CO2 Tool Workshop

1
CO2 Tool Workshop
Sudhir Gota Alvin Mejia Clean Air Initiative
for Asian Cities Center

• ITDP's Annual Staff Meeting and ClimateWorks'
  Transport Systems Sector Meeting
• September 28 - October 2, 2010
• Guangzhou

2
How to Quantify CO2 emissions?
Depends on many factors!

• Scale of analysis project, zonal,
  organizational, city , regional or national
• Accuracy sketch vs detailed
• Project Duration?
• Top down or Bottom Up?
• When do want to apply this ex-ante or ex-post?
• Data availability ?
• To what level of analysis or boundary hidden
  ? induced ? impact on landuse?
• Resources available?
• Baseline static or dynamic?
• What do you want to do with results?
• Cobenefits?

3
How to Quantify CO2 emissions?
Source - CAI Asia
4
TEEMP Models evaluating impacts of interventions
5
TEEMP Models Type of Interventions

• Bike Improvement Projects Bike Share and Bike
  lane
• Walkability Improvement Projects
• BRTS Projects
• LRT/MRT Projects
• Rural Roads Improvement
• Urban Roads Improvement
• Rural Expressways
• Sketch Analysis of Railway Emissions
• The methodology encompasses both- with and
  without project cases
• Emissions are quantified from both Construction
  and Operation. And the baseline is dynamic and
  not static
• Excel based spreadsheet models with simple
  input/output tables
• Model provides an opportunity to quantify CO2, PM
  and NOx

6
TEEMP models are based on ASIF
6
Source - CAI Asia
7
Bike Sharing System
8
TEEMP Models Bike Sharing System
8
Source - ITDP
Bicycle taxi feeder service at Jakarta
9
TEEMP Models Bike Sharing System
TRANSPORT SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
TRAFFIC IMPACT OF THE BIKE SHARING SYSTEM
INPUT DATA
EMISSIONS SAVED DUE TO MODE SHIFT
BIKE SHARING SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
9
10
TEEMP Models Bike Sharing System

• Inputs
• Project lifetime (number of years)
• Average bike trip length (kilometers)
• Starting number of bikes in the system
• Number of bikes in the system at the final year
  of project life
• Number of trips per bike per day at starting year
• Number of trips per bike per day at final year of
  project life
• Mode Shift Details
• Speed, Occupancy, Emission Factors

10
11
TEEMP Models Bike Sharing System
Defaults
Mode Shifts towards Bike Sharing Schemes Around
the World
Mode shift from () Hangzhou Shanghai Beijing Paris Barcelona Lyon London Default Values
Pedestrian 16 26 23 20 26 37 21 22
Bus 51 40 48 65 51 50 34 46
Taxi 4 4 3 5       4
Car 4 4 5 8 10 7 6 4
E Bike/ Motorcycle 4 5 3 8 10 7 6 4
Private Bicycle 8 14 8     4 6 10
Others/No Trip 13 7 10     2 23 10
Source Various studies
11
12
TEEMP Models Bike Sharing System
Example Beijing Bike Share System
13
Bikeways
14
TEEMP Models Bikeways
15
TEEMP Models Bikeways

1. Allows Sketch Analysis and Detailed Analysis
2. Sketch Analysis In case the user does not have
   any data on expected mode share, shift, trip
   lengths etc. and still needs to assess the likely
   impact of bikelanes, experience gained from Latin
   America case studies of Rio de Janeiro and Bogota
   are useful. Its assumed that roughly, 1 km of 2m
   wide bikeways would attract 2000 trips. These
   trips are then factored based on design and site
   considerations as shown in the sketch analysis
3. Detailed Analysis
4. Uses before and after trip mode shares.
5. Includes construction materials cement, bitumen
   and steel
6. Includes speed impact on emissions (based on
   COPERT and other models)
7. Allows quantification of PM and NOx emissions

