[CSName]

Kennedy Drive (Emission Assessment and Mitigation Study)

National Case Study[LAName] – 08 Jul 2016


[CSHeadline]

This worked example has been developed by the Low Emission Partnership. It illustrates the form and content of an Emissions and Mitigation Statement, which is underpinned by a more detailed Emissions and Mitigation Assessment (see attached), undertaken with reference to the Partnership's assessment guidelines (EMA-TG 2.0). The aim is to assess the transport emission impacts of the development, propose corresponding mitigation and demonstrate that the latter is balanced and proportionate. This example is based upon a real development site, albeit with adjustments and inventions for the purpose of the example (see notes below for details). It does not include a treatment of mitigation costs.

 

Kennedy Drive is a development of 10,000 sqm supermarket, located within an urban area. This study identifyed and described key features of the development, estimated traffic generated by the site and the nature, scale and impact of associated emissions. It then proposes mitigation to reduce these impacts and estimates associated costs and benefits of action.

A package of on-site mitigation is proposed, which combines customer and staff travel plans with an onsite delivery fleet management plan and site service vehicle LEZ, in combination with a financial contribution for further compensatory measures. The report concludes that these proposals represent a balanced and proportionate level of mitigation, not least achieving a 57% total mitigation credit, including 21% assured on-site benefits.

Scope

[CSScope]

BASE DESIGN

Site location is appropriate for the development and good environmental design principles have been applied. Of note, the proposal includes provision of a new pedestrian crossing, electric charging points and cycle parking. No supplementary design credit is proposed.

Harm  

[CSHarm]

The base fleet calculation estimates total traffic at 22,110,000 km/y, with associated  emissions of 35t NOx and 3.8t PM10 over the 5 year impact/benefit period. This represents a combined damage of £1.4m over 5 years. The largest contributors are cars (customers), accounting for 75% NOx, 81% PM10 and 77% damage costs. The second largest contributors are LGV (delivery), accounting for 12% NOX, 8% PM10 and 11% damage costs.

[ITTypography] [IQValue] [IUTypography] [IQMethod]
  • Indicator Value Measure / Method Quality Assurance
  • Costs 1,400,000 £/5yr AQ damage costs (5yr) / EMA-TG 2.0, using Defra Damage Costs (Sep-15), assuming 'Urban Large’ (>100k popn), and using the central value
  • PM10 4 t/5yr PM10 emissions (5yr) / EMA-TG 2.0, using EFT (v6.0.2), assuming 'urban' roads and 48kph
  • NOx 35 t/5yr NOX emissions (5yr) / EMA-TG 2.0, using EFT (v6.0.2), assuming 'urban' roads and 48kph

Action

A package of on-site mitigation is proposed, which combines customer and staff travel plans with an on-site delivery fleet management plan and site service vehicle LEZ.

Benefit  

Estimated benefits from these measures correspond to a 24% reduction in NOx, 11% reduction in PM and 21% (£304,000) reduction in overall damage across the benefit period (5 years). An additional financial contribution of £500,000 is proposed towards supplementary emission reduction measures. Combining the latter with the on-site mitigation benefits (£304,000) indicates a total mitigation credit of £804,000 (no design credit was applied). This corresponds to 57% of base fleet impacts.

[ITTypography] [BQValue] [BUTypography] [BQMethod]
  • Indicator Value Measure / Method Quality Assurance
  • Costs 36,628 £/5yr PM10 damage costs avoided (5yr) / 
  • Costs 267,297 £/5yr NOX damage costs avoided (5yr) / 

Appraisal

A transport emissions mitigation implementation plan will be prepared to the approval of the LPA prior to commencing work on-site.  Associated measures will be put in place prior to first occupation/use. Progress will be monitored against the plan throughout the benefit period (5 years) with annual progress reports made to the LPA.

Action details

Action: Action #1 - Customer Travel Plan [ACName]  

Action Definition: Travel plan incl. sustainable transport, applies to all customer car trips [ACDescription]

[ACBenefit] Action Mechanism: 10% reduction in staff car trips

  • [ITTypography] [BQValue] [IUTypography] [BQMethod] [BQDescription]
  • Indicator Value Measure / Method Quality Assurance
  • Costs 83,125 £/5yr NOX damage costs avoided (5yr) /
  • Costs 27,043 £/5yr PM10 damage costs avoided (5yr) /

Action: Action #2 - Staff Travel Plan [ACName]  

Action Definition: Travel plan incl. sustainable transport, applies to all staff car trips [ACDescription]

[ACBenefit] Action Mechanism: 10% reduction in staff car trips

  • [ITTypography] [BQValue] [IUTypography] [BQMethod] [BQDescription]
  • Indicator Value Measure / Method Quality Assurance
  • Costs 14,193 £/5yr NOX damage costs avoided (5yr) /
  • Costs 4,618 £/5yr PM10 damage costs avoided (5yr) /

Action: Action #3 - On site fleet management [ACName]  

Action Definition: Introduce an all electric van delivery fleet [ACDescription]

[ACBenefit] Action Mechanism: 100% reduction in exhaust emissions from delivery fleet (NOX and PM10 exhaust). NB No impact on PM10 non-exhaust (brake, tyre wear, abrasion)

  • [ITTypography] [BQValue] [IUTypography] [BQMethod] [BQDescription]
  • Indicator Value Measure / Method Quality Assurance
  • Costs 131,210 £/5yr NOX damage costs avoided (5yr) /
  • Costs 3,291 £/5yr PM10 damage costs avoided (5yr) /

Action: Action #4 - Site based LEZ [ACName]  

Action Definition: Site based low emission zone requiring all service vehicles (LGV and HGV) to be Euro V or better. [ACDescription]

[ACBenefit] Action Mechanism: Relative emission reductions were modelled between an assumed 'business as usual' fleet and Euro V+. NB LET v1.1 was used, as such fleet composition and emission factors reflect EFT v4.2 (current at time of LET development), rather than EFT 6.0.1 (latest)

  • [ITTypography] [BQValue] [IUTypography] [BQMethod] [BQDescription]
  • Indicator Value Measure / Method Quality Assurance
  • Costs 1,677 £/5yr PM10 damage costs avoided (5yr) /
  • Costs 38,769 £/5yr NOX damage costs avoided (5yr) /

Notes

[1] Traffic data for delivery and service fleets were invented for the purpose of this case study.

[2] The mitigation packages and developer contributions were also invented.

[3] Locations and Planning References have been anonymised for the purpose of this case study

Assessment notes

[CSETechnicalStatement]

This Emissions Assessment and Mitigation Study has been undertaken according to the requirements of the LPA guidance in combination with the Low Emission Partnership’s assessment guidelines (EMA-TG-2.0). The aim is to assess the transport emission impacts of the development, propose corresponding mitigation and demonstrate that the latter is both balanced and proportionate.



Status

Worked example


Main Actor

  • Low Emission Partnership

Basic details

  • Local authority: National Case Study [Other]

  • Location: Local Authority A (City) [Region: National]

Created

  • 08 Jul 16 – Updated 08 Jul 16

Action Type

  • Travel Plan
  • Green Fleet/ Low Emission Vehicle Investment
  • Low Emission Zone

Documents