RANKING OF MEASURES 

For All of Us

In 2015, 16 organisations from 4 different countries (Belgium, France, United Kingdom and the Netherlands) joined efforts towards the development of a more health-relevant air quality policy. The project that fighted for healthy air was called Joaquin (Joint Air Quality Initiative)

Their measures help us in our quest to improve air quality.

 

You can find the 20 most important measures here below: 

Make a Donation

Join the Movement

Active transport

ELECTRIC VEHICLES (EV)

PUBLIC TRANSPORT

CAR SHARING

FUEL TAXATION

SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION

CARPOOLING

LOW EMIMISION ZONE (LEZ)

TRAFFIC RESTRICTION

CONGESTION CHARGE SCHEME (CCS)

NOISE BARRIERS

TRAFFIC SIGNAL COORDINATION

Active transport

Description

Active transport  refers to measures to promote all modes of transport driven by human muscle-power like walking, cycling, skating, etc. to reduce emissions by engine powered vehicles. Complementary actions, such as infrastructure programs, urban planning, transport planning and policy programs are required to increase the level of active transport.

Joaquin View

Since the use of active transport is a fundamental, structural measure with important co-benefits it is considered a good measure. This measure can lead to economic benefits and also to healthy lifestyle improvements, which can be a primary motivator for increasing active transport. A substantial increase in active transport requires complementary actions, such as bicycle programs, supportive land use planning and promotion of behavioural change, preferably implemented as a fully integrated package. The air quality potential of the measure is considered good, but the reliability of the data is considered low since there’s no air quality data available. Joaquin rates this action as good.

What: Cycling Infrastructure & promotion

Where: Berlin, Germany and Barcelona, Spain and Paris, France and London, UK

When: ongoing

Summary: In all these cities cycling is facilitated by a combination of implementation of a network of cycling paths (from 155 in Barcelona to up to 900km in Berlin) and other traffic measures such as lowering speed limit to 30 km/h, introduction of bus-bike lanes, building further bicycle infrastructure such as shelters and specific actions such as widening sidewalks (Paris) for mixed-use (pedestrian and cycling) or creating pass-through (short-cuts) specifically for cyclists (London) and contraflow bike lanes. All cities mentioned furthermore promote bicycling by educational programs, events (e.g.) and bike programs such as Bicing in Barcelona, Call-a-Bike of German Railways and Velib in Paris with a bike for every 97 inhabitants. Furthermore, informal or private bike sharing programs (e.g. Nextbike and Bikesurf) are since upcoming in many cities.

In Berlin, bicycle share increased form 5% in 1990 to 13% of trips made in 2009, figures in Barcelona were 0,75% in 2005 (pre promotion of Bicing) to 1,76% in 2007 (just after). In Paris, bike share in the modal shift was 1% before and just after 2,5% (2007). Combination with other air quality policies can be very successful: After implementing the congestion charge in London in 2003, an average annual growth of 17 % in bicycle trips was found between 2003 and 2006.

Although many worry about injuries, many cities observed important declines since adopting cycling policies (12% in London to 38% in Barcelona), and scientist concluded that cycling has greater benefits than risks to health – taking into account physical activity, air pollution and road traffic incidents.

 

What: Walking Infrastructure & promotion

Where: New York, US and diverse cities, UK

When: ongoing

Summary: In an urban environment active transport competes with motorized traffic on available space.  Motorized traffic also impacts on pedestrians and cyclists with exhaust gases, noise and accident risk. Nevertheless, walking and cycling are more relaxing and exciting and less stressfull for commuters compared to car users. Several studies show that ‘walkability’ of a city depends on attractive routes and areas for pedestrians. The city of New York has a guideline to design sidewalks so as to be attractive to pedestrians. Problems with pedestrian use and solutions have also been addressed in the PROMPT Guidebook  from the EU project New Means to PROMote Pedestrian Traffic in Cities. Several other publications deal with the design of public space to stimulate active transport, often because of the benificial health effects. Interventions to stimulate walking are often effective. Walking is also important as a means of recreation; in the UK there is a national initiative to help people to walk together. A large number of cities have areas with restricted access to motorized vehicles, usually parks and shopping areas, but there is usually no citywide policy or action plan to promote walking.

A change from car use to active transport can bring significant air quality benefits in streets which used to have a lot of cars. Bicycle share was found to range from 2 to 13% after implementation of cycling promoting policies, to our knowledge air quality effects were not studied as such.

 

Particulate Matter: concentrations may decrease, probably differences are too small to pick up in measurements

NO2: concentrations may decrease, up to a few percent in busy streets (with meaningful shift from combustion to active transport)

Soot: concentrations may decrease, up to a few percent in busy streets (with meaningful shift from combustion to active transport)

 

Keep in mind your measure should fit your local situation and ambition.

  • Reduction health care costs due to net health benefit of active transport

  • Reduction of traffic noise

  • Reduction of greenhouse gas emission

  • Reduction of congestion

  • An assessment of various interventions on the rate of bicycle usage for local transport, and their impact in various cities and countries. Pucher, J., Dill, J, Handy, S.,2010, Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: An international review, 2010, Preventive Medicine, 50, S106-S125
  • An explanation of the benefits of healthy transportation choices, economic value and social heath. Newman, P., Matan, A., 2012, Human mobility and human health, Environmental Sustainability, 4,420-426
  • A discussion of the potential to change to active transport in Flanders: Beckx, C, Broekx, S., Degraeuwe, B., Beusen, B., Int Panis, L., 2013 Limits to active transport substitution of short car trips, Transport Research Part D, 22,10-13
  • An overview of practical and policy problems associated with pedestrian mobility and sidewalk accessibility. Sidewalk Planning and Policies in Small Cities, Evans-Cowley, J., 2006, Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 71-75.
  • Criteria for a successful pedestrian network design. Designing the Walkable City. Southworth, M., 2005, Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 246-257.

Bicycle

  • Maibach, E., Steg, L., et al. (2009). Promoting physical activity and reducing climate change: Opportunities to replace short car trips with active transportations. Preventive Medicine, 49, 326-327.
  • Rojas-Rueda, D., de Nazelle, A., et al. (2011). The health risks and benefits of cycling in urban evironments compared with car use: health impact assessment study. British Medical Journey, 343, :d4521 doi: 10.1136/bmj.d4521.
  • De Hartog,J.J., Boogaard, H., et al. (2010). Do the Health Benefits of Cycling Outweigh the Risks? Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(8), 1109-1116.
  • Van Malderen, L., Jourquin, B., et al. (2012). On the mobility policies of companies: What are the good practices ? The Belgian case. Transport Policy, 10-19.
  • Beckx, C., Broeckx, S., et al. (2013). Limit to active transport substitution of short car trips. Transportation research pard D, 22, 10-13.
  • Rabl, A., de Nazelle, A. (2012). Benefits of shift from car to active transport. Transport Policy, 121-131.
  • Santos, G., Behrendt, H., et al. (2010). Part III: Policy instruments for sustainable road transport. Research in Transportation Economic, 46-91.
  • Jarret, J., Woodcock, J., et al. (2012). Effect of increasing active travel in urban England and Wales on costs to the National Health Service. The Lancet, vol 379, 2198-205.
  • Gatersleben, B., David Uzzell, D. (2007). Affective Appraisals of the Daily Commute: Comparing Perceptions of Drivers, Cyclists, Walkers, and Users of Public Transport. Environment and Behavior, 39, 416-431.
  • De Vries, S.I., Hopman-Rock, M., et al. (2010). Built Environmental Correlates of Walking and Cycling in Dutch Urban Children: Results from the SPACE Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 7, 2309-2324. doi:10.3390/ijerph7052309
  • Ogilvie D, Foster C E, et al. (2007). Interventions to promote walking: systematic review. BMJ, 334, 1204. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39198.722720.BE

CAR SHARING

 Description 

Car sharing, also known as ‘car clubs’ is a measure that allows people to rent a car for short periods of time, often through a registration for the service. This measure is a way to reduce the number of private cars, resulting in less parking space needed. Transition to active and public transport when possible is furthermore supported when an individual has a car available when necessary. Shared cars will moreover be used more efficiently, leading to  quicker replacement by newer, less emitting cars.

Joaquin View

Car sharing can influence air quality limitedly. With the proper conditions car sharing could however contribute to healthier mobility, especially when combined with other measures such as, promotion of active and public transport, and measures stimulating low emission vehicles. Promoting car sharing systems also contributes to the mind shift to collective means of transport.

