Introduction: Transport Emissions Evaluation Models for Projects (TEEMP) BRT Module

Transcription

1 Introduction: Transport Emissions Evaluation Models for Projects (TEEMP) BRT Module Mark Angelo Tacderas Transport Researcher Low Emissions Urban Development Clean Air Asia A Session for the SPAD/Asia LEDS Partnership Workshop on BRT Systems Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia June 24-25,

2 What is TEEMP? Transport Emissions Evaluation Models for Projects A spreadsheet-based tool originally meant to evaluate the CO2 impact ADB s suite of funded transport projects Has become a host of modules that has evolved to suit the users and the projects and policies Allows for calculations of emissions given 2

3 TEEMP Developers and Partners 3

4 TEEMP Development 4

5 TEEMP Models Now Transport Emissions Evaluation Model for Projects (TEEMP, pronounced as TEMP à temporary) ü Bus rapid transit ü MRT ü Railways ü Walking infrastructure improvement ü Bikeways ü Bike sharing ü Commuter strategies ü Pricing strategies ü Eco-driving ü PAYD Insurance ü TEEMP City 5

6 TEEMP Applications in the World 6

7 Why was the TEEMP Developed? 7

8 Registered CDM Projects Transport Others Acquiring climate funds for projects is expensive As of end of

9 CDM AM0031 :BRT Data Required Data variable Number of vehicles Recording Propor7on of data to be monitored frequency Before project start and annually (in the case 100% and annually based on a survey of modal shib for passenger cars) of passengers using the new system Fuel efficiency Before project start Sample Total distance driven by all vehicles in category Before project start and parlally annually Sample Passengers transported baseline by vehicle category I Before project start 100% Average occupancy rate baseline of vehicle category I Before project start and for buses and taxis Sample minimum year 3, 6 and 10 Average trip distance baseline for vehicle category I Before project start and annually (in the case Sample and sample survey of modal shib for passenger cars) Total fuel consumplon per vehicle category Before project start Sample Passengers transported by project Annually 100% Share of passengers that would have taken transport Annually mode I Passengers transported by project who would have Bi- monthly used transport mode i Sample survey Policies that affect baseline 100% Before project start and annually Sample survey 9

10 Reality or Myth? Source : 16 MAY 2012, THE PIONEER, INDIA 10

11 Reality or Myth? 32% Reduc7on in total emission genera7on by construc7ng flyover 11

12 Introduction to TEEMP 12

13 TEEMP Methodology Features 1. With and without project cases 2. Sketch and detailed analysis * 3. Scorecard to see the impact of design (BRT/Bikeway) 4. Emissions from construction and operations 5. Dynamic baseline is considered 13

14 TEEMP Methodology Features 6. Quantification of CO2, PM,NOx emissions, Fatality savings, Fuel savings, travel time savings etc. * 7. Tools are excel based spreadsheets with simple input/ output tables 8. Default values are provided 9. Can calculate total footprint and 14

15 Navigating the TEEMP-BRT Spreadsheet Input Sheets Results Sheets Other Sheets (Defaults, assumptions, underlying computations) 15

16 Navigating the TEEMP-BRT Spreadsheet: Inputs Project Name: Location: Trans Metro Bandung Bandung Other Details: Base Year: 2010 Intermediate Year: 2019 Horizon Year: 2029 Days in Operation/year 360 Cumulative Length of BRTS Constructed (km) BRT Ridership - ('000)/day public private Modeshift t o BRT Car 30% 30% 30% 2- wheeler 40% 40% 40% Taxi 5% 5% 5% 3- wheeler 0% 0% 0% Bus 3% 3% 3% NMT 2% 2% 2% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% RTV TOTAL 16

17 Navigating the TEEMP-BRT Spreadsheet: Inputs Fuel Type (%) 2010 Private Vehicle Type Petrol Car 70% 2- wheeler 100% Taxi 90% Diesel LPG CNG Electric sum 30% 100% 100% 10% 100% No Project 0% 0% 3- wheeler Public Bus 50% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% NMT RTV 0% 0% BRT 100% 100% 17

18 Navigating the TEEMP-BRT Spreadsheet: Inputs Construction (tonco2/ ton of material) 2010 Quantity (tons/kilometer) Cement Bitumen Steel

19 Navigating the TEEMP-BRT Spreadsheet: Inputs unit of consumption price/unit (USD) Gasoline Diesel LPG CNG Electric liter liter liter kg kwh Project Construction Cost (USD) 324,083, Cost of CO2 (USD)/Ton Cost of PM (USD)/ton 15, Cost of N ox (USD)/ton 3, Cost of Time (USD/hour) 1.00 Cost of fatality (USD/person) 10, Cost of Injury (USD/person) 2, Annual inflation (%) Discount Rate (%) Annual Maintenance (% of construction) % 12% 1.00% 19

