Air Action Prioritaire Areas (ZAPA)

1

ECOTALE seminar – April 18th, 2013

Hervé LEVIFVE, APUR research analyst

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

Particulate pollution (PM10 et PM 2.5)

3

29 mars 2012 Index 88

14 avril 2012 Index 54

Background pollution:

Non-compliance with WHO-

AQG = life expectancy

reduced by 6 months in

Paris (www.aphekom.org)

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

Health impacts of air pollution by particulates

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

Overview of European experiences with LEZ

Some 180 LEZs across Europe :

6

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 2007 2007

Some relevant examples:

- London : 1500 km², HGVs (since 2008) + LGVs as of 2012

- Ruhr district (comprising several communes) : 224 km², all trafic, since 2008

- Milan : 1200 km², all traffic targeted, phased implementation since 1990

- Copenhague : 88 km², HGVs, since 2008

7

Overview of European experiences

2008 2010

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

9

• 3,2 million people exposed to NO2 levels above limit values

• 90 % of those exposed to above-limit concentrations are found within the A86 boundary

• 9 out of 10 parisians live in an exceedance area

• 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

NO2

PM10

2015 projections, without any actions from a ZAPA

10

• 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

NO2

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)

• 500 000 people exposed to levels above LV

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)

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

Evolution of distance traveled by LV between 2005 and 2020

Evolution of PM10 emission

PM10 emissions

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

Identifying scenarios

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?

Reducing costs Number of vehicles per km affected.

Analysis carried out: • Assessment of emission benefits (local air pollutants, CO2)

• Assessment of air quality improvements: number of people exposed to emission levels above LV

NOx

PM2.5

Vehicle classification scheme

2

WR

Areas and corridors considered for a ZAPA

15

8 test scenarios

16

Targeted vehicles N° Area covered by scheme Number of

communes

Population

(million)

Surface

area

(km²)

3* 1 Paris (ring road included) 1 commune 2.2 105

2* 2 Paris (ring road included) +

Plaine Commune

1 commune +

1 agglo (8

communes)

2.5 149

3* 3 Paris (ring road included) +

Plaine Commune

1 commune +

1 agglo (8

communes)

2.5 149

2* 4

Paris (ring road included) +

radial motorway corridors

+ A86

1 commune +

state

(manager of

motorways )

2.2 105

3* 5

Paris (ring road included) +

radial motorway corridors

+ A86

1 commune +

state

(manager of

motorways )

2.2 105

2* 6

Area lying within the A86

boundary (A86 included)

76 communes 4.8 385

3* 7 Area lying within the A86 boundary (A86 included)

76 communes 4.8 385

3* 8

Area lying within the A86

boundary (A86 excluded)

76 communes 4.8 385

Vehicles targeted by scenario 2* and 3*

17

Scenario 2* M2W < 07/2004 LV and VUL petrol < 01/1997 LV and VUL diesel < 01/2001 HGV < 10/2006

Scénario 2* Scénario 3*

Scenario 3* M2W < 07/2004 LV and VUL petrol < 01/1997 LV and VUL diesel < 01/2006 HGV < 10/2006

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

Impacts on air quality

19

2015 forecasts

without ZAPA

2015 forecasts with ZAPA

(A86 3* scenario)

NO2

PM10

Limit

values

WHO-

AQG

Limit

values

Impacts on air quality

20

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)

• 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)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

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***

Ba

isse

(e

n %

) d

es é

mis

sio

ns d

ue

s a

u t

ra

fic

ro

utie

r

Baisse émissions NOx Baisse émissions PM10 Baisse émissions PM2.5 Baisse émissions CO2

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

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***

Baisse population exposée : Valeur Limite NO2 Baisse population exposée : Objectif de Qualité PM10 Baisse population exposée : Valeur Cible PM2.5

Impacts on air quality

21

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).

Population exposed > LV NO2 Population exposed > AQG PM10

Impact on road traffic

22

PARIS

3***

PARIS + corridors

3***

A86 excluded

3***

A86 included

3***

Resulting

overloading/

underload on main

network according

to different

scenarios

Impact on road traffic

23

PARIS

3***

PARIS + AXES

3***

A86 excluded

3***

A86 included

3***

Resulting

traffic

congestion/

relief on the

local network

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 34 200 people will shift to PT during morning peak hours, overloading lines M13 ,T2, T3, T6

24

Socio-economic impacts

First approach : impact on vehicle fleets registered in IDF

Almost 3 000 0000 vehicles could be affected by 2012 out of the total fleet registered in Ile-de-France (6 200 000 vehicles)

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 2025

25

TOTAL FLEET RESTRICTED ** RETRICTED ***

Ile-de-France

PV 5 383 000 1 472000 – 27% 2 355 000 – 44%

LGV 745 000 291 000 – 39% 541 000 – 73%

HGV 77 000 55 000 – 71% 55 000 – 71%

TOTAL 6 200 000 1 818 000 – 29% 2 951 000 – 48%

Socio-economic impacts

Second approach : impact by traffic type, type of workers and journey purpose

1. Goods traffic

2. Passenger traffic (RATP)

3. Car-dependent workers

4. Commuting

26

TOTAL FLEET BANNED ** BANNED ***

Paris LGV 44 959 5 400 – 12% 14 800 – 33%

HGV 23 449 11 500 – 49% 11 500 – 49%

A86 LGV 68 796 13 000 – 19% 31 000 – 45%

HGV 42 553 23 800 – 56% 23 800 – 56%

TOTAL FLEET BANNED ** BANNED *** 4 543 1 963 – 43% 3 032 – 67%

TOTAL FLEET BANNED ** BANNED *** VP 1 632 280 353 000 – 22% 641 526 – 39%

VUL 603 720 179 794 – 30% 387 280 -64% TOTAL 2 236 000 532 794 – 24% 1 028 806 – 46%

TOTAL FLEET BANNED ** BANNED *** Estimation haute 135 164 7 886 – 6% 33 263 – 25% Estimation basse 103 799 6 299 – 6% 26 554 – 25%

Socio economic impacts

Contraints on mobility

Shortcomings of the current transit system

27

• 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)

Socio-economic impacts

Constraints on mobility: wide spatial disparities in public transport access to jobs

28

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

Thank you for your attention !

30