Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

CATCH EVALUATION REPORT by gdf57j

VIEWS: 1 PAGES: 185

									                               CATCH
              EVALUATION REPORT




            Contract No: LIFE02 ENV/UK/000136-2000-10988


Project Co-ordinator: Merseytravel, UK

Partners:             Liverpool City Council
                      Transport & Travel Research Ltd
                      Arriva North West Ltd
                      Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici
                      Suceava Municipality


                                     Final

                                 April 2006
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                                                                        Final



                                                               TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.       INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................................1
     1.1         BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................................................................1
     1.2         PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION REPORT ...............................................................................................................1
     1.3         CONTENTS OF THE PLAN .........................................................................................................................................1
2.       SUMMARY OF THE CATCH EVALUATION PLAN......................................................................................2

3.       BACKGROUND DATA ........................................................................................................................................... 10
     3.1      M OBILITY DATA ....................................................................................................................................................10
        3.1.1      Traffic Data.................................................................................................................................................. 10
        3.1.2      Overall Bus Patronage Data..................................................................................................................... 10
        3.1.3      Cycle Use Data............................................................................................................................................ 11
     3.2      A IR QUALITY BASELINE .......................................................................................................................................12
        3.2.1      Nitrogen Dioxide......................................................................................................................................... 16
        3.2.2      Particulates.................................................................................................................................................. 17
4.       TASK 1 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 18
     4.1         IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................................................................................................................18
     4.2         PARTICULATE EMISSIONS .....................................................................................................................................18
     4.3         NOX EMISSIONS.....................................................................................................................................................19
     4.4         FUEL CONSUMPTION .............................................................................................................................................19
     4.5         TASK 1 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................20
5.       TASK 2 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 21
     5.1      IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................................................................................................................21
     5.3      OPERATION AND RELIABILITY.............................................................................................................................23
     5.4      SERVICE PATRONAGE............................................................................................................................................24
     5.5      U SER FEEDBACK....................................................................................................................................................25
     5.6      VEHICLE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE ......................................................................................................27
        5.6.1      Fuel Consumption....................................................................................................................................... 28
        5.6.2      Emissions Performance.............................................................................................................................. 28
        5.6.3      Noise Levels ................................................................................................................................................. 29
     5.7      TASK 2 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................30
6.       TASK 3 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 31
     6.1      INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................................31
     6.2      THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING THE AIR QUALITY A CTION PLAN.............................32
     6.3      THE CYCLING AND W ALKING SUPPORT MEASURES ........................................................................................34
        6.3.1     City Centre Walking and Cycling Infrastructure................................................................................... 34
        6.3.2     Cycle Training Initiative............................................................................................................................ 35
     6.4      OUTLINE EVALUATION OF THE CYCLING AND W ALKING SUPPORT MEASURES..........................................36
        6.4.1     City Centre Walking and Cycling Infrastructure Implementation...................................................... 36
        6.4.2     City Centre Walking and Cycling Data From CATCH Interview Surveys ....................................... 36
        6.4.3     Cycle Use Observations............................................................................................................................. 37
     6.5      TASK 3 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................38
7.       TASK 4 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 40
     7.1      INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................................40
     7.2      ECOTRAVEL...........................................................................................................................................................40
        7.2.1     Communications Mechanisms................................................................................................................... 42
        7.2.2     ECOtravel Website...................................................................................................................................... 43
        7.2.3     Progress Towards ECOtravel Awareness Target.................................................................................. 45
     7.3      COMMUNITY M OBILITY PLANS ...........................................................................................................................45
        7.3.1     Working with Developers........................................................................................................................... 45
        7.3.2     Healthy Travel Promotion......................................................................................................................... 47
        7.3.3     Calorie Map................................................................................................................................................. 49



The CATCH Consortium                                                                  i                                                                                        13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                                                                        Final


     7.4         TASK 4 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................51
8.       TASK 5 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 52
     8.1      DEPLOYMENT OF POLLUTION M ONITORING EQUIPMENT ................................................................................52
     8.2      TEST RESULTS FROM INNOVATIVE POLLUTION M ONITORING EQUIPMENT ..................................................53
        8.2.1     Diurnal Variations in Particulate Concentration at Paradise Street Bus Station........................... 53
        8.2.2     Impact of Particulate Traps on Instantaneous Particulate Concentration at Paradise Street Bus
        Station ........................................................................................................................................................................ 53
        8.2.3     Particulate Concentrations at Arriva Bus Depot .................................................................................. 53
        8.2.4     Impact of Car-Free Day on Local Particulate Concentration............................................................ 54
        8.2.5     Impact of the ‘School Run’ on Local Particulate Concentration....................................................... 54
     8.3      TASK 5 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................55
9.       TASK 7 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 56
     9.1      EMISSION REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES..............................................................................................................56
        9.1.1     Introduction of LPG Cars in the Municipal Fleet ................................................................................. 56
        9.1.2     Emission Reduction Systems on Cars in the Municipal Fleet............................................................. 56
        9.1.3     Particulate Traps on Minibuses in the Public Transport Fleet........................................................... 57
        9.1.4     Refurbishment of Trolleybuses to Replace Old Buses .......................................................................... 57
     9.2      EXTENSION OF THE LOW EMISSION ZONE..........................................................................................................58
     9.3      PROMOTION A CTIVITIES .......................................................................................................................................58
        9.3.1     General Promotion..................................................................................................................................... 58
        9.3.2     Promotion of LPG ....................................................................................................................................... 59
     9.4      TASK 7 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................59
10.          TASK 8 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 61
     10.1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................................61
     10.2 FEASIBILITY STUDY...............................................................................................................................................62
       10.2.1 Study Implementation................................................................................................................................. 62
       10.2.2 Study Results................................................................................................................................................ 65
     10.3 BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION .........................................................................................................................67
     10.4 TASK 8 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................67
11.          OVERALL PROJECT IMPACTS .................................................................................................................... 68
     11.1 OVERALL IMPACTS................................................................................................................................................68
       11.1.1 Emissions...................................................................................................................................................... 68
       11.1.2 Survey Results.............................................................................................................................................. 76
     11.2 HEALTH IMPACT A SSESSMENT ............................................................................................................................82
12.          TRANSFERABILITY AND EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE .................................................................... 85
     12.1 TRANSFERABILITY.................................................................................................................................................85
     12.2 W IDER APPLICATION OF MEASURES IN LIVERPOOL.........................................................................................85
       12.2.1 Clean Vehicle Technologies...................................................................................................................... 85
       12.2.2 Wider Application of Air Quality Action Plans...................................................................................... 87
       12.2.3 Infrastructure to Support Sustainable Modes ........................................................................................ 87
       12.2.4 Communication Initiatives......................................................................................................................... 88
       12.2.5 Community Initiatives................................................................................................................................. 88
       12.2.6 Pollution Monitoring.................................................................................................................................. 89
     12.3 TRANSFER OF M EASURES BETWEEN CITIES......................................................................................................89
       12.3.1 Transfer between CATCH cities............................................................................................................... 90
       12.3.2 Wider Transferability................................................................................................................................. 91
     12.4 EUROPEAN A DDED VALUE...................................................................................................................................92
13.          SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 93



APPENDIX A: Details of CATCH Evaluation Surveys
APPENDIX B: Summary of Rapid Health Impact Assessment



The CATCH Consortium                                                                  ii                                                                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                Final



1.       INTRODUCTION

1.1      Background

CATCH is a R&D project supported by DG Environment of the European Commission and
implemented by 6 partner organisations:

•     Merseytravel (UK)
•     Transport & Travel Research Ltd (TTR) (UK)
•     Liverpool City Council (UK)
•     Arriva North West Ltd (UK)
•     CTP (Italy)
•     Suceava Municipality (Romania)

The aim of the project has been to work in partnership with local residents, developers, public
transport providers and other groups to implement a range of solutions to improve provision
of clean transport options through a mixture of planning, awareness and technical measures.

1.2      Purpose of the Evaluation Report

This evaluation report has been prepared by TTR to record and collate the results of various
qualitative and quantitative data collection activities aimed at evaluating the impact of the
CATCH demonstration measures within the wider context of life in the partner cities. The
relative impacts of the demonstration measures in influencing public awareness, behaviour
and emissions from transport are discussed so that recommendations about the efficacy of the
measures and their future uptake can be made in the CATCH final report.

1.3      Contents of the Plan

This evaluation report reflects the design of the evaluation that was put forward in the
CATCH Evaluation Plan which in itself had evolved through experience in evaluating
previous research projects such as JUPITER, JUPITER-2, ALTEReco, SWITCH and CUPID.

Following this introduction, section 2 of the plan provides a background to the CATCH
Evaluation Plan. The following sections then investigate the effectiveness of the measures
within CATCH on a task by task basis before the results are summarised in the final section.




The CATCH Consortium                       1                                           13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                               Final



2.     SUMMARY OF THE CATCH EVALUATION PLAN

The CATCH evaluation plan aimed to provide a coherent framework and detailed description
for the evaluation and assessment process of the CATCH demonstration sites, predominantly
in Liverpool but also through transfer of certain elements, where relevant, to Italy and
Romania. In doing so, the evaluation plan established and discussed in detail the evaluation
design and processes to be undertaken within CATCH.

The framework for the evaluation process is based upon the MAESTRO guidelines and a
significant body of evaluation experience that has been built up in similar projects and which
is brought to CATCH through the skills of the individual project partners. The MAESTRO
Guidelines, developed on beha lf of DG TREN, were used as a starting point for the
evaluation plan to provide information about the stages of development of the CATCH
evaluation that would allow it to adjust during the project, so ensuring a meaningful output in
relation to the CATCH m    easures as they developed during the design and implementation
process.

The main element of the Evaluation Plan was the development of the categories of data to be
collected, leading to specific indicators and a proposed working procedure for collection of
specific data items. Following MAESTRO, this development process was centred around a
set of relevant urban policies which the project is aiming to address and more specific
objectives within these policy areas as follows.

Table 2.1: Areas of major policy interest and Potential Objectives

Areas of major policy      Objectives
interest
Quality of urban life       improved access to schools, hospitals, shops and leisure functions (improved
                            social inclusion)
                            improved air quality through lower transport-related pollution
                            reduction of health impacts of transport
                            improved safety
                            reduced conflict between transport and other functions of the city
                            reduced conflict between modes
                            improved economic prosperity via increased mobility to a wider range of
                            employment opportunities
                            preservation of local green belt /public access land
                            improved safety record of urban transportation
                            reduced transport costs
                            greater awareness of transport and environment issues
Quality of public transport improved access to local public transport services
                            increased choice of destinations by public transport
                            increased choice of transport options
                            improved integration between public transport services
                            improved service frequency
                            improved reliability
                            improved comfort and cleanliness
                            reduced feeling of threat to personal security
                            increased access to and quantity of service information, including real time
                            information
                            terminal location
                            improved vehicles providing easy access and contributing directly to other
                            objectives such as comfort, environmental improvement and reliability
                            increased awareness of public transport options




The CATCH Consortium                             2                                                    13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                            Final


 Areas of major policy     Objectives
 interest
 Improved transport        modal shift from private to public transport
 efficiency
                           improved energy efficiency
                           reduction in journey times
                           reduction in time and fuel wasted due to congestion
                           new physical transport management measures to improve traffic flows and restrict
                           access to key areas to essential services
                           integration with inter-urban transport systems
                           reduction in the number of unnecessary trips

Initial analysis of the potential impacts of CATCH was been carried out in discussion with
the partners and resulted in the suggested list of impacts contained in Table 2.2. The
categories and impacts are a mixture of quantitative and qualitative indicators that will
require many different methods to provide the information needed to enable evaluation.

Table 2.2: Evaluation of Impacts

Evaluation Category            Evaluation sub-Category              Impact Area
Acceptance                     General Attitude                     Operator attitude and acceptance
                                                                    User acceptance
                                                                    Interest groups
                                                                    Political acceptance
Social                         Health                               Public health
                               Accessibility                        Access to amenities
Transport System / Behaviour   Personal Mobility                    Distance travelled
                                                                    Number of trips made
                                                                    Mode choice
                               Traffic Characteristics              Vehicle speed
                                                                    Vehicle occupancy
                                                                    Traffic volume
                                                                    Modal split
Quality of Demonstration       Information                          Information availability
                                                                    Campaign recall
                               Service Quality                      Comfort
                                                                    Reliability
                               Technical Performance                Operational reliability
                                                                    Operational accuracy
Resource Consumption           Fuel consumption                     Fuel use
                                                                    Fuel efficiency
Pollution / Nuisance           Air Quality                          Change in air quality
                               Emissions                            Change in emissions
Financial                      Demonstration Costs                  Investment cost
                                                                    System operating costs & revenues

Based on this initial list of potential impacts a more detailed analysis of how they could be
addressed resulted in the list of indicators and associated measurement methods contained in
Table 2.3. This recognises that the evaluation process needs to address 3 distinct questions:

1) What are the predicted and actual impacts of the project on air quality in the city?
2) Was the scheme implemented as planned and does it now function as intended?
3) What are the opinions of the public and other stakeholders of the project measures?

and then must follow up these questions with supporting data to quantify and explain the
answers.


The CATCH Consortium                               3                                                13/04/06
  CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                                                            Final


  Table 2.3: Description of Evaluation Methods

Evaluation         Evaluation sub-    Impact Area                        Indicator                                 Description                                   Method
Category           Category
Acceptance         General Attitude   Operator attitude and acceptance   Index of operator opinion                 Confidence rating given to                    Operator interview
                                      of demonstrated measure                                                      demonstration by operator
                                      User acceptance                    Index of user opinion                     Acceptance rating given to                    Qualitative survey
                                                                                                                   demonstration by users
                                                                         Number of passengers per vehicle          Service patronage                             Observational survey
                                      Interest Groups                    Index of stakeholder opinion              Acceptance rating given to                    Focus groups
                                                                                                                   demonstration by stakeholders
                                      Political acceptance               Index of political opinion                Confidence rating given to                    Qualitative survey /
                                                                                                                   demonstration by local politicians            interviews
Social             Health             Public health                      Various                                   Rapid Health Impact Assessment                Various
                   Accessibility      Access to amenities                Residents’ perceptions of accessibility   Attitudinal index for access to hospitals,    Qualitative survey
                                                                                                                   schools, leisure facilities, shops etc
Transport System / Personal           Distance travelled                 Average pkm / day                         Average total distance travelled per          Travel diary
Behaviour          Mobility                                                                                        person each day
                                      Number of trips made               Average number of trips per person        Average number of trips per person            Travel diary
                                                                         each day                                  each day
                                                                         Total number of trips by local            Total number of trips by local residents      Derived
                                                                         residents each day                        each day
                                      Mode choice                        Percentage of trips made by each          Percentage of trips made by each              Travel diary
                                                                         available mode                            available mode
                   Traffic            Vehicle speed                      km/h                                      Average speed over whole local road           Derived / measured as
                   Characteristics                                                                                 network                                       appropriate
                                      Vehicle occupancy                  Number of occupants per vehicle           General occupancy for different vehicle       Derived / measured as
                                                                                                                   types over whole local road network           appropriate
                                      Traffic volumes                    vehicles / hour                           Traffic volumes on selected streets           Measured
                                                                         Total vkm                                 Total vehicle flows on whole local road       Derived / measured as
                                                                                                                   network                                       appropriate
                                                                         Residents’ perceptions of local traffic   Attitudinal index related to traffic levels   qualitative survey
                                      Modal split                        % vkm for each mode                       % distribution across all modes               Derived




  The CATCH Consortium                                                               4                                                                               13/04/06
  CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                                               Final


Evaluation        Evaluation sub-   Impact Area                Indicator                                Description                                 Method
Category          Category
Quality of       Information        Information availability   Description of information availability description in terms of range of             Qualitative description
Demonstration                                                                                          information available, locations where it
                                                                                                       is available and number of requests
                                                                                                       received.
                                                               Index of awareness of information       Based on proportion of people who are        Qualitative survey
                                                               availability                            aware of what information is available
                                                                                                       and from where
                 Service Quality    Comfort                    Comfort index                           Attitudinal index related to vehicle         Qualitative survey
                                                                                                       comfort
                                    Reliability                Deviation from timetable                Accuracy of timekeeping along route          Observational survey
                 Technical          Operational reliability    % downtime                              Indicator designed to determine if the       Derived from
                 Performance                                                                           innovative air quality measurement           observations and bus
                                                                                                       system and new vehicles are reliable         operator data
                                    Operational accuracy       % variance                              Comparison of measured values with           Derived
                                                                                                       verified datum
Resource         Energy             Energy use                 GJ                                      Total energy use in study area               Derived
Consumption      consumption
                                                               GJ                                      Total life -cycle energy use in study area   Derived
                                    Fuel efficiency            litres / vkm or MJ / vkm                Vehicle fuel efficiency for new electric /   Derived from data
                                                                                                       hybrid vehicles and buses using water-       collected by bus operator
                                                                                                       diesel emulsion
                                                               litres / pkm or MJ / pkm                Overall system fuel efficiency based on      Derived
                                                                                                       all journeys made by all modes relevant
                                                                                                       to study
Pollution /      Air Quality        Change in air quality      ppm or g/m3                             Concentration of selected pollutants         Measured by existing
Nuisance                                                                                               (e.g. NO x, PM 10 ) at selected locations    LCC and innovative air
                                                                                                       (e.g. Paradise St bus station and along      quality monitoring
                                                                                                       the main bus routes into the city centre)    equipment
                 Emissions          Change in emissions        g/vkm or K value                        Emissions levels of selected pollutants      Routine bus operator
                                                                                                       (e.g. NO x, PM 10 ) for new electric /       measurements or
                                                                                                       hybrid vehicles and buses using water-       additional tailpipe tests
                                                                                                       diesel emulsion




  The CATCH Consortium                                                     5                                                                            13/04/06
  CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                    Final


Evaluation       Evaluation sub-   Impact Area                Indicator       Description                                Method
Category         Category
Financial        Demonstration     Investment cost            £               Costs associated with purchase of          Collected from partners
                 Costs                                                        vehicles, property, equipment etc          through QMRs
                                   System operating costs &   £               Fuel costs for demonstration vehicles      Derived from data
                                   revenues                                                                              collected by bus operator
                                                              £               Staff costs for additional staff members   Derived from data
                                                                                                                         collected by bus operator
                                                                                                                         and other partners (e.g.
                                                                                                                         Merseytravel for SMIB
                                                                                                                         staff)
                                                              £               Non-staff maintenance costs                Derived from data
                                                                                                                         collected by bus operator
                                                              £               Other operating costs & revenues           Derived from data
                                                                                                                         collected by bus operator
                                                              £               Vehicle life-cycle costs                   Derived from data
                                                                                                                         collected by bus operators




  The CATCH Consortium                                                    6                                                  13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                   Final




Where possible the data identified in the above table as being needed as part of the evaluation
has been collected from a series of specific surveys and also from monitoring wider transport,
social and economic data. The actual data collected and the methods used are described in
more detail in the relevant sections, although the data sources can be summarised within four
basic categories:

•   primary data that is already collected by one of the partners that can be used directly in
    the evaluation or needs limited manipulation
•   primary data that must be collected specifically for this purpose and then either used
    directly or modified slightly
•   data from transport models of the city centre area
•   qualitative data about attitudes and opinions of the demonstrated measures to be collected
    from those affected by the project

This was developed into a detailed evaluation work programme for the demonstration in
Liverpool as shown in Table 2.4.

The targeted area of influence of the CATCH scheme was Liverpool city centre: although
many of the measures inevitably had an impact over a wider area (for example the buses to
which particulate traps were fitted operate over much wider area), their primary aim was to
have an influence in the central area (the routes on which the buses to which particulate traps
were fitted operate focus in on the city centre) and their impact was maximised in this area,
particularly the city centre Air Quality Management Area (see Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1: The Liverpool City Centre Air Quality Management Area


                                                             The city centre AQMA includes
                                                             the hybrid / electric bus route,
                                                             the Liverpool City Council’s
                                                             background air quality monitors
                                                             and the area targeted by the
                                                             community mobility plans and
                                                             Liverpool City Council’s city
                                                             centre movement strategy.


                                                             Where appropriate, a wider area
                                                             for considering the impact of
                                                             some of the measures has also
                                                             been defined.        This varies
                                                             depending on the measure in
                                                             question - in some cases it is the
                                                             bounds of the city of Liverpool
                                                             and in others it is Merseyside as
                                                             a whole, depending on the nature
                                                             of the measure and the data
                                                             available for the necessary
                                                             calculations.


The CATCH Consortium                           7                                       13/04/06
  CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                               Final


  Table 2.4: The Key Activities Proposed within the Evaluation Plan

 Impact Area                        Activity                     Survey         Approx.                  Approx.
(see Table 2.3)                                                   Code            Date               Subcontract Cost
Operator                                                                   March 2003 & March
                  Operator Interview - Arriva                      1                                       N/A
Attitude                                                                          2004
                  Operator Interview - Electric / Hybrid bus
                                                                   2            March 2005                 N/A
                  service
User              Electric / Hybrid bus service: Patronage
                                                                   3a           March 2005                £900
Acceptance        survey
                  General bus service patronage: Merseytravel             A.S.A.P. to cover 2000-
                                                                   4                                       N/A
                  data                                                             2005
                  Electric / Hybrid bus service: User opinion
                                                                   5a           March 2005                £1000
                  survey
                  Opinions of travel options: General public
                                                                   6a     April 2003 & April 2005       £3000 each
                  opinion survey
Stakeholders      Identify targets with WP4                        7       April 2003 - Sept 2004          N/A
                                                                          April 2003 - Sept 2004 &      £600 each
                  Run Focus groups / interviews                    7
                                                                                 April 2005             6 groups?
Political         Interviews (with ward councillors & the city
                                                                   8      April 2003 & April 2005          N/A
Acceptance        centre area committee)
Health            Rapid HIA                                         9     April 2003 & April 2005        £52,635
Accessibility     General public opinion survey                    6b     April 2003 & April 2005         see 6a
Personal
                  One-day Travel Diary                             10     April 2003 & April 2005      £16,250 each
Mobility
Traffic           LCC / MT data (selected inputs & model                  A.S.A.P. to cover 2000-
                                                                   11                                      N/A
Characteristics   outputs)                                                         2005
                  Additional data collection (if needed)           12         As appropriate             <£2000
                  Opinion of traffic levels: General public
                                                                   6c     April 2003 & April 2005         see 6a
                  opinion survey
Information       Awareness of information availability:
                                                                   6d     April 2003 & April 2005         see 6a
Availability      General public opinion survey
Service Quality   Electric / Hybrid bus service: User opinion
                                                                   5b           March 2005                see 5a
                  survey
                  General public opinion survey                    6e     April 2003 & April 2005         see 6a
                  Observational survey of deviation from
                                                                   3b           March 2005                see 3a
                  timetable (Electric / Hybrid bus service)
Technical         Operational Reliability: emissions                       September 2003 - May
                                                                   13                                      N/A
Performance       monitoring equipment                                            2005
                  Operational Reliability: Electric / Hybrid
                                                                   14         Feb - May 2005               N/A
                  buses
                  Operational Accuracy: emissions monitoring              September 2003 - May
                                                                  15a                                      N/A
                  equipment                                                        2005
Energy Use                                                                A.S.A.P. to cover 2000-
                  Arriva data                                      16                                      N/A
                                                                                   2005
                  Electric / Hybrid bus service operator data      17          March 2005                  N/A
                                                                            Before depends on
                  General area data: JET model or equivalent       18                                      N/A
                                                                          survey 11 & May 2005
Emissions                                                                 A.S.A.P. to cover 2000-
                  Arriva data on particulates                      19                                      N/A
                                                                                   2005
                  Tailpipe survey for other pollutants
                                                                   20           March 2004                  ?
                  (especially NOx emissions)
Air Quality                                                               A.S.A.P. to cover 2000-
                  Data from existing LCC fixed sites              15b                                      N/A
                                                                                   2005
                  Data from new CIMS equipment see WP5             21           2003-2005                  N/A
Financial         Assorted cost information from partners          22           2003-2005                  N/A




  The CATCH Consortium                                   8                                           13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                      Final


One of the key issues in the evaluation of a demonstration project such as CATCH, where
implementation occurs in a living city where people are subject to other influences on their
travel behaviour as well as the project in question, is the difficulty of separating the impact of
the project from other influences on the target group. This must be addressed both:

   o in terms of understanding other relevant changes that are going on in the city anyway
     in order to try to isolate what the situation would have been at the end of the project if
     the project had not been implemented, as it is highly likely that things will not have
     stood still during the 3 year course of the project,
   o and also because the project has a limited scale in comparison to the city as a whole,
     with different project elements being implemented in different locations and with
     different spheres of influence.

With this in mind some general background data, mainly focusing around city centre traffic
levels and air quality measurements, has also been collected to provide context to the
CATCH project impacts.




The CATCH Consortium                            9                                         13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                      Final



3.      BACKGROUND DATA

3.1     Mobility Data

3.1.1   Traffic Data

Traffic entering and leaving Liverpool city centre has been monitored for at least 20 years at
consistent locations using automatic traffic counters, which have enabled trends in total
traffic flows on a 16 hour, two-way flow basis to be established. Considerable variations are
observed on a day to day and even year to year basis and so a three year rolling average of
this data has been produced in order to try to lessen the impact of fluctuations so that a trend
in overall city centre traffic within Liverpool can be identified. This data is shown in figure
3.1. It can be seen that there is a general upward trend, although a dip was observed between
1998 and 2001. On average there has been an increase of around 10% over a 10 year period.

Figure 3.1    Three Year Rolling Quarterly Average for Traffic Flows on All Corridors
into and out of Liverpool City Centre.
 385000

 380000

 375000

 370000

 365000

 360000
                                                                                    Average
                                                                                    aross all sites
 355000

 350000

 345000

 340000

 335000
       1992      1994     1996       1998     2000     2002      2004      2006



3.1.2   Overall Bus Patronage Data

Merseytravel monitors the number of people boarding and alighting buses at bus stops in
Liverpool city centre. Figure 3.2 shows data for the period 1999-2004 and a similar pattern
to that part of the traffic data in that there was a dip in 2000, which was followed by two
years of growth, although since 2002 bus use seems to have stabilised.




The CATCH Consortium                           10                                        13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                   Final


Figure 3.2         City Centre Bus Stop Use in Liverpool: 1999-2004
 25000000




 20000000




 15000000


                                                                                      Boarders
                                                                                      Alighters


 10000000




  5000000




        0
                 1999        2000       2001        2002       2003        2004




3.1.3       Cycle Use Data

The Department for Transport (DfT) supplied cycle data in two forms for the period prior to
the introduction of CATCH:

   o Data from 112 automatic cycle counters installed at 56 locations around Liverpool.
     The data contained hourly cycle counts, from which 12 hour counts and the average
     annual daily flow (AADF) had been calculated. The DfT datasets were supplied for
     two periods March to October 2001 and March to October 2003. The data at each site
     covered only two days, one day for each direction of flow. Even though 22 census
     points were the same the format of the information makes direct comparisons over
     time at individual sites impossible but general trends by road and road classification
     can be identified.

   o Annual cycle monitoring data supplied as AADF estimates for the years 1997-2003
     were also provided to TTR by the DfT. The data was for a large number of census
     points which varied year on year.

Taken together these two datasets were analysed at the level of the AADF values using
Microsoft Access. This allowed annual changes in the number of cyclists to be examined
where time series information could be identified. The data needed careful handling to
ensure that there was some validity in the comparisons being made given the limited
timespan of some of the data and the lack of direct comparability between site locations. The
result was an estimated increase in the average AADF figure for cyclists of 6% per annum for
the period 1996-2003.

A more detailed analysis was carried out for the 2001 and 2003 data that suggests that there
might be a switch occurring where cyclists are moving from using major to more minor


The CATCH Consortium                           11                                    13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                      Final


roads. Table 3.1 shows data which suggests a slight increase in the use of principal urban
roads and a major increase in the use of unclassified urban roads. As the overall number of
count locations is dominated by counts at principal urban roads, the overall data is in line
with the AADF increase noted in the previous paragraph.

Table 3.1:      Cycle Counts by Road Category for 2001 and 2003
      Road category1 2001 Counts 2001 Average 2003 Counts 2003 Average Change (%)
      C Class Urban       36        29.83          36        27.17         -8.94%
      Principal Rural      4         2.50          4          1.50        -40.00%
      Principal Urban   4617        25.69        4617        27.32          6.32%
      Unclassified
      Urban              602         7.43         588        18.43        148.08%
                        5259                     5245

Clearly such a one off analysis need to be treated with some caution and this trend would
ideally be investigated over a longer period, but it does provide an interesting snapshot
providing context for the later analyses of cycle use within CATCH.

3.2       Air Quality Baseline

In January 2000, the government produced National Air Quality Standards that all Local
Authorities would either have to comply with or declare those areas that would not comply
with the objectives. Table 3.2 contains the Air Quality Objectives for the purpose of Local
Air Quality Management.

There are four permanent continuous air quality monitoring and one mobile monitoring site
in Liverpool. The locations are shown on Figures 3.3 and 3.4. Speke is located 8 miles
southeast of Liverpool city centre, but the data provided from this site is still considered to be
useful information in relation to the area covered by the services operated using the buses
equipped with particulate traps in CATCH.

For the pollutants listed in Table 3.2, Liverpool City Council has carried out a multi-stage
assessment to identify those pollutants for which the targets were not likely to be achieved.

It was found that targets would be achieved and that there is no need for a more detailed
review for the following pollutants.

      o   Benzene
      o   1,3- Butadiene
      o   Carbon Monoxide
      o   Lead




The CATCH Consortium                            12                                        13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                    Final


Table 3.2: National Air Quality Standards
Pollutant       Concentration Limits   Averaging Period          Objective
                (µg m-3 )      (ppb)                      (µg m-3 )     Date for
                                                                        objective
Benzene           16.25          5      Running annual     16.25      31.12.2003
                                            mean
1,3-              2.25           1      Running annual      2.25        31.12.2003
Butadiene                                   mean
Carbon           11,600       10,000    Running 8 hour    11,600        31.12.2003
Monoxide                                    mean
Lead              0.5           -        Annual mean         0.5        31.12.2004
                  0.25          -        Annual mean        0.25        31.12.2008
Nitrogen          200          105       1 hour mean        200         31.12.2005
Dioxide                                                                  (Max. 18
                                                                      exceedences per
                                                                           year)

                   40           21       Annual mean         40         31.12.2005
PM10               50            -       24 hour mean        50         31.12.2004
                                                                         (Max. 35
                                                                      exceedences per
                                                                           year)
                   40           -        Annual mean        40          31.12.2004
Sulphur            266         100      15 minute mean      266         31.12.2005
Dioxide                                                                  (Max. 35
                                                                      exceedences per
                                                                           yeat)
                   350         132       1 hour mean        350         31.12.2004
                                                                         (Max. 35
                                                                      exceedences per
                                                                           year)
                   125          47       24 hour mean       125         31.12.2004
                                                                         (Max. 35
                                                                      exceedences per
                                                                           year)




The CATCH Consortium                        13                                          13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                               Final


Figure 3.3     Location of Air Quality Monitoring Sites in Liverpool City Centre




                                                  2


                                       1
                          4




Key

       Air Quality Management Area 1 – Liverpool City

       Clean Bus Corridors to be monitored

       Air Quality Monitoring Site

1      Liverpool Centre – Figure 3.3
2      Islington – Figure 3.3
3      Speke – Figure 3.4
4      Victoria Street – Figure 3.3
5      Vauxhall – Figure 3.4




The CATCH Consortium                         14                                    13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                             Final


Figure 3.4     Location of Air Quality Monitoring Sites outside Liverpool City Centre

         5




                                                              3




Key

       Air Quality Management Area 1 – Liverpool City

       Air Quality Management Area 2 – End of M62

       Clean Bus Corridors to be monitored

       Air Quality Monitoring Site

       Speke Bus Depot

1      Liverpool Centre – Figure 3.3
2      Islington – Figure 3.3
3      Speke – Figure 3.4
4      Victoria Street – Figure 3.3
5      Vauxhall – Figure 3.4




The CATCH Consortium                         15                                  13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                                     Final


3.2.1                                       Nitrogen Dioxide

The two standards for levels of Nitrogen Dioxide relate to the hourly average and the annual
mean. Table 3.3 shows the number of times the 105ppb limit was breached between 1999
and 2002 at the four continuous monitoring sites and the mobile site (Vauxhall).

Table 3.3                                            Number of Exceedences of the hourly Nitrogen Dioxide Limit
                                                      Liverpool   Islington      Speke        Victoria    Vauxhall
                                                       Centre                                  Street
1999                                                      0            0           3             0            0
2000                                                      1           30           3            24            9
2001                                                      0            0           0             7           66
2002                                                      0            0           0             2           13

The maximum number of exceedences allowed in a year is 18, which was breached on
several occasions, but not since 2001.

Figure 3.5 shows the annual mean in ppb for nitrogen dioxide levels at the five monitoring
sites. The annual mean concentration limit is 21ppb. It can be seen that the annual mean
concentrations at Victoria Street, Islington and at the Vauxhall site exceeded this limit during
each year of monitoring in the run up to CATCH. However, both the Islington and Victoria
nitrogen dioxide levels have decreased each year. The out of city monitoring location at
Speke had an annual mean level of nitrogen dioxide of about half the regulatory limit.

Figure 3.5                                           Annual Mean in ppb for the Nitrogen Dioxide
                                       45
                                                                                                        40
                                       40
  Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Mean (ppb)




                                       35                        34
                                                                                                                               31
                                       30                             28                                     29
                                                                           27                                     26                     1999
                                       25                                                                              24 23        24   2000
                                                                                22
                                               21                                          21ppb                                         2001
                                       20           19 20
                                                            18                                                                           2002
                                                                                                                                         NAQ Standard
                                       15                                                 13
                                                                                     12

                                       10

                                        5

                                        0
                                                Liverpool        Islington                Speke     Victoria Street     Vauxhall
                                                 Centre
                                                                            Continuous Monitoring Site


Combined with detailed predictive modelling, this led to the declaration of the two air quality
management areas for NO2 in Liverpool.


The CATCH Consortium                                                                           16                                        13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                                            Final


3.2.2                                            Particulates

Table 3.4 shows the number of times the 50µg m-3 24 hour mean limit was exceeded in each
year of monitoring. Although the 24 hour mean was exceeded at all sites, none of the sites
exceeded the maximum number of times limit. (35 per year).

Table 3.4                                                 Number of exceedences of the PM 10 24 hour mean limit
                                                           Liverpool   Islington       Speke       Victoria     Vauxhall
                                                            Centre                                   Street
1999                                                          10           0             0             1           1
2000                                                           5           3             3            23          14
2001                                                          15           8             0            13          13
2002                                                           5           2             0            14          14

Figure 3.6 shows the annual mean for PM10 at the four continuous monitoring sites and the
mobile site (Vauxhall). It can be seen that the limit 40 µg m-3 was not exceeded at any of the
locations.

Figure 3.6                                                Annual Mean in µg m-3 of PM 10
                                            45
                                                                                            40 µg m-3
                                            40
  Particulate Matter Annual Mean (µg m-3)




                                                                                                                         36
                                            35
                                                                                                            32
                                                                                                                                      31
                                                                                                                 30 30                     30
                                            30                                  28                                            28 28
                                                    26        26        26 25                         25                                        1999
                                            25           24        24                       24                                                  2000
                                                                                     20          20                                             2001
                                            20                                                                                                  2002
                                                                                                                                                NAQ Standard
                                            15

                                            10

                                             5

                                             0
                                                     Liverpool           Islington               Speke     Victoria Street     Vauxhall
                                                      Centre
                                                                                     Continous Monitoring Site


Combined with detailed predictive modelling, this led to a decision that declaration of air
quality management areas for particulates in Liverpool was not justified on current
knowledge and predictions, but that the situation should be kept under review.




The CATCH Consortium                                                                                  17                                        13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                    Final



4.        TASK 1

Objective
To significantly expand the use of clean fuels in public transport and local authority vehicle
fleets by applying technology innovations to existing vehicles within the partners' fleets.

Targets

•     Particulate traps will reduce CO and HC emissions by 90% and particulates by 95%
•     10% of buses in Liverpool city centre equipped with emissions reduction technologies by
      the end of Year 1
•     Reduce NOx from participating buses by at least 15%

4.1       Implementation

As part of CATCH, 88 buses were equipped with particulate filters supplied by Dinex in
April / May 2003 and then a further 16 vehicles were equipped with combined exhaust gas
recirculation (EGR) systems and particulate traps in October 2004. This total of 104 buses
represents almost exactly 10% of the 1042 buses operated by the two dominant bus operators
in Merseyside, who operate almost all the bus services within Liverpool city centre.

The implementation of the various retrofit technologies showed mixed results in terms of
impacts on the operation of vehicles because of technical problems with the equipment. The
initial batch of traps suffered from a number of problems, some of which are yet to be fully
resolved. With hindsight, we are of the opinion that these seem to have arisen from
shortcomings in the original application engineering, and the quality of both manufacture and
installation. These were exacerbated at the point of the first annual service and emphasised
the importance of having a lengthy guarantee and service agreement with the manufacturer.
These problems were not replicated with the particulate trap element of the combined
EGR/trap systems.        The EGR technology required some tailoring to the specific
vehicle/engine combination where it is being used, but this was of minimal inconvenience in
comparison with the initial particulate trap problems.

4.2       Particulate Emissions

The opacity pass value for the vehicle’s annual test by VOSA (formerly the Vehicle
Inspectorate), the Government Agency responsible for vehicle standards, is a “k factor” of 3.0
for a turbocharged engine (all modern bus engines are turbocharged). The opacity pass value
has not been updated in recent years to match improvements in engine and after treatment
technology. A typical Euro I or II vehicle without a particulate trap will have a reading of 0.5
– 1.0. A pre-Euro engine may read higher than this. Vehicles fitted with traps can achieve
opacity meter readings of about 0.01 – 0.02. Values much greater than this indicate either a
problem with the particulate trap or a gross engine failure.

Opacity readings were observed to be as follows for the CATCH buses during a review of the
equipment by Arriva in September 2004. The data suggest that the particulate traps on 73
vehicles were working well at that time. Table 4.1 also shows that particulate traps on five of
the 13 DB250 vehicles appear not to be working effectively and this mirrors the observations
by Arriva’s technical staff that these vehicles have consistently been the most problematic
since the particulate filters were fitted.


The CATCH Consortium                           18                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                                 Final


Table 4.1     Smoke Test Results for the Initial Batch of 88 Vehicles Fitted with
Particulate Traps
Bus Type                                                            Typical average k value                           Outliers
Daf SB120 (total 17 vehicles)                                          16 vehicles: 0.02                                1.13
Daf DB250 (total 13 vehicles)                                          8 vehicles: 0.04                     0.14, 0.17, 0.79, 1.41, 1.49
Volvo B10BLE (6 vehicles)                                              6 vehicles: 0.02                                 N/A
Volvo B10 (40 vehicles)                                                35 vehicles: 0.03                       0.20, 0.35, 0.38, 1.61
Volvo Olympian (total 12 vehicles)                                     8 vehicles: 0.02                        0.12; 0.19, 0.22, 2.20

4.3                    NOx Emissions

The NOx content of the exhaust of one of the buses fitted with the combined STT EMTEC
EGR and Eminox particulate trap systems was monitored in June 2005. This monitoring was
conducted for the same vehicle in consecutive weeks - one week with the EGR system
working and one week with the EGR system disconnected. This provides as close a
comparison as possible of the impact of the EGR system on the NOx emissions. The result
showed that in this particular application the reduction in NOx emissions was 35%, which
lies within the range expected by the manufacturers, although they maintain that further
optimisation of the system will lead to an improvement to over 40% reduction on this vehicle.

4.4                    Fuel Consumption

Figure 4.1    Operational Fuel Consumption Results for the Initial Batch of 88 Vehicles
Fitted with Particulate Traps in Comparison with Fuel Consumption Data of the Other
Vehicles Based at Arriva’s Speke Depot
                                                    Comparison of MPG Fuel Before & After CATCH


                           2.0


                           0.0


                          -2.0
  Percentage Change




                          -4.0


                          -6.0


                          -8.0


                         -10.0


                         -12.0                                                                                 Leyland
                                                            DAF                               DAF                          NON-
                                 VOLVO   VOLVO     DAF               VOLVO   CATCH                    LEYLAND National              DEPOT
                                                           DB250                             SB220                        CATCH
                                  B10B   B10BLE   SB120             Olympian Average                  Olympian Training             Average
                                                           D/Deck                            D/Deck                       Average
                                                                                                                Buses
                      % Change    -3.0    -1.9     -5.0     -11.1      -3.2       -4.3        0.6        -0.1    -7.1       0.5      -2.6
                                                                              Vehicle Type


The fuel consumption data shown in Figure 4.1 indicate a worsening of fuel consumption
across the Arriva fleet at Speke of 4.3% as a result of the use of particulate traps. However,
this result is highly influenced by the poor performance of the 13 DAF DB250 vehicles,
which have been shown to be particularly susceptible to technical problems and in this
respect are probably unrepresentative of the true performance of particulate trap technology.



The CATCH Consortium                                                     19                                                         13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                    Final


Taking these vehicles out of the calculation leads to a worsening in fuel consumption of
around 2% which is at the limit of the uncertainty of this type of fleet based fuel consumption
monitoring and explains why the depot manager has not noticed a change in fuel
consumption as a result of the CATCH implementation.

4.5    Task 1 Summary

The fitting of particulate filters has produced significant reductions in the emission of
particulates from 88 buses and the use of a combined EGR/particulate filter system on a
further 16 buses has subsequently shown that this level of emission reduction can be
combined with a worthwhile reduction in the emission of NOx. The use of this type of
retrofit technology presents a cost effective solution to reducing emissions from the majority
of the existing bus fleet prior to its replacement with vehicles which meet the latest tight
emissions standards. The impact that this could have on overall emissions from the bus fleet
is significant, as reported in section 11 of this report in the context of the overall emissions
from transport in Liverpool city centre, indicating a massive wider potential impact on urban
air quality throughout Europe.

Operational problems experienced in the project suggest that particulate trap technology may
not be as well deve loped as might have been expected and that it is important to develop a
good relationship with an experienced supplier in order to combine the undoubted emissions
benefits of the technology with the least possible operations inconvenience.

One unforeseen issue has arisen during the project. This is the potential for the particulate
trap to mask problems arising from defects, including general wear, in the engine or its fuel
injection system. On a vehicle where a particulate trap is not fitted, early engine wear can
often be detected in the very early stages by regular use of an exhaust opacity (“smoke”)
meter, as used for annual statutory testing of diesel motor vehicles. This normally highlights
potential problems much sooner than visual checks or even the most clinical monitoring of
engine oil or fuel consumption. (All these parameters are regularly monitored by Arriva as
part of their routine maintenance programme.)

However, the particulate trap has the ability to virtually totally absorb any excesses of oil or
fuel in the exhaust stream, leaving the exhaust tailpipe stream completely clear in the short to
medium term, until the trap becomes blocked or contaminated by the excess. If this happens
there is a real risk of expensive damage to the trap, or even the engine, in addition to vehicle
unreliability. Hence trap fitment has the potential to make the engine and its fuel system less
tolerant of wear and other defects which inevitably develop during its operational life. What
may represent an insignificant problem on a vehicle without a particulate trap may cause a
trap-equipped vehicle to be rendered wholly unserviceable. Clearly, this could give rise to
increased engineering costs by shortening the usable life-cycle of the engine, its fuel system
and other systems.

CATCH involved the retrospective fitment to a broad spectrum of vehicles of various ages,
some up to ten years old at the commencement of the project. Similar problems might be
expected with newer vehicles, although they may be slower to materialise. This is the
essence of a demonstration project, a real-world trial of the technology and more time will be
required to tell how much of an operational issue this is.




The CATCH Consortium                           20                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                   Final



5.        TASK 2

Objective
To significantly expand the use of clean fuels in public transport and local authority vehicle
fleets by introducing new clean vehicles within the partners’ fleets to test innovative
technologies and applications.

