The London low emission zone feasibility study

Report: 7
Date: 03 October 2003
By: Clerk

Summary

This report informs members of a feasibility study commissioned by the GLA into establishing London as a Low Emissions Zone. It provides a brief explanation of the proposals and seeks members’ views on the MPA response to these.

A. Recommendation

That the Committee approves or amends the draft MPA response contained in paragraphs 5 to 11 of this report.

B. Supporting information

Introduction

1. In 2002, the Mayor published an Air Quality Strategy for London. This set out policy proposals and targets for improving London’s air quality. To achieve the air quality targets the Mayor proposed action, particularly to reduce road transport emissions. One strand of the proposals dealt with the need for traffic reduction. A second strand supported the need to encourage an increase in the number of modern, cleaner vehicles.

2. The Mayor commissioned a study to examine the feasibility of a low emission zone (LEZ). An LEZ is a defined area that can only be entered by vehicles meeting certain emissions criteria or standards. The aim of such a scheme is to accelerate the introduction of cleaner vehicles, and reduce the numbers of older, more polluting vehicles. The study investigated the costs and benefits of the LEZ, what it could achieve and how it could be implemented. It provided information to allow the Mayor, in conjunction with the Association of London Government (ALG), London boroughs and the Government, to determine whether low emission zones would work towards meeting London’s air quality targets and whether they should be taken forward to implementation. The study considered a large number of different options for a low emission zone in London. The conclusions from the study are shown in Appendix 1. The study proposed that a low emission zone for London be taken forward. The proposals require lorries, buses, and coaches to have a permit to drive in London; permits will only be issued to vehicles complying with the emissions criteria and standards set. Although only these larger vehicles are included within the proposed system, the study suggests the need to expand the scheme to most other vehicles in time.

3. Various options for law enforcement have been considered by the study. These are shown in Appendix 2. There may be implications arising from these proposals for policing in London. Pending advice from the MPS, these may involve the police directly or indirectly. There may also be implications upon the MPS’ vehicle fleet, although through the fleet replacement policy, much of the fleet probably meets the standards expected.

4. The GLA has invited the MPA to respond to the feasibility study proposals. The GLA Environment Committee is meeting on 16 October to hear the responses from functional bodies. A draft MPA response is set out below. The MPS are being consulted on this matter and may be in a position to brief members at committee before a more formal MPS response is drafted if necessary. Members are asked to advise upon the MPA response to the LEZ proposals. Nominations for a member interested in putting forward the MPA’s response to the GLA scrutiny will also be welcome.

Draft MPA response

5. The MPA is supportive of the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy and the actions to reduce air pollution in London, recognising the links between poor health, economic well-being and crime. Recognising that much of the MPS workforce works in London’s streets, the MPA is supportive of the efforts to protect the health and improve the working condition of these staff.

6. Currently the MPS has a small team (under 10 officers) who deal with lorry restriction orders. Several borough commands also support local roadside emissions testing initiatives when requested and feasible. It is the view of the MPA however that vehicle emissions enforcement is unlikely to be promoted to the level of existing policing/crime reduction priorities such as vehicle crime, burglary, hate crime etc. and that there is unlikely to be an increase in MPS capacity to enforce vehicle emission standards. The MPA therefore welcomes the use of an enforcement regime, which doesn’t call upon police resources in any way. We recognise however that local crime and disorder reduction partnerships may set local targets employing resources on this matter but that a standard enforcement approach in London will not be promoted by the MPA. Hence we particularly welcome the use of automatic/IT-based enforcement measures.

7. That said, if lorries and vans are included in the scheme, there may be scope for a strategic framework or protocol on permit checks encompassing services such as Customs and Excise, the Vehicle Inspectorate, the Immigration Service as well as police staff whilst exercising their normal powers with relation to vehicle stops. Dialogue with such parties will need to be held to explore this as an added option to the automatic/Traffic Management Order enforcement proposals.

8. The MPA is also aware of a high demand for Police and Community Safety Officers to undertake basic reassurance duties across London, such that their deployment on this work may not be made a priority without local partnership support.

9. The MPA is confident that the MPS’ fleet replacement policy will ensure the MPS fleet meets the standards expected. There may be exceptions involving older, less-used, specialist vehicles, which cannot be easily replaced on cost grounds. We therefore request that under such a scheme, the MPS is granted a non-bureaucratic system of exemption for relevant vehicles as are deployed on policing work.

10. The MPA would demand a nil charge be applied to the service in relation to police vehicle permits or administration of this scheme.

11. The MPA also recommends that the introduction of the scheme anticipates an increase in disposal of vehicles due to redundant vehicles that fail to qualify for a permit. The MPA is concerned with the possibility of an initial rise in the number of abandoned vehicles, which can contribute to the fear of crime. The MPA would expect the Mayor, in collaboration with London Boroughs, to ensure effective arrangements are in place for dealing with any growth in the number of abandoned vehicles.

