1. CO 2 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 CO 2 emissions? 1.Scale of analysis – project, zonal, organizational, city, regional or national 2.Accuracy –sketch vs detailed 3.Project Duration? 4.Top down or Bottom Up? 5.When do want to apply this – ex-ante or ex-post? 6.Data availability ? 7.To what level of analysis or boundary – “hidden” ? “induced” ? “impact on landuse”? 8.Resources available? 9.Baseline – static or dynamic? 10.What do you want to do with results? 11.Cobenefits? Depends on many factors!

3. How to Quantify CO 2 emissions? Source :- CAI Asia

4. TEEMP Models – evaluating impacts of interventions 4 ORIGIN DESTINATION Business as Usual Intervention 2 Intervention 3 Intervention 1

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 1.The methodology encompasses both- with and without project cases 2.Emissions are quantified from both Construction and Operation. And the baseline is dynamic and not static 3.Excel based spreadsheet models with simple input/output tables 4.Model provides an opportunity to quantify CO 2, PM and NO x

6. TEEMP models are based on ASIF 6 Source :- CAI Asia

7. Bike Sharing System

8. 8 TEEMP Models – Bike Sharing System Bicycle taxi feeder service at Jakarta Source :- ITDP

9. 9 INPUT DATA BIKE SHARING SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS TRAFFIC IMPACT OF THE BIKE SHARING SYSTEM TRANSPORT SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS EMISSIONS SAVED DUE TO MODE SHIFT TEEMP Models – Bike Sharing System

10. 10 Inputs 1.Project lifetime (number of years) 2.Average bike trip length (kilometers) 3.Starting number of bikes in the system 4.Number of bikes in the system at the final year of project life 5.Number of trips per bike per day at starting year 6.Number of trips per bike per day at final year of project life 7.Mode Shift Details 8.Speed, Occupancy, Emission Factors

11. 11 Defaults Mode Shifts towards Bike Sharing Schemes Around the World Mode shift from (%) HangzhouShanghaiBeijingParisBarcelonaLyonLondon Default Values Pedestrian1626232026372122 Bus5140486551503446 Taxi4435 4 Car445 81076 4 E Bike/ Motorcycle 453 4 Private Bicycle8148 4610 Others/No Trip13710 223 10 Source : Various studies TEEMP Models – Bike Sharing System

12. Example – Beijing Bike Share System TEEMP Models – Bike Sharing System

13. Bikeways

14. TEEMP Models – Bikeways

15. 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. It’s 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 – 1.Uses before and after trip mode shares. 2.Includes construction materials – cement, bitumen and steel 3.Includes speed impact on emissions (based on COPERT and other models) 4.Allows quantification of PM and NOx emissions

16. TEEMP Models – Bikeways what kind of facility planned Fully separated bike track100 Painted bike lane80 Mixed lanes with pedestrians50 What quality if Bike surface riding quality is good100 if Bike surface riding quality is fair/average70 if Bike surface riding quality is poor20 Network Connectivity Score Investment gives new NMT connection into heart of activity centers150 Investment is in moderate demand corridor100 Investment is isolated from large activity centers or travel corridors50 Meterology and Climate Friendliness of Design Share of year cycling is uncomfortable due to weather%A If cold wet climate: share of cycle paths maintained for use in snowy conditions %B If hot climate: degree to which cycle ways have shade/exposure protection %C Discount for meterology=%A*0.33*((1-B))*((1-C)) Discount factors for Sketch Analysis

