Dr. Sudhakar Yedla Policy Researcher, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Japan &

1. Co-benefits from Urban Transportation Strategies - Comparative Analysis of Local Emission Mitigation Strategies vis-à-vis GHG Mitigation Strategies Dr. Sudhakar Yedla Policy Researcher, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Japan & Assistant Professor, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India BAQ Dec 6-8, 2004, Agra, INDIA

2. Objectives • Comparative analysis between GHG mitigation strategies and local pollution control strategies in transportation planning • Their potential in reducing non-target pollutants • Potential savings in total transportation costs BAQ Dec 6-8, 2004, Agra, INDIA

3. Overview of Mumbai Transportation System • Most efficient MRTS in the country • Public transport accounts for more than 80% of the journeys or trips but • Between 1984 and 1997, road length has increased by 321 km where as number of vehicles per km of road has increased from 278 to 416 • Serious congestion due to the unidirectional growth of corridors BAQ Dec 6-8, 2004, Agra, INDIA

4. Overview of Mumbai Transportation System • Higher per capita income • Record of increase in vehicle ownership rate • The emission of various pollutants is expected to grow many folds in the next twenty years of time (IGIDR, 2001) • TSP and HC dominates the pollutants as 3-wheelers are prominent • GHG emissions are also substantial (IGIDR, 2001) BAQ Dec 6-8, 2004, Agra, INDIA

5. Overview of Mumbai Transportation System • Pollution reduction measures are expensive in transport sector • Transportation is among major GHG emitting sectors • MAC of CO2 in Mumbai for a reduction target of 15% - $ 20 • Conflicting interests for the local policy makers – need to derive co-benefits BAQ Dec 6-8, 2004, Agra, INDIA

6. Methodology Objective function To minimize total costs (capital, operational and maintenance cost) of new vehicles and operating and maintenance costs of existing as well as new vehicles • Travel demand constraint • Vehicle capacity constraint • Vehicle stock constraint • Resource constraint • Emission constraint Planning period –1998-2020 BAQ Dec 6-8, 2004, Agra, INDIA

7. Methodology Alternatives considered – • Buses run on Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) • Cars run on Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) • Replacement of 2-Stroke 2-Wheelers by 4-Stroke 2–Wheelers (motorbikes) • Three Wheelers running on Compressed Natural Gas • Battery operated (BOV) 3-Wheelers Mitigation strategies Co-benefit • CO2 mitigation targets (5,10, 15, 20%) – GEMS TSP control • TSP reduction targets (5,10, 15, 20%) – TEMS CO2 benefits • Marginal abatement cost BAQ Dec 6-8, 2004, Agra, INDIA

8. Optimal Strategies for CO2 Mitigation Total emission of various pollutants over 20 Years (‘000 t) under different CO2 mitigation targets Percentage change in pollutants under consideration at different levels of CO2 mitigation targets under GEMS BAQ Dec 6-8, 2004, Agra, INDIA

9. Optimal Strategies for TSP Reduction Total emission of various pollutants over 20 Years (‘000 t) under different TSP mitigation targets Percentage change in pollutants under consideration at different levels of TSP mitigation targets under TEMS BAQ Dec 6-8, 2004, Agra, INDIA

10. Optimal Strategies for HC Reduction Total emission of various pollutants over 20 Years (‘000 t) under different HC mitigation targets Percentage change in pollutants under consideration at different levels of HC mitigation targets under HEMS BAQ Dec 6-8, 2004, Agra, INDIA

11. Comparison of different mitigation strategies Total cost of transportation under different emission reduction targets and different mitigation strategies Marginal abatement costs of CO2 and TSP under GEMS and TEMS BAQ Dec 6-8, 2004, Agra, INDIA

12. Marginal Abatement Cost Marginal abatement cost of CO2 under GEMS and LEMS Marginal abatement cost of TSP under GEMS and LEMS BAQ Dec 6-8, 2004, Agra, INDIA

13. Conclusions • GHG mitigation strategies (GEMS) results in reduction of local pollutants as well and also • strategies targeting at the mitigation of local pollution like TSP and HC also shows greater potential in reducing CO2 emissions (as non-target emission) • Hence, one can look at transportation projects in pollution mitigation approach rather than the GHG mitigation approach yet meet the GHG targets • TSP mitigation strategy (TEMS) performed well by reducing GHG (non-target emission) at a similar magnitude as that of the target pollutant and also • In TEMS, SOx reduction was much higher than that of target pollutant • HC strategy found to be under-performing with most of the non-target pollutants lying far below the target pollutant reduction level • HC strategy showed more potential for co-local pollutant but very poor performance in reducing GHGs BAQ Dec 6-8, 2004, Agra, INDIA

14. Conclusions • The total cost of transportation was found to be in a similar band under all strategies • HC approach resulted in least cost followed by CO2 and TSP strategy • At 10% reduction level MAC under GEMS and LEMS are found comparable • Therefore, it would be better if the development projects in urban transportation planning consider the TSP mitigation strategy rather than GHG mitigation strategy to achieve the same level of effect both locally and globally BAQ Dec 6-8, 2004, Agra, INDIA