An Introduction Alvin Mejia & Sudhir Gota MRV Training Class November 26, PDF Free Download

TEEMP An Introduction Alvin Mejia & Sudhir Gota MRV Training Class November 26, 2013

Photo credit: Transit Utopia transitutopia.blogspot.com

Outline Why we developed TEEMP Models? Who is involved in TEEMP process? What are TEEMP models? How TEEMP was developed? What did we learn from TEEMP?

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

Reality or Myth? 32% Reduction in total emission generation by constructing flyover

Only 27 out of 7398 registered projects under the CDM are transportrelated

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

Data Availability EF Intensity Structure Activity Other Parameter Vehicle kilometer travelled - by type Vehicle population - by type Fuel efficiency - by type 2w 3w car MUV Bus LCV HCV 2w 3w car MUV Bus LCV HCV 2w 3w car MUV Bus LCV HCV Emission factors Population GDP Bangalore Beijing Davao Delhi Hanoi HCMC Jakarta Karachi Kathmandu Metro Manila Rawalpindi Shanghai Surabaya available mostly available limited not available not applicable default

The CO2 Equation CO 2 emissions result from fuel combustion Amount of fuel used Source of fuel consumed (i.e. bus/ private car) Carbon content of the fuel.

A s Transportation Activity Structure of the transportation system I Intensity of the transportation modes F Emission Factors

Top Down Fuel sales Bottom-up Activity based data

Benefits in transport projects

Objective Credit: Yang JIANG, Daizong LIU, Suping CHEN, Assessment Tools for China Low Carbon City Projects From the CSTC s Perspective, 2011

Results?

Goals Relatively simple project sketch models that: - foster best practice design/operations - reflect complex induced travel/land use placeholders - focus on wide range of sustainable transport options - promote co-benefits - Easy and could be done even with low resources (decouple accuracy with resources spent )

Introduction to TEEMP TEEMP Transport Emissions Evaluation Model for Projects (can be pronounced as temp or temporary)

TEEMP Development

Measuring using ASIF Framework Avoid Shift Improve

Activity How trips will I make today? How far is each trip? Structure How will I make the trip? Will I use a car? Will take the bus? Intensity How many kilometers can my car travel with one liter of fuel? How full is the bus? Fuel Carbon Content What is the fuel of the vehicle? How much carbon is in the fuel of the vehicle?

TEEMP Applications

Introduction to TEEMP: BAU vs Interventions Business as Usual Highway ORIGIN BRT NMT DESTINATION Metro City

Introduction to TEEMP: Emission Savings No Project Scenario (BAU) Emissions ( CO2, PM and NOx) Emissions savings from project Project Scenario (Intervention) construction Project vehicles Time

Introduction to TEEMP: Tools Roads Projects

Introduction to TEEMP: Tools Bikeway Projects and Bike sharing Scheme

Introduction to TEEMP: Tools Bus Rapid Transit Projects

Introduction to TEEMP: Tools Walkability Improvement Projects Times of India - 16 Apr 2010 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshowpics/2670814.cms

Introduction to TEEMP: Tools Metro, LRT and Intercity Railway Projects http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshowpics/56194 85.cms

Introduction to TEEMP: Tools http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshowpics/3844315.cms TDM Strategies- Commuter Strategies, Pricing Strategies, Eco- Driving, PAYD Insurance http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshowpics/3148432.cms

Introduction to TEEMP: Tools TEEMP City and TRAM - Mobility Plans/ Low Carbon Transport Plans/ Master Plans/ Comprehensive traffic and transportation study/low cost options for accurate data collection

Introduction to 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

Introduction to 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 savings from BAU