16
TEEMP Models Bikeways
Discount factors for Sketch Analysis
what kind of facility planned Fully separated bike track 100
what kind of facility planned Painted bike lane 80
what kind of facility planned Mixed lanes with pedestrians 50
What quality if Bike surface riding quality is good 100
What quality if Bike surface riding quality is fair/average 70
What quality if Bike surface riding quality is poor 20
Network Connectivity Score Investment gives new NMT connection into heart of activity centers 150
Network Connectivity Score Investment is in moderate demand corridor 100
Network Connectivity Score Investment is isolated from large activity centers or travel corridors 50
Meterology and Climate Friendliness of Design Share of year cycling is uncomfortable due to weather A
Meterology and Climate Friendliness of Design If cold wet climate share of cycle paths maintained for use in snowy conditions B
Meterology and Climate Friendliness of Design If hot climate degree to which cycle ways have shade/exposure protection C
Meterology and Climate Friendliness of Design Discount for meterologyA0.33((1-B))((1-C))  
17
TEEMP Models Bikeways
Discount factors for Sketch Analysis
Additional Factors Availability of Safe Bike parking 20
Additional Factors No Bike parking/ or few available with no safety arrangements -20
Additional Factors Availability of Bike contraflow lanes in one way streets 5
Additional Factors Non availability of Bike contraflow lanes in one way streets -5
Additional Factors Topography-Plain 25
Additional Factors Topography - Rolling -10
Additional Factors Topography - Hilly -25
Additional Factors Availability of lighting in bike lanes 5
Additional Factors Non availability of lighting in bike lanes -5
Additional Factors Availability of active traffic calming measures 15
Additional Factors Nonavailability of active traffic calming measures -15
Additional Factors measures to protect and provide priority at junctions 10
Additional Factors No measures to protect and provide priority at junctions -10
Additional Factors Coordination with public transport (BoB) 5
Additional Factors No coordination with public transport (BoB) -5
Additional Factors Soft Measures - Exclusive bike policy , sympathetic traffic laws, campaigns 15
Additional Factors No soft measures -15
18
TEEMP Models Bikeways
Input Parameters

1. Detailed Model for different scenarios BAU
   base year, BAU Horizon year, With Project
   Horizon Year
2. Average mode speeds - Cars, Two Wheelers, Three
   Wheelers, Taxi, Bus, Jeepney/RTVs, Walking and
   Cycling
3. Vehicle Emission Standards for modes
4. Fuel Type (Gasoline and Diesel)
5. Mode share of modes - Cars, Two Wheelers, Three
   Wheelers, Taxi, Bus, Jeepney/RTVs, Walking ,
   Cycling and LRT
6. Average Trip Length - Cars, Two Wheelers, Three
   Wheelers, Taxi, Bus, Jeepney/RTVs, Walking and
   Cycling
7. Average Occupancy
8. Fuel Consumption at 50 km speed (kmpl)
9. Quantity of Cement, Steel and Bitumen/km
10. Emission factors for Cement, Steel and
    Bitumen/Ton (production)
11. CO2,PM and NOx emission Factors

19
TEEMP Models Bikeways
Impact of Speed on Emissions - Car
copert-3, corinair, green transport, diesel,
updated road user cost study and trl
20
TEEMP Models Bikeways
Example Marikina Bikeway Project (Manila)
21
Walkability Improvement Projects
22
TEEMP Models Walkability Improvement Projects
Source Times of India
23
TEEMP Models Walkability Improvement Projects
FUTURE MODE SHARES (NO IMPROVEMENT SCENARIO)
EMISSIONS (NO IMPROVEMENT SCENARIO)
INPUT DATA
EMISSIONS SAVINGS
TRANSPORT SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
EMISSIONS (IMPROVEMENT SCENARIO)
FUTURE MODE SHARES (IMPROVEMENT SCENARIO)
24
TEEMP Models Walkability Improvement Projects

• The savings are calculated in two stages
• the no improvement scenario wherein the walking
  trips trip share in the total trips is assumed
  to go down through time due to deteriorating
  facilities coupled with raising motorization .
• the improvement scenario i.e. after the project
  i.e. walking trips share in the total trips
  will rise through time.
• Input Parameters
• Project Lifetime (Number of Years)
• Starting Year Total Number of Trips/Day
• Annual Increase in Total Trips/day
• Mode Share
• Average Trip length
• Emission Factor
• Mode share deterioration due to no improvement/
  annual decrease in walk trip share
• Increase in walking trips due to improvement/
  before and after walkability ratings/ annual
  increase in walk trip share

