assessing how the clean development mechanism can increase bicycle use in santiago
DESCRIPTION
Assessing how the Clean Development Mechanism can Increase Bicycle Use in Santiago. Steve Winkelman & Erin Silsbe Santiago, Chile August 25, 2004. Overview. Introduction and context Bicycles and the CDM Methodological Issues Sample Calculations Initial Conclusions Respondents. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
1
Assessing how the Clean Development Mechanism
can Increase Bicycle Use in Santiago
Steve Winkelman & Erin Silsbe
Santiago, Chile
August 25, 2004
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
2
Overview
• Introduction and context• Bicycles and the CDM• Methodological Issues• Sample Calculations• Initial Conclusions• Respondents
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
3
Bicycle Use Offers ManySocietal Benefits
• Improved air quality• Lower energy use and GHG emissions • Reduction of traffic congestion • Promotion of healthier lifestyles • Traffic safety• Social equity, poverty reduction
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
4
Cycling + Walking = Lower Emissions
y = 2508.8x-1.2786
R2 = 0.8647
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20 40 60 80 100
Per Capita Transport Energy Use (GJ)
NM
T M
od
e S
ha
re (
% o
f all
Tri
ps
)
USEngland
Canada
Netherlands
FranceGermany
Italy
Non-Motorized Mode Share and Annual per Capita Energy Use
Source: IPCC, 1995, Pucher et. al
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
5
Context: Santiago Mode Split
Note: 2001 O-D data adjusted for comparison with 1991
0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%
Bus CarTax
i
Met
ro
Wal
king
Bikes
Other
Per
cen
t o
f T
rip
s
1991
2001
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
6
Santiago: Mode Share by Distance
Fuente: LABTUS para IISD, 2004
Mode share by distance (first 5.000 mts.) and mode
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
CPr
NMT
SPr
CPu
NPu
SPu
Short trips are disproportionately polluting…these are the trips that are most suitable for non-motorized transport (NMT)
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
7
Potential Bicycle Projects & Policies• Bicycle projects could include
– bike lanes– segregated bikeways– parking facilities– promotional activities– incentives– bicycle signage – traffic signal improvements
• Comprehensive package– The measures above plus
extensive connectivity in the bicycle network
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
8
International Comparison
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Bogota, Colombia
Santiago, Chile
Population (2003) 736,000 6,981,000 5,333,100 Area (km2) 210 1,587 2,000 Avg. Population Density 3500 4400 2600 Bicycle Paths (km) 400 300 Bikeway Density 1.9 0.2 % Bike Trips 23% 2% 1.9%
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
9
Bicycle Potential in Santiago
Ortúzar et al. (1999):• Bicycle use in Santiago could theoretically increase
to 5.8% of all trips with implementation of a major network of bikeways (3.2 km of bikeway per km2)
…If even a small percentage of trips were diverted from the private car, the reduction of fossil fuel consumption, greenhouse gases and air pollution could be significant
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
10
Our Project: Bikes and the CDMPurpose• Assess how the CDM can be used to help increase bicycle
use to reduce motor vehicle emissions in Santiago
Approach• Address methodological issues• Consider two different scales
– An individual bikeway project– A Comprehensive “Santiago-wide” policy
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
11
Methodological Issues• Forecasting Bicycle Use
– How many additional bike trips of what length are expected from the project?
• Baseline– How would travel have occurred in the absence of the
proposed project activity (car, bus, etc.)?– Must take into account existing projects, policies (e.g.,
Alameda, GEF bikeways)
• Monitoring– Determine number and length of new trips
• Avoided emissions– Difference between actual emissions and those that
would have occurred had new trips followed the baseline mode split
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
12
Forecasting Bicycle Demand (1)
Rough Estimates• Typical: either no forecasting, or simplistic assumptions• Comparison studies (before-and-after, similar conditions)• Aggregate behavior (e.g., regression on population characteristics)• Rules of thumb, multipliers, adjustment factors (e.g., CARB)
Measures of Potential Demand• “Revealed” preference surveys (e.g., from traffic counts)• “Stated” preference surveys (attitudinal or hypothetical)
Note: This section based in large part upon the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) NMT Guidebook
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
13
Forecasting Bicycle Demand (2)Discrete Choice Models (e.g., logit model)• Widely used to predict mode choice• Based on “stated” or “revealed” preferences• May require extensive survey data and technical expertise• Very useful for isolating effects of specific factors
Regional Travel Models• Most models ignore pedestrians & bicycles
– Traditional modeling techniques ineffective for bicycles (Katz)
• Rough adjustments are typical (e.g., pedestrian environment factors)
• Requires significant data and technical expertise• Can be powerful tool but significant research needs remain
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
14
Forecasting Bicycle Demand (3)
Ortuzar, Iacobelli and Valeze (1999):
“Estimating Demand for a Cycle-way Network”• Household survey (stratified sample)• Stated preference mode choice survey• Logit model on willingness to cycle• Generated trip matrices to plug into the regional travel
model, ESTRAUS– Assumed a bikeway network of 3.2 km per km2
• Calculated that bicycle use in Santiago could increase from 1.6% to 5.8% of total trips
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
15
Baseline Data NeedsIdeal data
• Projected mode split for short trips along the affected corridor or in that specific neighborhood?
