Transcript The presentation template - Institute for Transport Studies

School offorsomething
Institute
Transport Studies
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT
OTHER
Pollution or congestion charging?
Air quality measures and road pricing
in Milan, Italy
Giulio Mattioli
[email protected]
ITS Seminar Series, 5 March 2015
Urban road pricing referenda (EU)
% Yeas
• Edinburgh (2005): 26%
• Manchester (2008): 21%
• Gothenburg (2014): 43%
• Stockholm (2007): 51%
• Milan (2011): 79%
• more vehicles charged
• increased charge
• extension of charging area
Milan’s experience with charging
More exceptional features:
• framed in the contest of air quality concerns
• introduced by right-of-the-centre city government
• (local) press very supportive of charging
• referendum promoted by environmental association
• pollution charging turned into congestion charging
• still little known internationally
• OECD International Transport Forum Award 2014
Case study
Reasons of interest:
• challenge assumption of unacceptability of road pricing
• use of air quality evidence in policy debate on charging
• EC launching legal action against UK over air quality (2014)
• Ultra Low Emission Zone in London
• Growing interest for transport - city politics link (Walks, 2015)
Approach
• literature review on public acceptability of road pricing
• desk research (official reports, local press articles, 2008-2012)
• quantitative analysis of electoral + census data
Structure of the presentation
1. Milan: background information
2. Pollution & congestion charging 2000-present
3. 2011 referendum: reasons for high acceptability
4. The use of air quality measures in the policy debate
Italian metropolitan areas
Source: Boffi, Colleoni & Palvarini, 2013, based on Italian Census 2001
Milan metropolitan area
Source: Boffi & Palvarini, 2011, based on Italian Census 2001
Milan: transport
• Italy - highest EU motorisation rate after Luxembourg: 62.1
passenger cars / 100 inhabitants
• Milan: 51.8 cars /100 in. (EU cities median=43.6)
• car modal share: 39%; PT: 43% (trips within city proper)
• “among the cities with the highest car concentration in the world”
(Rotaris et al. 2010)
• Illegal parking rate: 46%
• Tom Tom European Traffic Index 2013: 24th (2011: 11th)
Inrix Traffic Scorecard 2014: 1st (2010: 4th)
Milan: transport
Picture: Stefano Agretti
Adverse geo-climatic conditions
• Po Valley: almost enclosed basin (2,000-4,000m mountain range)
• Average wind speed: 0.9 m/sec. EU cities average: 2.5 m/sec
• Temperature inversion in winter
Source: Earth observatory NASA
Air quality (2012)
European Environmental Agency – Air Quality in Europe
– 2014 Report:
• Concentrations of PM10 PM2.5: high levels (in exceedance of annual
target values) in the Po Valley
• High values also for O3, NO2, BaP, CO
School of something
Chronology
FACULTY OF OTHER of events
Period
Mayor
Events
2001-2006
Albertini (right)
Road pricing debated
Ecopass (pollution charge) in
the making
2006-2008
2008
Moratti (right)
Ecopass implemented
2009-2011
Ecopass in question
2011
Mayoral elections +
referendum on extension
2012
2012-
Pisapia (left)
Area C (congestion charge)
implemented
Extension of charging area
discussed
1999-2008
• 1999/2002: EU Directive
limit values for PM10 (with effect from 2005) daily: 50 μg/m3, for not
more than 35 days per year; Calendar year average: 40 μg/m3
• 2006: Edoardo Croci (Prof. Environmental Economics) Transport,
Mobility and Environment Local Councillor
• 2006: working group (academics / city officials) on cordon pricing
• 2008: Ecopass introduced
• 2009: Croci forced to resign
• 2010: MilanosiMuove initiative
• 2011: Referendum on upgrade & extension
Ecopass (2008-2011)
Class
Main vehicle category
Char
ge (€)
1
Low Emission Vehicles
0
2
Petrol Euro 3-4, Diesel 4 with particulate filter
0
3
Petrol Euro 1-2
2
4
Petrol Euro 0 + other diesel
5
5
Diesel cars Euro 0 + Dieseò commercial vehicles Euro 02
10
Source: ICLEI, 2013
• aims, monitoring and
communication focused on
pollution
• deliberate “foot in the door”
strategy?
• ANPR technology
• Mon-Fi, 7:30-19:30
• Discounts for frequent users &
residents
• Part of package including PT
improvements
Charging area
• “historical city centre”, area within 16th century city walls
• small: 8.2km2, 4.5% of municipality (London: 22km2, Stockholm: 47
km2)
• but massive concentration of employment / population density during the
day (central business district)
• concentration of households with high socio-economic status in the area
Ecopass: results
Vehicle access to the charging zone:
• drastic drop in 2008 (-21%), then increase (but still -16.2 by 2011)
• rapid increase in the share of exempted vehicles (2007: 50%; 2008:
75%; 2010: 90%) – fleet renewal
PM10 levels:
• estimated reduction of emissions produced within the area: -15% (2008)
• difficult to discern effects on measures of monitoring stations
• 2009: first European city to reach the threshold of 35 days; 2011: the
35-day threshold is reached by 7th February (worst result since 2006)
• Ruprecht et al. (2008): no significant difference in PM levels between
Ecopass area and outside
 heated public debate on ‘failure of Ecopass”
Area C (2012-present)
Pricing scheme:
• Daily: 5€
• Registered resident 2-3€
• Multiple daily tickets (30 & 60€)
• Combined Area C + Garage
initiative
• Exempted: motorcycles and
scooters, EVs & hybrid,
natural gas, LPG and bi-fuel
vehicles (until end 2016)
• Forbidden vehicles: Euro 0
petrol, Euro 0, 1, 2, 3 diesel,
>7.5 meters
• Mon, Tu, We, Fri: 7.30-19.30;
Thu: 7.30-18
• part of package with
investment in modal
alternatives, etc.
Area C: results (2012-2014)
• Vehicle access to CA: -28%/-31% (base: 2011)
• Modal shift to PT (+4% trips in 2012 over whole city) but also
motorbikes
• -26% road accidents in CA
• Increased speed for tramways (+4%) and buses (+7%)
• Revenue (2012): 11.2 million € (operational costs: 6.5 million €)
• Modelled reductions in emissions produced within CA: PM10 source (10%); PM10 tot (-18%); NH3 (-42%); Nox (-18%); CO2 (-35%)
2011 Referendum:
reasons for high acceptability
1. Wording on the ballot-papers
2. Simultaneity with other local & national referenda
3. Vote driven by political motives
4. Small charging area
5. Framing in terms of air quality (rather than congestion)
1. Wording on the ballot-paper
Comprehensive strategy - goals:
..to be financed with new
congestion charge (5-10€)
• Doubling of pedestrian areas by 2012
for all vehicles + gradual
• Doubling of 30km/h areas by 2012
extension of the area to
outer ring
• Bike lanes network of 300km by 2015
• Protection of all Bus lanes by 2015
• Introduction of neighbourhood bus
service
• Extension of bike sharing / car
sharing services
• Subway service during the night
• Improving of taxi services
Goal: -50% traffic, -50% polluting
emissions
1. Simultaneity with other referenda
School of something
(12-13
June 2011)
FACULTY OF OTHER
Referendum
Local
(citizen’s
initiative)
National
(abrogative)
Yeas (%) Voter turnout (%)
Item-test correlation
Traffic & pollution
79
49
0.93
Public green space
96
49
0.98
Expo
96
49
0.98
Energy efficiency
95
49
0.98
City canals
94
49
0.98
Water – privatisation
92
52
0.97
Water – tariffs
93
52
0.97
Nuclear
92
52
0.97
Legitimate impediment
94
52
0.97
3. Referendum results
Congestion Charing: % of Yeas (on valid votes)
Source: own elaboration on electoral data
3. Referendum results
Congestion Charing: % of Yeas (on registered electors)
Source: own elaboration on electoral data
3. Referendum results
Source: own elaboration on electoral data + census data
3. Referendum results
Source: own elaboration on electoral data + census data
4. Small charging area
• Current area: 8km2, 4.5% of municipality (still in 2015)
• But referendum demand extension to larger road ring area: 29km2,
15.7% of municipality
Use of air quality evidence
Ecopass (2008-2011)
Supporters:
• Health impacts emphasised/exaggerated
• Scheme presented as a work in progress (or a foot in the door?)
