transport emissions evaluation model for...

Transport Emissions EvaluationModel for Projects

Sudhir Gota & Alvin MejiaClean Air AsiaLee Schipper Scholar (2013)

Asia LEDS Forum3rd October, 2013

Metro Manila

Sudhir Gota & Alvin MejiaClean Air AsiaLee Schipper Scholar (2013)

Asia LEDS Forum3rd October, 2013

Metro Manila

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?…………………………………………..?

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

0.040

0.060

0.080

0.100

0.120U

S$ p

er v

ehic

le-k

m

Fuel

Value of Time Costs

Reality or Myth?

0.000

0.020

MC Medium Car Medium Truck Medium Bus

US$

per

veh

icle

-km

Source : World Bank Road Use Costs Study Results

Infrastructure projects provide fuel and time savings

Fuel savings are three time higher than travel time savings

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

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 cobenefits- Easy and could be done even with low resources (decouple accuracy with

resources spent )

• Use defaults where data is poor/missing

• Capacity to boost analysis fidelity with local data

“a means to an end and not an end in itself”

• 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 cobenefits- Easy and could be done even with low resources (decouple accuracy with

resources spent )

• Use defaults where data is poor/missing

• Capacity to boost analysis fidelity with local data

“a means to an end and not an end in itself”

● TEEMP – Transport Emissions Evaluation Model for Projects(can be pronounced as “temp” or temporary)

● Excel-based, free-of-charge, transparent spreadsheet models● Low cost applications, uses data required for economic analysis

of projects (not data intensive)● Results of TEEMP evaluation can help facilitate reasonable

direction for action and alternate options● Used by ADB, GEF, World Bank, GIZ, CTF, IADB, MOUD etc.

Introduction to TEEMP

● TEEMP – Transport Emissions Evaluation Model for Projects(can be pronounced as “temp” or temporary)

● Excel-based, free-of-charge, transparent spreadsheet models● Low cost applications, uses data required for economic analysis

of projects (not data intensive)● Results of TEEMP evaluation can help facilitate reasonable

direction for action and alternate options● Used by ADB, GEF, World Bank, GIZ, CTF, IADB, MOUD etc.

Technical Support –Clean Air Asia, ITDP

Technical Support -Clean AirAsia, ITDP and Cambridge

Systematics

First Generation TEEMPModels

Second GenerationTEEMP Models

Financial Support – ADBApplication - ADB

Financial Support – UNEP-GEF, Climate Works

Financial Support – ADB,IGES

and ITDPApplication – WB

2009

2010

Chronology of TEEMP development

ADB EvaluationReport

ADB EvaluationReport

GEF ApprovedGEF ApprovedClean Air Asia and ITDP

Clean Air Asia and ITDP

Third GenerationTEEMP Models

Financial Support – ADB,IGES

and ITDPApplication – WB

Financial Support – VeoliaEnvironment Institute

TEEMP City

2010, 2011

2012

TRAM

Clean Air Asia and ITDP Financial Support –UN-Habitat

2013

GEF ApprovedGEF Approved

Co-benefitsCo-benefits

Integrated CityApproach

Integrated CityApproach

Measuring using ASIF Framework

Avoid

Shift

Improve

Finance

Transport Plan & Project Emission Evaluation

TEEMPTEEMP

Source: Elizabeth Goller & John Rogers, Transport and Activity Measurement Toolkit, World Bank, 2011

TEEMPTEEMP

“tailor the tools developed to the needs of the various audiences and understand therelationship between costs of estimating GHG and criteria pollutant emissions andcertainty levels.”

