pollution or congestion charging? - air quality measures and road pricing in milan

School of somethingFACULTY OF OTHER

Institute for Transport StudiesFACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT

Pollution or congestion charging?

Air quality measures and road pricing

in Milan, Italy

Giulio Mattioli

[email protected]

ITS Seminar Series, 5 March 2015

mailto:[email protected]

• Edinburgh (2005): 26%

• Manchester (2008): 21%

• Gothenburg (2014): 43%

Urban road pricing referenda (EU)

• Stockholm (2007): 51%

• Milan (2011): 79%

• more vehicles charged

• increased charge

• extension of charging area

% Yeas

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

Milan’s experience with charging

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

Case study

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

Structure of the presentation

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

Source: Earth observatory NASA

• 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

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

Period Mayor Events

2001-2006 Albertini (right) Road pricing debated

2006-2008

Moratti (right)

Ecopass (pollution charge) in

the making

2008 Ecopass implemented

2009-2011 Ecopass in question

2011

Pisapia (left)

Mayoral elections +

referendum on extension

2012Area C (congestion charge)

implemented

2012-Extension of charging area

discussed

School of somethingFACULTY OF OTHERChronology of events

• 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

1999-2008

Ecopass (2008-2011)

• 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

Source: ICLEI, 2013

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 0-

2

10

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%)

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)

2011 Referendum:

reasons for high acceptability

Comprehensive strategy - goals:

• Doubling of pedestrian areas by 2012

• Doubling of 30km/h areas by 2012

• 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

1. Wording on the ballot-paper

..to be financed with new

congestion charge (5-10€)

for all vehicles + gradual

extension of the area to

outer ring

Goal: -50% traffic, -50% polluting

emissions

Referendum Yeas (%) Voter turnout (%) Item-test correlation

Local

(citizen’s

initiative)

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

National

(abrogative)

Water – privatisation 92 52 0.97

Water – tariffs 93 52 0.97

Nuclear 92 52 0.97

Legitimate impediment 94 52 0.97


1. Simultaneity with other referenda

(12-13 June 2011)

3. Referendum results

Source: own elaboration on electoral data

Congestion Charing: % of Yeas (on valid votes)


Source: own elaboration on electoral data

Congestion Charing: % of Yeas (on registered electors)


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

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

Ecopass (2008-2011)

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

Use of air quality evidence

Area C(2012-present)

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

Black Carbon

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”


Institute for Transport StudiesFACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT

Thank you for your attention

Giulio Mattioli

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]