• Both high and low PM levels are used to support upgrade/extension
Opponents:
• Ecopass as a failed experiment (because of high PM)
• But proposed alternatives are even more radical: close to traffic entirely
(at least part of) the city centre; traffic restrictions based on alternate
number plates day (during periods of “environmental emergency”)
• Need for some form of traffic restriction not questioned
Use of air quality evidence
Area C(2012-present)
Supporters:
• Attempt to decouple ‘congestion’ charging from pollution. New goals:
traffic reduction, quality of urban environment
• still seizing every available piece of evidence to suggest impact on air
pollution / health risk reduction
• Launched Black Carbon (BC) monitoring project (2012)
Opponents:
• Remind high levels of PM / breach of EU limits
• Question the legitimacy of BC as an indicator of health risk
• Accuse city government of making instrumental use evidence / push
forward hidden “anti-car” agenda
• Failed to gather enough signatures for a referendum
Black Carbon
WHO (2012):
• better indicator of harmful particulate substances from combustion
sources (especially traffic) than PM (at least for short-term health effects)
• within-city variability is greater than for PM mass, particularly in relation
to traffic
• health effects of traffic limitation policies may be seriously
underestimated when based on effects estimates for PM2.5 or PM10
• Climate forcing agent
Black Carbon
Invernizzi et al. (2011):
“Traffic restrictions are an unpopular tool to mitigate urban air
pollution, and a measurable improvement in air quality is needed to
demonstrate the effectiveness of this measure. Previous attempts
failed to detect measurable reductions of PM mass pollution within the
areas subject to traffic restriction. However, black carbon, which is
emitted primarily by traffic sources, could be a PM metric more suitable
to demonstrate pollutant reductions”
BC monitoring report (2012):
• -28/-40% BC in the charging area (as compared to outside)
• -75%/-78% on ‘carfree sundays’ (as compared to normal Sunday)
• no significant within-city variation in PM
• strong correlation between traffic levels and BC
Latest developments
Municipality - Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (2015)
• extension of charging area postponed: double cordon-pricing (2.5€
each) “to be implemented in the long term” (2022?)
• Back to pollution charging? Low Emission Zone
MilanosiMuove
• promoting online petition for extension of charging area and reduction of
exemptions / discounts
EU
• introducing BC as additional measure?
• …or scrapping air quality directive completely?
Milan LEZ
• among the projects of the new Sustainable Urban Mobility plan
• ANPR-based (100 gates)
• 136 km2 – 75% of municipality
• access rules to be defined
Conclusions:
Public and political acceptability
• EU air quality directives opened a “window of opportunity” for political
entrepreneurs aiming to limit car use in Milan
• Framing of pricing debate in terms of air quality / health undermines
legitimacy of outright opposition
• The terrain of conflict is often the use of air quality evidence
• All actors: opportunistic use of evidence. Use air quality measures that
conform to their agenda
• Referendum results can be strongly influenced by wider political
dynamics, especially when paired with other elections (cfr.
Gothenburg)
Links (in English)
• www.comune.milano.it/areac
• Mattioli G; Boffi M; Colleoni M (2012) Milan’s pollution charge:
sustainable transport and the politics of evidence (online conference
paper)
• ICLEI, 2013, “The Ecopass pollution charge and Area C congestion
charge, comparing experiences with cordon pricing over time”
School offorsomething
Institute
Transport Studies
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT
OTHER
Thank you for your attention
Giulio Mattioli
[email protected]