25
TEEMP Models Walkability Improvement Projects

• Scorecard for assessing Walkability
• Streets with protected walkway with width
  adequate to accomodate pedestrian volume and are
  kept barrier free (including parked cars
  hawkers) with non obstructing furniture (40)
• Adequately safe crossing facilities (crossing
  lights, crosswalk striping, raised crossings, or
  accessible grade seperated as needed depending on
  traffic volume) with active traffic calming (35)
• Blocks/streets with shade/trees (15)
• Block Size (scaling factor)
• if the area in which the walkability improvements
  are being made is dominated by small block sizes
  (average block face of 200 meters or less)
• if the area in which the walkability improvements
  are being made is dominated by larger block sizes
  (average block face of over 400 meters)
• if the area in which the walkability
  improvements are being made consists of largely
  gated or walled superblocks (average block face
  of 600 meters or more)

26
TEEMP Models Walkability Improvement Projects

• Scorecard for assessing Walkability
• Land Use Heterogenity (scaling factor)
• if the area in which the walkability improvements
  are being made has a fairly dense mix of
  residential and active retail land uses
• if the area in which the walkability
  improvements are being made has only moderate
  density and mix of residential and active retail
  land uses
• if the area in which the walkability improvements
  are being made has low density or low homogenity
  of land uses
• Interpolates the initial trip mode share and
  walkability score with final walkability score (
  capping limit of walking trip mode share _at_ 50)

27
TEEMP Models Walkability Improvement Projects
Example Walkability Improvement Project
28
BRTS Projects
29
TEEMP Models BRTS
Source CAI-Asia. 2010
30
TEEMP Models BRTS
Source CAI-Asia
31
TEEMP Models BRTS
BRT CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
TRANSPORT SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS 1
EMISSIONS SAVED DUE TO MODE SHIFT
INPUT DATA
TRAFFIC IMPACT OF BRT
EMISSIONS SAVED (WITH SCALING FACTORS)
BRT CHARACTERISTICS
OPERATION EMISSIONS
SCALING FACTORS 2
BRT OPERATIONS
NET EMISSIONS SAVINGS
1 Speed, technology, fuel type, occupancy, fuel
efficiency, vehicle emission factors, trip
length, mode shares
2 Scaling factor for land use, demand, speed
scaling factor, dissemination
32
TEEMP Models BRTS
Savings due to improved public transport
vehicles, model shift from private automobiles,
compact development and operational efficiency
improvement

• Input Data Requirements
• Construction Materials Steel, Cement and
  Bitumen
• Ridership ( Base, Intermediate and future year)
  Ridership Calculator
• Trip length of BRT users
• Length of BRT line
• Average speed of modes
• Fuel Economy Annual Yearly Improvement ()
• Fuel Economy (KMPL measured _at_ 50kmph speed) at
  Base Year
• upstream effect of emissions due to fuel
  production
• Gasoline and Diesel emission factors
• Mode share of BRT users in BAU case
• Emission factors for PM and NOx.
• Average Trip Length of modes in BAU
• Average Occupancy of Modes in BAU
• City Trip characteristics
• Fuel Split of Vehicles
• Technology split
• Motorized modeshift factor
• Public Transport and Intermediate Public
  Transport Mode Shift Factor

