1

Lee Schipper, Ph.D. Global Metro Studies, UC Berkeley

Precourt Institute, Stanford University

withIpsita Banerjee

Dept of Civil Engineering Wei-Shiuen Ng

Consultant

Sponsored by the Japan International Transport Institute

CO2 Emissions from Land Transport in IndiaScenarios of the Uncertain

2

Motorization in India: How Fast or Slow?

• Background• The Scenarios• Profound Data Problems• Results

– Comparison of Input Assumptions– Comparison of Output Results

• Discussion – What Scenarios Can Show Us

• Lessons and Opportunities for Clean Transport in India

3SCHIPPER ADB June 2008

4

Transport in India?

5SCHIPPER ADB June 2008

Asia: lumbering into modernity

6

Cheap Two Wheelers, but No Sidewalks

The Peoples’ Car:Which People?

7

India Motorization Project

Background

• EMBARQ, the World Resources Institute (WRI) Center for Sustainable Transport was approached by the Japan International Transport Institute (JITI) in early 2006 to review India’s motorization trends and challenges, and to suggest what policies and measures should be implemented to reduce transport CO2 emissions.

• This project is one of four other country studies, consisting of China, Japan and the United States (US), all supported by JITI.

• A set of scenarios were developed, together with S. Menon, then of the World Bank, for future Indian urban road passenger transport in 2020 and 2030, where different assumptions are made for modal shares in each scenario.

• Each scenario illustrates energy use and CO2 emissions for 2010, 2020 and 2030.

8

India Motorization Project

Objective• This project aims to illustrate local criteria

pollutant and CO2 emissions from India’s growing transport sector using available reliable data, and to provide policies and measures that will prevent future undesirable consequences of motorization.

• Focus on CO2 at the national level

• Goal is not to tell India what to do, rather to provide a tool to measure consequences of India’s choices

9

Scenarios for India

• Illustrate and Quantify a World We Can’t See.. Yet– Reasonable estimates for “present values”– Growth in motorization on nearby example -- Korea – Convergence with many other studies in the base case

• Quantitative Assumption-Driven Outputs– Vehicles, vehicle distances, fuel consumption– Impacts of alternative fuels

– Total CO2 emissions

• Qualitative Results– Flesh and bones on the base case– Illustration of impact of “fuel efficiency” on total fuel use– Illustration of how a “livable cities” scenario might play out

10

BASIS OF APPROACH 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-

Weight, power, etc.

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

Key Data Work by S. Menon, then World Bank

11

EMBARQ’s Scenarios for India:Serious Data Problems Remain

• Careful Literature Search– Assessment of meager data sources– Main published works on long-term trends in transport and

energy use– Careful analysis of emission factor data

• Discussions with Indian Experts– Approach authors of main studies (TERI, IIT Kanpur, etc)– Exchange of experience estimating emission factors– Pass-km “Data” from Central Govt. – very incomplete

• Own Attempts – Consensus Picture– Manipulate vehicles, distances, fuel intensities– Find combinations that multiply up to give “actual” fuel use– Make plausible assumptions on emissions

12

Motorization Scenarios for India:

S. Menon/EMBARQ’s Approach to Uncertainty • How Many Motor Vehicles in India?

– Registration is one time; active stock uncertain– Among cars, share of household vs state/company

cars and taxis unknown – Two wheeler stock even less well known

• Human and Vehicle Activity and Travel– Vehicle usage and NMT data poor at national level– Many good city surveys, but none at national level– Pass-km “Data” from Central Govt. – very incomplete

• Fuel Use– Until 1995/6, no official data on road diesel use– Use of diesel by cars, gasoline by both cars and two

wheelers adds big layer of uncertainty– Fuel adulteration makes “official” data uncertain

13

Motorization Scenarios for India:S. Menon/EMBARQ’s Assumptions

• Motor Vehicles and Activity– Active car, two-wheeler stock perhaps 2/3 of registrations– Yearly usage of private cars low -- 7500 km/year – Large vehicle usage from various data sources

• Human and Vehicle Activity and Travel– Large share of urban bus, intercity bus/rail– Assume load factors to get car travel

• Fuel Use and Fuel Intensity (fuel/km)– Car, two-wheeler fuel intensity from literature– Some information on heavy vehicles– Best estimates of possible improvements

14

EMBARQ’s Scenarios for India:Why Do the Data Matter?

• Future of Road Transport Depend on the Numbers– How much room is there on the roads?– How much could car/two wheeler use grow? – Is a transit plus 2/3-wheeler based system thinkable?

