embarq baq 06 jogja lee schipper, ph.d. wei-shiuen ng, m.a. maria cordeiro, m.a. embarq better air...
TRANSCRIPT
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
Lee Schipper, Ph.D.Wei-Shiuen Ng, M.A. Maria Cordeiro, M.A.
EMBARQBetter Air Quality 2006
Jogjakarta
Coupling GHG Emission Reductions with Transport and Local Emissions Management
The Good, the Bad and the Difficult Counting of Carbon
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
EMBARQ
• A catalyst for socially, financially, and environmentally sound solutions to the problems of urban mobility
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
EMBARQ
• Established as a unique center within World Resources Institute in 2002, EMBARQ is now the hub of a network of centers for sustainable transport in developing countries.
• Shell Foundation and Caterpillar Foundation are EMBARQ’s Global Strategic Partners, supporting EMBARQ projects worldwide
• Additional EMBARQ supporters include– Hewlett Foundation– Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs– BP– US AID– Asian Development Bank– Energy Foundation– Blue Moon Fund– US Environmental Protection Agency
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
The Carbon Challenge
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
THE CART: WORLD CARBON EMISSIONS PULLED BY TRANSPORT
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
MTo
nnes
CO
2
Sea and Aviation Bunkers
OECD Transport ex Mexico
Non OECD Transport w/Mexico
Non-Oecd non Transport
OECD Non Transport
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
EMBARQ’s project motivations• Reduce GHG emissions from urban transport globally.
• Develop a reliable, inexpensive methodology for measuring and accounting GHG and criteria pollutant emissions from transport projects.
• Create a clear correlation between changes in transport activity and resulting changes in local and global emissions enabling policy makers to understand the environment and health implications of various policy options. Allow decision-makers to use GHG and criteria pollutant emissions reduction co-benefits as an additional criteria for selecting transport projects.
• Identify the fundamental limitations of existing tools and approaches. Currently available tools provide only accounting for changes in emissions and do not establish a relationship between emissions and traffic changes.
• Apply results in EMBARQ’s partner cities and elsewhere
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
Stakeholders, Friends and Team
EMBARQUS AID
NGOs
$
CTS-BrazilTrafalgar –John Rogers
MJ Bradley UC RiversideCTS-Mexico
Other expertsHani Mahmassimi
Mark Bradley
P.A. Hanoi, Queretarocity authoritiesMinistries of Transportation
Depts. of Energy
Private sector:Fuel and Vehicles
Local, National Ministries of Environment
Bilateral and multilateral org. and IFEs
Other city authorities
Press
Other funding orgs.
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
Why Count Carbon in Transport Projects? Depends on Who is Counting
• Third Party Fundors (ADB, W Bank, etc.)– Estimate CO2 implications of transport related projects
– Provide tools for local stakeholders, whatever their reasons
• The Mayor, Governor, or Prime Minister– Verify non-binding commitments or just brag
– Guide transport strategy and investments
• The Transport Office or Air Pollution Office– Reduced traffic and congestion on its own
– Reduced local emissions
• The World Carbon Community– Element of national carbon restraint strategy
– Carbon reductions that can be sold or traded – CDM etc.
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
Certainty Levels versus Costs
Costs
Certainty levels
Carbon Market
Governments with non-biding targets
Philanthropy
The project team wants to tailor the tools developed to the needs of the various audiences and understand the relationship between costs of estimating GHG and criteria pollutant emissions and certainty levels.
Governments with binding targets
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
Types of Transport Projects
• Fuels and Vehicles
– Fuel switch and hybridization
– Switch to larger vehicles and better running (BRT)
– Engine retrofits
• Traffic Improvements and Modal Shift
– One-way streets and signal synchronization
– Transit upgrades (e.g.: BRT system)
– Cycle paths
• Land Use and Planning
– Transit Oriented Development
– Pedestrian Zones
– Portland Ore. Style growth boundary
Transport
Mobility
Accessibility
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
Focus on the Transport-Emissions Link
• What’s In and Relatively Easy to Measure• Fuel use in project vehicles
• Changes in mode towards/away from project vehicles
• Emissions in construction/destruction of vehicles/infrastructure
• What’s Important but Hard To Measure• Changes in traffic and km driven caused by transport project
• So-called “induced demand”
• What’s Important, but Harder to Measure• Changes in emissions resulting from changes in driving cycle
• What’s not in, but Relatively Easy to Measure• Changes in fleet fuels to lower carbon fuels
• Changes in fleet propulsion (i.e., to hybrids)
• Changes in other fleet characteristics affecting fuel use/emissions
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
Integrated View of Transport Problems The ASIF Decomposition for Fuel and Emissions
http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2000/flex2000.pdf
= A Si Ii Fi,j Fuel Use and
Emissions from Transport
* * *
Occupancy/ Load Factor
Vehicle fuel intensity Vehicle characteristics
Technological energy efficiency
Real drive cycles and routing, driver behavior
Veh-km and pass-km by mode
Modal Energy Intensity:
Emissions per unit of energy
or volume or km from fuel J in mode I
Total Transport Activity
Lesson : Attack All Components of the Problem
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
Changes in Transport-Project Emissions Getting a Handle on Each Component
= A Si Ii Fi,j Fuel Use and
Emissions from Transport
* * *
Vehicle operator or passenger surveys,
street-side observations
From surveys, not from new-vehicle
tests Vehicle characteristics
Technological energy efficiency
Observations (video, chase cars, radar, GPS)
Travel and traffic surveys, extra surveys over
“Zone of influence” Calculated modal
energy intensity:
For CO2- calculated from measured fuel use, with fuel cycle
burdens added
Summed over modes.