33
TEEMP Models BRTS
Scorecard for the BRTS to differentiate between
Good and Bad BRTS
1a. Infrastructure Cross Section/ROW (pick
one) Dedicated right of way in curb lane, no
barrier (1) Physically segregated right of way,
curb lane (2) Dedicated right of way in central
verge (median-aligned) no barrier (5) Dedicated
right of way in central verge, w/ barrier
(7) 1b. Infrastructure station/junction
relation Station separated from junction by
min of 70 meters(3) 1c. Road works at station
(pick one) Passing lanes at station, pphpd lt6000
(5) Passing lanes at station stops, pphpd gt6000
(8) Not Applicable
34
TEEMP Models BRTS
Scorecard for the BRTS to differentiate between
Good and Bad BRTS
2a. Station design (select all relevant)
Unique/attractively designed shelter 1
Weather protection at stations 1
Illumination 1
Security personnel at stations 2
Stations gt3.5 m wide 3
2b. Stations Bus docking interface Multiple
docking bays w/ space to pass, pphpd lt6000
(3) Multiple docking bays w/ space to pass,
pphpd gt 6000 (6) 3 or more doors (4) Boarding
platform level with bus floor (8)
35
TEEMP Models BRTS
Scorecard for the BRTS to differentiate between
Good and Bad BRTS
2c. Station Accessibility
Safe attractive pedestrian access system and corridor environment 3
Bicycle parking at stations 1
Bike stations/bike rentals/public bikes at stations 1
Compliant w/ Access International BRT Accessibility guidelines 1
Bike paths leading to stations 1
36
TEEMP Models BRTS
3. Operations
High frequency service lt 5 min. average 3
Moderate frequency service 6-10 min. 1
Low frequency service gt10 min. 0
Off-vehicle fare collection 8
On bus camera enforcement of ROW 2
turning restrictions across gt 60 of intersections (high volume) or bus priority at junctions (low volume) 5
Operational control system to reduce bus bunching 5
Extensive feeder bus services integrated into BRT 5
integrated fare collection with other public transport 5
peak-period pricing 4
Performance based contracting for operators 5
37
TEEMP Models BRTS
Scorecard for the BRTS to differentiate between
Good and Bad BRTS
4. Passenger information and branding
Passenger information at stops, headway lt5 min. 1
Passenger information at stops, headway gt 5 min., info on vehicles 2
Passenger information on vehicles 1
Quality branding of Vehicles stations 1
Brochures/schedules 1
38
TEEMP Models BRTS
Total Score 73
Scaling factor 0.73
Scaling Factor for demand 1.1825
Maximum speed w/ optimal station stop distance 30
Speed Scaling Factor 0.9
Projected Speed 27
Scaling factor for dissemination 0

Total Score 100
Scaling factor 1
Scaling Factor for demand 1.25
Maximum speed w/ optimal station stop distance 30
Speed Scaling Factor 1
Projected Speed 30
Scaling factor for dissemination 1
39
TEEMP Models BRTS

• Factors used
• Motorized Mode Shift Factor - of MRT Users who
  would use motorized transport in absence of MRT
• Land Use Impact Factor - Its Vehicle Mile
  displaced per MRT passenger Mile. Research by
  APTA suggests a value of 1.9 as a placeholder.

40
TEEMP Models BRTS
Example
41
Metro/LRT Projects
42
TEEMP Models Metro/LRT
Source LA Times
43
TEEMP Models Metro/LRT
44
TEEMP Models Metro/LRT
The MRT emissions model captures the impact of
Mass Rapid System on CO2 emissions by quantifying
the construction, operation and traffic impacts
of projected MRT users

• Input Data Requirements
• Construction Materials Steel, Cement and
  Bitumen
• Emission factor g/pkm
• Electricity grid mix for Calculation Emissions
  from MRT
• Electricity Consumption (Mwh) by MRT
• Ridership ( Base, Intermediate and future year)
• Trip length of MRT users
• Length of MRT line
• Average stream speed
• Fuel Economy Annual Yearly Improvement ()
• Fuel Economy (KMPL measured _at_ 50kmph speed) at
  Base Year
• upstream effect of emissions due to fuel
  production
• Gasoline and Diesel emission factors
• Mode share of MRT users in BAU case
• Average Trip Length of modes in BAU
• Average Occupancy of Modes in BAU
• City Trip characteristics
• Fuel Split of Vehicles
• Motorized modeshift factor