• Fuel Use In India – Quantitative Issues– What is the quantitative scope for savings, substitution?– Local emissions -- where are emerging clean-fuels markets?– Transport as a constraint on fuel-use growth?

• Restraining Growth in Fuel Demand– Impact of higher fuel prices important, but unknown – Will mini-cars save fuel and space or just explode demand?– Can advanced technology (hybrid cars, buses) matter?

15

The Five India Transport Scenarios

1. Business as usual (BAU)

2. Energy efficiency

3. Clean two and three wheelers

4. Sustainable cities/Urban Transport (SUT)

5. Extra Effort (#2 + #4)Evaluation of scenario results,

particularly how overall mobility affects

fuel demand and CO2 emissions.

16

Baseline Scenario

• Using a consensus of forecasts for population and GDP development, with Korea as a marker to measure motorization (cars/capita) as a function of GDP/capita

• Unconstrained development of road traffic and demand, driven by a booming economy and population growth, using extrapolation (and regardless of whether realistic)

• Vehicle growth will be unconstrained and no new fuel taxes are assumed, including other fiscal constraints

• The scenario will assume that energy, infrastructure and financial constraints do not hinder expansion of transport activities

17

Energy Efficiency

• Reflects a policy focus aimed at oil saving and renewable fuels in all transport modes, in a world driven by energy security concerns

• Higher fuel prices and taxes – Japanese level?

• Estimates of vehicle fuel economy, fuel use, and the impact of fuel prices on substitution between two wheelers and buses to show a range of fuel and CO2 savings that this path could bring about. Includes significant “1 lakh cars”.

18

Clean Two and Three WheelersInspiration from Viet Nam

• Reflects a mobility scenario based on small, clean vehicles and stronger mass transit

• Recognizes the obvious difficulty India has building a car-friendly world, yet also recognizes that individual mobility cannot be contained, hence the push for clean, small vehicles

• Accelerates trend towards cleaner fuels and motors in Indian two and three-wheelers

• Four-wheeled cars fade as the promise for individual mobility in India, a situation aided by high taxes based on car power and size

19

Sustainable Cities and Sustainable Urban Transport (SUT)

• Serious traffic congestion conditions in first three scenarios present a physical constraint that could decrease motor vehicle use and subsequently carbon emissions

• This fourth scenario reflects “prescient” policies aimed at avoiding or lifting urban infrastructure constraints through strong demand management and modern mass transit as the backbone of clean mobility – JNURM

• Urban bus and rail successfully rejuvenated to reduce two, three wheelers transport mode shares, but these modes (and NMT) feed mass transit

• Strong land-use and transport policy initiatives required to contain sprawl and need to travel

20

Extra Effort: Efficiency + Sustainable Urban Transport (SUT)

• Strong land-use and transport policy initiatives required to contain sprawl and need to travel – large, fast and powerful cars have little utility in such a setting

• Large cars lose their share to mini cars like Nano

because of high fuel taxes and congestion charges

• Strong urban transport policies make driving and parking a normal car much more expensive than a mini car

• Two, Three and Four-Mini vehicles useful for connecting to a strong transit grid.

• Mini cars pass from being small to being efficient

21

Basic Driving Factors: GDP, Population

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Bn P

ass

Km /

Mn

Peo

ple

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

GDP

, Trn

USD

(200

0 pp

p))

BAU

Two-Three Wheeler

Sustainable Cities

Population, '000000

GDP, TRL 2000 USD

22

Vehicles Per Thousand People by Type

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2000 2015 2030 2015 2030 2015 2030

BAU and Fuel Efficiency Two and Three wheeler Sustainable UrbanTransport

buses

taxis

3 wheelers

jeeps

cars

2 wheelers

23

Per Capita Travel by Transport ModeP

asse

nger

-km

per

cap

ita

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

2000 2030: BAU 2030 Fuel Eff. 2030: 2/3 Wheeler 2030: SUT

Cycling

Walking

Cars

Two Wheelers

Three Wheelers

Rail

Buses

24

Fuel Economy in BAU and EE Scenarios(1 mj/veh-km = 3.15 l/100 km = 80 gm/km)

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 XF

MJ/

veh

icle

-km

BAU -Gasoline Cars

BAU - Diesel CArs

Fuel Efficiency - Gasoline Cars

Fuel Efficiency - Diesel Cars

Fuel Efficiency - Mini-cars

25

Fuel Use By Mode and Fuel(1 EJ = 22.5 mtoe)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1980 2000 2030: BAU 2030 Fuel Eff. 2030: TWW 2030: SUT

Exa

jou

les

Rail ElectricityRail CoalRail DieselBuses CNGBuses DieselBuses GasolineThree Wheelers CNGThree Wheelers DieselThree Wheelers GasolineTwo Wheelers GasolineCars CNGCars DieselCars Gasoline

26

Total Fuel Use By Mode

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1980 2000 2030: BAU 2030 FuelEff.

