1 / 46

Andrés Monzón, Paul Pfaffenbichler, Elena López, Andrés Olmo UPM-TRANSYT transyt.upm.es

Consortium meeting 2/3/2006. WORK UNDERWAY IN WP5. Andrés Monzón, Paul Pfaffenbichler, Elena López, Andrés Olmo UPM-TRANSYT www.transyt.upm.es. Structure of the presentation. DRAFT TOCs Foreword/Abstract/Executive summary 10 pages Introduction to the STEPs Project 5 pages

vincenzo-deegan
Download Presentation

Andrés Monzón, Paul Pfaffenbichler, Elena López, Andrés Olmo UPM-TRANSYT transyt.upm.es

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Consortium meeting 2/3/2006 WORK UNDERWAY IN WP5 Andrés Monzón, Paul Pfaffenbichler, Elena López, Andrés Olmo UPM-TRANSYT www.transyt.upm.es

  2. Structure of the presentation

  3. DRAFT TOCs Foreword/Abstract/Executive summary 10 pages Introduction to the STEPs Project 5 pages Part I: The STEPS framework50 pages 1. State of the art (D1) 2. Trends transport/energy (D2) 3. PEST analysis (D2) Part II: The STEPS assessment approach 40 pages 1. The scenarios (D3) 2. The modelling system (D 4.1) 3. The MCA framework (D 5.1) Part III: Model outputs (D4.2) 70 pages Part IV: Scenario assessment (D5.2) 40 pages Part V: Conclusions and policy recommendations (D6) 20 pages PROPOSAL: STEPS FINAL REPORT Join resources from WP5-6-9 to publish a “book” Final Report

  4. Foreword/Abstract/Ex. summary (UPM-BCI-KUL) Part I: The STEPS framework(KUL-novem) 1. State of the art (D1) 2. Trends transport/energy (D2) 3. PEST analysis (D2) Part II: The STEPS asessment approach (BCI) 1. The scenarios (D3) (KUL) 2. The modelling system (D 4.1) (TRT-S&W) 3. The MCA framework (D 5.1) (UPM) Part III: Model outputs (D4.2) (TRT-S&W) Part IV: Scenario assessment (D5.2) (UPM) Part V: Concl. & recom. (D6) (UPM-KUL-BCI) PROPOSAL: WORK ALLOCATION UPM Co-ordination Ready to distribute in STEPS Final Conference  partial deadlines? TRL+ITS English check TTR+BCI Editing+printing

  5. TIMETABLE for Book • 3.III BRATISLAVA • 15.IV part I & II – KUL & BCI (Novem?) • - completing surveys • 20.IV part III + part IV (TRT+ UPM) • 30.IV part V – part 0 (BCI + UPM) • 15.V assembling all parts • 18.V LEUVEN • (1 month printing English checking and transporting) • 15.VI GOTHENBURG

  6. WORK UNDERWAY IN WP5 • Deliverable 5.2 • Chapter 1: Introduction (UPM) • Chapter 2: Analysis of model outputs (TRL) • Status: draft completed. To be checked by TRT/S&W/ITS • Chapter 3: Assessment of scenarios (UPM) • Status: under development • Chapter 4: Sensitivity analysis (BCI-TRL) • Status: starting after Bratislava meeting

  7. WP6: CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY GUIDELINES RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER WPs EU POLICY SCENARIOS-POLICY STRATEGIES WP3: DEFINITION OF SCENARIOS WP5: EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT OF SCENARIOS ACHIEVEMENT OF EU POLICY GOALS? WP4: SCENARIO IMPACTS MODEL OUTPUTS- PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

  8. Outline of the MCA methodology

  9. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

  10. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

  11. RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE • Low rate of anwers in some countries • Some missing • Finland Norway • Greece Denmark • Portugal Sweden • Switzertland • France • New acc. countries • Consistency • Further analysis • Regional • Economic level

  12. WEIGHTS BY CRITERIA AND SUBCRITERIA

  13. Each model provides different indicators each model has a different weighting system Difficulty of providing a “common” value function for each indicator  each indicator has a different value function in each model. No single model provides all the indicators it is not possible to compute a strict “global” utility value Scenarios are compared: individually for each model both in terms of each of the four criteria groups and “aggregated” Models are compared in broad terms: only the direction of the effect on utility values SOME PREVIOUS CONSIDERATIONS

  14. 1 Utility value 0 0,9*Least preferred value 1,1*Most preferred value PERFORMANCE MATRIX SCORES AGGREGATION CRITERIA WEIGHTS VALUE FUNCTIONS

  15. COMPARISON ACROSS SCENARIOS AND/OR MODELS OIL PRICE EFFECT POLICY EFFECT

  16. EUROPEAN MODELS

  17. ASTRA SCENARIO ASSESSMENT RESULTS

  18. SASI SCENARIO ASSESSMENT RESULTS

  19. POLES SCENARIO ASSESSMENT RESULTS

  20. REGIONAL/LOCAL MODELS

  21. DORTMUND SCENARIO ASSESSMENT RESULTS

  22. EDINBURGH SCENARIO ASSESSMENT RESULTS

  23. S.TYROL SCENARIO ASSESSMENT RESULTS

  24. HELSINKI SCENARIO ASSESSMENT RESULTS

  25. BRUSSELS SCENARIO ASSESSMENT RESULTS

  26. BROAD COMPARISON ACROSS MODELS

  27. EUROPEAN MODELS FUEL PRICE EFFECT A-1=100 POLICY EFFECT

  28. REGIONAL MODELS (I) FUEL PRICE EFFECT A-1=100

  29. REGIONAL MODELS (II) POLICY EFFECT A-1=100

  30. Some final considerations • Heterogeneity among models difficults their comparison • Fuel price increase & modelled policies generally improves Energy, Environment &Social criteria. • However, they reduce economic growth and constrain mobility in most cases: reduces competitiveness: which is the trade-off?? • Policy effects: demand regulation performs better than tech.investments in energy&environment criteria • Planned sensitivity analysis to criteria weights

More Related