TEEMP Applications

Business as Usual

Highway

Introduction to TEEMP:BAU vs Interventions

ORIGIN DESTINATIONBRT

Metro

Highway

City

NMT

Introduction to TEEMP: Emission Savings

No ProjectScenario(BAU)

ProjectScenario(Intervention)

Emis

sion

s( C

O2,

PM

and

NO

x)

Emissionssavings fromproject Project

Scenario(Intervention)

Emis

sion

s( C

O2,

PM

and

NO

x)

Time

Emissionssavings fromproject

Construction emissions

Operating emissionsfrom motorized vehiclesin the identified scope

Introduction to TEEMP: Tools

Roads Projects – Expressways, Rural Roads and Urban Roads


Bikeway Projects and Bike sharing Scheme


Bus Rapid Transit Projects


Times of India - 16 Apr 2010Walkability Improvement Projects

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshowpics/2670814.cms


Metro, LRT and Intercity Railway Projects





TDM Strategies- Commuter Strategies, Pricing Strategies, Eco-Driving , PAYDInsurance


TEEMP City and TRAM - MobilityPlans/ Low Carbon Transport Plans/Master Plans/ Comprehensive trafficand transportation study/Low costoptions for accurate data collection

TEEMP City and TRAM - MobilityPlans/ Low Carbon Transport Plans/Master Plans/ Comprehensive trafficand transportation study/Low costoptions for accurate data collection

Introduction to TEEMP: methodologyfeatures

1. With and without project cases2. Sketch and detailed analysis *3. Scorecard to see the impact of design – good vs bad*

(BRT/Bikeway)4. Emissions from construction and operations5. Dynamic baseline is considered6. Automatic definition of impact boundaries7. Quantification of CO2, PM ,NOx emissions, Fatality savings,

Fuel savings, travel time savings etc. *8. Tools are excel based spreadsheets with simple input/output

tables9. Default values are provided10. Can calculate total footprint and savings from BAU

1. With and without project cases2. Sketch and detailed analysis *3. Scorecard to see the impact of design – good vs bad*

(BRT/Bikeway)4. Emissions from construction and operations5. Dynamic baseline is considered6. Automatic definition of impact boundaries7. Quantification of CO2, PM ,NOx emissions, Fatality savings,

Fuel savings, travel time savings etc. *8. Tools are excel based spreadsheets with simple input/output

tables9. Default values are provided10. Can calculate total footprint and savings from BAU

Data Requirements

1. Basic Project related information2. Activity and Structure - Traffic data – baseline traffic volumes,

trip lengths, traffic composition, occupancy, induced traffic ,speed , fuel split of vehicles (with projections)

3. Intensity – Fuel efficiency of vehicles at 50kmph/ideal4. Construction materials - cement, steel, and bitumen5. Electricity consumed6. CO2 (kg/unit) - Gasoline, Diesel, LPG, electric etc.7. For PM and NOX – technology split of vehicles and PM and

NOx emission factors8. Proposed project design details

1. Basic Project related information2. Activity and Structure - Traffic data – baseline traffic volumes,

trip lengths, traffic composition, occupancy, induced traffic ,speed , fuel split of vehicles (with projections)

3. Intensity – Fuel efficiency of vehicles at 50kmph/ideal4. Construction materials - cement, steel, and bitumen5. Electricity consumed6. CO2 (kg/unit) - Gasoline, Diesel, LPG, electric etc.7. For PM and NOX – technology split of vehicles and PM and

NOx emission factors8. Proposed project design details

Data Availability

1. Number of lanes existing and proposed for roads/BRT system and lengthof road/MRT line - Available

2. Ridership/Traffic projections - Available3. Induced traffic – Not Available4. Mode shift projections - Limited5. Fuel Efficiency – Not Available6. Average Mode speed (projections) - Limited7. Average trip lengths (projections) - Limited8. Occupancy/Loading - Limited9. Construction materials – Not Available10.Annual improvement in fuel economy – Not Available11.Vehicle fuel and technology split (projections) – Not Available12.Emission factors – Not Available13.Electricity consumption by MRT - Available14.Project Design details - Available15.Landuse impact – Not Available

1. Number of lanes existing and proposed for roads/BRT system and lengthof road/MRT line - Available

2. Ridership/Traffic projections - Available3. Induced traffic – Not Available4. Mode shift projections - Limited5. Fuel Efficiency – Not Available6. Average Mode speed (projections) - Limited7. Average trip lengths (projections) - Limited8. Occupancy/Loading - Limited9. Construction materials – Not Available10.Annual improvement in fuel economy – Not Available11.Vehicle fuel and technology split (projections) – Not Available12.Emission factors – Not Available13.Electricity consumption by MRT - Available14.Project Design details - Available15.Landuse impact – Not Available

Source : CAA and ADB Evaluation Department

Insights from TEEMP Project Applications

Example - Impact of Speed

40

50

60

70

Incr

ease

in e

mis

sion

fact

or (%

g/Km

)as

sum

ing

50 k

mph

as 0

Savings – Emission, Fuel andTravel Time

Increase – AccidentFatalities

Savings –Travel TimeIncrease – Fuel,Accidents and

Emissions

-10

0

10

20

30

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

Incr

ease

in e

mis

sion

fact

or (%

g/Km

)as

sum

ing

50 k

mph

as 0

Savings –Travel TimeIncrease – Fuel,

Accidents and Emissions

Source : Sudhir Gota

Traffic Projections may not be realistic

0.400.600.801.001.201.401.601.80 Actual/Forecast Ratio

0.000.200.40

Man

ila L

RT 3

KL P

UTR

A

HK A

irpor

t

Pusa

n

Bang

kok

(gre

en)

Bang

kok

Blue

Shan

ghai

Line

1

Shan

ghai

Line

2

Shan

ghai

Line

3

Shan

ghai

Line

5

Beiji

ng Li

ne 1

3

Beiji

ng B

aton

g Li

ne

Beiji

ng Li

ne 5

Guan

gzho

u Li

ne 1

Nan

jing

Line

1

Shen

zhen

Firs

t Pha

se

Tian

jin B

inha

i Lin

e

Delh

i Pha

se-I

Source : Phil. Sayeg+ Sam Zimmerman + Sudhir Gota

Build Scenarios (compare demand in similar corridor) and use of ramp-up factors

-4000-2000

02000400060008000

100001200014000

CO2 saved (20 years) withconstruction


Tons

/Yea

r/km

Impact of Project Life on Emissions

Analysis for 20 Years of Lifecycle

-4000-2000

02000400060008000

100001200014000



Tons

/Yea

r/km

Impact of Project Life on Emissions


Metro –Electricity Consumption

Neglecting landuse impact

Both traction andnon traction

Only tractionenergy

Savings from Modeshift (tons) 4569366 8681796

Construction Emissions (tons) 685707 685707

Emissions from Electricity Use (tons) 2389865 1162945Emissions from Electricity Use (tons) 2389865 1162945

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

Be careful with electricity consumption data

Source : Chennai Metro Analysis ( Sudhir Gota)

Construction emissions

30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100% CO2 Footprint(Tons/km/Year)Operation

CO2 Footprint(Tons/km/Year)Construction

0%10%20%30%

Surat Manor

Salem-Karur

VietNam

Belgaum Dharw

ad

Bangalore Metro

Manila LRT-1 N

orthExtension

Marikina GEF

Almaty–Kaskelen

Laos Rural AccessRoad

Railways-VietN

am

HighwaysMetro

RuralRoads

CDM methodology NM0266 neglects construction emissions from MRT


Construction Emissions

1 km of infrastructure Description tons of CO2

BRTS Considering only the quantity of steel,cement and asphalt.

1900

Bikeways Considering only the quantity of steel,cement and asphalt.

20

MRTS 2 lines for 80% elevated and 20%underground

15600MRTS 2 lines for 80% elevated and 20%underground

15600

Railways Considering only the quantity of steel andconcrete for single track

875

Roads Considering only the quantity of steel,cement and asphalt for a four lane road

2100


Lifecycle Emissions

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Fuel Production

Operation and Maintainance

Manufacture

0%

10%

20%

30%

Sedans SUVs Bus Sedans SUVs Bus

GHG mt GGE PM10 (kg)