17. TEEMP Models – Bikeways Discount factors for Sketch Analysis Additional Factors Availability of Safe Bike parking20 No Bike parking/ or few available with no safety arrangements-20 Availability of Bike contraflow lanes in one way streets5 Non availability of Bike contraflow lanes in one way streets-5 Topography-Plain25 Topography - Rolling-10 Topography - Hilly-25 Availability of lighting in bike lanes5 Non availability of lighting in bike lanes-5 Availability of active traffic calming measures15 Nonavailability of active traffic calming measures-15 measures to protect and provide priority at junctions10 No measures to protect and provide priority at junctions-10 Coordination with public transport (BoB)5 No coordination with public transport (BoB)-5 Soft Measures - Exclusive bike policy, sympathetic traffic laws, campaigns15 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/RTV’s, 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/RTV’s, Walking, Cycling and LRT 6.Average Trip Length - Cars, Two Wheelers, Three Wheelers, Taxi, Bus, Jeepney/RTV’s, 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 INPUT DATA TRANSPORT SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS FUTURE MODE SHARES (NO IMPROVEMENT SCENARIO) FUTURE MODE SHARES (IMPROVEMENT SCENARIO) EMISSIONS (NO IMPROVEMENT SCENARIO) EMISSIONS (IMPROVEMENT SCENARIO) EMISSIONS SAVINGS

24. TEEMP Models – Walkability Improvement Projects The savings are calculated in two stages 1.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. 2.the improvement scenario i.e. after the project i.e. walking trips % share in the total trips will rise through time. Input Parameters 1.Project Lifetime (Number of Years) 2.Starting Year Total Number of Trips/Day 3.Annual % Increase in Total Trips/day 4.Mode Share 5.Average Trip length 6.Emission Factor 7.Mode share deterioration due to no improvement/ annual decrease in walk trip share 8.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 1.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) 2.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) 3.Blocks/streets with shade/trees (15) 4. Block Size (scaling factor) 1.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) 2.if the area in which the walkability improvements are being made is dominated by larger block sizes (average block face of over 400 meters) 3. 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 5.Land Use Heterogenity (scaling factor) 1.if the area in which the walkability improvements are being made has a fairly dense mix of residential and active retail land uses 2. if the area in which the walkability improvements are being made has only moderate density and mix of residential and active retail land uses 3.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 @ 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 INPUT DATA BRT CONSTRUCTION BRT CHARACTERISTICS CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS BRT OPERATIONS TRAFFIC IMPACT OF BRT TRANSPORT SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS 1 1 Speed, technology, fuel type, occupancy, fuel efficiency, vehicle emission factors, trip length, mode shares EMISSIONS SAVED DUE TO MODE SHIFT OPERATION EMISSIONSSCALING FACTORS 2 EMISSIONS SAVED (WITH SCALING FACTORS) NET EMISSIONS SAVINGS 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 @ 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 Landuse factor BRTS – Component information - Running ways, stations, vehicles, service patterns, ITS application, BRT branding

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 <6000 (5) Passing lanes at station stops, pphpd >6000 (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 =>3.5 m wide 3 2b. Stations: Bus docking interface Multiple docking bays w/ space to pass, pphpd <6000 (3) Multiple docking bays w/ space to pass, pphpd > 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 High frequency service < 5 min. average3 Moderate frequency service 6-10 min.1 Low frequency service >10 min.0 Off-vehicle fare collection 8 On bus camera enforcement of ROW 2 turning restrictions across > 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 3. Operations

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 <5 min.1 Passenger information at stops, headway > 5 min., info on vehicles2 Passenger information on vehicles1 Quality branding of Vehicles & stations 1 Brochures/schedules 1

38. TEEMP Models – BRTS Total Score73 Scaling factor0.73 Scaling Factor for demand1.1825 Maximum speed w/ optimal station stop distance30 Speed Scaling Factor0.9 Projected Speed27 Scaling factor for dissemination0 Total Score100 Scaling factor1 Scaling Factor for demand1.25 Maximum speed w/ optimal station stop distance30 Speed Scaling Factor1 Projected Speed30 Scaling factor for dissemination1

39. TEEMP Models – BRTS Factors used 1.Motorized Mode Shift Factor - % of MRT Users who would use motorized transport in absence of MRT 2.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 INPUT DATA CONSTRUCTION CO 2 EMISSIONS MRT OPERATIONS TRAFFIC IMPACT OF MRT USERS ELECTRICITY CONSUMED USING MRT KILOMETERS TRAVELLED BOTTOM UP – USING EMISSION FACTORS AND RIDERSHIP 100% REDUCTION IN MOTORIZED VKT 80% REDUCTION IN MOTORIZED VKT 50% REDUCTION IN MOTORIZED VKT 20% REDUCTION IN MOTORIZED VKT SHIFT FROM IPT AND PT MODE SHIFT FACTOR USER DEFINED CITY ANALYSIS LAND USE FACTORS CO 2 EMISSIONS

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 @ 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 Landuse factor\

45. 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.” TEEMP Models – Metro/LRT http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/YT9N5JM6J96BINCTBA625V8RCOA4EP

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) CONSTRUCTION DATA INPUT TRAFFIC DATA AND ROAD CHARECTERISTICS CAPACITY ANALYSIS SPEED CO 2 EMISSIONS ROUGHNESS FACTOR CO 2 EMISSIONS

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. 52 TEEMP Models – Roads (Expressway, Rural and Urban) 52 “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. “ CDM - Approved baseline methodology AM0031 1. SARD Carbon Footprint Model (draft) ~ 2115 tons/km 2. Life Cycle Analysis of Highways by Park et al. ~ 2438 tons/km ( 4-lane) 3. Sightline Institute LCA for 50 Years = 2175 tons/lanekm 4. Mickleham Rd – Vic Roads = 760 tons CO2-e / km 5. Deer Park Bypass Estimate – Vic Roads = 4,870 tons CO2-e / km Source : Carbon Footprint Model(draft), Sightline Institute, VIC Roads and Kwangho Park et al. Some Examples Emissions during construction

53. 53 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 @ V/C = 1,1.5,2, 2.5 etc. TEEMP Models – Roads (Expressway, Rural and Urban)

54. Estimating Speed is critical 54 CO 2 PMNox SPEED2W3WCarsLCVBusHCVCarLGVBusHGVCarLGVBusHGV 15-70 -61-69-61 -43-30-21-60-43-35-56-44 20-43 -34-38-51 -26-18-16-55-32-23-46-36 25-26 -20-22-39 -18-10-12-45-23-14-37-28 30-21 -12-18-23 -11-4-9-35-16-8-29-22 35-7 -5-6-15 -6-7-25-10-3-21-15 40-4 -3 -9 -31-4-16-5-14-10 45 00-3 1-2-7-20-7-4 5000000000000000 5500 220-2261 66 60-2 -3-455-43101-4139 65-4 -6-755-3-83121-7139 70-8 -9-1266-6-11312-11139 75-12 -13-1600-9-15112-3-15107 80-18 -23-4 -13-1910-5-1974 85-23 -24-29-7 -17-23-57-9-2441 90-30 -37-12 -22-28-84-12-281-2 95-37 -36-45-16 -27-32-8-14-16-33 100-37 -36-45-16 -32-36-8-16-20-38 Need to Manage traffic in this speed range

55. 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.

56. 56 TEEMP Models – Roads (Expressway, Rural and Urban) 56 Source : ADB 2010

57. 57 TEEMP Models – Roads (Expressway, Rural and Urban) Example – Expressway in VietNam (ADB)

58. 58 TEEMP Models – Railway Sketch Analysis 1.This requires activity data and emission factors 2.default values has been provided for infrastructure construction emissions. 3.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. 4.Analyst can compare Highways with Railways to check the feasibility of emissions savings (compatible with highways model) 5.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.

59. 59 Example – Expressway in VietNam (ADB) TEEMP Models – Railway Sketch Analysis

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. 61 TEEMP Models – Lets use TEEMP and calculate emissions from this vehicle Source: CAI-Asia

62. Find out more: 62 www.cleanairinitiative.org www.cleanairinitiative.org/portal/GreenTrucksPilot CAI-Asia Center “Air Quality in a Changing Climate” www.BAQ2010.org For information email: baq2010@cai-asia.org Bert Fabian, Transport Program Manager bert.fabian@cai-asia.org Sudhir Gota, Transport Specialist sudhir@cai-asia.org Unit 3505, 35 th floor Robinsons-Equitable Tower ADB Avenue, Pasig City Metro Manila 1605 Philippines