respective AQMA’s in Newcastle
and Gateshead may be resolved through “natural” vehicle replacement.
An LEZ needs significant ongoing investment from both LA’s as revenue will be
significantly lower than operating costs. Implementation would need to use existing
ANPR and CEO’s within NCC/GMBC control to minimise ongoing costs.
Avoidance of the LEZ rather than conformity could cause traffic redistribution leading
to increased congestion on non LEZ mandated through routes.
Alive after five policies would be fundamentally at odds with LEZ and retail revenue
vs. air quality argument would be created.
7.2 Preferred Option
It is therefore recommended that Option 2 is progressed to reduce emissions through direct
dialogue with local organisations including the Tyne & Wear Freight Partnership, the proposed
Bus Quality Contract, and via Taxi Licensing.
This option combined with the natural replacement of private vehicles will reduce exceedences
within the existing AQMA’s and urban core area. There would be no start up costs associated
with this option and very low ongoing monitoring and enforcement costs as these would be
picked up by existing LA officers or be self monitored. The thresholds applied to buses, HGV’s,
and Taxi’s could be reviewed and adjusted following re-consulting with the relevant operators.
7.3 Future LEZ
Should vehicle emissions standards improve further in the future (Euro VII) or AQMA criteria
tolerances tighten, Newcastle and Gateshead would be well prepared to re-assess and
determine if an LEZ became viable.
7.4 Future Work
Following the work undertaken as part of this feasibility study there were several areas where
additional follow up work could/should be undertaken. These include:-
Undertake a review of background emissions applied as these may include some
double counting of emissions
The bus drive cycle applied in the modelling is based on work done by TfL. The bus
drive cycle in London is not based on having gradients on roads so there is uncertainty
on whether the emission profiles are transferable outside of London.
Concern was raised by Newcastle University on the impact that SCR abatement
technology will have on fuel consumption and carbon emissions. There is an apparent
conflict between climate change and air quality.
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
56
There is uncertainty as to whether Euro 6 emission vehicles driving in an urban
environment will deliver the promised air quality improvements.
Health costs/benefits have not been considered within the remit of this study when
looking at the economic benefit of an LEZ.
There is a variation between the Tyne and Wear HGV/Bus fleet age profile and the
national profile applied in the study.
Regionally there needs to be a better understanding of the cost of poor air quality as at the
moment this information is simply not known. The local Strategic Health Authority (SHA) should
be consulted regarding the impact of air quality and its significance in terms of being a key
priority in terms of preventable deaths. Consideration should be given to ask the local SHA to
fund/research the linkage between ill health and air quality as this would help increase the
prioritisation of air quality.
Further work will need to be undertaken to assess the effectiveness of the LSTF projects
delivering air quality improvements alongside the modal shift. The LSTF projects include an
element of post implementation monitoring and the results from this will help inform if further
supplementary measures are required to improve air quality.
A significant number of diesel/hybrid buses introduced into Newcastle/Gateshead. It would
therefore be useful to investigate if the introduction of these cleaner emission vehicles has
improved air quality.
Newcastle / Gateshead LEZ May 2013
57
Appendix A
Newcastle University Modelling Report
Capita Symonds Ltd
Quadrant
The SIlverlink North
Cobalt Business Park
Tyne and Wear
NE27 0BY
Tel +44 (0)191 643 4808
www.capitasymonds.com