For For more more information: www.cleanairasia.org Clean Air Asia Center center@cleanairasia.org Unit 3505 Robinsons Equitable Tower ADB Avenue, Pasig City Metro Manila 1605 Philippines Thanks Lee Clean Air Asia Center Members Shell Asia Clean Fuels Association Corning 240 Clean Vietnam Air Asia Partnership Members Clean Air Asia China Office china@cleanairasia.org 901A Reignwood Building, No. 8 YongAnDongLi Jianguomenwai Avenue Beijing China Clean Air Asia Country Clean Air Asia India Office india@cleanairasia.org 1st Floor, Building No. 4 Thyagraj Nagar Market, Lodhi Colony New Delhi 110003 India Networks China. India. Indonesia. Nepal. Pakistan. Philippines. Sri Lanka. Donors in 2012 to 2013 Asian Development Bank Cities Development Initiative for Asia ClimateWorks Foundation Cities DHL/IKEA/UPS Energy Foundation Fredskorpset Norway Fu Tak Iam Foundation Environment ministries and government German International Cooperation (GIZ) Institute for Global Environmental Strategies agencies (IGES) Institute for Transport Policy Studies Institute for Transportation and Development Development agencies and foundationspolicy International Union for Conservation of Nature L'Agence Française de Non-government organizations Développement (AFD) MAHA Pilipinas Shell Rockefeller Brothers Fund Shakti Academic and research institutions Foundation Shell Foundation United Nations Environment Program Partnership for Clean Private sector companies and Fuels and Vehicles (UNEP PCFV) USAID CEnergy Veolia World Bank associations 36

TEEMP Introduction Part II Alvin Mejia & Sudhir Gota MRV Training Class November 27, 2013

Hypothetical Project Type of Project: BRT Project Name: BRT Project AAA Length: 15 kilometers Start of Operation: 2015 Projected Ridership: 245 thousand per day in 2015, reaching up to 546 million per day by 2034 39 How do you calculate the CO2 emissions impact of the project?

CO2 Savings Emissions in the No Project Scenario Emissions in the Project Scenario - = Net CO2 Savings 40

No Project Scenario What mode would they have used in the absence of the BRT? What is the average distance? 41

No Project Scenario Trip Mode Share (% of each mode) Average Trip Distance per Mode Average Occupancy per Mode Average Vehiclekm/day per mode Number of Trips/da y x / = 42

No Project Scenario VKM/ day % Gasoline Diesel LPG Etc... x x x x Fuel Efficiency (km/liter) Average Fuel Efficiency of Gasoline Cars Average Fuel Efficiency of Diesel Cars Average Fuel Efficiency of LPG Cars Average Fuel Efficiency of Other types x x x x CO2 Emission Factor (kgco2/liter) Average Fuel Efficiency of Gasoline Cars Average Fuel Efficiency of Diesel Cars Average Fuel Efficiency of LPG Cars Average Fuel Efficiency of Other types CO2 Emissions (kg/day) in the NO PROJECT SCENARIO 43

Project Scenario Operation emissions Construction emissions Fuel consumption of BRT buses x CO2 EF Materials Used x EF of CO2/unit of material used Other 44

Insights from TEEMP Project Applications

Impact of Speed

Traffic Projections

Years of Analysis Matter Tons/Year/km 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 2000 4000 CO2 saved (20 years) with construction Impact of Project Life on Emissions CO2 saved (10 years) with construction

Metro Electricity Consumption Both traction and non traction Only traction energy Savings from Modeshift (tons) 4,569,366 8,681,796 Construction Emissions (tons) 685,707 685,707 Emissions from Electricity Use (tons) 2,389,865 1,162,945 Carbon footprint (million tons) 3.08 1.85 Total CO2 saved (20 years) (tons) 1493795 6833145 CO2 savings tons/km 34105 156008 CO2 savings tons/year/km 1705 7800

Construction Emissions

Construction Emissions 1 km of infrastructure Description tons of CO 2 BRTS Considering only the quantity of steel, cement and asphalt. Bikeways Considering only the quantity of steel, cement and asphalt. MRTS 2 lines for 80% elevated and 20% underground Railways Considering only the quantity of steel and concrete for single track 1900 20 15600 875 Roads Considering only the quantity of steel, cement and asphalt for a four lane road 2100

Mode shift data can be borrowed Mode shift from (%) Hangzhou Shanghai Beijing Paris Barcelona Lyon London Mode Shifts towards Bike Sharing Schemes Around the World Default Values Pedestrian 16 26 23 20 26 37 21 22 E Bike/ Motorcycle Bus 51 40 48 65 51 50 34 46 Taxi 4 4 3 5 4 Car 4 4 5 4 5 3 8 10 7 6 Private Bicycle 8 14 8 4 6 10 Others/No Trip 13 7 10 2 23 10 Source : Various studies 4 4

