5.5.4 Co-benefits and ancillary benefits
The literature uses the term ancillary benefits when focusing primarily on one policy area, and recognizing there may be benefits with regard to other policy objectives. One speaks of co-benefits when looking from an integrated perspective. This section focuses on co-benefits and ancillary benefits of transport policies. Chapter 11.6 provides a general discussion of the benefits and linkages related to air pollution policies.
As mentioned above, several different benefits can result from one particular policy. In the field of transport, local air pollutants and GHGs have a common source in motorized traffic, which may also induce congestion, noise and accidents. Addressing these problems simultaneously, if possible, offers the potential of large cost reductions, as well as reductions of health and ecosystems risks. A recent review of costs of road transport emissions, and particularly of particulates PM2.5, for European countries strongly supports that view (HEATCO, 2006). Tackling these problems would also contribute to more effective planning of transport, land use and environmental policy (UN, 2002; Stead et al., 2004). This suggests that it would be worthwhile to direct some research towards the linkages between these effects.
Model studies indicate a potential saving of up to 40% of European air pollution control costs if the changes in the energy systems that are necessary for compliance with the Kyoto protocol were simultaneously implemented (Syri et al., 2001). For China, the costs of a 5–10% CO2 reduction would be compensated by increased health benefits from the accompanying reduction in particulate matter (Aunan et al., 1998). McKinley et al. (2003) analyzed several integrated environmental strategies for Mexico City. They conclude that measures to improve the efficiency of transport are the key to joint local/global air pollution control in Mexico City. The three measures in this category that were analyzed, taxi fleet renovation, metro expansion and hybrid buses, all have monetized public health benefits that are larger than their costs when the appropriate time horizon is considered.
A simulation of freight traffic over the Belgian network indicated that a policy of internalizing the marginal social costs caused by freight transport types would induce a change in the modal shares of trucking, rail and inland waterways transport. Trucking would decrease by 26% and the congestion cost it created by 44%. It was estimated that the total cost of pollution and GHG emissions (together) would decrease by 15.4%, the losses from accidents diminish by 24%, the cost of noise by 20% and wear and tear by 27%. At the same time, the total energy consumption by the three modes would decrease by 21% (Beuthe et al., 2002).
Other examples of worthwhile policies can be given. The policy of increasing trucks’ weight and best practices awareness in Sweden, UK and the Netherlands lead to a consolidation of loads that resulted in economic benefits as well as environmental benefits, including a decrease in CO2 emissions (MacKinnon, 2005; Leonardi and Baumgartner, 2004). Likewise, the Swiss heavy vehicle fee policy also leads to better loaded vehicles and a decrease of 7% in CO2 emissions (ARE, 2004a).
Obviously, promotion of non-motorized transport (NMT) has the large and consistent co-benefits of GHG reduction, air quality and people health improvement (Mohan and Tiwari, 1999).
In the City of London a congestion charge was introduced in February 2003, to reduce congestion. Simultaneous with the introduction of the charge, investment in public transport increased to provide a good alternative. The charge is a fee for motorists driving into the central London area. It was introduced in February 2003. Initially set at 5 £/day (Monday to Friday, between 7 am and 6.30 pm), it was raised to 8 £ in July 2005. The charge will be extended to a larger area in 2007. On a cost-benefit rating, the results of the charge are not altogether clear (Prud’homme and Bocarejo, 2005, Mackie, 2005). However, it contributed to a 30% decrease of the traffic by the chargeable vehicles in the area and less congestion, to higher speed of private vehicles (+20%) and buses (+7%), and to an increased use of public transport, plus more walking and bicycling. The charge has had substantial ancillary benefits with respect to air quality and climate policy. All the volume and substitution effects in the charging zone has led to an estimated reductions in CO2 emissions of 20%. Primary emissions of NOx and PM10 fell by 16% after one year of introduction (Transport for London, 2006). A variant of that scheme has been in operation since 1975 in Singapore with similar results; Stockholm is presently experimenting with such a system, Trondheim, Oslo and Durham are other examples.
Under the Integrated Environmental Strategies Program of the US EPA, analysis of public health and environmental benefits of integrated strategies for GHG mitigation and local environmental improvement is supported and promoted in developing countries. A mix of measures for Chile has been proposed, aimed primarily at local air pollution abatement and energy saving. Measures in the transport sector (CNG buses, hybrid diesel-electric buses and taxi renovation) proved to provide little ancillary benefits in the field of climate policy, see Figure 5.19. Only congestion charges were expected to have substantial ancillary benefits for GHG reduction (Cifuentes et al., 2001, Cifuentes & Jorquera, 2002).
While there are many synergies in emission controls for air pollution and climate change, there are also trade-offs. Diesel engines are generally more fuel-efficient than gasoline engines and thus have lower CO2 emissions, but increase particle emissions. Air quality driven measures, like obligatory particle matter (PM) and NOx filters and in-engine measures, do not result in higher fuel use if appropriate technologies are used, like Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)- NOx catalyst.