Air Action Prioritaire Areas (ZAPA) ECOTALE seminar April 18th, 2013 Hervé LEVIFVE, APUR research analyst

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Air Action Prioritaire Areas (ZAPA) ECOTALE seminar April 18th, 2013 Hervé LEVIFVE, APUR research analyst"

Allyson Gardner
6 years ago
Views:

1 Air Action Prioritaire Areas (ZAPA) ECOTALE seminar April 18th, 2013 Hervé LEVIFVE, APUR research analyst 1

2 Poor air quality, a significant issue in Ile-de-France European air quality standards for NOx and Particulate Matter (PM10 et PM 2,5) are regularly exceeded in the region 2

3 Particulate pollution (PM10 et PM 2.5) 29 mars 2012 Index avril 2012 Index 54 3

4 Health impacts of air pollution by particulates Background pollution: Non-compliance with WHO- AQG = life expectancy reduced by 6 months in Paris ( Traffic corridor exposure : 16% of all new cases of asthma in children (<17 years) 24% of Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and 32% of coronary heart diseases in adults

5 ZAPA: a scheme initiated by the State A flagship measure of the Grenelle II Bill (12/07/2010), translating the EU directive 2008/50/CE on ambient air quality 2011 : EU lawsuit over the violation of particulate matter emission limits Objective : to reduce air pollution in large cities (targeted pollutants are NOx and PM): Restricting or banning access for the most polluting vehicles Implementing measures that incitivise a shift towards less polluting modes of transport or clean vehicle uptake A call for project proposals launched by the French energy agency (ADEME) to assess the feasibility of ZAPAs: 8 candidate communities (Paris, Plaine Commune, Grand Lyon, Grenoble Alpes Métropole, Pays d Aix, Clermont-Ferrand, Bordeaux, Nice Cote d Azur) A 3 to 4 ½ years experiment, starting from 2012/2013 Feasability studies handed in by July 2012 (interim reports by octobre 2011) Financial assistance provided by ADEME Timeline: Octobre 2010: deadline for submitting project proposals March 2011: beginning of studies July 2012: deadline for submitting progress reports National steering committee under the auspices of ADEME 5

6 Overview of European experiences with LEZ Some 180 LEZs across Europe : First LEZs introduced in the early 1990 s A wide range of approaches: access restriction or polluter pays principle (windscreen stickers, ANPR, ) A majority of cordon-based schemes (as oppose to than corridor-based), of very variable sizes (2 to 1500 km²) 120 of cases targeting all kinds of traffic (i.e. Germany and Italy) 40 cases targeting only HGVs Before

7 Overview of European experiences Some relevant examples: - London : 1500 km², HGVs (since 2008) + LGVs as of Ruhr district (comprising several communes) : 224 km², all trafic, since Milan : 1200 km², all traffic targeted, phased implementation since Copenhague : 88 km², HGVs, since

8 Litigation over particulate matters On May 19th, 2011, France was taken to the European Court of Justice for failing to comply with EU air quality limits for PM France has so far failed to effectively tackle excess emissions of these particles in several zones across he country explained a statement made by the Commission. Limits values set by the Directive 2008/50/CE must not be exceeded more than 35 times in a calendar year. Since the legislation entered into force in 2005, limit values for PM10 have not been respected in 16 air quality zones across France. The regions concerned are: Marseille, Toulon, Avignon, Paris, Valenciennes, Dunkerque, Lille, the Nord Pas-de-Calais Territory, Grenoble, Montbéliard/Belfort, Lyon, the rest of the Rhône-Alpes Region, the urbanised coastal area of Alpes- Maritimes, Bordeaux, Réunion and Strasbourg. France requested an extension of the deadline to meet the stated objectives and launched the call for the ZAPA project proposals but the Commission considered that conditions were only in place in Strasbourg. Despite an earlier reasoned opinion asking France to act, air quality standards are still exceed in the 15 remaining air quality zones. As a result, the Commission has decided to take France to court. 8

Current state - 2010 NO2 3,2 million people exposed to NO2 levels

concentrations are found within the A86 boundary 9 out of 10

to PM10 levels above air quality guidelines 90 % of people exposed

9 Current state NO2 3,2 million people exposed to NO2 levels above limit values 90 % of those exposed to abovelimit concentrations are found within the A86 boundary 9 out of 10 parisians live in an exceedance area PM10 1 million people exposed to PM10 levels above air quality guidelines 90 % of people exposed to an exceedance of AQG are found within the A86 boundary 2/3 of them live in Paris 9

NO2 2015 projections, without any actions from a ZAPA Expected

the A86 boundary (90 % of people exposed) 2,6 million people

particle plan : levels still remain above LV within the A86

10 NO projections, without any actions from a ZAPA Expected reduction in background pollution levels But still above LV within the A86 boundary (90 % of people exposed) 2,6 million people exposed to levels above LV PM10 Without take into account the particle plan : levels still remain above LV within the A86 boundary (90 % of people exposed, 2/3 in Paris) people exposed to levels above LV 10

