Has UK local government action improved local air quality?

J. H. Barnes, E. T. Hayes & J. W. S. Longhurst

 Air Quality Management Resource Centre,

University of the West of England, Bristol, UK

Presenting author email: jo.barnes@uwe.ac.uk

23rd International Conference on Modelling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution

Valencia, Spain

1-3 June 2015

Overview

• Premise

• Introduction to Air Quality Management in England– Air Quality Strategy– Local Air Quality Management

– Exceedence of EU NO2 Limit Value

• Methodology

• Results

• Conclusions and Recommendations

Premise

• Despite 15 years of UK Local Air Quality Management (LAQM), exceedences of UK Air Quality Objectives and EU Limit Values for traffic-related pollutants, especially NO2, are still widespread.

• The purpose of the research is to determine whether LAQM in England has contributed towards achieving the EU NO2 annual mean Limit Value.

• Part of the Methodology and Results of this research are discussed here, highlighting some of the limitations of LAQM in contributing towards achieving EU Limit Values in England and making recommendations for improvements.

National air quality strategy

• In 1997 the UK Government published the first of three Air Quality Strategies presenting the national approach and setting out the Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) process to manage air pollution.

• Principle of subsidiarity: “Action should be taken to improve air quality at the most appropriate level, be it international, European, national or local”.

• LAQM role was to be in supplementing and “fine tuning” central policies at local hotspots where national measures would be too blunt or expensive.

Local Air Quality Management

• The UK Air Quality Regulations 1997 introduced Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) for LAQM, which were comparable with, but sometimes stricter than the EU Limit Values.

• Failure to achieve an AQO means the Local Authority must declare an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and prepare an Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP).

• Local Authorities required to work towards meeting the AQOs in their AQAPs as it was recognised that local air quality was not only a local issue.

• 64% (257) UK Local Authorities declared AQMAs, primarily for NO2 and PM10 from traffic (2014)1.

• But as yet very few traffic-related AQMAs have been revoked on the basis of Local Authority measures implemented in AQAPs.

1 http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat05/1409261329_air_pollution_uk_2013_issue_1.pdf

Number of Local Authorities with AQMAs

• In 2013, the UK exceeded the EU limit value for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) annual mean at 31 of its 43 zones and agglomerations (38 excluding the Margin of Tolerance).

• Current government predictions are that full compliance will not be achieved until after 2030.

• 65% zones still expected to be exceeding in 2020, five years after the permitted time extension period ended.

UK Zones & Agglomerations

Legal implications

• In February 2014, the European Commission launched legal proceedings against the UK for its failure to cut NO2.

• UK Government blames the failure of vehicle Euro standards.

• The failure of national action to achieve the necessary reduction in NO2 places an increasing onus on local authorities to assist with the achievement of the EU limit values through LAQM.

• Given the limited resources and powers that local government has available for dealing with road traffic emissions, the LAQM process has received criticism for its ineffectiveness in achieving significant improvements in local air quality.

• Local authorities may be liable for any fines resulting from the European Commission’s legal proceedings against the UK government under the Localism Act 2011.

Research statement and objectives

• Research statement:

– Local Air Quality Action Plans are not successful in terms of reducing local concentrations of nitrogen dioxide. Therefore, Local Air Quality Management will not achieve the annual mean UK air quality objective and will not make an effective contribution to meeting the relevant EU limit value.

• Research objectives:

– Objective 1: Document the change in the concentration of annual mean nitrogen dioxide from road traffic using continuous monitoring data, in AQMAs declared in Round 1 of Review and Assessment;

– Objective 2: Evaluate whether the measures included in the Air Quality Action Plans produced following Round 1 are being achieved and whether implementation is contributing to an improvement in local nitrogen dioxide concentrations.

Research statement and objectives

• Research statement:

– Local Air Quality Action Plans are not successful in terms of reducing local concentrations of nitrogen dioxide. Therefore, Local Air Quality Management will not achieve the annual mean UK air quality objective and will not make an effective contribution to meeting the relevant EU limit value.

• Research objectives:

– Objective 1: Document the change in the concentration of annual mean nitrogen dioxide from road traffic using continuous monitoring data, in AQMAs declared in Round 1 of Review and Assessment;

– Objective 2: Evaluate whether the measures included in the Air Quality Action Plans produced following Round 1 are being achieved and whether implementation is contributing to an improvement in local nitrogen dioxide concentrations.

Methodology

Case study AQMAs/Local Authorities

• Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council– Barnsley AQMA

• Bristol City Council– Bristol AQMA

• Leicester City Council– Leicester AQMA

• Oxford City Council– Oxford AQMA

• Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council– Great Barr NW, – Great Barr South, – Great Barr SW

• City of York Council– York AQMA

15

16

Identification of AQAP measures

• Progress on implementation of measures ascertained by comparing Air Quality Action Plans (AQAPs) and subsequent Air Quality Action Plan Progress Reports (AQAP-PRs) for each case study local authority.

• Using latest AQAP-PRs, measures determined as completed, ongoing or not implemented.

