Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 136, Issue 1–3, pp 45–51 | Cite as

An empirical study of estimating vehicle emissions under cordon and distance based road user charging in Leeds, UK



This paper presents the impact of road user charging (RUC) on vehicle emissions through application of traffic assignment and pollutant emission models. It presents results of an analysis of five RUC schemes on vehicle emissions in Leeds, UK for 2005. The schemes were: a £3 inner ring road cordoncharge; a double cordon with a £2 inner ring road and a £1 outer ring road charge; and distance charges of 2, 10 and 20 p/km levied for travel within the outer cordon. Schemes were compared to a no charge option and results presented here. Emissions are significantly reduced within the inner cordon, whilst beyond the cordon, localised increases and decreases occur. The double cordon exhibits a similar but less marked pattern. Distance charging reduces city-wide emissions by 10% under a 2 p/km charge, 42–49% under a 10 p/km charge and 52–59% under a 20 p/km charge. The higher distance charges reduce emissions within the charge zone, and are also associated with elevated emissions outside the zone, but to a lesser extent than that observed for cordon charging.


Emissions Road user charging Leeds 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beamon, B. M., & Griffin, P. M. (1999). A simulation-based methodology for analysing congestion and emissions on a transportation network. Simulation, 72(2), 105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carruthers, D., Edmunds, H., King, H., Lester, A., & Nixon, S. (1998). Dispersion modelling of emissions in an urban area. Report to the department of the environment, transport and the regions. Cambridge: Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants Ltd.Google Scholar
  3. CfIT (2002). Paying for road use report. London: Commission for Integrated Transport, HMSO.Google Scholar
  4. DETR (2000). The air quality strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. London: DETR.Google Scholar
  5. EEA (1998). Europe’s environment: The second assessment. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.Google Scholar
  6. Eggleston, H. S., Gaudioso, D., Gorissen, N., Joumard, R., Rijkeboer, R. C., Samaras, Z., et al. (1991). CORINAIR working group on emission factors for calculating 1990 emissions from road traffic, volume 1: Methodology and emission factors. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  7. European Commission (1999). MEET: Methodology for calculating transport emissions and energy consumption. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  8. Fridstrom, L., Minken, H., Moilanen, P., Shepherd, S., & Vold, A. (2000). Economics and equity effects of marginal cost pricing in transport: Case studies from three European cities. Helsinki: Government Institute for Economic Research.Google Scholar
  9. Jaensirisak, S., May, A. D., & Wardman, M. (2002). Designing acceptable and effective road user charging schemes. Traffic Engineering and Control, 43, 278–282.Google Scholar
  10. LDA (2000). Leeds: A summary. Leeds: Leeds Development Agency.Google Scholar
  11. May, A. D. (1992). Road pricing: an international perspective. Transportation, 19, 313–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. May, A. D., & Milne, D. S. (2000). The effects of alternative road pricing systems on network performance. Transportation Research (A), 34(6), 407–436.Google Scholar
  13. May, A. D., Sheppherd, S. P., & Timms, P. M. (2000). Optimal transport strategies for European cities. Transportation, 27(3), 285–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Milne, D., & Van Vliet, D. (1993). Implementing road user charging in SATURN. Working paper 410. Leeds: The Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds.Google Scholar
  15. Namdeo, A., Mitchell, G., & Dixon, R. (2002). TEMMS: An integrated package for modelling and mapping urban traffic emissions and air quality. Journal of Environmental Modelling and Software, 17(2), 179–190.Google Scholar
  16. Stedman, J. R. (1998). Revised high resolution maps of background concentrations in the UK: 1996. NETCEN report to the department of the environment, transport and the regions. Abingdon: NETCEN.Google Scholar
  17. TfL (2004). Congestion charging—update on scheme impacts and operations: February 2004. London: Transport for London.Google Scholar
  18. Ubbels, B., Rietveld, P., & Peeters, P. (2002). Environmental effects of a kilometre charge in road transport: an investigation for the Netherlands. Transportation Research D, 7, 255–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Van Vliet, D. (1982). SATURN: A modern assignment model. Traffic Engineering and Control, 23(12), 578–581.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Transport StudiesUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  2. 2.School of GeographyUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations