Dr Claire Holman, Brook Cottage Consultants & IAQM Vice Chair - LEZs: Are they effective?

1. Efficacy of Low Emissions Zones
Claire Holman
University of Birmingham/Brook Cottage Consultants
Routes to Clean Air, Bristol 22/23 Oct 2015

2. • Characterizing similarities & differences in PM sources & contributions across S-
EU (5 cities)
• Once the main sources of PM10 and PM2.5 are identified, the strategic goal of the
AIRUSE project is to develop, test and propose specific and non specific
measures to abate urban ambient air PM in S.-EU, to meet AQ standards &
to approach WHO guidelines.
Specific PM mitigation measures
• Street washing & dust suppressants for road dust and deposited African dust
• Biomass burning
• Industrial emissions (channelled and fugitive)
• Strategies from other European countries (LEZ, eco-efficient vehicle labelling,
shipping, biomass burning…)
The AIRUSE Project Aims

3. Low Emission Zones (LEZs)
• Defined area with entry restrictions based on vehicle emissions
• First established in Sweden in 1996
• >200 (excluding numerous small LEZs in Lombardy region of Italy)
• Increasing number
• Existing LEZs becoming more stringent
• Typically based on Euro emission standards

4. LEZs Primarily Driven by Exceedances of PM10 Limit
• Limit values to be achieved by
2005 (deferment to June 2011
was possible)
• Large number of non compliance
areas
• Commission Infringement actions
against 16 Member States
• (6 procedures under way for NO2)
• WHO annual mean guideline more
stringent (20 µg/m3 ) than EU limit
value EU (40 µg/m3)
• EU Daily limit value more difficult
to achieve than annual mean;
exceeded in 81 German cities
(Wolfe, 2014)
• Large non-compliance fines
possible

5. Attainment of Daily PM10 Limit Value
In 2012, ca 21 % of the urban population in the EU-28 was exposed to PM10
above the daily limit value
Source: Air Quality in Europe — 2014 report, EEA, 2014

6. EU Infringement Procedure
1. Formal notice
• National government has 2 months to respond
2. Reasoned opinion
• No/unsatisfactory response; EC states why they think there has been a breach
• National government 2 months to respond
3. Referral to European Court of Justice
• 85% of cases resolved without litigation
4. Judgement by ECJ
• Decision after average of 2 years
• National government to resolve issue asap
5. Case returned to ECJ
• Commission may return to court and propose penalty

7. Possible Fines
• Maastricht Treaty Article 228
allows member states to be fined
for failing to comply with ECJ
judgments
• Periodic penalty payment and/or
lump sum
• Fines based on the duration and
the seriousness of
infringement and ability to pay
• Leipzig may have to pay 700,000
EUR/day for exceeding PM10 limit
values (Wolff+Perry, 2010)
Dp = (Bfrap x Cs x Cd) x n
where:
Dp = daily penalty payment;
Bfrap = basic flat-rate amount
“penalty payment”
Cs = coefficient for seriousness;
Cd= coefficient for duration;
n = member state capacity to pay

8. Country Number of LEZs Applicable vehicles National Framework
Austria 7 HGVs Yes
Czech Republic 1 All vehicles Planned
Denmark 4 HGVs + buses Yes
Finland 1 Buses/refuse trucks NO
France 2 HGVs No
Germany 71 All except motorcycles Yes
Greece 1 All vehicles No
Hungary 1 HGVs No
Italy Approx. 100* Various No
Netherlands 14 HGVs Yes
Portugal 1 Cars & HGVs No
Sweden 8 HGVs + buses Yes
UK 5 Various No
Europe’s LEZs (August 2015)
* Excludes large number of LEZs in communities in Lombardy region
Source: http://urbanaccessregulations.eu

9. LEZ Summary
Area
Range >1,000 km2 to individual roads
Local LEZ embodied in regional LEZ with differing requirements
(e.g. Milan)
Generally HGVs and/or buses
Germany: all except 2-wheeled
Italy: focus on 2-stroke 2 -wheeled
Many established LEZs extending types restricted
Exempt vehicles e.g. EVs/hybrids, residents, emergency services
Type of vehicle
Emissions
Generally:
Euro 1 /I -4/IV
Diesel standards more stringent than gasoline
Retrofitting DPF generally allowed
Some based on vehicle weight (e.g. Athens)
24/7
Daytime only e.g. (07:30 - 19:30)
Everyday/ weekdays only
All year/winter only (e.g. October-April)
Enforcement
Manually by police
Automatic number plate recognition
None (?)
Hours of operation
National
Framework
National framework
National framework with local options
Local decision
Area
Range >1,000 km2 to individual roads
Local LEZ embodied in regional LEZ with differing requirements
(e.g. Milan)
Generally HGVs and/or buses
Germany: all except 2-wheeled
Italy: focus on 2-stroke 2 -wheeled
Many established LEZs extending types restricted
Exempt vehicles e.g. EVs/hybrids, residents, emergency services
Type of vehicle
Emissions
Generally:
Euro 1 /I -4/IV
Diesel standards more stringent than gasoline
Retrofitting DPF generally allowed
Some based on vehicle weight (e.g. Athens)
24/7
Daytime only e.g. (07:30 - 19:30)
Everyday/ weekdays only
All year/winter only (e.g. October-April)
Enforcement
Manually by police
Automatic number plate recognition
None (?)
Hours of operation
National
Framework
National framework
National framework with local options
Local decision