Targets

The ultimate operational target for this task is the operation of 6 hybrid buses on the city
centre shuttle route by the end of year 3, with a start date of 01/01/05.

Additionally there were to be four electric vehicle recharging points (or equivalent) installed
under the control of Liverpool City Council.

5.1       Implementation

A city centre shuttle bus service was designed to operate in clockwise and anticlockwise
directions terminating on the waterfront at Princes Dock with a frequency of every 15
minutes. It was determined that this could be accommodated by the purchase and use of six
buses (five of these will be running at any one time, with one bus as a spare).

Figure 5.1     Map of the City Centre Shuttle Bus Service




At the time of writing the CATCH proposal, it had been envisaged that either battery-electric
or hybrid diesel-electric buses would prove appropriate for the CATCH Demonstration



The CATCH Consortium                          21                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                  Final


Project. The project partners re-evaluated the options and decided in January 2004 that
hybrid buses would be most suitable.

A tender was advertised in the EU Journal, which produced four responses and three of these
respondents were formally invited to tender. All three offered series hybrids. Following
competitive tendering, the Eneco/Optare product was selected, using a set of pre-defined,
objective selection criteria.

The first of the six buses was received in January 2005 complete with appropriate branding
and livery, although a month later than expected. Eneco conducted driver training on 27th
January 2005. Delivery had been delayed by a number of production and certification
problems which meant that the delivery of the remaining vehicles slipped from the original
contracted schedule. To ensure that the service started with the maximum amount of branded
hybrid vehicles it was decided to move the start date to the end of February, in the hope that
Eneco would overcome the production problems.

Figure 5.2     One of the CATCH Hybrid Buses in Service on the City Centre Shuttle
Route.




5.2    Vehicle Performance

Performance tests were conducted by LTC with the Eneco hybrid. Optare have provided
comparison data for a conventional Solo.

Although the performance characteristics of the standard Solo are more dynamic than those
of the comparable hybrid vehicle, there do not appear to have been any problems in service
and in general, drivers do not appear to have experienced many problems with the hybrid
buses. One exception to this has been the starting sequence, which has not always been
followed correctly by some drivers, resulting in the bus defaulting to a low power mode.
Buses have been reported as faulty, on occasion, due to this problem and modifications will
be made by Eneco to overcome the problem.


The CATCH Consortium                          22                                      13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                     Final




5.3    Operation and Reliability

The scheduled weekly mileage for the CATCH service, Routes S2 and S3, is 2411miles. The
service requires five buses to be available at any one time in order to achieve that total. As
the Eneco hybrids were delivered progressively, in the early weeks other buses were used.
The substitute buses, small Neoplans or Dennis Darts, have also been operated when the
quota of five hybrids has been temporarily unavailable for service, e.g. due to technical faults,
accident s etc

It was expected that a progressive improvement in the percentage of service miles on routes
S2 and S3 provided by the hybrid vehicles would be measurable, as initial faults were
rectified and additional vehicles came into service. The arrival of the 6th bus in May was
expected to result in the presence of a spare vehicle at all times, potentially leading to full
                                      n
operation by hybrid vehicles, even i case of technical faults on a vehicle leading to its
withdrawal from service.

Performance in terms of hybrid bus availability in relation to service requirement is
summarised in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1:    Progressive Hybrid Bus Availability as Measured by the % Service
Mileage on S2 and S3 Delivered by the Eneco Hybrid Buses
Week number         Mileage Operated by Hybrids % of possible mileage operated by hybrids
         th
9 (w/c 28 Feb)                  674                                46.5
10                              144                                 7.4
11                              701                                36.3
12                             1464                                75.9
13                             1373                                71.1
14                             1608                                83.3
15                              969                                50.2
16                              502                                20.8
17                             1880                                78.0
18                             2175                                90.2
19                             1864                                77.3
20                             1677                                69.6
21                             1189                                49.3
22                             1708                                69.7
23                             1773                                71.1
24                             1850                                74.3
25                             1909                                77.6
           th
26 (w/c 27 June)               1916                                74.8

The data in Table 5.2 show an improvement in performance, particularly in terms of
improved consistency of availability, although it cannot yet be concluded that the buses will
eventually reach the reliability of conventionally-powered buses.




The CATCH Consortium                           23                                        13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                                                                 Final


Figure 5.3: Progressive Hybrid Bus Availability as Measured by the % Service
Mileage on S2 and S3 Delivered by the Eneco Hybrid Buses
                                                   100


                                                    90


                                                    80
      Percentage max possible mileage by hybrids




                                                    70


                                                    60


                                                    50


                                                    40


                                                    30


                                                    20


                                                    10


                                                     0
                                                         Wk 9   Wk 10 Wk 11 Wk 12 Wk 13 Wk 14 Wk 15 Wk 16 Wk 17 Wk 18 Wk 19 Wk 20 Wk 21 Wk 22 Wk 23 Wk 24 Wk 25 Wk 26
                                                                                                           Week No.


Eneco have provided specialist support on site at the Arriva depot to deal with particular
problems. On occasion, the absence of their skilled personnel has resulted in the loss of more
mileage than might have been necessary. This could have contributed to the unavailability of
hybrid vehicles from time to time.

A number of faults can be attributed to insufficiently robust design of details by Eneco, such
as terminals, hoses and other items as might be expected on what is the initial, small
production batch of vehicles. These will be progressively upgraded and are not considered to
have long-term significance in assessing the merits or maintainability of hybrid buses,
although those teething troubles have, of course, affected data presented in this report. Some
replacement components have taken time to obtain, again adversely affecting the bus
availability. Surprisingly, one bus has experienced two failures of the VW TDI engine.
These were not related to the hybrid operation and full warranty responsibility has been
accepted by VW. However, those faults did affect vehicle availability and mileage achieved.

It has not yet been possible to extrapolate long term maintenance costs from the experience
so far as the buses are undergoing continuing development and improvement.

5.4                                                  Service Patronage

Patronage has increased steadily as people become aware of the service, rising from 1302 in
week 9 to 3346 in week 28 (week ending 15th July 2005), with a peak of 3568 in week 24.




The CATCH Consortium                                                                                        24                                                      13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                             Final


Figure 5.4:                     Progressive Patronage on the City Centre Shuttle Services S2 and S3
               4000



               3500



               3000



               2500
  Passengers




                                                                                                                           Total - S2
               2000                                                                                                        Total - S3
                                                                                                                           Overall Total


               1500



               1000



               500



                 0
                      Wk 9 Wk   Wk   Wk   Wk   Wk   Wk   Wk   Wk   Wk   Wk    Wk   Wk   Wk   Wk   Wk   Wk   Wk   Wk   Wk
                           10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19    20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28




Detailed analysis of the locations of boarding and alighting has been carried out as part of the
user consultation surveys which will be of use in further marketing of the service. It is
interesting to note that use of S2, the anti-clockwise service is consistently 50% greater than
that of S3, running clockwise.

5.5                   User Feedback

In May and June 2005 (weeks 21-23), once the service had become established, a detailed
passenger survey was conducted on the city centre shuttle bus in order to ascertain passenger
opinions of the service, the vehicles, details of its use to help with further marketing and
wider opinions of its impacts in the CATCH project area.

The key results from this survey are detailed in this section.

91% of respondents questioned stated that they would have made their journey even if the
bus service had not been in operation. Figure 5.5 shows that the majority of respondents
(70%) indicated tha t they would have walked, 24% would have used a different bus service to
make the same journey and 6% would have used a car, either as driver, passenger or in the
form of a taxi. Although we might have hoped for a higher mode shift from car to the shuttle
bus, this result is not unexpected because the route was chosen largely to fill a perceived gap
in public transport provision (hence the high number of journeys that would have been made
on foot), connecting a low income area to the city centre and hence overcoming problems of
social exclusion and severance by the dual carriageway relief road on the north side of the
city centre. This area is to be the subject of significant regeneration in the future and by
having the shuttle bus service in place it is expected that new residents and businesses that
locate here will be less dependent on car use in the future.




The CATCH Consortium                                                     25                                                    13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                 Final


Figure 5.5:     How respondents would have made a journey if the service was
unavailable
                                                0%    4%    0%

                          24%




                       1%
                        1%
                                                                                              70%


                                                           Walk

                                                           Car (driver)
                                                           Car (passenger)

                                                           Other bus

                                                           Train

                                                           Taxi

                                                           Other



54% of respondents were aware that the service they were using was operated by a hybrid
bus. Respondents were asked to rate how they felt about the hybrid bus service by indicating
if they agreed with the following four concepts: if they thought it was a good idea, if it
increased public awareness of the environment, has improved the environment and has
increased public transport use. Results can be seen in Figure 5.6. It is evident ma ny
respondents had no strong feelings about such concepts related to the new service with 40%
or more being unwilling to express an opinion. However, of those who did express an
opinion, the response was overwhelmingly positive, particularly in relation to whether the
introduction of the service was a good idea.

Figure 5.6:     How respondents feel about the hybrid bus service
           100%
                                                                                                    Don’t Know
              90%                                                                                   Agree Strongly
                                                                                                    Agree
              80%
                                                                                                    Neither / Nor
              70%
                                                                                                    Disagree
              60%                                                                                   Disagree
                                                                                                    Strongly
              50%

              40%

              30%

              20%

              10%

              0%
                    It is a good idea    It has increased It has improved the   It has increased
                                        public awareness      environment       public transport
                                        of the enviroment                              use

Respondents were asked to indicate what the main five reasons were for them using the
hybrid bus service for the journey they were undertaking. The majority of respondents


The CATCH Consortium                                          26                                                     13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                          Final


indicated that convenience was their most important reason for using the hybrid bus service
followed by reliability, service frequency, journey time and the fact that the service follows a
useful route (see Figure 5.7).

Figure 5.7:                          Five most important reasons for using the hybrid bus service
                                    350
                    Total Numbers




                                    300
                                                                                          Fifth most important
                                                                                          reason

                                    250
                                                                                          Fouth most important
                                                                                          reason
                                    200
                                                                                          Third most important
                                    150
                                                                                          reason

                                                                                          Second most important
                                    100                                                   reason

                                     50                                                   Most important reason

                                     0
                                                                                ility




                                                                                  e
                                                                                ce




                                                 ss e Fre ost
                                                                                   t
                                                              Co mfor




                                                                             Tim
                                                                             iab




                                                                               y
                                                                            ien




                                                                              C

                                            Pa er In enc




                                                          ve oute
                                                                             ly
                                                                          ble




                                              m er F on
                                                                         nd
                                                                           o



                                          En ng th Rel




                                                                        ey
                                                                        en




                                                                        ey
                                                                    sC




                                                                     qu




                                                                        s
                                                                      ila




                                                       en icle




                                                                        ti
                                                                    rie




                                       oth sen orma
                                                    Se ourn




                                                                       r
                                                   ns cilitie
                                                                   nv




                                                                     rt
                                                                 urn




                                                                  les
                                                                 va




                                                                 ful
                                                  ow npo
                                                               Bu




                                                                eh

                                                               yF




                                                             hic
                                                pri use
                                                             Jo
                                                             ta




                                                              a
                                                            ev




                                                              J




                                                              f



                                                           tra
                                                           tal
                                                         no




                                                        rvic




                                                      sa
                                                       of



                                                      te
                                                       g

                                                      g
                   le




                                                   en
                                                    m




                                                   va
                hic




                                                    i
                                                 ard

                                                 on




                                                ea
              ve




                                                s



                                  s t t fol
                                              Pa
                                              bo

                                              vir




                                             of
           te




                                            I
                                           of




                                          er



                                         se
                            ce n of
        iva




                                        se




                                      ou
      Pr




                                     Ea




                                   isio

                                    to
                                ov

                                ss



                               on
                            Pr




                           icti
                        ac




                        str
                     Re
                     sy
                   Ea




It is interesting to note that the reasons for choosing to use the S2 / S3 shuttle service are all
related to basic transport choices, rather than being driven by environmental performance.
When this is combined with other more general surveys that confirm environment as being a
minor driving force in peoples transport choices and the result shown in Figure 5.6 which
indicates a mixed response to the concept of the hybrid bus’ success in raising environmental
awareness in its own right of, this suggests that a combined effort to raise public awareness of
the environmental consequences of their travel choices and a need to incorporate sustainable
transport options as a core part of mainstream transport delivery rather than something that is
peripheral to be chosen in places where environmental pressures are strongest.

5.6          Vehicle Environmental Performance

The environmental performance of the vehicles has been assessed focusing primarily on fuel
consumption and emissions performance, with an additional note on vehicle noise. The
assessment has been based both on an independent assessment of the Eneco hybrid bus at the
Millbrook vehicle proving ground, (tests which were organised and witnessed by the Energy
Saving Trust) and from additional fuel consumption data gained during service operation in
Liverpool. Although the London Transport (LT) buses test cycle 1 is not representative of the
S2/S3 city centre shuttle route in Liverpool, the fuel consumption and emissions results

1
  The LT buses test cycle, based on the TfL 159 bus route, takes about 38 minutes for 8.92km, split between two
phases. The first, taking some 23 minutes, represents a medium speed, outer London phase. The second phase
represents the low speed, inner London portion of the route.


The CATCH Consortium                                             27                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                    Final


achieved by the Eneco hybrid using this drive cycle are of interest because directly
comparable tests results area available for a conventional Optare Solo.

5.6.1   Fuel Consumption

The fuel consumption of the Eneco hybrid, as measured at Millbrook on the LT buses test
cycle, was 25.4 litres/100 km averaged over five repeated tests. This is equivalent to
11.1 mpg. The fuel consumption achieved by a conventional Optare Solo (data supplied by
Optare) was 8.0 mpg (35.4 l/100 km). This is approaching a 40% improvement over a
comparable vehicle. (It should be noted that the conventional Optare solo is considered
within the industry to be relatively poor in fuel consumption terms.)

The six CATCH hybrids had covered in excess of 28,000 service miles (44,000km) by the
end of June. This is sufficient for preliminary consideration of fuel cons umption from
operating data. It had been anticipated that the CATCH hybrid bus would show at least a
30% improvement in fuel consumption compared with an equivalent, conventional vehicle.
Some assessment is possible based on comparisons arising from testing at Millbrook, from
CATCH route experience and from elsewhere.

The weighted average fuel consumption for all six hybrid vehicles when operating on the
CATCH S2 and S3 routes was found to be 7.2 mpg (39.3 l/100 km). This figure is
significantly worse than the result obtained under laboratory conditions at Millbrook over the
LT buses test cycle. Indeed, it is worse than the result for the conventional Optare Solo
tested at Millbrook, although care must be taken with such comparisons because it is
impossible to determine if the differences are due to:

        o The differences in real world operation against laboratory conditions,
        o The different drive cycles
        o Differences in the way the vehicles are configured 2

This latter point is particularly significant as the various modifications and adjustments made
to the hybrid buses’ control systems by Eneco, as a consequence of the initial service
experience, may be affecting fuel consumption. In particular, concerns have been expressed
that the engine may not have been shutting down as much as expected due to incorrect
electronic information supplied about the state of charge of the battery pack. If this were the
case, it would be expected that a rectification of such a problem would lead to improved fuel
consumption. Eneco are investigating this possibility.

5.6.2   Emissions Performance

Carbon dioxide emissions are inextricably linked from fuel consumption and the Millbrook
tests over the LT buses drive cycle provided for a CO2 emission level to be determined. The
result was corrected for zero net energy change of the rechargeable energy storage system
(equivalent to ensuring the fuel tank was at the same level at start and finish of a standard
test). On this basis the CO2 output was 681.4g/km.

Using the “well to tank ” percentage (14.5%) for road diesel fuel recommended by the Low
Carbon Bus Working Group the Eneco hybrid achieved a “well to wheel” CO2 emission level
2
 When considering the available hybrid fuel consumption data, it should be noted that the vehicle specification
has changed since early trials and this may have had effects on fuel economy.


The CATCH Consortium                                   28                                              13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                   Final


of 780.0 g/km. The Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership (LCVP) Well to Wheel CO2 exhaust
emission target for a bus with a total capacity of 53 passengers is 864.25 g/km, based on a
30% reduction from a Euro III diesel baseline. This gave the conclusion that: “The Eneco
hybrid bus therefore demonstrates that it complies with the CO2 emission requirements for a
Low Carbon Bus.”, although the operational fuel consumption data collected to date would
lead to proportionally worse CO2 emissions.

Various techniques were used to measure and correct the output of different pollutants,
including the regulated emissions. The results are summarised in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2:   Point of Use Emissions for an Eneco Hybrid under test on the LT Buses
             Drive Cycle at Millbrook
HC              CO                 NOx               CO2        PM
*               0.01g/km           7.16g/km          681.38g/km 0.090g/km
   * Corrected data insufficiently robust to quote here.

A similar summary for a conventional Optare Solo (Table 5.3) tested at Millbrook allows
comparison of the emissions from the two vehicles, although the conventional bus tested had
an axle ratio of 5.13:1, whereas the Eneco vehicle had an axle ratio of 4.1:1.

Table 5.3:     Point of Use Emissions for a Conventional Optare Solo under test on the
               LT Buses Drive Cycle at Millbrook
HC               CO              NOx             CO2             PM
0.404g/km        1.162g/km       6.437g/km       931.5g/km       0.118g/km

Comparison suggests the hybrid has markedly better CO2 performance, better particulate
performance and worse NOx performance, although CATCH task 1 has shown that these
emissions results can be improved upon using exhaust after treatment technologies.

5.6.3   Noise Levels

Since 1995, under EEC directives, noise levels from buses weighing over 3.5 tonnes and with
an engine output below 150kW are limited to 78dB(A), under specified test conditions. The
LTC Test Centre confirmed that the Eneco hybrid met drive-by noise legislation in February
2004. (The test required the engine to run at its designed operating speed, producing the
maximum generator output. Noise levels, 7.5m away from the bus, perpendicular to the
direction of travel, were to be 78dB(A) or less.)

However, other aspects of noise remain important factors in the operational evaluation of
hybrid buses, even though, for initial certification, compliance with the noise legislation has
been demonstrated.

During zero emission operations, and when the engine is shut down because the batteries are
fully charged, the hybrid bus is very quiet. When the vehicle is moving, even with the engine
running, the bus is as quiet, or quieter than, a conventional bus. (The maximum internal
noise level measured in a standard, conventional Optare Solo by LTC was 75dBA. In
February 2004 LTC confirmed that the hybrid noise levels were less than that figure, during
acceleration and at constant speeds of 10, 20, 30 and 40mph.)




The CATCH Consortium                          29                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                 Final


However, a hybrid may be noisier than a conventional diesel bus when stationary at a bus
stop, because under certain conditions of battery charge the engine may be running. A
conventional diesel bus would normally have its engine idling whilst stopped at a bus stop
and so in these circumstances the hybrid engine would be operating at a speed higher than the
conventional engine. This could be cause for concern in residential areas at night, or in
enclosed bus stations. To quantify such concerns, comparative measurement of noise levels
at bus stops could usefully be undertaken in the future.

Other factors also come into play, as the bus becomes quieter overall, at least in certain
modes. For example, the pitch of noise from the electric motor/generator may be perceived
as more intrusive, or the drivers may become more aware of compressor noise.

5.7    Task 2 Summary

The CATCH trials have demonstrated the potential capabilities of hybrid buses. They would
appear to have significant potential to reduce pollution and save fuel. They have proved
acceptable to operating personnel and to passengers alike. However, it is clear that more
development and evaluation work will be necessary to help the product develop from a niche
market with small, one-off orders to a larger, more continuous production base.

The chosen route appears to be meeting its objectives in terms of providing a link between
several regeneration areas, Liverpool’s main shopping centre and main transport nodes, so
improving accessibility within the city centre. The introduction of the service has been
received positively by those who use it, as witnessed by excellent feedback results.




The CATCH Consortium                         30                                      13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                     Final



6.        TASK 3

Objective
To demonstrate how an air quality management plan in Liverpool City Centre can be
implemented effectively.

Targets

The ultimate target for the air quality element is the introduction of measures to reduce NOx
levels to within acceptable standards by the end of 2005. In order to meet this target it will be
necessary:

•     To complete an action plan for the reduction of harmful emissions in the City Centre Air
      Quality Management Area by March 2004.
•     To have implemented the Action Plan by March 2005.
•     To achieve a 5% increase in city centre residents using environmentally friendly modes
      by August 2004 and 10% by the end of year 3.
•     to increase the proportion of cycling and walking journeys within Liverpool City Centre
      by 5% by June 2004 and 10% by April 2005.
•     To increase the percentage of city centre streets where significant improvement has been
      made to pedestrian / cycling facilities by 3% by June 2004, 5% by August 2004, 7% by
      April 2005 and 10% by August 2005. A 'significant improvement' would be defined as:
          • Creation of a new route
          • Creation of a new pedestrian / cyclist destination
          • Improvement of pedestrian / cyclist conditions on existing streets

6.1       Introduction

The development and implementation of the Air Quality Action Plan for Liverpool city
centre is both an output of CATCH in its own right and a driver for many initiatives aimed at
improving air quality in the CATCH project target area that have been implemented and will
be in the near future.

As is described in section 6.2, the process of developing the Air Quality Action Plan for
Liverpool city centre has taken more time than expected because of the need to satisfy local
and national government protocols at the various stages of plan development. This has meant
that a final draft of the plan is currently going through a final consultation phase and that
formal implementation will not occur until 2006. However, the commitment and financial
resources required for implementation will be contained within the region’s Local Transport
Plan for the period 2006-2011, so ensuring a legacy from CATCH that will be monitored and
driven through because the commitment to do so will have been ratified at City Council and
national government leve l.

The fact that the formal Air Quality Action Plan document has been delayed has not in itself
delayed the implementation of a range of measures designed to support the use of sustainable
travel modes (particularly walking and cycling) in and around Liverpool city centre during
the CATCH project period. These measures are described briefly in section 6.3.




The CATCH Consortium                           31                                        13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                       Final


Assessment of the support measures is considered in section 6.4. However, their very nature
as support measures, the fact that they are not targeted solely at residents but all people who
move around the city (tourists, shoppers, students, commuters, residents etc.) and the fact that
other activities which will support walking and cycling have also been implemented, mean
that it is difficult to isolate the impact of the individual measures from the overall change in
travel behaviour that has occurred in the city over the course of CATCH.

6.2    The Process of Developing and Implementing the Air Quality Action Plan

Under Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 Liverpool City Council was given the
responsibility to assess future local air quality against the national objectives prescribed in the
Air Quality Regulations 2000. As stated in section 3.2, the UK Air Quality Strategy clearly
placed statutory obligations on Liverpool City Council to review air quality in its area and to
declare Air Quality Management Areas where air quality standards were likely to be
exceeded by December 2005. For each objective, local authorities had to consider present
and future air quality and assess whether the objectives are likely to be achieved in time and
in subsequent years. Developing the plan has involved a multi-stage approach summarised as
follows:

Stage 1: Outline Assessment
Section 3.2 has already documented that initial assessments undertaken on behalf of
Liverpool City Council concluded that levels of benzene, 1,3-butadiene, carbon monoxide
and lead were already below the air quality objective levels and that it is unlikely that the
objective limits for sulphur dio xide will be exceeded in Liverpool. It also concluded that the
limits for particulates would not be breached, but that this should be kept under an ongoing
review. However, the Third Stage Review and Assessment of NO2 (Nitrogen Dioxide)
confirmed that concentrations of NO2 at certain locations in Liverpool had been or were close
                                                           -3
to the annual average NO2 objective for 2005 (40 µg m (microgrammes per cubic metre))
and that it was unlikely that the annual average objective would be achieved by December
2005.

Stage 2: Declaration of AQMAs
As a result of this Liverpool City Council declared two Air Quality Management Areas on 1st
June 2003: one for the city centre and the other where the M62 (the main East to West
motorway linking Liverpool with the United Kingdom motorway network) enters the city.

Stage 3: Detailed Assessment
UK legislation states that where an AQMA has been declared, a further review (called a
Stage 4 Review and Assessment) must be undertaken to look at air quality in more detail and
in particular to apportion the sources of emissions of NO2 . The Stage 4 Review and
Assessment was completed in November 2003 and confirmed that the annual average
objective was likely to be exceeded at certain locations within the designated Air Quality
Management Areas. Although, the predicted area of exceedence was smaller than the
designated areas no changes were made to the extent of the Air Quality Management Areas
following the Stage 4 assessment.

The Stage 4 Review and Assessment identified the main s       ources of nitrogen dioxide and
apportioned the reductions needed to reach the objective. It found that even a 40% reduction
in traffic in the city centre AQMA would not be sufficient to meet the air quality objective for
2005 at the most exposed locations.


The CATCH Consortium                            32                                         13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                    Final




Stage 4: Establish Steering Group & Develop Working Framework for Consultation
An Air Quality Steering Group was set up to develop the Air Quality Action Plan and
engineer the consultation process and a series of key stakeholder meetings was arranged as an
initial pilot prior to any other form of consultation. This involved a period of consultation
with 24 selected key transport stakeholders to ensure that there was wider agreement that the
most appropriate measures were included within the plan.

Stage 5: Produce Draft AQAP
The draft Air Quality Action Plan sets out the potential measures that will be undertaken to
meet the air quality objectives. A total of 87 measures have been prioritised and grouped into
a list of options for subsequent public consultation. The process of prioritisation of potential
measures in the plan is based on:

   •   Cost,
   •   Effectiveness in reducing NOx emissions,
   •   Effectiveness relative to NO2 levels in the Liverpool City Council AQMAs,
   •   Potential to implement the option before 2005, and then 2010,
   •   Additional (non-NO2 ) benefits of the measure,
   •   Disbenefits linked to the measure, and
   •   How local and regional development objectives complement each other.

Stage 6: Gain Formal Approvals
Before proceeding further, the draft AQAP needed to approved formally both internally by
Liverpool City Council at executive level and then by the UK Government. These were both
obtained and the feedback obtained from the national government was positive with few
revisions being requested.

Stage 7: Final, Wider Consultation Revision and Acceptance
Public consultation is currently underway and will run until August 2005, in parallel with the
second Merseyside Local Transport Plan. A report on the findings will be compiled by
October 2005 for submission to the Council’s elected members so that they can finalise the
Air Quality Action Plan ahead of consideration of the final version by Liverpool City Council
and its subsequent resubmission to DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs) who have the ultimate decision regarding acceptance.

Stage 8: Adoption
The UK Government has defined air quality as one of the four primary issues that must be
integral to local transport plans for the period 2006-2011. The timing of the process is
opportune as it enables the preferred measures arising from the Air Quality Action Plan
consultation to be considered in the context of the more detailed LTP programme
development, to be developed in the run- up to March 2006 and which will be backed up with
specific fund ing from the UK Government. Hence, the final Air Quality Action Plan will be
incorporated into the final Local Transport Plan in March 2006 and the implementation will
roll out via:

   •   LTP interventions (e.g. through the City Centre Movement Strategy and Bus Strategy)
   •   through related land use planning powers (e.g. the use of travel plans to minimise
       reliance on the private car); and



The CATCH Consortium                           33                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                    Final



      •   through actions by the local authority (e.g. corporate vehicle fleet emission,
          enforcement of vehicle emissions and improvements and the corporate travel plan).

Unsurprisingly, this lengthy, multi- stage process has been subject to delays at many stages. It
is however, a rigorous process which has produced a high quality Air Quality Action Plan
which directly addresses Liverpool’s air quality problems and provides a range of workable
and cost effective solutions which will be implemented in due course.

The ultimate impact of implement ing the AQAP will of course depend on the level of
funding which is ultimately forthcoming from central government, which will in turn
determine which measures are introduced and to what level of coverage and will take a long
time to manifest itself. However, it is expected that the package of measures defined in the
plan, if implemented in full, will be sufficient to allow the target NO2 to be met, although not
by the statutory deadline of December 2005. To achieve this will require a reduction in NO2
concentrations of 10%, driven by a reduction in emissions of NOx from all transport sources
of around 40%.

6.3       The Cycling and Walking Support Measures

6.3.1     City Centre Walking and Cycling Infrastructure

Liverpool City Council is in the process of implementing a ‘City Centre Movement Strategy’
(CCMS) - a £73m scheme involving Liverpool Vision and Merseytravel as partners. The
CCMS will create a world class city centre that is safe, attractive, clean and accessible. The
aims of the strategy are to:
   • Improve accessibility to Liverpool city centre to aid economic regeneration and
       provide access for all.
   • Create a people friendly city centre that is safe, clean and attractive for work,
       shopping, business, tourism and leisure.
   • Make best use of Liverpool city centre’s key transport assets – the Merseyrail stations,
       bus facilities, ferries and major car parks.
   • Support the improvement of Liverpool city centre’s architecture and townscape.

The CCMS involves a number of key schemes to improve the city centre for all users;
pedestrians, cyclists, road users and public transport users and as such shows much synergy
with the activities of CATCH. Indeed, CATCH has helped to fund the design phase of some
of the walking and cycling initiatives that will be implemented with CCMS funding for
infrastructure.

The CCMS is projected to have beneficial effects on accessibility, air quality, road safety and
congestion in the city centre which also ties in with the themes of the CATCH project and the
aims of the second Local Transport Plan.

Two important city centre streets will be changed from one-way streets to allow traffic to run
in both directions, so maintaining a key access route to the city centre. Wider street
crossings, on road cycle routes and phased pedestrian priority signals will also be introduced.

CCMS aims to reduce the volume of traffic on Dale Street (the main route that brings traffic
into Liverpool’s central business district from the north) and to create a high quality
pedestrian area on Castle Street, in front of the Town Hall. Improvements to some of the


The CATCH Consortium                           34                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                    Final


busiest junctions on the edge of the city centre are underway to ensure that through traffic is
adequately provided for on the radial roads around Liverpool city centre.

The project team is also planning to create a safe and attractive pedestrian route between the
commercial and shopping areas with a major upgrade to the public space at Derby Square,
improvements along Castle Street and enhanced pedestrian crossings. The CCMS also
involves enhanced cycle and pedestrian crossings and advanced stop lines at busy road
junctions around the city centre all designed to make it easier to use healthier forms of
transport in the city. (Full details are contained in the CCMS annex to CATCH the technical
report.)

6.3.2   Cycle Training Initiative

Work on the development of an adult cycle training initiative commenced tentatively in the
summer of 2004, utilising funding from CATCH. However, this programme achieved only
limited success due to difficulties in recruiting participants using traditional communication
methods, and it was soon realised that a more targeted campaign was required, in partnership
with the expertise available within the Merseyside TravelWise team. (TravelWise is a
dedicated team of travel awareness and promotional specialists, working collectively for the 5
Merseyside Local Authorities and Merseytravel.)

In October 2004, a proposal was made by Liverpool City Council to transfer budget from a
redundant activity in the original proposal (external assistance for a study on new refuelling /
recharging infrastructure) to an alternative scheme, namely an adult cyclist training scheme.
A budget of €70,000 (circa £48, 000) was proposed to support this. This proposal was
approved finally by the Life secretariat in February 2005 and the full allocation of €70K was
agreed.

The benefit of the cycle training initiative is based on the typical discrepancy between cycle
ownership and cycle use in the UK (typically 33% of adults own a bicycle but only 1% use
them regularly). Although useful in providing an environment for promoting cycling,
provision of cycle infrastructure alone has been shown to be ineffective in addressing this
issue and other persuasive schemes are needed in order to ensure that any infrastructure
which is implemented is actually used. Campaigns such as those conducted in CATCH
task 4 (through ECOtravel and the community mobility plans) have been shown to have some
effect. However, because cycle training is more focused on this one issue it has the potential
to have a much greater effect on increasing cycle use among its target audience. One of the
main barriers to cycling in the UK is the widespread perception of cycling as a leisure activity
and something that children do, but which is not a practical mode of transport for adults. The
aim of the cycle training would not only be to ensure that people were trained to cycle safely,
but that they were also informed of dedicated cycle routes that they could use for journeys
which are of practical use for their daily lives. This helps to support the community mobility
plan activities of the project in Liverpool and aims to make best use of the city council’s
investment in cycle infrastructure and priority measures that are being implemented through
the CCMS and part- funded by CATCH (see 6.3.1) for example the design work on Byrom
Street, Tithebarn Street and Hatton Garden. The cycle training also promotes cycling as an
activity at a time when measures to tackle obesity have widespread national coverage in the
UK which supports the health message of CATCH.




The CATCH Consortium                           35                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                  Final



6.4      Outline Evaluation of the Cycling and Walking Support Measures

6.4.1    City Centre Walking and Cycling Infrastructure Implementation

The provision of upgraded walking and cycling infrastructure is the easiest set of indicators
by which to measure whether the CATCH targets have been met. The ultimate target was a
10% increase in the number of city centre streets where significant improvement has been
made to pedestrian/cycling facilities by August 2005, where a 'significant improvement' is
defined as.
       • Creation of a new route
       • Creation of a new pedestrian / cyclist destination
       • Improvement of pedestrian / cyclist conditions on existing streets

Liverpool City Council has been conducting regular implementation audits of the CCMS and
updating their infrastructure databases accordingly. This information shows that by July
2005 53 city centre streets had been upgraded in this way (with more works ongoing), which
represents a 13.1% increase over the baseline case at the start of CATCH - hence this target
has been exceeded. The majority of these improvements have involved the improvement of
pavements and other pedestrian infrastructure aimed at giving pedestrian priority and
reducing vehicle speeds, with a consequent improvement in the general cycling environment.

6.4.2    City Centre Walking and Cycling Data From CATCH Interview Surveys

There are various ways in which progress towards the other walking and cycling targets can
be assessed. As a reminder these targets were:

•     To achieve a 5% increase in city centre residents using environmentally friend ly modes
      by August 2004 and 10% by the end of year 3.
•     to increase the proportion of cycling and walking journeys within Liverpool City Centre
      by 5% by June 2004 and 10% by April 2005.

Walking
Of the people interviewed for the on-street survey, which includes residents, visitors,
shoppers, commuters etc the results show an increase in the number of people who walk as
part of their journey in Liverpool city centre by 15%. However, this masks a decrease of
20% in those who walk every day within the city cent re. Overall, the data show an increase
in the approximate mode share of walking journeys by all people active in Liverpool city
centre from 26% to 28% (i.e. a 7% increase).

A similar analysis of those who responded to the household survey showed a slight increase
in the number of residents who walk for some of their journeys in Liverpool city centre.
However, there was again a decrease in the number of people who walk every day within the
city centre, which led to the mode share of walking journeys by residents in Liverpool city
centre staying unchanged at 52%.

Cycling
Of the people interviewed for the on-street survey, which includes residents, visitors,
shoppers, commuters etc the results show an increase of 42.5% in the number of people who
cycle as part of their journey in Liverpool city centre. However, this is from a very low
starting point so that the approximate mode share of cycling journeys by all people active in


The CATCH Consortium                          36                                      13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                             Final


Liverpool city centre increased from 1.3% to 1.8% (i.e. a 38% increase, although this is
within the margin for error of the survey).

A similar analysis of those who responded to the household survey also showed an increase
in the number of residents who cycle for some of their journeys in Liverpool city centre - this
time by 22% from a very low baseline figure. In this case the approximate mode share of
cycling journeys for residents in Liverpool city centre increased from 1.3% to 1.9% (i.e. a
46% increase, which is again within the margin for error of the survey).

It is worth noting that the works which form part of the CCMS are causing major disruption
to all forms of overground transport at the moment. This is likely to have particular impact
on car, bus and walking journeys, with there being potential for significant delays on some
car and bus journeys into the city and on pedestrian journeys around the city. This may be a
contributing factor in what appears to be a significant switch from bus to train in the on street
survey results as the train network would be unaffected and hence offer a more reliable
option for commuters while the infrastructure works are ongoing.

6.4.3   Cycle Use Observations

LCC conduct automatic counts at four locations in the city: Smithdown Lane, lower Vauxhall
Street, upper Vauxhall Street and Windsor Street. The automatic counters provide an hourly
count of the number of cycles allowing time series analysis to be conduced. For three sites
(Smithdown Lane, upper Vauxhall Street and Windsor Street) data was available from
February/March 2003 through to February 2005 to allow a comparison over a two year period
in CATCH. Unfortunately data from lower Vauxhall Street was only available from April to
November 2003 due to a problem with the automatic counters.

To assess any change in the number of cyclists from the LCC automatic count data the 2003
monthly averages were compared to the 2004 data from the same sites. The annual change in
the number of cyclists as a percentage of the 2003 average for that day of the week was then
calculated on a month by mo nth basis (i.e. comparing Mondays in April 2003 to Mondays in
April 2004). This data is presented in tables 6.2 - 6.4 for each of the three monitoring sites.

Table 6.2:     Month by Month Comparison for Smithdown Street
 Before'   After' Mon       Tues    Wed    Thur   Fri      Sat   Sun    Average
  Mar-03   Mar-04    7.2%     24.4% 10.8%    7.7%     1.3% 11.9%   4.5%     9.7%
  Apr-03    Apr-04  -8.5%      0.9% -0.8% 14.1% 40.1% 15.5% 14.4%          10.8%   Spring 2004      23.6%
  May-03   May-04 115.5%      60.6% 33.1% 32.7% 29.3% 28.1% 52.4%          50.3%
  Jun-03    Jun-04   4.7%     24.7% 35.8%    4.2% 43.5% -6.9% 11.8%        16.8%
   Jul-03    Jul-04 15.1%     21.8%   5.9% -3.0% 12.3% 13.2% 14.4%         11.4%   Summer 2004       9.9%
  Aug-03   Aug-04    7.2%    -14.7% -8.2% -3.6%       4.4%   7.3% 18.5%     1.6%
  Sep-03   Sep-04   -3.6%     13.5% 13.0%    1.2% 17.0% 20.3%      3.6%     9.3%
  Oct-03    Oct-04   7.3%      9.8%   2.2%   0.8% -5.1%      9.1% 21.6%     6.5%   Autumn 2004       7.4%
  Nov-03   Nov-04 17.0%        2.1%   6.2% -1.5%      1.5%   4.7% 15.0%     6.4%
  Dec-03   Dec-04 -19.8%     -11.4%   4.2% 10.4% -9.3% -13.7% -2.7%        -6.1%
  Jan-04    Jan-05 88.7%    111.2% 110.1% 240.2% 143.0% 18.7% 81.2% 113.3%         Winter 2004      53.6%
  Feb-04   Feb-05 17.48%    41.45% 43.32% 20.21% 48.92% 14.02% 5.10%       27.2%
     Average        20.7%     23.7% 21.3% 27.0% 27.2% 10.2% 20.0%


At Smithdown Street the average monthly percentage increase in 2004/5 over the
corresponding month in 2003/4 average is 21.4% with a maximum increase of 113.3%
recorded in January 2005 and only one decrease of 6.1%, recorded in December 2004.



The CATCH Consortium                             37                                              13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                              Final


Table 6.3:     Month by Month Comparison for Vauxhall Road (upper)
 Before'   After' Mon        Tues    Wed    Thur  Fri      Sat    Sun    Average
  Feb-03   Feb-04     0.0%     12.8% 21.6%    6.6% 17.0% -50.0% -5.9%        0.3%
  Mar-03   Mar-04 67.2%        48.1%   2.7% -4.2%     3.0% -42.9% -17.2%     8.1%
  Apr-03    Apr-04    7.7%      2.3% 18.5% 15.2% 32.9% -28.6% -4.5%          6.2%   Spring 2004      25.2%
  May-03   May-04 131.8%       79.9% 59.7% 103.3% 18.4% -10.9% 47.3%        61.4%
  Jun-03    Jun-04 -39.0%     -14.0% -31.4% -10.6% -3.7% -62.9% -13.2%     -25.0%
   Jul-03    Jul-04 33.3%      46.5% 50.0% 39.2% 27.5% -11.9% -26.5%        22.6%   Summer 2004       8.3%
  Aug-03   Aug-04    -2.3%      8.3%   2.4%   9.6% 10.9% 64.6% 96.6%        27.1%
  Sep-03   Sep-04    -6.1%    -25.6% -16.1% -1.8% 16.8% -8.6% 19.0%         -3.2%
  Oct-03    Oct-04   -6.9%    -10.2% -3.2% -16.3% -1.9%      2.0%   6.7%    -4.2%   Autumn 2004       1.3%
  Nov-03   Nov-04    -3.0%     15.3% -3.8% 35.1% -6.9% 14.8% 28.6%          11.4%
  Dec-03   Dec-04 -42.5%      -25.8% -1.1% 36.0% -23.2% 37.8% 43.3%          3.5%
  Jan-04    Jan-05 20.0%      -20.0% 48.3% 107.1%     2.1%   8.3% 19.0%     26.4%   Winter 2004      15.0%
  Feb-04   Feb-05     8.8%      2.6% -25.5% -16.4% 10.1% 105.3% -38.2%       6.7%
     Average        13.0%       9.3%   9.4% 23.3%     7.9%   1.3% 11.9%


Comparison between the 2003/4 and 2004/5 monthly averages for Vauxhall Road indicated
that the number of cyclists recorded increased by an average of 10.9% per month. The
maximum monthly increase recorded was 61% in May 2004 (compared to May 2003) with a
maximum decrease of 25% (June 2004 compared to June 2003).

Table 6.4:     Month by Month Comparison for Windsor Street
 Before'   After' Mon       Tues   Wed    Thur   Fri      Sat    Sun    Average
  Feb-03   Feb-04     -2.5%   3.2% -20.8% -12.0% -19.3%     0.0%   0.6%    -7.3%
  Mar-03   Mar-04     -8.3% 23.0%    3.4% 23.7% 33.9% 12.3% -35.6%          7.5%
  Apr-03    Apr-04 -13.6% -24.4% -15.4% -13.3% -5.6% 10.8% 19.1%           -6.0%    Spring 2004      13.7%
  May-03   May-04 81.0% 35.6% 46.7% 17.9% 22.0% 28.7% 45.1%                39.6%
  Jun-03    Jun-04 -17.0% -1.7%      1.1% -15.7% -1.8% -28.8% -34.5%      -14.1%
   Jul-03    Jul-04 -12.4% -5.9% -18.8% -17.8% -17.6% -25.8% -26.5%       -17.8%    Summer 2004 -10.7%
  Aug-03   Aug-04      0.8% -23.3% -7.4% -0.6% -9.3% -5.2% 44.4%           -0.1%
  Sep-03   Sep-04     -7.5% -2.8% -8.7% -8.3% 24.6% -21.9%         2.6%    -3.1%
  Oct-03    Oct-04    -2.7% -4.3% -5.1% -3.7%        1.7%   7.2% -0.3%     -1.0%    Autumn 2004       -4.3%
  Nov-03   Nov-04      5.8% -7.7%    6.7% -6.3%      0.1% -24.2% -35.6%    -8.7%
  Dec-03   Dec-04     -1.8%   2.0%   1.2% -1.1% 20.6% -33.8% -7.0%         -2.8%
  Jan-04    Jan-05 47.5% 39.3% 70.6% 118.8% 41.5% -27.6% -29.3%            37.2%    Winter 2004      17.2%
  Feb-04   Feb-05     -6.8%   6.6% 26.7% -15.9% 28.3% -36.7% -36.7%        -4.9%
     Average           4.8%   3.1%   6.2%   5.1%     9.2% -11.1% -7.2%


At Windsor Street the majority of months in the analysis period showed lower levels of
cycling than the previous year, with May 2003 and January 2004 being notable exceptions.
The average monthly percentage change in 2004/5 compared to the same month in 2003/4
was an increase of 1.4%, although this is driven by the two large monthly increases in May
2003 and January 2004.

Overall the LCC automated count data indicates that the number of cyclists recorded at all
three sites has increased although the size and monthly pattern of the increase varied from
site to site.

6.5    Task 3 Summary

Liverpool City Council has exceeded the targets set for its activities in CATCH in terms of
upgrading the walking and cycling infrastructure in Liverpool City Centre.

The baseline data presented in section 3.1.3 suggests that there was already an increase in
cycling occurring year on year within Liverpool in the order of 6% per annum between 1996



The CATCH Consortium                              38                                              13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                  Final


and 2003 (i.e. to the early stages of the CATCH project). The various observational and
travel surveys conducted as a part of CATCH appear to show that this increase has
accelerated during the course of CATCH. It is difficult to produce a definitive figure for the
annual rate of increase in cycling during CATCH as the various surveys have produced a
wide range of values, but it seems possible that the rate of increase in cycling may now be in
the region of 15-20% per annum, although this is from a very low baseline.