Lesson : Attack All Components of the Problem
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
MEASUREMENTS HAVE TO CONTINUE OVER TIME.
Time
Em
issi
on
s
Baseline (the contra -factual “without project ” case )
Base -case
(Now )
Project impact when
it is validated each year
Project line
(the factual “with project ” case )
Today
Dynamic Base-line & Project-line over timeAfter John Rogers, Trafalgar SA, Mexico
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
Transport project outcomes: Not always less carbon, hopefully better transport
Carbon
Quality of transport
Carbon reduction,Carbon reduction,Improved transportImproved transport
Carbon increase,Carbon increase, improved transportimproved transport
+
+-
-
Carbon increase, Worse transport
Carbon reduction, Worse transport
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
Transport project outcomes: More or Less Carbon?
CO2/km
Total Veh-km
+
+-
-
BRTBRT
Circuitous trafficCircuitous trafficavoiding bottlenecks;avoiding bottlenecks;
Induced trafficInduced trafficHybrid or CNG for Hybrid or CNG for
GasolineGasoline
Individual transportIndividual transportor mini busesor mini buses
WINNERS:WINNERS:
LOSERS:LOSERS:
- Less- Less congestioncongestion- Less- Less drivingdriving
- More- More congestioncongestion- More- More drivingdriving
Congestion pricingCongestion pricing
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
RECENT METHODOLOGIES.
• Regional Scenarios and Projects– This Study -- Hanoi– Santiago (CCAP)– This study (Porto Alegre)
• BRT– Fulton and Wright – BRT in Latin America– Rogers and Schipper (04); Rogers (06)– Gruetter – Bogota Transmilenio
• Vehicle and Fuel Switches– This study – BRT Vehicles in Queretaro– This study – Hybrids for Mexico City– Santiago Hybrids (CCAP)
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
Bogota – Gruetter Methodology The First CDM Approved Approach
• For “Integrated BRT Systems” only– Default vs. measured fuel use/emissions– Fuel Use/Emissions of affected vehicles vs universe– Role of technological change over time on car emissions
• Assumes Effects of non-project vehicles small– Reductions in congestion/higher speeds (or VV)– New access (like BRT or Metro) and new development– Gruetter – Bogota Transmilenio
• Impact of Projects on “non project” vehicles, travel– This study – BRT Vehicles in Queretaro– This study – Hybrids for Mexico City– Santiago Hybrids (CCAP)
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
KEY UNCERTAINTIES Non-Project Travel/Vehicles
• Fuel Use anad Local Emissions– Default vs. measured fuel use/emissions– Fuel Use/Emissions of affected vehicles vs universe– Role of technological change over time
• Induced Travel and Development– Reductions in congestion/higher speeds (or VV)– New access (like BRT or Metro) and new development– Gruetter – Bogota Transmilenio
• Impact of Projects on “non project” vehicles, travel– This study – BRT Vehicles in Queretaro– This study – Hybrids for Mexico City– Santiago Hybrids (CCAP)
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
Hanoi CO2 Scenarios: SummaryHans Oern, Thuan Le, EMBARQ
• Start with JICA – Sponsored 2020 Master Plan – Transport model gives people, vehicle movements in 2020
– Alternatives proposed showing impact of mass transit
– No calculations of fuel, local emissions, or CO2 present
• EMBARQ’s Contribution– Quantify vehicle-km, passenger-km from Master Plan input data
– Estimate emissions and fuel/km from various sources, local experts
– Apply “ASIF” model to transform veh.-km into total fuel, emissions
• Results: Implications of Different Transport Futures– Fuel bill for Hanoi 2020 under different assumptions
– Pollution and CO2 emissions loads from transport
– Model for comparing emissions/pollution alternatives
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
Hanoi: From Existing Scenarios, extract activity for each transport scenario
No of trips
Trip length
Load factor
Vehicle
kms
Energy
factor
Emission factors
Total energy
consumption
Total emissions
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
Scenarios for Hanoi
Year 1995 2005 2020
Policy History Present Trend PT 30%
Transportsystem History Present Do nothing Master Plan Master Plan
Emissions and fuel efficiency improvements Slow Agressive Agressive
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
Hanoi Future Transport: Travel and CO2 Emissions in 2020
Compare Future Alternative Scenarios to Present
CO2 Emissions
0
20
40
60
80
100
2003 2010 2020 Hig Car,low
mobility
2010 2020 HighTransit
2010 2020
Fu
el U
se
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
