urban transport and environment in kathmandu valley - local air pollution control and its synergy...
TRANSCRIPT
Urban transport and environment in Kathmandu Valley - Local air pollution control and its synergy with global carbon concerns
Shobhakar Dhakal, Ph.D.
Executive Director, Global Carbon Project (GCP)
Global Carbon Project - Tsukuba International Office
c/o National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES)
Onogawa 16-2, Tsukuba, Japan 305 8506
E-mail: [email protected]
www.globalcarbonproject.org www.gcp-urcm.org
Acknowledgements
Ministry of Population and Environment, Nepal (now Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment)
Co-benefit approach offers opportunities toward carbon-constrained-world Allows scaling down carbon-problem to local
level by addressing local priorities Allows local decision makers to make forward
looking steps without much compromises Gives momentum for climate concerns
How that plays out in Kathmandu’s urban transportation and air pollution context?
Questions
Among the various factors, what are the most important factors for air pollution and CO2 emissions from urban transportation?
What are the strategies for local priority issues? and
How that address the issue of carbon mitigation?
Kathmandu Valley
27 km Ring Road
Containment policy advocated but largely failed due to non-implementation of recommended measures
1.6 million population, 666 sq km, 30% of nation’s urban population, five municipalities; PM10 is major concern
Transport picture
Limited road infrastructure- 1,331 km with only 54% paved
57% of country’s registered vehicles are concentrated in the Kathmandu Valley - 68% for cars and 64% for motorcycles
6.8 times increase in vehicle population in last 15 years, 13% annual average growth rate, 17% for motorcycles
Operating public transport: About 2000 buses and minibuses, about 1000 LPG and
battery-operated three wheelers, about 1000 microbuses, 6-7 thousand taxies
Vehicle stock
2003/04: Stock of registered vehicle composition in Kathmandu valley (same as Bagmati zone)
Tractors0.7%
Pick-up0.4%
2-w heeler69.7%
Other1.4% Car/Jeep/Van
20.7%
Truck/Tanker3.0%
Bus+Minibus1.9%
Micro bus0.4%
3-Wheeler2.0%
Private vehicle’s share is almost 90%
Travel demand (in pass-km)1989-2004Modal Split of Motorized Passsenger-Km
Low Occupancy
Public Modes
High Occupancy
Public Modes
Private
Gov/Semi
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
Pas
sen
ger
km
• 8.7 times increase in pass travel demand
• Largely unchanged structure of travel demand
• 57% of travel demand met by public transportation
Structucture of Motorized Passsenger-Km
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
Mill
ion
s
Pas
sen
ger
km
Tw o Wheelers
Three Wheelers
Minibus
Bus
Gov. Cars and Jeeps
LPG Microbus
Disel Microbus
Taxies
PrivateCars/Vans/Jeeps
Energy use profile, 1989-2004
Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, GJ
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
1989
1992
1995
1998
2001
2004
Tho
usan
ds
Ene
rgy
Con
sum
ptio
n by
pas
s tr
ansp
orta
tion,
in G
J
Total ElectricityConsumption, GJ
Total LPGConsumption, GJ
Total Dieselconsumption, GJ
Total GasolineConsumption, GJ
Energy Consumption by Structucture of Motorized Modes
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
Th
ou
san
ds
GJ
Tw o Wheelers
Three Wheelers
Minibus
Bus
Gov. Cars and Jeeps
LPG Microbus
Disel Microbus
Taxies
PrivateCars/Vans/Jeeps
Energy consumption by Mode
Low Occupancy
Public Modes
High Occupancy
Public Modes
Private
Gov/Semi
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
GJ
- Energy use increased by 7 times
- Gasoline accounts for 75% of total energy use
- Buses and minibuses - are 1.4% of total vehicle population- meet 37% of travel demand- consume 13% of total energy
PM10 and CO2 emissions- 2004
PM10 Emission from Passenger Transportation in 2004
LPG MicroBus0.2%
Gov Car/Jeep4.2%
MiniBus0.3%
Bus0.5%
Three Wheeler3.9%
Diesel MicroBus0.3%
Taxi/Van19.3%
Privare Car/Jeep/Van
29.7%
Tw o Wheeler41.7%
CO2 Emission from Passenger Transportation in 2004
Tw o Wheeler20.3%
Privare Car/Jeep/Van35.3%
Taxi/Van20.6%
Diesel MicroBus2.6%
Three Wheeler4.0%
Bus4.1%
MiniBus6.8%
Gov Car/Jeep5.9%
