Difference between revisions of "Congestion charge impacts on air quality"
Tamara Gajst (talk | contribs) m (→Rationale) |
Tine Bizjak (talk | contribs) (→Rationale) |
||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
== Rationale == | == Rationale == | ||
| − | There was a 15% reduction in total road use in Stockholm in 2006 congestion charge scheme, leading to the reduction of NOx emissions by 8.5% and PM10 decrease for 13% <ref> [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231008008091] </ref>. There was also a significant reduction of NOx, PM10 and CO2 emissions in London, after they have introduced a congestion pricing scheme <ref> [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231005007259] </ref>, <ref> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge</ref>. On the other hand, stationary traffic can result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions and pollutants which negatively affect the air quality <ref> [http://ibtta.org/sites/default/files/documents/MAF/Costs-of-Congestion-INRIX-Cebr-Report%20(3).pdf]</ref>. Still, if the traffic flows are reduced, the pollutant emission also decrease over time <ref> [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119099921356?via%3Dihub]</ref>. Study in Stockholm showed that in case the congestion pricing in Stockholm wouldn’t have taken place in 2006-2010, then, during the same period, the air would have been 5-10% more polluted which would lead to a 45% increase in asthma attacks in young children <ref> [https://www.insidescience.org/news/driving-fee-rolls-back-asthma-attacks-stockholm] </ref>. The congestion charge scheme in London had only initially reduced the traffic flow, then the levels were increased again <ref> [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27199415] </ref>, besides, a report from 2011 showed that there hasn’t been a great improvement to the air quality in London due to congestion charge scheme <ref> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge] </ref>. | + | There was a 15% reduction in total road use in Stockholm in 2006 congestion charge scheme, leading to the reduction of NOx emissions by 8.5% and PM10 decrease for 13% <ref> [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231008008091] </ref>. There was also a significant reduction of NOx, PM10 and CO2 emissions in London, after they have introduced a congestion pricing scheme <ref> [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231005007259] </ref>, <ref> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge</ref>. On the other hand, stationary traffic can result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions and pollutants which negatively affect the air quality <ref> [http://ibtta.org/sites/default/files/documents/MAF/Costs-of-Congestion-INRIX-Cebr-Report%20(3).pdf]</ref>. Still, if the traffic flows are reduced, the pollutant emission also decrease over time <ref> [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119099921356?via%3Dihub]</ref>. Study in Stockholm showed that in case the congestion pricing in Stockholm wouldn’t have taken place in 2006-2010, then, during the same period, the air would have been 5-10% more polluted which would lead to a 45% increase in asthma attacks in young children <ref> [https://www.insidescience.org/news/driving-fee-rolls-back-asthma-attacks-stockholm] </ref>. The congestion charge scheme in London had only initially reduced the traffic flow, then the levels were increased again <ref> [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27199415] </ref>, besides, a report from 2011 showed that there hasn’t been a great improvement to the air quality in London due to congestion charge scheme <ref> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge] </ref>. |
| − | |||
| − | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 11:44, 12 June 2017
Brief guidance about the contents. This box of text can removed.
{{variable}} template:
Put your own username in moderator=Username unless someone else takes care of the page content.
When the page is quite developed, change stub=No
Question (previously Scope) Specifies a clear research question.
This includes a question and a verbal definition of the spatial, temporal, and other limits
(system boundaries) of the variable. The question is defined according to the use
purpose of the assessment(s) that the variable belongs to.
Answer (previously Result) Answer to the research question.
Contains anything that a reader needs to understand the answer. If possible, a numerical expression or distribution.
If there is more than a single answer, i.e. the answer is actually a list of answers, a data table should be used.
Contains also the unit(s) in which the answer is expressed.
Rationale (previously Definition) Description about how the answer is derived.
Rationale contains anything that is needed to convince a critical rational reader.
Description of the data used for obtaining the value of the variable
(e.g. measurement data; mathematical method and its parameters).
Please include references (preferably using the <ref> </ref> tags)
and links to original data, as appropriate.
May contain subheadings Dependencies and Formula.
Subheadings no longer used: Data as most of Rationale is this anyway; Unit as it is already mentioned in Answer.
Dependencies: Links to all variables whose answers affect the answer of this variable.
Formula (or R code): computer code or mathematical formula for calculating the answer.
See also: Links to relevant information that does not belong to Rationale.
Keywords: Any words that help users to find this page with search tools.
References will appear automatically, if cited above using the <ref> </ref> tags.
Additional references can also be listed here.
Related files automatically shows files from Opasnet File if they have been linked to this page.
{{publication}} can be used if the page is good enough to be a publication by itself. Otherwise, delete.
This page is a variable.
The page identifier is Op_en7806 |
|---|
| Moderator:Nobody (see all) Click here to sign up. |
| This page is a stub. You may improve it into a full page, and then a rating bar will appear here. |
| Upload data
|
This variable page was created for the purpose of the Congestion charge assessment.
Contents
Question
Do congestion charges affect the air quality in the cities? What are the impacts of different congestion charge schemes on air quality?
Boundaries
The question can be applied in general, but for the purpose of the Congestion charge assessment the boundaries are set by the Helsinki city limits. The impacts of congestion charges take into account the current situations - available knowledge and can be updated.
Answer
There is evidence from several cities that congestion charges have improved air quality.
Rationale
There was a 15% reduction in total road use in Stockholm in 2006 congestion charge scheme, leading to the reduction of NOx emissions by 8.5% and PM10 decrease for 13% [1]. There was also a significant reduction of NOx, PM10 and CO2 emissions in London, after they have introduced a congestion pricing scheme [2], [3]. On the other hand, stationary traffic can result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions and pollutants which negatively affect the air quality [4]. Still, if the traffic flows are reduced, the pollutant emission also decrease over time [5]. Study in Stockholm showed that in case the congestion pricing in Stockholm wouldn’t have taken place in 2006-2010, then, during the same period, the air would have been 5-10% more polluted which would lead to a 45% increase in asthma attacks in young children [6]. The congestion charge scheme in London had only initially reduced the traffic flow, then the levels were increased again [7], besides, a report from 2011 showed that there hasn’t been a great improvement to the air quality in London due to congestion charge scheme [8].
See also
Keywords
Congestion charge, air quality, impacts, Helsinki
References
Related files
<mfanonymousfilelist></mfanonymousfilelist>
