4/8/10

Sketch Modeling the Carbon

Footprint of ADB’s
Transportation Projects
Michael Replogle, ITDP April 7, 2010
Sudir Gota, CAI-Asia

© 2008 Climate Works 1

Project Level Transport Greenhouse Gas

Analysis: Matching Assessment With Purpose

  Increasing rigor
  Increasing data needs
  Increasing difficulty
CDM  
NAMAS   Credit  
Evalua:on  
GEF  Project  
Appraisal  

The views expressed in this paper are the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the
views or policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), or its Board of Directors or the governments
they represent. ADB does not guarantee the source, originality, accuracy, completeness or reliability
of any statement, information, data, finding, interpretation, advice, opinion, or view presented, nor 1
does it make any representation concerning the same.
 4/8/10

CO2 Footprint Analysis Needed at

Multiple Analysis Scales
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/China_blank_map.svg 12/12/09 8:22 AM

Project   Plan  &  

Page 1 of 1

Na1on  
Region  
Need to take
care to evaluate Optimal scale to Often best for
system-wide consider system evaluating large
impacts, induced impacts for networks and
demand metropolitan system policies
plans/programs
3

Need to Consider a
Range of Strategies

-  Expressways
-  Railways
-  Rural roads
-  Urban public transport projects
-  Bus Rapid Transit
-  Metro/MRT
-  Non motorized transportation
-  Traffic management/operations
-  Travel Demand Management

2
 4/8/10

Methodological Considerations
•  Ease of collecting/presenting information
•  Applicability to different types of projects
•  Utility of data collection process to system management
•  Estimation of co-benefits, e.g., local air pollution impact

Desirable Carbon Metrics: Project and Portfolio

  Gross CO2 emissions: tons
  CO2 intensity per unit of mobility: g/pass-km and g/ ton-km
  CO2 intensity per dollar of investment: tons/USD$
  Net no-build CO2 effect: tons relative to dynamic baseline

3
 4/8/10

Construction Emissions
Need to characterize gross magnitude
and significant differences between
some projects

Operational:
•  Congestion impact

Operational Emissions:
in most cases the bulk of project life-cycle CO2

Activity Structure Intensity Fuel

4
 4/8/10

Fuel Consumption Varies By Speed

14  

12   Cars  

10   Bus  

8   LCV  
Kmpl  

6   2  axle  

4   MAV  

2   LCV-­‐Diesel  Project  

0   2  axle  -­‐  Diesel  Project  

10  
15  
20  
25  
30  
35  
40  
45  
50  
55  
60  
65  
70  
75  
80  
85  
90  
95  
100  
105  
Kmph

Emissions  vary  with  Speed.  Speed  depends  on  traffic  volume  and  Capacity  available  

Source : Green Transport- ADB and DIESEL Project (WB-CAI-Asia and Others)
9

Rigorous Carbon Footprint Studies

Need Baseline and Future Data
 Motor vehicle fleet
activity based on
trends, e.g.:
  Mode share and vehicle
activity
  Travel surveys
  Bus company ridership
  Traffic counts
  Vehicle sales data
  Motor fuels sales data
  Vehicle operating speed
  GPS data loggers and
vehicle monitors But this is often not readily
available
10

5
 4/8/10

Especially in Developing World, Many Projects Lack

Data, Resources to Estimate These Factors…
 Low availability of regional travel models and data
 Low institutional capacity
 High-fidelity CDM style evaluation not worth the cost
 Time and budget pressures in project appraisal

11

Framework for Transportation Emissions

Evaluation Models for Projects (TEEMP)
  Excel based spreadsheet
models with simple input/
output tables
  Project-type specific models
  Automated project impact
area definition
  Simplified construction
emissions
  Operations emissions
including induced travel
effects, with dynamic
baseline

12

6
 4/8/10

Default Vehicle Emissions Factors

  Emissions per vehicle kilometer per vehicle type (with
speed factors) for current and future years

13

TEEMP Analysis Structure: Travel Impact

Analysis Bounded by Project Termini

Business-as-Usual*

Trip
Trip Destinations
Origins Project
Proposal

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

14

7
 4/8/10

TEEMP Roads Model – Expressway, Rural, and Urban

Input Traffic Data

and Road Capacity
Characteristics Analysis
Construction
Data
Quantity

Speed

CO2
Emissions Roughness
Factor

CO2
Emissions
CO2
Emissions

15

Data required for TEEMP Roads – Urban, Rural, Expressway

Number  of  lanes  exis:ng  and  proposed  for  Roads/BRTS  

Yes  
and  length  of  road/MRT  line  
Base  Year  Traffic  Volumes  with  Projec:ons  for  Normal  
Yes  
growth  for  Roads  (ridership  for  MRT/BRT)  
Induced  Traffic  elas:city/growth   Assumed  
Fuel  Consump:on  at  50  km  speed  (kmpl)   Assumed  
Average  mode  speeds   Calculated  from  Speed-­‐Flow  equa:ons  

Average  Trip  Lengths  of  each  Mode   Assumed  based  on  sec:on  lengths  

Occupancy/Loading  of  each  modes   Assumed  based  on  sample  corridors  

Roughness  (m/km)  of  before  and  a_er  improvement   Assumed  
Quan:ty  of  Cement,  Steel  and  Bitumen/km  for   Assumed  from  SARD  Model/sample  
construc:on   corridor/literature  review  
Rate  of  Annual  Improvement  in  Fuel  Economy   Assumed  
Assumed.  It  helps  in  calcula:ng  air  
Vehicle  technology  split  –  Euro  I,  Euro  II  etc.  
pollutants  

