Coupling GHG Emission Reductions with Transport and Local Emissions Management

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 EMBARQ’s 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. 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 EMBARQ’s partner cities and elsewhere EMBARQ’s project motivations

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 $ Depts. of Energy P.A. Hanoi, Queretaro city authorities 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. 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. Why Count Carbon in Transport Projects? Depends on Who is Counting

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. 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 Types of Transport Projects Transport Mobility Accessibility

11. What’s 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 What’s Important but Hard To Measure Changes in traffic and km driven caused by transport project So-called “induced demand” What’s Important, but Harder to Measure Changes in emissions resulting from changes in driving cycle What’s 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 Focus on the Transport-Emissions Link

12. Integrated View of Transport ProblemsThe ASIF Decomposition for Fuel and Emissionshttp://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2000/flex2000.pdf Lesson : Attack All Components of the Problem

13. Changes in Transport-Project EmissionsGetting a Handle on Each Component Lesson : Attack All Components of the Problem

14. Baseline ( the contra - factual “ without project ” case ) à Project i mpact when Base - case Today it is validated each year ( Now ) Emissions Project line (the factual “ with project ” case ) Time à 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, Worse transport Carbon increase, improved transport - + Quality of transport Carbon reduction, Improved transport Carbon reduction, Worse transport -

16. Transport project outcomes: More or Less Carbon? + CO2/km LOSERS: - Morecongestion - Moredriving Individual transport or mini buses - + Total Veh-km Congestion pricing BRT Circuitous traffic avoiding bottlenecks; Induced traffic Hybrid or CNG for Gasoline WINNERS: - Lesscongestion - Lessdriving -

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. 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 EMBARQ’s 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 Hanoi CO2 Scenarios: SummaryHans Oern, Thuan Le, EMBARQ

21. Hanoi: From Existing Scenarios, extract activity for each transport scenario Total emissions No of trips Emission factors Vehicle kms Trip length Energyfactor 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. Start with Transconsula]t 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 Queretaro CO2 Summary

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 City:Hypothetical 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. 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 Don’t 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 Lessons Learned So Far

36. Thank you ! Lee Schipper schipper@wri.org http://embarq.wri.org/