1.8 Joaquin decision support tool (C.Stroobants)

Joaquin

Decision Support Tool Christophe Stroobants

Antwerp, 24/03/2015

• Joaquin project

• Decision Support Tool

• Fact sheets

• Webtool

Outline

2

4 Belgian partners: VMM, IRCELINE, Flemish Agency for Health and Care, City of Antwerp

4 Dutch partners: GGD Amsterdam, Province of North-Holland, RIVM, ECN

6 British partners: University of Brighton, University of Leicester, Leicester City Council, AirTEXT London, Greater London Authority, Transport for London

2 French partners: Ecole des Ingénieurs de la Ville de Paris, ATMO Nord-Pas-De-Calais

Joint

Initiative

Joaquin – Partnership

Air Quality

3

• NWE-region is European hot spot for air pollution: PM and NO2.

• 430 000 premature deaths in EU-28 by long-term exposure to PM2,5

• 180 000 premature deaths in Belgium, France, Germany, The Netherlands and United Kingdom

Joint

Initiative

Joaquin – Background

Air Quality

4

Source: ESA, March 2011

• UFP, PN, EC/BC are believed to be better indicators towards health than

NO2 and PM10.

• These pollutants are currently not monitored systematically in the NW

European region

• Data on the spatial distribution of UFP, PN, BC/EC is missing

Joint

Initiative

Joaquin – Aim

Air Quality

5

Joaquin

Data & information

Increase knowledge

Provide evidence

6

Identify, pilot & evaluate

Rank measures

Best practices

Stakeholder consultation

Raising awareness

Support base

Joaquin

Measurements Measures Communication

• Joaquin project


• Fact sheets

• Webtool

Outline

7

Decision Support Tool – Fact sheets

8

BACKGROUND

• Which guidance for civil servants / policy makers to make better informed choices?

• Which traffic-related policy measures are available?

• What are their effects?

• Added value? • Evaluated information in a nutshell • Examples of implementation • Effects on air quality • (Co-)benefits and limitations • Expert opinion on potential and reliability • Cross-links to information sources


EXAMPLES | EFFECTS | CO-BENEFITS | SUGGESTED READ | KEYWORDS RELATED FACTSHEETS | REFERENCES

MEASURE Traffic Charging Zone (AKA Congestion Charging, Road Use Charging)

DESCRIPTION Payment for the right to drive into a city center. The desired result is to reduce the traffic intensity and thus the pollution loading in a specific area, i.e., the city center. Driver pays when entering the zone. Tariffs depend on vehicle classification (e.g., heavy-duty vehicle, light-duty vehicle, electric, diesel, vehicle age, etc.), time of the day (e.g., maximum during rush hours, no charge in weekend), duration of travel and distance travelled.

JOAQUIN VIEW Clear evidence of reduction in traffic, congestion and emissions. Due to the complex nature of air pollution, positive effects on traffic-related air pollution are possible, but the effect size depends on local traffic situation. As it is typically applied in a densely populated area, exposure reduction is expected, but the impact on surrounding areas, e.g., pollution redistribution, has to be considered. Possible drawbacks are societal skepticism, social injustice and implementation costs, but since very usable systems have now been developed, the costs of implementation can be reduced considerably. In general, as supported by the above examples, both the potential of the measure and the reliability of the data are considered good.




EXAMPLES London, UK: restriction of entry of oldest and most polluting vehicles. Camera's used for enforcement. Covers 22 km2 of central London. In the first period after implementation congestion fell significantly. However, after a few years the congestion situation returns almost to pre-charging levels, although the shift in vehicle-type (from private cars to taxi, bus and bicycle) remained. Cost-benefit analyses, comparing the costs of the congestion scheme to the congestion reduction benefits, show contrasting results (positive as well as negative!).

Stockholm, Sweden: Increase in traffic just outside the zone. Skepticism was reduced by applying a trial period followed by a referendum.