Per Vehicle Life

Manufacture

Road Construction andMaintainance

Limitation - TEEMP does not consider road construction impacts on air pollution

Source - Mikhail Chester

Mode shift data can be borrowed

Mode Shifts towards Bike Sharing Schemes Around the World

Mode shiftfrom (%)

Hangzhou Shanghai Beijing Paris Barcelona Lyon London DefaultValues

Pedestrian 16 26 23 20 26 37 21 22

Bus 51 40 48 65 51 50 34 46Bus 51 40 48 65 51 50 34 46

Taxi 4 4 3 5 4

Car 4 4 58 10 7 6

4

E Bike/Motorcycle 4 5 3 4

Private Bicycle 8 14 8 4 6 10

Others/No Trip 13 7 10 2 23 10

Source : Various studies

Impact of Bike sharing Scheme - CO2(Tons/Year)

Number of trips per bike per day1 2 4 6 8 12 16

Num

ber o

fBik

es

10 0.34 0.68 1.36 2.04 2.72 4.07 520 0.68 1.36 2.72 4.07 5.43 8.15 1130 1 2 4 6 8 12.22 1640 1 3 5 8 11 16.29 22

Num

ber o

fBik

es 40 1 3 5 8 11 16.29 2250 2 3 7 10 14 20.36 27

100 3 7 14 20 27 40.73 54500 17 34 68 102 136 203 271

1000 34 68 136 204 271 407 5435000 169 339 679 1018 1357 2036 2715

10,000 339 678 1357 2036 2715 4072 543020,000 678 1357 2715 4072 5430 8145 1086050,000 1697 3394 6787 10181 13575 20362 27150


Quiz

Scenario-IIn total Vehicle fleet 1 milliontrucks were not considered

Scenario-IIIn total Vehicle fleet 20

million two wheelers and 5million Cars were not

considered

Both scenarios are not ideal but which one would yield comparatively betterresults?

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Impa

ct A

ssum

ing

MC

as 1

Multiplication Effect of Activity & Intensity (A*I)

0

10

20

30

PC Taxi HDT MDT LDT Mini T(G)

HDB LDB MC

Impa

ct A

ssum

ing

MC

as 1

Trucks and Buses have poor fuel efficiency and they travel more. So impactin fuel consumption is higher. Bus in terms of activity and intensity isequivalent to 90 two-wheelers. So focus more on getting best data for heavyvehicles. Source : Sudhir Gota

Use Dynamic Baselines

Emissions Are Not Static (+ more savings)

Travel activity trends (+)Mode share trends (+)Changing vehicle occupancy (+)Changing vehicle economy (-)Changing vehicle fuels (-)Changing vehicle emissionstandards (-)

2500

3000

3500

4000

CO2

save

d (t

ons/

km/y

ear)

Constant Mode Share

Motorization Scenario Emissions Are Not Static (+ more savings)

Travel activity trends (+)Mode share trends (+)Changing vehicle occupancy (+)Changing vehicle economy (-)Changing vehicle fuels (-)Changing vehicle emissionstandards (-)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

100% scenario 80% scenario 50% scenario

CO2

save

d (t

ons/

km/y

ear)


Contradiction ?

TransMilenio Phase II to IV

Monitoring 2006 Monitoring 2008 Monitoring 2009 Monitoring 2010

Actual Expected Actual Expected Actual Expected Actual ExpectedPassengers transported byproject (million)

94 147 118 356 134 478 149 478

Share of passengers whichwould have used passengercars (%)

Share of passengers whichwould have used passengercars (%)

4.3 5.5 2.4 5.5 2.1 5.5 2.6 5.5

Share of passengers whichwould have used taxis (%)

5.5 5.6 5.5 5.6 4.8 5.6 5 5.6

Share of passengers whichwould have used buses (%)

89.1 88 91.4 88 92.5 88 91.6 88

Share of passengers whichwould have used NMT or notmade 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)

Contradiction ??

