EMBARQ

1

Coupling GHG Emission Reductions with Transport
and Local Emissions Management The Good, the Bad
and the Difficult Counting of Carbon
Lee Schipper, Ph.D.Wei-Shiuen Ng, M.A. Maria
Cordeiro, M.A.EMBARQBetter Air Quality
2006Jogjakarta
2
EMBARQ

• A catalyst for socially, financially, and
  environmentally sound solutions to the problems
  of urban mobility

3
EMBARQ

• Established as a unique center within World
  Resources Institute in 2002, EMBARQ is now the
  hub of a network of centers for sustainable
  transport in developing countries.
• Shell Foundation and Caterpillar Foundation are
  EMBARQs Global Strategic Partners, supporting
  EMBARQ projects worldwide
• Additional EMBARQ supporters include
• Hewlett Foundation
• Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs
• BP
• US AID
• Asian Development Bank
• Energy Foundation
• Blue Moon Fund
• US Environmental Protection Agency

4
The Carbon Challenge
5
THE CART WORLD CARBON EMISSIONS PULLED BY
TRANSPORT
6
EMBARQs project motivations

• Reduce GHG emissions from urban transport
  globally.
• Develop a reliable, inexpensive methodology for
  measuring and accounting GHG and criteria
  pollutant emissions from transport projects.
• Create a clear correlation between changes in
  transport activity and resulting changes in local
  and global emissions enabling policy makers to
  understand the environment and health
  implications of various policy options. Allow
  decision-makers to use GHG and criteria pollutant
  emissions reduction co-benefits as an additional
  criteria for selecting transport projects.
• Identify the fundamental limitations of existing
  tools and approaches. Currently available tools
  provide only accounting for changes in emissions
  and do not establish a relationship between
  emissions and traffic changes.
• Apply results in EMBARQs partner cities and
  elsewhere

7
Stakeholders, Friends and Team
Other experts Hani Mahmassimi Mark Bradley
MJ Bradley
UC Riverside
CTS-Mexico
CTS-Brazil
Trafalgar John Rogers
US AID
EMBARQ

P.A. Hanoi, Queretaro city authorities
Depts. of Energy
Ministries of Transportation
Local, National Ministries of Environment
Press
Private sector Fuel and Vehicles
Other funding orgs.
Other city authorities
Bilateral and multilateral org. and IFEs
NGOs
8
Why Count Carbon in Transport Projects? Depends
on Who is Counting

• Third Party Fundors (ADB, W Bank, etc.)
• Estimate CO2 implications of transport related
  projects
• Provide tools for local stakeholders, whatever
  their reasons
• The Mayor, Governor, or Prime Minister
• Verify non-binding commitments or just brag
• Guide transport strategy and investments
• The Transport Office or Air Pollution Office
• Reduced traffic and congestion on its own
• Reduced local emissions
• The World Carbon Community
• Element of national carbon restraint strategy
• Carbon reductions that can be sold or traded
  CDM etc.

9
Certainty Levels versus Costs
Costs
Carbon Market
Governments with binding targets
Governments with non-biding targets
Philanthropy
Certainty levels
The project team wants to tailor the tools
developed to the needs of the various audiences
and understand the relationship between costs of
estimating GHG and criteria pollutant emissions
and certainty levels.
10
Types of Transport Projects

• Fuels and Vehicles
• Fuel switch and hybridization
• Switch to larger vehicles and better running
  (BRT)
• Engine retrofits
• Traffic Improvements and Modal Shift
• One-way streets and signal synchronization
• Transit upgrades (e.g. BRT system)
• Cycle paths
• Land Use and Planning
• Transit Oriented Development
• Pedestrian Zones
• Portland Ore. Style growth boundary

Transport Mobility Accessibility
11
Focus on the Transport-Emissions Link

• Whats In and Relatively Easy to Measure
• Fuel use in project vehicles
• Changes in mode towards/away from project
  vehicles
• Emissions in construction/destruction of
  vehicles/infrastructure
• Whats Important but Hard To Measure
• Changes in traffic and km driven caused by
  transport project
• So-called induced demand
• Whats Important, but Harder to Measure
• Changes in emissions resulting from changes in
  driving cycle
• Whats not in, but Relatively Easy to Measure
• Changes in fleet fuels to lower carbon fuels
• Changes in fleet propulsion (i.e., to hybrids)
• Changes in other fleet characteristics affecting
  fuel use/emissions

12
Integrated View of Transport Problems The ASIF
Decomposition for Fuel and Emissions
http//www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2000/flex20
00.pdf
Lesson Attack All Components of the Problem
13
Changes in Transport-Project Emissions Getting a
Handle on Each Component
Lesson Attack All Components of the Problem
14
MEASUREMENTS HAVE TO CONTINUE OVER TIME.
Dynamic Base-line Project-line over time After
John Rogers, Trafalgar SA, Mexico
15
Transport project outcomes Not always less
carbon, hopefully better transport

Carbon
Carbon increase, improved transport
Carbon increase, Worse transport

-
Quality of transport
Carbon reduction, Improved transport
Carbon reduction, Worse transport
-
16
Transport project outcomes More or Less Carbon?

CO2/km
LOSERS
- More congestion - More driving
Individual transport or mini buses

-
Total Veh-km
BRT
Congestion pricing
Circuitous traffic avoiding bottlenecks Induced
traffic
Hybrid or CNG for Gasoline
WINNERS
- Less congestion - Less driving
-
17
RECENT METHODOLOGIES.