45
TEEMP Models Metro/LRT
Emissions from Construction are neglected in
the CDM methodology NM0266. These have not
been included as other methodologies in the
energy or industrial sector do not include them
also, based on the argument that material demand
resulting from the project is non-significant in
relation to national production. A clear case is
e.g. ACM 0002 where dams can be built for
hydropower projects without requiring the
inclusion of construction related emissions
(cement basically) although these might be very
large quantities. ACM 0002 chapter leakage The
main emissions potentially giving rise to leakage
in the context of electric sector projects are
emissions arising due to activities such as power
plant construction, fuel handling (extraction,
processing, and transport), and land inundation
(for hydroelectric projects see applicability
conditions above). Project participants do not
need to consider these emission sources as
leakage in applying this methodology. In the
context of consistency of methodologies and equal
approach to projects independent of the sector in
which they are realized the construction related
emissions for MRTs are not included in this
methodology.
http//cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/Y
T9N5JM6J96BINCTBA625V8RCOA4EP
46
TEEMP Models Metro/LRT
EMISSION FACTORS
47
TEEMP Models Metro/LRT
Example Bangalore Metro
48
Expressways, Rural and Urban Road
49
TEEMP Models Roads (Expressway, Rural and
Urban)
Source CAI Asia
50
TEEMP Models Roads (Expressway, Rural and
Urban)
51
TEEMP Models Roads (Expressway, Rural and
Urban)
Input Data

1. Year Base and Project lifetime (20 years)
2. Number of lanes existing and proposed
3. Length
4. Average Trip Lengths of each Mode
5. Base Year Traffic Volumes with Projections for
   Normal growth
6. Induced Traffic Elasticity
7. Passenger Car Units of Modes
8. Fuel Consumption at 50 km speed (liters for
   100km)
9. CO2 Emission factor in kg/l for modes depending
   on gasoline and Diesel fuel split
10. Occupancy/Loading of each modes
11. Roughness (m/km) of before and after improvement.
    
12. The option is provided in case user would like to
    segregate local vs through traffic.
13. Quantity of Cement, Steel and Bitumen/km
14. Average Road Length of each stretch
15. Rate of Annual Improvement in Fuel Economy
16. Input Emission Factor for PM (g/km) and Nox
    (g/km)
17. Upstream Emission Factor to account for fuel
    manufacture
18. V/C Saturation on a Road

52
TEEMP Models Roads (Expressway, Rural and
Urban)
Emissions during construction
CDM - Approved baseline methodology AM0031
The basic impact of construction is due to new
trunk lanes being built for the BRT project. The
emissions occur during production of the required
building materials, and are thus upstream. The
methodology focuses solely on cement and/or
asphalt as the main energy-intensive materials
used for construction.
Some Examples

• SARD Carbon Footprint Model (draft) 2115
  tons/km
• Life Cycle Analysis of Highways by Park et al.
  2438 tons/km ( 4-lane)
• Sightline Institute LCA for 50 Years 2175
  tons/lanekm
• Mickleham Rd Vic Roads 760 tons CO2-e / km
• Deer Park Bypass Estimate Vic Roads 4,870
  tons CO2-e / km