The air quality potential of car sharing is moderate. The relilability of the data for this measure is considered moderate. Because of the benefits for urban mobility and behavioural change, Joaquin rates this measure as good.

What: Evaluation of implemented car clubs

Where: London, United Kingdom

When: 2011

Summary: A survey was conducted by Harmer&Cairns in London among car club users. Car clubs reduce car ownership as 55% of car club users reduced their number of cars by at least one after joining. Additionally the annual mileage of Londoner households decreased by over 2,300km since joining a car club and the member’s use of public transport, including taxi, increased significantly. However, this results may not be reproducible over the entire UK area and may be limited to large cities.

 

What: Implemented car sharing, city based

Where: Austria, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Sweden, The Netherlands , US

When: 2011

Summary: Car2Go is a car sharing system implemented in many cities throughout Europe. The system is different from other car sharing initiatives in 2 ways: registration is free and there are no fixed parking points. Car2Go only charges the user for the time the vehicles are driven. The user can park the car anywhere they want after using it, but the area in which the car can be used is limited to the cities. Car availability, fuel level and location is visualised online or in a smartphone app. Currently Amsterdam (NL) and San Diego (US) offer solely fully electric vehicles in the Car2Go system. In Amsterdam, indications are that Car2Go may compete with cycling, especially during cold or wet weather.

 

What: Implemented car sharing

Where: The NetherlandsBelgium

When:  2011

Summary: Greenwheels is a car sharing system allowing the use of a rented car throughout The Netherlands. It has a monthly subscription fee supplemented with a fee for the length (distance) and duration (time) of use. Greenwheels uses fixed pick-up and return points which are often located in premium parking spots very near to public transportation. Additionally the Greenwheels system offers discounts to users who also have public transport subscriptions. This system is similar to other car clubs in Europe e.g. Cambio in Belgium, which also features optimal parking near public transportation hubs.

The few available studies are moderately positive on the emission reduction that can be reached by car sharing systems, most studies focus on greenhouse gas reductions. At city or nation level emissions will reduce (e.g. -8.45 tonnes NOx over 6 yr period in Central London (Killbane-Dawe, 2012)), differences are expected to be too small to meaningful reduce ambient levels.

The main effect of car sharing is the incentive to use active or public transport resulting from less car ownership. Air quality effects are therefore merely the result of a long term paradigm shift rather than to be expected directly. Little additional benefits can be reached from relatively less emitting (newer, greener) cars used in car clubs in comparison to private cars.

 

Keep in mind your measure should fit your local situation and ambition.

    • Less need for parking space throughout cities

    • More physical space available for active transport, healthy lifestyle and road safety

    • Cost saving for users

    • Cost saving for employers/employees through reduction of required parking space

    • Increased awareness through focus on sustainable vehicles

    • Higher rate of fleet renewal

    • Promotes shift in mindset to prefer collective means of transport over individual means

  • Killbane-Dawe (2012) studied potential emission reduction and other positive and negative effects of car sharing in Central London. This study gives insight in the potential numerical effects for a large city.
  • A similar estimation of emission reductions was done for the City CarShare initiative in San Fransisco, resulting in a good read from Rabbitt and Ghosh (2013).

    Bicycle

    • Maibach, E., Steg, L., et al. (2009). Promoting physical activity and reducing climate change: Opportunities to replace short car trips with active transportations. Preventive Medicine, 49, 326-327.
    • Rojas-Rueda, D., de Nazelle, A., et al. (2011). The health risks and benefits of cycling in urban evironments compared with car use: health impact assessment study. British Medical Journey, 343, :d4521 doi: 10.1136/bmj.d4521.
    • De Hartog,J.J., Boogaard, H., et al. (2010). Do the Health Benefits of Cycling Outweigh the Risks? Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(8), 1109-1116.
    • Van Malderen, L., Jourquin, B., et al. (2012). On the mobility policies of companies: What are the good practices ? The Belgian case. Transport Policy, 10-19.
    • Beckx, C., Broeckx, S., et al. (2013). Limit to active transport substitution of short car trips. Transportation research pard D, 22, 10-13.
    • Rabl, A., de Nazelle, A. (2012). Benefits of shift from car to active transport. Transport Policy, 121-131.
    • Santos, G., Behrendt, H., et al. (2010). Part III: Policy instruments for sustainable road transport. Research in Transportation Economic, 46-91.
    • Jarret, J., Woodcock, J., et al. (2012). Effect of increasing active travel in urban England and Wales on costs to the National Health Service. The Lancet, vol 379, 2198-205.
    • Gatersleben, B., David Uzzell, D. (2007). Affective Appraisals of the Daily Commute: Comparing Perceptions of Drivers, Cyclists, Walkers, and Users of Public Transport. Environment and Behavior, 39, 416-431.
    • De Vries, S.I., Hopman-Rock, M., et al. (2010). Built Environmental Correlates of Walking and Cycling in Dutch Urban Children: Results from the SPACE Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 7, 2309-2324. doi:10.3390/ijerph7052309
    • Ogilvie D, Foster C E, et al. (2007). Interventions to promote walking: systematic review. BMJ, 334, 1204. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39198.722720.BE

    CARPOOLING

     Description 

    Carpooling refers to policies which stimulate two or more people to share a journey instead of using their own vehicle. Carpooling reduces the number of (single occupant) vehicles on roadways, therefore emissions of air pollutants are limited and air quality may improve.

    Joaquin View

    Carpooling, also known as ride-sharing, is expected to reduce emissions. The impact depends on implementation and adaptation. Carpooling can make a small but cost-effective contribution in reducing both traffic levels and pollution. Incentives to promote carpooling range from general increased parking charges, exclusive free parking and kilometre allowance, road tolls and the introduction of separate lanes which admit vehicles with at least 2 passengers only.

    The air quality potential of the measure is considered moderate and the reliability of the data is considered low. Joaquin rates this measure as good as little effort is needed to reduce emissions

    What: Employee carpooling incentives
    Where: The Netherlands & Flanders, Belgium & United Kingdom
    When: ongoing

    Summary: Several employers offer employees carpooling incentives, such as exclusive parking places and a kilometre-allowance or employers offer employees intranet facilities to share-rides. Kilometre allowance depends on country tax laws. Examples of websites are bestworkplaces.org or securex.eu.

     

    What: Local Carpooling enabling websites
    Where: Belgium and United Kingdom
    When: ongoing

    Summary: There are several websites and smartphone apps which offer users to share a ride. Local examples include ‘Taxistop’ in Belgium, which facilitates several initiatives including carpooling, but also related eventpooling and schoolpooling, for individuals and companies/organizations. A similar service in the UK is ‘Carplus Trust’, which also promotes other alternatives to traditional car use.

     

    What: Websites enabling long distance Carpooling
    Where: Europe-wide
    When: ongoing

    Summary: Long distance Carpooling has become an increasingly popular alternative to travel cheaply, especially by students. Arrangement for rides can be made through the internet, in Europe two large platforms carpooling.com & blablacar.com are active, whereas in the UK there’s ‘NCS’.

     

    What: Carpool enabling parking locations
    Where: The Netherlands
    When: ongoing

    Summary: In the Netherlands many local governments created parking locations near major routes or intersections to enable people to join rides from these locations. Many of these facilities are also optimized for public or active transport before or after the shared ride, by bus stops, secure bicycle parking or bike rentals.

     

    What: Simulation studu of introduction of High Occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes
    Where: EU
    When: since 1990’s

    Summary: High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, where only vehicles with two or more passengers are allowed, and lanes dedicated to vehicles running on alternative fuels (eco-lanes) are familiar and have been evaluated in USA, but not that much in Europe, yet. This study simulated the introduction in a medium sized European city to encourage alternative transportation methods, provide travel time savings, reduce congestion and decrease emissions: NOX by 38%, CO by 43% and CO2 by 37%.

    Although the air quality effects of carpooling have not been extensively studied, indications are that it can make a small but cost-effective contribution in reducing traffic and therefore pollution emissions.

     

    Particulate Matter:  unknown, small

    NO2: unknown, small

    Soot: unknown, small

     

    Keep in mind your measure should fit your local situation and ambition.