• Regional Scenarios and Projects
• This Study -- Hanoi
• Santiago (CCAP)
• This study (Porto Alegre)
• BRT
• Fulton and Wright BRT in Latin America
• Rogers and Schipper (04) Rogers (06)
• Gruetter Bogota Transmilenio
• Vehicle and Fuel Switches
• This study BRT Vehicles in Queretaro
• This study Hybrids for Mexico City
• Santiago Hybrids (CCAP)

18
Bogota Gruetter Methodology The First CDM
Approved Approach

• For Integrated BRT Systems only
• Default vs. measured fuel use/emissions
• Fuel Use/Emissions of affected vehicles vs
  universe
• Role of technological change over time on car
  emissions
• Assumes Effects of non-project vehicles small
• Reductions in congestion/higher speeds (or VV)
• New access (like BRT or Metro) and new
  development
• Gruetter Bogota Transmilenio
• Impact of Projects on non project vehicles,
  travel
• This study BRT Vehicles in Queretaro
• This study Hybrids for Mexico City
• Santiago Hybrids (CCAP)

19
KEY UNCERTAINTIES Non-Project Travel/Vehicles

• Fuel Use anad Local Emissions
• Default vs. measured fuel use/emissions
• Fuel Use/Emissions of affected vehicles vs
  universe
• Role of technological change over time
• Induced Travel and Development
• Reductions in congestion/higher speeds (or VV)
• New access (like BRT or Metro) and new
  development
• Gruetter Bogota Transmilenio
• Impact of Projects on non project vehicles,
  travel
• This study BRT Vehicles in Queretaro
• This study Hybrids for Mexico City
• Santiago Hybrids (CCAP)

20
Hanoi CO2 Scenarios SummaryHans Oern, Thuan Le,
EMBARQ

• Start with JICA Sponsored 2020 Master Plan
• Transport model gives people, vehicle movements
  in 2020
• Alternatives proposed showing impact of mass
  transit
• No calculations of fuel, local emissions, or CO2
  present
• EMBARQs Contribution
• Quantify vehicle-km, passenger-km from Master
  Plan input data
• Estimate emissions and fuel/km from various
  sources, local experts
• Apply ASIF model to transform veh.-km into
  total fuel, emissions
• Results Implications of Different Transport
  Futures
• Fuel bill for Hanoi 2020 under different
  assumptions
• Pollution and CO2 emissions loads from transport
• Model for comparing emissions/pollution
  alternatives

21
Hanoi From Existing Scenarios, extract activity
for each transport scenario
Total emissions
No of trips
Emission factors
Vehicle kms
Trip length
Energy factor
Total energy consumption
Load factor
22
Scenarios for Hanoi
23
Hanoi Future Transport Travel and CO2 Emissions
in 2020
Compare Future Alternative Scenarios to Present
24
Queretaro BRT Proposal
25
Queretaro CO2 Summary

• Start with Transconsulat Master Plan for BRT
• Recognized Quaos in Queretaro
• Examined overall transport situation
• Suggested at least 1 BRT route for emerging
  corridor
• Evaluate BRT Choices
• Numbers of vehicles, capacity, etc
• Emissions and fuel use of choices from MC tests
• Some information on existing fleet fuel use
  bolstered by MC tests
• Results BRT Alone Small Improvement
• Most emissions continue to come from feeders and
  others
• Greater effort to substitute larger for smaller
  vehicles needed
• In any case, BRT canceled for budgetary reasons

26
Scope of the Queretaro Bus FleetContext of
Proposed BRT
1 Truck Route 4 aux. Routes 15 Feeder Routes 47
Other Routes
60,000 pax/day 5,000 pax/hr peak
Fuente Transconsult S.C. Queretaro
27
CO2 Emissions in the BRT Corridor

• D350 ppm S
• D50 ppm S
• D50 ppm S, DPF
• D15 ppm S
• CNG
• Series Hybrid, D15ppm
• Parallel Hybrid,
• D15 ppm, DPF

28
BRT and Remaining Bus SystemThe Context Changes
29
Mexico City Route-Based Measurement
Methodology(John Rogers)
On-Route Buses Other Vehicles Modal Shift Feeder
Routes Buses Other Vehicles Cross-traffic Left
turns Eliminated crossings
30
Other Sources Counted

• Rebound New Trip Creation
• Congestion changes
• Construction upstream material
• Traffic delays due to construction activities
• Leakages
• Smelting removed vehicles
• Trickle-down of removed vehicles
• Impact of bus/other traffic to/from other routes
• Modal shift / transfers from other routes
• Fuel-use handling shift (theft, evaporation
  etc)

31
Mexico CityEmissions ReductionsSource John
Rogers
46 Kt CO2e p.a.
M 2.5 US 10 years
Buses account for less than 40 of the ERs
32
GHG Savings at 5/Ton in Mexico
CityHypothetical Insurgentes Corridor
Case(estimates Rogers)
33
Fuel Savings (340/ton)Hypothetical Insurgentes
Corridor Case(estimates Rogers)
34
GHG, Fuel, Time (1/hour) SavingsDid CO2
make/break the project?Time/Value estimates
CST/EMBARQ
35
Lessons Learned So Far

• Project-Based Vehicle Emissions Changes
• Easy to measure and verify
• Can be large before/after but small relative to
  entire region
• May be less than 50 of entire savings in
  project
• Other Emissions Changes Difficult
• Poor data on present and future traffic and
  people/freight flows
• Very poor data on fuel intensity and emissions of
  vehicles
• Difficulties estimating counter-factual case
• Larger issues and Caveats
• Dont let CO2 drive good transport decisions
• Do verify that CO2 is less than otherwise
  because of a project
• Weigh transport plan choices against CO2, local
  emissions changes

36
Thank you !
Lee Schipper schipper_at_wri.org http//embarq.wri.or
g/