52
52
Source Carbon Footprint Model(draft), Sightline
Institute, VIC Roads and Kwangho Park et al.
53
TEEMP Models Roads (Expressway, Rural and
Urban)
Without improvement traffic would never grow
after a certain limit!. To capture this impact
capping limit for saturation has been proposed.
The analyst can evaluate impact _at_ V/C 1,1.5,2,
2.5 etc.
53
54
Estimating Speed is critical
  CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 PM PM PM PM Nox Nox Nox Nox
SPEED 2W 3W Cars LCV Bus HCV Car LGV Bus HGV Car LGV Bus HGV
15 -70 -70 -61 -69 -61 -61 -43 -30 -21 -60 -43 -35 -56 -44
20 -43 -43 -34 -38 -51 -51 -26 -18 -16 -55 -32 -23 -46 -36
25 -26 -26 -20 -22 -39 -39 -18 -10 -12 -45 -23 -14 -37 -28
30 -21 -21 -12 -18 -23 -23 -11 -4 -9 -35 -16 -8 -29 -22
35 -7 -7 -5 -6 -15 -15 -6 -1 -7 -25 -10 -3 -21 -15
40 -4 -4 -3 -3 -9 -9 -3 1 -4 -16 -5 -1 -14 -10
45 -1 -1 0 0 -3 -3 -1 1 -2 -7 -2 0 -7 -4
50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
55 0 0 -1 -1 2 2 0 -2 2 6 1 -2 6 6
60 -2 -2 -3 -4 5 5 -1 -4 3 10 1 -4 13 9
65 -4 -4 -6 -7 5 5 -3 -8 3 12 1 -7 13 9
70 -8 -8 -9 -12 6 6 -6 -11 3 12 -1 -11 13 9
75 -12 -12 -13 -16 0 0 -9 -15 1 12 -3 -15 10 7
80 -18 -18 -18 -23 -4 -4 -13 -19 -1 10 -5 -19 7 4
85 -23 -23 -24 -29 -7 -7 -17 -23 -5 7 -9 -24 4 1
90 -30 -30 -30 -37 -12 -12 -22 -28 -8 4 -12 -28 1 -2
95 -37 -37 -36 -45 -16 -16 -27 -32 -8 -14 -16 -33    
100 -37 -37 -36 -45 -16 -16 -32 -36 -8 -16 -20 -38    
Need to Manage traffic in this speed range
54
55
TEEMP Models Roads (Expressway, Rural and
Urban)
Emissions are dependent on speed, thus using the
highway capacity analysis first the model
establishes the V/C (Volume Capacity) Ratios.
Using the insights on speed-flow equations from
the Updated Road User Cost Study (IRC-SP, Manual
of Economic Analysis of Highway Projects), the
China Green Transport Project and the Bangalore
Metro Study, an impact of V/C on speed was
quantified.
55
56
TEEMP Models Roads (Expressway, Rural and
Urban)
56
56
Source ADB 2010
57
TEEMP Models Roads (Expressway, Rural and
Urban)
Example Expressway in VietNam (ADB)
57
58
TEEMP Models Railway Sketch Analysis

• This requires activity data and emission factors
• default values has been provided for
  infrastructure construction emissions.
• The analyst is able to evaluate the emissions
  saved based on high level and low level
  indicating various degree of efficiency based on
  international literature review.
• Analyst can compare Highways with Railways to
  check the feasibility of emissions savings
  (compatible with highways model)
• Analyst can check various degree of shift from
  road to rail
• Input Data
• Base Year
• Passenger-km or ton-km
• Number of Passengers and Average Trip Lengths
• Emission Factor - g/PKT/ g/tKT, mj/PKM or mj/TKM
• Quantity of construction materials - Number of
  rails per km, Weight of rails per km, Number of
  sleepers per km, Number of fish plates per km of
  track, Number of fish bolts per km of track,
  Number of bearing plates per km of track, Number
  of dog-spikes per km of track, Quantity of
  ballast required for B.G, number of stations and
  bridges, quantity of steel, concrete and copper
  etc.

58
59
TEEMP Models Railway Sketch Analysis
Example Expressway in VietNam (ADB)
59
60
TEEMP Models Limitations

1. Quality of the model structure is not uniform
   across models. ( ex MRT/Roads)
2. Needs live applications and a mechanism to
   improve the defaults and sketch analysis ( ex
   Bike/Walk scorecard) need to train models with
   good data
3. Outputs depend on quality of input. Needs better
   data to estimate impact accurately ( ex emission
   factors)
4. Benefits such as Value of travel time, fuel
   savings and Accident savings are still not
   included
5. Detailed traffic model outputs are required for
   detailed analysis
6. After assessment what? TEEMP does not answer
   this economic analysis? Cost effectiveness?
7. TEEMP misses freight

61
TEEMP Models Lets use TEEMP and calculate
emissions from this vehicle
Source CAI-Asia
61
62
Find out more
CAI-Asia Center
www.cleanairinitiative.org www.cleanairinitiative.
org/portal/GreenTrucksPilot
Air Quality in a Changing Climate

• Bert Fabian, Transport Program Manager
• bert.fabian_at_cai-asia.org
• Sudhir Gota, Transport Specialist
• sudhir_at_cai-asia.org
• Unit 3505, 35th floor
• Robinsons-Equitable Tower
• ADB Avenue, Pasig City
• Metro Manila 1605
• Philippines

www.BAQ2010.org
For information email baq2010_at_cai-asia.org
62