Leeds, UK: Different scenarios were modelled for road use charging in Leeds (Mitchell et al., 2005). The study found that charging a fee (£1-£3, depending on zones travelled) “suppresses trip demand, improves travel speeds and reduces total vehicle km travelled (in the city)”. It was noted, however, that trip duration increases as some drivers re-rout to avoid the charge area. When charging a fee per distance travelled, all fees reduce total traffic emissions, with “a charge of 2 p/Km (being) sufficient to improve air quality significantly”. Trip diversion under the 2 p/km scheme resulted in some pollution redistribution to surrounding areas.



EFFECTS Traffic emissions reduced due to lower numbers of vehicles in the charging zones reported here; evidence for more traffic directly outside the zone. Effects on traffic behaviour: use of other means of transport.

Modeling indicates that effects on AQ (annual basis) are:

• PM10: ranging from 0% to -8%.

• Soot: indications for decrease (Milan), but limited evidence.

• NO2: ranging from 0% to -10%.

Attribution of the observed changes in air pollution to this measure alone is debatable as effects of other interventions and trends are not considered explicitly.

Exposure: -8% (NO2) and -10% (PM10) population weighted; further effects on health not investigated.




CO-BENEFITS Supports the awareness of traffic as important source of air pollution. Accustoms people to use other means of transport. Generates income for further (traffic-related) air pollution reduction measures. Possible positive effect on noise exposure and traffic-related accidents. Reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Depending on the charging scheme, it could incentivise adoption of more efficient clean fuel and lower emission vehicles.




SUGGESTED READ • A very complete review in a wide perspective: Givoni, M. (2012). Re-assessing the Results of the

London Congestion Charging Scheme. Urban Studies, 49, 1089-1105. [LINK]

• Transport for London (TfL) has a lot of information regarding the implementation and evaluation of London’s Congestion Charging Scheme (CCS) available on their website. [LINK]

• A good overview of various types of road use charging and present a thorough modelling review to demonstrate potential air quality benefits from each: Mitchell, G., Namdeo, A., Milne, D. (2005). The air quality impact of cordon and distance based road user charging: An empirical study of Leeds, UK. Atmospheric Environment, 39, 6231-6242. [LINK]


CongestionCharging_Givoni_2012.pdf



KEYWORDS • Number of vehicles

• Congestion charging

• Taxation

• City

• PM10

• NO2

• Soot




RELATED FACTSHEETS • Clean Vehicles

• Electric Vehicles

• Modal Shift

• Traffic reallocation

• Traffic signal coordination


FS_CleanVehicles.pdf

FS_ElectricVehicles.pdf

FS_ModalShift.pdf

FS_TrafficReallocation.pdf

FS_TrafficSignalCoordination.pdf





REFERENCES • Atkinson, R.W., Barratt, B., Armstrong, B., Anderson, H.R., Beevers, S.D., Mudway, I.S., Green,

D., Derwent, R.G., Wilkinson, P., & Tonne, C. (2009). The impact of the congestion charging scheme on ambient air pollution concentrations in London. Atmospheric Environment, 43, 5493-5500. [LINK]

• Beevers, S.D. & Carslaw, D.C. (2005). The impact of congestion charging on vehicle emissions in London. Atmospheric Environment, 39, 1-5. [LINK]

• Beevers, S.D. & Carslaw, D.C. (2005). The impact of congestion charging on vehicle speed and its implications for assessing vehicle emissions. Atmospheric Environment, 39, 6875-6884. [LINK]

• Carslaw, D.C., Ropkins, K., & Bell, M.C. (2006). Change-point detection of gaseous and particulate traffic-related pollutants at a roadside location. Environmental Science & Technology, 40, 6912-6918. [LINK]

• Invernizzi, G., Ruprecht, A., Mazza, R., De Marco, C., Mocnik, G., Sioutas, C., & Westerdahl, D. (2011). Measurement of black carbon concentration as an indicator of air quality benefits of traffic restriction policies within the ecopass zone in Milan, Italy. Atmospheric Environment, 45, 3522-3527. [LINK]


CongestionCharging_Atkinson_2009.pdf

http://db.tt/KjXRa9Xn

http://db.tt/1RRLQEzV

http://db.tt/t9cveNcO

http://db.tt/ixQfmVII

http://db.tt/ixQfmVII

• Joaquin project


• Fact sheets

• Webtool

Outline

17