The survey data for walking trips does not show such large increases, but this is not
surprising as the mode share for walking in the baseline survey was significantly greater. The
evidence suggests that for residents there was no change in the number of walking trips that
they make in Liverpool city centre but that when all people present in the city are considered
there is a 7% increase in the share of walking from a modal share of 26 to 28%.

The process of declaring an Air Quality Management Area and developing an associated Air
Quality Action Plan has taken longer than expected due to the formal (and associated legal)
process that are defined for this, both internally by Liverpool City Council and also by the
UK government.

The implementation of many key CATCH actions has continued without the AQAP being in
place formally. However, the formal endorsement of the AQAP later in 2005 will ensure that
further improvements in the environmental performance of transport in Liverpool through
various mechanisms such as engineering and technical solutions, better organisation and co-
operation, improved planning processes and communications initiatives will continue during
the life of the next Local Transport Plan from 2006-2011. The evaluation of these actions
will be a long term process, both in their impacts as individual measures and as a package of
measures in the longer term. Hopefully the CATCH evaluation will provide some helpful
information to guide the process of choosing, implementing and evaluating the measures that
are incorporated in the AQAP.




The CATCH Consortium                          39                                      13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                 Final



7.        TASK 4

Objective
To work with community groups and individual citizens to encourage the use of less
polluting means of travel within the urban environment.

Targets

•     10% of Liverpool city centre residents are aware of the work of ECOtravel Information
      Bureau by end Year 1, 25% by end of year 2 and 50% by end of year 3;
•     One mobility plan to be implemented by the end of August 2003; three by the end of
      August 2004 and five by the end of April 2005.

7.1       Introduction

The objective of Task 4 is to work with community groups and individual citizens to
encourage the use of less polluting means of travel within the urban environment. The task
has been split into two separate sets of actions:

      o The first of these has involved the creation of a Sustainable Mobility Information
        Bureau that is intended to be a one-stop shop for all aspects of travel-related
        information for environmentally-sustainable modes of transport. This has been
        branded as ECOtravel and has included proactive activities to reach out and target
        both individuals and businesses.

      o The second activity in task 4 has been based around the development of Community
        Mobility Plans, initially with a range of housing providers but more recently,
        following some setbacks in the liaison with private sector developers, working
        through a range of community groups to target the travel behaviour of residents in a
        specific geographic area in central Liverpool.

The outcome of the project was expected to be judged not only by whether the specific
targets are met but also by identifying the difficulties in the process of implementing the
activities, particularly the community mobility plans which are heavily dependent on
organisations with no formal (contractual) commitment to CATCH.

7.2       ECOtravel

ECOtravel is the sustainable mobility information bureau for CATCH. Based in
Merseytravel, it provides information to the public and business sectors on all aspects of
transport and environment impact. For example, should an individual wish to convert their
existing vehicle (or purchase a new vehicle) to a more fuel efficient, cleaner alternative,
ECOtravel can assist in providing information on:

      •   The latest clean fuel technologies
      •   UK availability
      •   Applicability for different vehicles
      •   Location of refuelling infrastructure
      •   Suppliers of conversion or new vehicles



The CATCH Consortium                           40                                    13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                   Final



    •   Grant availability through the Department for Transport (DfT)

Information of this type is currently available in the public domain through a wide range of
sources, however very few individuals are aware of the options available, its applicability to
their vehicle/s and the potential cost savings.

The basic premise for ECOtravel is that all these sources of information should be combined
and presented to the public in an innovative way. It would be relatively simple to produce
leaflets with basic information, but part of the role of ECOtravel is to capture people’s
imagination and really sell more sustainable travel. This is not a simple procedure and for
this to occur it is important to have an effective marketing campaign. Analysis of the
methods used and whether or not the individual options considered were useful has been
collected and analysed so that future projects can disseminate the information using the most
effective targeted marketing methods.

An initial marketing plan for ECOtravel was developed. The plan identified the markets and
target audience and split these into activity groups. Each activity group (implementing
change, raising awareness and providing information) listed the key players to contact in
order to achieve the aims of that chosen focus i.e. the best way to raise awareness of
ECOtravel would be to contact and use:

Environment Groups
Clean Fuel Suppliers
MPs, Merseytravel and Liverpool City Council
Media

This idea of developing activity groups gave ECOtravel a methodology for achieving its
overall aim of raising public awareness and influencing modal shift. Another useful output of
this idea was that the project manager was more able to manage time, resources and monitor
progress throughout the development of the bureau. Achieving milestones and completing
parts of the marketing, leads to a greater rate of progression through the project.

As time progressed there was some slippage and marketing of ECOtravel through some
markets has still not occurred e.g. difficulties in working with Housing Developers and the
Health Sector may need a new focus and direction for the future. However, some markets
have found the information held by ECOtravel to be of great use and benefit for their
organisations. Some examples are listed below:

Merseytravel
As a result of effective marketing, the entire organisation is aware of ECOtravel. A number
of presentations to the Transport Health and Environment (THE) Forum and Travel Planning
Forums.

Local Authority
A number of Liverpool City Council departments are now aware of ECOtravel and use the
service to promote sustainable travel as part of their own sustainable travel development.
The fleet management section in particular has used ECOtravel as an information point on
numerous issues regards air pollution and alternative fuel use. Moreover, they are using
TravelCal (an interactive educational tool commissioned by Merseytravel) to calculate the
ecological footprint of their vehicles in use across the city.


The CATCH Consortium                          41                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                  Final




Honda and Toyota
Local dealers have used ECOtravel in the promotion and sales of their hybrid and LPG
vehicles. They have also been involved in events such as ECOtravel day 2004, and 2005,
where they brought new vehicles to demonstrate how they work and how they are less
environmentally damaging. Obviously, this was of benefit to them also in boosting sales.

ARRIVA
Bus operators are keen to become involved in the work of ECOtravel in order to boost public
transport use. They are obviously very keen to be involved in ECOtravel events, such as
ECOtravel day, to show people that they are attempting to reduce pollution and are doing a
lot over and above what they are required to do by law in order to contribute to cleaner air.
The involvement of ARRIVA in the CATCH project has demonstrated this level of
commitment. ARRIVA displayed one of the hybrid buses delivered through the CATCH
scheme at the 2005 ECOtravel day event.

Liverpool Community College
Liverpool Community Colleges have used the services of ECOtravel in attempting to raise
awareness of sustainable travel issues and the bureau as part of the Go-green week.
Approximately 40 students visited the ECOtravel stands at each of the six colleges around
Liverpool and the days proved to be very useful in raising awareness of the bureau.

7.2.1   Communications Mechanisms

A number of options such as newspapers, radio, vehicle livery and others were considered at
the outset of the project. It was important to consider the target audience, scale of advert,
cost, timescale and overall effectiveness. Given these constraints, the following options were
selected for different activities. In hindsight, some of the options were disappointing and
others exceeded our expectations. This is useful in that the purpose of ECOtravel is to
monitor and measure the effectiveness of different types of marketing and to be innovative in
its approach.

Option                                                     Total Cost       Cost Effectiveness
ECOtravel website (www.ECOtravel.org.uk )                         £3,175
       ****
ECOtravel day 05 (Part of Green Transport Festival)        ~£800                  ****
ECOtravel leaflets and guides                              £1,478                 **
ECOtravel AO Posters                                       £407                   **
ECOtravel car tax discs, pens and mugs                     £1,737                 *
European Car Free Day (2003 and 2004)                      Free                   ****
Liverpool Waterfront magazine                              £1,295                 ***
Everton FC pitch banner                                    £1,250                 **
St Helens Environment Guide                                £495                   *
Car Park Tickets (500,000)                                 £3,510                 ****
ARRIVA bus advert for CATCH and ECOtravel                  Free                   ****
Bus Timetables                                             Free                   ****
Move Out Magazine                                          Free                   ****
City Magazine                                              Free                   ****
Escalator panels at Central Station (August 05)            £2,288                 ????
Total                                                      £16,435


The CATCH Consortium                          42                                      13/04/06
 CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                   Final


 The list of options is varied and it would be very interesting to see how ECOtravel could
 expand in the future given a more substantial budget and staff allocation. Obviously the most
 cost effective options are the ones that reach the largest audience at the lowest cost. The
 ECOtravel website itself provides the most cost effective primary way of raising awareness
 of ECOtravel and CATCH. Once the investment in the website has been made, the additional
 website links provide the most cost effective method of advertising. Other options, such as
 car park tickets were expensive but large scale and are also seen to be very effective.

 7.2.2   ECOtravel Website

 Much of the work of the bureau has been conducted through the ECOtravel website. It is
 therefore important that the target audience has access to the internet. A survey conducted by
 MORI in June 2005 indicated that nationally 54% of households in Britain had access to the
 internet at home. This compares with the most recent regional statistics which showed that in
 September 2003 43% of North West households had access to the internet. At the time this
 was one of the higher regional averages, and so it seems fair to assume that the North West
 average will now be around 54%.

 Of more interest is the breakdown of access by socio economic groupings. Nationally 78% in
 socio economic class AB have access, 69% in C1, 51% in C2 and 35% in DE. It is members
 of the ABC1 groups who are most likely to be able to afford the additional upfront costs of
 purchasing a new cleaner vehicle or converting their existing vehicle. 73.5% of ABC1
 households have access to the internet and so the prime audience can be effectively reached
 through the internet. Some of the softer measures within ECOtravel are more applicable to
 the C2DE segment who are less well served by the website, which is why alternative
 communications methods have also been a key aspect of the bureau’s work.

Figure 7.1: ECOtravel website (www. ECOtravel.org.uk)




 The CATCH Consortium                          43                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                     Final


One very useful way of measuring the effectiveness of ECOtravel is to monitor the number of
“hits” on the ECOtravel website. Connect Internet Solutions produced and managed the
ECOtravel website and part of their service allows the user to continually monitor and
evaluate the effectiveness of their marketing plan. Figure 7.2 shows “hits” on the ECOtravel
homepage from January to December 2004.

Figure 7.2: Monthly Hit-Rate on the ECOtravel Website




            ECOtravel Day            Link to LCC website            9/08/04
                                     Car Park Ticket Adverts        1/08/04


From this graph it is clear to see that towards the end of June approximately 3,700 hits were
made on the website. The popularity dropped in July to around 2,200 hits and during August
that number increased again as more people visited the site. This information can then be
tied into the marketing scheme and it then becomes possible to review and comment. As part
of ECOtravel marketing, an ECOtravel day was held in Liverpool City Centre on the 5th June
2004. On the day, a series of exhibitors showcased the latest in alternatively fuelled vehic les,
air pollution monitoring, cycling and walking measures and general sustainable travel issues.
After this day the popularity of the website grew and it is clear that the ECOtravel day
effectively marketed ECOtravel.

Other marketing choices advertising a link to ECOtravel have proven to be effective in
increasing the number of hits on the website, such as a link from Liverpool City Council’s
homepage established in the first week of August and 500,000 car park tickets which had an
advert for ECOtravel printed on the reverse.

Figure 7.2 shows that the impressive growth in website hits seen in 2004 has continued in
2005. The previous high of 3,700 hits in June 2004 was eclipsed in April 2005 when 6,555
hits were recorded. This peak ties in with an article being placed in Liverpool City Council’s
“City Magazine”. The magazine is distributed free of charge to 220,000 homes and 8,000
businesses in Liverpool.




The CATCH Consortium                           44                                        13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                     Final


7.2.3   Progress Towards ECOtravel Awareness Target

The public work of the ECOtravel bureau, after the initial planning activities, began at the
start of the second year of CATCH and a small survey was carried out on ECOtravel day (5th
June 2004) which was towards the end of the second year of the project. The survey revealed
that 11% were aware of CATCH or ECOtravel at that stage. Care must be taken in analysing
results of this type and drawing conclusions as we cannot be certain that this 11% reflected
residents of Liverpool city centre. As the event was open access in Liverpool city centre it is
more likely to represent 11% of people from all areas of the city.

A second survey conducted at ECOtravel day 2005, found that 20% of respondents were
aware of ECOtravel. This is an 82% rise on the previous year which is impressive but falls
well short of the target 50% awareness rate at the end of the project. However, it should be
remembered that the public work of ECOtravel did not start until the second year of CATCH.
If we accept that this is really the second year of the ECOtravel project, the figure is much
closer to the target of 25% awareness by the end of year 2.

The ECOtravel survey also showed that the hybrid buses have made a positive contribution to
awareness of the CATCH scheme and hybrid technology. 52% of residents are aware of the
route and 40% of residents are aware that the buses are hybrids.

7.3     Community Mobility Plans

Within the task on developing community mobility plans three related activities have been
followed, as documented in the following sections.

7.3.1   Working with Developers

Merseyside TravelWise aimed to pilot an approach for engaging with new residents of the
city centre and supporting and encouraging them to make the vast majority of their journeys
by sustainable modes. It was recognised that in order for this approach to be effective, new
developments would have to provide appropriate facilities to encourage sustainable transport
and that this was not always the case. Engaging with a developer at the design stage was
therefore necessary to the project. It was also acknowledged that an appropriate time to
affect transport decisions is at a moment of change and therefore ideally the project would
engage with residents just prior to their move into the development.

Meetings were held with a number of housing developers working in the city centre regarding
their potential engagement with a project promoting sustainable transport. The majority of
private and social housing developers were not convinced of the benefits of such a scheme to
their businesses or to their prospective tenants. A strong presumption in favour of a car
dependent culture was found within the vast majority of the development companies.

However, developers Maritime Housing Association and Urban Splash expressed strong
support for the initiative, recognising the importance of their role in creating more sustainable
communities and in supporting residents in reduced car use lifestyles. Following this initial
period of research the following three phase programme was identified.

Six city centre deve lopments were identified for inclusion in this project and a number of
partnerships were established to support the scheme. A survey was undertaken of all


The CATCH Consortium                           45                                        13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                    Final


residents in the properties to identify their views and habits with regard to travel. Residents
were also asked what facilities would encourage them to use sustainable transport more. The
survey results confirmed the results of the main CATCH evaluation surveys, in that by far the
most common mode of transport for local activities, irrespective of the purpose of the
journey, was on foot (comprising about 50% of the total). Although car use was the second
most common mode choice for the journeys actually made, the mode most commonly cited
as a backup if the normal mode wasn’t used was to travel by bus. All this does not mean that
short or unnecessary car journeys were not undertaken, but if they were they tended not to be
restricted to the study area of central Liverpool. As a result of this initial survey a detailed
review of cycle provision at each development was conducted. At the same time a survey of
common areas was undertaken to identify where a permanent information point could be
located for travel information leaflets.

The cycle survey identified that despite planning requirements for cycle parking some
developments had none installed and those that had any provision had poor quality cycle
parking often overtaken by rubbish. The requirement for cycle parking facilities as part of
the planning and development control process is not being enfo rced. This had led to the poor
quality of facilities, which was identified as a really significant barrier by residents. As a
result of this a number of training sessions were carried out with Liverpool City Council
planning department and to enshrine sustainable transport provision more within the
development control system.

A mobility management plan was drawn up for each building outlining the measures which
would respond to the residents’ comments. However, these were not implemented by
Maritime Housing. This is most likely a symptom that there was no formal commitment
from the developer to delivering the project and that even provision of funding for measures
was ultimately not sufficient to guarantee commitment.

A draft protocol has been established to ensure that future developments do cater more
positively for sustainable transport and work is still underway to get it adopted. In parallel
with this Liverpool City Council, Merseytravel and the other local authorities in the
Merseyside area have been working on the development of a Supplementary Planning
Document (SPD). The aim of the SPD is to ensure that sustainable transport issues receive
greater significance as planning considerations in the determination of relevant applications.
It also seeks to secure a consistent approach across Merseyside, e.g. by ensuring that new
housing developments adequately cater for and support new bus routes, subsidised bus
services where necessary, incorporate new cycle routes and parking facilities and cater for
pedestrians. A key aim of the SPD for transport is to seek to standardise the parking
standards across Merseyside, to prevent developers from ‘playing off’ authorities against one
another. Instead, the Merseyside-wide SPD will seek to set more detailed standards, based on
a two-tiered approach, e.g. with Liverpool city centre and district centres at the top (most
restrictive standards) and elsewhere in the region below that. Crucially, this approach will
ensure that the parking standards have SPD status, and thus be a relevant material planning
consideration. This will enable developers to identify where they need to make transport
improvements in order to ensure good mobility access to their sites and will include access by
all modes and long term roles for ensuring sustainable transport is promoted at the sites.




The CATCH Consortium                           46                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                    Final


7.3.2   Healthy Travel Promotion

The lack of success in persuading the developers to deliver the project plans in the initial
batch of six developments led to a review of the on street and residential surveys conducted
for CATCH, which showed that residents in the city centre had a much higher level of
sustainable travel, particularly walking, than expected. However, the results also showed an
opportunity to target journeys in the city centre which originated from outside the target areas
was considered. Learning from the Phase 1 project, it was decided to seek consultant support
in delivering an enhanced individualised marketing project to residents in an area considered
appropriate for attitude and behaviour change.

In recent years individualised approaches to marketing and personalised travel planning have
developed in recognition that the success of traditional marketing approaches for public
transport walking and cycling has been limited. Individualised marketing involves both users
and providers sharing information to help manage behaviour change: users tell providers the
parameters affecting their travel behaviour and how they could potentially be prepared to
change; providers can tell users about what options are available, and the scope for provision
to change to better reflect their needs.

Individualised marketing includes some form of individual analysis of current behaviour and
suggestions for change based on this analysis. The different techniques are distinguished by
the emphasis they place on: the analysis of current behaviour, the nature and degree of
targeting, the level of intervention in promoting options for change, and the nature of the
stimuli used. Best practice optimises these factors to the local area, and in Merseyside the
design of the approach needed to:
    q Target resources intensively at the people and locations where the gap is greatest
        between user perceptions of travel options and provider perceptions of PT.
    q Maximise the resources available to the work by working in partnership with local
        organisations
    q Evaluate the effectiveness of the alternative approaches to modify the approach to
        best meet the needs of the local area.

The CATCH healthy travel promotion aimed to encourage greater use of sustainable transport
for trips to the city centre through the use of one-to-one contact. A community was selected
for this project with the following characteristics:
    q High car ownership and use
    q Quality bus, rail, cycle routes – the aim was to promote good services not improve
        them.
    q Populations susceptible to change – mid market groups
    q A location close enough to Liverpool city centre that bus use and cycling represent
        viable modes for access to the city

Based on an analysis of data and local knowledge, the Aigburth/Grassendale area in South
East Liverpool was selected as the target area for implementation of the project. Residents
were engaged in an individualised marketing initiative which began with engagement with
local support organisations to assist with contacting and continuing the project. Surveys of
households were then conducted with the results analysing what motivating factors could be
drawn on to encourage change. A tailored marketing package was then sent to households
with support phone calls encouraging use of incentives and information. Journey planners
were produced including appropriate journey details and also health or environmental or


The CATCH Consortium                           47                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                    Final


stress related benefits according to the interest of that individual. The approach adopted in
CATCH was less intensive than in other individualised marketing exercises - the use of
intermediaries to deliver the message reduced the cost of the scheme to fit the available
budget.

Contacts aimed at identifying those willing to engage in a change in their travel behaviour
were made through intermediary organisations, 2000 personalised letters which were sent to
addresses in the area and 15000 leaflets which were distributed with the local Merseymart
newspaper. However, given that some people will have received information from multiple
sources and some of the leaflets will have gone astray we have no way of knowing exactly
what proportion of the population in the target area actually received information about the
project.

A total of 543 people, 2.9% of the population in the target area, responded seeking
personalised support through the project and questionnaires were posted to these participants
collecting information about these people, their attitudes and their travel patterns. Based on
their responses, people were allocated to one of six behavioural groupings to ensure that
individualised interventions were consistent with their perceptions and understanding of
transport provision. These groups and the proportion of the sample from each were:
    q Discontented Drivers 28%,
    q Aspiring Environmentalists 25%;
    q Complacent Car Addicts 21%;
    q Reluctant Riders 12%;
    q Diehard Drivers 3%;
    q Car-less Crusaders 11%.


Each of these groups is motivated to change behaviour by different factors and the
interventions were designed to provide relevant support with most investment being made in
the support for discontented drivers and aspiring environmentalists who had the greatest
motivation for change. Interventions included personalised journey information, free tickets
for identified journeys, cycle maps, public transport timetables, local guides, and calorie
maps. Participants were also telephoned to discuss issues related to their travel behaviour,
and in particular the opportunities identified for change within personalised journey plans. An
evaluation of the impacts showed that:

Two months after leaflets were circulated through various outlets, 6.5% of the population of
the area were able to recall the marketing of the initiative. Less than 1% of people that
remembered the marketing considered that it was not relevant to them. No participants
regretted their participation but some identified ways that the information provided could
have been more helpful.

The most significant result of this is that 77 participants in the project (14% of those who
engaged in the project) identified that experimental behaviour had led to sustained changes in
their travel patterns which will lead to a total reduction in car kilometres of 129420 per year.
Most of these were already motivated to change at the start of the project and the main
function of the interventions helped to show them how to change and for which trips.

The sustainability of the work which has been undertaken depends on the continuing support
which Merseyside TravelWise and public transport providers will be able to offer. Part of the
value of this work has been to build networks and extending these should become much


The CATCH Consortium                           48                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                      Final


easier as accessibility planning processes bring joint working into the mainstream. As a
result of this exercise, individualised marketing will be taken forward in conjunction with
neighbourhood travel advisors being introduced in Merseyside as part of improving access to
education, training and employment by disadvantaged communities. These advisors will be
able to engage at an individual level with local knowledge to support behaviour change
programmes.


7.3.3   Calorie Map

As part of the effort to raise awareness of the benefits of walking for short, city centre trips a
communication method was developed to try to get this message across. The following
objectives were agreed:

   o    Encourage walking for short trips in the city centre
   o    Communicate health benefits of regular walking
   o    Encourage physical activity
   o    Raise association between TravelWise and walking
   o    Promote walking as enjoyable
   o    Encourage walking for leisure and tourism
   o    Provide accessible and attractive information on where to walk and walking routes
   o    Communicate that walking to public transport has benefits as daily exercise

Rationale
A walking and health map was identified as a motivational and communication tool in
delivering this message because health has been identified as a clear motivational factor for
encouraging walking. The potential to identify calorific value for certain routes was obtained
and the plan to develop a Liverpool Calorie Map developed.

From work in travel plans it is recognised that people perceive walking to be slower than it is
and as a problem for even short distances. The maps aim to communicate in an engaging
way the health, convenience, speed and relaxation value of walking for short trips.

The medical profession has recognised that building activity into daily lifestyles is the most
effective way to increase activity and consequently walking as part of a daily routine would
contribute to both health and transport objectives. Links to public transport as well as short
journeys to key destinations therefore become a key focus of the maps.

The maps aim to target groups who would not necessarily be active by encouraging activity
through increasing information about places to walk and the benefits of walking. Calorie
maps help to put the benefits of walking into terms and goals that people are aware of, such
as steps and calories. This reinforces the message of the health sector regarding physical
activity (achieving 10,000 steps a day) and the maps demonstrate that walking is an activity
that can easily become incorporated into a person’s daily routine.

Many short journeys are made by car, with nearly a quarter of all trips taken being one mile
or less, and which could easily be walked. These short trips contribute to congestion and
pollution and a lack of activity making the calorie map a key part of communications to alter
this behaviour.



The CATCH Consortium                            49                                        13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                      Final


A series of walking routes were identified linking public transport to office areas and the two
university sites. The walk from public transport to these sites is an identified barrier from
travel plan surveys and other areas of work where short walks are seen as a disbenefit, so the
aim was to turn the walk into a positive element of the journey and encourage public
transport use as well as walking. The routes also identified, shops, places of interest and
tourist attractions as well as hotels.

Each route was assessed for calorific burn taking into account various weights of an
individual and the gradient on the route. A calorie wheel was then produced for each of the
walking routes. The map was produced in a pocket-sized format for ease of carrying and was
based on a map-base already used by the city council and therefore familiar to many.
Graphic images of landmarks were added to the map to make it easier to navigate around.

Target Audiences
Within the city centre, there are a large number of businesses, students and visitors all of
whom were part of the target audience to encourage city centre walks.

            §   Employees of workplaces with travel plans and other companies
            §   Shoppers and Tourists
            §   Frustrated Car Drivers
            §   Students
            §   Public Transport Users
            §   Health Concerned
            §   Black and Ethnic Minority groups

The messages conveyed were, walking is:
          § a good means of transport
          § walking regularly contributes to good health
          § quick and enjoyable
          § reliable and free
          § lets you see more and reduces stress

Distribution was through:
            § Local Schools / colleges
            § Local libraries / museums
            § Local Authorities ‘one-stop shops’
            § Local Hotels
            § Merseytravel Travel centres
            § GP’s waiting rooms / NHS
            § Local Community centres / Black and Ethnic Minority groups
            § Workplaces / Schools with or developing travel plans
            § ‘Welcome to Liverpool’ Packs for 1 st year university students to include
                 calorie maps
            § TravelWise website
            § PR articles

The map was launched in June 2003 as part of Merseytravel’s Green Transport Festival.
There was media interest in the map, including local radio and press coverage and it was well
received at a host of public events across the area. Maps were distributed to city centre
offices, tourist centres, colleges and universities, hotels, GPs and at travel fairs. Requests for


The CATCH Consortium                            50                                        13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                       Final


maps were received from a wide variety of individuals and groups as a result of media
coverage and word of mouth. 30,000 maps have been distributed since 2003 and two further
reprints of the map have been undertaken.

Since production of the first map, obesity issues have come more to the fore in local and
national media coverage. The use of step counters has also become extremely popular. As a
result it was decided to develop a fat-burn counter and step measures into the new version of
the map. The calorie map now includes, calo ries, fat burn and steps for each walk. The latest
version also includes an evaluation form to encourage those who have used the map to
feedback about how they have used it and the benefits it has generated.

The map has been popularly received by a large range of audiences. An evaluation sheet is
being used to assist in developing maps for other areas building on this experience.

7.4    Task 4 Summary

The ECOtravel bureau has laid the foundations for ongoing work in raising public and
corporate awareness around sustainable travel issues and offers the potential to be the core for
a wider information programme after CATCH has finished. The importance given by
ECOtravel to the use of its website has been both a strength and a weakness. The website
enables all the necessary information to be freely available at all times. However, it does rely
on people knowing that the information is there. ECOtravel has been very successful in
building links with the corporate community. However, ECOtravel has not reached its target
of 50% public awareness by the end of the project. A more concerted programme of public
events to publicise the purpose and content of ECOtravel would probably be beneficial in
order to maximise its ongoing effectiveness.

The direct outcomes from the work conducted with the developers within the project were
disappointing in environmental terms because the developers could be neither persuaded nor
forced to co-operate in the upgrading of cycling infrastructure and supply of sustainable
trave l information at their existing developments. However, this experience was useful in
highlighting the current difficulties in co-ordinating sustainable transport and land use
planning. As a result of this three initiatives which should have long lasting impacts have
been undertaken:
    o Closer working between Merseyside TravelWise and Liverpool City Council’s
         planning department on transport provision and enforcement
    o The production of a draft protocol for residential developers to follow
    o The production of draft supplementary planning guidance, which when implemented
         in 2006, will ensure that sustainable transport issues receive greater significance in the
         determination of relevant planning applications

The Healthy Travel Promotion has produced good environmental results with a total
reduction in car kilometres, (and associated emissions) of 129420 per year by participants.
This type of initiative shows promise for application in other areas of Liverpool, and could
have even greater impacts if more time were allowed to establish strong contacts between the
information providers and the public in the target area.

Finally, although there is no formal proof of a direct environmental impact, the calorie maps
have been widely distributed and commended, not only in Liverpool but throughout the UK
for their innovative approach to the issue of health and the environment.


The CATCH Consortium                            51                                         13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                      Final



8.        TASK 5

Objective
To implement advanced pollution monitoring techniques in Liverpool City Centre.

Targets

•     50% of pollution monitors deployed and operational by end of Year 1, 100% by end of
      Year 2.

8.1       Deployment of Pollution Monitoring Equipment

Task 5 involved the development and implementation of a novel approach to the monitoring
of PM10 type particulates based upon a technique called chromatic modulation and the use of
mass spectrometry for air quality monitoring applications. Given that the task is based solely
around pollution monitoring, no direct air quality or environmental benefits were expected
from the task, although it was hoped tha t if the technique proved successful then wider
implementation might lead to a form of real- time area wide pollution mapping which could
be used to help raise public awareness of air pollution and its causes. This could then be used
to quickly highlight when travel choices needed to be changed in order to address a particular
high pollution incident.

Two instruments were developed using the chromatic modulation technique - one for portable
use (e.g. on board a moving vehicle or for leaving on site temporarily - known as a Self
Contained Unit or SCU), the other for use in conjunction with CCTV camera networks.
Three separate CCTV sites were used within Liverpool City Centre to demonstrate that
existing CCTV systems would be conveniently used without interfering with conventional,
normal usage and that existing telecommunications links could be used for addressing the
CCTV based chromatic particulates data on line. The performances of the instruments were
established via various calibration tests, with particular attention being paid in the case of the
CCTV units which needed to accommodate non- linear effects associated with the auto
adjustment operation of CCTV cameras in response to the different light conditions that they
have to operate in.

The systems have been deployed for real life use in a number of ways. Particulates and mass
spectrometric measurements have been undertaken at a busy city centre bus terminus to
establish benchmark fingerprints for the future and as a focus for the other investigations.
Investigations have been focussed on monitoring the exhaust emissions from groups of
vehicles via deployment to three targeted areas:

      o a Bus operator’s depot;
      o the apron of a city centre bus station (used by a cohort of exhaust modified buses);
        and,
      o the kerbside of a local school (school pick up) coinciding with a DEFRA air quality
        monitoring station.

The SCU has also been used for on board vehicle monitoring along a major bus route from
the city centre bus terminus to an industrial zone some 15 miles distance ending at the
DEFRA monitoring station (Speke). Several test runs extending over a couple of months
have been undertaken consistently on two separate days of the week. Tests have also been


The CATCH Consortium                            52                                        13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                     Final


undertaken using CCTV systems around the city centre to show the capability of using such
systems conveniently and cost effectively for possible wide area mapping of particulates.

8.2     Test Results from Innovative Pollution Monitoring Equipment

The use of the particulates monitoring equipment has allowed several interesting observations
related to specific locations or events which provide useful insight to the impact of transport
and vehicle impacts on local particulate pollution and emphasises the utility and flexibility of
the technique.

8.2.1   Diurnal Variations in Particulate Concentration at Paradise Street Bus Station

Several 2 day tests conducted at Paradise Street bus station show a daytime mean particle
concentration of around 40µgm-3 compared with a typical night time value of 7-10µgm-3 .
The results show a sharp rise each morning at around 7.30am, and a gradual decline from
around 7.30pm, reaching a trough at around 2am (i.e. in the middle of the night), which
mirrors the pattern of use of the bus station very closely.

8.2.2 Impact of Particulate Traps on Instantaneous Particulate Concentration at Paradise
Street Bus Station

The portable particulate monitoring unit was used to monitor variations in particulate
concentration in ten minute intervals. Details of the buses operating in the bus station in each
ten minute period, including the dwell time of each vehicle were also recorded. The bus
details were used to identify the ratio of the operating time of buses equipped with particulate
traps compared with the operating time of buses without exhaust pollution reduction
equipment in each ten minute period. The data was used to confirm that there was a
correlation between peaks in the level of particulates in the air in the bus station and the
proportion of buses using the bus station that had not been fitted with particulate traps. This
confirms the effectiveness of the particulate traps and that the reduction in emissions
translates directly to improvements in air quality. Detailed investigation also showed that a
single bus with particularly poor emissions performance (confirmed visually) can have a
significant, negative impact on air quality within the bus station.

8.2.3   Particulate Concentrations at Arriva Bus Depot

Particulate monitoring was conducted at the Arriva bus depot in Speke where the fleet of 88
buses equipped with particulate traps is based. Figure 8.1 shows the build up in particulates
recorded by the monitoring equipment over time. The slope of the bar chart is indicative of
the particulate concentration in the air at a particular time. The figure indicates that the
particulate concentration is relatively low throughout most of the evening and overnight. The
main exception to this occurs between midnight and 1am which corresponds to the refuelling
of vehicles in the depot in preparation for the next day and the return of the buses from
evening service operation.

There is another smaller peak at around 5am when the majority of the vehicles at the depot
(mainly new buses and those fitted with particulate traps) are prepared for the day’s service
and begin to leave the depot. There is a bigger peak between 6.30 and 7.30 when a smaller
number of old buses, used predominantly on school contract services, are prepared for service
and sent out onto the road. The contrast here shows that a small number of old vehicles ha ve


The CATCH Consortium                           53                                        13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                                                                                           Final


a much bigger impact on the air quality in the depot than the majority of the fleet which has
been equipped with particulate traps aimed at minimising the pollution there.
                                                                Time
                                                                     8.1: Monitoring atConcentration every 30 Minutes atDepot Overnight
                                                            Figure vs Lightness and Accumulative Particle Unit Averaging for Micro132 on 16/08/04 at ARRIVA Bus Depot using a Self-
                                                                                              Contained an Arriva Bus 3.5v.



                                                                                                                                                         Accumulative Particle Concentration
                                                  1200                                                                                                   Lightness                               1.0


                                                                   Chromatic Lightness                                                                                                           0.9

                                                  1000
                                                                         value                                                                  Older buses run
                                                                                                                                                       out                                       0.8




                                                   800
                                                                                                                                        Start of bus run                                         0.7
 Accumulative Particle Concentration (in ug/m3)




                                                                                                                                               out                                               0.6




                                                                                                                                                                                                       Lightness Value
                                                   600
                                                                                                                     Refuelling                                                                  0.5




                                                     Average of accumulated particles                                                                                                            0.4


                                                   400
                                                                                                                                                                                                 0.3



                                                                                                                                                                                                 0.2
                                                   200


                                                                                                                                                                                                 0.1



                                                     0                                                                                                                                           0.0
                                                      :59




                                                                         0




                                                                         0




                                                                         0




                                                                         0

                                                                         0
                                                                       :30




                                                                       :00




                                                                       :00
                                                                      :00




                                                                      :30

                                                                      :00




                                                                      :00




                                                                      :00




                                                                      :30




                                                                      :30
                                                                     :30




                                                                     :30




                                                                     :30
                                                                    8:0




                                                                    9:3




                                                                    3:0




                                                                    4:0

                                                                    4:3
                                                                    :30




                                                                    :30




                                                                    :00




                                                                    :30
                                                    16




                                                                   :00




                                                                   :00

                                                                   :30




                                                                   :30

                                                                   :00




                                                                   :00




                                                                   :30
                                                                -02




                                                                -06




                                                                -07
                                                                -21




                                                                -22

                                                                -23




                                                                -00




                                                                -01




                                                                -05




                                                                -07
                                                               -23




                                                               -00




                                                               -01
                                                               -17




                                                               -18




                                                               -02




                                                               -03
                                                                 -1




                                                                 -1




                                                                 -0




                                                                 -0

                                                                 -0
                                                              -19




                                                              -20

                                                              -20




                                                              -21

                                                              -22




                                                              -05




                                                              -06
                                                            :30




                                                            :00




                                                            :30




                                                            :30

                                                            :00
                                                            :00




                                                            :30




                                                            :30
                                                            :30




                                                            :00

                                                            :30




                                                            :30




                                                            :30




                                                            :00




                                                            :00
                                                           :00




                                                           :00




                                                           :00
                                                           :00




                                                           :00




                                                           :30




                                                           :00
                                                           :30




                                                           :30

                                                           :00




                                                           :00

                                                           :30




                                                           :30




                                                           :00
                                                         17




                                                         19




                                                         02




                                                         03

                                                         04
                                                         02




                                                         05




                                                         06
                                                         20




                                                         22

                                                         22




                                                         23




                                                         00




                                                         05




                                                         07
                                                         23




                                                         00




                                                         01
                                                         17




                                                         18




                                                         01




                                                         03
                                                         18




                                                         19

                                                         20




                                                         21

                                                         21




                                                         04




                                                         06
                                                                                                                      Time of the Day



In general the concentration of particulates at the depot was around 30µgm-3 which compares
favourably with a typical local background level of 20-30µgm-3 , showing that the presence of
the (predominantly new / exhaust modified) buses at the depot does not lead to a particularly
hazardous working environment.

8.2.4                                                       Impact of Car-Free Day on Local Particulate Concentration

In September 2003 and again in September 2004 a ‘Car Free Day’ was held in Liverpool city
centre. This involved the closure of a city centre street to traffic for a day, with various
activities being held in the area to raise awareness of the event and promote sustainable
transport. As part of the event Liverpool University were present to demonstrate their
equipment, as well as to take particulate leve l readings which they were able to compare with
measurements taken in the same locations but on days either side of the event when vehicular
traffic was allowed in the area.

In both cases the measurements showed that when traffic was removed from a partic ular area
the level of particulates in the air dropped by between 50 and 75%. This drop in particulate
concentration is outside the variation that is seen from day to day which is caused by
variation in weather and other ambient conditions and suggests that the ‘car free day’ does
have a measurable and positive impact on air quality in the immediate locality of the road
closure.

8.2.5                                                       Impact of the ‘School Run’ on Local Particulate Concentration

Figure 3.4 has already indicated that there is a permanent air quality monitoring site in Speke,
within a few hundred metres of the Speke bus garage. This permanent site is located adjacent


The CATCH Consortium                                                                                                       54                                                                  13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                       Final


to a local school and reports particulate concentration as an hourly average, in line with the
national air quality objective targets. Use of the portable particulates monitoring system
allowed a more detailed investigation of particulates concentration over shorter time periods
in order to investigate the impact of traffic at the school gates on air quality as parents arrived
to collect their children from school. The data showed that as the end of the school day
approached and cars arrived at the school gates the level of particulates in the air increased,
reaching a very high, short- lived peak at 3pm, consistent with the observed growth in the
number of cars present (many with engines left idling) outside the school complex, before
returning to extremely low levels once the school traffic rapidly dispersed. When converted
to an hourly average the data shows a peak, consistent with the permanent air quality
monitoring site, but the extent of the short- lived very sharp peak in particulates at the peak
time is masked by the presentation as an hourly average.

8.3    Task 5 Summary

The detailed results show that the particulate mo nitoring systems provide ostensibly reliable
results, as witnessed by the production of calibration curves with approved pollution
monitoring systems. However, as the new system is not in itself formally approved this
hurdle would need to be overcome befo re widespread use of the system will be possible.
Nevertheless, through the various pollution measurements carried out with the CCTV and
SCU particulate monitoring systems the technique has been shown to be viable and capable
of providing area-wide partic ulates results and has demonstrated that a networked data
acquisition system based upon a combination both types of monitor could be effectively
assembled. Considerably more could be achieved with the technique with further work. For
instance the greater utilisation of the full chromatic dataset has much to offer in
crosschecking correct system operation within defined range limits, in crosschecking for
correct operation when stepped lamp voltages are used for range extension and providing
particulates concentration at low particulate concentrations. There is also evidence from a
limited number of tests that the Hue parameter might discriminate between types of
particulates.




The CATCH Consortium                            55                                         13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                   Final



9.        TASK 7

Objective
To implement a package of measures to improve air quality in Suceava.

Targets

      •   50% of target vehicles equipped with emission reduction technology by end of Year 2,
          100% by Year 3;
      •   1% of city centre designated as LEZ by end of Year 1, 2% by end of Year 2, 5% by
          Year 3;
      •   increase the percentage of LPG cars used by the citizens of Suceava
      •   development of local and national network for LPG car providers.

9.1       Emission Reduction Technologies

9.1.1     Introduction of LPG Cars in the Municipal Fleet

The first LPG municipal car, manufactured by SKODA, has operated in Suceava for the last
2 years of the project. The use of LPG fuel was shown to lead to the following reductions in
emissions in comparison with a comparable petrol car: 0.02% for CO, 1.7% for CO2 and 77%
for HC.

In 2 years the LPG car has travelled around 60,000 km and the level of consumption is
10l/100km, giving an estimated use of 6000 litres of LPG. The result of emission reduction
only for this municipal vehicle is a saving of 10.2 kg CO2 (5.1 kg/year).

In the last 2 years of the project by Suceava’s filling stations an average of around 200,000
litres of LPG per month (2,440,000 l/year). Utilizing the same model for the reduction of
emissions it can be determined that the overall reduction for the entire consumption of LPG
fuel in 2 years of the project is 8,296 kg CO2 , of which nearly 40% is for vehicles newly
registered during the project duration.

9.1.2     Emission Reduction Systems on Cars in the Municipal Fleet

The implementation phase of the CATCH Project included the installation of emission
reduction systems on 5 municipal cars manufactured by DACIA. (This is the most common
and accessible vehicle for the citizens of Suceava and Romania.) Of the vehicles converted,
3 vehicles were equipped with a Euro 1 engine, one with Euro 0 and one with euro 2 injection
engine. Analysis showed that the emission reduction systems produced results close to the
expected levels only for the vehicle which has a Euro 2 engine and which runs on unleaded
gasoline. During the monitoring process 3 of the vehicles ceased to function, with increased
levels of fuel consumption, engines that did not function within normal parameters, and
drivers observing that the vehicles did not function as well as before the installation of the
FPT systems.

The emissions reductions for the system on the Euro 2 vehicle were good, with a 36%
reduction in CO and an 89% reduction in HC, although in absolute terms the reductions were
not considered to be cost effective for wider uptake, as the hope had been that this system



The CATCH Consortium                           56                                      13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                          Final


would have been suitable for the older vehicles which have worse emission profiles and
which comprise a significant proportion of the vehicles on the streets of Suceava.

9.1.3   Particulate Traps on Minibuses in the Public Transport Fleet

Particulate traps were fitted to 10 Volkswagen minibuses which have been in use by the local
public transport company since June 2000. The installation process was delayed due to
financial difficulties at the public transport company and because the vehicles to which the
particulate reduction systems were to be fitted needed some remedial work to be conducted
on them in order to be suitable for the new systems and took place only in June 2005, 2
months before the end of CATCH Project. For this reason the evaluation process considers
only one minibus. Figure 9.1 shows the characteristics of one minibus that was equipped
with a particulate trap and the results of this measure in terms of the reduction in emissions.

Figure 9.1. Emission level before and after the implementation of particulate trap on
municipal minibus


   400

   300
                                                               Minibus before
                                                               implementation of FPT
   200
                                                               Minibus after implementation
                                                               of FPT

   100

        0
              PM          CO         NOx

The level of emission reduction is significant, particularly for particle emissions.

The level of emission reduction is considered as cost effective and the measure is
recommended for wider application among the 233 privately operated minibuses active in
Suceava as this could lead to a significant improvement of air quality in the city centre.

9.1.4   Refurbishment of Trolleybuses to Replace Old Buses

10 trolleybuses owned by the Local Transport Company were rehabilitated to replace 10 old
buses with poor emissions performance. The implementation was relatively early in the
CATCH project, so allowing 2 years for the evaluation study to quantify the level of
reduction at the end of CATCH Project and to formulate mid term solutions for continuing to
modernise public transport.

The local project team estimated a total daily quantity of pollutants released in the
atmosphere by the existing 10 Euro 0 buses to be 12.5 g NOx, which is now removed from
the local atmosphere as the trolleybuses are emission free as point of use. If we assume that


The CATCH Consortium                            57                                            13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                       Final


the trolleybuses each operate for an average of 211 days per year then this scales up to
2.64 kg NOx per bus per year.

9.2     Extension of the Low Emission Zone

The extension of the low emission zone occurred very early in the project and has been
extremely well received by the local population. The area has been used for numerous events
promoting environmental protection, as well for hosting social gatherings for the local
community. As one of the most visible CATCH measures it is good that it received positive
results in the evaluation surveys (see 9.3.1).