2030:TWW

2030: SUT 2030 ExtraEffort

EJ

Tota

l Del

iver

ed E

nerg

y

Rail

Buses

3 Wheelers

2 Wheelers

Cars

27

Per Capita Fuel Use by Transport Mode(US 50 GJ; EU GJ/cap )

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

1980 2000 2030: BAU 2030 Fuel Eff. 2030: TWW 2030: SUT 2030 ExtraEffort

GJ/

Cap

ita T

otal

Del

iver

ed E

nerg

y

Rail

Buses

3 Wheelers

2 Wheelers

Cars

28

India: CO2 Emissions by Transport Mode

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1980 2000 2030 BAU Efficiency TWW SUT Extra Effort

Mill

ion

Tonn

es C

O2

Rail

Bus

Three Wheeler

Two Wheeler

Cars, Taxis, MUVs

29

Results: Some Comments

• BAU -- Simple Extrapolation Realistic?• Huge energy use by 2030• Realistic? Compare China and Korea• Self-consistent? Oil demands in India, China push up oil price

• Fuel Efficiency (Japanese fuel prices)– Modest improvements along slow energy growth– Much more possible – mini cars, hybrids– Bio-diesel, ethanol could restrain CO2 further

• Clean Two-three wheeler (policies)– Small vehicles as basis for low-energy transport?– Many infrastructure changes required now– Experience in Hanoi suggests 2-wheeler world possible

• Sustainable Urban transport (strong policies)– Requires huge change in direction of urban transport – Requires huge change in treatment of NMT– Above all, requires move away from individual vehicle

30

Nano or Nono in Extra Effort?Opportunity or Threat

• Mini Cars – Step up for 2 wheels?– Small and fuel economic, not necessarily fuel efficient– Have been around for a long time in Japan, even EU– Could be powered on any source (except hot air)

• The Broader Context -– Urban streets clogged, urban air polluted– Urban transit systems (where they exist) under siege– Majority of travelers “outdoors” –at risk to accidents, bad air

• Strong Urban Transport Policies– Charge for congestion and parking by vehicle size– Greater priority to non-motorized requires slower motorized– Good transit grid offers opportunities to mini cars

Is Nano a Step Back from Large Cars or Step up from TW? Are Urban Authorities and Policies Ready?

31

Opportunities for CO2 reduction?India Can Avoid Problems –

but almost too late• Vehicle Side

– Technology- safe, small cars– Vehicle Choice- size matters– Vehicle usage –SUT assumes congestion charges

• Fuel Side– Bio-diesel and alcohols have some promise, but ?? – CNG lends savings, but India not a gas producer– Fuel cells or methanol from coal + sequestration???

• Transport Policy Side: Best Bet– Long term look with options analyses, land use– Greatly improved urban bus systems/BRT– Metro only where income, pop. density justifies

32

Humble Policy Suggestions:Its Already Bad: Need it get Worse?

• Urban Transport Policies First– Sidewalks and NMT lanes, access to transit– Exclusive lanes for 2Wheelers and Transit – Congestion and parking fees based on footprint?

• Fuel Economy Standards in Context– Keep cars, small, efficient, and clean– Small may give more choices for non-oil– Must raise diesel to parity, raise all fuel prices

• Don’t Forget Development Policies– Development must not ignore non-motorized– Improve in-town access before boosting out of town

“campuses” – Create greater integration between three-wheelers and

large transit

33

ConclusionNot Emitting in First Place Easier than Changing

• If No Interventions– Urban transport itself headed for collapse– Little relief from flyover farms or metro mania– Once problems become recognized, its too late

• Modest Interventions– Fuel efficiency has impact on CO2, but not transport– Air pollution can be reduce nevertheless

• Aggressive Interventions Now!– Serious Urban Transport: Priority to buses, NMT– Taxes on car ownership and use, fuel consumptin– Strong fuel economy standards

National and Local Govt., Indian Supreme Court, NGOs, etc all bCould Bring Pressure to Bear to Force Strong Interventions

34

Thank You

Lee Schipperschipper@berkeley.edumrmeter@stanford.edu