    • Carpooling can be cost saving for the users (e.g., fuel costs, toll fees, parking) and/or their employers (e.g., parking spaces, car fleet costs)

    • Less congestion

    • Less parking space needed

    • Increases awareness raising of traffic as an important source of air pollution

    • Contributes to community cohesion and reduces social exclusion

    • Decrease fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emission

    • Comprehensive read on sustainable road transport: Policy instruments for sustainable road transport. [LINK]
    • A good overview of a variety of actual and theoretical infrastructural changes and in-depth look at the potential effect of HOV’s and eco-lanes: Are HOV/eco-lanes a sustainable option to reducing emissions in a medium-sized European city? [LINK]

      Carpooling

       

      • Bandeira, J. M., Coelho M. C., et al. (2011). Impact of Land Use on Urban Mobility Patterns, Emissions and Air Quality in a Portuguese Medium-Sized City. Science of The Total Environment, 409, 1154–63. [LINK]
      • Recker, W. W., and Parimi A. (1999). Development of a Microscopic Activity-Based Framework for Analyzing the Potential Impacts of Transportation Control Measures on Vehicle Emissions. Transportation Research Part D, 4, 357–78. [LINK]
      • Santos, G., Behrendt H., et al. (2010). Part II: Policy Instruments for Sustainable Road Transport. Research in Transportation Economics, 28, 46–91. [LINK]
      • Fontes, T, Fernandes P., et al. (2014). Are HOV/eco-Lanes a Sustainable Option to Reducing Emissions in a Medium-Sized European City? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 63, 93–106. [LINK]
      • Kwon, J., and Varaiya P. (2008). Effectiveness of California’s High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) System. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 16, 98–115. [LINK]

      CONGESTION CHARGE SCHEME (CCS)

       Description 

      A congestion charging scheme (CCS), also known as traffic charging or road use charging, is a payment for the right to drive into a specific area. The desired result is to reduce the traffic intensity and thus the pollution loading in that specific area. Tariffs may depend on vehicle classification, time of the day, duration of travel and distance travelled.

       

      Joaquin View

      There is clear evidence of reduction in traffic, congestion and emissions. Due to the complex nature of air pollution, positive effects on air quality 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.

      Both the potential of the measure and the reliability of the data are considered good. Joaquin rates this measure as good.

      What: Congestion Charging Zone London
      Where
      London, UK 
      When: 2003 and ongoing

      Summary: A congestion charging zone was first introduced in 2003, Cameras are used for enforcement. The charge was initially set at £5 and has since risen to £11.50 in 2014. Vehicles meeting Euro 5 standards and emitting less than 75 g CO2/km, effectively plug in hybrid and electric vehicles, are eligible for a 100 percent discount (ultralow emission discount). In the first period after implementation reductions in congestion by around 20-30 percent, traffic entering by 18 percent and traffic circulating by 15 percent were found. Although, the congestion situation has returned almost to pre-charging levels after a few years, the congestion would be significantly worse without the charge. There was no modal shift observed and a small increase in traffic on the boundary road as a result of the charge. Measurements within the CCS zone showed that the effects were more evident at urban background sites (PM10 declined by 12%, NO by 10-25%, whereas NO2 increased by 2-20% due to other reasons) than at roadside monitoring sites (little change) when compared to sites in the control area.

      Extra link

       

      What: Congestion Charging Zone Stockholm
      WhereStockholm, Sweden
      When: 2006 and ongoing

      Summary: Congestion charges were introduced in 2006, first as a trial followed by a referendum, then permanently from 2007 onwards. Alternative-fuel vehicles were exempt from the charges through 2008, which led to a substantial increase in the sales of such vehicles. Traffic reduction has increased slightly over time, improvements in travel time were found. Public acceptance changed to considerable support due to a reduction in congestion and emissions. The increased travel costs proved to be less of a burden than anticipated. The influence over the use of the revenues of the scheme and system design proved to be an essential factor for achieving political support.

       

      What: Ecopass Milan. Implementation and monitored evaluation
      Where: Milan, Italy [LINK] & [LINK]
      When: 2008 and on going

      Summary: The Ecopass air quality effects were evaluated in and outside the restricted area before and after the enforcement of the charging scheme. Measurements from several walking trips and by car moving in three belts using portable laser-operated particle analysers as well as PM10 data from official monitoring stations two months before and after the enforcement showed no significant improvement in air quality.

       

      When applied and enforced strictly, congestion charging schemes can reduce traffic volumes, and thus emissions in specific areas. Most known applied CCS’s have been part of an extensive package of air quality measures and therefore the air quality effect of the CCS alone is hard to determine in real life.

      Particulate Matter:  concentrations of PM10 can decrease up to 12%.
      NO2: concentrations may decrease up to 2.5 µg/m3 (London, Kelly 2011).
      Soot: unknown, probably in same range as NO2
      Other: unknown

      Keep in mind your measure should fit your local situation and ambition.

      • Supports the awareness of traffic as important source of air pollution.

      • Public acceptance in case of reduction in congestion.

      • People to use other means of transport, promoting public and active transport

      • Depending on the charging scheme, it could incentivize adoption of cleaner/greener vehicles. Reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

      • Generates revenue which can be invested in further (traffic-related) air pollution reduction measures.

      • Lower traffic volumes may possibly affect noise exposure and traffic-related accidents positively.

      • Comprehensive read on sustainable road transport: Policy instruments for sustainable road transport. [LINK]
      • A good overview of a variety of actual and theoretical infrastructural changes and in-depth look at the potential effect of HOV’s and eco-lanes: Are HOV/eco-lanes a sustainable option to reducing emissions in a medium-sized European city? [LINK]

        Congestion

         

        • Bandeira, J. M., Coelho M. C., et al. (2011). Impact of Land Use on Urban Mobility Patterns, Emissions and Air Quality in a Portuguese Medium-Sized City. Science of The Total Environment, 409, 1154–63. [LINK]
        • Recker, W. W., and Parimi A. (1999). Development of a Microscopic Activity-Based Framework for Analyzing the Potential Impacts of Transportation Control Measures on Vehicle Emissions. Transportation Research Part D, 4, 357–78. [LINK]
        • Santos, G., Behrendt H., et al. (2010). Part II: Policy Instruments for Sustainable Road Transport. Research in Transportation Economics, 28, 46–91. [LINK]
        • Fontes, T, Fernandes P., et al. (2014). Are HOV/eco-Lanes a Sustainable Option to Reducing Emissions in a Medium-Sized European City? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 63, 93–106. [LINK]
        • Kwon, J., and Varaiya P. (2008). Effectiveness of California’s High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) System. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 16, 98–115. [LINK]

        ELECTRIC VEHICLES (EV)

         Description 

        An electric vehicle (EV) is either an all electric vehicle (powered by a battery), a plug-in hybrid (powered by off-vehicle sources) or an electric vehicle equipped with a range extender. EVs generally refer to different kind of vehicles (like bikes, scooters, passenger cars, delivery vans and vehicles for public transport). EVs appear cost effective if the vehicle does significant mileage. Popularity will increase when fast-charge points or battery swaps are widely available. Policy measures to encourage the uptake of EVs are described.

        Joaquin View

        In general, the measure is considered to be favourable for air quality although no studies yielding experimental data are available (yet). Effect size will depend on local penetration degree. As it is typically applied in densely populated areas, exposure reduction is expected. Limitations are imposed by costs, short driving range and timing of recharge. The use of a fuel-based range extender remains necessary until next-generation battery technology becomes available. Further technological improvement as well as downward pricing is expected. Joaquin rates this measure as good.

        There are many policy measures to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles. These include demonstration projects, increase of charging infrastructure and trials with electric buses.

        What: Demonstration project
        WhereVitoria-Gasteiz, Spain
        When: ongoing

        Summary: An electric car sharing service and information centre is implemented to improve electric car usage. Implementation of 3 e-car sharing service stations. Besides charging points installed for the e-car sharing, 10 additional public charging points were installed for electric vehicle users.

         

        What: Charging Infrastructure
        WhereBrighton and Hove, UK; Amsterdam, Netherlands; and many others
        When: ongoing

        Summary: Electric vehicle charging points were set up. Parking and electricity used at the charging point were free for a trial period (Brighton and Hove) or a priority for obtaining a parking license is given. The usage of the scheme, social awareness and acceptance are monitored.

         

        What: Electric buses
        WhereVienna, Austria; Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal; Bremen, Germany and several other cities across Europe
        When: ongoing

        Summary: In all these initiatives electric and/or hybrid buses were tested in trial operation with overnight charging. Findings are predominantly positive.