11.5%VEHICLES

(ASIA)

10.1%CO2

ROADTRANSPORT

(ASIA)

9.8%FUEL

(ASIA)

11.5%VEHICLES

(ASIA)

10.1%CO2

ROADTRANSPORT

(ASIA)

8%GDP

Emission Reduction = baseline emissions – project scenario emissions – leakageemissions

In leakage –1. Changes of the load factor2. “Emissions due to reduced congestion on affected roads, provoking higher

average vehicle speed, plus a rebound effect”3. Construction emissions4. “Emissions due to scrapping vehicles which would otherwise have continued

to operate.”

CDM – Baseline and Leakages

In leakage –1. Changes of the load factor2. “Emissions due to reduced congestion on affected roads, provoking higher

average vehicle speed, plus a rebound effect”3. Construction emissions4. “Emissions due to scrapping vehicles which would otherwise have continued

to operate.”

How will people travel without project?

73579081

10000

15000

20000

25000

LanekmVKM (Million)

Singapore

0

5000

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

VKM (Million)

In Cebu BRT - If BRT is not implemented, roads need to be widened to accommodatetraffic – more than 320 Million USD of investment is required to build 10 more lanes

In Cebu BRT - If BRT is not implemented, roads need to be widened to accommodatetraffic – more than 320 Million USD of investment is required to build 10 more lanes

NEVER CONSIDERED IN ECONOMIC ANALYSISSource : Sudhir Gota

Fuel and Vehicle Technology split

Borrow from the city or country dataBorrow from the city or country data

Impact of Design

85 or above 70-84 55-69

ITDP BRT Standard 2013

1. Service Planning2. Infrastructure3. Station Design and Station-Bus Interface4. Quality of Service and Passenger information Systems5. Integration and AccessBRT is evaluated and calculated score is used as a bonus weight for

ridership increaseExample - Integration and access is 14 points

85 or above 70-84 55-69

Sensitivity of ASIF variables

10 10

-9 -9-14

2

0

5 912 12

-19-11

-2 -1

10

23

BRT Metro

-19-29

10%

Incr

ease

in R

ider

ship

10%

Incr

ease

in T

riple

ngth

of a

ll m

odes

10%

incr

ease

in F

uel

Effic

ienc

y of

all

mod

es

10%

incr

ease

inO

ccup

ancy

of a

ll m

odes

10%

Incr

ease

in S

peed

of

all m

odes

10%

Incr

ease

in B

RTDe

sign

fact

or/M

etro

Ram

p U

p Fa

ctor

for…

10%

incr

ease

in q

uant

ityof

cons

truc

tion

mat

eria

ls

10%

incr

ease

in c

ar m

ode

shift

from

PT

10%

cha

nge

in c

arbo

nem

issio

n fa

ctor

for f

uel

Sensitivity of ASIF variables in a BRT and Metro Project ( % Change in Tons/km/year)Source : Sudhir Gota

Example on Methodologies-Guangzhou BRT

Method CO2/Year

Percent Error(according to

adhoc)Time toestimate

DataIntensity Cost ($)

Guangzhou, China opened its first, 22.5-kilometer Bus Rapid Transit corridor in 2010 in an effortto cut congestion on one of the city’s busiest roads, Zhongshan Avenue, and to improve theefficiency of the city’s bus system. The system now has 805,000 daily boardings.

47

Method CO2/Year

Percent Error(according to

adhoc)Time toestimate

DataIntensity 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 – based on ITDP Guangzhou BRT analysis and CDM Monitoring reports for TransMilenio Phase II To IV.

● ADB transport loans & grants approved 2000–2009● Analysis of project emissions over a 20-year life● Gross carbon emissions from construction & operations of

ADB-funded transport projects estimated at 792 million tons:• Average 39.6 million tons/year• About equal to transport sector emissions of Thailand or Philippines

● CO2 impact would have been cut by ¼ if half of funding thatwent to motorway projects had instead funded roadrehabilitation, BRT, NMT projects

TEEMP Used to Estimate ADB TransportProgram Impacts

● ADB transport loans & grants approved 2000–2009● Analysis of project emissions over a 20-year life● Gross carbon emissions from construction & operations of