C. Equality and diversity implications

A Low Emissions Zone could help to improve the health of all Londoners especially people in deprived, disadvantaged areas of London, where environmental conditions are often worse. It is important that enforcement is carried out in a fair and equal way such that specific sections of the community are not disproportionately penalised.

D. Financial implications

In the event that police resources are required to undertake all or part of the enforcement of the scheme, an increase in officer strength may be required. The study’s report does not explicitly seek police officer enforcement. So an increase in strength is not currently anticipated. The cost of the permits and necessary replacement of unexempt police vehicles that do not meeting the requisite standard cannot be estimated until further details are issued, should the scheme be introduced.

E. Background papers

The London Low Emission Zone Feasibility Study (July 2003)

F. Contact details

Report author: Jude Sequeira, MPA.

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix 1

Summary

London’s air quality has improved over recent decades, but is still the worst in the UK. There is strong evidence that current levels of pollution cause significant numbers of serious health impacts to Londoners. Concerns over these impacts have led to UK and European Union legislation, with air quality targets to protect human health. Much of London will meet these targets at the required dates. However, without further action, there are also likely to be considerable areas of London that do not.

To achieve the air quality targets, there is a need for additional action, particularly to reduce road transport emissions. There is a limit as to how much can be achieved through measures to address traffic reduction. However, major improvements can also be achieved by increasing the numbers of modern, cleaner vehicles. Newer vehicles have much lower emissions because of European legislation implemented over the past decade (known as Euro standards).

It is possible to accelerate the introduction of cleaner vehicles, and reduce the numbers of older, more polluting vehicles, through a low emission zone (LEZ). An LEZ is a defined area that can only be entered by vehicles meeting certain emissions criteria or standards. Low emission zones have already been successfully implemented and run for many years in Sweden.

This study investigates the feasibility of an LEZ in London. It investigates the costs and benefits of the LEZ, what it could achieve and how it could be implemented. It provides information to allow the Mayor, in conjunction with the Association of London Government (ALG), London boroughs and the Government, to determine whether low emission zones would work towards meeting London’s air quality targets and whether they should be taken forward to implementation. The study has considered a large number of different options for a low emission zone in London.

The conclusions from the study, should a low emission zone for London be taken forward, are as follows:

