1. By Michelle DeRobertis, Maurizio Tira University of Brescia, Italy Presentation for ECOMM, June 1, 2016 Athens Greece 1

2. Access to Zone Is Restricted By:No. of Cities in Europe* 1. Charging Schemes- Toll/Fee Required 14 2. Low-emission vehicles zone 222 3. Odd – Even License Plates Scheme 4 4. Size or weight of vehicle (i.e. lorry control) ~8000 5. ZTL-Authorized drivers only (e.g. residents) ~210 + 6. Complete motorized ban: Pedestrian streets * Source: www.urbanaccessregulations.eu 2

3. Congestion Charge Zones: Everybody allowed in as long as they pay: Pedestrian Zones: No cars allowed period. 3 £

4. LEZ target the vehicle ZTL target the driver: Is he a resident? Or disabled? Too much! size Too big or too heavy Lorry bans target the vehicle 4 ehicle

5. 5

6. Each city determines the authorized users. Entry signs, sometimes pavement markings and cameras. Each city sets the hours, could be 24/7. Typically allow small window of time for deliveries within the restricted time. 6

7. Livability of the historic city center Not Revenue 7

8. 3 key points about the data: even though some cities have had ZTL for ~ 40 years: 1. Most cities did not collect “before” data 2. Most ZTL had numerous violations until the use of electronic enforcement ~2000 3. Data on effectiveness tends to be: ◦ “before and after cameras” rather than ◦ “before and after ZTL”. 8

9. Traffic volumes/ Mode split + Auto exhaust - Air pollution + Traffic noise + Traffic safety + Economic vitality ~ Attractiveness = LIVABILITY 9 Traffi c Liva- bility

10. Potential MOEs include the following:  Traffic volumes (daily or monthly)  Improved Sustainable Mode Split – bicycling, walking, public transportation  Improved bus speeds  Pedestrians’ ability to cross street  Bicycling ease and stress  Other? 10

11. 11

12. 12 % Change at Each Gate: March 2012 Traffic vs. March 2011 Traffic Reduction in traffic volumes in 12 months Before & After Camera Enforcement on 4 April 2011

13. 13 % Change at Each Gate: April 2012 Traffic vs. April 2011 Traffic (cameras installed 4 April 2011) Reduction in traffic volumes Month 1 vs Month 13 After Camera Enforcement on 4 April, 2011

14. Rome 14

15. MeasureImpact between 1999 and 2004 Traffic volumesDecreased 13% Motorcycle volumesIncreased Bus travel speedsIncreased No. of delivery vehiclesDecreased: from 13,000 to 10,000 per day Biking and walking tripsIncreased 15

16. MeasureImpact between 2004 & 2014 Traffic volumesDecreased 5% Biking and walking tripsIncreased 1.5% Bus tripsIncreased 3.6 % No. of delivery vehiclesDecreased 25% 16

17. Potential MOE’s of reduced emissions include:  Health impacts to residents of breathing auto exhaust e.g. reduction in asthma  Nuisance of breathing auto exhaust  Presence of specific compounds at monitoring stations e.g. parts per million  Pounds emitted/saved per day in the ZTL  Degradation of historic monuments in ZTL  Other? 17

18. Between Jan-Nov 2008: Before (2002- 2007) After (first 11 months 2008) Avg. no. of days exceeding 50 μg/m 3 diesel particulate 125 days83 days (-33%) PM10- -23% Particulate matter--18% NH 3 -- 47% NO X --15% CO 2 - -14% 18

19. Potential MOE’s of reduced emissions include: 1.Health impacts to those in ZTL:  Noise contributes to at least 10,000 cases of premature mortality each year *  Almost 90% of the health impact caused by noise exposure is associated with road traffic noise* 2.Nuisance to those living, working and sleeping. 3.Reduced attractiveness to visitors and tourists, those eating outside and walking and contributing to the tourist economy. 4.How to measure? 19 * Source:http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015/europe/noise#tab-related-briefings

20. 20 Population exposed to night time noise from road traffic above 50dB and 55 dB in selected capital cities, 2011 L night > 55 db L night = 50-55 db Percentage of people 60% 80% 40% 20%

21. Potential measures of effectiveness (MOEs) for traffic safety include:  Number of traffic collisions  Number of collisions resulting in severe injury  Number of pedestrian collisions  Number of bicycle collisions  Number ped & bike collisions resulting in severe injury  Other? 21

22. No. of Collisions in 12 months Before and After Installation of 3 Cameras on 16 July 2001 Initial ZONE A 2001 Before (16/07/2000 – 15/07/2001) After (16/07/2001- 15/07/2002 WITHIN ZTL - ZONE A 42 CITYWIDE 424421 22

23. No. of Collisions in 12 months Before & After expansion of Zone A with Camera Enforcement on 21 Aug. 2004 Expanded ZONE A- 2004 Before (21- 08/2003- 20/08/2004 After (21- 08/2004- 20/08/2005) Within expanded ZTL - Zone A 104 CITYWIDE 391363 23

24. 24 Before camera control After camera control Before camera control After camera control

25. 25 After camera control Before camera control

26. Genoa todayBologna in the past 26

27. What we know:What we don’t know:  ZTLs have: 1. Decreased traffic volumes 2. Increased biking and walking slightly 3. Increased use of motorbikes (when allowed) 4. Increased bus speeds 5. Reduced air pollution 6. Reduced traffic accidents particularly among vulnerable users  Still much to learn about ZTL: 1. Are residents healthier from not being exposed to as much auto exhaust? 2. Do ZTL measurably reduce traffic noise and its negative side effects? 3. Do ZTL improve the economic vitality of the historic city center? 4. Residents’ travel behavior e.g. Do residents travel more by sustainable modes? Do they drive less or own fewer cars? 5. Are ZTL more effective than other strategies e.g. 30 kph zones 27

28.  Please send any comments, data or ideas for measures of effectiveness to: Michelle DeRobertis University of Brescia m.derobertis@unibs.it 28