ADB-funded transport projects estimated at 792 million tons:• Average 39.6 million tons/year• About equal to transport sector emissions of Thailand or Philippines

● CO2 impact would have been cut by ¼ if half of funding thatwent to motorway projects had instead funded roadrehabilitation, BRT, NMT projects

48

Source: ADB. 2010. Reducing Carbon Emissionsfrom Transport Projects

Indicators ( based on TEEMPapplications)

DescriptionCO2 Savings Indicator

(ton per unit) unit

Expressway -700 ton/km/yearBikeway 250 ton/km/year

Rural Road (capacity) 0 ton/km/yearRural Road (Rehabilitation) 10 ton/km/yearRural Road (Rehabilitation) 10 ton/km/year

Metro/Monorail 6200 ton/km/yearBRTS 5000 ton/km/year

Railway 2900 ton/km/yearUrban Road 2 lane to 4 lane -400 ton/km/yearUrban Road 4 lane to 6 lane -200 ton/km/year

Parking 25 Tons/terminal/yearPedestrian Walkway Improvement 0.0200 ton/S investment

Bike sharing 0.17 tons/bike/yearAugmentation of Bus fleet 25 ton/bus/year

Indicators ( based on ADB applications)

CO2 Footprint(Tons/km)

CO2 Footprint(Tons/million$)

Expressway 88,000 58,667Bikeway 24 960Rural Road (capacity) 10,000 20,000Rural Road (Rehabilitation) 600 5,000Metro 24,000 686Metro 24,000 686BRTS 44,000 14,667Railway 42,000 31,111

It is important to consider all three indicators - footprint, investment and savings

Indicators ( based on ADB applications)

BAU With ProjectCO2

g/passengerkm

CO2 g/ton km

CO2g/passenger

km

CO2 g/ton km

Expressway 59 81 47 61Bikeway - - - -

Rural Road (capacity) 84 73 74 61Rural Road (capacity) 84 73 74 61Rural Road (Rehabilitation) 149 199 55 68

Metro 137 38BRTS 137 28

Railway 20 23

Note - with transport interventions, emissions per passengers/ton decrease…

CO2/km +

+-

LOSERS:LOSERS:-- MoreMore congestioncongestion-- MoreMore drivingdriving

ExpresswaysExpressways

Urban Roads/InterchangesUrban Roads/Interchanges

Transport project outcomes:More or Less Carbon?

Total Veh-km

+-

-

BRTBRT

WINNERS:WINNERS:-- LessLess congestioncongestion-- LessLess drivingdriving

TDM StrategiesTDM Strategies

MetroMetro

Bikeways,Bikeways, BikeshareBikeshare,, WalkabilityWalkability Rural low speed RoadsRural low speed RoadsRehabilitation of RoadsRehabilitation of Roads

Urban Roads/InterchangesUrban Roads/Interchanges

BusBusRailwaysRailways


Need for TEEMP City

● Move from isolated large-scale projects to integrated transportsystems to integrated urban development

● From carbon emissions to sustainable development driven bymultiple co-benefits

● Many plans being created without adequate knowledge onemissions(CDP/CTTS/CMP)

● Need to link – Investment with projects and Cobenefits● Need for models which work with less data● future transport NAMA’s (unilateral NAMA’s & supported NAMA’s)

Integrating Projects: Taking it to scale

53

Need for TEEMP City

● Move from isolated large-scale projects to integrated transportsystems to integrated urban development

● From carbon emissions to sustainable development driven bymultiple co-benefits

● Many plans being created without adequate knowledge onemissions(CDP/CTTS/CMP)

● Need to link – Investment with projects and Cobenefits● Need for models which work with less data● future transport NAMA’s (unilateral NAMA’s & supported NAMA’s)

TEEMP City - Evaluating Impact of City Investments

• An assessment tool to provide guidance on CO2 and air pollution emissionsincluding fuel consumption and other co-benefits to policy makers whilepreparing mobility plans/low carbon transport plans.