• Area. The study recommends that the most appropriate option for a London LEZ would be a scheme including all of the Greater London area.
• Vehicles. The study recommends that the low emission zone start with a scheme that targets lorries, London buses and coaches. These vehicles have disproportionately high emissions per vehicle and targeting them produces greatest emissions reductions for least cost. However, the study recommends that the zone be potentially extended in later years to include vans (subject to further investigation of the socio-economic effects of such a scheme on small companies/owner drivers) and taxis (though taxis should be addressed earlier through the licensing process). The study does not recommend that cars are included in the scheme, but does recommend that some action is needed, alongside any LEZ, to target the removal of very old cars in London (those built before 1993).
• Legislation and Enforcement. The study recommends that the legal basis for an LEZ should be a Traffic Regulation Order. A manually enforced scheme, targeting heavy vehicles only, would enable the quickest introduction of an LEZ (where offenders are pursued through the courts). However, automatic enforcement using cameras would ensure higher compliance and so greater air quality benefits.
  Automatic enforcement would require additional powers to decriminalise the offence and administer penalty charge notices through a civil process, but this would provide a revenue stream that could help support the additional running costs. An automatic approach would be needed if the LEZ were to include vans to ensure adequate detection rates. It is recommended that the certification scheme for a low emission zone be based on age of first registration, as a proxy for Euro standard with a certification database for exemptions and retrofitted vehicles.
• Implementation Date. The work necessary to set up the legal basis for a London LEZ would make it extremely difficult to implement a fully operational scheme before the middle of 2006, and more realistically before late 2006. Therefore, the first LEZ that could be introduced in London would not be early enough to help progress towards the initial air quality targets for 2005. However, there is one advantage from a slightly later LEZ introduction, because it would tie in with the availability of Euro 4 vehicles (manufactured from late 2006 onwards) which have much lower emissions. Should an LEZ be introduced, the study recommends that it is progressive, i.e. it would apply tighter emission criteria in
  future years. Any scheme needs to be clear about these future criteria so that operators can plan their future vehicle purchases accordingly.
• Costs of Implementing and Operating an LEZ. The costs of setting up and running a London low emission zone vary with the exact scheme and the types of vehicles included. A manually enforced scheme for lorries would have the lowest cost to set-up (an estimated £2.8 million to set-up, with running costs of around £4 million each year). There are a number of ways an automatically enforced scheme (based on vehicle recognition through cameras) could be introduced. The costs of introducing a network of fixed cameras across London are prohibitively high. Therefore, should an automatic enforcement approach be adopted, the study recommends the use of the existing Central London Congestion Charging Scheme (CCS) infrastructure, combined with the use of mobile ANPR cameras, and possibly a small number of additional fixed cameras outside this area. This type of scheme is estimated to cost £6 million to £10 million to set-up, with running costs of around £5 million to £7 million each year, but might generate revenues of £1 million to £4 million per year. It is stressed that none of the LEZ schemes considered in the study would be likely to be self-financing.
• Emission Criteria. The emission criteria set for a London low emission zone will dictate the air quality benefits and the costs to operators. The study recommends that for lorries, buses and coaches the criteria are based on Euro standard (age) and other emission standards (the Reduced Pollution Certificate (RPC)). The study recommends that vehicles should meet an initial criterion of Euro 2 plus RPC (or equivalent) in 2006/7. It also recommends that this criterion be tightened to Euro 3 plus RPC (or equivalent) in 2010. However, there are two additional conclusions put forward alongside this latter recommendation. Firstly that a NOx based RPC scheme would help the effectiveness of the scheme and could allow greater NO2 improvements. Secondly that it might be beneficial to introduce the Euro 3 plus RPC criterion earlier than 2010 using a rolling approach (applying the RPC to Euro 3 vehicles based on age). The study recommends a different approach for vans, should these vehicles be included, using a rolling ten-year-old age limit. A similar age-based standard is also recommended for licensed taxis and private hire vehicles.
• Costs to industry. The number of vehicles affected by a London low emission zone is potentially very high, as a large proportion of the national fleet operates in London at some point during each year. A London LEZ would therefore have a significant national impact. The recommended emission criteria would have a significant effect on tackling the older, higher polluting, section of the vehicle fleet. The cost to vehicle operators is likely to be significantly higher than the costs of setting up and operating a London low emission zone. For example, the costs of introducing the recommended LEZ in 2007 could have a cost to industry of £64 million to £135 million (the range reflects the number of vehicles that operate in London). The exact costs would depend on operator behaviour in response to the zone.
  Existing Government grants, should these be continued, would offset some of these costs, though the numbers of vehicles affected by a low emission zone in London would exceed existing grant levels.
  However, the costs to operators would be significantly lower than the values above if the Government vehicle excise duty rebates for retrofitted vehicles were maintained in future years. Introducing a stricter emission criterion than that recommended above would impact a prohibitively high proportion of the fleet and would result in extremely high costs to operators.
• Stakeholder consultation. Survey work has indicated that operators would be broadly supportive of a London low emission zone. Most operators would comply with the zone, though this might be achieved by transferring the older vehicles in their fleets outside London and moving newer vehicles into London (or onto London routes). Any LEZ would be likely to have greatest impact on operators of specialist vehicles and smaller companies. More investigation of the potential impacts of any LEZ on van operators is needed.
• Comparison of costs and benefits. A London low emission zone would improve the health of Londoners by reducing air pollution related impacts. It would also have small benefits in reducing noise. In later years, it could potentially lead to reduced emissions of the greenhouse gas CO2. The economic benefits of these environmental improvements would more than offset any costs of introducing and operating the scheme, for example the estimated health benefits in London from the recommended scheme for 2007 are estimated at £100 million. Moreover, these benefits are a sub-total, as they only include the air quality improvements in London - there would also be benefits outside London from cleaner vehicles affected by the London LEZ travelling elsewhere. Overall, the study concludes that the benefits of the schemes are likely to be broadly similar to the overall costs (including the costs to vehicle operators). The recommended heavy vehicle LEZ has greatest benefits, relative to costs. A number of wider socio-economic effects have also been identified that include both positive and negative effects.
• Air Quality. A London low emission zone would have modest benefits in improving overall emission levels and absolute air quality concentrations in London, but it would make a larger contribution to reducing exceedences of the air quality targets. The recommended LEZ would have greatest impact in targeting PM10 emissions and air quality exceedences. It is estimated that the recommended scheme would achieve a 23% reduction in total London PM10 emissions in 2010. It would also achieve a 43% reduction in the area of London exceeding the relevant PM10 air quality target in 2010, and a 19% reduction in the area of London exceeding the relevant NO2 air quality target in 2010.

Finally, a number of key tasks have been identified, that would need agreement and collaboration before the introduction of any LEZ. These include:

• A joint decision on whether to implement the zone between the Mayor, London boroughs, and the Government;
• Public consultation over the scheme, and agreement over any proposed modifications;
• Agreement on the approach for bus regulation and taxi licensing (TfL);
• Agreement on the format of the TRO and any associated Bill, and if relevant, regulations to decriminalise offences;
• Agreement on the national certification system; and
• Agreement over the funding and division of responsibilities.