Acceptable data• Current mode split for all short trips in the region
Minimum Necessary data• Current mode split for all trips for the region
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
16
Available Baseline Data in SantiagoIdeal?• ESTRAUS forecast for short trips
Acceptable?• 2001 O-D data on mode split for short trips• Simplistic forecast based on extrapolation of trends
(e.g. 1991-2001)
Minimum Necessary?• 2001 O-D data on mode split for all trips
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
17
Dynamic Baseline• Use actual (not projected) mode split data
– For all short trips or – For short trips in places with similar land use characteristics
and demographics
• Account for factors that influence bicycle use– Motor vehicle characteristics
• Car ownership• traffic in surrounding area
– Demographics• Population• Age distribution (e.g., number of students)
– Economic variables• Fuel prices• Gross National Product
– Other projects and policies
• Attractive in theory, but complicated in practice?
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
18
Key Baseline Challenge
• Can the baseline be defined sufficiently well that bike count data can be used to assess the travel and emissions impact?– Is it necessary to determine who are new riders?– Would surveys asking cyclists what travel mode they
would have used without the project increase certainty?
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
19
Additionality
• Bicycle projects seen as additional because:– No regulation requires development of bikeways– There is limited investment in bikeways in Santiago
(e.g., need GEF investment)– Cultural and image (pscyhological?) barriers appear
to prevent greater bicycle use
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
20
Forecasting Travel Impacts• Shorter term, many bikeway users may be
lower income and shifting from bus• Longer term, with comprehensive network
more people might shift from cars to bike– This longer term effect is inherently reflected in the
2015 mode split forecast assumptions
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
21
Monitoring (1)
Bicycle Counts• Survey points: Natural barriers or define “screen” lines• Frequency and Duration: short counts more useful than
infrequent all-day counts to reflect change over time• Periods: Peak, off-peak, lunchtime
– May differ from motorized modes
• Note weather conditions, singular events• Use of automated counters is worth exploring
– Tampering concerns?
Based upon Hudson, Bicycle Planning: Policy and Practice (1982).
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
22
Monitoring (2)
Surveys• Roadside, destination-based, home-based• Establish: trip length, purpose, route, alternative mode or
route choice (without project)
Balancing Robustness with Practicality• What frequency and scope are sufficient?
– Statistically significant?
• Comprehensive policies can be tracked with regional vehicle-km traveled and mode split data
• Isolating the impacts of specific small-scale projects may be overly resource intensive (GEF $30,000 for basic survey work)
• Update dynamic baseline with demographic & traffic data
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
23
Assumptions for Sample Calculations: Emission Factors
Car: 141 g CO2 per passenger-km• Assume loading of 2 people per car
– Reflects that reduction of car passengers does not necessarily imply a reduction in number of car trips
Bus: 40 g CO2 per passenger-km• Assume loading of 40 people per bus
– While high for a daily average, this is intended as a conservative assumption. One could also argue that no emissions are displaced with a bus-to-bike shift.
Other: (walk, bike, metro, taxi) Assume no displaced emissions (conservative)
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
24
Short-Trip Mode Split Assumptions for Sample Calculations
2001 Mode Split (< 3km) Assumed 2015 Mode Split(2001 O-D survey, no. of trips) (business as usual)Bikes 2.5% 2.5% 0.0%
Bus 9.1% 6.0% -3.1%
Car 17.5% 27.0% 9.5%
Walking 62.2% 56.3% -5.9%
Metro 1.9% 1.7% -0.2%
Taxi (inc.collectivos) 6.4% 6.0% -0.4%
Other 0.5% 0.5% 0.0%
100% 100.0%
Short-trip mode split data from DICTUC
Note: 2015 based on extrapolation of 1991 -2001 growth trends (for all trips)
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
25
Cost AssumptionsInfrastructure Costs• Range: $70 - $100K+ per km of bikeway (GEF, SECTRA)
• Other determining factors– lighting, maintenance, signs, intersection modifications, traffic signaling,
enforcement, cost sharing arrangements, etc.
• Bike Lanes cost only 5% of segregated bikeways (SECTRA)
CDM-Related Costs and Benefits• Emission credit value: We assume $5/tonne for calculations• Monitoring costs?• CDM project cycle costs?• Cheaper if small scale projects are bundled? • Co-benefits not included
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
26
Project Example: New Bikeway
Assumptions• 4.5 km bikeway• Baseline: Estimated 2015 future mode split (above)• Average round-trip length: 6 km
Emissions Savings• With 1,000 users/day, 260 days/year:
63 tonnes CO2 per year
Costs• $80,000 per km• Over 10 years: $533/tonne CO2 • At $5/tonne CERs only contribute 1% of total costs
– Enough to help with maintenance costs?