9.3     Promotion Activities

9.3.1   General Promotion

An extensive list of questions were addressed to the general public related to the ir knowledge
of the project, the measures proposed by it and the quality/quantity (including the format
used) of the information received, together with the expectations of the public.

The majority of respondents were aware of and more importantly agreed with the CATCH
measures (61% with the extension of LEZ, 70% with the alternative fuel promotion).
However, 25% of Suceava’s responding inhabitants who were questioned were not very
pleased with the transforming of a much circulated street from the city centre in a
pedestrianised area. Non-users of the public transport and owners and users of private cars
represented a large part of this grouping. It is noted that although the perception of citizens is
high in relation to the rehabilitation and improvement to the current public transport system
this has not yet been reflected in increased passenger numbers or the reduction of single car
travel. It is clear public transport needs much more improvement if results such as these and
integrated ticketing are expected.

Figure 9.2. The respondents’ awareness on CATCH measures

              150



              100



               50                                                                          Yes
                                                                                           No

                 0
                     Extension of    Promotion of Replacement of Installation of
                         LEZ          alternative Euro 0 busses FPT systems on
                                    vehicles(LPG)       with     minibuses and
                                                   trolleybuses    municipal
                                                                    vehicles



Figure 9.2 shows good levels of awareness of the CATCH measures, with the exception of
the fourth measure installation of particulate filters. (It is assumed that the reason for this low


The CATCH Consortium                                58                                     13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                        Final


percentage may be that the effects of these measures are not visible as other CATCH
measures.) Obviously, the extension of LEZ is very well known (by 75% of respondents), it
probably because it is the only measure with a real and lasting impact on the general public
and also because of the dissemination work done by the project team (on street events). The
majority of the respondents are also aware of the other two measures: the promotion of LPG
vehicles (67% of them) and the rehabilitation of the trolleybuses (58% of them).

9.3.2   Promotion of LPG

Using the purchase of the municipal LPG cars as a basis, the municipality has put significant
amounts of effort into promoting LPG as a vehicle fuel in Suceava. From the surveys carried
out amongst the car dealers in Suceava city and the companies responsible for
implementation of LPG facilities, results show that in the last 2 years of the CATCH project
there are approximately 574 LPG vehicles registered in Suceava, of which 219 were newly
registered during the 2 year project period. In this time there was also an increase in the
number of filling stations selling LPG from 3 to 9, showing that the city’s business
community also considers there is potential for further expansion of this market.

From the public survey performed by the evaluation team among private users of LPG
vehicles it is observed that 90 % (450 respondents from a total of 500) did not have any
technical problems with the LPG equipment after at least 1 year and / or more than 10,000
km

9.4     Task 7 Summary

Two LPG cars purchased were purchased by the municipality in order to promote
environmentally friendly vehicles. LPG was chosen because electric and hybrid vehicles are
still expensive and not accessible by all, whereas LPG vehicles represent a mid term solution
for emission reductions in the city of Suceava and in other cities from Romania.

10 minibuses and 5 Municipality cars were retrofitted with particulate filters. New Euro 3
vehicles already equipped with FPT systems are considered more accessible for emission
reductions and more efficient than older vehicles which had particulate filters installed at a
later date. Fitting particulate filters to municipal vehicles is not a solution for reducing traffic
emissions as the results from these experiments were not particularly good, but the fitting of
particulate filters to all existing minibuses could be a mid term solution for the improvement
of air quality in the city centre as these vehicles responded better to the technology.

The replacement of buses with refurbished trolleybuses is equivalent to a 100% reduction in
emissions at point of use and electric vehicles are seen as environmentally friendly modes,
although trolleybuses are restricted to a fixed network and so not as flexible as other public
transport modes. The level of emission reduction is considered to be very good when
compared with the cost of the system installation. The measure is considered to be a long
term solution applicable in Suceava and also all cities in Romania.

The transformation of Stefan cel Mare Street into a pedestrian area at the weekend met to
public expectations of the measure. This influenced a change in public attitudes and enabled
people to change their travel behaviour, i.e. to reduce car use and increase cycling, walking,
car sharing etc. The extension of the low emission zone and access restrictions within the
city delivered a reduction in traffic emissions and an improvement in air quality especially in


The CATCH Consortium                             59                                         13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                   Final


the city centre. The further extension of the LEZ is considered to be a long term solution for
improving the quality of life in the city centre.

Overall the public reacted well to the environmentally friendly measures introduced to
improve the surrounding environmental condition. The use of information materials alone
was not enough to persuade residents of the measures’ merits immediately, although once the
costs and benefits were explained residents were able do see the advantages and became more
accepting to the new travel plan policies that were introduced.              However, traffic
characteristics outside the core city centre failed to improve throughout the project duration
and congestion was still considered a major problem. The lack of transport alternatives was
considered the main reason for continuing traffic congestion in the city centre. It was also
noted that the percentage of private cars, particularly single occupancy vehicles were still
high for travel within the city centre. Residents of Suceava requested major improvements to
the public transport network, better interchange locations and a fully functional integrated
transport system for the future.

From the study carried out in Suceava there was a noticeable difference in the opinions
                                                       ore
between local authorities and the public (who were m accepting) regarding the views of
the transport and environmental sectors in Suceava city. It is evident a detailed assessment of
the existing situation needs producing to cover strategies for different sectors, especially
transport and environment. Different solutions must be proposed and cost-benefit analysis
must be carried out, in order to choose the most suitable alternative, which is able to provide
more comfortable, accessible and efficient services. The integration of environmental policy
into the transport sector must stimulate the use of public transport, based on investments in
environmentally- friendly modes, increased frequencies on existing networks, improved
comfort and improved transport connections.

If fully implemented a significant reduction in traffic levels and public transport emissions
would bring about a major improvement in the air quality within the city. Investments in the
condition of public transport will increase the number of passengers using public transport
and reducing single car occupancy and journeys. The implementation of park and ride,
cycling and walking facilities and the introduction of new more ecologically friendly vehicles
will also help improve public transport within the city of Suceava. Recommendations for
Suceava are;

   •   To obtain behavioural change in travel patterns public transport needs to provide more
       comfortable, accessible and efficient services making public transport more attractive,
       thus transferring travel demand from private car to public transport;
   •   To improve the quality of life within the city of Suceava emission levels need
       reducing, thus reducing the number of emission related health problems and
       consequently health costs for public authorities and inhabitants;
   •   To improve the overall environmental situation, reduce air pollution level and
       decrease accidents, new measures (such as speed restrictions, better public transport
       and proper segregation of pedestrians, bicycles and road traffic) must be introduced
       into the existing transport policy at a local level.




The CATCH Consortium                          60                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                     Final



10.       TASK 8

Objective
To transfer knowledge and policy guidance between the other partners and Southern Europe,
through a demonstration in the province of Naples.

Targets

•     Improved collaboration between public and private sector organisations aimed at reducing
      the environmental impacts of transport.
•     Greater understanding by the local community of the impacts of personal travel decisions
      on air quality, quality of life and the urban environment
•     Improved air quality directly through the use of clean fuels and reduced traffic, and
      indirectly through increased use of public transport, cycling and walking
•     Enhanced methods of environmental impact assessment of transport and land- use
      measures

10.1      Introduction

The Italian project partner, CTP, is the regional public transport provider in the region of
Naples. In co-operation with the Comune (Town Council) of Potenza CTP has founded,
along with private companies, a new society called STI that has managed the public transport
system in Potenza from January 2003. Potenza is situated 150 km south east of Naples, with
a population of 70,000 people (110,000 including surrounding districts) and has a very
specific morphology with the historic town centre being situated on the top of a very steep
hill. This new co-operation presented an opportunity to reorganise the public transport
arrangements within Potenza with support of the town’s administration.

The proposed actions for the CATCH project related to the public transport system, a
feasibility study for a limited traffic zone (ZTL) and pedestrian areas, environmental
monitoring and providing information for citizens. The project was also intended to support
the subsequent implementation of the limited traffic zone through the purchase of a hybrid
bus for use on the public transport system within the central zone, so providing a low
emission service allowing the population access to and around the central area by vehicular
means supplementing pedestrian movements which were anticipated as the main mode within
what is a small central area.

The first stage of the project was to use a feasibility study to evaluate the specific activities
that were to be implemented in the Potenza, which would allow optimisation of the project
plans. The proposed measures included:

        • to organise a new and more efficient integrated transport system that ensures links
          between peripheral zones and the historical centre
        • to encourage the use of public transport and to decrease traffic congestion in the
          town centre
        • to define interchange points (bus - escalators – elevators – parking areas) that keep
          vehicular traffic out of the town centre and link to the public transport offer
        • to use ecological vehicles and fuel for the public transport service which enters the
          ZTL, probably via a hybrid bus



The CATCH Consortium                           61                                        13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                      Final



       • to realize a traffic plan and to study the possibility to introduce emission free areas
         (Limited Traffic Zones - ZTL)
       • to disseminate information in order to increase citizen awareness about the causes
         of the pollution and the damaging effects that it has on health.

10.2       Feasibility Study

10.2.1 Study Implementation

The feasibility study for the implementation of the project in Potenza was conducted around a
project scenario of the Limited Traffic Zone defined in conjunction with the town’s
municipal administration as follows:

       •                         o
              Definition of the l cation of Limited Traffic Zone boundaries, of its regulations
              and of the access and exiting roads;

       •                        o
              Definition of the l cation of areas and route to be assigned as pedestrian only
              areas;

       •      Implementation of Park and Ride facilities;

       •      Definition of the new circulation scheme in the Limited Traffic Zone coherent
              with the new pedestrian areas and with objectives to improve vehicle circulation,
              limit access to the ZTL and contain conflict points between vehicles and
              pedestrians;

       •      Reorganisation of parking in the historical centre in order to maximize parking
              supply on secondary roads, reduce it on main roads and contain the critical aspect
              index;

       •      The reorganisation of local public transport; particularly with regard the level and
              frequency of the service in the study area and the need to increase the connections
              between Piazza V. Emanuele and the historical centre.


The feasibility study was split into two parts. The aim of the first phase of the study was to
define the current transport circulation profile of the area using qualitative and quantitative
data and the application of a mathematical model of the transport system. Quantitative data
was obtained through an extensive program of mobility research. This research included on
site surveys (e.g. vehicle flow counts conducted on roads in the study area and the collection
of data relative to vehicle parking in the historical centre of Potenza), along with numerous
origin-destination (o-d) interviews with a significant sample of users, i.e. drivers entering and
exiting Potenza.

The information obtained from the surveys was analysed and used in the application of the
mathematical model in Potenza’s historical centre. Using results from the traffic survey and
the o-d interviews, the mathematical model was refined resulting in the simulation of the
transport and mobility system function in the study area.




The CATCH Consortium                             62                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                         Final


The first phase of the feasibility study highlighted the following priorities for Potenza:
   •   Vehicle parking: The results from the modelling exercise support the findings from
       the surveys made on the parking demand: demand for parking in the city centre
       outweighs supply of spaces. The growing extent of this problem suggests that this is a
       priority for Potenza.

   •   Private vehicle traffic: from a functional point of view, there were no serious
       problems on the main road network. However, the centre’s main arterial routes were
       often very congested. This circumstance should not be underestimated considering
       the “vulnerability” of the road network. Traffic limitation in these areas should be
       considered a priority.

   •   Pedestrian areas and road safety: With regard to walking in the centre, the entire
       road network appeared unsafe due to inadequate roads, an almost complete absence of
       pedestrian pavements and inappropriate or illegal parking. Vehicles and people are
       therefore forced to share the same space making the centre of Potenza a very unsafe
       place, particularly for pedestrians.

   •   Local public transport: despite the good level of public transport services covering
       much of the urban area in Potenza, public transport is clearly not well used. Currently
       only 6% of the morning peak hour modal share is taken by public transport some
       action to address the modal split is urge ntly needed.

A conclusio n of this first phase of the analysis, based on the above critical findings, led to the
development of a set of priorities to be undertaken during the second phase of the study: the
design phase:

   •   Promote the pedestrian component in centre: restore the pedestrian environment or
       areas where pedestrians have priority over vehicles, making the city centre more fluid
       and more pleasant for everyone, reducing intrusion of vehicles in zones not made to
       accommodate them.
   •   Limit the number of vehicle movements entering the historical centre of Potenza.
   •   Foresee long term parking: the reduction of long term parking means increasing the
       parking capacity of the zone and, therefore, increasing the accessibility to short term
       parking vehicles (for example for shopping or entertainment), this could also mean
       restoring spaces destined for other uses.
   •   Promote use of TPL: even out modal division between private and public transport
       vehicles by, on one hand, reducing the number of circulating cars leading to a
       reduction of congestion levels, and on the other hand reducing and managing parking
       demand in the zone where “parking problem” is particularly serious.
The new priorities relating to transport and mobility in the historical centre, developed as a
direct result of this study are based on three essential elements:

   •   A consolidation, development and restoration of areas and routes becoming the new
       pedestrian mobility system (implementation of a large pedestrian area which extends
       all along Via Pretoria to Piazza M.Pagano, situated within a larger Limited Traffic
       Zone which includes the entire historical centre of Potenza).



The CATCH Consortium                            63                                           13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                       Final



   •       Proposals to reorganise the existing ZTL boundaries with the intention of separating
           different modes where possible. (i.e. vehicles, pedestrians and parking).
   •       Proposals to reorganise local public transport in relation to the new mobility needs
           following the above changes, along with a proposal to introduce a new and more
           frequent service to support the pedestrian areas.
When defining the Limited Traffic Zone in Potenza, the following criteria were considered:

              §   the extension of the historical centre and the distribution of the principal
                  activities;
              §   the pre-existence of small pedestrian areas (e.g. Via Pretoria);
              §   the transport accessibility and the possible circulation directions;
              §   geographical area.

Detailed assignment modelling studies were carried out for the proposed scheme options,
based on the existing demand for mobility in and around the town, both for the overall area
and the historical centre. These were used in order to establish the impacts on modal split,
environmental impact and accessibility to the town centre under the revised traffic conditions.
The result was as follows.

The selection of a design of the ZTL including:

       •                          o
               Definition of the l cation of Limited Traffic Zone boundaries, of its regulations
               and of the access and exiting roads;

       •                         o
               Definition of the l cation of areas and route to be assigned as pedestrian only
               areas;

       •       Implementation of Park and Ride facilities;

       •       Definition of the new circulation scheme in the Limited Traffic Zone coherent
               with the new pedestrian areas and with objectives to improve vehicle circulation,
               limit access to the ZTL and contain conflict points between vehicle s and
               pedestrians;

       •       Reorganisation of parking in the historical centre in order to maximize parking
               supply on secondary roads, reduce it on main roads and contain the critical aspect
               index;

       •       The reorganisation of local public transport; particularly with regard the level and
               frequency of the service in the study area and the need to increase the connections
               between Piazza V. Emanuele and the historical centre.

Together with the following list that shows the order in which the measures should be
implemented:

       •       Opening of the Park and Ride facility along with the reorganisation the public
               transport service, in order to immediately provide an alternative to car use

       •       Measures regarding the parking reorganisation along with the new general
               circulation scheme in the historical centre.


The CATCH Consortium                              64                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                   Final



      •    Develop new pedestrian areas and activate the restricted zones.

10.2.2 Study Results

The expected results of the implementation of the proposed measures in the study area are as
follows:

      •    55% decrease in the number of private vehicle movements into the historical
           centre in both the morning peak and an even greater decrease in the afternoon
           peak hours, with knock on effects for congestion on main roads;

      •    An increase in public transport use (from the current 10-15% to 40-50% in the
           project scenario) – increased use of the escalators equal to 400% due to Park and
           Ride and an increase of passengers on elevators achieving the full capacity ;

      •    A reduction in the emission of atmospheric pollutants from traffic in the limited
           traffic zone by 50% in the morning peak hour and more than 90% in the
           afternoon peak – a less significant, but noticeable reduction on the network in
           general on the areas around the ZTL of approximately 20%;

      •    An improved level of service in terms of average speed and congestion in the
           historical centre which is also apparent on the entire individual transport network.

The full projected results for fuel consumption and emissions during morning (7:45-8:45) and
afternoon (17:45-18:45) peak hours for the entire network and the city centre are shown in
tables 10.1 and 10.2. They show a general decrease of both fuel consumption and emissions.
The decrease is more apparent in the city centre compared to the network, due to the
restrictive traffic regulation (ZTL). The changes are less evident in the morning traffic peak
because of the flow of residents leaving the ZTL.

       Table 10.1: Fuel consumption and emissions in morning peak traffic hour
                                Entire Network            City Centre
      Total consumptions       Present Project Change Present Project Change
             (litres)          Scenario Scenario (%) Scenario Scenario (%)
                      gasoline 1022,0     806,9  -21%   65,9      34,3     -48%
                        diesel 308,4      249,3  -19%   19,6      10,7     -46%
                           lpg   16,3      13,5  -17%    0,9       0,5     -41%
      Total Emissions (kg)
                          CO 115,7         84,2  -27%    8,3       3,8     -55%
                         NOx      7,6       6,3  -17%    0,4       0,2     -42%
                          HC     12,6       8,8  -30%    0,9       0,4     -57%




The CATCH Consortium                          65                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                 Final


      Table 10.2: Fuel consumption and emissions in afternoon peak traffic hour
                                Entire Network              City Centre
      Total consumptions       Present Project Change Present Project Chang
             (litres)          Scenario Scenario (%) Scenario Scenario e (%)
                      gasoline 1117,1     771,4  -31%     69,4       5,2    -92%
                        diesel 327,8      242,6  -26%     20,7       1,7    -92%
                           lpg   16,8      13,1  -22%      1,0       0,1    -91%
      Total Emissions (kg)
                          CO 137,8         76,4  -45%      8,7       0,5    -94%
                         NOx      7,9       6,2  -22%      0,5       0,0    -91%
                          HC     15,8       7,6  -52%      0,9       0,1    -95%

Figures 10.1 - 10.4 show the comparison of current and project scenario CO emissions for
morning and afternoon peak hours. The area studied was subdivided in zones, for which
colour corresponds to the amount of CO emitted by traffic on roads within the zone. From
the diagrams you can identify the reduction of CO diffusion in the project scenario compared
to the present one by comparing the colour with the key. The darker the colour, the higher
the concentration of CO emissions.

 Figure 10.1                                      Figure 10.2
 CO Emissions – present scenario (morning)        CO Emissions – project scenario (morning)




 Figure 10.3                                      Figure 10.4
 CO Emissions – present scenario (afternoon)      CO Emissions – project scenario (afternoon)




The CATCH Consortium                         66                                      13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                     Final




10.3   Barriers to Implementation

At project inception it was expected that implementation of the ZTL would require a
significant effort in public communication, raising public awareness about the causes of the
pollution and the damaging effects that it has on health and explaining the role of the ZTL in
reducing these negative environmental factors whilst providing a realistic alternative way of
moving in and around Potenza. However, this expectation was based on the assumption that
the support of the municipal administration in Potenza was guaranteed. In practice this
proved to be a false assumption, not because of a change of mind from the people who had
supported the project from the formation of the initial idea and had helped with the feasibility
study, but because of a change of personnel within the key political and executive posts
within the administration. This came as a result of 2 municipal elections in the space of four
months which led to a period of political uncertainty and transition.

Within the project the city council was not a formal partner and so although it had provided
local support, the new administration had no contractual obligation to implement the results
of the feasibility study. Once the new administration had taken its time to establish its new
priorities for the town, the implementation of the ZTL came too far down their list for
implementation to occur during the CATCH contract period, inspite of repeated and
significant efforts by all project partners to change this decision. Indeed, the position is made
more frustrating by the fact that the policy statement of the new administration are very much
in support of this type of work, but there appears to be little will to back up these statements
with action. Hence it has not been possible to test if the projected environmental benefits
would be realised in practice. Nor has it been possible to establish the level and type of work
that would be needed to gain public confidence in the proposed mobility scheme that would
accompany the ZTL.

10.4   Task 8 Summary

All the proposed detailed preparatory work necessary for the implementation of a ZTL in
Potenza, right through to the detailed design phase, implementation specification and
expected impacts has been completed successfully.

The estimated environmental impacts appear highly beneficial to the local environment
within the town.

Political changes prevented delivery, including the proposed support programme of
awareness raising campaigns, in spite of repeated and forceful efforts by all partners to
change the minds of the new local administration.

This situation leads us to the lesson that a strong verbal commitment and related action is not
enough on its own to ensure continued support from key partners and that such partners need
to be formally involved through contractual commitments.




The CATCH Consortium                           67                                        13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                           Final



11.       OVERALL PROJECT IMPACTS

Objective
To evaluate the impacts of CATCH and report on the impact areas both individually and as
an overall package.

Targets

•     After surveys evaluation completed
•     HIA completed

11.1      Overall Impacts

11.1.1 Emissions

Emissions analysis for Liverpool has been conducted using the JET model. The JET model
was originally developed by TTR to quantify the impact of JUPITER, a major European
Commission funded collaborative research and demonstration project that included a range of
integrated transport management measures designed to increase the use of public transport,
reduce the use of private cars, improve vehicle fuel efficiency and use alternative fuel
technologies in order to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels and harmful vehicle
emissions.

The information used in JET is based on the COPERT III methodology3 published by
European Environment Agency. The COPERT III methodology uses an average speed
approach to take into account the variation in emission factors with changing traffic
conditions as a function of traffic speed and further factors, such as the impacts of cold starts.
This approach recognises the sensitivity of fuel consumption and emission levels to traffic
conditions without the need for excessive data collection. The use of speed-emission curves
in this way is well established and the data needed are well defined for a range of vehicle
types and the COPERT III methodology has formed the basis of the analysis of many
Europe-wide transport & energy programmes including the Targeted Transport Projects
(which included the JUPITER and JUPITER-2 projects) and the relevant parts of the
CIVITAS initiative, which in total cover application in more than 100 major European cities.

JET has been continually updated as new technology options have approached the market so
that progressive improvements in vehicle technology, such as hybrid vehicles and the latest
NOx reduction technologies, such as SCR and EGR, are also included so that the JET model
can operate within the context of the implementation of a wide range of future transport
strategy options over the timespan of the strategy.

The JET model is a planning tool which can be applied to a wide range of transport projects.
The main advantage of the JET model is that it is simple to run, takes into consideration the
most important factors of urban traffic conditions and yet requires relatively little input data.
Because energy consumption and pollutant emissions in the urban transport environment are
influenced by a large number of factors, it is virtually impossible to incorporate all these
factors into a single estimation procedure. The JET model includes what are currently

3
 COPERT III Computer Programme to Calculate Emissions from Road Transport. European Environment
Agency Technical Report No 49, November 2000.


The CATCH Consortium                            68                                          13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                        Final


considered the most important factors influencing the impacts of urban transport on energy
use and emissions and is easily adapted to include any other factors that are subsequently
considered relevant.

The JET model is particularly suitable to assess the impacts of the implementation of traffic
measures, new vehicle technologies, alternative fuels and schemes to promote modal shift;
i.e. measures that are either specifically contained in the strategy or are likely to be necessary
for its successful implementation. The outputs provided by the model can be used to furnish
planners and decision- makers with evidence about the likely energy and emission impacts
from the implementation of proposed transport measures and plans. The model is applicable
both at the level of individual transport corridors and projects or at the strategic level, if wider
applications are anticipated.

This approach was considered ideal for this analysis because it takes into account the level of
detail of the strategic data that is available to this study from existing sources and the
potential for detailed amendment of the input parameters in order to enhance the accuracy of
the study whilst respecting the differences between the selected corridors and scenarios.

The COPERT III calculation methodology provides emissions factors for each vehicle
category in the appropriate proportions in order to produce an inventory for the modelled
scenario based on that scenario’s set of traffic input data.

The pollutant emissions calculated by the JET model are:

      •     Carbon monoxide (CO);
      •     Nitrogen oxides (NOx );
      •     Volatile organic compounds (VOC);
      •     Total particulate matter (TPM);
      •     Carbon dioxide (CO2 ).

as well as energy use.

These pollutants are chosen because:

   o Road traffic was traditionally a major source of CO, particularly from spark ignition
     engines, although this has been dramatically reduced through the introduction of
     modern engine management systems and three way catalysts.
   o Nitrogen oxides, particularly NO2 , are a respiratory irritant linked with reduced
     resistance to conditions such as asthma and chronic bronchitis for those who already
     suffer from these conditions and are also a precursor in the formation of ozone.
     Transport sources, particularly diesel engines, are a major source of NOx in the UK.
   o VOCs encompass a range of hydrocarbons emitted as gases predominantly from the
     exhausts of spark ignition engines and which are linked to respiratory problems and in
     some cases considered as carcinogens. VOC emissions have been dramatically
     reduced through the introduction of modern engine management systems and three
     way catalysts, although specific species still give cause for concern even at low
     concentration levels.
   o Particulate matter includes a range of solid and semi- solid agglomerations of varying
     chemical composition in the range of 0 to 50µm, although generally quantified for
     those that are less than 10µm in diameter (PM10 ). These can act as a respiratory


The CATCH Consortium                             69                                         13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                   Final


     irritant inducing coughing and lower lung efficiency and concern is growing over the
     smallest particles which can penetrate deep into the lungs and cause complications in
     many different conditions including as a carcinogen and may also enter the
     bloodstream through this path.
   o CO2 is included not from a local air quality perspective but because it is the main
     greenhouse gas and transport in all forms is a major source.

The JET model combines the COPERT III calculation methodology with factors such as the
number of vehicle kilometres travelled by different categories of vehicle, the distribution of
the fleet by size and age (and hence emissions reduction technology as defined by EC
directives), average vehicle speeds and loading factors.

Model runs have been conducted showing:
  • the baseline situation at the start of CATCH (autumn 2002) i.e. the before situation;
  • the estimated situation at the end of the CATCH contract period (late summer 2005),
    assuming that the project had not been implemented i.e. the do nothing scenario ;
  • the position at the end of CATCH including the impacts of the technical elements of
    project i.e. the do project scenario ;
  • the estimated impact that wider implementation of the CATCH measures in the project
    area would have i.e. the wider scenario;
  • the estimated maximum impact if the CATCH measures were further implemented as a
    high investment package (this particularly relates to investment in new hybrid buses to
    replace the oldest vehicles in the bus fleet rather than merely using retrofit technology
    to reduce emissions ) i.e. the ultimate scenario.

Emissions calculations in the example are for point of use emissions because the project in
question is targeted at local air quality impacts in the city centre.

The do nothing scenario allows for a significant proportion of fleet renewal with Euro III and
some Euro IV compliant cars replacing the oldest section of the pre-existing vehicle stock.
Before conducting a detailed analysis of the evaluation scenarios, it is also worth noting the
contribution of different modes to the different pollutants considered in the analysis, as this
shows the extent to which interventions in a particular sector can influence overall emissions
levels (Table 11.1).

Table 11.1: Percentages of different pollutants from Different Vehicle categories
                   CO             NOx             VOC           PM10            CO2
 % from Car        94.3            24.8            64.1          20.9           67.0
  % from PT         3.3            50.1            10.2          32.2           16.8
% from HGV          2.5            25.2            25.7          46.9           16.2

Figure 11.1 shows the comparative emissions for the before situation, the do nothing
scenario, the project scenario and the wider scenario.

The significant impact of the EC directives on total emissions in the do nothing scenario
compared to on the before situation is clear. The size of this impact on the totals in
comparison to the impact of the project is not surprising as the directives apply to all new
vehicles in the study area, whereas the technical measures in the demonstration have only
been applied to a minority of buses, which themselves comprise a small proportion of the



The CATCH Consortium                          70                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                  Final


total vehicle fleet and the behavioural change elements of the project have only reached a
small proportion of the people who travel within the target area of Liverpool city centre.

Figure 11.1: Total City Centre Emissions, rebased to 100 for Autumn 2002.

                                                 Before   Do Nothing Scenario    Project Scenario   Wider Scenario

                                           120
 Total Emission relative to 100 for 2003




                                           100


                                            80


                                            60


                                            40


                                            20


                                             0
                                                 CO             NOx              VOC            TPM             CO2

When considered in isolation the results show that the impact of the EC directives on
emissions from new cars has a considerable effect as the cleaner new cars that respect Euro 3
and Euro 4 standards replace old, dirty cars which reach the end of their life (figure 11.2).
However, during the course of the project there has been little in the way of new vehicle
purchase for buses operating in Liverpool city centre and so this feature is not seen when
public transport emissions are considered (figure 11.3). Hence, it is only when the project
measures are included that any reduction in public transport emissions is seen.

Figure 11.3 indicates that the project has demonstrated a significant additional reduction in
particulate emissions from public transport through the retrofitting programme (104 buses out
of an estimated total of 1042 which operate in Liverpool city centre). In section 4 it is
reported that the installation of exhaust gas recirculation equipment on 16 buses had reduced
NOx emissions from these vehicles by 35%. This impact is, however, counteracted by the
introduction of the CATCH city centre shuttle service, operated by hybrid buses, which is a
new service and hence increases NOx emissions from an enlarged buses fleet. This effect is
only partially offset by reductions in emissions from other vehicles as few of users of the
CATCH city centre shuttle service transferred to the service from cars.

Figure 11.3 shows that wider application of the technological measures to buses offers the
possibility to significantly reduce emissions, particularly of particulates and NOx, largely
through the widespread use of the retrofit technologies (particulate traps and EGR).

Figure 11.1 shows that the project resulted in a marginal reduction in CO2 emissions, which
would become more noticeable in the case of wider implementation. Comparison of figures
11.2 and 11.3 shows that CO2 emissions from buses increased as a result of the project



The CATCH Consortium                                                            71                                    13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                    Final


because more bus kilometres are being travelled due to the additional city centre shuttle
service and because the particulate traps have been shown to increase fuel consumption
slightly. However, the reductions in private car use from the other project measures (e.g. the
healthy travel promotion, city centre walking and cycling improvements and ECOtravel)
more than offset this when the project is viewed in its entirety.

Figure 11.2: City Centre Emissions from Cars, rebased to 100 for Autumn 2002.

                                                 Before   Do Nothing Scenario    Project Scenario    Wider Scenario

                                           120
 Total Emission relative to 100 for 2003




                                           100


                                           80


                                           60


                                           40


                                           20


                                            0
                                                 CO             NOx               VOC               TPM           CO2
                                                                                Pollutant

Figure 11.3: City Centre Emissions from Public Transport, rebased to 100 for Autumn
2002.

                                                 Before   Do Nothing Scenario    Project Scenario    Wider Scenario

                                           120
 Bus Emission relative to 100 for 2003




                                           100


                                            80


                                            60


                                            40


                                            20


                                             0
                                                 CO             NOx              VOC                TPM          CO2



The CATCH Consortium                                                            72                                      13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                       Final


Table 11.2: Reductions in Pollutant Emissions in Central Liverpool as a Result of the
Project (plus Wider and Ultimate Scenarios) Compared with the Before and Do Nothing
Scenarios
                   Reductions in Emissions in Central Liverpool (Tonnes per year)
                  Compared to Before Scenario                 Compared to Do Nothing
                                                                      Scenario
                    Do Nothing    Project         Wider      Ultimate       Project       Wider          Ultimate
 CO                     -348.4      -354.1         -399.9      -440.2          -5.6         -51.4            -91.7
 NOx                      -47.5      -47.1          -85.5      -154.9          +0.3         -38.0          -107.4
 VOC                      -53.6      -54.7          -61.2        -66.8         -1.1          -7.7            -13.2
 TPM                       -3.1       -3.6           -6.4         -8.0         -0.5          -3.3             -4.9
 CO2                    -292.5      -217.4        -1433.1     -3874.9         +75.1       -1140.6         -3582.4
NB: This analysis is restricted to emissions within central Liverpool only. The buses operate outside this area
and as such their contribution to improved air quality will be felt over a much wider area. See section 12.2.1 for
further information.

Table 11.2 shows the impact of the project in absolute terms and also shows the potential
benefits of the project under the wider application scenario. The data in Table 11.2
emphasises the impact of the sheer volume of private car traffic compared to the impact of
the demonstrated measures. However, taken in conjunction with Figure 11.1 it can be seen
that the wider and ultimate project scenarios offer significant further benefits if they were to
be implemented.

In order to investigate the possibilities further the relative impacts of the vehicle-related
measures (particulate traps, EGR and hybrid buses) and other measures have been estimated
in terms of the percentage change they contribute compared to the do nothing scenario for
each of the five pollutants considered.

Figure 11.4: Percentage Change for Project Scenarios Compared to the End-of Project
Do Nothing Scenario: Carbon Monoxide .

                                             CO
             0.0



             -1.0



             -2.0

                                                                                         Project: vehicle measures
                                                                                         Project: other measures
             -3.0
  % Impact




                                                                                         Wider: vehicle measures
                                                                                         Wider: other measures
                                                                                         Ultimate: vehicle measures
             -4.0
                                                                                         Ultimate: other measures


             -5.0



             -6.0



             -7.0




The CATCH Consortium                                    73                                                13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                Final


Figure 11.5: Percentage Change for Project Scenarios Compared to the End-of Project
Do Nothing Scenario: Oxides of Nitrogen.

                                NOx
              5.0


              0.0


              -5.0


             -10.0
                                                                  Project: vehicle measures
             -15.0                                                Project: other measures
  % Impact




                                                                  Wider: vehicle measures
             -20.0                                                Wider: other measures
                                                                  Ultimate: vehicle measures
             -25.0                                                Ultimate: other measures


             -30.0


             -35.0


             -40.0


             -45.0




Figure 11.6: Percentage Change for Project Scenarios Compared to the End-of Project
Do Nothing Scenario: Volatile Organic Compounds .

                                 VOC
              0.0




              -2.0




              -4.0
                                                                  Project: vehicle measures
                                                                  Project: other measures
  % Impact




                                                                  Wider: vehicle measures
              -6.0                                                Wider: other measures
                                                                  Ultimate: vehicle measures
                                                                  Ultimate: other measures

              -8.0




             -10.0




             -12.0




The CATCH Consortium                     74                                        13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                        Final


Figure 11.7: Percentage Change for Project Scenarios Compared to the End-of Project
Do Nothing Scenario: Particulates.

                                    PM10
               0.0



              -5.0



             -10.0

                                                                          Project: vehicle measures
                                                                          Project: other measures
             -15.0
  % Impact




                                                                          Wider: vehicle measures
                                                                          Wider: other measures
                                                                          Ultimate: vehicle measures
             -20.0
                                                                          Ultimate: other measures


             -25.0



             -30.0



             -35.0




Figure 11.8: Percentage Change for Project Scenarios Compared to the End-of Project
Do Nothing Scenario: Carbon Dioxide .

                                    CO2
             1.0




             0.0




             -1.0
                                                                          Project: vehicle measures
                                                                          Project: other measures
  % Impact




                                                                          Wider: vehicle measures
             -2.0                                                         Wider: other measures
                                                                          Ultimate: vehicle measures
                                                                          Ultimate: other measures

             -3.0




             -4.0




             -5.0




Figures 11.4 - 11.8 are useful in clearly identifying that the vehicle measures have more
impact in reducing NOx and particulate emissions, which are the pollutants of most concern
in respect of local air quality in Liverpool because they address the large-engined diesel
vehicles that contribute significantly to these pollutants. However, the other measures appear


The CATCH Consortium                          75                                           13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                     Final


to have a greater potential to address CO2 emissions, which are of course closely linked to
climate change.

The ultimate scenario for the vehicle measures shows itself to be over twice as effective in
terms of the potential reduction in NOx and 50% more effective in terms of the potential
reduction in NOx it offers, but is considerably more expensive as it involves the purchase of
complete new hybrid vehicles rather than merely retrofitting particulate traps and EGR
systems.

11.1.2 Survey Results

Two sets of interview-based surveys were conducted, both in the early stages of the project
and also towards the end of the project, in order to assess the impact CATCH has had on the
awareness, attitudes and acceptance of the people active in the project’s target area. One pair
of surveys was conducted with residents of the area and the other pair of surveys was
conducted with a cross section of the people who were active on the street. Hence the latter
group could be residents or people who have come to Liverpool as visitors, to study, to work
or for shopping etc.

The full results of the surveys, together with a set of surveys conducted on board the CATCH
city centre shuttle service are contained in an annex to this report. In this section some of the
key findings in relation to the respondents’ awareness of and attitudes to transport and
environment issues are explored.

Traffic Levels and their Influence on Journeys
Respondents to the household survey were asked to describe the traffic levels in the specific
area where the y live. Respondents to both the household and on-street surveys were asked to
describe the traffic levels in central Liverpool as a whole. Liverpool city centre residents felt
that traffic levels had increased slightly over the duration of the project local to their
residences. In both surveys there was a general shift in opinions of traffic levels in central
Liverpool from low towards the higher end of the range suggesting that traffic is becoming
perceived as more of a problem.

During the course of the project there was also an increase in the proportion of people who
stated that traffic levels in the Liverpool Air Quality Management Area would affect whether
they choose to use the car to make a journey. This observation suggests that respondents are
becoming more influenced by traffic levels as traffic levels are perceived to increase. In the
household before survey a high proportion of residents indicated that traffic levels also
influenced whether they walked within the Liverpool Air Quality Manage ment Area. This
figure decreased dramatically in the after survey, suggesting that traffic levels are now
considered less of a problem in preventing people making a journey on foot and that the
Liverpool Air Quality Management Area is becoming a more acceptable area for walking.
This may be due to the ongoing work to improve infrastructure and environment for walking
in the city centre, although there is no hard evidence to back this up. A similar pattern of
responses was found for the impact of traffic on the time that people would make journeys by
different modes.

Public Transport
Public transport was considered to offer a suitable option for some or even all journeys in
both the before and after surveys of the on-street and household surveys. The response was


The CATCH Consortium                           76                                        13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                 Final


slightly better for respondents to the on-street survey, 40% of whom suggested that it would
be suitable for all trips. The balance of respondents to both surveys felt that the quality of
public transport had improved within the last three years, and in the case of the household
surveys there is an indication that this improvement has accelerated during the course of the
project.

Consequences of Congestion
Respondents’ opinions of the consequences of road traffic congestion were investigated in
both surveys to find out which generates the greatest concern amongst residents and city
users. The results show that air pollution is still considered the greatest consequence of road
traffic congestion amongst Liverpool residents and city centre users. Other increasing
concerns are with longer journey times, reduced safety for pedestrians & cyclists and impacts
on health, which are gradually becoming more of an issue for some within the Liverpool Air
Quality Management Area.

Figure 11.9: Respondents’ Selection of the Most Important Consequence of Congestion.

                 45
                                                                                                   On street Before
                 40                                                                                On street After

                                                                                                   Houshold Before
                 35
                                                                                                   Houshold After
                 30
    Percentage




                 25


                 20


                 15


                 10


                  5


                  0
                      Local air      Longer        Global    Reduced      Impacts on   Other   Mixture     Not Stated
                      pollution   journey times   warming    safety for     health
                                                             cyclists &
                                                            pedestrians



Air Quality Perceptions, Information and Reactions
Respondents are in strong agreement that poor air quality can affect their quality of life (see
Figure 11.10). A sizeable minority in both sets of surveys indicated that they suffered from
some form of breathing problem.

Opinions were split as to whether the air quality in Liverpool is good. On balance more
people agreed than disagreed with the statement that “Air quality in central Liverpool is
good”. In the after on-street survey the responses suggest that respondents perceive air
quality in central Liverpool to have improved during the course of the project (Figure 11.11).
However, there seems to be a high level of uncertainty about what measures are being
undertaken by the local authorities to target the issue of air quality (Figure 11.12). This
suggests that the CATCH message has not been as successful as we would like and that once


The CATCH Consortium                                               77                                                13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                Final


the air quality action plan is formally approved it, and the measures within it, should be
accompanied with a widespread information / publicity campaign.

Figure 11.10: The Degree to which Respondents Agreed with the Statement “Poor air
quality can affect quality of life”.

                  100%
                                                                                                   Don’t Know

                   90%                                                                             Agree Strongly

                                                                                                   Agree
                   80%
                                                                                                   Disagree

                   70%                                                                             Disagree Strongly


                   60%
     Percentage




                   50%


                   40%


                   30%


                   20%


                   10%


                   0%
                         Household before   Household after   On-Street before   On-Street after
                             survey            survey             Survey            Survey


Figure 11.11: The Degree to which Respondents Agreed with the Statement “I think air
quality in central Liverpool is good”.

                  100%
                                                                                                   Don’t Know

                                                                                                   Agree Strongly

                                                                                                   Agree
                  80%
                                                                                                   Disagree

                                                                                                   Disagree Strongly


                  60%
    Percentage




                  40%




                  20%




                   0%
                         Household before   Household after   On-Street before   On-Street after
                             survey            survey             Survey            Survey




The CATCH Consortium                                          78                                                13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                            Final


Figure 11.12: The Degree to which Respondents Agreed with the Statement “The local
authorities are doing a lot to improve the local air quality”.

                 100%
                                                                                                  Don’t Know

                                                                                                  Agree Strongly

                                                                                                  Agree
                 80%
                                                                                                  Disagree

                                                                                                  Disagree Strongly


                 60%
    Percentage




                 40%




                 20%




                  0%
                        Household before   Household after   On-Street before   On-Street after
                            survey            survey             Survey            Survey

Respondents’ interest in receiving more information about air quality in central Liverpool
was mixed. In both before surveys a greater proportion of the respondents agreed that they
would like more information than disagreed. However, in the after on-street survey this
situation was reversed, possibly because a greater proportion of this group considered the air
quality in central Liverpool to be good.

There was a relatively constant proportion of people, around 25%, who agreed with the
statement that they would change their travel patterns if they knew the air quality to be poor.
This corresponds to the findings of many surveys which are that environmental factors are
not the main determining factor in people’s transport choices. However, there was stronger
support for some of the other suggestions made in relation to linking transport choices and
measures to the air quality situation, with a majority in favour of traffic reduction measures
and an even split supporting the banning of cars from the city centre when air quality is poor.

This slightly contradictory situation can be summed up by saying that people are becoming
more aware that poor air quality can affect their health and the quality of their lives and that
cars contribute significantly to poor environmental conditions. Traffic reduction measures
are seen as good idea for improving air quality but at present the number of people who do
not want to give up using their own car or change their travel patterns to help improve air
quality within the city is still relatively high.




The CATCH Consortium                                         79                                                13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                Final


Figure 11.13: The Degree to which Respondents Agreed with the Statement “I would
choose to change my travel patterns on days when I know air quality was poor”.

                  100%
                                                                                                   Don’t Know

                                                                                                   Agree Strongly

                                                                                                   Agree
                  80%
                                                                                                   Disagree

                                                                                                   Disagree Strongly


                  60%
     Percentage




                  40%




                  20%




                   0%
                         Household before   Household after   On-Street before   On-Street after
                             survey            survey             Survey            Survey


Figure 11.14: The Degree to which Respondents Agreed with the Statement “I would
walk or cycle more if the air quality in Liverpool improves”.

                  100%
                                                                                                   Don’t Know

                  90%                                                                              Agree Strongly

                                                                                                   Agree
                  80%                                                                              Disagree

                                                                                                   Disagree Strongly
                  70%


                  60%
    Percentage




                  50%


                  40%


                  30%


                  20%


                  10%


                   0%
                         Household before   Household after   On-Street before   On-Street after
                             survey            survey             Survey            Survey




The CATCH Consortium                                          80                                                13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                              Final


Figure 11.15: The Degree to which Respondents Agreed with the Statement “I would
like to see traffic reduction measures introduced to improve air quality in the city centre”.

                   100%
                                                                                                    Don’t Know
                                                                                                    Agree Strongly

                                                                                                    Agree
                    80%
                                                                                                    Disagree

                                                                                                    Disagree Strongly



                    60%
      Percentage




                    40%




                    20%




                     0%
                          Household before   Household after   On-Street before   On-Street after
                              survey            survey             Survey            Survey



Figure 11.16: The Degree to which Respondents Agreed with the Statement “I think cars
should be banned from the city centre when air quality is poor to help improve the
situation”.