Reminder: evaluation of PDU Environmental evaluation of the PDU: Reduction of light vehicles (LV) and motorized two-wheelers (M2W) by 2% (7% increase in number of trips made between 2006 and 2020)

11 Reminder: evaluation of PDU Environmental evaluation of the PDU: Reduction of light vehicles (LV) and motorized two-wheelers (M2W) by 2% (7% increase in number of trips made between 2006 and 2020) PM10 emissions Evolution of distance traveled by LV between 2005 and 2020 Evolution of PM10 emission Air quality benefits are not sufficient enough to comply with EU limit values for Nox et PM10 20% GHG emissions reduction goal achieved But very modest effect on pollutant emissions

12 Two local polluants : NOx et Particulates (PM 10 & 2.5) Road traffic is the single most important source of emission 30% of PM emissions related to road traffic are due to tire and brake wear

should be covered by the scheme? Which vehicles should be targeted?

13 Identifying scenarios NOx PM2.5 Objective: which scenarios to consider as the most appropriate for implementing a ZAPA: Which area should be covered by the scheme? Which vehicles should be targeted? Analysis carried out: Assessment of emission benefits (local air pollutants, CO 2 ) Assessment of air quality improvements: number of people exposed to emission levels above LV Reducing costs Number of vehicles per km affected.

14 Vehicle classification scheme 2 WR

15 Areas and corridors considered for a ZAPA 15

8 test scenarios Targeted vehicles N Area covered by scheme Number of communes Population (million)

2 105 2* 2 3* 3 2* 4 3* 5 2* 6 Paris (ring road included) + Plaine Commune Paris (ring road

road included) + radial motorway corridors + A86 1 commune + 1 agglo (8 communes) 1 commune + 1

) 2.5 149 2.5 149 2.2 105 2.2 105 Area lying within the A86 boundary (A86 included) 76 communes 4.

16 8 test scenarios Targeted vehicles N Area covered by scheme Number of communes Population (million) Surface area (km²) 3* 1 Paris (ring road included) 1 commune * 2 3* 3 2* 4 3* 5 2* 6 Paris (ring road included) + Plaine Commune Paris (ring road included) + Plaine Commune Paris (ring road included) + radial motorway corridors + A86 Paris (ring road included) + radial motorway corridors + A86 1 commune + 1 agglo (8 communes) 1 commune + 1 agglo (8 communes) 1 commune + state (manager of motorways ) 1 commune + state (manager of motorways ) Area lying within the A86 boundary (A86 included) 76 communes * 7 3* 8 Area lying within the A86 boundary (A86 included) 76 communes Area lying within the A86 boundary (A86 excluded) 76 communes

17 Vehicles targeted by scenario 2* and 3* Scénario 2* Scénario 3* Scenario 2* M2W < 07/2004 LV and VUL petrol < 01/1997 LV and VUL diesel < 01/2001 HGV < 10/2006 Scenario 3* M2W < 07/2004 LV and VUL petrol < 01/1997 LV and VUL diesel < 01/2006 HGV < 10/

18 Impacts Impact assessments carried out under all 8 scenarios: - Air quality - Road traffic - Public transport network - Socio-economic effects Implementation constraints and challenges related to: - Metropolitan governance - Enforcement 18

19 Impacts on air quality 2015 forecasts without ZAPA 2015 forecasts with ZAPA (A86 3* scenario) NO2 Limit values Limit values PM10 WHO- AQG 19

20 Baisse (en %) des émissions dues au trafic routier Impacts on air quality Emission reduction (%) from different scenarios (baseline: 2015 without LEZ) Decrease in population exposed (%) to concentration levels above 2008/50/CE LV (baseline: 2015 without LEZ) 35% 30% Baisse émissions NOx Baisse émissions PM10 Baisse émissions PM2.5 Baisse émissions CO2 Baisse population exposée : Valeur Limite NO2 Baisse population exposée : Objectif de Qualité PM10 Baisse population exposée : Valeur Cible PM2.5 40% 35% 25% 30% 20% 25% 15% 10% 20% 15% 10% 5% 5% 0% Intra-A86 A86 incluse 2** Intra-A86 A86 incluse 3*** Intra-A86 A86 exclue 3*** Paris + Axes A86 incluse 2** Paris + Axes avec A86 3*** Paris+PlaineCo 2** Paris+PlaineCo 3*** Paris 3*** 0% Intra-A86 A86 incluse 2** Intra-A86 A86 incluse 3*** Intra-A86 A86 exclue 3*** Paris + Axes A86 incluse 2** Paris + Axes avec A86 3*** Paris+PlaineCo 2** Paris+PlaineCo 3*** Paris 3*** None of the scenarios help to eliminate exposure to above-limit values Going from scenario 2* to 3* is found to have a greater impact in improving PM emission (given that the scheme is extended to include LV and diesel LGVs) 20

Impacts on air quality Population exposed > LV NO2 Population exposed > AQG PM10 1. The objective of not having people exposed to above-lvs is never achieved 2.