         

        What: Electric car sharing service
        WhereParis, France and others
        When: ongoing 

        Summary: Car sharing service where people rent electric cars for short periods of time, often by the hour. They are attractive to those who make only occasional use of a vehicle. Electric vehicle charging points were set up. Both parking and electricity used at the charging point are free for a trial period. The usage of the scheme, public awareness and social acceptance are monitored.

        Urban air quality is expected to improve by introducing the electric vehicles due to the zero tailpipe emissions. The effects depend on the rate of penetration. Electric cars are even better than hybrid cars as hybrids run on gas emissions. In addition, the reduced fuel consumption will lead to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. However, there are no studies available examining these effects. The emissions of particulate matter due to brake and tyre wear remain unchanged.

        Keep in mind your measure should fit your local situation and ambition.

          • Reduced fuel consumption is directly related to reduction of the emission of greenhouse gases.
          • Cost saving by a lower energy demand and less maintenance
          • Reduction of noise pollution. However, the absence of sounds of moving vehicles can be disadvantageous as people do not hear these coming (from behind)
        • European Roadmap: Electrification of Road Transport, European Technology Platforms, version 2.0, November 2010.
        • An interesting discussion on the current implementation and future prospects of EV based mobility.    
        • Transport for London (TfL) has a lot of information regarding the implementation of electric vehicles. [LINK]

        Electric
        Hybrid
        Fuel
        Battery
        mobility

        • Report: Electric Vehicle Charging Points in Brighton & Hove, Archimedes project, [LINK]
        • Rienstra, S.A. and Nijkamp, P. (1998). The role of electric cars in Amsterdam’s transport system in the year 2015, a scenario approach. Transpn Res.-D, Vol. 3, No. 1, 29-40.
        • Report: Clean Buses – Experiences with Fuel and Technology Options, February 2014. [LINK]
        • Bakker S. and Trip, J.J. (2013). Policy options to support the adoption of electric vehicles in the urban environment. Transportation Research Part D, 25, 18–23.
        • Report: Sustainable Mobility Highlights 2002-2012. Clean fuels and vehicles program. [LINK]

        FUEL TAXATION

        Description 

        The enforcement of an increase in fuel taxation/cost in order to incentivise reduction of vehicle use and decrease fuel consumption, thus reducing emission of air pollutants and public exposure.

        Joaquin View

        Modelling studies indicate that general fuel tax increase has a positive impact on air pollutant emissions and air quality. Potential drawback may be the environmental equity/social justice connotations and the possible unpopularity of the scheme amongst road users. This measure utilizes the “polluters pay” principle, and given the large area it affects, the resulting impacts on exposure and health effects are expected to be substantial. The effects of the measure is considered good, the reliability of the data is moderate. Joaquin rates this measure as good.

         

        What: Fuel taxation – modelled exposure to elemental carbon
        Where
        Flanders, Belgium
        When: 2012

        Summary: A modelling study in Flanders and Brussel focused on exposure to elemental carbon (EC, black smoke, soot) utilising a coupled transport, emission, dispersion  and exposure model, where the impact of a 20% rise in fuel price was simulated (via a reduction in total travel distance). The population weighted average impact, taking into account people’s travelling behaviour during the day, was estimated at  a 2,33% reduction of the exposure.

        What: Fuel taxation – modelled PM reduction
        WhereFlanders, Belgium
        When: 2011

        Summary: A risk assessment was performed to evaluate actions or decisions for air pollution reduction, including a workshop involving various stakeholders. Possible actions were ranked according to their importance for air pollution reduction, for knowledge development, their past performance and future feasibility. Car/fuel taxation was one of the investigated actions. Taxation was considered very important for achieving PM standards by the workshop of research and policy axperts. It was considered somewhat important with respect to knowledge development, yet is not necessarily deemed to have exhibited good historical performance.

        What: Fuel taxation – reducing traffic related emissions
        WhereEurope
        When: 1999

        Summary: A Europe-wide model investigating a number of potential mitigation measures to reduce traffic related emissions, including the introduction of fuel taxes. Fuel taxation was defined in two ways: a fuel taxation focused on CO2-reduction and an annual circulation tax updated to include emission factors and mileage focused on NO2-reduction. Fuel taxation could achieve significant reductions in traffic related CO2 emissions, if combined with other strategies such as differential purchase taxes. Introducing the fuel taxation that would result in a 10% decrease in CO2 emissions, was calculated to result in a 2,3% reduction in car use, a 6% urban NOx-reduction and a 7% reduction in urban particulate matter emissions. Introducing the updated circulation tax would result in a 12% CO2-reduction, a 6% reduction in car use, a 32% reduction of urban NOx levels and a 10% reduction in urban particulate matter emissions. The authors also found that a synergistic combination of a vehicle purchase feebate with an emissions based distance tax could have an even greater impact.

        Fuel taxation has been evaluated in several modelling studies across different regions (Flanders and Brussels, but also Europe). Additionally, a research and policy makers workshop in Belgium performed a more qualitative analysis of fuel taxation as a measure.

        The main effects from the modelling studies were:

        • PM: 7% reduction in Europe by fuel taxation, 10% reduction by updated circulation tax
        • A 2,33% reduction in exposure to elemental carbon in Flanders, when people’s travelling behaviour was taken into account
        • Individuals from non-urban areas gained dual benefits due to concentration reductions at their urban work/shop/leisure locations and even larger reductions during transport.Air quality researchers and policy makers in Belgium deemed this measure to be important for achieving PM standards and somewhat important with respect to knowledge development. There is, however, no good historical performance data.

        Keep in mind your measure should fit your local situation and ambition.

          • Reduces greenhouse gas emissions

          • Reduces road congestion

          • Reduces journey time (i.e., alters travel speed)

          • Reduces traffic-related accidents and noise

          • Increases governmental revenue (potential to recycle funding into other environmental activities)

          • Potentially increases public transport usage (modal shift)

          • Incentivises adoption of more efficient clean fuel and lower emission vehicles

          • Potential to be used as an awareness-raising platform for wider air quality issues

        • A concise overview of the impacts of various taxation schemes from a European modelling exercise is given by Jansen et al 1999. [LINK]

        Fuel

        • Buekers, J., et al. (2011). Ten years of research and policy on particulate matter air pollution in hot spot Flanders. Environmental Science and Policy, 14, 347-355.[LINK]
        • Dhondt, S., et al.(2012). Integration of population mobility in the evaluation of air quality measures on local and regional scales. Atmospheric Environment, 59, 67-74. [LINK]
        • Jansen, H. and Denis, C. (1999). A welfare cost assessment of various policy measures to reduce pollutant emissions from passenger road vehicles. Transportation Research Part D, 4, 379-396. [LINK]

        LOW EMIMISION ZONE (LEZ)

        Description 

        A Low Emission Zone (LEZ), also known as Environmental Zone, is a defined zone or corridor within a city, where certain heavier emitting vehicles are prohibited or restricted from entering or parking. LEZ can apply to vehicle age, class, weight or fuel type, engine size, Euro emissions category, or CO2 emissions.

         

        Joaquin View

        A LEZ can decrease emissions and thus improve local air quality. When applied to densely populated urban areas exposure reduction is expected resulting in health benefits. Once implemented, LEZ can be tightened, expanded or otherwise improved to address specific targeted reductions of air pollutants (e.g., PM, NO2). There are many successful examples of LEZ implementation to learn from, so historic drawbacks of LEZ (e.g., long implementation times, implementation costs and practical enforcement) are now less of an obstacle. A LEZ can be well combined with and may accelerate many other measures.

        The potential of the measure is considered good and the reliability of the data is considered good. Joaquin rates this measure as: good.

         

        WhereWhereWhat: LEZ by Euro emissions category: Euro3 (minibus) or Euro4 (trucks)
        Wherefull greater London area, UK
        When: on going

        Summary: This is the largest LEZ in Europe, covering over 1,500 km2 , including nearly all of the greater London area. The LEZ is effective 24 h/day, 365 days/year, and is enforced using cameras which check vehicle registration numbers against a database of compliant vehicles. Vehicles that do not meet the standards, and have not paid the charge in advance, are fined. Larger vans and minibuses need to meet Euro 3 (PM); lorries, buses and coaches – Euro 4 (PM). From 2015, Euro 4 NOX standard apply for Transport for London (TfL) bus services.

        What: LEZ by Euro emissions category: Euro4 (trucks)
        WhereAmsterdam, Netherlands
        When: on going

        Summary: The LEZ implemented in Amsterdam currently applies to trucks larger than 3.5 ton which need Euro 4 and higher. The LEZ is camera enforced and operates 365 days/year.