To
tal C
arb
on
Em
issi
on
s (M
n T
on
nes
)
Electric Transport (Tram, metro)
BRT and Buses
Cars
Two Wheelers
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
Queretaro: BRT Proposal
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
Queretaro CO2 Summary
• Start with Transconsula]t Master Plan for BRT – Recognized “Quaos in Queretaro”
– Examined overall transport situation
– Suggested at least 1 BRT route for emerging corridor
• Evaluate BRT Choices– Numbers of vehicles, capacity, etc
– Emissions and fuel use of choices from MC tests
– Some information on existing fleet fuel use bolstered by MC tests
• Results – BRT Alone Small Improvement– Most emissions continue to come from feeders and “others”
– Greater effort to substitute larger for smaller vehicles needed
– In any case, BRT canceled for budgetary reasons
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
Scope of the Queretaro Bus FleetContext of Proposed BRT
Fuente: Transconsult S.C. Queretaro
Rutas Vehicles Passenger Trips/Hour Km/day
Trunk BRT (proposed)
18 articulated 120 20. 5 4,444
Auxiliary 39 1-unit bus 60 32.5 7,145
Feeders 115 Minibus 40 108 21,482
Others 509 Minibus 40 208 81,996
1 Truck Route
4 aux. Routes
15 Feeder Routes
47 Other Routes
60,000 pax/day
5,000 pax/hr peak
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
CO2 Emissions in the BRT Corridor
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
BRT corridor scenarios
To
ns/
yr
CO2
1. D350 ppm S2. D50 ppm S3. D50 ppm S, DPF4. D15 ppm S5. CNG6. Series Hybrid, D15ppm7. Parallel Hybrid,
D15 ppm, DPF
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
BRT and Remaining Bus SystemThe Context Changes
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
BRT corridor scenarios
To
ns
/y
r
CO2
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Scenarios
Tons
/yr
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
Mexico City: Route-Based Measurement Methodology
(John Rogers)
On-RouteBusesOther VehiclesModal Shift
Feeder RoutesBusesOther Vehicles
Cross-trafficLeft turnsEliminated crossings
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
Other Sources CountedRebound & New Trip CreationCongestion changes
Construction & upstream materialTraffic delays due to construction activities
Leakages• Smelting removed vehicles• Trickle-down of removed vehicles• Impact of bus/other traffic to/from other routes• Modal shift / transfers from other routes• Fuel-use & handling shift (theft, evaporation
etc)
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
Mexico CityEmissions ReductionsSource: John Rogers
-5%0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%40%
Buses OtherVehicles
onCorridor
ModalShift
Left Turns VehiclesCrossing
46 Kt CO2e p.a.
Buses account for less than 40% of the ERs
M$ 2.5 US10 years
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
GHG Savings at $5/Ton in Mexico City:Hypothetical Insurgentes Corridor Case(estimates Rogers)
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
Yearly Savings- CO2
US
$/ye
ar S
aved
Indirect effects from reducedcongestion on 50 000 cars/day @10 mins/car
Direct Effects from Full Newbuses
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
Fuel Savings ($340/ton):Hypothetical Insurgentes Corridor Case(estimates Rogers)
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
Yearly Savings- CO2 Yearly Savings-Fuel
US
$/y
ea
r S
av
ed
Indirect effects fromreduced congestion on 50000 cars/day @ 10 mins/car
Direct Effects from FullNew buses
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
GHG, Fuel, Time ($1/hour) SavingsDid CO2 make/break the project?Time/Value estimates CST/EMBARQ
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
$18,000,000
Yearly Savings- CO2 Yearly Savings-Fuel Yearly Savings-Time @ 5min/day/person, $1/hr
US
$/y
ea
r S
av
ed
Indirect effects from reduced congestionon 50 000 cars/day @ 10 mins/car
Direct Effects from Full New buses
EMBARQ BAQ 06
Jogja
Lessons Learned So Far
• Project-Based Vehicle Emissions Changes• Easy to measure and verify
• Can be large before/after but small relative to entire region
• May be less than 50% of entire “savings” in project
• Other Emissions Changes Difficult• Poor data on present and future traffic and people/freight flows
• Very poor data on fuel intensity and emissions of vehicles
• Difficulties estimating counter-factual case
• Larger issues and Caveats• Don’t let CO2 drive good transport decisions
• Do verify that CO2 is “less than otherwise” because of a project
• Weigh transport plan choices against CO2, local emissions changes
