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 ….]