        What: LEZ by Euro emissions category: Euro4 (trucks)
        WhereCopenhagen, Denmark
        When: on going

        Summary: All diesel-powered vehicles above 3.5 ton should meet at least a Euro 4 emissions standard or be equipped fitted with a certified particle filter. The Copenhagen LEZ operates 24 h/ day, 365 day/year. Vehicles should display a LEZ sticker on their front window.

        What: LEZ by Euro emissions category: Euro4 (diesel), Euro1 (petrol). All vehicles
        WhereMunich, Germany
        When: on going

        Summary: Restricts entry to diesel vehicles being at least Euro 4, and petrol vehicles which must be above Euro 1 (or equivalent) and have a closed loop catalytic converter. All eligible vehicles must have a sticker; LEZ operates 365 days/year.

        What: LEZ
        WhereAntwerp, Belgium
        When: starting 2016

        Summary: The city and Joaquin[MD3]  have done extensive feasibility studies, including model evaluations. The city decided to implement the LEZ in 2016. The admittance to the zone will be based on the Euro emission standards and will differ for light- and heavy-duty vehicles (like in other European LEZs). The conditions will change every 5 years and reflect the stricter Euro standards in future. More information regarding the feasibility study is available on the TMLeuven website.

        There have been a number of high-qualiy monitoring studies on the effectiveness of Low Emission Zones concluding that LEZs are effective in reducing traffic-related air pollution.

        Particulate Matter: All studies reported decreases of ambient concentrations: for PM10 concentrations up to 6%, for PM2.5 concentrations up to 30%.

        NO2: Depending on the local situation, NO2-concentrations did not change or decreased up to 5%.

        Soot: Depending the local situation, soot-concentrations decreases ranged from 0% to 55%.

         

        Keep in mind your measure should fit your local situation and ambition. (link)

        • Accelerating fleet renewal and the introduction of clean/electric vehicles introduction
        • Reducing traffic volumes
        • Raising awareness of traffic as an important air pollution source.
        • Reduction of noise pollution
        • Reduced fuel consumption with a related reduction of the emission of greenhouse gases
        • Website UrbanAccessRegulations.eu provides an overview of all implemented LEZ’s in Europe. [LINK]
        • Transport for London has a lot of information regarding the implementation and evaluation of London’s LEZ available on their website. [LINK]

        mobility

        traffic
        emission
        • Barratt, B. (2013). Low Emission Zones and Other Traffic Reduction Measures. Health Effects Institute 2013 Annual Conference, San Francisco, CA, April 14-16. [LINK]
        • Boogaard, H., et al. (2012). Impact of Low Emission Zones and Local Traffic Policies on Ambient Air Pollution Concentrations. Science of The Total Environment, 435-436, 132–40. [LINK]
        • Ellison, R.B., et al. (2013). Five years of London’s low emission zone: Effects on vehicle fleet composition and air quality. Transportation Research Part D, 23, 25-33. [LINK]
        • Invernizzi, G., et al. (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, 3522–27. [LINK]
        • Jensen, S.S. et al. (2011). What Are the Impacts on Air Quality of Low Emission Zones in Denmark? Proceedings from the Annual Transport Conference at Aalborg University. [LINK]
        • Kelly, F.J., et al. (2009). London Air Quality: A Real World Experiment in Progress. Biomarkers, 14, 5–11. [LINK]
        • Morfeld, P., et al. (2014). Effectiveness of Low Emission Zones: Large Scale Analysis of Changes in Environmental NO2, NO and NOX Concentrations in 17 German Cities. PLOS ONE, 9, e102999. [LINK]
        • Panteliadis, P., et al. (2014). Implementation of a Low Emission Zone and Evaluation of Effects on Air Quality by Long-Term Monitoring. Atmospheric Environment, 86, 113–19. [LINK]
        • Qadir, R.M., et al. (2013). Concentrations and Source Contributions of Particulate Organic Matter before and after Implementation of a Low Emission Zone in Munich, Germany. Environmental Pollution, 175, 158–67. [LINK]
        • Ruprecht, A. and G Invernizzi. (2009). L’effetto Del Provvedimento Di Restrizione Del Traffico Nel Centro Di Milano (Ecopass) Sull’inquinamento Urbano Da Polveri: I Risultati Di Uno Studio Pilota [The Effects of the Traffic Restriction Scheme (Ecopass) in Milan City Center on Particulate Matter Urban Pollution: The Results of a Pilot Study]. Epidemiologia & Prevenzione, 33, 21–26. [LINK]
        • Wolff, H., and L. Perry. (2010). Policy Monitor: Trends in Clean Air Legislation in Europe: Particulate Matter and Low Emission Zones. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 4, 293–308. [LINK]

        NOISE BARRIERS

         

        Description 

        Noise barriers can be used to limite the dispersion of air pollutants.

         

        Joaquin View

        There is evidence that solid noise barriers can reduce air pollution concentrations. Possible drawbacks of this measure include implementation costs, spatial constraints and public opposition. The potential of the measure is considered good and the reliability of the data is considered moderate. Joaquin rates this measure as good.

        The potential of the measure is considered good and the reliability of the data is considered good. Joaquin rates this measure as: good.

         

         

        What: Noise Barriers
        Where: USA (Raleigh, NC)
        When:
        Summary: The effects of roadside barriers on the flow patterns and dispersion of pollutants from a high-traffic highway have been evaluated.

        Continuous six-meter high brick noise walls were found to consistently reduce ultrafine particles concentrations by half within 10 meters of the road for multiple wind conditions. Similar findings were not observed for exclusively vegetative barriers, mostly owing to a lack of continuous tree cover; however inclusion of vegetation may strengthen the effect of solid noise walls. The effect of solid noise walls on UFP reduction can mostly be noticed directly behind the wall decreasing with the distance from the wall or when other structures, such as buildings or vegetation, are present behind the wall[FA1]. No simulation or measurement results were available for other pollutants than ultrafine particles.

         [FA1]Bronverwijzing + was er ergens een verhoging?

         

        • Noise barriers are supposed to be effective in noise reduction

        An interesting study on the impact of barriers: “Field investigation of roadside vegetative and structural barrier impact on near-road ultrafine particle concentrations under a variety of wind conditions”. [LINK]

        Barrier

        • Bowker, G.E, et al. (2007). The Effects of Roadside Structures on the Transport and Dispersion of Ultrafine Particles from Highways. Atmospheric Environment, 43, 8128–39. [LINK]
        • Hagler, G.S.W. et al. (2012). Field Investigation of Roadside Vegetative and Structural Barrier Impact on near-Road Ultrafine Particle Concentrations under a Variety of Wind Conditions.  Science of The Total Environment, 419, 7–15. [LINK]
        • Ponti, M. et al. (2013).,  The European Transport Policy: Its Main Issues.  Case Studies on Transport Policy,1, 53–62. [LINK]
        • Santos, G. et al. (2010). Part II: Policy Instruments for Sustainable Road Transport. Research in Transportation Economics, 28, 46–91. [LINK]

         

        PUBLIC TRANSPORT

         

        Description 

        Public Transport  refers to facilitating and stimulating a switch from private vehicles to public transport methods such as bus, tram and train. Measures include changes to infrastructure, transportation method supply, taxation/monetary incentives, planning and policy initiatives.  

         

        Joaquin View

        Public transport is a sustainable form of mobility. Encouraging a switch to public transport, however, requires a “carrot and stick” approach. The carrot: Public transport needs to be attractive, well-designed, integrated, reliable, frequent, and affordable, a modern comprehensive information system makes public transport easy to use. The stick: measures to discourage car driving, such as making it more difficult and expensive. Several case studies showed a rebound effect, due to e.g. increased travel speeds related to less congestion train-commuters might opt for driving to work. Since modal shift to public transport results in decreasing traffic and congestion, the measure is considered to have beneficial effect on air quality, but the effect is difficult to demonstrate and has not been studied.

        The air quality potential of the measure is considered good, but the reliability of the data is considered low since there’s no air quality data available.
        Joaquin rates this measure as good.

         

         

        What: Carrot & Stick policies in London
        Where: London, United Kingdom
        When: 2002-2012

        Summary: Sustained investment in public transport has led to substantial modal shift; from 2002 to 2012 the percentage of trips using public transport rose from 35% to 43% and the percentage car trips fell from 42% to 33%. It is further estimated that Congestion Charge Scheme (CCS) encouraged between 40,000-50,000 private vehicle trips to shift to other modes, the majority to public transport. The profit from the CCS was invested in the bus service, allowing provision of extra buses, and the resulting reduced congestion led to a 30% reduction in excess wait time in central London in the first year.