• Bottom-up excel spreadsheet (with defaults) tool to:

1. Evaluate the impact of mobility plans/ low carbon transport plans on CO2emissions

2. Quantify the cobenefits of implementing such transport plan ( fuelconsumption, air pollution, safety benefits and travel time savings)

3. Assess the adequacy, comprehensiveness and governance related issueswith respect to the mobility plan proposal /implementation and possibleimpact of such a measure.

4. Provide guidance on investment packages i.e. shift in investment patternimpact, increasing/decreasing the investment impact/ changing theproposal schedule etc.

54

• An assessment tool to provide guidance on CO2 and air pollution emissionsincluding fuel consumption and other co-benefits to policy makers whilepreparing mobility plans/low carbon transport plans.

• Bottom-up excel spreadsheet (with defaults) tool to:

1. Evaluate the impact of mobility plans/ low carbon transport plans on CO2emissions

2. Quantify the cobenefits of implementing such transport plan ( fuelconsumption, air pollution, safety benefits and travel time savings)

3. Assess the adequacy, comprehensiveness and governance related issueswith respect to the mobility plan proposal /implementation and possibleimpact of such a measure.

4. Provide guidance on investment packages i.e. shift in investment patternimpact, increasing/decreasing the investment impact/ changing theproposal schedule etc.

City level Estimates - Plans andProposals ( Bangalore CTTS)

Description Intensity Year ofImplementation

Augmentation ofbus fleet 2500 Bus 2007-2012

BRTS 156 Km 2007-2012

Metro/monorail 130 Km 2007-2012

Pedestrian walkwayimprovement

Remarks

Partly (due to JNNURM)

Not yet

Only 7.5 km under operation

Reasons - due to lack of investment, lack of political willingness, lack of institutional capacity, poorscheduling of projects, not comprehensive and lack of support from stakeholders

Pedestrian walkwayimprovement 56200000 $ investment 2007-2012

Urban road 2 laneto 4 lane 443 Km 2007-2012

New roads 4 lane Km 2007-2012Urban road 4 lane

to 6 lane 272 Km 2007-2012

Parking 17 parking terminal 2007-2012

Truck terminals 27000000 $ investment 2007-2012Railway 46 Km 2007-2012

Minimal investment

Partly done

Partly done

Partly done

Only few

partlyNot yet


City level Estimates

Savings (over twenty years)High Low

VKT (million) 40868 19208CO2 (million tons) 36 17

PM (tons) 1451 682NOx (tons) 4938 2321Fatalities 5198 2443Fatalities 5198 2443Injuries 77967 36644

Hours (million) 9836 4623Petrol-million liter 5524 2596Diesel-million liter 9795 4604

TEEMP City model application to Jaipur Comprehensive Mobility Plan.

A scorecard is used to evaluate the mobility plan - a set of 27 parameters are evaluated. Thisscorecard i.e. Low scenario accounts for delay in implementation due to lack of commitment/ support /quality etc.

TEEMP City Excel Tool Screenshot

57

TEEMP City Results

58

CO2, PM, NOx

Time travel savings and other co-benefits – fatalities, injuries

The Bank has worked closely with the GEF Secretariat, STAP and ADB to develop andadopt a methodology that overcomes this impasse both in terms of ex ante (proposalstage) estimates and ex post (results stage) assessments. The Bank is especiallycommitted to following through on the application of this consistent methodology in itscurrent cohort of projects of over 30 medium size cities in developing countries. –World Bank (Building an Effective Knowledge Base - The smart road to sustainabletransport)

TEEMP Further Support

Tools currently available to support GHG evaluation include sketch tools, advancedtravel demand forecasting and simulation models, and emission factor models. Due todata limitations, it will often be necessary to use sketch level tools such as TEEMP,or ad-hoc methods developed by the project sponsor using available data. Theaccuracy of these methods can be improved over time as additional local datais collected. – IADB (Mitigation Strategies and Accounting Methods for GreenhouseGas Emissions from Transportation)