• The Bristol Local Transport Plan (LTP) was submitted in July 2000 and included a Local Air Quality Strategy as an Appendix and a draft framework for the AQAP in anticipation of the AQMA.

• The AQAP (published in April 2004) considered 56 measures, including 27 LTP ‘top-up’ measures.

• Joint Local Transport Plans (JLTP2 2006/7-2010/11 & JLTP3 2011) included some additional AQ measures.

• Reporting of AQ measures in LTP Progress Reports often not explicit & sometimes missing altogether.

17

Results

• Only one measure was considered complete by 2013:– M32 [motorway] Management (bus lane and speed limit reduction).

• Eight further measures were not implemented due to a lack of funding, failing feasibility or cost-effectiveness tests, or just no longer reported.

• Good progress made with 21 ongoing measures, e.g.– take-up of Travel Plans by 96% of Local Education Authorities in the

AQMA;

– delivery of £22 million Cycling City Project;

– establishment of a Freight Consolidation Centre Scheme serving Bristol and neighbouring Bath; and

– introduction of an Enhanced Traffic Control Centre.

• Site-specific measures included: – Showcase Bus Routes/ Greater Bristol Bus Network (GBBN)

improvements on specific radial routes serving the City Centre.

18

19

Relationship between AQAP and NO2 trends

• Significant reductions in traffic & local NO2 at Wells Road may be associated with GBBN scheme.

• Reductions, although not significant, were also found at Bath Road & Parson Street School following GBBN.

• Shiner’s Garage & Old Market however did not show any improvement after GBBN.

• Significant reductions in local NO2 at Rupert St may be associated with the Enhanced Traffic Control Centre easing congestion/M32 Management.

• Bath Road, Shiner’s Garage & Old Market discontinued despite latter two still exceeding.

20

Discussion – Bristol’s AQAP Progress

• Distribution of Traffic sites across City Centre highlights local variability in NO2 but difficult to be conclusive about AQAP impact

– GBBN appears to have had positive impact at some sites but not all.

– M32 management may have had beneficial impact.

– Various non-site specific measures may have contributed to improvements.

– Most sites did not show any significant reduction in NO2 concentrations.

• Government AURN Traffic site not representative of EU siting criteria.

• Site misclassification– Rupert Street identified as Urban Centre (rather than Urban Traffic).

• AQ well-integrated with JLTP but difficult to unpick AQ-specific measures.

22

Discussion – comparison of all AQAPs

• Extraction of actions and progress from reports was laborious even for the limited sample.

• Absent or inconsistent references, morphing of actions, acronyms and integration with LTP reporting made tracing progress of specific actions challenging in some cases.

• Impossible to link AQAP implementation with reductions in local NO2 (in all but one case)– Unrepresentative monitoring sites.

– Confounding factors/non-site specific measures.

– Absence of AQAP progress data.

• All case studies integrated AQAPs into LTPs– Progress determined by Transport department agenda.

– Reporting of AQ measures in LTP Progress Reports often not explicit.

– Unaligned AQ targets in LTPs.

23

Conclusions

• Impossible to link AQAP implementation with reductions in local NO2 in most cases.

• More directly focused measures could deliver greater impact on local NO2 in AQMAs.

• Non-standardised approaches to AQAP measures & progress reporting between case study LAs.

• Integration into LTP can be problematic.• AQAP/AQAP-PR requirements not enforced

– Without the ability to gauge progress on local measures, neither local nor national government can show whether local action is improving air quality.

• LAQM cannot be shown to have improved local NO2 concentrations and therefore is not a successful strategy in achieving selected EU limit values – The means to assess robustly the effectiveness of LAQM in reducing local

concentrations of NO2 does not exist currently.

24

Recommendations

1. Integrate LAQM with UK compliance assessment reporting to the EC– More coordinated, cost-effective approach to reducing NO2.

2. Require AQAP measures to be targeted at reducing NO2 in areas of exceedence– Important to refocus attention on reducing NO2 in areas of exceedence to

achieve EU LV in the shortest possible period.

3. Ensure all LAs are required to report annually on AQAPs so reports can be integrated into UK’s compliance assessment reporting– Already a statutory requirement, but not adequately enforced.

4. Standardise AQAP reporting requirements to ensure consistency of reporting to EC– Standard AQAP/AQAP-PR template to facilitate extraction of necessary

data to report to EC.

25

Air Quality Management Resource Centre, UWE, Bristol0117 32 81626 aqmrc@uwe.ac.uk

Thank you for your attention.

Any questions?

Email: jo.barnes@uwe.ac.uk LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jo-barnes/a/299/561

Twitter: https://twitter.com/jobarnes_uwe

Skype: jo5.barnes

Website: http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/et/research/aqmrc

26

• 2-day conference in Bristol, UK• Academics, professionals and policy-makers welcome!• Share experiences of improving traffic emissions. • Part of Bristol European Green Capital 2015.• http://iaqm.co.uk/event/routes-to-clean-air-air-quality-

conference-2015/

27