         

        What: model studies of scenario’s
        Where: Barcelona, Spain
        When: 2012

        Summary: Modal shift from car trips to public transport (and/or cycling) was modelled assuming different scenarios. In Barcelona, reducing car trips by 20% and replacing them completely (or in 80%, with another 20% replaced by cycling) by public transport would result in 0.6% reduction in PM2.5. This reduction would double, if 40% car trips were reduced (assuming the same replacement by public transport and/or bicycles). The researchers conclude that interventions to reduce car use and increase the use of public transport in metropolitan areas, like Barcelona, can produce health benefits for the general population of the city. Also this helps to reduce green house gas emissions.

        Modal shift to public transport is expected to reduce traffic emissions due to lower number of private vehicles on the road, but studies on air quality effects are very scarce. Furthermore, air pollution effects are often difficult to quantify, as the efficiency of the measure is dependent on public behaviour. Implementation of bus lanes, especially when combined with bus priority traffic lights has proven to be effective in both increasing quality of public transport as in increasing air quality.

         

        Particulate Matter: depending on local situation, modal shift can decrease concentrations up to approximately 5%.

        NO2: moving busses to a dedicated bus lane can reduce levels with 5 to 15%.

        Soot: unknown.

         

        Keep in mind your measure should fit your local situation and ambition.

         

        • The common combination with active transport makes public transport beneficial to health

        • More public transport, especially for commuting, reduces rush hour traffic congestion

        • Promoting public transport by keeping fares low and have a good accessability for minorities increases social inclusion

        • This extensive scientific review on policies for sustainable road transport includes examples of successful implementations of public transport systems. [LINK]
        • This scientific paper discusses relevant European transport policy issues, including public transport. [LINK]

        Bus

        • Da Silva, C.B.P. et al. (2012) Evaluation of the Air Quality Benefits of the Subway System in São Paulo, Brazil. Journal of Environmental Management, 101, 191–96. [LINK]
        • Dhakal, S. (2003). Implications of Transportation Policies on Energy and Environment in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Energy Policy, 31, 1493–1507. [LINK]
        • Kilbane-Dawe, I. (2012). 14 Cost Effective Actions to Cut Central London Air Pollution. Hove: Par Hill Research Ltd. [LINK]
        • Ponti, M. et al. (2013) The European Transport Policy: Its Main Issues. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 1, 53–62. [LINK]
        • Rojas-Rueda, D. et al (2012). Replacing Car Trips by Increasing Bike and Public Transport in the Greater Barcelona Metropolitan Area: A Health Impact Assessment Study. ,49, 100–109. [LINK]
        • Sahlqvist, S. et al. (2012). Is Active Travel Associated with Greater Physical Activity? The Contribution of Commuting and Non-Commuting Active Travel to Total Physical Activity in Adults. ,55, 206–11. [LINK]
        • Santos, G. et al. (2010). Part II: Policy Instruments for Sustainable Road Transport. Research in Transportation Economics, 28, 46–91. [LINK]
        • Woodcock, J. et al (2007). Energy and Transport. The Lancet, 370, 1078–88. [LINK]

         

        SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION 

         

        Description 

        The reduction of traffic speed limits either fixed or variable on major roads in order to reduce emissions of traffic-related air pollutants..  

        Joaquin View

        Lower speed limits are associated with lower vehicle emissions, with a well-documented U-shaped relationship being found between traffic emissions and average speed, especially at constant speeds (See figure). Lower emissions should result in improved air quality near busy roads, which is found in the reported studies. The potential of the measure is considered good and the reliability of the data is considered moderate. Joaquin-rates this measure as good.

         

        What: Monitoring study
        Where
        : Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
        When: ongoing

        Summary:  In Amsterdam a speed limit reduction has been introduced on a residential stretch of the A10 motorway. Monitoring stations measured particulate matter, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and soot, both at the site with the reduced speed limit and at a separate section of the ring road, where speed limits had not been reduced (Dijkema et al. 2008).

        What: Monitoring study
        Where: Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
        When: 2003 – 2014

        Summary: A speed limit reduction (100 to 80km/h) was introduced in 2003 for a three km stretch of the A13 motorway. Political interference in 2012 increased the speed limit to 100 km/h, whereas justice interference in 2013 led to a speed limit reduction again to 80 km/h in 2014. The temporal speed limit increase was also introduced on the A10 near Amsterdam. Speed limits were enforced by an automatic trajectory speed limit control system but not in 2012-2013 period. Measurements of PM10, CO, NOx and CO2 at different distances from the road were made (Wesseling et al 2003). Measurements of traffic flow and air quality before and after the speed limit increase (2011-2012) were made (Willers, 2013).

        What: Modelling Study
        Where: Flanders, Belgium
        When: 2011

        Summary: Modelling studies for both Flemish highways (Levbre et al 2011) as well as residential areas (Madireddy et al 2011) on a speed limit reduction were executed.

        What: Modelling Study
        Where: Spain
        When: 2007 – 2013

        Summary: Two studies on both fixed and variable speed limit reduction in Barcelona implemented in 2007 and 2009 on congested sections of urban motorways. (Germà Bel and Jordi Rosell, 2013; Baldasano et al., 2010).

        Lower speed limits are associated with lower vehicle emissions, with a well-documented U-shaped relationship being found between traffic emissions and average speed, especially at constant speeds Generally, speed limit reduction enhances the free flow of traffic, leading to lower exhaust emissions than in congested traffic areas. Vehicle accelerations and decelerations will challenge this general finding.

        Lower emissions should result in lower concentrations for PM, NO2 and soot with associated positive health effects near busy roads.

         

        Particulate matter: Emissions of PM10 decrease 2-2.5 µg/m3, or around 8%, with minor decreases for finer particles. Model studies expected (much) smaller effects.

        NO2: Emission reduction of NOx range from negligible to 30%. A temporary speed limit increase increased NOx by 20% again

        Soot: A decrease of up to 10% for black carbon was found. A temporary speed limit increase increased EC by 17%. Model studies expected larger effects near highways.

        Other: Less traffic congestion or no changes were found. Emission reductions of 21% for CO were found.

         

         

        Keep in mind your measure should fit your local situation and ambition.

        .

        The following co-benefits in relation to limiting the traffic speed reported are as follows:

        • Less traffic accidents and casualties

        • Lower noise exposure

        • Less traffic congestion

        • Reduced fuel consumption is directly related to reduction of the emission of greenhouse gases.
        • Gain in life expectancy depending on distance from the motorway.

        Comprehensive and useful with a nice methodology and clear results:

        • Dijkema, M.B.A., et al.(2008)  Air quality effects of an urban highway speed limit reduction.  Atmospheric Environment.  42  9098-9105.
        • Olde Kalter, et al. (2005). Reducing speed limits on highways: Dutch experiences and impact on air pollution, noise-level, traffic safety and traffic flow. Proceedings of the European Transport Conference. [LINK]. An interesting study about the effects of speed limitation on various environmental factors (co-benefits) of interest.

         

        Traffic

        Fuel

        Speed limit

         