                   100%
                                                                                                    Don’t Know

                                                                                                    Agree Strongly

                                                                                                    Agree
                   80%
                                                                                                    Disagree

                                                                                                    Disagree Strongly

                   60%
    Percentage




                   40%




                   20%




                    0%
                          Household before   Household after   On-Street before   On-Street after
                              survey            survey             Survey            Survey




The CATCH Consortium                                           81                                                13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                   Final



11.2   Health Impact Assessment

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) aims to identify what potential changes in health
determinants might result from a new policy, programme or project and what effects these
changes might have on a defined population. It builds on the understanding that a
community's health is determined by a wide range of economic, environmental and
psychosocial influences as well as heredity and age.

The aims and objectives of the Health Impact Assessment of CATCH were to:

•   summarise the progress on the CATCH project
•   estimate the potential health impacts and the likely future health impacts on the
    population of the achievements of the CATCH project
•   demonstrate the potential for a project like CATCH to further health- promoting policy
    objectives
•   produce recommendations to ensure maximum learning from a health perspective

The methods used for this HIA were as follows, under the direction of a HIA steering group:

    o The HIA analysed and provided an overview of documents, policies and legislation of
      direct relevance to CATCH locally, nationally and internationally.
    o Data on the health of the population and on the socio-economic and behavioural
      determinants of health related to CATCH (such as unemployment, car ownership,
      exercise levels etc) in Liverpool was collected from a variety of sources to show the
      context within which CATCH operated.
    o The main method of primary data collection in CATCH was through interviews and
      focus groups both with organisational stakeholders (mainly CATCH partners) and
      community stakeholders.
    o Evidence on the potential health impacts of CATCH was collected from a range of
      national and international sources.
    o Finally an impact analysis was conducted that involved defining what were the
      potential health impacts of the project being assessed. This particularly concerned
      with health inequalities and identifying those sections of the population that are most
      vulnerable to negative health impacts.

The potential health impacts of CATCH were analysed in 3 parts: the potential health impacts
of improving Air Quality; the potential impacts of promoting healthier travel behaviour; the
partnership approach to improving health adopted in CATCH. These are then summarised to
produce the following recommendations and conclusions:

1. Extend and Mainstream CATCH’s approach
Given the demonstrated success of CATCH in delivering effective interventions to promote
health, the interventions should be mainstreamed and extended with support from the partner
organisations involved. Political and community leaders should be targeted to act as
champions for better air quality and healthy travel behavio ur.

2. Dissemination of Findings
CATCH has the potential to contribute to a broad range of policy areas that are integral to the
improvement of health. In particular, the dissemination of CATCH findings could make a
timely contribution to the development of public health policy locally. The new public health


The CATCH Consortium                          82                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                  Final


white paper ‘Choosing Health’ (Department of Health, 2004) encourages the NHS to work
with local authorities and other partners to contribute to local transport planning and CATCH
would provide an example of how such a partne rship can deliver health gain. To demonstrate
how policy objectives to build partnerships and improve health can be delivered on the
ground, the dissemination of CATCH findings should be targeted at a wider list of
organisations at the local, national and European levels.

3. Lobby for Resources for Marketing Initiatives in Local Transport Plans
The stakeholder feedback provided in this HIA shows the important role that direct marketing
and one-on-one contact plays in changing people’s travel behaviour. The absence of
resources available for non-capital projects in the development of Local Transport Plans is
therefore a source of concern. Resources should be made available to safeguard continuing
direct marketing and liaison with community groups and employers to promote healthier
travel behaviour. The findings of this project should be brought to the attention of the
Department for Transport, advocating the funding of direct marketing initiatives to change
trave l behaviour.

4. Promote the Economic Benefits of Healthier Travel to Employers
A business stakeholder interviewed for the HIA said that the economic benefits of health-
promoting initiatives of CATCH should be sold to employers. Research showing such
economic benefits should be made available through ECOtravel and other media. (For
example, a recent study at Leeds Metropolitan University showed the increased productivity
of workers following exercise (http://www.lmu.ac.uk/the_news/aug05/jmckenna.htm.)

5. Continue Monitoring Work Undertaken by CATCH on Exercise Levels
Surveys conducted under CATCH provide baseline indicators of exercise levels in the city
centre of Liverpool. To assess progress towards further increasing these levels of exercise
through the Local Transport Plan, resources should be allocated for a follow up study in 2007
or 2008.

6. Continue Production and Wider Distribution of Calorie Maps
Given the positive feedback on Calo rie Maps from stakeholders, the production of Calorie
Maps should continue beyond the lifetime of the CATCH project. As many stakeholders
were unfamiliar with the maps before the HIA, this suggests that the distribution of the maps
should be widened.

7. Address the Issues that Currently Prevent People Using Public Transport
The feedback from stakeholders in this HIA provided in Section 4 suggest that there are a
number of issues around accessibility, information and quality of service that discourage
people from using public transport as much as they otherwise might do. These findings
should be highlighted to transport providers in the Merseyside area.

8. More Public Information on Air Quality and Health
The negative health impacts of air pollution as highlighted in this HIA should be publicised
widely to help build both public and political support for changing travel behaviour in the
city.




The CATCH Consortium                         83                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                 Final


9. Monitoring of PM 2.5
Evidence referred to in Section 2 indicates that PM2.5 is associated with mortality and
hospitalisation for cardio-pulmonary disease. The monitoring of PM2.5 should be added to
the monitoring of PM10 in future by Liverpool City Council and other organisations.

10. Information Provision to People with Respiratory Diseases
Given the harmful effects of poor air quality on the health and wellbeing of people with
respiratory diseases shown in Section 2 of the main report, information on the future
implementation of the Air Quality Action Plan should be provided to groups representing
their interests – in particular the North West office of the British Lung Foundation
(http://www.britishlungfoundation.org.uk/North-West-touch.asp), and the associated Breathe
Easy Groups in Liverpool. A scoping study to develop a local Air Quality Alert System
should be considered for people with asthma and other diseases.

11. Use a Wider Range of Media to Publicise ECOtravel
Given that internet access is less common among socio-economically deprived groups and
among older people, a wider use of ‘traditional’ media should be used to reach all potential
audiences.




The CATCH Consortium                         84                                      13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                     Final



12.    TRANSFERABILITY AND EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE

12.1   Transferability

Although a project may prove to be successful in one city, the same measure may not prove
successful elsewhere. Thus, it is vital for anyone who wants to replicate a project in a
different context to assess the critical factors that influenced the success of the original
project. Therefore, in terms of evaluation, transferability is concerned with assessing the
extent to which the demonstrated measure would achieve the desired result in other
circumstances.

Within CATCH, Liverpool has led the way in designing or implementing specific measures
allowing CTP and Suceava to gain information about these measures and implement or assess
those that appear most appropriate their needs. Given this basis, transferability within
CATCH has been considered at two levels:

Measures Within Liverpool
Given the project’s nature as a demonstration project, the CATCH measures have inevitably
been limited in extent by this and the resources available to the demonstrated measures.
Therefore, the first element of the transferability evaluation is to assess the impact that a
wider scale implementation in Liverpool would have if the resources were available to make
this possible, together with an assessment of the likelihood of such an expansion taking place.

Measures Between Cities
The CATCH measures also need to be assessed in terms of their appropriateness for transfer
to other locations. The starting point for this is an understanding of the barriers and
recommendations for the measures in Liverpool, which is the subject of a separate CATCH
report. The possibility for transferring the measures to the other two CATCH cities is
discussed in the light of these barriers / recommendations and their experiences in
implementing their own CATCH project measures. A brief statement on the possibility of
wider transfer is also made, although this is on the basis of a general understanding of the
appropriateness of the measures and the number of cities interested and committed to taking
on these measures.

12.2   Wider Application of Measures in Liverpool

12.2.1 Clean Vehicle Technologies

The evaluation within CATCH shows that currently environmental concerns are not a
primary reason for mode choice, even for a service such as the city centre shuttle bus where
the product is overtly branded as being the environmental alternative. Given the commercial
operating environment in the UK, this reduces the commercial incentive for bus operators to
invest in this type of technology, particularly as the UK government grant programmes that
have provided part funding for such technologies are currently frozen due to the need to wait
for approval in relation to European state aid rules.

However, particulate traps and exhaust gas recirculation have been shown to be effective in
making substantial reductions in emissions from the existing vehicle fleet. Given that there is
not a significant direct incentive for bus operators to take the lead on this issue, Merseytravel
has already commissioned a further study to investigate the cost effectiveness of these


The CATCH Consortium                           85                                        13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                      Final


technologies in comparison to a fleet renewal programme as a way of improving air quality in
Liverpool. It should be noted that Merseytravel does not currently have powers to require the
use of particular types of technology on bus services except for those non-commercial
services that it supports on the basis of social need. However, it is considering applying to
take stronger control through the use of powers that would enable it to establish a programme
of quality bus contracts - powers which would allow it to specify minimum environmental
standards for whic hever commercially operated services came under this banner.

The study showed that although the biggest improvement in air quality came from
replacement of old buses with new vehicles that meet the latest Euro IV emissions standards,
doing this on purely environmental terms was not as cost effective as the implementation of
retrofit technologies on existing buses, although there are many other reasons for fleet
renewal. Hence, if the financial investment to implement a more widespread environmental
improvement programme on Liverpool’s buses is to come from the public sector it is most
likely to come through the use of retrofit technologies.

Hybrid buses have the potential to represent a further step towards the ultimate clean urban
bus, and indeed have been widely documented as an interim technology step towards the
ultimate goal of a zero emission vehicle. However, the state of development of the vehicles
is currently limited to being a niche market vehicle for suitable urban routes where the drive
cycle is suited to hybrid operation and where low emissions performance is a driver, such as
in an air quality action area. If the expected fuel consumption benefits are confirmed, then
heightened prominence to addressing global warming could provide an additional incentive
to the uptake of hybrid vehicles. This would, in turn, be likely to result in increased numbers
of production vehicles above current numbers (which resemble prototype production runs)
leading to a reduction in what are currently prohibitive ly high costs for the commercial (or
even supported) market.

The impacts of technology uptake could be substantial. Table 11.2 showed the total
emissions reductions due to the CATCH measures (actual and those possible from wider
technology take up) within the project area of central Liverpool. If the whole of Merseyside
is considered then the emissions reductions become more significant, both for the project and
in the case of wider uptake of the CATCH vehicle measures. (This is a more realistic way of
viewing the emissions savings than limiting them to the formal project impact area, because
the CATCH buses are not restricted to operating within the central area of Liverpool, but in
fact travel on routes to the perimeter of the city.) Table 12.1 expands this further and shows
the total emissions savings that could be achieved over the whole of Merseyside in the
ultimate take up scenario for CATCH measures.

Table 12.1: Reductions in Pollutant Emissions as a Result of Vehicle Measures (Project
and Ultimate Scenarios) Compared with the Do Nothing Scenario
            Reductions in Emissions Compared to Do Nothing Scenario (Tonnes per year)
             Vehicle Measures within Central       Vehicle Measures across Merseyside
                        Liverpool
              Project        Wider        Ultimate           Project              Ultimate
 CO              -4.1        -21.5         -31.9               -24.3               -247.0
 NOx            +0.4         -35.9        -103.3                -3.8               -920.9
 VOC             -1.0         -5.7           -9.3               -5.8                -63.1
 TPM             -0.5         -3.2           -4.8               -3.2                -36.5
 CO2          +148.1        +289.3        -722.6              +352.4              -7639.5


The CATCH Consortium                          86                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                      Final




12.2.2 Wider Application of Air Quality Action Plans

Currently Air Quality Management Areas, and the associated AQAPs, have only been
declared for two parts of Liverpool where it was considered unlikely that the 2005 targets for
NO2 pollution levels would be met. The measures within the AQAPs are designed
specifically to have a cost-effective, positive impact on air quality in these areas, but the
nature of some measures is such that they will have impacts on air quality throughout the
conurbation (e.g. support for vehicle emissions reduction as the vehicles’ operation is
unlikely to be limited to the AQMA unless it provides a very localised service such as that
already provided by the city centre shuttle bus). Other measures could easily be expanded to
cover the whole conurbation: for example once development control procedures were
established they could be followed for all developments within a particular council’s
jurisdiction, not only those within the defined AQMA.

Quantifying the impact of wider implementation of the AQAP measures is complicated by
the fact that:
    o all of the measures demonstrated by CATCH are themselves contained within the
        AQAP lists,
    o implementation of many measures for the Liverpool city centre AQAP would have
        impacts over the wider urban area anyway,
    o that the expected impacts of many of the measures within the AQAP are unquantified
        estimates that are unsuited to such an exercise, and
    o that the formal implementation of the AQAP has not yet begun and so it is not yet
        clear which of the suggested measures will actually succeed in gaining funding from
        the Local Transport Plan bid.

Therefore, the impact of wider application of an AQAP across the whole of Liverpool has not
been estimated.

12.2.3 Infrastructure to Support Sustainable Modes

There is evidence from several of the project elements, particularly the after househo ld
survey conducted in June 2005 that the infrastructure improvements in Liverpool city centre
implemented to date have improved the area as a place to walk around. The work conducted
to date is part of a ongoing programme of infrastructure works in the city centre, which are
disruptive to all modes except rail while they are being implemented, but will ultimately
improve the city centre as a place for walking and cycling.

Although the focus of these works has been on the city centre, improvements to walking and
cycling infrastructure would also be applicable to the district centres in Merseyside, albeit on
a smaller scale. There is also significant potential for upgrading strategic cycle links between
the district centres and to the city centre in order to further encourage cycling within the city.

The wider impact of these infrastructure upgrades has not been estimated here. Their impact
would probably be felt most as a supporting factor to a wider healthy travel promotion
initiative.




The CATCH Consortium                            87                                        13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                    Final


12.2.4 Communication Initiatives

ECOtravel has been successful in building links with the corporate community. However,
ECOtravel has not reached its target of 50% public awareness by the end of the project. On
the basis of the work of ECOtravel within the project and the potential usefulness of
ECOtravel to the wider community in Liverpool, Merseytravel has decided to make the
position of the ECOtravel manager a permanent position, so guaranteeing that ECOtravel will
continue after the end of the CATCH project. A more concerted programme of public events
to publicise the purpose and content of ECOtravel throughout the region will be undertaken,
which should be beneficial in order to maximise its ongoing effectiveness.

ECOtravel also offers the potential to be the core for a wider information programme after
CATCH has finished related to the forthcoming Local Transport Plan for 2006-2011 and the
fact that air quality will be one of the key priorities for prioritising the measures to be
implemented as part of the plan.

12.2.5 Community Initiatives

The healthy travel promotion is widely applicable in any local community setting, and
providing the necessary transport options and support infrastructure are available can be
expanded from targeting merely local journeys.

The expected impact of working with developers is more likely to be concentrated around a
small number of locations which become more spread out in the more peripheral areas of a
city.

The wider impact of this type of measure is difficult to estimate with a high degree of
accuracy as it depends on many factors, for example the level of support infrastructure for
walking and cycling, the quality and extent of public transport options, the information
already available to the information providers working on a individualised market project.

In the calculation here we have assumed that it would be accompanied by a degree of local
infrastructure support, as per that seen in Liverpool city centre through the CCMS measures
supported in CATCH, but not by a widespread upgrade to public transport services.
However, the impact of this type of measure also has the possibility of influencing emissions
over a much wider area. For example, if someone is persuaded to change their transport
behaviour by a local initiative for a regional trip then the impacts will be felt over the whole
of that journey, even in a city many miles away.

Table 12.2: Reductions in Pollutant Emissions as a Result of Behavioural Measures
(Project and Ultimate Scenarios) Compared with the Do Nothing Scenario
           Reductions in Emissions Compared to Do Nothing Scenario (Tonnes per year)
         Behavioural Measures within Central Liverpool   Behavioural Measures across Merseyside
           Project          Wider          Ultimate                    Ultimate
 CO            -1.5          -29.9             -59.8                   -1097.9
 NOx           -0.1           -2.0              -4.1                      -82.6
 VOC           -0.1           -1.9              -3.9                      -76.4
 TPM            0.0           -0.1              -0.2                       -3.4
 CO2          -73.0        -1429.9          -2859.8                   -43299.9




The CATCH Consortium                           88                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                     Final


12.2.6 Pollution Monitoring

The CIMS particulate monitoring system does not in itself provide a direct improvement in
air quality. It does, however, appear to offer the potential to provide area-wide particulates
results using a networked data acquisition system in a cost effective manner through the use
of the existing CCTV network. However, as the new system is not in itself formally
approved, it would need to overcome the hurdle of accreditation before widespread use of the
system would be possible. Should this accreditation be achieved then it appears that the
existing co-operation framework with the operators of the CitySafe CCTV network would
provide access to the sort of city-wide network that would make such a system worthwhile in
terms of comprehensive coverage.

The system also appears to offer further information that could be processed and used to
provide further information about the chemical nature of particulate pollution, which is
currently of interest to policy makers at the national and European level.


12.3   Transfer of Measures Between Cities

In order to judge the potential for the transferability of any transport measure, it is necessary
to consider the basic characteristics of the cities involved and the different circumstances in
which the policies were implemented. This section looks at these issues in the context of the
air quality issues which have driven CATCH. A range of contextual markers are relevant to
guide the assessment of measure transferability between cities in this way:

•   Site /technology requirements: A number of types of solution will be required in
    different cities depending on the state of development of technology within the local
    market. This will place different demands upon the support infrastructure and sites
    needed for the systems.

•   Implementation problems : lack of labour resources, low levels of political support and
    unfamiliarity with technology are all problems that frequently arise during the
    implementation of proposed demonstration projects.

•   Institutional barriers encountered: The organisational structure in place can have a
    significant impact on the format of a demonstration in terms of the partners required, the
    ease of implementation, the availability of data and the ability to release results.
    Examples of how such issues can influence demonstrations include:
        • Local elections and changes of administration
        • Opposition from local residents and / or traders
        • Legal obstacles
        • Split responsibilities within different departments of the same organisation

•   The extent of deregulation – a highly regulated structure may prove difficult to change
    by introduction of innovative measures, but also may be able to provide significant
    amounts of data without extra monitoring. In contrast, deregulation may make it easier
    to introduce innovation, but commercial sensitivity may make access to data for
    evaluation and release of project results more difficult.




The CATCH Consortium                           89                                        13/04/06
 CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                   Final



 •   The split of responsibility – in the urban sector there is frequently an overlap of
     responsibility between local political authority and a local transport authority. The
     amount of overlap, the specific responsibilities of the two organisations and how cordial
     the relationship is between the two can have a significant impact on the ease of
     implementation and evaluation.

 •   Socio-economic and cultural barriers: Income, car ownership or inherent acceptance of
     using certain modes can all have an impact on the success of new transport schemes.

 Such issues are highlighted as a background issue for readers to remember when considering
 the following comments.

 12.3.1 Transfer between CATCH cities

 The project partners have met regularly to exchange their experiences of implementing the
 CATCH project measures. The meetings have been held on a rotating schedule allowing
 partners to visit all the participating cities and to gain experiences not only from the CATCH
 measures but from other aspects of each city’s life.

 The main transfer aspect of the project was to assess if the Italian and Romanian partners
 could benefit from the experiences of the main demonstration in Liverpool. Table 12.3
 summarises the degree to which the main measures in Liverpool are considered to be
 applicable in Potenza and Suceava and the extent to which they have been implemented or
 are planned to be implemented.

  Table 12.3: Extent of Transfer of Measures from Liverpool to Potenza and Suceava
                              Potenza                              Suceava
Measure         Technically                          Technically
                               Applied?   Planned?                 Applied? Planned?
                Applicable?                          Applicable?
Particulate
                     Y            N           N          Y            Y          Y
Traps
Exhaust gas
                     Y            N           N          Y            N          N
Recirculation
Hybrid buses         N            n/a        n/a         Y            N          N
City Centre
Shuttle              Y            N          (Y)         Y            N          N
Service
Air Quality
                     Y            N           N          Y            N          Y
Action Plan
Support
                     Y            N           N          Y            Y          Y
Infrastructure
Information
                     Y            N           Y          Y            Y          Y
Bureau
Healthy Travel
                     Y            N           Y          Y            N          N
Promotion
Pollution
                     Y            N           N          Y            N          N
Monitoring

 It is worth noting that the topography of Potenza meant that hybrid buses were not considered
 to be applicable as part of the limited traffic zone feasibility study. However, part of the


 The CATCH Consortium                          90                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                   Final


recommended scheme for the limited traffic zone involves a city centre shuttle bus and it is
likely that the vehicle will run on LPG in order to minimise emissions in the city centre.

Although the political changes within Potenza stopped implementation of the limited traffic
zone there are now plans as part of a new project, SMILE, to implement a mobility
information office in the town and to run individualised marketing initiatives similar to the
healthy travel promotion.

The degree of transfer from Liverpool to Suceava has been more successful. There is no
topographical barrier as for Potenza. Instead the main barriers are financial and technological
as the area is working very hard to bring standards closer to those in western Europe. In
particular, lack of technological back up means that it is not feasible at the moment to
consider use of electric or hybrid traction. Instead LPG has been chosen as the first step in
the use of cleaner fuels.

Suceava has been successful in its extension of the low emission zone through upgrading the
infrastructure for pedestrians in and around the central square, forming a pedestrianised area.
They have also set up a small information bureau within the town hall to mirror the work of
ECO travel in Liverpool. There are plans to produce the town’s first air quality action plan to
mirror the transport plan which has now been produced.

It is also worth noting that as a low emission zone is one of the measures contained within
Liverpool’s air quality action plan some of the more general lessons learned from the
feasibility study in Potenza may be applicable to the planning of the scheme in Liverpool.

12.3.2 Wider Transferability

The problems caused by atmospheric pollution from road traffic in urban areas are common
throughout the world. The degree of interest in these issues can be judged by the number of
local authorities from across Europe that have signed up to the objectives of various
initiatives (e.g. ALTER-Europe and the Aalborg charter) and programmes (e.g. the TTP
demonstration projects of the THERMIE programme, CIVITAS initiative etc.) over the past
12 years.

The issues that need to be addressed in these and many hundreds of other cities are in no way
unique, although the local situation and combination of policy and institutional frameworks
in place mean that specific local solutions made up of appropriate measures from the list of
possible options are often the answer.

The measures demonstrated in CATCH are, in general, widely applicable across Europe.
Many of the influencing factors for wider transferability will differ from city to city
depending on the country in which they are located because national policies and legislation
can have a strong influence on methodology and outcome. It is beyond the scope of this
report to review all the necessary transport policy structures in order to conduct a systematic
review. Instead readers should be aware of the context in their own country / region and
consider the issues at a more general level, for example:
• sources of funding;
• levels of public (and political) awareness and acceptance;
• employment;
• the methods used for public participation;


The CATCH Consortium                          91                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                 Final



•   legislative, policy and cultural barriers to implementation;
•   timescales for consultation, planning and implementation.

Some of the barriers we have encountered in the implementation of CATCH, as well as some
possible solutions, are contained within the CATCH Best Practice Recommendations report.
The participation of follower cities in southern and eastern Europe has demonstrated both the
relevance and applicability of the CATCH measures throughout Europe and provides a basis
for further transfer of ideas and measures in the future.


12.4   European Added Value

In general the added value of European-scale research and demonstration projects such as
CATCH is summarised by the following bullet points:

•   To enable cities to share experiences and disseminate good practice on a broader front;
•   To encompass expertise from a broader range of environments than the national one and
    initiate new ideas and policy solutions;
•   To act as a catalyst to initiate policies in states which have been less enthusiastic to
    pursue transport policy initiatives;
•   To exploit the project results in the New Member States and Accession Countries to
    accelerate their social cohesion with the EU;
•   To provide a common assessment framework and common impact assessments as
    benchmarks for other cities to use in developing their own policy;
•   To achieve common technical standards and open systems architectures for industry to
    exploit.

We believe that the aforementioned transferability actions and the project’s dissemination
activities have meant that we have achieved our goals in terms of providing European added
value from the project as it has progressed.

Now that the project results are available we would welcome the opportunity to proactively
share them with as wide an audience as is technically feasible through the funding of our
after- life communication plan by the LIFE programme.




The CATCH Consortium                            92                                   13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                     Final



13.      SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Actual Emissions Impacts
The CATCH project demonstrations have resulted in significant reductions in pollutant
emissions in Liverpool and Suceava, whilst the feasibility study into a limited traffic zone in
Potenza has shown that this too would have a strong positive impact on air quality in
Potenza’s historic centre.

The project measures have delivered the following changes in emissions in Liverpool,
compared with the situation that would have occurred if CATCH had not been funded (which
in itself includes a significant reduction in emissions as a result of vehicle renewal within the
car fleet):

      o CO: reduction of 25.8 tonnes per year (equivalent to 2.6% of CO emissions in city
        centre)
      o NOx: reduction of 3.9 tonnes per year (equivalent to 1.6% of NOx emissions in city
        centre)
      o VOC: reduction of 5.9 tonnes per year (equivalent to 6.3% of VOC emissions in city
        centre)
      o Particulates: reduction of 3.2 tonnes per year (equivalent to 22.2% of particulate
        emissions in city centre)
      o CO2 : increase of 279.4 tonnes per year (equivalent to 0.4% of CO2 emissions in city
        centre)

Although resulting from measures concentrated on the city centre, these changes in emissions
are not limited to the nominal CATCH project area of Liverpool city centre because the buses
operate on routes throughout the city and because the behavioural measures will have
impacted on journeys that are not restricted to a particular area.

It is disappointing to note that there is often a conflict between local pollutant emission and
CO2 impacts of the technical measures involved in projects such as CATCH. In this case the
increase is due in part to the introduction of a new city centre shuttle service which has not as
yet led to a corresponding reduction in CO2 emissions from car traffic and also from a 2%
fuel consumption penalty as a result of installing the particulate traps.

In addition to the impacts in Liverpool, the project has also delivered reductions of 4.1 tonnes
per year of CO2 and 0.026 tonnes per year of NOx in Suceava. Air quality in the centre of
Suceava will have been improved by the introduction of a pedestrianised low emission zone,
but the impact is impossible to distinguish from the stronger impact of changes to emissions
from local industry.

Potential Emissions Impacts
Examination of the individual measures has shown that the measures have the potential to
have a greater impact if they were to be implemented on a wider scale. For example, the
measures are estimated to have the following potential in Liverpool city centre:

      o CO: reduction of 91.7 tonnes per year (equivalent to 9.4% of CO emissions in city
        centre)
      o NOx: reduction of 107.4 tonnes per year (equivalent to 42.8% of NOx emissions in
        city centre)


The CATCH Consortium                           93                                        13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                       Final


   o VOC: reduction of 13.2 tonnes per year (equivalent to 14.1% of VOC emissions in
     city centre)
   o Particulates: reduction of 4.9 tonnes per year (equivalent to 34.0% of particulate
     emissions in city centre)
   o CO2 : reduction of 3582.4 tonnes per year (equivalent to 5.5% of CO2 emissions in city
     centre)

And if implemented more widely through Merseyside:

   o CO: reduction of 1344.9 tonnes per year (equivalent to 4.2% of CO emissions across
     Merseyside)
   o NOx: reduction of 1003.5 tonnes per year (equivalent to 19.0% of NOx emissions
     across Merseyside)
   o VOC: reduction of 139.5 tonnes per year (equivalent to 4.9% of VOC emissions
     across Merseyside)
   o Particulates: reduction of 39.9 tonnes per year (equivalent to 11.9% of particulate
     emissions across Merseyside)
   o CO2 : reduction of 50939.4 tonnes per year (equivalent to 3.1% of CO2 emissions
     across Merseyside)

Cost Effectiveness
In terms of delivering reductions in local pollutants such as NOx and particulates the retrofit
technologies used in the project (particulate traps and exhaust gas recirculation) have proven
to be far more effective than the other measures demonstrated in CATCH (either behavioural
measures or the replacement of older buses by vehicles that meet the latest emission
standards). On paper selective catalytic reduction represents an alternative to exhaust gas
recirculation for NOx reduction, although it hasn’t been tested as part of CATCH.

Behavioural change measures are more likely to deliver substantial overall CO2 reductions if
successful, and although the CO2 reductions are more modest in percentage terms than those
achieved by technical measures for local pollutants, the investment costs for behavioural are
generally limited to staff costs (either within local institutions or consultancy organisations).

Barriers
The potential impacts listed above are dependent upon:

   o implementation of effective, wider behavioural communications campaigns based on
     the CATCH healthy travel promotion;
   o successful future schemes working with private developers;
   o replacement of the oldest vehicles operating in Liverpool’s bus fleet with hybrid buses
     which can deliver the CO2 savings that have been demonstrated under laboratory
     conditions
   o a widespread retrofitting programme for buses with particulate traps and EGR / SCR
     NOx reduction technologies.

There are barriers to many of these wider interventions happening outside a demonstration
project such as CATCH, where the LIFE programme funding has been a significant factor in
delivering change. The barriers are discussed in detail in the project’s Best Practice Report,
but in summary can be classed as:



The CATCH Consortium                            94                                         13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                     Final


   o The need for continued political support;
   o The need for expanded partnership working;
   o The necessary additional funding to invest in the measures, including peripheral areas
     such as training, operational and maintenance support during the initial installation
     period;
   o The need to overcome restrictions on how central government spending can be
     allocated;
   o The need to raise public awareness of air quality as an issue and make a link to travel
     behaviour that can be accepted as an integral part of daily life;
   o Ensure funding is available to allow new technologies to be properly tested and
     developed before they come to the market;
   o Improve technical support for new technologies when in the market place;
   o Enforcement and compliance testing;
   o Remove / revise European State Aid rules so that they do not prevent the
     implementation of future technologies which will significantly improve the quality of
     life in European cities or have a positive impact on reducing climate change.

Where solutions have been identified in CATCH they have also been discussed in detail
alongside the barriers.

CATCH Targets
As part of the implementation process targets were set for each measure to allow the
European Commission to monitor the partners’ success in meeting their contractual
obligations. The vast majority of targets have been met. In the few cases where they have
not been met the partners involved have done their utmost to identify and try alternative
options in order to deliver the project objectives. In general, where targets have remained
unmet after this process it is largely because of factors outside the control of the project such
as political changes leading to a lack of ongoing support or institutional barriers which
require changes in legislation or the framework of society to overcome them.

Expected Results
Within the project proposal the following were stated as the expected results of CATCH in
terms of contribution to Community environment policy:

   A.   Improved collaboration between public and private sector organisations aimed at
        reducing the environmental impacts of transport.
   B.   Fostering greater understanding by the local community of the impacts of personal
        travel decisions on air quality, quality of life and the urban environment.
   C.   Improving Air Quality directly through the use of clean fuels and reduced traffic, and
        indirectly through increased use of public transport, cycling and walking.
   D.   Helping the integration of Accession Countries by transfer of know-how and
        experience.
   E.   Introducing enhanced methods of assessing the environmental impacts of transport
        and land-use measures.
   F.   Making policy recommendations and guidelines based on best practice.

These have all been achieved either in full or in part. The whole project has been dependent
upon improving collaboration between public and private sector organisations aimed at
reducing the environmental impacts of transport and without this we would not have been
able to deliver any measures. Steps have been taken to improve the local community’s


The CATCH Consortium                           95                                        13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                     Final


understanding of the impacts of personal travel decisions on air quality, quality of life and the
urban environment and the necessary lessons have been learned to implement an improved
programme more widely after the project officially ends. The air quality benefits of the
project have been demonstrated in terms of the significant emissions reductions delivered by
the project measures and the even greater potential for wider implementation of these
measures. Suceava has been an integral part of the project in its role as a follower, and has
done an excellent job of testing the measures it considered most appropriate to its local
circumstances but also in disseminating this message further in its regional sphere of
influence. The main development in terms of providing an enhanced method of assessing the
environmental impacts of transport and land- use measures is dependent upon official
recognition of the innovative particulate monitoring system as something that can be
developed into a real time pollution mapping tool. Barriers and policy recommendations
have been made and reported in a separate CATCH report, although the barriers are
summarised briefly in the previous section of this report.

Legacy
The CATCH project will have a significant legacy. In particular:

   o The technology implemented within the project has a significant life expectancy.
     Particulate traps (Liverpool and Suceava) and EGR systems (Liverpool) are expected
     to last a minimum of five years. New vehicles (buses in Liverpool and LPG cars in
     Suceava) are expected to last a minimum of fifteen and ten years respectively.

   o The CATCH city centre shuttle service is being operated on a five- year contract and it
     is hoped that at the end of that period it will have demonstrated that it can operate on
     commercial basis. (If not it will be up to Merseytravel to decide if it wishes to retain
     the service as a one of its supported services, which seems likely at this stage.)

   o The investment in retrofit technologies has already led Merseytravel to commission a
     further review of future bus pollution reduction options as part of their future public
     transport strategy development.

   o Liverpool’s AQAP which is well respected within the UK and which will be backed
     up by a package of resources to see it implemented effectively.

   o City centre infrastructure in Liverpool (cycling and walking support infrastructure)
     and Suceava (permanent, pedestrianised low emission zone)

   o Support for further adult cycle training programmes in Liverpool building on the pilot
     initiated in CATCH.

   o The development of the ECOtravel bureau through partnership working has led to the
     bureau co-ordinator’s position being made permanent and having an expanded remit
     for work across the whole of Merseyside. The Suceava information point in the city
     hall will also remain open after the formal end of the project.

   o The Supplementary Planning Document and developers protocol will be adopted and
     when combined with new working practices and co-operation between transport and
     land use planners will mean that there will be greater control of future city centre
     residential developments in Liverpool.


The CATCH Consortium                           96                                        13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                               Final




   o Plans are being formed for individualised marketing campaigns building on the work
     of and lessons from the healthy travel promotion project in Liverpool

   o Efforts are being made to discuss the innovative particulate monitoring technology to
     understand the steps that will be necessary for it to become approved as a tool for
     monitoring air quality to statutory air quality standards




The CATCH Consortium                       97                                      13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                 Final


APPENDIX A: Details of CATCH Evaluation Surveys


CATCH ON- BUS SURVEYS

An on bus style survey was carried out on behalf of Merseytravel and Liverpool City Council
to find out how the improvements to the transport system in Liverpool City Centre have
affected the local residents. Two new bus services have been introduced S2 and S3, the area
they cover can be seen in Annex A. Improvements made within the last few months have
been measured by the use of a rating scale questionnaire. Results are as follows:

Initially respondents were asked to indicate how often they use the bus service. Results from
the survey highlighted a greater percentage of females to males used the service overall with
69% of the sample being female and 31% male. 78% of the total sample indicated they use
the service between 2-7 times per week, with 53% of these respondents using the service over
5 times per week. When comparing this to age and gender, 57% of females, 44% of males
and over 40% of travelers from each age group used the bus service over 5 times per week.

Of the respondents questioned 14% stated in was the first time they had used the bus service.
Overall results can be seen in Figure 1, comparison with age in Figure 2 and with gender in
Figure 3.

Figure 1.      How often respondents use the bus service

                           14%

              8%




                                                                            53%

              25%



                                     5 or more times per week


                                     2 to 4 times per week


                                     Once per week or less


                                     First time




The CATCH Consortium                              98                                 13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                            Final


Figure 2.      How often respondents from different age groups use the bus service

              100%
                                                                                     First time


                                                                                     Once per week or less
               80%
                                                                                     2 to 4 times per week


                                                                                     5 or more times per week
               60%




               40%




               20%




                0%
                       0-18   19-25       26-45   46-55        55-65         65+



Figure 3.      How often male and female respondents use the bus service



                               11%                                           Outer ring = Female
                                                                             Inner ring - Male
                       5%
                              20%

                                                                                   5 or more times per week


                                                           44%                     2 to 4 times per week

                        14%                                                        Once per week or less
                                                                       57%
                 27%                                                               First time



                                    22%




Respondents were asked to indicate where they got on the bus and where they will alight the
service. Figure 4 shows that the greatest number of respondents got on and aimed to leave the
service at Queens Square, a high number of respondents also used the service to get on and
get off at Chisenhale Street and Princes Dock.




The CATCH Consortium                                      99                                                    13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                   Final


Figure 4.      On and off bus locations
    140

                                                                                    Get On Bus
    120
                                                                                    Get Off Bus
    100


     80


     60



     40


     20


      0




                            P all

              Pr es D d
              rth r S l
                         al ne



         No ylo ipa




                            P k
          Fo Esta eet




                                       t
          Vil Da za




                                       t




                         ron t



                                     et
                          ria d
                                     et



                                     a
         Ch tock int




                    ley tree




                        ate e
           M ary t




                                     e
                    Jo tree
                      Lim reet




                                 ll M




                    ald ree
                        ros ns




                      M tree
                       me y




                                   oc




                          ha l
          Bla lant t




                      isle et




                     ux ita
                   At tree




                                     t




                                    a
                   Pr ierhe




                    W los
                  Qu arad
                                   o
                   Ja Wa




                               ree




                                tre
                                tre
                               Pla
                     ow t




                   Na unic
                               Po




                  tto eet
                      ale et




                                  tr




                Vi l Ro
                 Cr tree




                 Pa Stre
                 ly C de




               idg leb




                Va osp
              ag le S




                                t




                              St
                               S
             ise Stre




                            eS
                            sS




                             rS
                             Pa




                              C
                            yS
                   nh te
                             S




                             St
            Ha y Str

           Ho Gar
                            ic




                           ne




                             s
                            S




           St een
                           M




                           H
                         on




                        hn




                       inc

                       es




                    cto
                       o




                     sh
                    dis




                      n




                  inc
                  nh




                  e/
                  s




               an
               Ad




               W
              nte
               ck




      ian
    on
 Eld




Respondents were asked to indicate there reason fo r being within the vicinity of the bus stop
at the start of their journey. Over 30% indicated it was near there home, 26% near where they
were shopping and 24% near their place of work. Results for this question can be seen in
Figure 5.

Figure 5.      Why were you in the vicinity of the bus stop you used today?

                                     4%    1%
                          11%
                                                                    33%




                26%


                                1%                         24%

                                       Home

                                       Work

                                       Education

                                       Shopping

                                       Leisure

                                       Personal business

                                       Other




The CATCH Consortium                             100                                   13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                       Final


When this question is compared with the age of respondents (Figure 6) it was evident:
  § A very high proportion (60%) of respondents aged over 65 used the service as it was
      near their home
  § A high number of respondents in the 19-25 and 26-45 year old age groups used the
      service as it was near their area of work.
  § A high number of respondents from the 26-45 and 46-55 year old age groups used the
      service to get to the shops.

Figure 6.         Reasons for being in the vicinity of the bus stop by age
                                   100%
                      Percentage




                                                                                       Other

                                                                                       Personal business

                                   80%                                                 Leisure

                                                                                       Shopping

                                                                                       Education
                                   60%
                                                                                       Work

                                                                                       Home

                                   40%




                                   20%




                                    0%
                                          0-18   19-25   26-45   46-55   55-65   65+


Figure 7 compares the location for getting on the bus with the reason for being in the vicinity
of the bus. It is clear respondents in the vicinity of Queens Square were mainly there for
shopping, leisure or work reasons whereas the majority of respondents making a journey
from Princes Dock were there for work purposes. In all other locations the main reason for
being in the vicinity of the bus stop was it was near their home.

Figure 7.   Location for getting on the bus and reason for being in the vicinity of the
   bus stop
            140
                    Other
            120     Personal business
                    Leisure
                    Shopping
            100
                    Education
                    Work
             80
                    Home

             60


             40



             20


              0
                                             al

                                           ad
                            sh bone




                                           et
                Fo Es t




                             Lim reet




                                             l




                               ron t
                             yH are
                                         ipa




                             es ock
                          e / tree




                                            t
                  M aryle t




                            ee de




                          ald ree

                           W lose
                                         za
                Bla antic t




                              me ay


                                       tree




                          Jo tree




                                       lM
                            Cr ens
                          Atl Stree

                Ch tock int




                                           t
                             nG t




                             tor d
                            isle et
                                         et



                          Pr ierhe




                                       tre
                                      ree
                         tto ree
                           ow t




                           ux al
                        nh eet

                       Cr tree




                       Vic Roa
                                      nic
                                     Pla




                      Qu Para
                                    sW




                                       u
                                     tre
                         s Po




                          nh te




                       Pa Stre
                                       t




                    Pr es D




                     Va ospit



                     W a St
                                     S




                                   sS

                                   eS




                                    rS
                                    Pa




                  Sta n Sq
                    rth r S




                                     C
                                     d
                  Ha y St




                                    St
                                 Mu
                    nte ta
                   ise Str




                                 yS
                  Ho ar
                 Vil Dale
                                   S




                                   P
                                ne




                               ate
                                on




                                os




                No ylo




                                  l
                                al




                              ha
                              hn




                                 i
                             ale




                             inc
                             M
                              o
                           dis




                          Na
                          Ja




                        inc



                        nle
                      idg
                     Ad




                       ly
                     ag
                     ck




             ian
           on
        Eld




The CATCH Consortium                                             101                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                   Final




Respondents were also asked why they were getting off at their identified location. The
majority, 38% stated it was for shopping purposes, followed by 26% to get home and 17% to
go to work. Figure 9 highlights all the reasons given for this question.

Figure 8.      Why were you going to your destination?

                                         4%           4%
                                                                                  26%
                       17%




                                                                                        10%
                                                                                  1%
                                     38%

                                                      Home

                                                      Work

                                                      Education

                                                      Shopping

                                                      Leisure

                                                      Personal business

                                                      Other



Comparing why respondents were going to their destination by their age it can be identified
that respondents from all age groups were mainly using the service to move between home
and shopping. Figure ?? also shows that 27% of respondents from the 0-18 year old age
group were using the service for educational reasons.

Figure 9.      Reason for getting off the bus service by age

                100%
                                                                                   Other

                                                                                   Personal business

                 80%                                                               Leisure

                                                                                   Shopping

                                                                                   Education
                 60%                                                               Work

                                                                                   Home


                 40%




                 20%




                  0%
                          0-18   19-25        26-45        46-55    55-65   65+




The CATCH Consortium                                          102                                      13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                       Final


Comparing the location for getting off the bus with the reason for making the journey (Figure
10), the majority of respondents alighting the service at Queens Square were doing so for
shopping purposes. It is also evident that a number of respondents were leaving the bus at
James Street, Princes Dock and Princess Parade for leisure purposes

Figure 10.     Location for getting off the bus and reason for making journey
    140
             Other
             Personal business
    120
             Leisure
             Shopping
    100
             Education
             Work
     80
             Home

     60


     40



     20


      0
           Fo / E eet




                                   ad
                           P l
          No aylo ipal
            Mi aryle t




                          H e




                                   et
                                    a
                            eS t
          Ch tock int




                                   e
                          es y


                     M tree




                      es ock
                      Lim tree




                     tor ad
         n V Da aza




                                    t




                        ha al




                    W lose
                                   t




                    ley quar
                    Jo tree




                               lM
                     ow et




                     ee de
                   Ja Wa
                   At Stree




                    sh bon




                     isle et
                                 s




                                et




                               tre
                   Pr ierhe




                        ron t
                                tr




                                e
                                 t
                                o

                       ale t




                                it
                 ly den
                   nh te
                  ton eet




                              ee

                   N nic
                               e
                Cr Stre




                Pa Stre




                Vic l Ro
                             tre




               Va osp
             ila le S




               W Stre
                Qu ara
               ck tic P




              Pr es D




                            rS
                             Pl
             ise Stre




                             S




                            Pa
              nte sta




                             C
              rth r S
                           Str




                          yS
                            u




            St n S
             Ha yStr



                            s
            Ho Gar
                          ne




                           P
                          M
                         os




                        ate
                         on




                       hn




                         ia
                      lan




                      inc
                        al
                       m
                     Cr
                       o
                    dis




                    ux



                   ald
                   nh




                  inc
                  ge
                   s




                dg




                an
               Ad


           Bla




      nia
    do
  El




It is clear that respondents who were in the vicinity of the bus stop because they live nearby
were mainly using the service for shopping purposes. Although 20% of respondents who got
on to the bus service due to being nearby for work were using the service to get home a
higher percentage of respondents were using the service to go shopping or take part in leisure
activities (32% shopping, 23% leisure). Only 2 people got onto the bus due to being nearby
for educational reasons, 1 respondent used the service to go home and the other to move
between educational establishments. Respondents who got onto the service as they were
nearby for shopping reasons used the service mainly to ge t home (70%). 16% did use the
service to go from shopping to work. 70% of respondents who got onto the bus from taking
part in a leisure activity were using the service to take part in another leisure activity. Finally
respondents who were in the vicinity of the bus stop for personal business reasons were using
the service mainly to either go home or to go shopping. All these results can be seen in
Figure 11.




The CATCH Consortium                           103                                         13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                          Final




Figure 11.    Reason for being in the vicinity of the bus stop compared with the reason
   for getting off the bus

   100%
                                                                                                Getting off bus for Other


    80%                                                                                         Getting off bus for Personal
                                                                                                business

                                                                                                Getting off bus for Leisure
    60%
                                                                                                Getting off bus for Shopping


    40%                                                                                         Getting off bus for Education


                                                                                                Getting off bus for Work
    20%
                                                                                                Getting off bus for Home


     0%
             Home




                                                                             business


                                                                                        Other
                                                           Leisure
                                              Shopping




                                                                             Personal
                                  Education
                        Work




                    Reason for being in the vicinity of this bus stop


91% of respondents questioned stated that they would have still gone to their destination even
if the bus service was non – operational. The majority of respondents (70%) indicated that
they would walk followed by 24% using a different bus service to make the same journey
they were making using this bus service. Figure 12 highlights these results.

Figure 12.   How respondents would have made a journey if the service was
   unavailable
                                                     0%   4%          0%

                           24%




                        1%
                         1%
                                                                                                  70%


                                                                     Walk

                                                                     Car (driver)
                                                                     Car (passenger)

                                                                     Other bus

                                                                     Train

                                                                     Taxi

                                                                     Other




The CATCH Consortium                                                   104                                                    13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                Final


54% of respondents were aware that the service they were using was powered by a hybrid
supply. Respondents were asked to rate on a scale of very poor to very good how they felt
about the hybrid powered bus service by indicating if they thought it was a good idea, if it
increased public awareness of the environment, has improved the environment or has
increased public transport use. Results can be seen in Figure 13. It is evident may respondents
were unsure how they felt about the new service with 40% or more being unclear as to
whether they felt it had increased public awareness of the environment or public transport
use.

Figure 13.      How respondents feel about the hybrid bus service
             100%
                                                                                                   Don’t Know
             90%                                                                                   Agree Strongly
                                                                                                   Agree
             80%
                                                                                                   Neither / Nor
             70%
                                                                                                   Disagree
             60%                                                                                   Disagree
                                                                                                   Strongly
             50%

             40%

             30%

             20%

             10%

              0%
                    It is a good idea    It has increased It has improved the   It has increased
                                        public awareness      environment       public transport
                                        of the enviroment                              use

When this question is compared with age and gender, gender does not appear to affect the
results but respondents of different ages have slightly different opinions. Over 90% of
respondents aged 0-18 felt the hybrid bus service was either a good or very good idea, this
result slowly diminishes throughout the age groups to 65% of respondents aged 65+
considering it a good or very good idea. (Figure 14)

Comparing whether respondents felt the introduction of the bus service had increased public
awareness of the environment with age it was evident that respondents from the youngest
group (0-18 year olds) greatly agreed with this statement (73%). Although many respondents
from the other age groups did agree that it had increased public awareness the percentage of
respondents who were unsure was much greater than in the younger age group. (Figure 15)

Respondents agreement with the statement it has improved the environment was similar to
the previous question with a slightly higher number of respondents aged 0-18 greatly
agreeing that the introduction of the hybrid service has improved the environmental
conditions. (Figure 16)

To conclude this question respondents were asked whether they thought the introduction of
the service had increased public transport use, a high percentage of respondents from each
age group (apart from 0-18) were unsure whether bus patronage had increased. Respondent
from the 0-18 year old group where 82% either agreed or greatly agreed that bus patronage
had increased. (Figure 17)


The CATCH Consortium                                         105                                                    13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                           Final




Figure 14.      It is a good idea by age
   100%
                                                                           Don’t Know

                                                                           Agree Strongly

    80%                                                                    Agree

                                                                           Neither / Nor

                                                                           Disagree
    60%
                                                                           Disagree
                                                                           Strongly

    40%




    20%




     0%
             0-18      19-25   26-45       46-55         55-65     65+



Figure 15.      It has increased public awareness of the environment

   100%
                                                                              Don’t Know

                                                                              Agree Strongly

    80%                                                                       Agree

                                                                              Neither / Nor

                                                                              Disagree
    60%
                                                                              Disagree
                                                                              Strongly


    40%




    20%




     0%
             0-18      19-25    26-45       46-55          55-65     65+




The CATCH Consortium                               106                                         13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                  Final




Figure 16.      It has improved the environment

   100%
                                                                      Don’t Know

                                                                      Agree
                                                                      Strongly
    80%
                                                                      Agree

                                                                      Neither / Nor
    60%




    40%




    20%




     0%
             0-18      19-25   26-45     46-55         55-65   65+



Figure 17.      It has increased public transport use

   100%                                                               Don’t Know
                                                                      Agree
                                                                      Strongly
                                                                      Agree
    80%
                                                                      Neither / Nor
                                                                      Disagree


    60%




    40%




    20%




     0%
             0-18      19-25   26-45     46-55         55-65   65+

Respondents were asked to indicate what the main five reasons were for using the hybrid bus
service for the journey they were undertaking. The majority of respondents indicate that
convenience was their most important reason for using the hybrid bus service follo wed by
reliability (second, third and fifth most important reason) and then service frequency (fourth
most important reason). Between 75% and 88% of all respondents in each age group



The CATCH Consortium                             107                                  13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                        Final


considered convenience to be the most important factor for using the hybrid bus service.
Journey time and that the route ‘follows a useful route’ were also mentioned as important
reasons and can be seen in Figure 18.

Figure 18.                         Five most important reasons for using the hybrid bus service
                                  350
                  Total Numbers




                                  300
                                                                                        Fifth most important
                                                                                        reason

                                  250
                                                                                        Fouth most important
                                                                                        reason
                                  200
                                                                                        Third most important
                                  150
                                                                                        reason

                                                                                        Second most important
                                  100                                                   reason

                                   50                                                   Most important reason

                                   0
                                                                              ility




                                                                                e
                                                                              ce




                                               ss e Fre ost
                                                                                 t
                                                            Co mfor




                                                                           Tim
                                                                           iab




                                                                             y
                                                                          ien




                                                                            C

                                          Pa er In enc




                                                        ve oute
                                                                           ly
                                                                        ble




                                            m er F on
                                                                       nd
                                                                         o



                                        En ng th Rel




                                                                      ey
                                                                      en




                                                                      ey
                                                                  sC




                                                                   qu




                                                                      s
                                                                    ila




                                                     en icle




                                                                      ti
                                                                  rie




                                     oth sen orma
                                                  Se ourn




                                                                     r
                                                 ns cilitie
                                                                 nv




                                                                   rt
                                                               urn




                                                                les
                                                               va




                                                               ful
                                                ow npo
                                                             Bu




                                                              eh

                                                             yF




                                                           hic
                                              pri use
                                                           Jo
                                                           ta




                                                            a
                                                          ev




                                                            J




                                                            f



                                                         tra
                                                         tal
                                                       no




                                                      rvic




                                                    sa
                                                     of



                                                    te
                                                     g

                                                    g
                 le




                                                 en
                                                  m




                                                 va
              hic




                                                  i
                                               ard

                                               on




                                              ea
            ve




                                              s



                                s t t fol
                                            Pa
                                            bo

                                            vir




                                           of
         te




                                          I
                                         of




                                        er



                                       se
                          ce n of
      iva




                                      se




                                    ou
    Pr




                                   Ea




                                 isio

                                  to
                              ov

                              ss



                             on
                          Pr




                         icti
                      ac




                      str
                   Re
                   sy
                 Ea




The CATCH Consortium                                           108                                      13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                  Final



ON STREET SURVEY RESULTS

Overview
525 respondents took part in the after survey, 45% of the total sample was female and 55%
were male. The results are compared with a similar survey undertaken with 300 people in
may 2003, at the start of the CATCH project. The age split for respondents from both the
before and after study can be seen in Figure 1. Slightly more respondents were questioned
from all age groups in the after study apart from the 18-25 year olds, only 19% of 18-25 year
old respondents taking part in the after study were questioned compared to 36% of
respondents in this age group in the before study.

Figure 1.            Before and After - Age split for respondents
              100%
                                                                       65+

              90%                                                      46-64


                                                                       26-45
              80%
                                                                       16-25
              70%


              60%
 Percentage




              50%


              40%


              30%


              20%


              10%


               0%
                           Before                       After


Figure 2 details the employment status of respondents in the before and after survey – similar
percentages of respondents were questioned from each employment status group.




The CATCH Consortium                             109                                  13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                   Final


Figure 2.            Before & After - Employment status of respondents
              100%
                                                                             DE
                                                                             C2
                                                                             C1

              80%                                                            AB




              60%
 Percentage




              40%




              20%




               0%
                            Before                                   After


The ethnic grouping of respondents can be seen in Figure 3. Similar percentages of
respondents from each ethnic group were questioned. It is noticed that a slightly higher
percentage of respondents in the before survey (4% in the before and 1% in the after surveys)
were white Irish.

Figure 3.            Before and After - Ethnic Group of respondents

                      Before                                                 After
                                     White British                                      White British
                                     White Irish                                        White Irish
                                     Other White                                        Other White
                                     White and black Caribbean                          White and black Caribbean

                                     White and black African                            White and black African
                                     White and Asian                                    White and Asian

                                     Other mixed                                        Other mixed

                                     Asian British                                      Asian British

                                     Indian                                             Indian
                                                                                        Pakistani
                                     Pakistani
                                                                                        Black British
                                     Black British
                                                                                        Black Caribbean
                                     Black Caribbean
                                                                                        Black African
                                     Black African
                                                                                        Other Black
                                     Other Black
                                                                                        Chinese
                                     Chinese
                                                                                        Other Ethnic Group
                                     Other Ethnic Group




Figure 4 details the before and after responses received when respondents were asked if they
usually have access to a car. In the before survey a slightly higher percentage of people did
not have access to a car and those that did have access to a car, a higher percentage had
access to a car as a car passenger. In the after survey 40% of the total sample of respondents
questioned had access to a car as a driver compared to 32% in the before survey.




The CATCH Consortium                                           110                    13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                               Final


Figure 4.              Before and After – Respondents access to a car
                100%
                                                                           No

                 90%
                                                                           Yes - as a passenger

                 80%                                                       Yes - as a driver

                 70%


                 60%
   Percentage




                 50%


                 40%


                 30%


                 20%


                 10%


                  0%
                             Before                      After


Respondents were asked to identify if they had a disability and if they did whether it would
affect the way they travel. 87% of respondents in both the before and after survey indicated
they did not have a disability. Of the 13% who stated they did have a disability only 4% in
both the before and after survey felt that the disability had a strong impact on their transport
choices. These results can be seen in Figure 5.

Figure 5.              Before and After – Impact of transport choice for disabled travellers
                100%
                                                                 Not stated


                                                                 Strong impact on transport
                                                                 choice
                80%                                              Significant impact on transport
                                                                 choice
                                                                 Little impact on transport
                                                                 choice

                60%                                              No disability
 Percentage




                40%




                20%




                 0%
                           Before                After



Relationship with Liverpool City Centre
Respondents were asked to indicate whether they lived, worked or attended an educational
institution in Liverpool Air Quality Management Area. The responses in the after survey
show that the most common reasons for respondents being there were for shopping (38%),


The CATCH Consortium                                 111                                           13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                             Final


followed by living within the area (23%) and then working within the area (21%). In the
before survey the order of reasoning was slightly different, the most respondents were in the
area for work (28%) or shopping purposes (28%) followed by living in the area (20%). It is
also noticed that the number of respondents in the before survey who were in the area for
educational purposes has halved. These results can be seen in Figure 6.

Figure 6.  Before and After – Reason for being within the Liverpool Air Quality
Management Area
               100%
                                                                 Other reason to be in area shaded on
                                                                 the map
               90%
                                                                 Vistor to area shaded on the map

               80%                                               Shopping in the area shaded on the
                                                                 map

               70%                                               Attend education in the area shaded
                                                                 on the map
                                                                 Work in the area shaded on the map
               60%
  Percentage




                                                                 Live in the area shaded on the map
               50%


               40%


               30%


               20%


               10%


                0%
                       Before                  After

                                                   o
Figure 7 and 8 compare respondents reasons f r being within the Liverpool Air Quality
Management Area with their access to a car. In the before study more respondents did not
have access to a car as either a driver or a passenger. In the after study it is clear more
respondents do have access to a car overall with more respondents having access to a car as a
passenger for living, working, and attending education in the area. More respondents in the
after survey also have access to a car as a driver for working, shopping and being a visitor to
the area.




The CATCH Consortium                          112                                             13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                    Final


Figure 7.   Before – Respondents reason for being within the Liverpool Air
Quality Management area crossed with respondents access to a car
                   100
                                                                                            Not stated

                    90                                                                      No

                    80                                                                      Yes - as a
                                                                                            passenger

                    70                                                                      Yes - as a driver


                    60
      Percentage




                    50


                    40


                    30


                    20


                    10


                     0
                          Live   Work   Education   For shopping    As a visitor   Other

Figure 8.   After– Respondents reason for being within the Liverpool Air
Quality Management area crossed with respondents access to a car
                   100
                                                                                           Not stated

                    90
                                                                                           No

                    80
                                                                                           Yes - as a
                                                                                           passenger
                    70                                                                     Yes - as a driver


                    60
  Percentage




                    50


                    40


                    30


                    20


                    10


                     0
                         Live    Work   Education   For shopping   As a visitor    Other




The CATCH Consortium                                   113                                              13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                    Final



Car Parking
Respondents were asked to state whether they thought parking was a problem within the
Liverpool Air Quality Management Area. In the before study 52% of respondents and in the
after study 62% of respondents did not think this question was applicable to them. Of the
remaining respondents who answered the question from both the before and after survey,
similar percentages of respondents thought there was a problem with vandalism (2% before
survey, 2% after survey) An increased number of respondents thought there was a problem
with the limited number of car parking spaces (37% before survey, 46% after survey).
Respondents who did not think there was a problem with parking in the Liverpool Air
Quality Management Area had dropped by approximately 10% from 63% in the before
survey to 52% in the after survey.

Figure 9.    Before and After - Percentage of respondents who thought parking was a
problem in Liverpool Air Quality Management Area
              100%
                                                                  Not applicable

                                                                  No Problem
              90%
                                                                  Yes - Vandalism
              80%
                                                                  Yes - lack of
                                                                  spaces
              70%


              60%
 Percentage




              50%


              40%


              30%


              20%


              10%


               0%
                     Before                     After


Figure 10 and 11 shows the before and after survey results analysed against whether
respondents had access to a car. In the before study more respondents who had access to a car
as a car driver were concerned with vandalism, in the after survey a small percentage of
respondents independent on whether they had access to a car felt that vandalism was a minor
concern that contributed to the car parking problem within the city centre. The limited
number of car parking spaces was still an issue in the after survey with similar numbers of
respondents feeling that the lack of car parking spaces was contributing to the parking
problem within Liverpool City Centre.

Figure 12 and 13 compare the results given by respondents as to whether car parking in the
city centre is a problem for respondents who work, live or are attending education in the city
centre. In the before survey the lack of car parking spaces was indicated as a greater problem
for respondents who live, work or attend educational establishments in the city centre.
Respondents from all three of these groups in the after stud y now consider this to be less of a
problem, although the percentage of respondents who think the lack of parking is a problem
have increased from those visiting the city or using the city for shopping purposes. It is also
noted that due to vandalism car parking it seen as a bigger problem in the after survey,
particularly with students and those attending educational establishments.


The CATCH Consortium                          114                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                               Final


Figure 10.    Before – Percentage of respondents who thought parking was a problem
in Liverpool City Centre crossed with respondent’s access to a car
                   100%
                                                                                  Not applicable


                   90%                                                            No problem

                                                                                  Yes - because of vandalism
                   80%
                                                                                  Yes - lack of parking spaces
                                                                                  available
                   70%


                   60%
  Percentage




                   50%


                   40%


                   30%


                   20%


                   10%


                    0%
                          Yes - as a driver    Yes - as a passenger          No

Figure 11.    After – Percentage of respondents who thought parking was a problem in
Liverpool City Centre crossed with respondent’s access to a car
                   100%                                                             Not applicable

                                                                                    No problem
                    90%
                                                                                    Yes - because of vandalism

                                                                                    Yes - lack of parking spaces
                    80%                                                             available


                    70%


                    60%
      Percentage




                    50%


                    40%


                    30%


                    20%


                    10%


                     0%
                           Yes - as a driver    Yes - as a passenger         No




The CATCH Consortium                                                   115                                         13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                       Final


Figure 12.   Before - Whether car parking in the city centre is a problem to
respondents who travel work, live or attend education etc in the city centre
                   100%
                                                                                 No problem

                                                                                 Yes - because of vandalism

                                                                                 Yes - lack of parking spaces
                                                                                 available
                   80%




                   60%
  Percentage




                   40%




                   20%




                    0%
                          Live   Work   Education   shopping   visitor   other

Figure 13.   After - Whether car parking in the city centre is a problem to respondents
who work, live or attend education etc in the city centre
                   100%                                                          No problem

                                                                                 Yes - because of vandalism

                                                                                 Yes - lack of parking spaces
                                                                                 available
                    80%




                    60%
      Percentage




                    40%




                    20%




                     0%
                          Live   Work   Education   shopping   visitor   other




The CATCH Consortium                                     116                                            13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                 Final



Travelling within the Liverpool Air Quality Management Area
Respondents were asked to think about the journeys that they make by different modes of
transport to and from or within the Liverpool Air Quality Management Area and rate the
following attributes;

   §   Punctuality
   §   Reliability
   §   Comfort
   §   Cost
   §   Journey Time
   §   Accessibility
   §   Safety
   §   Range of Destinations

The modes of transport respondents were asked to consider in both the before and after
surveys were as follows;
    § Car – as a driver
    § Car – as a passenger
    § Public Bus
    § Train
    § Ferry
    § Walk
    § Motorcycle
    § Bicycle
    § Taxi
    § Other

Figure 14 details the results fo r the before and after study for all modes of transport. A
bulleted list of the highlighted points can be seen below:

   §   Percentage of respondents who travel 5 days a week or more as a car driver has gone
       down by 1.8%. Those who travel by this mode at least once a week or at least once a
       month have increased in the after survey (increase by 1.6% - at least once a week,
       1.5% at least once a month).
   §   Percentage of respondents who travel 5 days a week a more as a car passenger has
       decreased by 1.6%. Traveling by this mode at least once a month has also decreased.
   §   Percentage of respondents who travel as a bus passenger for 5 days a week or more
       and at least once a week have decreased by 10% and 1.3%. A 5% increase has
       occurred in the number of respondents who trave l by bus at least once a month.
   §   Percentage of respondents who travel as a train passenger for at least once a week and
       at least once a month have increased dramatically, 4% and 10%. The percentage of
       respondents who never travel by train has decreased by 17% from the before survey to
       the after survey.
   §   The percentage of ferry passengers are similar for both the before and after survey.
   §   A 7% increase has occurred with respondents who walk at least once a week and a 5%
       increase with respondents who walk at least once a month.
   §   The percentage of motorcyclists and cyclists are similar for both the before and after
       survey.
   §   The percentage of respondents who use taxis at least once a week and at least once a
       month has increased slightly.


The CATCH Consortium                        117                                      13/04/06
                                                                                    Percentage
                                Ca
                                                                                                                                                                                                      Figure 14.


                                   rd
                                      r
                         Ca C iver
                            rP      ar (B
                                as Dr efo




                                                            0%
                                                                 10%
                                                                       20%
                                                                             30%
                                                                                   40%
                                                                                         50%
                                                                                               60%
                                                                                                           70%
                                                                                                                                                    80%
                                                                                                                                                                              90%
                                                                                                                                                                                               100%



                           Ca sen iver re)
                                               (




The CATCH Consortium
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     CATCH Evaluation Report




                        Bu r Pa ger ( Afte
                            s P sse Be r)
                                as ng for
                           Bu sen er (A e)
                       Tr s P ger fte
                         ain a              (B r)
                             Pa sse efo
                                        n
                         Tr sse ger re)
                           ain ng (A
                       Fe P er fte
                         rry as (B r)
                              P se efo
                         Fe asse nge re)
                            rry ng r (A
                                Pa er fte
                                   s (B r)
                               Pe sen efo
                                  de ger re)
                                     str (A
                                 Pe ian ( fter)
                             M de Be
                                oto str for
                                   rcy ian e)
                                M clis (Afte
                                  oto t (B r)
                                     rcy ef
                                         cl or
                                    Cy ist (A e)
                        Ta              cli fte
                                           st        r)




118
                           xi
                              Pa C (Be
                                                 f
                          Ta sse yclis ore)
                              xi nge t (A
                                Pa r               f
                                   ss (Be ter)
                                      en fo
                                         ge re
                                                      )
                                      Ot r (Af
                                         he ter
                                             r( )
                                               B
                                         Ot efo
                                             he re)
                                               r(
                                                 Af
                                                     ter
                                                        )
                                                                                                                                                                                       Never

                                                                                                                                                                              Rarely
                                                                                                                                                                                                      Before and After – How often respondents travel within Liverpool Air Quality Management Area




                                                                                                                             Once a week at least
                                                                                                                                                      Once a month at least



                                                                                                     5 days / week or more




13/04/06
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Final
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                   Final




Influences on Travel Behaviour
Respondents were asked to indicate from a list of factors, which they would categorise as the three main
influences on their travel. The list of factors given to respondents was:

               §    Easy access to vehicles
               §    Easy access to destination
               §    Free parking available
               §    Comfort
               §    Reliability
               §    Journey time
               §    Health
               §    Cost
               §    Parking availability
               §    Environmental Friendly
               §    Other

The three main influences for each mode of travel discussed can be seen in Figure 16. It is evident that in the
after survey journey time and cost were considered a much greater influence when deciding to make a journey.
In the before survey the three main influences overall were reliability, easy access to destinations and journey
time, in the after survey the three main influences were journey time, cost and reliability.

Figure 15.    Before and After - Factors that are likely to influence the way in which
respondents travel
                   100%
                                                                                           Other

                   90%                                                                     Environmentally
                                                                                           Friendly
                                                                                           Cost
                   80%                                                                     Journey Time

                                                                                           Parking Availabilty
                   70%
                                                                                           Health
                   60%                                                                     Realiability
  Percentage




                                                                                           Comfort
                   50%
                                                                                           Free Parking
                                                                                           Available
                   40%                                                                     Easy access to
                                                                                           destination
                                                                                           Easy access to
                   30%                                                                     vehicle


                   20%


                   10%


                    0%
                                        Before                   After

Figure 16 and 17 indicate the factors that are likely to influence the way in which people
travel by the reason they were within the city centre. Figure 18 details in a table the three
main factors (in the before and after surveys) that were likely to influence the way in which
people make a journey.




The CATCH Consortium                             119                                                      13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                                                      Final


Figure 16.     Before – The factors that are likely to influence the way in which people
travel by the reason they were within the City Centre.
                             100%
                                                                                                                                          Other

                              90%                                                                                                         Visitor

                                                                                                                                          Shopping
                              80%
                                                                                                                                          Attend Education

                              70%                                                                                                         Work

                                                                                                                                          Live
                              60%
  Percentage




                              50%

                              40%

                              30%

                              20%

                              10%

                              0%
                                                                                             h




                                                                                                                           st




                                                                                                                                     r
                                                                                                                                   he
                                                        t

                                                                   ility


                                                                                          alt
                                                     for




                                                                                                                         Co
                                                                                          e




                                                                                                                                 Ot
                                                                                     Tim
                                                    m




                                                                                     He


                                                                                        y
                                                                 ab
                                             le




                                                                                    bilt
                                                  Co




                                                                                                                      ly
                                         ab
                                         on
                                          le




                                                              ali




                                                                                                                    nd
                                                                                aila


                                                                                 ey
                                       hic




                                      ail
                                      ati




                                                            Re




                                                                                                                 rie
                                                                              urn
                                    ve




                                   Av
                                  stin




                                                                              Av




                                                                                                               yF
                                 to




                                                                            Jo
                               de


                               ng




                                                                                 ng
                              ss




                                                                                                           tal
                            rki




                                                                              rki
                            to
                           ce




                                                                                                         en
                         Pa




                                                                            Pa
                         ac


                         ss




                                                                                                        m
                      ce
                      sy




                                                                                                      on
                     ee
                    ac
                   Ea




                                                                                                   vir
                   Fr




                                                                                                 En
                 sy
               Ea




Figure 17.     After – The factors that are likely to influence the way in which people
travel by the reason they were within the City Centre
                             100%
                                                                                                                                         Other
                                                                                                                                         Visitor
                                                                                                                                         Shopping
                             80%                                                                                                         Attend Education
                                                                                                                                         Work
                                                                                                                                         Live
                Percentage




                             60%




                             40%




                             20%




                              0%
                                                                                                                       st




                                                                                                                                    r
                                                                                             h




                                                                                                                                  he
                                                      ort




                                                                                                                     Co
                                                                                          alt
                                                               ility




                                                                                                                                Ot
                                                    mf




                                                                                         e
                                                                                     He


                                                                                      ilty
                                             le




                                                                                    Tim
                                                             ab




                                                                                                                  ly
                                                  Co
                                           le




                                                                                   ab
                                          ab




                                                                                                                nd
                                         on




                                                          ali
                                        hic




                                                                                ey
                                                                                ail
                                       ail




                                                                                                             rie
                                      ati




                                                        Re
                                     ve




                                                                             urn
                                                                             Av
                                   Av
                                  stin




                                                                                                           yF
                                 to




                                                                           Jo
                                                                                ng
                               ng
                               de




                                                                                                       tal
                              ss




                                                                             rki
                            rki




                                                                                                     en
                           ce


                            to




                                                                           Pa
                         Pa
                         ac


                         ss




                                                                                                    m
                                                                                                  on
                      ce
                      sy




                     ee
                    ac




                                                                                               vir
                   Ea




                   Fr




                                                                                             En
                 sy
               Ea




The CATCH Consortium                                                                  120                                                                    13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                     Final


Figure 18.    Three main influences on how respondents travel to, from or within the
Liverpool Air Quality Management Area.

 Reason for being in the City Centre      Main Influences to affect      Main Influences to affect
                                            travel choice (Before)          travel choice (After)
LIVE                                   Journey Time                   Health
                                       Reliability                    Environmental Friendly
                                       Easy Access                    Journey Time
WORK                                   Parking Availability           Parking Availability
                                       Free Parking                   Environmental Friendly
                                       Easy Access to Destination     Journey Time
ATTEND EDUCATION                       Cost                           Health
                                       Comfort                        Environmental Friendly
                                       Easy Access to Destination     Easy Access to Destination
SHOPPING                               Health                         Easy Access to Destination
                                       Parking Availability           Easy Access to Parking
                                       Environmental Friendly         Free Parking
VISITOR                                Environmental Friendly         Free Parking
                                       Comfort                        Comfort
                                       Health                         Easy Access

In the before survey respondents who indicated they lived in the city centre felt that easy
access to their vehicle, reliability and journey time were important factors that affected their
transport choice for making a journey. In the after survey respondents living in the city centre
indicated that their health, the vehicles being environmentally friendly and journey time were
now the most important factors which influence the way in which people travel. Other
changes noted between the before and after survey when comparing factors that are likely to
influence the way in which people travel can be seen below:

Respondents who live in the city centre;
   § 20% more respondents in the after survey felt that the parking availability would
      influence their mode choice of transport.
   § 23% more respondents in the after survey felt that their environmentally friendly
      concerns were an important influence on how they would travel to, from or within the
      city centre area.
   § 26% more respondents in the before survey cons idered easy access to their vehicle to
      be an important influence to the way they travel.

Respondents who work in the city centre;
   § 23% more respondents in the before survey felt that free parking was an important
      influence to the way they travel.
   § 16% more respondents in the before survey felt that parking availability would
      influence how they would travel to, from or within the city centre.
   § 15% more respondents in the before survey indicated that easy access to their
      destination would affect how they would travel within the city centre.
   § 10% more respondents in the after survey considered health to be an important factor
      that would influence their choice when deciding on a mode of travel.

Respondents who attend education in the city centre;
   § 7% more respondents in the before survey indicated comfort was an important issue
      when making a transport choice
   § 8% more respondents in the after survey felt that health was important and would
      affect how respondents would make a journey to, from or within the city centre.


The CATCH Consortium                       121                                              13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                          Final


               §     The cost of a journey was felt to be more important in the before survey.

Respondents who use the city centre for shopping;
    § 28% more respondents in the after survey felt that easy access to their vehicle was an
       important influence which would affect how they trave lled to, from and within the
       city centre.
    § 27% more respondents in the after survey indicated that easy access to their
       destination would influence the mode of transport they would use to make their
       journey.
    § 17% more respondents in the after surve y stated reliability is a major influence as to
       how to make a journey.
    § The environmental concerns of shoppers had gone down from the before to the after
       survey, in the before survey 36% felt this was a major influence and in the after
       survey 12% stated it would influence how they made a journey within the city centre.

Respondents who visit the city centre;
   § Health and the environment were not considered important influences that would
      affect the way visitors trave lled within or around the city. These concerns were more
      important to visitors in the before survey than in the after survey.

Respondents were asked to indicate whether the traffic levels within the city centre ever
influence the mode of transport they use to make a journey (Figure 19). Of the respondents
who did give a response in the before survey it was clear traffic levels did influence whether
respondents used the bus, cycle or walked. In the after survey a higher percentage of
respondents stated that traffic levels did affect their choice to use the car.

Figure 19.                  Before and After – Whether traffic levels influence travel by different
modes
                   100%
                                                                                    Not stated

                   90%                                                              Cycling

                                                                                    Walking
                   80%
                                                                                    Bus
                   70%
                                                                                    Car

                   60%
  Percentage




                   50%


                   40%


                   30%


                   20%


                   10%


                    0%
                                    before                        after


Respondents were also asked whether the time in which they consider to make journey is
ever affected by traffic levels. In the before survey 22% of bus users indicated that traffic
levels in the city centre do influence the time they make their journey, this percentage



The CATCH Consortium                                   122                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                 Final


decreased to 18% in the after survey. In the after survey an increased had appeared with car
users, 7% more car users in the after survey felt that traffic levels in the city centre do
influence the time they make a journey.

Figure 20.    Before and After – Whether traffic levels influence the time to make a
journey by different modes
              100%
                                                                           Not stated
               90%
                                                                           Cycling

               80%                                                         Walking


               70%                                                         Bus

                                                                           Car
               60%
 Percentage




               50%


               40%


               30%


               20%


               10%


               0%
                          before                       after



Traffic levels in Central Liverpool
Respondents were asked to describe the leve l of traffic in central Liverpool (see Figure 21).
In the before study 45% of respondents felt traffic levels were acceptable although 52%
thought the levels were either high (36%) or very high (16%), very few respondents
described the levels as low or very low. In the after survey more respondents considered
traffic levels to be high (1% more) or very high (7% more), the number of respondents who
considered the traffic levels to be acceptable had also decreased by 8% from 45% to 37%

On comparing the traffic level descriptions with respondents reasoning for being within the
city centre one major difference between the before and after surveys was with the responses
given by visitors. In the before survey 19% indicated that traffic levels were high or very
high, in the after survey this figure rose by 50% to 69% of visitors indicating that traffic
levels were high or very high. The percentage of respondents in education also detailed a rise
in the very high traffic levels, from 7% in the before survey to 26% in the after survey, an
increase of 19%. Figures 22 and 23 shows the results for comparing traffic levels with
respondent’s reason for being within the city centre.




The CATCH Consortium                     123                                            13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                 Final


Figure 21.                       Before and After – How respondents rated the traffic levels in central
Liverpool
              100%
                                                                                                           Total
                                                                                                           Very high
                                                                                                           High
                                                                                                           Acceptable
                   80%
                                                                                                           Low
                                                                                                           Very low


                   60%
 Percentage




                   40%




                   20%




                    0%
                                        before                                    after




Figure 22.                       Before – Traffic level description by reason for being within the city
centre
                   100%
                                                                                              Very high
                                                                                              High
                                                                                              Acceptable
                                                                                              Low
                   80%                                                                        Very low




                   60%
      Percentage




                   40%




                   20%




                    0%
                          Live        Work       Education   shopping   Visitor       Other




The CATCH Consortium                                             124                                                    13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                           Final


Figure 23.                  After – Traffic level description by reason for being within the city centre
         100%
                                                                                  Very high
                                                                                  High
                                                                                  Acceptable
                                                                                  Low
               80%                                                                Very low




               60%
  Percentage




               40%




               20%




               0%
                     Live        Work    Education   shopping   Visitor   Other




Public Transport in Liverpool
                                                                             e
Respondents were asked in both the before and after survey if they f lt public transport
offered a suitable option for all their trips, some of their trips or none of the trips that they
make within the Liverpool Air Quality Management Area (Figure 24). Only 8% in the before
survey and 9% in the after survey stated that public transport did not offer a suitable way of
travel for any of their trips. Over 40% of respondents in the before and after surveys felt that
public transport could offer an alternative way of travel for some or all of their trips.

Comparing whether respondents felt that public transport could offer an alternative to all or
some of their journeys with respondents access to a car (see Figure 25, 26), it is evident that
in the before study a higher proportion of respondents who did have access to a car as a driver
did not think public transport could offer a suitable trip for their journey. In the after survey
similar responses were received but it is clear the percentage of respondents (having access to
a car as a driver) who did not think public transport was suitable had decreased by 6%. In the
after survey the percentage of driver respondents who considered public transport suitable for
some trips had decreased by 6% although 4% more respondents indicated that public
transport was suitable for all trips. Slightly more respondents who had access to a car as a
passenger considered public transport more suitable for some or all trips in the before survey,
this was also the same for respondents who did not have any access to car.

When asked if respondents felt that the quality of public transport in Liverpool has changed
over the last 3 years there was very little differences in the results of the before and after
survey (Figure 27). 35-36% of respondents felt that public transport is better but 25-28% of
respondents did not think there had been any change in the last three years.




The CATCH Consortium                                    125                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                              Final


Figure 24.     Before and After – Whether respondents think that public transport
offers a suitable alternative for all, some or none of their trips that they make within the
city centre
                  100
                                                                                        Don't know


                   90                                                                   All trips

                                                                                        Some trips
                   80
                                                                                        No trips


                   70


                   60
  Percentage




                   50


                   40


                   30


                   20


                   10


                   0
                                       before                            after




Figure 25.  Before – Whether public transport is suitable for all, some or no trips
compared with respondents access to a car
                    100%
                                                                                      Not stated

                                                                                      Don t know

                                                                                      All trips

                                                                                      Some trips
                        80%
                                                                                      No trips




                        60%
     Percentage




                        40%




                        20%




                        0%
                              Yes - as a driver   Yes - as a passenger           No




The CATCH Consortium                                      126                                        13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                             Final


Figure 26.  After - Whether public transport is suitable for all, some or no trips
compared with respondents access to a car
               100%
                                                                                       Not stated

                                                                                       Don t know

                                                                                       All trips

                80%                                                                    Some trips

                                                                                       No trips




                60%
 Percentage




                40%




                20%




                 0%
                      Yes - as a driver   Yes - as a passenger           No



Figure 27.    Before and After – Whether respondents feel that public transport in
Liverpool has changed over the last 3 years
              100%
                                                                              Don't know

                                                                              Better

                                                                              No change
              80%
                                                                              Worse




              60%
 Percentage




              40%




              20%




               0%
                               before                            after



Travelling Attributes
For all journeys made by public transport, respondents were asked to rate the following
attributes; Punctuality, Reliability, Comfort, Cost, Journey time, Accessibility, Safety and



The CATCH Consortium                                127                                             13/04/06
                                    Pu                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Pu
                                        nc                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      nc
                                             tua                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     tua
                                                  lity                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   lity
                                                        (B                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     (B
                                       Pu                    efo                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Pu                   efo




                                                                                 0%
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         0%




                                                                                      10%
                                                                                            20%
                                                                                                  30%
                                                                                                        40%
                                                                                                              50%
                                                                                                                                60%
                                                                                                                                                 70%
                                                                                                                                                                80%
                                                                                                                                                                                  90%
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              10%
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    20%
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          30%
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                40%
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  50%
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               60%
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           70%
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   80%
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  90%




                                                                                                                                                                                                            100%
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   100%
                                                                  re)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    re)
                                            nc                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        nc
                                                tua                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       tua
                                                        lity                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      lity
                                                             (A




                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Figure 29.
                                    Re
                                         alia                     fte
                                                                       r)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Re
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ali
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ab
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       (A
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           fte
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 r)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Figure 28.
                                               bili                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ility
                                                     ty(
                                                           Be                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      (B
                                       Re                       for                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Re                     efo
                                              ali                     e)                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ali                    re)
                                                 ab                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ab
                                                       ility                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ility
                                                               (A                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       (A
                                           Co                        fte                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Co                        fte
                                                m                         r)                                                                                                                                                                                                                            mf                        r)




The CATCH Consortium
                                                     for                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     ort
                                                          t (B                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      (B
                                                                 efo                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   efo
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               CATCH Evaluation Report




                                               Co                      re)                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Co                  re)
                                                      m                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       m
                                                           for                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     for
                                                                t (A                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   t (A
                                                                       fte                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    fte
                                                    Co                      r)                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Co                      r)
                                                           st                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     st
                                                               (B                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     (B
                                                                   efo                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    efo
                                                                          re)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    re)
                               Jo                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Jo
                                 urn                    Co                                                                                                                                                                                                                               urn                     Co
                                      ey                       st                                                                                                                                                                                                                             ey                      st
                                            Tim                    (A                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Tim                   (A
                                                                        fte                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    fter
                                                   e(                       r)                                                                                                                                                                                                                              e(                      )
                                  Jo                    Be                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Jo                      Be
                                      urn                     for                                                                                                                                                                                                                            urn                       for
                                            ey                    e)                                                                                                                                                                                                                               ey                      e)
                                                Tim                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Tim
                                 Ac                       e(                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Ac                       e(
                                      ce                      Aft                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ce                       Af
                                           ss                      er)                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ss                     ter
                                              ibil                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     ibil                   )
                                                   ity                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ity
                                                         (B                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      (B
                                     Ac                      efo                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Ac                        efo




128
                                          ce                        re)                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ce                        re)
                                               ss                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     ss
                                                    ibi                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ibi
                                                         lity                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  lity
                                                                (A                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    (A
                                                                     fte                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  fte
                                              Sa                          r)                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Sa                       r)
                                                     fet                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    fet
                       Ra                                y(                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Ra                                y(
                         ng                                  Be                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ng                                   Be
                           eo                                       for                                                                                                                                                                                                           eo                                      for
                              fd                                         e)                                                                                                                                                                                                          fd                                        e)
                                es                  Sa                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 es                  Sa
                                   tina                    fet                                                                                                                                                                                                                            tina                    fet
                        Ra               tion                  y(                                                                                                                                                                                                              Ra               tion                  y(
                           ng                                        Af
                                                                         ter                                                                                                                                                                                                      ng                  s(                   Af
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ter
                             eo                s(                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   eo
                                fd                   Be                      )                                                                                                                                                                                                         fd                 Be                         )
                                  es                       for                                                                                                                                                                                                                           es                     for
                                      tina                     e)                                                                                                                                                                                                                            tina                    e)
                                            tion                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   tion
                                                   s(                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    s(
                                                       Aft                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Aft
                                                             er)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    er)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     survey for the bus, Figure 29 for the train and Figure 30 for the ferry.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        poor




                                                                                                                                      poor
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Poor




                                                                                                                                      Poor
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Good




                                                                                                                                                         Good
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Before and After - Respondents answers to Bus Attributes




                                                                                                                    Very poor
                                                                                                                                                                      Very good
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Before & After - Respondents answers to Train Attributes
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Very poor




                                                                                                                                                                                               Not Stated

                                                                                                                                                                                  Don't know
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Very good
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Not Stated

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Don't know




                                                                                                                                      Neither good nor
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Neither good nor
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Final


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Range of Destinations. Figure 28 compares the results obtained for the before and after




13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                    Final


Figure 30.             Before & After - Respondents answers to Ferry Attributes
               100%
                                                                                                 Not Stated

                90%                                                                              Don't know

                                                                                                 Very good
                80%
                                                                                                 Good

                70%                                                                              Neither good nor
                                                                                                 poor
                                                                                                 Poor
                60%
                                                                                                 Very poor

                50%


                40%


                30%


                20%


                10%


                0%
                                                     r)




                                                     r)




                                                      )
                                                   e)
                                                  re)




                                                 ter
                                                fte




                                                 fte
                                                  r)




                                                  r)




                                                   )
                                               re)




                                              for
                                               e)

                                              ter




                                                r)
                                             fte




                                             re)
                                             fte




                                            efo
                                            re)




                                             Af
                                            (A
                                         t (A
                                            e)




                                           fte
                                          for
                                        efo




                                        Be
                                         Af
                                        (A




                                         e)


                                            )
                                        (A




                                       y(
                                      efo
                                      efo




                                       for




                                       (B




                                      ter
                                      (A
                                       st

                                    Be


                                    e(




                                    for
                                    for
                                    (B




                                  y(
                                Co




                                   fet
                                Be
                                 lity




                                  Af
                                 (B




                               ility




                                (B
                                   st




                               ity




                              Be
                              e(

                           Tim
                              m
                              ort




                             Co




                             Sa
                             fet




                              s(
                          tua


                           ty(




                           ibil
                           lity




                          ab




                           ity
                        Co




                       Tim
                         mf




                        s(

                        on
                       Sa
                        bili
                      tua




                       ibil


                       ss
                      nc




                      ali




                     ey
                    Co




                   tion


                     ati
                   alia




                    ss


                   ce
                 Re
                   nc

                 Pu




                 ey

                urn




                 tin
               ce




             tina
              Ac
             Re
             Pu




            urn




            es
           Jo

           Ac




          es

          fd
         Jo




        fd

       eo
     eo

     ng
   Ra
   ng
 Ra




Respondents were also asked to rate certain issues concerned with walking and cycling, the
issues addresses in both the before and after surveys were; provision of footpaths, cycle ways,
Accessibility of footpaths / cycle ways, Signage of footpaths / cycle ways and Safety of
footpaths / cycle ways. Figure 31 and 32 shows the results for the before and after surveys of
respondents who commented on walking and cycling attributes.

Figure 31.             Before and After – Respondents opinions to walking attributes
                100%                                                                                    Don't know
                                                                                                        Very good
                 90%
                                                                                                        Good

                 80%                                                                                    Neither good nor
                                                                                                        poor
                                                                                                        Poor
                 70%                                                                                    Very poor

                 60%
  Percentage




                 50%

                 40%

                 30%

                 20%

                 10%

                  0%
                                                                                           er)
                                                            )
                                                         ter
                                     e)




                                                                            e)
                                    er)




                                     e)
                                    e)




                                      )




                                                                                        aft
                                  ter




                                                                         for
                                 for




                                                      (af
                                 for
                                for
                                 aft




                                                                                      y(
                               (af




                                                                       be
                             (be
                              be



                             n(



                            (be




                                                      ge




                                                                                   fet
                                                                     y(
                           ity
                          n(



                         isio




                                                    na
                         ge




                                                                                 Sa
                                                                  fet
                       ibil
                         ty
                     isio




                     na
                     ov




                                                 Sig
                     ibil




                                                                Sa
                    ss
                   Pr




                  Sig
                   ov




                   ss



                  ce
                 ce
                 Pr




                Ac
               Ac




The CATCH Consortium                           129                                                                         13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                          Final


Figure 32.               Before and After – Respondents opinions to cycling attributes
                100%                                                                                          Don't know

                                                                                                              Very good
                 90%
                                                                                                              Good

                 80%                                                                                          Neither good nor
                                                                                                              poor
                                                                                                              Poor
                 70%
                                                                                                              Very poor

                 60%
  Percentage




                 50%

                 40%

                 30%

                 20%

                 10%

                 0%




                                                                                                        er)
                                                                         )
                                         e)




                                                                      ter
                                       er)




                                                         e)




                                                                                         e)



                                                                                                     aft
                                        )
                                     for




                                      e)




                                                      for




                                                                                      for
                                    ter




                                                                   (af
                                    aft




                                                                                                   y(
                                  for




                                                                                    be
                                 be




                                                   (be
                                 (af
                                n(




                                                                   ge




                                                                                                fet
                              (be




                                                                                  y(
                             n(



                           isio




                             ity




                                                                 na
                                                   ge




                                                                                              Sa
                                                                               fet
                       isio




                         ibil
                          ty
                       ov




                                                              Sig
                                                 na




                                                                             Sa
                      ibil



                      ss
                     ov




                     Pr




                                              Sig
                    ss



                   ce
                  Pr




                 ce



                Ac
               Ac




Travel Information
Respondents were asked to indicate what method of obtaining travel information for a
specific journey have they used and how satisfied they were with the service they received.
Figure 33 highlights the results from the before and after survey. In both the before and after
survey the majority of respondents had used leaflets or timetables (41%) to find out about a
journey followed by asking the driver / conductor (27% before, 30% after) for journey
information. Overall respondents in both surveys were generally very satisfied or satisfied
with the information they had received;

In the before survey (Figure 34);
    § 95% were very satisfied or satisfied with the information they received via the
        internet, and 92% were very satisfied or satisfied with the information they received
        via the telephone helpline service.
    § Respondents were generally more dissatisfied with asking a driver for information
        and for information they had sought through a travel information centre.

In the after survey (Figure 35);
    a. 95% were very satisfied or satisfied with the information they received when they
       asked the driver or conductor and 91% were very satisfied or satisfied with the
       information they received from leaflets / timetables.
    b. Respondents were generally more dissatisfied with gathering travel information from
       telephone helplines, the internet and the local press.




The CATCH Consortium                                      130                                                                    13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                                           Final


Figure 33.     Before and After – What sources of information respondents had used to
gather travel information

                                   100%
                                                                                                                                           Don't know

                                                                                                                                           Not used

                                   80%                                                                                                     Used




                                   60%
                 Percentage




                                   40%



                                   20%



                                    0%
                                                                       )
                                                                    ter
                                                      ern )
                                                                    e




                                                                   e)




                                                                     )
                                                                  er)




                                                                  e)

                                                                 ter
                                                                for

                                                                (af
                                                               er)




                                                                  )




                                                               for




                                                                 )
                                                              ter




                                                              for
                                                               e)
                                                              aft




                                                             (af
                                                             ter
                                                              e)
                                           eta re)




                                                           (be
                                                               )
                                                            e)




                                                           be
                                                            et
                                                           aft




                                                           ter




                                                           for
                                                          (af




                                                          s(




                                                        (be
                                                         for




                                                        (af
                                                       for




                                                       od
                                                        fo

                                                      s(




                                                      s(




                                                     (be
                                                      (af




                                                     res
                                                      et
                                                     be
                                                    be




                                                   ice

                                                  be




                                                    rd




                                                  eth
                                                  od
                                                ern




                                                res
                                                ble




                                                 Int
                                                e(




                                              fice




                                                lP
                                               s(




                                              ua
                                             erv




                                               rd
                             orm ice (




                                             eth

                                            rm
                                            lP
                                           rvic




                                            Int




                                            ca

                                           ua
                                          ble




                                          /G
                                          Of
                          orm e S




                                         rm

                                         he
                                         ca

                                         Lo
                                          f




                                       /G
                                        Se
                                        im
                                       eta




                                        Of

                                       on




                                       er
                                      Lo




                                      Ot
                                       n




                                     he
                                    /T
                                   im




                                   on




                                    riv
                                   ho
                                   ne




                                   ati




                                   er




                                 Ot
                              dD
                                riv
                               /T




                               ho




                               ati
                              lep
                              ets




                           dD
                           lep
      ts




                           Te




                           ke
                           afl




                          Inf
  afle




                        Te
                        Le




                        ke

                       As
                       Inf

                       el
Le




                    As
                    av
                    el
                  av

                  Tr
                Tr




Figure 34.                                Before – Level of satisfaction with transport information sources
                   100%
                                                                                                                       Very satisfied

                        90%                                                                                            Satisfied

                                                                                                                       Neither / nor
                        80%                                                                                            Dissatisfied

                                                                                                                       Very dissatisfied
                        70%


                        60%
   Percentage




                        50%


                        40%


                        30%


                        20%


                        10%


                              0%
                                     Leaflets /   Telephone    Travel     Internet   Local Press   Asked       Other
                                    Timetables     Service  Information                            Driver /   method
                                                               Office                              Guard




The CATCH Consortium                                                           131                                                                13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                       Final


Figure 35.                  After – Level of satisfaction with transport information sources
              100%
                                                                                                          Very satisfied

                                                                                                          Satisfied
              90%
                                                                                                          Neither / nor

              80%                                                                                         Dissatisfied

                                                                                                          Very dissatisfied
              70%


              60%
 Percentage




              50%


              40%


              30%


              20%


              10%


               0%
                      Leaflets /   Telephone      Travel     Internet   Local Press   Asked       Other
                     Timetables     Service    Information                            Driver /   method
                                                  Office                              Guard




Health and Air Quality
In the after survey respondents were asked if they had heard of ECOtravel, and if so where
had they heard about it. 10% of respondents questioned had heard of ECOtravel and this was
generally from information displayed on electric / yellow / Birkenhead buses, from posters,
general advertising or from the press or media.

Respondents in both the before and after surveys were asked to indicated which road traffic
consequences of congestion cause them the greatest concern (Figure 36). If was evident that
in the after survey respondents were more concerned with the impacts to human health, 17%
more respondents stated that impacts on health was their major concern with road traffic
levels. In the before survey 14% more respondents were concerned with the local air
pollution than in the after survey. Concern levels for journey times, global warming, and
reduction safety for cyclists and pedestrians were approximately equal for the before and
after surveys.




The CATCH Consortium                                                132                                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                     Final


Figure 36.     Before and After – Consequences of congestion that cause greatest
concern
    100%
                                                            Other
     90%
                                                            Impacts on health
     80%

                                                            Reduced safety for cyclists &
     70%
                                                            pedestrians

     60%                                                    Global warming


     50%
                                                            Longer journey times

     40%
                                                            Local air pollution

     30%

     20%


     10%


     0%
                  Before                   After


To establish respondents’ opinions of the environmental situation respondents were asked to
state whether they agree or disagree with a number of different statements relating to air
quality, health and transport in Liverpool. The statements were:

•   I think the air quality in Liverpool is good (Figure 37)
•   The local authorities are doing a lot to improve the local air quality (Figure 38)
•   Poor air quality can affect quality of life (Figure 39)
•   I suffer from asthma, bronchitis or chronic coughing (Figure 40)
•   I think cars should be banned from the city centre when air quality is poor to help
    improve the situation (Figure 41)
•   I would like to know more about the levels of pollution in central Liverpool (Figure 42)
•   I would choose to change my travel patterns on days when I knew air quality was poor
    (Figure 43)
•   I would like to see traffic reduction measures introduced to improve air quality in the City
    Centre (Figure 44)
•   I would walk or cycle more if the air quality in Liverpool improves (Figure 45)

9% more respondents in the after survey indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed with
the statement ‘I think the air quality in Liverpool is good’. There was also a noticeable
difference in the results regarding the statement ‘The local authorities are doing a lot to
improve the local air quality’. In the before survey 29% of respondents agreed with this
statement, in the after survey this figure increase to 37%. Although a high percentage of
respondents (85%) in the before survey agreed that poor air quality can affect quality of life,
the percentage of respondents who agreed with this in the after survey increased to 95%. 3%
more respondents in the after survey indicated that they suffered from asthma, bronchitis or
chronic coughing.

Although a higher proportion of respondents in the after survey indicated they did not know
whether cars should be banned from the city centre when air quality is poor it was still
evident that 12% more respondents in the before survey disagree or disagreed strongly with


The CATCH Consortium                      133                                               13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                     Final


this statement. In the before survey when respondents were asked if they would like to know
more about the levels of pollution in central Liverpool more respondents indicated they
agreed or strongly agreed with this statement (47%), this figure decreased to 36% in the after
survey. Similar responses were received in the before and after survey concerning the
statement ‘I would choose to change my travel patterns on days when I knew air quality was
poor’. In the before survey 24% of respondents agreed (agreed and strongly agreed) with this
statement and in the after survey this figure increased to 26% of respondents. 68% of
respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement in the before survey and in
the after survey this decreased to 65% of respondents.

Only respondents in the after survey were asked if they would like to see traffic reduction
measures introduced to improve air quality in the City Centre. Results indicate that over 60%
of respondents agreed (51%) strongly agreed (12%) with this statement. ‘I would walk or
cycle more if the air quality in Liverpool improves’ statement was not asked in the before
survey, but results in the after survey indicate that over 50% of respondent did not think they
would walk any more if the air quality in Liverpool improves, 33% did agree or strongly
agree with the statement, therefore there is a 1 in 3 chance of respondents making a change in
the air quality improves.

Figure 37.     Before and After - ‘I think air quality is central Liverpool is good’

   100%
                                                                           Don't know
    90%                                                                    Agree strongly

    80%                                                                    Agree

                                                                           Disagree
    70%
                                                                           Disagree strongly
    60%


    50%


    40%


    30%


    20%


    10%


     0%
                       Before                         After




The CATCH Consortium                      134                                               13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                     Final


Figure 38.     Before and After - ‘The local authorities are doing a lot to improve the
local air quality’
   100%
                                                                           Don't know

    90%                                                                    Agree strongly

                                                                           Agree
    80%
                                                                           Disagree
    70%
                                                                           Disagree strongly

    60%


    50%


    40%


    30%


    20%


    10%


     0%
                       Before                         After



Figure 39.     Before and After - ‘Poor air quality can affect quality of life’
   100%
                                                                           Don't know
    90%                                                                    Agree strongly

    80%                                                                    Agree

                                                                           Disagree
    70%
                                                                           Disagree strongly
    60%


    50%


    40%


    30%

    20%


    10%


     0%
                       Before                        After




The CATCH Consortium                     135                                                13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                               Final


Figure 40.     Before and After - I suffer from asthma, bronchitis or chronic coughing’
   100%
                                                                         Don't know
    90%
                                                                         Agree strongly

    80%                                                                  Agree

                                                                         Disagree
    70%
                                                                         Disagree strongly

    60%


    50%


    40%


    30%


    20%


    10%


     0%
                       Before                       After

Figure 41.      Before and After - ‘I think cars should be banned from city centre when
air quality is poor to help improve the situation’
   100%
                                                                         Don't know
    90%                                                                  Agree strongly

    80%                                                                  Agree

                                                                         Disagree
    70%
                                                                         Disagree strongly

    60%


    50%


    40%


    30%


    20%


    10%


     0%
                       Before                       After




The CATCH Consortium                   136                                            13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                 Final


Figure 42.     Before and After - ‘I would like to know more about the level of pollution
in central Liverpool’
   100%
                                                                           Don't know
    90%                                                                    Agree strongly

                                                                           Agree
    80%
                                                                           Disagree
    70%                                                                    Disagree strongly

    60%


    50%


    40%


    30%


    20%


    10%


     0%
                          Before                       After




Figure 43.   Before and Afte r - ‘I would choose to change my travel patterns on days
when I knew air quality was poor’
   100%
                                                                           Don't know

    90%                                                                    Agree strongly
                                                                           Agree
    80%
                                                                           Disagree

    70%                                                                    Disagree strongly


    60%


    50%


    40%


    30%


    20%


    10%


     0%
                          Before                      After




The CATCH Consortium                    137                                             13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                 Final


Figure 44.    Before and After - ‘I would like to see traffic reduction measures
introduced to improve air quality in the City Centre
               100%
                                                                           Missing

                                                                           Don't know
                   90%
                                                                           Agree strongly

                   80%                                                     Agree

                                                                           Disagree

                   70%                                                     Disagree strongly



                   60%
 Percentage




                   50%


                   40%


                   30%


                   20%


                   10%


                   0%
                              Before                   After



Figure 45.   Before and After - ‘I would walk or cycle more if the air quality in
Liverpool improves
                    100%
                                                                             Missing

                                                                             Don't know
                     90%
                                                                             Agree strongly

                     80%                                                     Agree

                                                                             Disagree

                     70%                                                     Disagree strongly



                     60%
      Percentage




                     50%


                     40%


                     30%


                     20%


                     10%


                         0%
                                Before                  After




The CATCH Consortium                     138                                            13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                               Final



HOUSEHOLD SURVEY RESULTS

Overview
820 respondents (before survey), 525 respondents (after survey) took part in household
interview survey in May 2003 and 2005 respectively. 49% were male and 51% were fe male
in the before survey and 42% were male, 57% female in the after survey.

Respondents were asked to identify in both the before and after surveys their employment
status (Figure 46) and whether they had a disability which would impact on their transport
choices (Figure 47). Respondents in the before survey were more evenly split between the
four categories of employment, in the after survey a higher percentage of respondents were
identified as within the DE category, lower paid / unskilled workers. In both the before (26%)
and after (27%) survey a similar number of respondents stated they had a disability which
affected the choices they make when deciding on a mode of transport to use to get around the
city centre.

Figure 46.           Before and After – Employment status of respondents
              100%
                                                                   Not Stated

                                                                   DE
              90%
                                                                   C2
              80%                                                  C1

                                                                   AB
              70%


              60%
 Percentage




              50%


              40%


              30%


              20%


              10%


               0%
                         BEFORE                   AFTER




The CATCH Consortium                        139                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                Final


Figure 47.    Before and After - Respondents with a disability - impact on their
transport choice
                  100%
                                                                   Not stated

                  90%                                              Strong impact on transport choice


                                                                   Significant impact on transport
                  80%
                                                                   choice

                                                                   Little impact on transport choice
                  70%


                  60%
 Percentage




                  50%


                  40%


                  30%


                  20%


                  10%


                   0%
                              BEFORE                AFTER


Respondents in the after survey were asked to identify how many adults and children were in
each household, although the highest percentage of households (41%) had 2 adults in the
household this was followed closely by (39%) of households who had only 1 adult. The
greatest percent (63%) of households questioned had one child, followed by 2 children (14%)
and then 3 children (13%). When comparing the number of adults and children in each
household (see Figure 50), it is clear that between 60% and 74% of households with 1 – 4
adults have no children in the household, other statistics show;

              §     17% of households with 1 adult have 2 children and 13% have 1 child
              §     13% of households with 2 adults have 1 children and 12% have 2 children
              §     14% of households with 3 adults have 1 child and 8% have 2 children
              §     17% of households with 4 adults have 1 child and 11% have 1 child
              §     6% of households with 4 adults, 5% of households with 1 and 2 adults and 2% of
                    households with 3 adults have 3 children
              §     3% of households with 1 adult have 4 or more children
              §     7% of households with 2 adults have 4 or more children
              §     2% of households with 3 adults have 4 or more children
              §     3% of households with 4 adults have 4 or more children
              §     Households with 5 or more adults have no children




The CATCH Consortium                              140                                                  13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                              Final


Figure 48.     Number of adults in the household in the after survey

                                                 0%
                                            0%        0%
                                       7%




                      13%


                                                                          1 adult
                                                              39%
                                                                          2 adults
                                                                          3 adults
                                                                          4 adults
                                                                          5 adults
                                                                          6 adults
                                                                          7 adults




                            41%




Figure 49.     Number of children in the household in the after survey


                                             2%       1%
                                        2%
                                  5%




                   13%


                                                                       1 child
                                                                       2 children
                                                                       3 children
                                                                       4 children
                                                                       5 children
                14%                                                    6 children
                                                            63%        7 children




The CATCH Consortium                              141                                13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                     Final


Figure 50.               After survey only - Number of children and adults per household

                  100%
                                                                                                               6 children

                                                                                                               5 children
                  90%
                                                                                                               4 children

                                                                                                               3 children
                  80%
                                                                                                               2 children

                                                                                                               1 child
                  70%
                                                                                                               0 children

                  60%
     Percentage




                  50%


                  40%


                  30%


                  20%


                  10%


                   0%
                         1 adult   2 adults   3 adults   4 adults   5 adults   6 adults       7 adults


Figure 51 and 52 highlights that although the majority of respondents in the before and after
surveys were classed as ‘White, British’ a significant minority (12%) were of Chinese origin
in the before survey and ‘Black, British’ (6%) in the after survey. In both surveys
respondents were from a broad ethnic mix of backgrounds.

Figure 51.               Ethnic origin of respondents in the Before Survey

                                                                                          White British
                                                                                          White Irish
                                                                                          Other White
                                                                                          White and black Caribbean
                                                                                          White and black African
                                                                                          White and Asian
                                                                                          Other mixed
                                                                                          Asian British
                                                                                          Indian
                                                                                          Pakistani
                                                                                          Bangladeshi
                                                                                          Other Asian
                                                                                          Black British
                                                                                          Black Caribbean
                                                                                          Black African
                                                                                          Other Black
                                                                                          Chinese
                                                                                          Other Ethnic Group
                                                                                          Not Stated




The CATCH Consortium                                     142                                                                13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                              Final


Figure 52.            Ethnic origin of respondents in the After Survey


                                                                     White British
                                                                     White Irish
                                                                     Other White
                                                                     White and black Caribbean
                                                                     White and black African
                                                                     White and Asian
                                                                     Other mixed
                                                                     Asian British
                                                                     Indian
                                                                     Pakistani
                                                                     Bangladeshi
                                                                     Other Asian
                                                                     Black British
                                                                     Black Caribbean
                                                                     Black African
                                                                     Other Black
                                                                     Chinese
                                                                     Other Ethnic Group
                                                                     Not Stated




Satisfaction with Liverpool
Respondents were asked to indicate how satisfied they were with Liverpool as a place to live.
Similar responses were received in the before and after survey, although the fairly satisfied
and very satisfied were reversed in the two surveys, fairly satisfied 36% (before) and 51%
(after), very satisfied 51% (before) and 36% (after).

Figure 53.    Before and After – How satisfied respondents are with Liverpool as a
place to Live
               100%
                                                                             Very satisfied

                                                                             Fairly satisfied
               90%
                                                                             Neither satisfied nor
                                                                             dissatisfied
               80%                                                           Fairly dissatisfied

                                                                             Very dissatisfied
               70%


               60%
  Percentage




               50%


               40%


               30%


               20%


               10%


                0%
                            BEFORE                    AFTER




The CATCH Consortium                          143                                                    13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                         Final


Assessing respondents level of satisfaction with the area as a place to live by access to a car it
is evident that respondents in the after study who did have access to a car were more
dissatisfied (dissatisfied / very dissatisfied) with Liverpool as a place to live. The difference
between the groups of respondents was only a small percentage, 13% of respondents who had
access to a car as a driver, 12% of respondents who had access to a car as a passenger and
12% of respondents who did not have access to car were dissatisfied with Liverpool as a
place to live. In the before survey the same differences between the groups of respondents
was noticed, respondents who had access to a car as a driver (13%) were the most dissatisfied
(dissatisfied / very dissatisfied) with Liverpool as a place to live.

Respondents were asked to consider trips that they make regularly and to identify how easy it
is to get to these places, the distance from home and the mode of transport they use to travel
to each of these key services. Figure 54 (before) and 55 (after) highlights the results of the
surveys stating the ease of access to places such as work, shopping, hospitals and schools.
Overall respondents considered it easier to get to key services in the after survey although the
level of ease was described more often in the before survey as being very easy. In the after
survey fewer respondents thought access to these services was very easy but easy.

Figure 54.             Before – Ease of access to key services
              100%
                                                                                                 Not stated

              90%                                                                                Very easy

                                                                                                 Easy
              80%
                                                                                                 Neither /nor

              70%                                                                                Difficult

                                                                                                 Very
              60%                                                                                difficult
 Percentage




              50%


              40%


              30%


              20%


              10%


               0%
                     Work     Food     Doctors   Hospital   Local Shops Children's   Education
                            shopping                        / Post Office School




The CATCH Consortium                                  144                                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                            Final


Figure 55.              After – Ease of access to key services
               100%
                                                                                                  Not stated
               90%                                                                                Very easy

                                                                                                  Easy
               80%
                                                                                                  Neither /nor

               70%                                                                                Difficult

                                                                                                  Very difficult
               60%
  Percentage




               50%


               40%


               30%


               20%


               10%


                0%
                      Work     Food     Doctors   Hospital   Local Shops Children's   Education
                             shopping                        / Post Office School


Respondents in the after study who had access to a car did find accessing key services
slightly easier with a car, especially services such as food shopping where only 4% of
respondents who had access to a car as a driver found in difficult / very difficult to access
compared to 10% of respondents who only had access to a car a passenger and 11% of
respondents who did not have access to a car. In the before study respondents who had access
to a car as a passenger found it the most difficult to access food shopping services, 16%
found it difficult / very difficult to access food shopping. Overall it can be stated that in both
the before and after survey respondents stated having access to a car as a driver does make
accessing key services easier.

On discussing key services, respondents were asked to specify how far the key services were
from their home. In the before and after survey, it was clear that the services were generally
within 0-2 miles radius of at least 50% of respondents homes. In the before survey a higher
proportion of respondents indicated they would have to travel up to 5 miles to visit a hospital
(25%), in the after survey this figure rose to 33% of respondents.




The CATCH Consortium                                   145                                                         13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                            Final


Figure 56.               Before – How far key services are from respondents home
                100%
                                                                                                     Not stated
                                                                                                     20+ miles
                                                                                                     11-20 miles
                80%
                                                                                                     6-10 miles
                                                                                                     3-5 miles
                                                                                                     0-2 miles

                60%
   Percentage




                40%




                20%




                 0%
                       Work     Food     Doctors   Hospital   Local Shops Children's    Education
                              shopping                        / Post Office School



Figure 57.               After – How far key services are from respondents home
                100%
                                                                                                    Not stated

                90%                                                                                 20+ miles

                                                                                                    11-20 miles
                80%
                                                                                                    6-10 miles
                70%
                                                                                                    3-5 miles

                60%                                                                                 0-2 miles
  Percentage




                50%


                40%


                30%


                20%


                10%


                 0%
                       Work     Food     Doctors   Hospital   Local Shops Children's   Education
                              shopping                        / Post Office School


Finally on this section respondents were asked to state what mode of transport they would use
to get to and from the key services discussed. In the after survey respondents seemed to use
the bus and the car more for going food shopping and to access the local shops and post
office. In the after survey it was also more evident that respondents who access education
facilities would more likely to walk than use the car or bus as indicated in the before survey.
These results can be seen in figure 58, before survey and 59, after survey.




The CATCH Consortium                                    146                                                        13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                            Final


Figure 58.                       Before – Mode of transport used most often to visit key services
                   100%
                                                                                                                  Not stated

                                                                                                                  Not applicable

                                                                                                                  Other

                    80%                                                                                           Taxi

                                                                                                                  Bicycle

                                                                                                                  Motorcycle

                                                                                                                  Walk

                    60%                                                                                           ferry
  Percentage




                                                                                                                  Train

                                                                                                                  Bus

                                                                                                                  Car
                    40%




                    20%




                    0%
                          Work      Food shopping   Doctors   Hospital   Local Shops /   Children's   Education
                                                                          Post Office     School


Figure 59.                       After – Mode of transport used to visit key services
                   100%
                                                                                                                  Not stated

                                                                                                                  Not applicable

                                                                                                                  Other
                                                                                                                  Taxi
                    80%
                                                                                                                  Bicycle

                                                                                                                  Motorcycle
                                                                                                                  Walk

                    60%                                                                                           ferry
  Percentage




                                                                                                                  Train

                                                                                                                  Bus
                                                                                                                  Car

                    40%




                    20%




                    0%
                          Work      Food shopping   Doctors   Hospital   Local Shops /   Children's   Education
                                                                          Post Office     School




Parking in Liverpool
Respondents were asked to state whether they thought parking was ever a problem at any of
the following locations:

               §      Workplace / Education
               §      Food Shops
               §      Doctors Surgery
               §      Hospital


The CATCH Consortium                                                 147                                                           13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                                 Final


               §      Local Shops / Post Office
               §      Children’s School
               §      Home

In the before survey 23% of respondents stated they did not have access to a car, of these
respondents the greatest percentage of respondents indicated car parking was a problem at
hospitals due to lack of spaces and at home due to vandalism (see Figure 60). Of the 25% of
respondents who owned a car in the after survey, respondents indicated parking was mainly a
problem due to the lack of parking spaces, especially at the hospital. Figure 60 highlights the
results from the after survey. No one in the after survey considered vandalism to be a
problem.

Figure 60.                          Before – Locations and reasons why car parking can be a problem
                   100%
                                                                                                                 Not stated

                     90%                                                                                         Not applicable

                     80%                                                                                         No problem

                                                                                                                 Yes - because of vandalism
                     70%
                                                                                                                 Yes - lack of parking spaces
                     60%                                                                                         available
  Percentage




                     50%

                     40%

                     30%

                     20%

                     10%

                       0%
                                                                                                             e
                                                                                                            m
                                                                 ital
                                             s




                                                                                                          Ho
                                                        ry
                                           op




                                                               sp
                                n




                                                                                                      l
                                                                                                    oo
                                                     rge
                            atio



                                         sh




                                                             Ho



                                                                                ice



                                                                                                  ch
                          uc




                                                   su
                                      od




                                                                             off



                                                                                              's s
                       /ed



                                    Fo



                                                  r's




                                                                          st



                                                                                            en
                                               cto
                    ork




                                                                        po



                                                                                        ildr
                   W




                                             Do




                                                                       s/



                                                                                      Ch
                                                                     op
                                                                 l sh
                                                               ca
                                                             Lo




The CATCH Consortium                                                            148                                                     13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                          Final


Figure 61.             After – Locations and reasons why car parking can be a problem
               100%
                                                                                          Not Applicable

               90%                                                                        No problem

               80%                                                                        Yes - lack of parking spaces
                                                                                          available
               70%

               60%
  Percentage




               50%

               40%


               30%

               20%

               10%

                0%
                      work     food     doctots   hospital    local    childrens   home
                             shopping   surgery              shops /    school
                                                              post
                                                              office

To establish how respondents travel to, from or within the Liverpool Management Area
respondents were asked to state how often they would make a journey by a particular mode of
transport. Results can be seen in Figure 62 (before survey), and Figure 63 (after survey). It is
clear in the before (72%) and after (71%) survey a high percentage of respondents walk at
least 5 day days a week. In the before survey 20% of respondents used the bus at least 5 days
week and 24% at least once a week, in the after survey these figures increased 63% of
respondents using the bus more than once a week (29% using the bus at least 5 days a week,
34% at least once a week).

Figure 64 details respondents three most important influences on how respondent travel
within and around the Liverpool Air Quality Management Area. Journey time, access to the
destination and reliability remain the three most important influences in both the before and
after survey. In the before survey reliability and cost were given a greater level of importance
when compared to the after survey. In the after survey journey time, parking availability and
comfort increased in importance level.

In the before survey it was clear that traffic in the Liverpool Air Quality Management area
did affect whether respondents decided to walk to make a journey, in the after survey this
figure has reduced by 19%, with more respondents indicating that the traffic levels do not
influence whether they make a journey by foot, see Figure 65. Results to the question ‘does
traffic in the Liverpool Air Quality Management area ever influence the time you travel’ were
very similar to the previous question, with more respondents from the after survey indicating
that traffic levels do not influence a journey by foot.




The CATCH Consortium                                     149                                                     13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                                        Final


Figure 62.  Before – How respondents travel to, from or within the Liverpool Air
Quality Management Area
                   100%
                                                                                                                          Never

                                                                                                                          Rarely

                                                                                                                          At least once a month
                    80%
                                                                                                                          At least once a week

                                                                                                                          5 days / week or more

                    60%
  Percentage




                    40%




                    20%




                      0%
                                                                         alk
                                                          ain




                                                                                                                    r
                                                                                                          xi
                                                                                                 cle
                                                                  rry




                                                                                                                  he
                                                                                      cle




                                                                                                        Ta
                                                    s




                                                                Fe
                                                  Bu




                                                                        W
                                                        Tr
                                       r




                                                                                               cy




                                                                                                                Ot
                                   rive




                                                                                   rcy
                                   er




                                                                                             Bi
                                             blic
                                sd



                                 ng




                                                                                oto
                                           Pu
                              se
                            r, a




                                                                               M
                           as
                          Ca


                         sp
                     r, a
                   Ca




Figure 63.  After – How respondents travel to, from or within the Liverpool Air
Quality Management Area

                   100%
                                                                                                                        Never

                     90%                                                                                                Rarely

                                                                                                                        At least once a month
                     80%
                                                                                                                        At least once a week

                     70%                                                                                                5 days / week or more


                     60%
      Percentage




                     50%

                     40%

                     30%

                     20%

                     10%

                       0%
                                                                  rry


                                                                         alk




                                                                                                         xi
                                                          ain




                                                                                                                   r
                                                                                                 le




                                                                                                                 he
                                                                                      cle




                                                                                                       Ta
                                                    s




                                                                                               yc
                                                                Fe


                                                                        W
                                                  Bu



                                                        Tr
                                      r




                                                                                                               Ot
                                  rive




                                                                                   rcy


                                                                                            Bic
                                   er


                                             blic
                                 ng




                                                                                oto
                                sd


                               se


                                           Pu
                            r, a




                                                                               M
                           as
                          Ca


                         sp
                     r, a
                   Ca




The CATCH Consortium                                                     150                                                                   13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                    Final


Figure 64.     Before and After - Three most important influences on how respondents
travel within and around the Liverpool Air Quality Management Area
                   100%
                                                                       Not Stated

                                                                       Other

                                                                       Comfort
                   80%
                                                                       Environmentally
                                                                       Friendly
                                                                       Parking Availability

                                                                       Free Parking
                                                                       Available
                   60%                                                 Cost
  Percentage




                                                                       My Health

                                                                       Easy Access to
                                                                       Destination
                   40%                                                 Journey Time

                                                                       Reliability

                                                                       Easy Access to
                                                                       Vehicle
                   20%




                    0%
                          Before                   After



Figure 65.    Before and After – Respondents indication as to whether traffic in the
Liverpool Air Quality Management Area influences travel by different modes
                   100%
                                                                                     Not stated
                                                                                     Cycling
                    90%
                                                                                     Walking
                                                                                     Bus
                    80%
                                                                                     Car


                    70%


                    60%
      Percentage




                    50%


                    40%


                    30%


                    20%


                    10%


                     0%
                             Before                        After




The CATCH Consortium                   151                                                 13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                      Final


Traffic Levels in Liverpool
Respondents were asked to describe the traffic levels in their home location and in central
Liverpool. Results can be seen in Figure 66 and 67. In the before survey 45% of respondents
described traffic levels at their home location as acceptable and 43% felt they were high or
very high. In the after survey the percentage of respondents who described traffic levels as
low or very low had decreased to only 2% who felt they were low or very low. Acceptable
traffic levels had increased by 4% and respondents who indicated traffic levels were high or
very high had increased by 7%.

Looking at the wider area, central Liverpool 68% of respondents in the before survey
described traffic levels as high or very high. In the after survey this figure increased to 79%
of respondents who considered traffic levels to be high or very high. It is also noted that the
small number of respondents who did described traffic levels as low / very low in the before
survey diminished in the after survey to no respondents considering traffic levels to be of this
condition.

Figure 66.   Before and After – How respondents describe the traffic levels in their
home location
               100%
                                                                                Not stated

                                                                                Very high
               90%
                                                                                High

                                                                                Acceptable
               80%
                                                                                Low

                                                                                Very low
               70%


               60%
  Percentage




               50%


               40%


               30%


               20%


               10%


                0%
                          Before                          After




The CATCH Consortium                      152                                                13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                          Final


Figure 67.            Before and After – How respondents describe the traffic levels in central
Liverpool
               100%
                                                                                    Not stated

                                                                                    Very high
               90%
                                                                                    High

                                                                                    Acceptable
               80%
                                                                                    Low

                                                                                    Very low
               70%


               60%
  Percentage




               50%


               40%


               30%


               20%


               10%


                0%
                               Before                          After




Public Transport in Liverpool
Respondents were asked whether they thought public transport offers a suitable option for
travel within the Liverpool Air Quality Management Area. In the before survey 23% of
respondents thought public transport could offer a suitable alternative for all trips made in the
city centre (26% in the after survey) and 57% thought it could offer an alternative for some
trips (59% in the after survey). In general results were very similar between the two studies,
indicating that for the majority of trips respondents feel public transport could offer a suitable
option for their mode by which to travel (Figure 68).

When asked if respondents thought the quality of public transport had improved over the last
3 years, more respondents in the after survey felt it was getting better. In the before study
25% of respondents and in the after survey 34% of respondents stated the quality of public
transport has improved.




The CATCH Consortium                           153                                               13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                 Final


Figure 68.   Before and After – Could public transport offer a suitable option for all,
some or none of trips made
                     100%
                                                                         Not stated

                                                                         Don't know
                     90%
                                                                         All trips

                     80%                                                 Some trips

                                                                         No trips
                     70%


                     60%
 Percentage




                     50%


                     40%


                     30%


                     20%


                     10%


                      0%
                             Before                  After



Figure 69.    Before and After – Has the quality of public transport changed over the
last 3 years.
                      100%
                                                                                      Not stated

                                                                                      Don't know
                       90%
                                                                                      Better

                                                                                      No change
                       80%
                                                                                      Worse

                       70%


                       60%
        Percentage




                       50%


                       40%


                       30%


                       20%


                       10%


                       0%
                               BEFORE                        AFTER




The CATCH Consortium                    154                                              13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                Final


Travelling Attributes
For all journeys made by public transport, respondents were asked to rate the following
attributes; Punctuality, Reliability, Comfort, Cost, Journey time, Accessibility, Safety and
Range of Destinations.

Figure 70.              Before and After - Respondents answers to Bus Attributes
                 100%
                                                                                   not stated

                  90%                                                              don’t know
                                                                                   very good
                  80%                                                              good
                                                                                   neither / nor
                  70%
                                                                                   poor
                                                                                   very poor
                  60%
  Percentage




                  50%

                  40%

                  30%

                  20%

                  10%

                   0%
                                                               )
                                       Co fter)


                                              Co )
                                                           ter




                                       (be ter)
                                      liab re)

                                                             )




                                                            e




                                                           e)
                                                          re)




                                                            r)
                                                         er)




                                                         ter
                                       tua e)




                                                        er)
                                                        for




                                                         e)

                                                       fte
                                                      (af




                                                      for
                                                     re)
                                                      fo




                     e o tions ty (af
                                                    efo
                                                        r

                                                     aft




                                                   t (a
                                                    (af




                                                    for
                              Pu (befo




                                                  (be




                                                    aft




                                                   er)
                                                   (a

                                                  be
                                                 (be




                             tina fore)
                            urn (befo
                                                   st
                             Re lity (




                                               t (b




                                              (be
                                                e(
                                               for
                                              ility




                                               aft
                                              lity

                                              y(

                                               fe
                                               st
                                            ity




                          Ac Tim
                                           m




                                         Sa




                                          s(
                                          for
                                         lity




                                         ibi

                                         fet
                                        ity
                                         e
                                      bil




                                    Co




                                   tion
                                     m




                                 Tim




                                     ss

                                   Sa
                                  tua




                                    ibil
                                  nc



                                 Re
                                  lia




                                 ey
                                Co




                                ce
                                ss
                               nc




                             ey



                            ce

                            Ac
                           Pu




                             a

                           es
                          urn




                Ra estin
                          Jo




                        fD
                        Jo




                      fD
                   eo

                   ng
                 ng
               Ra




The CATCH Consortium                            155                                    13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                   Final


Figure 71.             Before & After - Respondents answers to Train Attributes
                100%
                                                                                   not stated

                 90%                                                               don’t know
                                                                                   very good
                 80%                                                               good
                                                                                   neither / nor
                 70%
                                                                                   poor
                 60%                                                               very poor
   Percentage




                 50%

                 40%

                 30%

                 20%

                 10%

                 0%
              urn (befo )
                                               e)

                                                 r




                         (be fter)
                                               e)
                          Co fter)
                                            re)




                                             fte
                                            er)

                       liab ore)

                                               )




                                               )
                                           for




                      ss ore)
                                          er)
                                          ter




                                          ter
                         tua e)




                                          for
                                        re)
                    Tim t (a
                                      efo
                                       aft




                                        (a
                                     t (a
                                         r




                                    (be
                                    (af




                                     aft




                                    be




                                    er)
                                    (af
                Pu (befo




                                        f




                      on )
                                  (be
               Re lity (




                                    e
               ey Cos




               atio afety
                                     f
                                 t (b




                               (be
                                 e(
                                 for




                                for

                                aft
                                y(
                              ility




                              lity
                                st
                            for

                             m




                        Tim




                            s(
                            fet
                            ity
                          lity




                           ibi
                         lity




                           S
                            e
                      Co
                       m
                       bil




                     Sa
                    tua

                     nc




                     ibi




                    ns
                  Re

                  Co




                   ey
                   lia




                  ati
                  ce
                 ss
                 nc




               tin
              Ac
              ce
             Pu




            urn




             es
  Ra estin
            Jo

           Ac




          fD
          Jo




        fD

       eo
     eo

     ng
   ng
 Ra




Figure 72.             Before & After - Respondents answers to Ferry Attributes
                100%
                                                                                   not stated
                                                                                   don’t know
                                                                                   very good
                80%                                                                good
                                                                                   neither / nor
                                                                                   poor

                60%                                                                very poor
  Percentage




                40%



                20%



                 0%
              urn (befo )
                                                e)

                                                  r




             es (befo r)
                                                e)
                          Co fter)
                                              re)




                                              fte




                                                )
                       liab re)

                                                )




                                              te
                                            er)
                         tua e)




                                            for




                                            er)




                                           ter
                                           ter




                                           for
                      ss ore)
                                          re)
                    Tim t (a
                                        efo




                                          (af
                                            r




                                      t (a
                                         fo




                                     (be
                                       aft
                Pu (befo




                                       aft



                                      (af
                                      (af




                                     be




                                     er)
                                    re)
                                  (be




               ey Cos




               atio afety
                                  t (b




                                       f
               Re lity (




              ce me (

                                (be
                                  for




                                 y(
                               ility




                                lity




                                aft
                                  st
                             for

                             m




                            fet
                            ity
                          lity




                          s(
                           ibi




                           S
                           e




                         ity
                         Ti
                      Co
                       m
                       bil




                      Sa
                     tua




                    tion
                     ibil
                    nc




                    ns
                   ey
                   Re

                   Co
                   lia




                  ce
                  ss
                 nc




               tina
              Ac
             Pu




            urn




  Ra estin
            Jo

           Ac




          fD
          Jo




        fD

       eo
     eo

     ng
   ng
 Ra




Respondents were also asked to rate certain issues concerned with walking and cycling, the
issues addresses in both the before and after surveys were; provision of footpaths, cycle ways,
Accessibility of footpaths / cycle ways, Signage of footpaths / cycle ways and Safety of


The CATCH Consortium                          156                                         13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                     Final


footpaths / cycle ways. Figure 73 and 74 shows the results for the before and after surveys of
respondents who commented on walking and cycling attributes.

Figure 73.              Before and After – Respondents opinions to walking attributes
                 100%
                                                                           Not Stated
                                                                           Don’t Know

                                                                           Very Good
                  80%
                                                                           Good
                                                                           Neither / Nor

                  60%                                                      Poor
 Percentage




                                                                           Very Poor



                  40%



                  20%



                  0%




                                                              er)
                                                              e)
                                                               )
                                                             e)



                                                           ter



                                                          for



                                                          aft
                                                          e)




                                                            )
                                                         er)




                                                         for
                                                        ter




                                                       (af
                                                       e)
                                                      for




                                                     be



                                                      s(
                                                    (be
                                                     aft




                                                    (af
                                                    for




                                                  ths
                                                 (be




                                                 ath
                                                  s(
                                                  s(



                                                (be



                                               ths



                                               ths
                                              ath




                                              tpa



                                              ath



                                             otp
                                             ths




                                          tpa
                                           ths




                                          tpa
                                         otp




                                         foo



                                        otp



                                        f fo
                                       tpa




                                     tpa



                                    foo



                                    foo
                                    ffo




                                   f fo



                                   yo
                                    of
                                  foo




                                foo
                                no




                                 of



                                 of



                               ge



                               yo



                               fet
                               of




                             ity
                           isio




                            ge
                             of




                           na




                          Sa
                          fet
        n




                         ibil
    isio




                        ity




                       na
                       ov




                      Sig



                      Sa
                      ss
                     ibil




                   Sig
                    Pr
  ov




                  ce
                  ss
Pr




                ce



               Ac
              Ac




Figure 74.              Before and After – Respondents opinions to cycling attributes
                 100%
                                                                            Not Stated
                  90%                                                       Don’t Know

                                                                            Very Good
                  80%
                                                                            Good
                  70%
                                                                            Neither / Nor
 Percentage




                  60%                                                       Poor

                                                                            Very Poor
                  50%

                  40%

                  30%

                  20%

                  10%

                  0%
                                                               e)
                                                              e)
                                                             er)




                                                             er)
                                                               )
                                                               )




                                                            for
                                                             e)




                                                           ter
                                                           ter



                                                          for
                                                         aft




                                                         aft
                                                        for




                                                       be
                                                       (af
                                                      (af
                                                      e)




                                                    (be




                                                     s(
                                                    s(
                                                   (be




                                                   s(
                                                   for




                                                  ths
                                                 ths




                                                 ath
                                                 ath




                                                ths
                                               (be




                                               ath
                                              ths




                                             tpa
                                            tpa




                                            otp
                                            otp




                                           tpa




                                          otp
                                          ths
                                         tpa




                                        foo




                                       f fo
                                      foo
                                      f fo




                                     foo
                                    tpa




                                    f fo
                                   foo




                                  yo
                                    of
                                 no




                                  of
                                foo




                                yo
                                 of



                                ge
                                of




                               fet
                             lity
                           isio




                            ge



                          na



                          fet
                            of




                          Sa
        n




                         ibi
    isio




                      na
                       ity
                      ov




                     Sa
                     Sig
                     ss
                    ibil
  ov




                  Sig
                   Pr




                  ce
                  ss
Pr




                ce



               Ac
              Ac




Respondents were asked to indicate the three main factors that would influence whether they
would walk or cycle to make a journey. In the before survey the main reasons given were;
distance (29%), weather (26%) and time it takes to make the journey (13%). In the after
surve y, results were very similar; with the three main reasons being weather (32%), distance
(32%) and time taken to make the journey (17%). These results can be seen in Figure 75.



The CATCH Consortium                            157                                         13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                 Final


Percentage results for habit and safety have both decreased in the after survey, habit by 4%
and safety by 5%.

Figure 75.   Before and After - Three main factors that influence whether or not
respondent walk or cycle




                  BEFORE                                            AFTER


         Distance                  Weather                   No footpath / cycleway

         Habit                     Disability                Need to combine journeys

         Safety                    Time taken                Subsequent Journeys

         Other                     Not Stated



To establish how many people in the household owned a bicycle respondents were asked to
state whether adults or children had a bicycle (see Figure 76). The number of adults without
bicycles increased in the after survey and the number of children without bicycles decreased.
Bicycle ownership for adults decreased in the after survey by 4%, but the number of children
with bicycles increased by 7% overall.

Although the percentage of adults who make a journey by bicycle at least once a week has
decreased in the after survey the percentage of adults who make a journey by bicycle for
pleasure at least once a month has increased. It is also noted that the number of respondents
who indicated that they rarely make a trip for pleasure or purpose by bicycle has decreased in
the after survey (see Figure 77 for adult responses, Figure 78 for children’s responses). The
percentage of children who make a journey at least once a week by bicycle for pleasure has
increased by 4% and those who make a journey for a purpose at least once a week has
increased by 5%.




The CATCH Consortium                       158                                          13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                                    Final


Figure 76.                 Before and After – Bicycle Ownership
               100%
                                                                                                                             6 people or
                                                                                                                             more
                90%                                                                                                          5 people

                                                                                                                             4 people
                80%
                                                                                                                             3 people
                70%
                                                                                                                             2 people

                60%                                                                                                          1 person
  Percentage




                                                                                                                             nobody
                50%


                40%


                30%


                20%


                10%


                 0%
                         Adults (Before)          Adults (After)         Children (before)       Children (after)

Figure 77.                 Before and After – How often adults travel by bicycle and for what reason
               100%
                                                                                                                    Never

               90%                                                                                                  Rarely

               80%                                                                                                  At least once a
                                                                                                                    month
               70%                                                                                                  At least once a
                                                                                                                    week

               60%
 Percentage




               50%


               40%


               30%


               20%


               10%


                0%
                      Adults for pleasure   Adults for pleasure    Adults for purpose   Adults for purpose
                           (before)               (after)               (before)              (after)




The CATCH Consortium                                               159                                                                     13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                        Final


Figure 78.                Before and After – How often children travel by bicycle and for what
reason
              100%
                                                                                                             Never

              90%
                                                                                                             Rarely
              80%
                                                                                                             At least once a
              70%                                                                                            month

                                                                                                             At least once a
              60%                                                                                            week
 Percentage




              50%


              40%


              30%


              20%


              10%


               0%
                     Children for pleasure Children for pleasure Children for purpose Children for purpose
                            (before)              (after)              (before)              (after)



Travel Information in Liverpool
Respondents were asked to indicate if they have used any method of obtaining travel
information for a specific journey and if so to state if they were satisfied with the service they
received. The majority of respondents (30%) in the before survey had used travel leaflets to
obtain information about a trip / journey, in the after survey this altered to the majority of
respondents (26%) obtaining information from travel information centres. The three main
methods of obtaining travel information in both the before and after survey were travel
leaflets, asking a member of staff or a travel information centre (see Figure 79).

Respondents were asked to state how satisfied they were with the information they had
received about their selected journey. In the before survey respondents were highly satisfied
(either satisfied or very satisfied) with the information they had received from travel
information centres (95%), local press (92%) and travel information leaflets (91%). Although
a small percentage (6%) the greatest number of respondents was dissatisfied with the
information they had received through using telephone travel information centres. In the after
survey a very high percentage (97%) of respondents were satisfied (51% very satisfied) with
the information they had received from the Internet. Although still a small percentage of
respondents, dissatisfaction (dissatisfied or very dissatisfied) remained with the telephone
travel centres (6%), but also with travel leaflets (5%) and asking a member of staff for
information (6%). Levels of satisfaction given for different sources of travel information can
be seen in Figure 80 and 81.




The CATCH Consortium                                             160                                                           13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                         Final


Figure 79.     Before and After – Sources of information respondents used to obtain
travel details




               BEFORE                                                        AFTER

             Leaflets / Timetables                      Telephone service

             Travel information office/ travel centre   Internet

             Local press                                Asking a driver, guard or other staff

             Other




The CATCH Consortium                            161                                             13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                    Final


Figure 80.       Before – Level of satisfaction from different sources of travel information
   100%
                                                                                                               Not Stated

                                                                                                               Very Satisfied

                                                                                                               Satisfied

    80%                                                                                                        Neither / Nor

                                                                                                               Dissatisfied

                                                                                                               Very Dissatisfied


    60%




    40%




    20%




     0%
           Leaflets /   Telephone     Travel         Internet       Local press    Asking a       Other
          Timetables     service  information                                       driver,
                                  office/ travel                                   guard or
                                      centre                                      other staff

Figure 81.       After – Level of satisfaction from different sources of travel information
   100%
                                                                                                             Very Satisfied
    90%
                                                                                                             Satisfied

    80%                                                                                                      Neither / Nor

                                                                                                             Dissatisfied
    70%
                                                                                                             Very Dissatisfied
    60%


    50%


    40%


    30%


    20%


    10%


     0%
           Leaflets /     Telephone          Travel             Internet    Local press       Asking a
          Timetables       service       information                                        driver, guard
                                         office/ travel                                     or other staff
                                             centre




The CATCH Consortium                                      162                                                              13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                       Final


Health and Air Quality
In the after survey respondents were asked if they had heard of ECOtravel, and if so where
had they heard about it. 14% of respondents questioned had heard of ECOtravel and this was
generally from information displayed on buses / environmentally friendly buses, from general
advertising or from the press or media.

Respondents were asked to indicate which road traffic consequences of congestion cause
them the greatest concern (Figure 82). In the before survey air pollution was the largest
concern with 35% of respondents stating it was their main concern. In the after survey, the
number of respondents who felt air pollution was their greatest concern has decreased to 28%
of respondents, in the after survey the main concern was longer journey times (21%). It is
noted that the percentage of respondents who stated the impacts on health as a major concern
of congestion levels have decreased from 17% to 13%. The percentage of respondents (11%)
who felt the reduced safety for cyclists and pedestrians was a cause for concern increased in
the after survey to 19%. It is clear respondents now feel that longer journey times and a
reduction in the safety for cyclists and pedestrians are now greater concerns than previous
considered in the before survey.

Figure 82.           Before and After – Consequences of congestion that cause the greatest
concern
              100%
                                                                       Not stated

                                                                       Other

                                                                       Impacts on health
              80%

                                                                       Reduced safety for cyclists &
                                                                       pedestrians
                                                                       Global warming
              60%
 Percentage




                                                                       Longer journey times

                                                                       Local air pollution


              40%




              20%




               0%
                           Before                    After

To find out respondents’ opinions of the environmental situation in Liverpool and their
reaction to it, respondents were asked to state whether they agree or disagree with a number
of different environmental statements relating to air quality health and transport (see Figures
83 and 84).

There was strong agreement in both the before and after survey that poor air quality can
affect the quality of life. The number of respondents who agreed and greatly agreed with this



The CATCH Consortium                         163                                              13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                                         Final


statement were very similar between the two surveys, in the before survey 92% and in the
after survey 91% agreed / greatly agreed with the statement. Other points noticed from asking
for respondents opinions to these statements can be seen below:

               §    Approximately 40% in both the before and after survey do not think air quality in
                    central Liverpool is good.
               §    42% of respondents in the before and 53% of respondents in the after survey are still
                    unsure whether local authorities are doing anything to improve the local air quality.
               §    Similar percentages of respondents (in the before (28%) and after (27%) surveys)
                    suffer with asthma, bronchitis or chronic coughing
               §    The percentage of respondents who wanted to know more about pollution levels in
                    central Liverpool had reduced by 13% in the after survey.
               §    11% more respondents indicated that they would choose to change their travel
                    patterns on days when they know air quality was poor.

Two additional questions were asked to respondents in the after survey which were not asked
in the before survey, these were;
- I would like to see traffic reduction measures introduced to improve air quality in the City
Centre, and
- I would walk or cycle more if the air quality in Liverpool improves

Results show that many respondents (68%) would like to see traffic reduction measures
introduced into the city centre with the aim of improving the air quality in the city centre.
Although respondents indicated they wanted traffic reduction measures to help improve the
environmental situation, it is interesting to note that an equal split of respondents felt they
would (43%) and would not (42%) walk or cycle if the air quality in Liverpool improves.

Figure 83.                    Before – Level of agreement with air quality statements
                   100%
                                                                                                                            Not Stated

                                                                                                                            Don’t Know

                   80%                                                                                                      Agree Strongly

                                                                                                                            Agree

                                                                                                                            Disagree
  Percentage




                   60%
                                                                                                                            Disagree Strongly


                   40%



                   20%



                    0%
                           I think the    The local   Poor air I suffer from    I think cars     I would like    I would
                          air quality in authorities quality can  asthma,        should be         to know     choose to
                          Liverpool is are doing a     affect    bronchitis        banned       more about change my
                              good           lot to   quality of or chronic    from the city    the levels of     travel
                                         improve the    life     coughing      centre when       pollution in patterns on
                                           local air                           air quality is       central   days when I
                                            quality                            poor to help       Liverpool     knew air
                                                                               improve the                    quality was
                                                                                  situation                        poor




The CATCH Consortium                                                 164                                                                        13/04/06
              CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                                                                        Final


              Figure 84.             After – Level of agreement with air quality statements
   100%



        80%



        60%



        40%



        20%



             0%                                                                                                                                 Not Stated
                   I think the The local    Poor air I suffer from    I think cars   I would like      I would    I would like      I would
                   air quality authorities quality can asthma,         should be        to know      choose to        to see        walk or     Don’t Know
                  in Liverpool are doing a   affect    bronchitis        banned      more about     change my         traffic    cycle more
                     is good       lot to   quality of or chronic       from the      the levels        travel      reduction      if the air   Agree Strongly
Percentage




                               improve the     life    coughing       city centre    of pollution   patterns on    measures       quality in
                                 local air                              when air       in central   days when I   introduced      Liverpool     Agree
                                  quality                               quality is     Liverpool      knew air    to improve      improves
                                                                                                                                                Disagree
                                                                     poor to help                   quality was    air quality
                                                                     improve the                         poor      in the City
                                                                                                                                                Disagree Strongly
                                                                        situation                                    Centre

              In the after study when comparing different questions by age, it is clear that respondents aged
              18-25 were less likely to disagree with the statement ‘I think air quality in central Liverpool
              is good’. Only 28% of respondents from this age group disagreed with this statement
              compared to the other age groups where between 40-46% of respondents disagreed or
              disagreed strongly.

              Respondents in the youngest age group were also much more likely to disagree with the
              statement ‘I think cars should be banned from the city centre with air quality is poor to help
              improve the situation’. 48% of respondents aged 18-25 disagreed or strongly disagreed with
              preventing cars entering the city centre when air quality was poor. In the other age groups
              between 47 – 54% of respondents agreed with this statement. Comparing this statement with
              gender, 24% more males than females disagreed with this statement. Females were more
              accepting of preventing cars into the city centre when air quality was poor 51% agreed with
              this compared to only 40% of males.

              Regarding the statement I would choose to change my travel patterns on days when I knew
              air quality was poor, the older the respondent the more accepting respondents were of this
              statement. This indicates that the number of respondents who would change their travel
              patterns on days when air quality was poor increased with respondents age (25% 18-25 year
              olds, 29% 26-45 year olds, 33% 46-64 year olds, 34% 65 years olds and over).

              Respondents aged 26-45 were the most likely group of respondents who would walk or cycle
              more if the air quality improved in Liverpool (52%). Respondents from the 65 years old and
              over age group were the least likely to walk or cycle if the air quality improves (50%). It was
              also clear that 5% more males disagreed with the statement ‘I would walk or cycle more if
              the air quality in Liverpool improves’, thus indicating females were more receptive to change
              that might be brought about by differences in air quality.




              The CATCH Consortium                                                   165                                                                         13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                              Final


APPENDIX B: Summary of Rapid Health Impact Assessment

A. Background
IMPACT, the International Health Impact Assessment Consortium at the University of
Liverpool was commissioned by Merseytravel to undertake two rapid Health Impact
Assessments (HIAs) of the Clean Accessible Transport for Community Health (CATCH)
project. This report describes the process, findings, conclusions and recommendations for the
second HIA.

A.1 The CATCH Project
'CATCH' - Clean Accessible Transport for Community Health - is a research and
development project supported by DG Environment of the European Commission from 2003
to 2005, which aimed to contribute to reducing road traffic- generated air pollution in
Liverpool and promote healthy forms of travel.          The project was co-ordinated by
Merseytravel, in collaboration with its partners - Transport & Travel Research Ltd (UK),
Liverpool City Council (UK), Arriva North West Ltd (UK), CTP (Italy) and Suceava
Municipality (Romania).

CATCH had 10 tasks each with specific objectives and targets. In summary, the main actions
addressed in this HIA are the reduction of polluting emissions from existing and new
vehicles, air quality management, working with markets and citizens on changing travel
behaviour, and advanced pollution monitoring.

B. Health Impact Assessment
Health Impact Assessment (HIA) aims to identify what potential changes in health
determinants might result from a new policy, programme or project and what effects these
changes might have on a defined population. It builds on the understanding that a
community's health is determined by a wide range of economic, environmental and
psychosocial influences as well as heredity and age.

B.1 Aims and Objectives of this HIA
The aims and objectives of this HIA are to:

•   summarise the progress on the CATCH project
•   estimate the potential health impacts and the likely future health impacts on the
    population of the achievements of the CATCH project
•   demonstrate the potential for a project like CATCH to further health- promoting policy
    objectives
•   produce recommendations to ensure maximum learning from a health perspective

B.2 Methodology and methods used in this HIA
The HIA methodology used in this HIA were based on the 'Merseyside Guidelines for Health
Impact Assessment'. It is a systematic process involving a set procedure and the use of a
number of different methods as shown in figure A.




The CATCH Consortium                     166                                         13/04/06
            CATCH Evaluation Report                                                       Final


                   Figure A: Generic HIA Methodology based on the Merseyside Guidelines

                   Procedure                                    Methods

                             Screening                          a. Profiling of
                                                                communities



                     Identify policies for HIA                  b. Analysis of
                                                                policy proposals



                        Develop terms of                        c. Primary Data
                           reference                            Collection:
                                                                Participatory,
                                                                qualitative
                                                                approaches
                     Identify assessment team                   Quantitative
                                                                approaches



                      Undertake assessment                      d. Impact analysis:
                                                                data assembled and
                                                                evidence of impacts
                                                                assessed

Report               Report on health impacts
appraisal              and policy options
τ Policy                                                        e. Priority impacts
revision                                                        established




                      Monitor and evaluate                      f. Recommendations
                                                                developed



                                                                g. Monitor and
                                                                evaluate




            The CATCH Consortium                 167                                      13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                Final


B.3 Methods used for CATCH HIA
The methods used for this HIA were as follows:

Steering Group
A Steering Group comprising some of the CATCH partners was convened shortly after the
commencement of CATCH and contributed to the scoping of both the prospective and
retrospective HIAs.

Documentary Analysis
The HIA analysed and provided an overview of documents, policies and legislation of direct
relevance to CATCH locally, nationally and internationally.

Health and Demographic Profile
Data on the health of the population and on the socio-economic and behavioural determinants
of health related to CATCH (such as unemployment, car ownership, exercise levels etc) in
Liverpool was collected from a variety of sources to show the context within which CATCH
operated.

Stakeholder and Key Informant Research
The main method of primary data collection in CATCH was through interviews and focus
groups both with organisational stakeholders (mainly CATCH partners) and community
stakeholders.

Evidence of Health Impacts
Evidence on the potential health impacts of CATCH were collected from a range of national
and international sources.

Impact Analysis
Impact analysis involves defining what are the potential health impacts of the project being
assessed. It is particularly concerned with health inequalities and identifying those sections
of the population that are most vulnerable to negative health impacts.

B.4 Structure of this Report.
The potential health impacts of the achievements of CATCH are analysed in 3 parts. The
first will consider the potential health impacts of improving Air Quality. The second will look
at the potential impacts of promoting healthier travel behaviour. The third will examine the
partnership approach to improving health adopted in CATCH. This is then wrapped up with
some recommendations and conclusions.

C. Improving Air Quality
The improvement of health through improved air quality is a central concern of the CATCH
project. The CATCH project aimed to demonstrate how air quality could be improved in
Liverpool by introducing the following measures:

•   significantly expanding the use of clean fuels in public transport and local authority
    vehicle fleets by introducing new clean vehicles within the partners’ fleets to test
    innovative technologies and applications
•   applying technology innovations to existing vehicles within the partners' fleets.
•   Demonstrating how an air quality management plan in Liverpool City Centre can be
    implemented effectively


The CATCH Consortium                      168                                          13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                Final


•   implementing advanced pollution monitoring techniques in Liverpool City Centre and on
    buses.

C.1 The Health Impacts of Air Pollution: Evidence from the Literature
In 2004 the World Health Organisation (WHO) conducted a comprehensive review of a wide
range of evidence on the health impacts of air pollution. This updated evidence is used in this
report to illustrate the potential health impacts of CATCH and supplements the evidence
provided in the first CATCH HIA.

Nitrogen Dioxide
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2 ) is a pollutant formed by oxide combining with oxygen in the
atmosphere that is known to cause smog and acid rain. In most urban locations, the nitrogen
oxides (NOx) that yield NO2 are emitted primarily by motor vehicles.

          Potential Health Impacts of Nitrogen Dioxide (Using WHO Evidence)


                                                Effects on pulmonary function,
                                                particularly in asthmatics


                                                Reduction in lung function
              Health
              Effects of
                                                Increased probability of
              Nitrogen
              Dioxide
                                                respiratory symptoms

                                                Increase in airway allergic
                                                inflammatory reactions


                                                Increase in hospital admissions


                                                Increase in mortality




The CATCH Consortium                      169                                          13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                         Final


Particulate Matter
Particulate Matter (PM) describes airborne particles that for monitoring purposes are
described as either coarse (denoted as PM10 ) or fine (denoted as PM2.5).

               Potential Short Term Health Impacts of Particulate Matter

                                            Increase in daily mortality rates


                                            Respiratory symptoms

              Short Term
              Health                        Adverse     effects   on      the
              Effects of                    cardiovascular system
              Particulate
              Matter
                                            Increase in m edication usage –
                                            e.g. increased bronchodilator
                                            use


                                            Lung inflammatory reactions
                                            and reduction of lung
                                            functioning


               Potential Long Term Health Impacts of Particulate Matter

                                            Reduction in life expectancy,
                                            owing mainly to
                                            cardiopulmonary mortality and
                                            probably to lung cancer

                                            Possibility of higher infant
                                            mortality in highly exposed
                                            areas
              Long Term
              Health                        Reduction in lung function in
              Effects of                    children
              Particulate
              Matter                        Increase in Chronic Bronchitis
                                            and Chronic Obstructive
                                            Pulmonary Disease

                                            Reduction in lung function

                                            Increase in lower respiratory
                                            symptoms




The CATCH Consortium                  170                                       13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                  Final


C.2 Health Inequalities and Vulnerable Populations
Poor air quality potentially affects the health of all residents of the city of Liverpool and all
those who travel in and out of the city for work or leisure. But different sections of the
population are more vulnerable to the effects of exposure to air pollutants than others. The
population groups identified as being particularly vulnerable are people with cardio-
respiratory diseases, unborn and very young children, older people, those suffering socio-
economic deprivation and those exposed to relatively high levels of pollution due to where
they live.

The incidence and prevalence of respiratory disease in Liverpool is higher than the national
average (as detailed in Section 2). Evidence was gathered from a focus group of people with
respiratory diseases. In summary, these stakeholders say that poor air quality is physically
debilitating and that it makes completing the simplest tasks very difficult. Loss of self-
esteem and confidence are common and this can cause depression. Social isolation is also
common. Most say that when they do experience improved air in locations outside of
Liverpool, they experience bursts of energy, illustrating how beneficial an improvement in air
quality would be for this group. A detailed account is provided in Section 2.

Children are particularly vulnerable to the negative health impacts of air pollution. They
breathe more per unit body weight than adults and have smaller airways and lungs.
Toxification from air pollution occurs faster in children than in adults and their lung growth
and development is affected due to the vulnerability of developing and growing airways.

C.3 Extent of Health-Damaging Pollutants in Liverpool
The U.K. Government has set two national objectives on NOx. The first is to reduce the
maximum annual average concentration of NOx to 40u/gm3 and the second is for readings in
excess of 200u/gm3 not to be exceeded more than 18 times a year. In 2003 Liverpool City
Council concluded that these objectives are unlikely to be achieved in a number of areas in
Liverpool by 2005, particularly in city centre retail areas, and declared the city centre area an
Air Quality Management Area. An Air Quality Strategy was produced to facilitate the
lowering of pollution levels. In the most recent assessment in 2004, the Council concluded
that it was possible that nationally agreed thresholds for PM10 may be exceeded at a small
number of busy road junctions in the city centre.

C.4 Actions in CATCH to Improve Air Quality

Installing Particulate Filters to Reduce Emissions
Particulate traps to reduce emissions were installed on 10% (104 buses) of the bus fleet of
one of the major operators (Arriva) operating in Liverpool. The CATCH project experienced
a number of teething problems with the particulate traps leading to some loss of service for
the bus operator. However, following extensive modifications most of these problems were
resolved. Testing of the particulate filters has shown reductions of particulates from typical
readings of 0.5 – 1.0 against a stand ard measure (VOSA’s “k factor”) to readings between
0.02 and 0.05.

Testing of Measures to Reduce NOx Emissions
Following a detailed investigation and elimination process, Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR)
was chosen as the most appropriate technology to reduce NOx emissions. The NOx content
of the exhaust of one of the buses monitored showed a reduction of 35%.



The CATCH Consortium                       171                                           13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                               Final


Introduction and Testing of Clean Vehicles
To significantly expand the use of clean fuels in public transport and test innovative
technologies and applications, a city centre shuttle using 6 hybrid electric buses was
introduced. Liverpool City Council has funded two hybrid cars that are operational and used
by Liverpool City Council employees.

Introduction of Advanced Pollution Monitoring Techniques
The reliable measurement of air pollution is essential to provide a wide range of agencies
with the data needed to assess the potential damage to health in an area. As part of CATCH,
the Centre for Intelligent Monitoring Systems (CIMS), based at Liverpool University
developed a novel approach to monitoring using a chromatic approach. Following intensive
testing CIMS conclude that the CATCH project has enabled them to show that the chromatic
approach to monitoring is viable and capable of mapping particulates results over a wide
area. The viability of using existing CCTV netwo rks for monitoring particulates within city
centres has also been demonstrated and methods for accommodating the required adjustments
of CCTV cameras have been successfully deployed.

Demonstrating how an Air Quality Management Plan can be Implemented
CATCH made a significant contribution to the development and implementation of
Liverpool’s Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP). It added value by enabling the production of a
detailed assessment to identify in detail the sources of NO2 pollution. Secondly, it enabled
an extensive public consultation exercise for the AQAP. Many of the options adopted in the
AQAP were developed as part of the CATCH project, such as a focus on parking, enhancing
public transport services and improving facilities for walking and cycling.

C.5 Health Impact Analysis of Improving Air Quality

Demonstrating How Technical Challenges Can Be Overcome
The CATCH initiatives to produce workable models to reduce air pollution presented a
number of technical challenges as mentioned above and discussed in detail in Section 2 of the
main report. By disseminating the findings of this project, the experience of CATCH in
successfully addressing these challenges will demons trate how other agencies can side-step
technical problems and expedite pollution reduction measures elsewhere that will benefit
health.

The monitoring by CIMS is significant from a health perspective as it has the potential to add
value to current monitoring and to pinpoint geographical areas and population groups where
negative health impacts identified in this report may occur. The assessment and the public
consultation on the AQAP funded by CATCH is important from a health perspective as it
helped to pinpoint and quantify the most damaging sources and raise public awareness of
these issues.

Facilitating Improved Health Through Improved Air Quality
The reductions in air pollution achieved in this project may have some direct health impacts
on the population in Liverpool. However, it is important to bear in mind that CATCH is a
demonstration project, showing how better air quality can be achieved on a small scale and
disseminating their findings to promote this approach on a larger scale throughout Europe. It
is in this continued larger scale application of CATCH’s approach that the health impacts
highlighted here would be realised. The expected reduction in pollutants through a wider
application would have significant positive health impacts for people in Liverpool.


The CATCH Consortium                     172                                          13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                Final




Better Health for People with Respiratory Diseases
As demonstrated in the stakeholder research for this HIA, for people with existing cardio-
respiratory illness there would be an almost immediate benefit in their quality of their lives
and the ability to undertake every day tasks. The stakeholder workshop of people with
respiratory diseases showed the very beneficial impacts on their health of breathing less
polluted air in other locations. Death from respiratory disease is associated with high levels
of air pollution. For example, the WHO concluded that a daily rise in 10µ/gm3 of PM10 will
lead to an increased daily mortality from respiratory diseases of 1.3%. Given the high levels
of mortality from respiratory diseases in Liverpool already highlighted, the number of lives
saved from improved air quality would have a significant impact.

Reduced Health Inequalities
The population of inner-city Liverpool suffer the double disadvantage of socio-economic
disadvantage and higher than normal exposure to air pollution. Concentrating on the
improvement of air quality in the city centre will therefore help to reduce health inequalities
and move the health status of that population closer to the norm for the rest of the city.

Reduced Mortality
Daily rises in air pollution are associated with daily rises in mortality for all causes. For
example, the WHO combined research from several studies and concluded that a daily rise in
10µ/gm3 of PM10 will lead to an increased daily mortality of 0.6% in urban areas.

Possible Reduced Infant Mortality
One study suggests that the risk of post- neonatal infant mortality is 10% higher in areas with
high PM10 exposure compared to those in areas of lower exposure. A continued commitment
following CATCH to reduce city centre pollution would help prevent such infant mortality
occurring.

Reduced Hospital Admissions
High levels of air pollution are associated with increased hospital admissions. The WHO
concluded that a daily rise in 10 µ/gm3 of PM10 leads to an increase in hospital admissions for
people over 65 of 0.7%. Preventing such rises in pollution levels in the longer term should
reduce hospital admissions considerably in the longer term.

Reduced Medication Usage
The WHO concluded that a daily rise in 10 µ/gm3 of PM10 leads to an increase in medication
usage for respiratory conditions. Avoiding such rises should therefore avoid such rises in
medication use.

Improved Lung Function Growth in Children
There is some evidence to show improvements in lung function growth as a result of moving
away from an area with high levels of PM10 to one with low levels.

Spreading Findings Through Dissemination Across Europe
Where the dissemination of the CATCH findings leads to similar approaches being adopted
in other European urban environments, the potential health impacts for Liverpool highlighted
above will be replicated elsewhere.




The CATCH Consortium                      173                                          13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                Final


D. Encouraging healthier travel behaviour
One of the main objectives of CATCH is to work with the community to encourage the use of
less polluting means of travel within the urban environment. This includes promoting
walking and cycling, increased usage of public transport and raising awareness of the benefits
of healthier travel.

D.1 Actions Under CATCH to Promote Healthier Travel Behaviour

Healthy Travel Promotion
Healthy travel promotion piloted in one part of the city (Aigburth). This technique,
developed from commercial marketing and public sector campaigns, produces information on
travel options targeted and customised for individuals’ own requirements. Questionnaires
were posted to people in the area to collect information about their travel patterns.
Interventions included personalised journey information, free tickets for identified journeys,
cycle maps, public transport timetables, local guides, and calorie maps. Participants were
also telephoned to discuss issues related to their travel behaviour.

Reducing Car Use Through the Introduction of City Centre Bus Shuttle Route
To encourage more use of public transport and reduce car use in the city centre a city centre
shuttle route using the new hybrid vehicles described in Section 2 was introduced. Patronage
for the service increased steadily from the introduction of the route from 1302 in week 9 to
3346 in week 28.

Strengthening focus on healthy travel in the City Centre Movement Strategy
The City Centre Movement Strategy (CCMS) is a comprehensive long term programme to
improve transport infrastructure in Liverpool. Integral to the project is the reduction of road
traffic in the city centre, the improvement of conditions for pedestrians and the upgrading of
infrastructure for public transport. CATCH added value to the CCMS by strengthening
partnership and funding a detailed design study aimed at making access to an important
commercial district easier for sustainable modes of transport such as walking or cycling.
Following this a number of measures have been approved including “all red” pedestrian areas
and better pedestrian crossings, better infrastructure for buses, footpath improvements and
improved cycling lanes and cycling parking provision.

ECOtravel - Raising Awareness of the Benefits of Healthier Transport
CATCH established a one-stop information service for individuals and businesses to promote
environmentally-sustainable transport called ECOtravel. A case study of Liverpool City
Council and their fleet was undertaken and this was used to show commercial fleet managers
the benefits that can be sought from greener travel. Work with resident associations is also
ongoing. Interest in ECOtravel was high with monthly ‘hits’ on the web site rising steadily
from under 500 at the beginning to nearly 6,000 in the later stages.

Calorie Maps
Calorie Maps were produced as part of CATCH to encourage people in Liverpool to walk
more in the city. A number of routes were mapped out with points of interest and the
estimated calories burned for each route included. Stakeholders interviewed for this HIA had
a very positive reaction to the Calorie Maps.




The CATCH Consortium                      174                                          13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                 Final


Cycle Training Initiative
A pilot project was launched to provide cycle training to adults and young people in a variety
of settings. This project was launched in the last months of CATCH. The project included
liaison with the local health sector to identify practices keen to ‘prescribe’ cycle training to
patients and instructors were trained.

Community Mobility Plans
In the early stages of the CATCH project, work was conducted with a development company
in the city to develop Community Mobility Plans (CMPs) to promote alternative, sustainable
travel options to the car to new tenants and residents and working with land-use planners to
restrict vehicle access in the City centre. A lack of progress on this aspect of CATCH is seen
as disappointing by stakeholders.

D.2 Community Stakeholders Views on What Can be Done to Encourage Healthier
Travel Behaviour

Community stakeholders were asked their views both on their awareness of CATCH
generally and also what they believe should be done to make the objectives of CATCH
achievable.

Awareness of CATCH
Awareness of CATCH itself was low, although people were aware of elements of the
programme (such as the city centre shuttle bus and the City Centre Movement Strategy).

Encouraging More Use of Public Transport
Stakeholders strongly believed that to encourage more people to use public transport (in
particular buses) a number of basic improvements to services were needed. These included
extended services in the evenings and the weekend, improvements to driver behaviour, better
access for older people and people with disabilities, better information on services and
delays, cleanliness and other issues.

Encouraging More Walking and Cycling
Stakeholders were asked how they thought more walking and cycling could be encouraged
and what barriers needed to be overcome. Addressing people’s concerns about safety was
seen as key. People also had misconceptions about what walking and cycling entails (e.g. that
walking took a long time compared to alternative modes and that cycling was expensive and
required a lot of equipment). Effective marketing was seen as key to tackling these
misconceptions.

Working with Developers
A lack of compulsion or financial incentive for developers was seen as a major barrier. Some
believe that development planners from the local authority should be involved at the
beginning of a project like CATCH. Proper enforcement of existing planning rules was seen
as key. Some stakeholders believe that developers are not yet sold on the benefits to them of
incorporating healthy travel and the idea sustainable communities and economic regeneration
are compatible needs to be sold. Stakeholder feedback is provided in Section 3.




The CATCH Consortium                      175                                           13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                Final


D.3 Health Impact Analysis of Promoting Healthier Travel Behaviour

CATCH’S direct marketing approach to increasing exercise in the Aigburth area will have
several positive health impacts on that target population, as will the cycling project when
delivered. The same applies to those encouraged to exercise more either through the use of
Calories maps or through an improved environment for pedestrians and cyclists in the City
Centre Movement Strategy. Many of the health benefits of exercise are summarised here.

Reduced Mortality
Higher levels of regular physical activity are associated with lower mortality rates for both
older and younger adults. Even those who are moderately active on a regular basis have lower
mortality rates than those who are least active.

Reduced Obesity
Low levels of activity contribute to obesity. Physical activity may favourably affect body fat
distribution. By increasing energy expenditure, regular physical activity contributes to weight
maintenance and weight reduction.

Decreased Risk of Cardiovascular Diseases
Regular physical activity or cardiorespiratory fitness decreases the risk of cardiovascular
disease mortality in general and of coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality in particular.
Regular physical activity prevents or delays the development of high blood pressure and
exercise reduces blood pressure in people with hypertension.

Decreased risk of Colon Cancer
Regular physical activity is associated with a decreased risk of colon cancer.

Decreased risk of Non–Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus
Regular physical activity lowers the risk of developing non–insulin-dependent diabetes
mellitus.

Better Muscle Strength and Skeletal Development
Regular physical activity is necessary for maintaining normal muscle strength, joint structure,
and joint function. In the range recommended for health, physical activity is not associated
with joint damage or development of osteoarthritis and may be beneficial for many people
with arthritis. Weight-bearing physical activity is essential for normal skeletal development
during childhood and adolescence and for achieving and maintaining peak bone mass in
young adults.

Reduced Risk of Falling
Strength training and other forms of exercise in older adults preserve the ability to maintain
independent living status and reduce the risk of falling.

Mental Health
Physical activity appears to relieve symptoms of depression and anxiety and improve mood.
Regular physical activity may reduce the risk of developing depression, although further
research is required on this topic.




The CATCH Consortium                      176                                          13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                  Final


Health-Related Quality of Life
Physical activity appears to improve health-related quality of life by enhancing psychological
well-being and by improving physical functioning in persons compromised by poor health.

Adverse Effects
Most musculoskeletal injuries related to physical activity are believed to be preventable by
gradually working up to a desired level of activity and by avoiding excessive amounts of
activity. Serious cardiovascular events can occur with physical exertion, but the net effect of
regular physical activity is a lower risk of mortality from cardiovascular disease.

Reduced Mortality and Morbidity from Road Traffic Accidents
The emphasis on improved pedestrian safety in the CATCH- funded design for the City
Centre Movement Strategy will prevent accidents and mortality from road traffic accidents,
particularly if this approach is extended across the city. A reduced volume of traffic overall
will likely lead to a lower incidence of traffic accidents.

Access to Health Services
Transport is key to ensuring that patients and carers receive appropriate and timely care, and
has been identified as such in enabling patients.

Social Support
Evidence shows the important relationship between road traffic and the effect on social
networks, and health and well being outcomes. Traffic volumes and speed affects behaviour
and perceptions of the area - the busier an area, the less friendly they are perceived to be and
the less social contact there is. Poor social support networks are associated with poor health,
including an increased risk of coronary heart disease.

E.1 Partnership Working for Health

To address the social determinants of health it is seen as vital to incorporate health protection
into decision making in all policy areas and partnership working for health is key to
achieving this goal. For example, in the U.K. the government’s Public Health White Paper
‘Choosing health: making healthy choices easier’ states that “real progress (towards a
healthier society) depends on effective partnerships across communities”. In this HIA
stakeholders were asked to describe their experience of CATCH’s approach to partnership
working. Detailed feedback is provided in Section 3 but the findings can be summarised as
follows:

Benefits of partnership approach
Some stakeholders say that their experience of partnership working through CATCH
increased their awareness of health and the wider social determinants that cause poor health.
Some believe that this awareness would have a longer term legacy by encouraging them in
the future to explicitly consider health and that changing attitudes to healt h among transport
policy makers in this way could be a driver for change. A political stakeholder said the
CATCH project improved understanding of the health consequences of air quality and that
this would inform future policy.

Political buy-in was seen as essential and CATCH did demonstrate to political stakeholders
that tangible action on the ground is possible. One political stakeholder was keen to spread
the message of CATCH and its results amongst political colleagues.


The CATCH Consortium                       177                                           13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                Final




Stakeholders believed that CATCH brought together partners that may not otherwise have
been brought together and the involvement of the main private bus company in Liverpool was
seen as a major breakthrough. One participant from the local authority said that it has
enabled the building of relations not just with other organisations but within their own
organisation. Some believed that the partnership changed approaches to tackling problems
and helped to break down the ‘silo mentality’.

CATCH linked in with and added value to a range of large scale policies across the city,
especially the City Centre Movement Strategy and the Air Quality Action Plan. This has the
dual advantage of adding an explicit health dimension to larger policies and helping to ensure
a longer term legacy for CATCH achievements. For example, the CATCH project, by
providing resources for non-capital projects, addressed what one stakeholder believes to be a
major failing in UK government policy where money is provided exclusively for capital
projects.

Barriers to Partnership Working
Some stakeholders believed that some important potential partners were missing, for example
town planning developers and taxi drivers. Some stakeholders emphasised the complexity of
monitoring air quality and one believed that it would be beneficial to have specialist air
quality consultants involved at the planning stage of a project like this. Partnership working
is considered “hard work” and requires a lot of one-on-one contact to make things work.
Every partner needs to be fully signed up and people do need to broaden their point of view.
Partners can have different agendas, targets and time scales and this leads to problems.
Unless partners give issues the same level of priority as each other then achievement will be
difficult or unsuccessful. Some stakeholders believed that while the partners directly
involved in the CATCH project may be enthusiastic, it is difficult to build a partnership
approach for health higher up in an organisation. For the potential health impacts of a project
like CATCH to be realised on a larger scale, political will and long term political support is
seen as essential. All partners need to be committed or the project will fail.

E.2 CATCH’s Links with Other Health-Promoting Policies

CATCH fits in with and furthers the objectives of a range of international, national and local
policies designed to improve the health of the population. CATCH demonstrates how health-
promoting aspects of these policies can be put into action at a local level through a
partnership approach. In Section 4 of the main report diagrams provide an overview of these
connections. Dissemination of CATCH findings to policy makers in these areas will help to
promote health. One of the 5 diagrams available in Section 4 are provided in this executive
summary.




The CATCH Consortium                      178                                          13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                  Final




                                TRANSPORT POLICY & GUIDANCE



                                                  INTERNATIONAL
                                                  Europe
                                                  European Transport Policy 2010: Time
                                                  to Decide, European Commission,
                                                  2001




              CATCH
              OBJECTIVES
                                                  NATIONAL
              Transport         Demand
              Management for City centre          A New Deal for Transport: Better for
                                                  Everyone, Dept. for Transport, 1998
                                                  (White Paper)

              Car parking management              Transport 2010: The 10 Year Plan,
                                                  Dept. of Environment Transport and
                                                  the Regions, 2000


              Public            Transport
              Enhancements


                                                  LOCAL
              Cycling     and    Walking
              Measures                            Merseyside Local Transport Plan

                                                  Liverpool Transport Plan

                                                  City Centre Movement Strategy



E.3 Health Impact Analysis of Partnership Working for Health

CATCH provides an example of how partnership working for health can be achieved on the
ground. The dissemination of the findings in this report will provide a valuable
demonstration of both the tangible achievements of partnership and the challenges or barriers
that need to be addressed for partnership working to succeed.

In addition the policy overview provided above serves to illustrate the range of policies that
CATCH has the potential to contribute to where long-term partnership working for health is
required.




The CATCH Consortium                        179                                          13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                                Final


From a health perspective, the dissemination of CATCH findings to policy- makers in these
areas will provide a valuable example of how to turn aspirations to improve health into reality
and help to expedite health-promoting measures.

F. Recommendations

1. Extend and mainstream CATCH’s approach
Given the demonstrated success of CATCH in delivering effective interventions to promote
health, the interventions should be mainstreamed and extended with support from the partner
organisations involved. Political and community leaders should be targeted to act as
champions for better air quality and healthy travel behavio ur.

2. Dissemination of Findings
CATCH has the potential to contribute to a broad range of policy areas that are integral to the
improvement of health. In particular, the dissemination of CATCH findings could make a
timely contribution to the development of public health policy locally. The new public health
white paper ‘Choosing Health’ (Department of Health, 2004) encourages the NHS to work
with local authorities and other partners to contribute to local transport planning and CATCH
would provide an example of how such a partne rship can deliver health gain. To demonstrate
how policy objectives to build partnerships and improve health can be delivered on the
ground, the dissemination of CATCH findings should be targeted at the following
organisations:

Local
• Liverpool Partnership and Liverpool First Board -           Liverpool's Local Strategic
   Partnership (http://www.liverpoolfirst.org.uk/index.asp)
• Central Liverpool Primary Care Trust (www.centralliverpoolpct.nhs.uk)
• North Liverpool Primary Care Trust (www.northliverpoolpct.nhs.uk )
• South Liverpool Primary Care Trust (www.southliverpoolpct.nhs.uk )
• Liverpool Healthy Cities – based at Central Liverpool Primary Care Trust

National
• Local Government Association (www.lga.gov.uk)
• The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (www.odpm.gov.uk)
• The Sustainable Development Unit (SDU) (situated within the Department for
   Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (www.sustainable-development.gov.uk)
• The Sustainable Development Commission (www.sd-commission.org.uk )
• Department for Transport (www.dft.gov.uk )
• Environment Agency (http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk )
• DEFRA, (http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/airquality/)
• Sustrans (www.sustrans.org.uk )

International
• International Healthy Cities – a comprehensive list of international contacts for the
    Healthy Cities network is available at (http://www.euro.who.int/healthy-
    cities/contacts/20010828_1)
     (The WHO Healthy Cities Programme commits itself to building “strong partnerships,
     alliances and networks” and to promote “city health development planning”, to build and




The CATCH Consortium                      180                                          13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                              Final


     maintain strategic partnerships for health. Phase IV (2003-2007) of the WHO Healthy
     Cities network places a particular emphasis on the development of partnerships.)
•   United Nations Division for Sustainable Development (Department of Economic and
    Social Affairs), (http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/contact.htm)
•   UITP (www.uitp.com)
•   WHO European Centre for Environment and Health, Rome Division
    (http://www.euro.who.int/transport/)
•   World Health Organisation Regional Office for Europe, Air quality and health (AIQ)
    programme (http://www.euro.who.int/air )
•   World       Health     Organisation,   Protection     of     the   human      environment
    (http://www.who.int/phe/en/ )
•   Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) (www.ieep.org.uk)
•   The CAFÉ (Clean Air for Europe) programme (European programme of technical
    analysis      and     policy     development      on     air     quality   in     Europe)
    (http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/cafe/

3. Lobby for Resources for Marketing Initiatives in Local Transport Plans
The stakeholder feedback provided in this HIA shows the important role that direct marketing
and one-on-one contact plays in changing people’s travel behaviour. The absence of
resources available for non-capital projects in the development of Local Transport Plans is
therefore a source of concern. Resources should be made available to safeguard continuing
direct marketing and liaison with community groups and employers to promote healthier
travel behaviour. The findings of this project should be brought to the attention of the
Department for Transport, advocating the funding of direct marketing initiatives to change
travel behaviour.

4. Promote the Economic Benefits of Healthier Travel to Employers
A business stakeholder interviewed for the HIA said that the economic benefits of health-
promoting initiatives of CATCH should be sold to employers. Research showing such
economic benefits should be made available through ECOtravel and other media. (For
example, a recent study at Leeds Metropolitan University showed the increased productivity
of workers following exercise (http://www.lmu.ac.uk/the_news/aug05/jmckenna.htm.)

5. Continue Monitoring Work Undertaken by CATCH on Exercise Levels
Surveys conducted under CATCH provide baseline indicators of exercise levels in the city
centre of Liverpool. To assess progress towards further increasing these levels of exercise
through the Local Transport Plan, resources should be allocated for a follow up study in 2007
or 2008.

6. Continue Production and Wider Distri bution of Calorie Maps
Given the positive feedback on Calorie Maps from stakeholders, the production of Calorie
Maps should continue beyond the lifetime of the CATCH project. As many stakeholders
were unfamiliar with the maps before the HIA, this suggests that the distribution of the maps
should be widened.

7. Address the Issues that Currently Prevent People Using Public Transport
The feedback from stakeholders in this HIA provided in Section 4 suggest that there are a
number of issues around accessibility, information and quality of service that discourage
people from using public transport as much as they otherwise might do. These findings
should be highlighted to transport providers in the Merseyside area.


The CATCH Consortium                     181                                          13/04/06
CATCH Evaluation Report                                                              Final




8. More Public Information on Air Quality and Health
The negative health impacts of air pollution as highlighted in this HIA should be publicised
widely to help build both public and political support for changing travel behaviour in the
city.

9. Monitoring of PM 2.5
Evidence referred to in Section 2 indicates that PM2.5 is associated with mortality and
hospitalisation for cardio-pulmonary disease. The monitoring of PM2.5 should be added to
the monitoring of PM10 in future by Liverpool City Council and other organisations.

10. Information Provision to People with Respiratory Diseases
Given the harmful effects of poor air quality on the health and wellbeing of people with
respiratory diseases shown in Section 2 of the main report, information on the future
implementation of the Air Quality Action Plan should be provided to groups representing
their interests – in particular the North West office of the British Lung Foundation
(http://www.britishlungfoundation.org.uk/North-West-touch.asp), and the associated Breathe
Easy Groups in Liverpool. A scoping study to develop a local Air Quality Alert System
should be considered for people with asthma and other diseases.

11. Use a Wider Range of Media to Publicise ECOtravel
Given that internet access is less common among socio-economically deprived groups and
among older people, a wider use of ‘traditional’ media should be used to reach all potential
audiences.




The CATCH Consortium                    182                                          13/04/06

								
To top