1. Reducing the Environmental Impacts of Transport with Behavioural Change- a London Perspective Helen ApSimon & Tim Oxley With help from members of APRIL (Air Pollution Research in London)

2. A.P.R.I.L: research network- brings together research community and those responsible for air quality; recently expanded to noise and climate change National level (Defra): The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and N Ireland:possible policy measures considered included e.g. impact of a national road pricing scheme London, GLA /TfL:- congestion charging, LEZ, public transport Local authorities : smaller scale,-> AQMAs, but also collective projects e.g. WALKIT-> modal change

3. LESS POLLUTION

4. 1.Assessment of behavioural measures 2.Some case studies based on UKIAM (UK Integrated Assessment Model) choice of vehicle; driving behaviour 3. Questions arising

5. Emissions =   Activity levels x Emission Factors Technical measures Environmental impacts Behavioural change Incentives Costs GHGs & AQ pollutants

6. Case study 1:trend petrol cars-> diesel

7. Case study 2: trend to smaller cars

8. Case study 3: Driving behaviour Comply with speed limits Change speed limits Ecodriving

9. SCOPING STUDIES:Some hypothetical scenarios 1.Increasing trend to diesel: assume large (>2.0 litres) and medium (>1.4) petrol cars switch to diesel 2. Incentives to switch to smaller more efficient cars: assume large (>2.0 litres) and medium (>1.4) petrol cars switch to small petrol cars <1.4 litres 3. Regulating vehicle speeds: effect of 10% reduction in speeds on faster roads

10. Worse AQ Less GHGs Win-win Emit less of all No benefit AQ % change in emissions (UK-London ): blue NOx, grey PM, orange CO2, green N2O & in road-length > AQ limit value: striped columns- blue NO2, grey PM10

11. Downsizing cars:- a)Capital cost ~£10,000 less, averaged over 200,000 km 5 p/km b) Running costs: petrol consumption 6.2 l/100km instead of 9.3 l/100km, and fuel cost 100p/litre 3.1 p/km Total saving NEGATIVE COST > 8 p/km Incentive: lower license cost for smaller car is minimal by comparison

12. Downsizing cars continued What limits this behavioural change? Some uses require power/bigger engines e.g. if towing caravan, or heavy or bulky load -> never 100% applicability Lifestyle barriers - image/ status/ comfort etc (improvements in technology have helped downsizing. Need luxury models of small cars, changes in advertising?) Elasticity models (% change function of cost) do not work in this context. What is a realistic scenario for downsizing?

13. Switch to diesel Has been a substantial trend resulting from a much smaller financial saving than previous case study Helped by technological improvements in diesel cars. But saving per km difficult to estimate on comparable basis because of fluctuating fuel /oil prices- (even more difficult for projections to 2020 and beyond). Disadvantage of more fine PM- depends on toxicity of diesel particulates, and harm to health relative to other types of particle.

14. Pedestrian exposure to ultra-fine particles in streets From DAPPLE field campaign in central London

15. Reducing speed/acceleration Enforcing speed limits, reducing speed limits, ecodriving (NB Dutch study cited 5 euro/ton CO2 saved) Cost of enforcement/equipment (regulatory) Costs to motorist: fines (but reduce regulatory cost) journey time-> hours of work-time/leisure lost can be large, but when applicable- e.g. enforcing existing speed limits versus reducing speed limits fuel costs saved (negative cost) but variability re ecodriving (~5%?), and how to assess benefits for emissions and AQ Wider benefits (pedestrians,other road users) less serious accidents,noise.

16. Emissions =   Activity levels x Emission Factors Technical measures Environmental impacts Behavioural change Incentives Costs Can be negative Which “costs” & to whom? Variable params e.g oil price Other benefits e.g less serious accidents Social as well as fiscal / financial Uncertainties e.g. ecodriving Extent ??? + & - GHGs & AQ pollutants