Presentation of Christophe Stroobants (Flanders Environment Agency) on 'Joaquin decision support tool' during the conference 'Environmental challenges & Climate change opportunities' organised by Flanders Environment Agency (VMM)
3. 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
4. • 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
5. • 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
6. 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
8. 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
9. Decision Support Tool – Fact sheets
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.
10. EXAMPLES | EFFECTS | CO-BENEFITS | SUGGESTED READ | KEYWORDS
RELATED FACTSHEETS | REFERENCES
Decision Support Tool – Fact sheets
MEASURE
Traffic Charging Zone (AKA Congestion Charging, Road Use Charging)
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.
11. Decision Support Tool – Fact sheets
MEASURE
Traffic Charging Zone (AKA Congestion Charging, Road Use Charging)
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.
EXAMPLES | EFFECTS | CO-BENEFITS | SUGGESTED READ | KEYWORDS
RELATED FACTSHEETS | REFERENCES
12. Decision Support Tool – Fact sheets
MEASURE
Traffic Charging Zone (AKA Congestion Charging, Road Use Charging)
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.
EXAMPLES | EFFECTS | CO-BENEFITS | SUGGESTED READ | KEYWORDS
RELATED FACTSHEETS | REFERENCES
13. Decision Support Tool – Fact sheets
MEASURE
Traffic Charging Zone (AKA Congestion Charging, Road Use Charging)
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]
EXAMPLES | EFFECTS | CO-BENEFITS | SUGGESTED READ | KEYWORDS
RELATED FACTSHEETS | REFERENCES
14. Decision Support Tool – Fact sheets
MEASURE
Traffic Charging Zone (AKA Congestion Charging, Road Use Charging)
KEYWORDS
• Number of vehicles
• Congestion charging
• Taxation
• City
• PM10
• NO2
• Soot
EXAMPLES | EFFECTS | CO-BENEFITS | SUGGESTED READ | KEYWORDS
RELATED FACTSHEETS | REFERENCES
15. Decision Support Tool – Fact sheets
MEASURE
Traffic Charging Zone (AKA Congestion Charging, Road Use Charging)
RELATED FACTSHEETS
• CleanVehicles
• ElectricVehicles
• Modal Shift
• Traffic reallocation
• Traffic signal coordination
EXAMPLES | EFFECTS | CO-BENEFITS | SUGGESTED READ | KEYWORDS
RELATED FACTSHEETS | REFERENCES
16. Decision Support Tool – Fact sheets
MEASURE
Traffic Charging Zone (AKA Congestion Charging, Road Use Charging)
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]
EXAMPLES | EFFECTS | CO-BENEFITS | SUGGESTED READ | KEYWORDS
RELATED FACTSHEETS | REFERENCES