        • Baldasano, et al. (2010). Air pollution impacts of speed limitation measures in large cities: The need for improving traffic data in a metropolitan area. Atmospheric Environment, 44,  2997-3006.[LINK]
        • Bel G. and Rosell J. (2013). Effects of the 80 km/h and variable speed limits on air pollution in the metropolitan area of Barcelona. Transportation Research Part D, 23, 90–97.[LINK]
        • Coelho et al.(2005). A methodology for modelling and measuring traffic and emission performance of speed control traffic signals. Atmospheric Environment, 39 (13) 2367-2376.[LINK]
        • D’Elia, I. et al. (2009). Technical and Non-Technical Measures for air pollution emission reduction: The integrated assessment of the regional Air Quality Management Plans through the Italian national model. Atmospheric Environment, 43, 6182–6189.[LINK]
        • Dijkema, M.B.A., et al (2008). Air quality effects of an urban highway speed limit reduction, Atmospheric Environment, 42, 9098–9105.[LINK]
        • European Environment Agency (EEA) (2008) Success stories within the road transport sector on reducing greenhouse gas emission and producing ancillary benefits. Technical report No 2/2008.
        • Int Panis, L. et al. (2006). Modelling instantaneous traffic emission and the influence of traffic speed limits. Science of the Total Environment, 371, 270–285. [LINK]
        • Int Panis, L. et al. (2011). PM, NOx and CO2 emission reductions from speed management policies in Europe. Transport Policy, 18  32–37.[LINK]
        • Lefebre W. et al. (2011). Modeling the effects of a speed limit reduction on traffic-related elemental carbon (EC) concentrations and population exposure to EC. Atmospheric Environment, 45, 197-207.[LINK]
        • Keuken et al.(2010). Reduced NOx and PM10 emissions on urban motorways in The Netherlands by 80 km/h speed management. Science of the Total Environment, 408,  2517-2526.[LINK]
        • Keuken et al.(2012). Elemental carbon as an indicator for evaluating the impact of traffic measures on air quality and health. Atmospheric Environment, 61, 1-8.[LINK]
        • Madireddy, M. et al. (2011). Assessment of the impact of speed limit reduction and traffic signal coordination on vehicle emissions using an integrated approach. Transportation Research Part D, 16, 504–508.[LINK]
        • Nitzsche, E. and Tscharaktschiew S. (2013), Efficiency of speed limits in cities: A spatial computable general equilibrium assessment. Transportation Research Part A, 56, 23–48.[LINK]
        • Olde Kalter, et al. (2005). Reducing speed limits on highways: Dutch experiences and impact on air pollution, noise-level, traffic safety and traffic flow. Proceedings of the European Transport Conference. [LINK]
        • Van Beek et al. (2007). The effects of speed measures on air pollution and traffic safety. Proceedings of the European Transport Conference. [LINK]
        • Wesseling JP, et al. (2003). Research on the effects of 80 km/h on air quality in Overschie near the A13 motorway (in Dutch). TNO Report 2003-R0258.
        • Willers (2013). Speed limit increase motorway A13. The effect on air quality in Overschie. (in Dutch) DCMR report 21538704.  [LINK]

         

         

        TRAFFIC RESTRICTION

         

        Description 

        The reduction of traffic speed limits either fixed or variable on major roads in order to reduce emissions of traffic-relat

         

        Joaquin View

        The implementation of traffic restriction measures reduces traffic and hence has the potential to improve urban air quality. However, it is not viable as a long-term measure encompassing an entire city due to low acceptance and high risk of circumvention. It can be implemented on a short-term or one-off basis, e.g., during local events, when drastic reduction in an entire city or a part of it is desired. Clearly, the measure should fit to the local situation and ambitions. Awareness raising initiatives are strongly recommended to increase its acceptance. The potential of the measure is considered good/moderate and the reliability of the experimental data is considered good.

         

        What: Permanent traffic restriction
        WhereDundee, Schotland
        When: 1992

        Summary: together with the final construction of an inner ring road going round the city centre, traffic restrictions were simultaneously imposed in parts of the city centre.

        Results: Average monthly NO2 concentrations decreased by 58% comparing to the period before traffic restriction.

         

         

        What: Permanent traffic restriction
        Where: Mexico City, Mexico
        When: started in 1989 and going on ever since

        Summary: The program “Hoy No Circula” bans drivers from using their vehicles one day a week, based on the last digit of the vehicle’s license plate. The program was implemented in 1989 and immediately enforced by local police.

        Results: The program had not improved air quality (NOX, O3, SO2 and CO), largely owing to inhabitants to acquire vehicles, often second-hand and thus higher-emitting. Also public transport use had increased.

         

        What: Temporary traffic restriction campaign
        Where: cities throughout Europe
        When: European Mobility Week (yearly, September)

        Summary: Several areas of a town/city participated in “In Town Without My Car!” events, where solely pedestrians, cyclists, and public transport and no other traffic was allowed for entire day.

        Results: evaluating a day of traffic restriction in the city centre of Athens, Greece within the European Mobility Week showed VOC concentrations reduced by more than 50%.

         

        What: Temporary traffic restriction campaign
        Where: Busan, South Korea
        When: During the 16 days of 2002 Asian Games

        Summary: Passenger vehicles were not allowed to operate on specific days to improve an air quality in the city. Monitoring was done before, during, and after the Games, both in Bussan and in neighbouring Ulsan, where no measures were implemented.

        Results: Concentrations of ambient air pollutants during the traffic restriction period decreased (CO: 13%, NO2: 31%, O3: 2%, PM10: 18%, SO2: 25%) compared to before the measure was introduced

         

        What: Temporary traffic restriction campaign
        Where: Beijing, China
        When: 2008 Olympics

        Summary: In preparation to the Olympics and Paralympics, the city imposed several traffic restrictions: (1) heavy-emitting vehicles were barred from entering the city; (2) local trucks were banned between 6:00-24:00 within a radius of ~25 km from the city centre, and most non-local trucks were not allowed at all; (3) odd-even rule was introduced.

        Results: All these regulations resulted in daily removing ~60% of the vehicles from the roadways, median ambient soot concentrations were 73% lower (black carbon) on traffic-restriction days.

        Extra link

         

        What: Modelling study
        Where
        : Athens, Greece
        When:  2007

        Summary: Yannis et al.  considered different scenarios for delivery restriction measures in the city, such as different restriction times (morning or afternoon peak hours), days of week, and types of stores. Results: restricting delivery traffic suggested a 9%, 5%, and 5% reduction in CO, VOC, and SO2, respectively (during morning rush hour); when the restriction was considered for a whole day (excluding evening rush hour) – 1-3% reduction for the investigated components was predicted; in both scenarios percentage changes in NOX and PM were negligible.

         

        Lower speed limits are associated with lower vehicle emissions, with a well-documented U-shaped relationship being found between traffic emissions and average speed, especially at constant speeds Generally, speed limit reduction enhances the free flow of traffic, leading to lower exhaust emissions than in congested traffic areas. Vehicle accelerations and decelerations will challenge this general finding.

        Lower emissions should result in lower concentrations for PM, NO2 and soot with associated positive health effects near busy roads.

         

        Particulate matter: Emissions of PM10 decrease 2-2.5 µg/m3, or around 8%, with minor decreases for finer particles. Model studies expected (much) smaller effects.

        NO2: Emission reduction of NOx range from negligible to 30%. A temporary speed limit increase increased NOx by 20% again

        Soot: A decrease of up to 10% for black carbon was found. A temporary speed limit increase increased EC by 17%. Model studies expected larger effects near highways.

        Other: Less traffic congestion or no changes were found. Emission reductions of 21% for CO were found.

         

         

        Keep in mind your measure should fit your local situation and ambition.

        .

        The following co-benefits in relation to limiting the traffic speed reported are as follows:

        • Less traffic accidents and casualties

        • Lower noise exposure

        • Less traffic congestion

        • Reduced fuel consumption is directly related to reduction of the emission of greenhouse gases.
        • Gain in life expectancy depending on distance from the motorway.

        Comprehensive and useful with a nice methodology and clear results:

        • Dijkema, M.B.A., et al.(2008)  Air quality effects of an urban highway speed limit reduction.  Atmospheric Environment.  42  9098-9105.
        • Olde Kalter, et al. (2005). Reducing speed limits on highways: Dutch experiences and impact on air pollution, noise-level, traffic safety and traffic flow. Proceedings of the European Transport Conference. [LINK]. An interesting study about the effects of speed limitation on various environmental factors (co-benefits) of interest.