20 Methodology 20

21 Data linkage to the ASIF-ASI Frameworks Avoid ShiA Improve 21

22 Fitting ASIF Activity (Total Passengerkm or ton-km) Structure (% of PKM, TKM done by modes) Intensity (e.g. kilometer/liter of fuel) Volu me of fuel consu med Total CO2 Emissio s (kgco2) Factor of Emissions (e.g. kgco2/liter of gasoline) 22

23 Project Scenario Operation emissions Fuel consump7on of BRT buses x CO2 EF Other 23 Construction emissions Materials Used x EF of CO2/unit of material used

24 No Project Scenario : Emissions Gasoline Vehicle Kilometers VKM /day x Average Fuel Efficiency of Gasoline Cars x kgco2/liter of gasoline Diesel x Average Fuel Efficiency of Diesel Cars x kgco2/liter of diesel LPG x Average Fuel Efficiency of LPG Cars x kgco2/liter oflpg x Average Fuel Efficiency of Other types x kgco2/unit of other fuels Etc... A CO2 Emission Factor (kgco2/liter) Fuel Efficiency (km/liter) % s I CO2 Emissions in the NO PROJECT SCENARIO F 24

25 Defaults Fuel kmph Diesel LPG (km/liter) (km/liter) Car Vehicle Petrol (km/liter) 2- wheeler Taxi CNG (km/kg) Electric (km/kwh) wheeler Bus 3.57 Mini- bus Occupancy Trip Length (km) Vehicle Occupants Vehicle km Car 2.38 Car wheeler wheeler 6.70 Taxi 2.38 Taxi wheeler wheeler 7.30 Bus Bus Mini- bus Mini- bus 25

26 Recall the Basic Concepts: BAU vs Project Scenario Business-as usual scenario CO2 Emissions Emissions savings Can either be: 1. Without any projects or policies assumed 2. With impacts of exislng projects and policies dislnguished from project under evalualon Project scenario EsLmated emissions with project or policy in place Base year Time horizon Target year Time 26

27 BAU vs. Project Scenario Business as Usual Highway ORIGIN BRT Metro NMT DESTINATION City 27

28 Establish baseline emissions Inform intervention selection TEEMP Inform reduction goals Attract financial support Ex-ante estimation What is the potential emissions reduction impact of the intervention? Baseline study needed Start of intervention Impacts Measurement: Timing Evaluate intervention effectiveness Meet funder requirements Improve intervention design Monitoring and Expost evaluation Is the intervention delivering the emission reduction as expected? Why? Monitoring plan and actual monitoring 28

29 Ex-ante Evaluation Approach Business-as usual scenario Emissions savings Emissions Ex-ante Project scenario Time 29

30 CO2 Emissions in the No Project Scenario - CO2 Emissions in the Project Scenario = CO2 Savings 30

31 Results and Output 31

32 Results and Output Results *analysis does not consider land use impacts Ridership/year (millions) Emissions Savings PM reduction (tons) NOx reduction (tons) CO2 reduction (tons) Financial I ndicators EIRR NPV (million USD) Project Cost (million USD) #DIV/0! $ (286.95) PM reduction (tons/km) NOx reduction (tons/km) CO2 reduction (tons/km) , Co- benefits VKT Saved (millions) Time t ravel savings ('000s hours) No. of fatalities reduced No. of injuries reduced Fuel Savings ('000 USD) Emissions reduction ('000 USD) , , , , PM reduction (tons/km/yr) NOx reduction (tons/km/yr) CO2 reduction (tons/km/yr) , kg/year kg/year ton/year 1, , ,

33 Results and Output Resulting Travel Demand Vehicle Kilometers Travelled (million VKT) Cars 2- wheeler Taxi Bus NMT RTV wheeler BRT Note: Solid area portions refer to modes in a NO BRT S cenario, the impacts of the BRT are depicted by the line 33

34 Results and Output Emissions 4 PM PM Emissions (tons) Cars Bus NOx Emissions (tons) NOx wheeler NMT 2020 Taxi RTV wheeler BRT Note: Solid area portions refer to modes in a NO BRT S cenario, the impacts of the BRT are depicted by the line Cars 2- wheeler 2020 Taxi 3- wheeler 2025 Bus NMT RTV BRT Note: Solid area portions refer to modes in a NO BRT S cenario, the impacts of the BRT are depicted by the line 10,000 9,000 CO2 CO2 Emissions (tons) 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1, Cars Bus wheeler NMT Taxi RTV wheeler BRT Note: Solid area portions refer to modes in a NO BRT S cenario, the impacts of the BRT are depicted by the line 34