LPG MicroBus0.5%
Criteria pollutant increased by four to six times based on pollutant type in 1989-2004
Private modes are responsible for 53% of PM10 and 55% of CO2 emissions in 2004
PM10 and CO2 intensity (2004)
Baseline scenario (2004-2025) Planned and existing measures will be effectively
implemneted Phase out of 20 years old vehicles within next 5
years 20% increase in fuel efficiency for new vehicles by
2025 Travel demand grow by 3 times Ownership of cars and motorcycles will double Energy use will grow by 2.2 times
Baseline emission profile
PM10 will reduce in 2010 but rebound laterReasons
Rapid phase out of 20 years old vehiclesIncrease in fuel efficiency of new vehiclesGreater penetration of EURO-I vehiclesPhase out of 2 stroke three wheelers in 2004Retirement of two stroke motorcycle by 2010Slower expected economic growth for first few years
Existing measures would not be sufficient to reduce PM10 due to rise in vehicles number
Alternate scenarios
POP: Activity control (reducing population stress in the Valley through decentralization of economic, political and administrative functions); dampening annual average pop growth to 2% from 2.54% till 2025
PUBLIC: Transport structure control (public transport to cater 70% of travel demand; reducing similar share of private transport through car restraining policies, reducing load factor of buses and minibuses, increasing share of high occupancy public modes over low occupancy modes)
Alternate scenarios
Intensity and fuel control
ELECTRIC: Higher penetration of electric vehicles by making all three wheelers to battery operated, 30% of government cars to battery operated progressively by 2025, and expanding trolley bus to ring road and existing routes so that 20% of buses would be trolley buses by 2025
EURO: Introduction of more stringent emission standards; EURO II by 2010, EURO III by 2015 accompanied by compatible fuel quality (Gasoline 500 and 150 ppm; Diesel 500 and 350 ppm)
Alternate scenarios
PACKAGE: A comprehensive set of policies without too much stressing a particular sector that makes implementation politically feasible (ASIF) Moderate population control Public transport share in total travel demand to 65% at the
expense of private mode, high share of high occupancy public transport- 80%, buses meeting demand 10% more than minibuses, increasing comfort in buses and minibuses
All 3 Wh to be electric, 5% of total buses to be electric EURO II by 2010, S content of Gasoline and Diesel to be
each 500 ppm
Scenario evaluation criteria (from stakeholder dialogue)
Local contributions to PM10 reduction Congestion mitigation (vehicle population as
proxy) Energy saving Greater use of indigenously produced energy
resources (electricity in this case) Contributions to global issues
Reductions in CO2 emission
Scenario analyses results
In short term (next five years), existing and already planned countermeasures can reduce large amount of emissions, if implemented and if in-use emission controlled in enforced strictly
Impact of EURO II would be more substantial than EURO III, EURO III will have marginal benefits
Tightening of emission standards is necessary but not sufficient: Effective for SO2, PM10 and NOX but ineffective for reducing CO2, energy use, reducing congestion and greater utilization of local energy sources
Scenario analyses
Large scale introduction of bus system will reduce large no of vehicles and save energy. However, in absence of progressive emission standards this will increase PM10 and SO2
Impact of large scale introduction of EVs will reduce other factors nominally (but greatly increase electricity use) but will not decrease congestion
In long-run, a number of countermeasures would be necessary
PACKAGE Scenario is the most desirable
Performance of various scenarios over BASE in 2025
Conclusion
Promoting public transportation, especially with those which high occupancy modes are essential for a number of factors
A package of countermeasures are necessary which only can address various priority issues such as PM10, congestion, energy saving, greater use of electricity and CO2
There are synergies, not the conflicts, between local and global priorities in the Kathmandu Valley