TEEMP Limitations

1. Needs “live” applications and a mechanism to improve the defaults andthe sketch analysis ( ex Bike/Walk scorecard) – need to train model withgood data

2. TEEMP is still perceived as a “complicated tool”

3. Benefits such as “Value of travel time”, “fuel savings” and “Accidentsavings” and “economic analysis” are still not included in some models

4. Needs good data for reliable estimates

5. TEEMP does not include “freight”

6. TEEMP can be easily “manipulated” to provide “desired” results

7. Needs to quantify – employment, health benefits etc.

8. Defaults improvement is a continuous process

1. Needs “live” applications and a mechanism to improve the defaults andthe sketch analysis ( ex Bike/Walk scorecard) – need to train model withgood data

2. TEEMP is still perceived as a “complicated tool”

3. Benefits such as “Value of travel time”, “fuel savings” and “Accidentsavings” and “economic analysis” are still not included in some models

4. Needs good data for reliable estimates

5. TEEMP does not include “freight”

6. TEEMP can be easily “manipulated” to provide “desired” results

7. Needs to quantify – employment, health benefits etc.

8. Defaults improvement is a continuous process

[email protected] 3505 Robinsons Equitable Tower

ADB Avenue, Pasig CityMetro Manila 1605

Philippines

Clean Air Asia Center

[email protected] Reignwood Building,

No. 8 YongAnDongLiJianguomenwai Avenue Beijing

China

Clean Air Asia China [email protected] Floor, Building No. 4

Thyagraj Nagar Market, Lodhi ColonyNew Delhi 110003

India

Clean Air Asia India Office

For more information: www.cleanairasia.orgFor more information: www.cleanairasia.orgFor more information: www.cleanairasia.org

China . India . Indonesia . Nepal . Pakistan . Philippines . Sri Lanka . Vietnam

[email protected] Reignwood Building,

No. 8 YongAnDongLiJianguomenwai Avenue Beijing

China

[email protected] Floor, Building No. 4

Thyagraj Nagar Market, Lodhi ColonyNew Delhi 110003

India

Clean Air Asia Country Networks

61

Clean Air AsiaCenter Members

•Shell•Asia Clean FuelsAssociation•Corning

240 Clean Air AsiaPartnership Members

• Cities• Environment ministries and government

agencies• Development agencies and foundations• Non-government organizations• Academic and research institutions• Private sector companies and associations

Donors in 2012 to 2013Asian Development Bank Cities Development Initiative for Asia ClimateWorks Foundation DHL/IKEA/UPS Energy Foundation Fredskorpset Norway Fu Tak Iam Foundation German International Cooperation (GIZ) Institute for Global Environmental Strategies(IGES) Institute for Transport Policy Studies Institute for Transportation and DevelopmentPolicy International Union for Conservation of Nature L'Agence Française deDéveloppement (AFD) MAHA Pilipinas Shell Rockefeller Brothers Fund ShaktiFoundation Shell Foundation United Nations Environment Program Partnership for CleanFuels and Vehicles (UNEP PCFV) USAID CEnergy Veolia World Bank

Thanks Lee

Bikeways

Walkability

Roads

Select type of project e.g. expressway, ruralroads including village roads, and urban roads

Input roughness, local traffic details andvehicle split w.r.t. fuel and emission standard,average fuel efficiency at 50kmph, occupancyand loading and other ASIF parameters

The model conducts capacity analysis andderives annual speed based on V/C ratio and

saturation limits

Using the speed, the model calibrates the fuelefficiency and emission factors

Input roughness, local traffic details andvehicle split w.r.t. fuel and emission standard,average fuel efficiency at 50kmph, occupancyand loading and other ASIF parameters

Input induced traffic elasticity with lane miles,V/C saturation limits, PCU values and Capacity

Input or modify default speed-flow values

Using the speed, the model calibrates the fuelefficiency and emission factors

Input Amount of materials consumed/km oruse defaults to calculate construction emissions

The model calculates both capacity expansionimpact and/or roughness improvement impact

Output – CO2, PM and NOx

transport emissions evaluation model for...

Documents