10. Difficulties in assessing LEZs
LEZ
Vehicle Composition
Traffic Exhaust
Air Quality
'Natural'fleet turnover
Economy
Fiscal incentives
Taxation policy
Urban traffic restrictions
Media(e.g. diesel vs gasoline)
Traffic volume
Congestion
Topography
Confounding factors
Meteorology
Regional/city background
Other emissions sources (e.g. nonexhaust
traffic emissions, construction sites)
EU limit Value Compliance
Improved Public Health
Policy Aim
Policy

11. Example Policy Measures Affecting Emissions
• Reduction in fuel S (EU wide)
• Scrappage schemes (e.g. Germany)
• Taxation (e.g. encouraging the purchase and use of diesel cars)
• Traffic management measures (e.g. London Congestion Charging Zone;
parking restrictions)
• Long term road works (e.g. new water transport or water infrastructure)

12. German LEZs
All stickers
• gasoline at least Euro 1 standards.
Green sticker
• diesel at least Euro 4 or IV, or
Euro 3 or III with a DPF
Yellow sticker
• diesel at least Euro 3 or III, or
Euro 2 or II with a DPF
Red sticker
• diesel vehicles meeting at least
Euro 2 or II or Euro1 plus DPF.
• Almost all LEZs now require
green stickers
• Cars, vans, HDVs restricted
• Generally more stringent than
elsewhere
• Manual enforcement by police
• Non compliance - €80 fine +
traffic penalty point

13. German LEZs: Reduction in Annual Mean PM10
•Berlin, Mannheim, Stuttgart, Tubingen, Ludwigsburg - No effect (Nierderemaier, 2009)
•Berlin, Cologne 5-7% (Bruckmann & Lutz, 2010)
•Berlin 3% (Lutz & Rauterberg-Wuff, 2013)
•Bremen 6% (Sadler, 2011)
•Cologne 7% (Sadler, 2011) (interference from construction site?)
•Hannover 1-2% (Sadler, 2011)
•Leipzig – no effect (6-15% summer) (Löschau et al., 2013)
•Munich* 13%(19.6% in summer; 6.8% in winter) (Fensterer et al., 2014); 5-12% (Cyrys
et al, 2009); no effect (Morfeld et al, 2013)
•Ruhr area 4% (Sadler, 2011)
•Average 9% over several unnamed LEZs (0% for small LEZs to a 15% in Berlin) (April-
October)(Wolff, 2014)
Holman et al, Atmos Env 111 (2015) 161-169
* LEZ + HGV ban

14. German LEZs: Reduction in Annual Mean EC
•Berlin 14-16% (Lutz, 2009)
•Berlin 56% (traffic contribution) (Lutz & Rauterberg-Wulff, 2013)
•Leipzig 6-14% (14-29% summer)(Löschau et al., 2013)
•Munich 55%* (traffic contribution) (Qadir et al., 2013)
* LEZ + HGV ban
Holman et al, Atmos Env 111 (2015) 161-169

15. Other LEZ Studies- Effects on PM Annual Mean
No effect:
Milan, PM10, PM2.5, PM1 (very short term study), Invernizzi et al., 2011
Amsterdam, The Hague, Den Bosch, Tilburg, Utrecht , PM10, PM2.5, Boogaard et
al., 2012
Amsterdam, PM10, Panteliadis et al., 2014
London, PM10, Barrett, 2014

16. Study of 19 German Cities
PM10  0.2 µg/m3 (1%)
EC  0.5 µg/m3 (9%)
OC  0.3 µg/m3 (3%)
PM2.5 no effect
NOx  2 µg/m3 (4%)
Morfeld et al., Pneumologie, 68, 173-186

17. Health benefits of German LEZs in 25 Cities
LEZ Phase Reduction in
average daily
mean PM10
concentration
(µg/m3)
Avoided
premature
mortality
Monetised
Health
Benefits
(mEUR)
Reduction in
total German
road transport
health impacts
(%)
1 (red sticker) 2.33 379 760 5.0
2 (yellow
sticker)*
5.17 840 2440 16.2
Malina & Scheffler, 2015
*Additional change from Phase 1

18. German LEZs: Reduction in Annual Mean NO2
•17 cities < 4% (Morfeld et al., 2014)
•Berlin 7-10% (Lutz & Rauterberg-Wuff, 2013)
•Bremen 6% (Sadler, 2011)
•Cologne 1.5% (Sadler, 2011)
•Hanover 5%(Sadler, 2011)
•Ruhr area 1% (Sadler, 2011)
Holman et al, Atmos Env 111 (2015) 161-169

19. Conclusions
• Aim of LEZs: compliance with EU limit values and improved public health
• Many confounding factors make identification of LEZ effect on ambient
concentrations difficult
• Early studies used simple statistical methods; confounding factors not fully
accounted for; later studies more sophisticated
• Growing evidence of benefit of German LEZs; reduces annual mean PM10
and NO2 concentrations by few percent.
• Elsewhere most LEZs only restrict HGVs; little consistent evidence of
benefit.
• Some evidence of a larger impact on carbonaceous particles
• LEZs need to include cars to be effective

20. Thank you very much for your attention!!!
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
EC- LIFE+ PROGRAM
Spain MAGRAMA, GenCat, Barcelona and Madrid City Councils
Italy ARPA-Lombardia, Regione Lombardia, Regional Government of Tuscany,
ARPA Toscana
Portugal Porto City Council, North Regional Coord. & DeveloP. Comm. (CCDR-N)
Greece Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change
Spain M. Britte Larka, A. Orio, M. Pallares, I. Hernández, A. Cristobal, E. Aulí
Portugal C. Figueiredo (CCDR-N), J. Monjardino (CENSE, Universidade Nova de Lisboa)
Italy F. Forni (Regione Toscana)
Greece M. Lazaridis, Athina Progiou (Proyecto ACEPT AIR)