         

        Traffic

        Fuel

        Speed limit

         

        • Baldasano, et al. (2010). Air pollution impacts of speed limitation measures in large cities: The need for improving traffic data in a metropolitan area. Atmospheric Environment, 44,  2997-3006.[LINK]
        • Bel G. and Rosell J. (2013). Effects of the 80 km/h and variable speed limits on air pollution in the metropolitan area of Barcelona. Transportation Research Part D, 23, 90–97.[LINK]
        • Coelho et al.(2005). A methodology for modelling and measuring traffic and emission performance of speed control traffic signals. Atmospheric Environment, 39 (13) 2367-2376.[LINK]
        • D’Elia, I. et al. (2009). Technical and Non-Technical Measures for air pollution emission reduction: The integrated assessment of the regional Air Quality Management Plans through the Italian national model. Atmospheric Environment, 43, 6182–6189.[LINK]
        • Dijkema, M.B.A., et al (2008). Air quality effects of an urban highway speed limit reduction, Atmospheric Environment, 42, 9098–9105.[LINK]
        • European Environment Agency (EEA) (2008) Success stories within the road transport sector on reducing greenhouse gas emission and producing ancillary benefits. Technical report No 2/2008.
        • Int Panis, L. et al. (2006). Modelling instantaneous traffic emission and the influence of traffic speed limits. Science of the Total Environment, 371, 270–285. [LINK]
        • Int Panis, L. et al. (2011). PM, NOx and CO2 emission reductions from speed management policies in Europe. Transport Policy, 18  32–37.[LINK]
        • Lefebre W. et al. (2011). Modeling the effects of a speed limit reduction on traffic-related elemental carbon (EC) concentrations and population exposure to EC. Atmospheric Environment, 45, 197-207.[LINK]
        • Keuken et al.(2010). Reduced NOx and PM10 emissions on urban motorways in The Netherlands by 80 km/h speed management. Science of the Total Environment, 408,  2517-2526.[LINK]
        • Keuken et al.(2012). Elemental carbon as an indicator for evaluating the impact of traffic measures on air quality and health. Atmospheric Environment, 61, 1-8.[LINK]
        • Madireddy, M. et al. (2011). Assessment of the impact of speed limit reduction and traffic signal coordination on vehicle emissions using an integrated approach. Transportation Research Part D, 16, 504–508.[LINK]
        • Nitzsche, E. and Tscharaktschiew S. (2013), Efficiency of speed limits in cities: A spatial computable general equilibrium assessment. Transportation Research Part A, 56, 23–48.[LINK]
        • Olde Kalter, et al. (2005). Reducing speed limits on highways: Dutch experiences and impact on air pollution, noise-level, traffic safety and traffic flow. Proceedings of the European Transport Conference. [LINK]
        • Van Beek et al. (2007). The effects of speed measures on air pollution and traffic safety. Proceedings of the European Transport Conference. [LINK]
        • Wesseling JP, et al. (2003). Research on the effects of 80 km/h on air quality in Overschie near the A13 motorway (in Dutch). TNO Report 2003-R0258.
        • Willers (2013). Speed limit increase motorway A13. The effect on air quality in Overschie. (in Dutch) DCMR report 21538704.  [LINK]

         

         

        TRAFFIC SIGNAL COORDINATION

        Description 

        Traffic signal coordination is intended to improve traffic flow in order to reduce congestion, travel time as well as air pollution. There is a variety of control systems, ranging from static to dynamically controlled implementations. Dynamically controlled systems optimize the traffic flow using real-time traffic information but requires sophisticated control. 

         

        Joaquin View

        Traffic signal coordination is found to be effective in reducing travel time and noise. It decreases the flow dynamics and lower pollutant emissions are likely. However, not many studies are available to substantiate the effects on air quality

        It is important to bear in mind that changes in traffic flow do not influence travel time, noise and air quality in the same manner. For example, a smoother traffic flow will lead to lower emissions but not necessarily to lower noise emissions at every location. Overall, traffic light coordination is considered to be a valuable tool in improving the air quality in urban areas but little scientific data exist that substantiate this. The potential of the measure is considered good; the reliability of the data is moderate. The Joaquin consortium rates this measure as good.

         

        Traffic Signal coordination is often implemented in cities with a low emission zone and play an essential role in controlling the flow of the traffic. Some examples of static and dynamically controlled systems (also in combination with public transport) are given below.

         

        What:         Static Controlled Systems modelling study
        Where
        :        Antwerp, Belgium
        When:         2011

        Summary:  A model was used to estimate the effects of speed limitations and signal coordination on CO2 and NOx emissions for a residential area in Antwerp. Reductions in the order of 10% were calculated when a green wave signal coordination scheme along an urban arterial road was implemented. The effect of speed limitation was some 25%.

         

        What:          Dynamically Controlled Systems modelling study
        Where:         Ghent, Belgium
        When:          2012

        Summary:   From a modelling study in Ghent traffic intensity and green split (allocation of a green time depending on the traffic demand) appeared  to have the largest influence on air pollutant emissions;  the cycle time of traffic lights did not have a significant influence on emissions. The introduction of a green wave was found to reduce emissions up to 40% in the most favourable conditions.

         

        What:          Traffic signal coordination
        Where:         London, UK
        When:          2000

        Summary:   In order to capture potential air quality benefits through reducing congestion and queuing traffic light signals in London operate under the Urban Traffic Control (UTC) system using Split-Cycle Off-set Optimisation Technique (SCOOT). SCOOT is now available at around 3,000 of the 6,000 traffic junctions. In 2009/10 TfL completed signal timing reviews achieving approximately a six per cent reduction in stop/start delays at traffic signals. SCOOT is being expanded to a further 1,500 sites by 2019, to help reduce delays further and ease congestion.

         

        What:          Modelling study traffic signal coordination
        Where:         Leiden, NL
        When:           2006

        Summary:     A modelling study on the effects of a green-wave using the Dutch CAR model. A reduction of 35% reduction in emissions due to the green wave was assumed in advance. The traffic contribution to the NO2 concentration decreased from 8 to 6 µg/m3.

         

        What:             Replacing traffic lights by roundabouts
        Where:            New York, USA 
        When:             2006

        Summary:       The implementation of a roundabouts (to replace a junction with traffic lights) is another way of influencing traffic flows. In this example it has been modelled that such a measure would lower  NOx and CO2 with 16 to 21% when compared to traffic lights. Also, flow propagation increased.

         

        Traffic signal coordination in general yields gains in terms of congestion and air quality. Traffic emission appears influenced predominantly by the duration of green time depending on traffic demand. There are not many studies available to substantiate the effects on air quality.

        Particulate matter: Modelled traffic contribution to PM10 ranged from 2 to 3 µg/m3 with and without the green wave in a Dutch study. Hence, the effect on PM10 appeared negligible.

        NO2: In the same study the modelled traffic contribution to NO2 for road sections ranged from 8 to 10 µg/m3 without and from 6 to 7 µg/m3 with a green wave implemented.

        A Belgian study concluded that the introduction of a green wave potentially lowers emissions by 10-40% in the most favourable conditions

        Soot: No information is given in these examples.

         

         

        Keep in mind your measure should fit your local situation and ambition.

        .

        The following co-benefits in relation to traffic signal coordination have been reported:

        • Improving safety of people

        • Improving economic efficiency of transport

        • Improving people’s ability to arrive at different locations by different transport modes

        • Decreasing sound pressure levels near the traffic signals (but the levels were found to increase between intersections)

        • Reductions up to 40% in pollutants’ emissions have been reported

        • Reducing fuel consumption by vehicles

        • Reducing the time cars wait at side roads

        • Giving pedestrians more time to cross at crossings

        • Madireddy et al (2011) is an interesting study which gives an example of a coordinated approach to tackle the issue of heavy traffic and emissions from vehicles. It estimates by modeling the impact of speed limit reduction and traffic signal coordination on vehicle emissions. [LINK]
        • Better mobility in Copenhagen, ITS Action Plan 2015-2016 demonstrates nice examples of various implementation of traffic signal coordination pilot studies in the city of Copenhagen (November 2014), Technical and Environmental Administration, City of Copenhagen. [LINK]
        • The strategy designed by London Authorities have been presented in: Transport emissions roadmap Cleaner transport for a cleaner London (September 2014), amongst which the implementation of a traffic light coordination system. [LINK]

           

          Traffic
          Light
          Congestion

           

           

          • Andre, M., et al. (1995). Impact de l’amélioration de la régulation du trafic sur la consommation d’énergie et les émissions de polluants des véhicules légers. Science of the Total Environment, 169, 273-282. [LINK]
          • De Coensel, B., et al. (2012). Effects of traffic signal coordination on noise and air pollutant emissions. Environmental Modelling & Software, 35, 74-83. [LINK]
          • Kilbane-Dawe, I. (2012). 14 cost effective actions to cut Central London air pollution. Par Hill Research Ltd, UK.[LINK]
          • Krawack, S. (1993). Traffic management and emissions. Science of the Total Environment, 134, 305-314. [LINK]
          • Madireddy, M., et al. (2011). Assessment of the impact of speed limit reduction and traffic signal coordination on vehicle emissions using an integrated approach. Transportation Research Part D, 16, 504–508.[LINK]
          • Klooster, J., et al. (2006). Lucht in Leiden. Beoordeling van maatregelen ter verbetering van de luchtkwaliteit in Leiden. Delft, CE, 2006 [LINK]
          • Transport emissions roadmap, Cleaner transport for a cleaner London (September 2014) [LINK]

          Source : Joaquin