Impact of speed control on urban air quality (Rotterdam)
description
Transcript of Impact of speed control on urban air quality (Rotterdam)
Menno Keuken
TNO Environment, Energy and Process Innovation
Impact of speed control on urban air quality (Rotterdam)
Session 2: Mexico Workshop
January 2004Impact of speed control on urban air quality (Rotterdam) 2
A13 Highway in Rotterdam (NL)
• 130.000 vehicles per 24 h
• 5-10 % heavy duty vehicles
• environmental impact: noise and air pollution
(exceeding EU standards: annual 40 g/m3 for NO2 and PM10)
• epidemiological research: adverse health effects within 100 m
from A13
• active local citizens
January 2004Impact of speed control on urban air quality (Rotterdam) 3
Options for traffic management on highway in Rotterdam
1. reduction of traffic volume
2. reduction of specific traffic (e.g. trucks)
3. improve traffic dynamics (avoid stop-and-go) by 80 km/h
speed trajectory control
Based upon economic/technical feasibility: option 3
January 2004Impact of speed control on urban air quality (Rotterdam) 4
Emission factors related to speed
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Mean travelling speed (km/h)
Em
issi
on f
acto
r (g
/km
)
NOx ×10CO
HC ×10
CO2 /100
January 2004Impact of speed control on urban air quality (Rotterdam) 5
Improve traffic dynamics by speed control to reduce emissions by 25%
January 2004Impact of speed control on urban air quality (Rotterdam) 6
Noise reduction by noise screen
January 2004Impact of speed control on urban air quality (Rotterdam) 7
Costs involved: 3 km Highway
• Cost: Trajectory control investment: 1.5 M€
and annual maintenance: 0.5 M€
• Income: fines/per day: 3000/day (start) 1000/day (now);
250.000/year = 7 M€/year
Cost-benefits are profitable!
January 2004Impact of speed control on urban air quality (Rotterdam) 8
Impact traffic measures on NO contribution near highway: up- and down-
wind measurements “before and after”
NO traffic contribution (westerly wind)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
hour
Co
nce
ntr
ati
on
(µ
g/m
3)
“before” at 50 m“after” at 50 m
“before” at 200 m“after” at 200 m
January 2004Impact of speed control on urban air quality (Rotterdam) 9
Impact traffic measures on NO2 contribution near highway: up- and down-
wind measurements “before and after”
NO2 traffic contribution (westerly wind)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
hour
Co
nce
ntr
ati
on
(µ
g/m
3)
“before” at 50 m“after” at 50 m
“before” at 200 m“after” at 200 m
January 2004Impact of speed control on urban air quality (Rotterdam) 10
Impact traffic measures on PM10 contribution near highway: up- and down-
wind measurements “before and after”
PM10 traffic contribution (westerly wind)
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1213 14 1516 1718 19 2021 2223 24
hour
Co
nce
ntr
ati
on
(µ
g/m
3)
“before” at 50 m“after” at 50 m
“before” at 200 m“after” at 200 m
January 2004Impact of speed control on urban air quality (Rotterdam) 11
Impact speed control measures
• Mobility improved: less congestion
• Noise reduction: especially during night
• Air quality improvement: 5-10% NO2 and PM10
upto 100 m
[Note: tendency local authorities only to comply
with AQ standards, while for health protection
“more” is required ….]