Scenarios that are likely to achieve the most significant impact in reducing the number of people exposed are those covering the largest area and number of

21 Impacts on air quality Population exposed > LV NO2 Population exposed > AQG PM10 1. The objective of not having people exposed to above-lvs is never achieved 2. A natural renewal of fleet (situation without any actions from ZAPA) roughly provides the same results 3. Scenarios that are likely to achieve the most significant impact in reducing the number of people exposed are those covering the largest area and number of vehicles affected. These recommended ZAPAs could not be implemented within the current framework: only one local authority, no assistance for enforcement, high related socio-economic impacts (50% of vehicle fleet affected). 21

22 22 Impact on road traffic PARIS 3*** PARIS + corridors 3*** A86 excluded 3*** A86 included 3*** Resulting overloading/ underload on main network according to different scenarios

23 Impact on road traffic PARIS 3*** PARIS + AXES 3*** A86 excluded 3*** A86 included 3*** Resulting traffic congestion/ relief on the local network 23

24 Impact on road traffic Assuming that 70% of owners of affected PV will replace their vehicles (standard long-term turnover rate in IDF ) and that 30% will shift to public transport, the implementation of a ZAPA would: Reduce car traffic within the banned area, trigger re-routing of traffic towards the periphery Most favorable scenario: area within the A86 boundary Traffic conditions within the inner ring ( petite couronne ) will worsen under both Paris and Paris + corridors scenarios Overload on parts of the public transport network A slight increase in the number of passengers on the PT network under both Paris and Paris + Plaine Commune scenarios (except for the northern parts of metro lines 7 and 13 under the Paris + Plaine Commune scenario) Under scenario A86 3*, some people will shift to PT during morning peak hours, overloading lines M13,T2, T3, T6 24

25 Socio-economic impacts First approach : impact on vehicle fleets registered in IDF Almost vehicles could be affected by 2012 out of the total fleet registered in Ile-de-France ( vehicles) Ile-de- France TOTAL FLEET RESTRICTED ** RETRICTED *** PV % % LGV % % HGV % % TOTAL % % It should be noted that: All vehicles will be banned from entering the zone Only vehicles registered in IDF are counted Without action from the ZAPA: All vehicle 2* would be replaced by 2020 All vehicle 3* would be replaced by

26 Socio-economic impacts Second approach : impact by traffic type, type of workers and journey purpose 1. Goods traffic Paris A86 TOTAL FLEET BANNED ** BANNED *** LGV % % HGV % % LGV % % HGV % % 2. Passenger traffic (RATP) TOTAL FLEET BANNED ** BANNED *** % % 3. Car-dependent workers TOTAL FLEET BANNED ** BANNED *** Estimation haute % % Estimation basse % % 4. Commuting TOTAL FLEET BANNED ** BANNED *** VP % % VUL % % TOTAL % % 26

Socio economic impacts Contraints on mobility Shortcomings of the current transit system 11% of residents of the central part of the agglomeration face poor transit access Wide

27 Socio economic impacts Contraints on mobility Shortcomings of the current transit system 11% of residents of the central part of the agglomeration face poor transit access Wide spatial disparities : up to 80% of residents in Val-de-Marne and Seine-Saint-Denis 8% of jobs are poorly-served by transit (23% in Val-de-Marne and 18% in Seine-Saint-Denis) 27

28 Socio-economic impacts Constraints on mobility: wide spatial disparities in public transport access to jobs 28

29 Issues raised by the ZAPA scheme Shortcomings: The introduction of a ZAPA is primarily aimed at speeding up the uptake of cleaner vehicles in the fleet (5 to 10 years gain in car fleet renewal) A short time scale for the experimental phase Funds are needed for supporting measures An efficient enforcement system would require high investment costs Social acceptability issues: the ZAPA mainly targets older vehicles which are often owned by people with lower income and which tend to make shorter trips Integration with other policy strategies and measures (SDRIF, rebate/freebate schemes, HGV tolls) is needed Deals with only two pollutants (nuisances not taken into account: noise as well as HC, VOC, CO and GHG emissions ) 29

30 Thank you for your attention! 30

Emission models, air pollution assessment

Emission models, air pollution assessment - French activities, needs and priorities - a point of view from IFSTTAR EMISIA COPERT workshop Lyon, 27 May 2016 Michel ANDRÉ Planning, Mobility, Environment