16

8
 4/8/10

Speed Affects Emissions

17

Induced Traffic & Network Saturation Matter

2.5
Hypothetical impact of doubling number of With Improvement and
motorway lanes! Induced Traffic with
Network Saturation at
V/C=2
2.0
Impact of Improving speed With Improvement
but without
Million Tons CO2

Induced Traffic
1.5

Without Improvement
Recognizing Network
1.0 Saturation at V/C=2

Without
Improvement
0.5

0.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025

18

9
 4/8/10

Road Capacity and Roughness Affect Speed & CO2

Rougness   Impact  on  Fuel  

Impact of V/C ratio on Speed
(m/km)   Consump:on  
120 2   1  
3   0.99  
100 4   0.98  
5   0.98  
80 6   0.97  
6 lane 7   0.96  
KMPH

60 4 lane 8   0.95  
2 lane 9   0.95  
40 1 lane 10   0.94  
11   0.93  
1.5 lane
20 12   0.92  
13   0.92  
14   0.91  
0
15   0.90  
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.5
2.5
V/C Ratio
Values shown are defaults based on several studies and can be modified
based on moving observer surveys and country specific literature
Source : Green Transport- ADB, Manual of Economic Analysis of Highway Projects, India
19

TEEMP Railways Model: Freight

  Based on activity data and emission factors in g/tkm or mj/tkm

20

10
 4/8/10

TEEMP Railways Model: Passengers

  Based on activity data and emission factors in g/pkm or mj/pkm

21

TEEMP Railways Models

  Best to use emission factor for region specific
railways
  High variability in efficiency, energy supplies
  Construction emissions from railways is missing
  Model option evaluate effect of shifting rail traffic
100% to roads
  Future versions to provide various degree of shifts

22

11
 4/8/10

MRT Emission Evaluation Model

CONSTRUCTION CO2  EMISSIONS

MRT  OPERATIONS ELECTRICITY  

INPUT   CONSUMED
DATA
USING  MRT  
KILOMETERS  
CITY  ANALYSIS   TRAVELLED
BOTTOM  UP  –  USING  
EMISSION  FACTORS  AND  
CO2  EMISSIONS   TRAFFIC  IMPACT  OF   RIDERSHIP
MRT  USERS

100%  REDUCTION  IN   80%  REDUCTION  IN  

MOTORIZED  VKT   MOTORIZED  VKT  

50%  REDUCTION  IN  

20%  REDUCTION  IN   MOTORIZED  VKT   CO2  EMISSIONS  
MOTORIZED  VKT  
SHIFT  FROM  IPT  AND  PT  
USER  DEFINED  

MODE  SHIFT  FACTOR  

LAND  USE  FACTORS

CO2  EMISSIONS  
23

Mass Rapid Transit grams CO2/passenger-km

24

12
 4/8/10

Typical Bus Rapid

Transit CO2 Impacts
  Fewer vehicle-km
  Higher vehicle
speeds
  Mode switching
Guangzhou: Before and After BRT
  Switch to lower Opened February 2010
carbon fuel / more
efficient buses

25

TEEMP Bus Rapid Transit Model

Construction CO2 Emissions

BRT Operations CO2 Emissions

Input
Data
Scaling Factors for Components

Traffic Impact of
BRT Users

100% Reduction in 80% Reduction in

Motorized VKT Motorized VKT

20% Reduction in 50% Reduction in

Motorized VKT Motorized VKT
CO2 Emissions
Mode Shift Factor User Defined Shift from IPT and PT

Land Use Factors

CO2 Emissions

26

13
 4/8/10

Key BRT characteristics that impact speed and ridership: 1 – 100 scale

Transit-
Oriented
Development
Land Use
Impact
TEEMP uses a system
effects multiplier of 1.9,
discounted by the system
characteristics score

14
 4/8/10

TEEMP Bicycle Model

INPUT  DATA

SKETCH   DETAILED  
ANALYSIS MODEL

CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS  AS   WITH  PROJECT

DATA USUAL

BASE  YEAR HORIZON   HORIZON  

YEAR YEAR
CO2  ,  PM  NOX  -­‐
EMISSIONS

In case the user does not have any data, experience gained from Latin America case studies of
Rio de Janeiro and Bogota are useful. It’s assumed that roughly, 1 km of bikeways would attract
2173 trips. In case narrow bike lanes are constructed with width less than 2m, the trips are scaled
down by 50%. Average trip length suggested as default by the model is 6 km and 90% shift from
public and intermediate public transport modes. User can vary the shifts to quantify the impacts.

29

Bicycle Model Assumptions

  Inputs: Width & length of bike lanes,
average bike trip length
  1 km of bikeways would attract 2173 trips,
based on studies in Rio & Bogota

  If bike lanes are less than 2 m wide, scaled

down 50%

  Default average trip length 6 km

  Default assumption of 90% shift from

public and intermediate public transport

  With better data, should include other best

practice scoring elements, as with BRT
model

30

15
 4/8/10

Initial Application of TEEMP at ADB

  14 projects evaluated in-depth to derive project-specific
CO2 footprint and saving indicators
  Indicative carbon footprint factors applied to full ADB
transport portfolio 2000-2010
  Sensitivity analysis for key assumptions
  Sensitivity analysis of impacts of alternative investments

31

For More Information Michael Replogle

Global Policy Director and Founder, Institute for
Transportation and Development Policy
1225 Eye St NW Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005 USA
mreplogle@itdp.org
+1-301-529-0351
www.itdp.org

Sudhir Gota
Transport Specialist, Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities
Unit 3510, 35th floor
Robinsons-Equitable Tower
ADB Avenue, Pasig City
Metro Manila 1605
Philippines
sudhir@cai-asia.org
+63-2-395-2843
www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia  

32
32

16