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
27
Policy Example: Comprehensive Bicycle Network
Assumptions• Assume total trips double from 2001 – 2015
– based on 1991 -2001 growth rate
• Use estimated future mode split for short trips: • Average round trip length: 6 km• 260 weekdays per year• 1,200 km bicycle network
– 600 km bikeway– 600 km bike lanes
• $58,000 per km (average from CONASET)
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
28
Policy Scenarios: Annual Savings and Costs in 2015• Increase bike mode share from 1.9% to:
3% (conservative), 6% (Ortúzar), 23% (Amsterdam), or 65% (break-even at $5/t)
New Bicycle Tonnes Cost Per CDM Value
Mode Share CO2 tonne CO2 ($5/tonne CO2)
3% 23,500 $279 $ 117,300
6% 85,600 $76 $ 427,800
23% 476,100 $14 $2,380,300
65% 1,308,800 $ 5 $6,544,200
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
29
Policy Example: Costs• CDM could offset 2% to 6% of project costs in
the more realistic scenarios (3%, 6% mode share)
– Higher if CER value > $5/tonne– Higher if consider longer project lifetime (14, 21 yrs)
• Costs could be lower if same bike use could be achieved with fewer km of bikeway
– E.g., less expensive bike lanes– Promotional campaigns
• Including co-benefits makes bike projects more attractive from a societal perspective
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
30
Initial Conclusions• Individual bikeways not viable as a CDM project
given current rules and expected credit values– Bundling of multiple projects may help
• A comprehensive network of segregated bikeways plus (cheaper) bike lanes could potentially work
• Cost-sharing that reflects co-benefits could help make the CDM more viable– e.g., with air quality improvement programs, or other
transportation infrastructure projects
• A revolving loan approach could be used to recycle funds back into projects when CDM credits are sold
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
31
Addressing Uncertainty
• Quantifying emissions impacts of bicycle projects and policies is difficult
• Can conservative assumptions minimize uncertainty enough to attract investors and to gain approval of the EB/Meth panel?
• Discounting of emissions benefits may be appropriate
• Small-scale project methodologies allow for streamlining– simplified baseline and monitoring requirements– lower transaction costs
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
32
Innovative Ideas (heretical?)• Official Development Assistance (ODA) cannot be used
for CDM projects• Perhaps demand side projects require special treatment• ODA could make sense to support basic data collection
and monitoring as part of a broader sustainability strategy• It has been observed that provision of infrastructure does
not guarantee use – Promotional campaigns may be key to increasing bike use
(Ortuzar, GEF)– Land use policies can enable shorter trips suitable for bikes
(Ortuzar) (Land use will be discussed in the next session)
• Could ODA fund bike infrastructure and sell CERs to fund promotional strategy or maintenance??– Can full project impacts be counted if CERs only fund a small
portion?
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
33
High Opportunity Costs• Rapid growth in car ownership and use appears inevitable• Availability of efficient options such as bicycle infrastructure
will require deliberate planning and investment• Current infrastructure and investment and development
decisions have a major impact on future emissions• Developing bicycle networks now can advance multiple
sustainability goals – Consider building bike lanes into road maintenance and construction
• There are high opportunity costs for not investing in efficient modes bicycle, pedestrian, transit and sustainable land use Puts the world on high-GHG pathway!
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
34
Closing Challenge• Rapid growth in driving continues to outpace vehicle
efficiency improvements• If the CDM cannot significantly advance non-motorized
modes then other policy mechanisms will be necessary
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
140%
150%
160%
170%
180%
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
2000
= 1
00%
Vehicle Miles Traveled
CO2 Emissions
Fuel Economy (f leet)
Source: US DOE, EIA "AEO 2004"
(US data)
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
35
Respondents
• Cesar Garrido, CONASET
• Dr. Juan de Dios Ortúzar, Universidad Catolica de Chile
• Ricardo Montezuma, Fundación Ciudad Humana
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
36
Cesar GarridoCONASET
Implementation of CDM Bike Projects in Santiago
• Policy context: brief overview of bike policies in Santiago• How can CDM consideration be incorporated into the next
bike project or policy?• Can you foresee the CDM helping to overcome some of
barriers to bike lane development in Santiago? What do you see as the biggest hurdles?
• Can monitoring be built into any existing initiatives?• What will it take to achieve significant bicycle use in
Santiago?
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
37
Prof. Juan de Dios OrtúzarUniversidad Catolica de Chile
Methodological Issues
• Accuracy of O-D bicycle data?• Reliability of bicycle demand forecasting approaches?• Practicality of dynamic baselines?• Improvements on avoided emissions calculation?• What level of monitoring is credible? Reasonable?
CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 25, 2004
38
Ricardo Montezuma Fundación Ciudad Humana
Replicability of Case Study to Bogotá, Columbia
• Bogotá experience, plans and needs for- monitoring bicycle use- promoting bicycle use
• Thoughts on sufficiency of modeling capability, monitoring resources and data quality for assessing bicycle project impacts