35 Results and Output Co-Benefit Analysis Fatali7es and Injuiries Reduced 1,200 Hours Saved ('000s) 1, No. of fataliles reduced No. of injuries reduced Time travel savings('000s hours) 35

36 Key Considerations to Analysis The bottomline of TEEMP is to enable simple analysis of GHG and CO2 despite limited data Thus, it depends on many assumptions and defaults Nonetheless the methodology has been widely accepted and very simple to implement 36

37 Identify Scope Before Performing Calculations Upstream emissions (fuel production, transportation, construction, electricity generation for e-vehicles) Downstream emissions (tailpipe) How does the intervention impact 37

38 Years of Analysis Matter Impact of Project Life on Emissions Tons/Year/km CO2 saved (20 years) with construction CO2 saved (10 years) with construction 38

39 Construction Emissions Are Significant 39

40 Illustration of Construction Emissions 1 km of infrastructure DescripLon tons of CO2 BRTS Considering only the quanlty of steel, cement and asphalt Bikeways Considering only the quanlty of steel, cement and asphalt. 20 MRTS Railways Roads 2 lines for 80% elevated and 20% underground Considering only the quanlty of steel and concrete for single track 875 Considering only the quanlty of steel, cement and asphalt for a four lane road

41 Use Dynamic Baselines 4000 CO2 saved (tons/km/year) 3500 Constant Mode Share 3000 Motorization Scenario 2500 Emissions Are Not Sta7c (+ more 2000 savings) % scenario 80% scenario 50% scenario Travel aclvity trends (+) Mode share trends (+) Changing vehicle occupancy (+) Changing vehicle economy (- ) Changing vehicle fuels (- ) Changing vehicle emission standards (- ) 41

42 Sample Indicators : Based on ADB Application of TEEMP DescripLon Expressway Bikeway Rural Road (capacity) Rural Road (RehabilitaLon) Metro/Monorail BRTS Railway Urban Road 2 lane to 4 lane Urban Road 4 lane to 6 lane CO2 Savings Indicator (ton per unit) unit ton/km/year ton/km/year ton/km/year ton/km/year ton/km/year ton/km/year ton/km/year ton/km/year ton/km/year 42

43 BRT Design has Impact 85 or above ITDP BRT Standard Service Planning 2. Infrastructure 3. StaLon Design and StaLon- Bus Interface 4. Quality of Service and Passenger informalon Systems 5. IntegraLon and Access BRT is evaluated and calculated score is used as a bonus weight for ridership increase Example - IntegraLon and access is 14 points 43

44 Default Values can be Borrowed CO2 Emission Factor Petrol 2.42 kg/liter Diesel 2.58 kg/liter LPG 1.50 kg/liter CNG kg/kg BUT they must be updated and localized 44

45 Linkages of Various Interventions to Transport Data 45

46 TEEMP Limitations 1. Needs live applications and a mechanism to improve the defaults and the sketch analysis ( ex Bike/Walk scorecard) need to train model with good data 2. TEEMP is still perceived as a complicated tool 3. Benefits such as Value of travel time, fuel savings and Accident savings and economic analysis are still not included in some models 4. Needs good data for reliable estimates 5. TEEMP does not include freight 6. Results are as good as inputs 7. Needs to quantify employment, health benefits etc. 46

47 For more Forinformation: more information: g Clean Air Asia China Office 901A Reignwood Building, No. 8 YongAnDongLi Jianguomenwai Avenue Beijing China Clean Air Asia Center center@cleanairasia.org Clean Air Asia India Office india@cleanairasia.org Unit 3505 Robinsons 1st Floor, Building No. 4 Equitable Tower Thyagraj Nagar Market, Lodhi ADB Avenue, Pasig City Colony Metro Manila 1605 New Delhi Philippines Clean Air Asia Country India. India. Indonesia.Networks Nepal. Pakistan. Philippines. Sri Lanka. Vietnam China Clean Air Asia Center Members Shell Asia Clean Fuels Association Corning 240 Clean Air Asia Partnership Members Donors in 2012 to 2013 Asian Development Bank l Cities Development Initiative for Asia l Cities ClimateWorks Foundation l DHL/IKEA/UPS l Energy Foundation l Environment ministries and Fredskorpset Norway l Fu Tak Iam Foundation l German International Cooperation (GIZ) l Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) l government agencies Institute for Transport Policy Studies l Institute for Transportation and Development agencies and Development Policy l International Union for Conservation of Nature l foundations L'Agence Française de Développement (AFD) l MAHA l Pilipinas Shell l Non-government organizations Academic and research institutions Rockefeller Brothers Fund l Shakti Foundation l Shell Foundation l United Nations Environment Program Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles Private sector companies and 47 (UNEP PCFV) l USAID CEnergy l Veolia l World Bank associations