Appendix 2

The Legal Basis and Enforcement Options of the propose Low Emissions Zone – from the Feasibility Study Report

12. A large number of implementation options, including voluntary schemes, negotiated agreements, licensing and tendering agreements, and mechanisms derived from the Road Traffic Regulations Act (1984) have been considered for a London low emission zone. The study has concluded that the most appropriate legal basis for the LEZ would be a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). This would be based on powers from the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which allows traffic authorities to put forward orders prohibiting, restricting or regulating road traffic, and the Environment Act 1995, which extended these powers to include air quality objectives. The compliance of London buses, licensed taxis and private hire vehicles can be regulated (under similar emission criteria) under existing powers (London Buses and the Public Carriage Office within Transport for London (TfL)).

13. There are different ways this TRO could be enforced. The exact scheme chosen, its legalbasis, and the methods used to enforce the scheme, would have a very large impact on the compliance rates, the costs of setting up and running a low emission zone, and the levels of revenue. Different options would be needed for different types of vehicles. One of the key choices in an LEZ enforcement strategy is whether to use only the TRO and derived enforcement mechanisms (where offenders are therefore pursued through the courts and the criminal justice system) or to seek additional powers to decriminalise the offence and administer penalty charge notices through a civil process.

14. For a scheme that only covered heavy vehicles, i.e. lorries, coaches and buses, it would be possible to use manual enforcement methods for the low emission zone. This would involve the issue of permits, with manual checks by relevant officers. This would be similar to the approach already used for the London Lorry Ban. Any non-compliance, i.e. operating in the low emission zone with a vehicle that did not meet the necessary emission criteria, would be a criminal offence, but enforcement would not require the involvement of Police Officers (as civilian officers could carry out roadside monitoring and observe vehicles). Such a manual approach would be likely to result in low detection rates, i.e. it is likely there would be higher levels of evasion than with other systems – so it would achieve lower air quality benefits. However, the scheme could be set-up quickly and at low cost.

15. Higher detection rates would be achieved by automatic enforcement methods, which would lead to lower levels of evasion and greater air quality benefits. Automatic enforcement would use cameras to detect vehicles driving in the low emission zone that did not meet the necessary emission criteria. Using automatic enforcement requires wider powers than with a manual scheme, in order to decriminalise the offence and to issue, and keep the revenue from, Penalty Charge Notices (PCN). This would require the introduction of Department for Transport (DfT) Regulations or a joint London Local Authority/Transport for London Bill. The decriminalisation of the offence would facilitate the use of automatic detection techniques, such as Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR), electronic tags with gantries (where electronic tags are issued to permitted vehicles, and overhead gantries with microwave ‘readers’ which check vehicles for these tags), and analogue and digital cameras. The study has concluded that the most promising automatic approach would be to introduce ANPR systems, similar to the Central London Congestion Charge Scheme (CCS) and build upon the existing CCS scheme and infrastructure.

16. A low emission zone that was extended to include vans would have to introduce automatic enforcement, because it would not be practical to manually enforce such a large number of vehicles. In order to achieve sufficient detection rates and good compliance it would need to have both mobile and fixed cameras, and potentially checks on parked vehicles by Borough parking officers. If vans were planned for later inclusion in the scheme, then adopting an automatic approach from the outset would have the advantage of more effective enforcement. However, it would be possible to move from a manual system that initially targeted lorries, buses and coaches through to an automatic enforcement system that could allow the inclusion of vans. Such an approach would reduce the up-front costs and risks of any initial scheme. It would have some benefits in allowing a quick introduction of the scheme and an evaluation period before starting the second, expanded, automatically enforced phase. The introduction of automatic enforcement would have the advantage that it would generate revenues from penalty charge notices (via the introduction of decriminalisation of the offence) and this would help offset the higher costs of the implementation. Phasing in the introduction of vans would also allow more time to collect the certification information for the very large number of these vehicles.

17. Irrespective of the approach adopted, a low emission zone would require a certification system to classify vehicles – so that it was possible to know whether or not vehicles driving in the zone complied with the emission criteria set down. It is recommended that any certification scheme should be based on age of first registration, as a proxy for Euro standard, though a database of exemptions would also be needed, e.g. retrofitted vehicles. Certification and classification should be considered on a national scale due to the very large number of vehicles that a London LEZ would affect (and also if low emission zones were to be implemented elsewhere in the UK). There would be an important role for Department for Transport Agencies in the certification process, as they hold much of the relevant data for a compliance database. The administration of the database and the processing of applications for re-classification could be undertaken by the scheme operator or on a national basis.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback