Article | Published:

Development and validation of a method to quantify benefits of clean-air taxi legislation

Abstract

Air pollution from motor vehicle traffic remains a significant threat to public health. Using taxi inspection and trip data, we assessed changes in New York City’s taxi fleet following Clean Air Taxi legislation enacted in 2005–2006. Inspection and trip data between 2004 and 2015 were used to assess changes in New York’s taxi fleet and to estimate and spatially apportion annual taxi-related exhaust emissions of nitric oxide (NO) and total particulate matter (PMT). These emissions changes were used to predict reductions in NO and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations estimates using data from the New York City Community Air Survey (NYCCAS) in 2009–2015. Efficiency trends among other for-hire vehicles and spatial variation in traffic intensity were also considered. The city fuel efficiency of the medallion taxi fleet increased from 15.7 MPG to 33.1 MPG, and corresponding NO and PMT exhaust emissions estimates declined by 82 and 49%, respectively. These emissions reductions were associated with changes in NYCCAS-modeled NO and PM2.5 concentrations (p < 0.001). New York’s clean air taxi legislation was effective at increasing fuel efficiency of the medallion taxi fleet, and reductions in estimated taxi emissions were associated with decreases in NO and PM2.5 concentrations.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.

    Pope CA III, Dockery DW. Health effects of fine particulate air pollution: lines that connect. J Air Waste Manage Assoc. 2006;56.6:709–42.

  2. 2.

    Gauderman JW, Vora HMS, McConnel R, Berhane K, Gillihand F, Thomas D, et al. Effect of exposure to traffic on lung development from 10 to 18 years of age: A Cohort Study. Lancet. 2007;369.9561:571–77.

  3. 3.

    O’connor GT, Neas L, Vaughn B, Kattan M, Mitchell H, Crain EF, et al. Acute respiratory health effects of air pollution on children with asthma in US inner cities. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008;121.5:1133–39.

  4. 4.

    Rhodes-Bratton B, Fingerhut L, Demmer RT, Colgrove J, Wang YC, Lovasi GS. Cataloging the Bloomberg era: New York City legislation relevant to cardiovascular risk factors. Cities & Health, Chicago. 2017;1:125–138.

  5. 5.

    Kheirbek I, Johnson S, Ito K, Anan K, Huskey C, Eisl H, et al. The New York City community air survey: neighborhood air quality 2008–2015. New York, NY: New York Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; 2017.

  6. 6.

    Rich DQ. Accountability studies of air pollution and health effects: lessons learned and recommendations for future natural experiment opportunities. Environ Int. 2017;100:62–78.

  7. 7.

    “Clean Air Taxis.” 072. New York. 2005. https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=444567&GUID=0BFE6154-ED5F-4F5D-9BDC-0D7BC5D450AB.

  8. 8.

    “The Public Sale of Additional Taxicab Licenses.” 018. New York. Web. https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=445937&GUID=7B982A89-1E54-4F69-9782-0D6C9CB87FFF&Options=&Search=.

  9. 9.

    “Replacement Cycles for Taxicabs.” 052. New York. 2006. Web.https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=445503&GUID=3E3BBEC8-5EDA-43DD-834F-C3004F344F22&Options=&Search=.

  10. 10.

    Abdul-Wahab SA, Bakheit CS, Al-Alawi SM. Principal component and multiple regression analysis in modelling of ground-level ozone and factors affecting its concentrations. Environ Model Softw. 2005;20:1263–71.

  11. 11.

    Matte TD, Ross Z, Kheirbek I, Eisl H, Johnson S, Gorczynski JE, et al. Monitoring intraurban spatial patterns of multiple combustion air pollutants in New York City: design and implementation. J Expos Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2013;23.3:223.

  12. 12.

    Robert MA, VanBergen S, Kleeman MJ, Jakober CA. Size and composition distributions of particulate matter emissions: part 1—Light-duty gasoline vehicles. J Air Waste Manage Assoc. 2007;57:1414–28.

  13. 13.

    Clougherty JE, Kheirbek I, Ross Z, Gorczynski JE, Johnson S, Markowitz S, et al. Intra-urban spatial variability in wintertime street-level concentrations of multiple combustion-related air pollutants: The New York City Community Air Survey (NYCCAS). J Expos Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2013;23.3:232.

  14. 14.

    Gao HO, Kitirattragarn V. Taxi Owners’ buying preferences of hybrid-electric vehicles and their implications for emissions in New York City. Transp Res Part A. 2008;42.8:1064–73.

  15. 15.

    “VIN Decoding.” Accessed 29 Nov 2017. https://vpic.nhtsa.dot.gov/decoder/.

  16. 16.

    Wilson RE, Cairns S, Notley S, Anable J, Chatterton T, McLeod F. Techniques for the inference of mileage rates from MOT data. Transp Plan Technol. 2013;36:130–43.

  17. 17.

    May AA, Nguyen NT, Presto AA, Gordon TD, Lipsky EM, Karve M, et al. Gas-and particle-phase primary emissions from in-use, on-road gasoline and diesel vehicles. Atmos Environ. 2014;88:247–60.

  18. 18.

    “The Official U.S. Government Source for Fuel Economy Information.” United States Department of Energy. http://fueleconomy.gov.

  19. 19.

    GRASS Development Team. Geographic Resources Analysis Support System (GRASS) Software, Version 7.5. Open Source Geospatial Foundation. 2018; https://grasswiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GRASS_Citation_Repository.

  20. 20.

    Pebesma, E. Simple Features for R: Standardized Support for Spatial Vector Data. The R Journal 2018;10:439–446, https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2018-009.

  21. 21.

    R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 2018; https://www.R-project.org/.

  22. 22.

    Bivand R, Yu D. “spgwr: Geographically Weighted Regression.” R package version 0.6-32. 2017; https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/spgwr/index.html.

  23. 23.

    Kheirbek I, Johnson S, Ito K, Anan K, Huskey C, Matte T, et al. The New York City community air survey: neighborhood air quality 2008–2013. New York City, Department of Health and Mental Hygeine; 2015. Retrieved from https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/environmental/comm-air-survey-08-15.pdf.

  24. 24.

    Andre M, Joumard R, Vidon R, Tassel P, Perret P. Real-world European driving cycles, for measuring pollutant emissions from high- and low-powered cars. Atmos Environ. 2006;40:5944–53.

  25. 25.

    Harrington W. Fuel economy and motor vehicle emissions. J Environ Econ Manage. 1997;33.3:240–52.

  26. 26.

    Timmers VR, Achten PA. Non-exhaust PM emissions from electric vehicles. Atmos Environ. 2016;134:10–17.

  27. 27.

    Lall R, Thurston GD. Identifying and quantifying transported vs. local sources of New York City PM2. 5 fine particulate matter air pollution. Atmospheric Environment. 2006;40:333–46.

  28. 28.

    Kheirbek I, Haney J, Douglas S, Ito K, Caputo S, Matte T. The public health benefits of reducing fine particulate matter through conversion to cleaner heating fuels in New York City. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48:13573–82.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Sarah Johnson from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene for her essential support and advice on the use of NYCCAS and NYMTC data and for her help in improving our statistical models. We also thank the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene for providing NYCCAS data. Funding support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the Environmental Protection Agency P50ES09600, the NIEHS Center for Environmental Health in Northern Manhattan P30ES009089, the John and Wendy Neu Family, and the Blanchette Hooker Rockefeller Foundations.

Author information

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Correspondence to Dustin Fry.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Keywords

  • Environmental monitoring
  • Exposure modeling
  • Particulate matter
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9