Being Conservative TransMilenio Phase II to IV Monitoring 2006 Monitoring 2008 Monitoring 2009 Monitoring 2010 Passengers transported by project (million) Share of passengers which would have used passenger cars (%) Share of passengers which would have used taxis (%) Share of passengers which would have used buses (%) Actual Expected Actual Expected Actual Expected Actual Expected 94 147 118 356 134 478 149 478 4.3 5.5 2.4 5.5 2.1 5.5 2.6 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.5 5.6 4.8 5.6 5 5.6 89.1 88 91.4 88 92.5 88 91.6 88 Share of passengers which would have used NMT or not made the trip (%) 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 Emission reductions 40% 70% 74% 74% BRT Bogotá, Colombia: TransMilenio Phase II To IV (monitoring report 2010)

4000 3500 Use Dynamic Baselines Constant Mode Share CO2 saved (tons/km/year) 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 100% scenario Motorization Scenario 80% scenario 50% scenario Emissions Are Not Static (+ more savings) Travel activity trends (+) Mode share trends (+) Changing vehicle occupancy (+) Changing vehicle economy (-) Changing vehicle fuels (-) Changing vehicle emission standards (-)

Fuel and Vehicle Technology split Borrow from the city or country data

Impact of Design 85 or above 70-84 55-69 ITDP BRT Standard 2013 1. Service Planning 2. Infrastructure 3. Station Design and Station-Bus Interface 4. Quality of Service and Passenger information Systems 5. Integration and Access BRT is evaluated and calculated score is used as a bonus weight for ridership increase Example - Integration and access is 14 points

Sensitivity of ASIF variables 10 12 10 12 2-9 -9-11 -14-19 -29-2 0-1 5 10 9 23 10% Increase in Ridership 10% Increase in Trip length of all modes 10% increase in Fuel Efficiency of all modes 10% increase in Occupancy of all modes 10% Increase in Speed of all modes 10% Increase in BRT Design factor/metro Ramp Up Factor for 10% increase in quantity of construction materials 10% increase in car mode shift from PT 10% change in carbon emission factor for fuel BRT Metro ( % Change in Tons/km/year)

Example on Methodologies- Guangzhou BRT Method CO2/Year Percent Error (according to adhoc) Time to estimate Data Intensity Cost ($) TEEMP Sketch KM based 44,000 118% Minutes Very Low 0 TEEMP Sketch Pax based 244,000 61% Minutes Low 0 TEEMP Detailed Model 130,000 26% 5 Days max Medium <2000 Detailed Ad Hoc 96,000 Month High ~15000 CDM*? 74% Months/Years Very High >500,000 Source 58 based on ITDP Guangzhou BRT analysis and CDM Monitoring reports for TransMilenio Phase II To IV.

Indicators ( based on applications) Description CO2 Savings Indicator (ton per unit) unit Expressway 700 ton/km/year Bikeway 250 ton/km/year Rural Road (capacity) 0 ton/km/year Rural Road (Rehabilitation) 10 ton/km/year Metro/Monorail 6200 ton/km/year BRTS 5000 ton/km/year Railway 2900 ton/km/year Urban Road 2 lane to 4 lane 400 ton/km/year Urban Road 4 lane to 6 lane 200 ton/km/year Parking 25 Tons/terminal/year Pedestrian Walkway Improvement 0.0200 ton/s investment Bike sharing 0.17 tons/bike/year Augmentation of Bus fleet 25 ton/bus/year

Indicators (ADB applications) CO2 Footprint (Tons/km) CO2 Footprint (Tons/million$) Expressway 88,000 58,667 Bikeway 24 960 Rural Road (capacity) 10,000 20,000 Rural Road (Rehabilitation) 600 5,000 Metro 24,000 686 BRTS 44,000 14,667 Railway 42,000 31,111 It is important to consider all three indicators footprint, investment and savings

Transport project outcomes: More or Less Carbon? CO2/km + LOSERS: - More congestion - More driving Expressways - Urban Roads/Interchanges + Bikeways, Bikeshare, Walkability TDM Strategies Bus Railways Metro BRT WINNERS: - Less congestion - Less driving Rehabilitation of Roads Total Veh-km Rural low speed Roads - Source : Modified from Lee Schipper presentation in BAQ

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. 8. Defaults improvement is a continuous process