slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
CO 2 Tool Workshop PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
CO 2 Tool Workshop

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 62

CO 2 Tool Workshop - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 70 Views
  • Uploaded on

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. How to Quantify CO 2 emissions?. Depends on many factors!.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'CO 2 Tool Workshop' - jules


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

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

slide2

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?
teemp models evaluating impacts of interventions
TEEMP Models – evaluating impacts of interventions

Business as Usual

DESTINATION

ORIGIN

Intervention 1

Intervention 2

Intervention 3

slide5

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
slide8

TEEMP Models – Bike Sharing System

8

Source :- ITDP

Bicycle taxi feeder service at Jakarta

slide9

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

teemp models bike sharing system
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

slide11

TEEMP Models – Bike Sharing System

Defaults

Mode Shifts towards Bike Sharing Schemes Around the World

Source: Various studies

11

slide12

TEEMP Models – Bike Sharing System

Example – Beijing Bike Share System

teemp models bikeways1
TEEMP Models – Bikeways
  • Allows Sketch Analysis and Detailed Analysis
  • 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
  • Detailed Analysis –
    • Uses before and after trip mode shares.
    • Includes construction materials – cement, bitumen and steel
    • Includes speed impact on emissions (based on COPERT and other models)
    • Allows quantification of PM and NOx emissions
teemp models bikeways2
TEEMP Models – Bikeways

Discount factors for Sketch Analysis

teemp models bikeways3
TEEMP Models – Bikeways

Discount factors for Sketch Analysis

teemp models bikeways4
TEEMP Models – Bikeways

Input Parameters

  • Detailed Model for different scenarios – BAU – base year, BAU – Horizon year, With Project – Horizon Year
  • Average mode speeds - Cars, Two Wheelers, Three Wheelers, Taxi, Bus, Jeepney/RTV’s, Walking and Cycling
  • Vehicle Emission Standards for modes
  • Fuel Type (Gasoline and Diesel)
  • Mode share of modes - Cars, Two Wheelers, Three Wheelers, Taxi, Bus, Jeepney/RTV’s, Walking , Cycling and LRT
  • Average Trip Length - Cars, Two Wheelers, Three Wheelers, Taxi, Bus, Jeepney/RTV’s, Walking and Cycling
  • Average Occupancy
  • Fuel Consumption at 50 km speed (kmpl)
  • Quantity of Cement, Steel and Bitumen/km
  • Emission factors for Cement, Steel and Bitumen/Ton (production)
  • CO2,PM and NOx emission Factors
teemp models bikeways5
TEEMP Models – Bikeways

Impact of Speed on Emissions - Car

copert-3, corinair, green transport, diesel, updated road user cost study and trl

teemp models bikeways6
TEEMP Models – Bikeways

Example – Marikina Bikeway Project (Manila)

teemp models walkability improvement projects1
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)

teemp models walkability improvement projects2
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
teemp models walkability improvement projects3
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)
teemp models walkability improvement projects4
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 @ 50%)
teemp models walkability improvement projects5
TEEMP Models – Walkability Improvement Projects

Example – Walkability Improvement Project

teemp models brts
TEEMP Models – BRTS

Source: CAI-Asia. 2010

teemp models brts1
TEEMP Models – BRTS

Source: CAI-Asia

teemp models brts2
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

SCALING FACTORS 2

OPERATION EMISSIONS

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

teemp models brts3
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
teemp models brts4
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

teemp models brts5
TEEMP Models – BRTS

Scorecard for the BRTS to differentiate between Good and Bad BRTS

2a. Station design (select all relevant)

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)

teemp models brts6
TEEMP Models – BRTS

Scorecard for the BRTS to differentiate between Good and Bad BRTS

2c. Station Accessibility

teemp models brts8
TEEMP Models – BRTS

Scorecard for the BRTS to differentiate between Good and Bad BRTS

4. Passenger information and branding

teemp models brts10
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.
slide43

CO2 EMISSIONS

CONSTRUCTION

MRT OPERATIONS

ELECTRICITY CONSUMED

INPUT DATA

USING MRT KILOMETERS TRAVELLED

CITY ANALYSIS

BOTTOM UP – USING EMISSION FACTORS AND RIDERSHIP

TRAFFIC IMPACT OF MRT USERS

CO2 EMISSIONS

80% REDUCTION IN MOTORIZED VKT

100% REDUCTION IN MOTORIZED VKT

20% REDUCTION IN MOTORIZED VKT

50% REDUCTION IN MOTORIZED VKT

CO2 EMISSIONS

SHIFT FROM IPT AND PT

USER DEFINED

MODE SHIFT FACTOR

LAND USE FACTORS

CO2 EMISSIONS

TEEMP Models – Metro/LRT

slide44

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\
slide45

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/YT9N5JM6J96BINCTBA625V8RCOA4EP

slide47

TEEMP Models – Metro/LRT

Example – Bangalore Metro

teemp models roads expressway rural and urban1
TEEMP Models – Roads (Expressway, Rural and Urban)

INPUT TRAFFIC DATA AND ROAD CHARECTERISTICS

CAPACITY ANALYSIS

CONSTRUCTION DATA

SPEED

CO2 EMISSIONS

ROUGHNESS FACTOR

CO2 EMISSIONS

CO2 EMISSIONS

teemp models roads expressway rural and urban2
TEEMP Models – Roads (Expressway, Rural and Urban)

Input Data

  • Year – Base and Project lifetime (20 years)
  • Number of lanes existing and proposed
  • Length
  • Average Trip Lengths of each Mode
  • Base Year Traffic Volumes with Projections for Normal growth
  • Induced Traffic Elasticity
  • Passenger Car Units of Modes
  • Fuel Consumption at 50 km speed (liters for 100km)
  • CO2 Emission factor in kg/l for modes depending on gasoline and Diesel fuel split
  • Occupancy/Loading of each modes
  • Roughness (m/km) of before and after improvement.
  • The option is provided in case user would like to segregate local vs through traffic.
  • Quantity of Cement, Steel and Bitumen/km
  • Average Road Length of each stretch
  • Rate of Annual Improvement in Fuel Economy
  • Input Emission Factor for PM (g/km) and Nox (g/km)
  • Upstream Emission Factor to account for fuel manufacture
  • V/C Saturation on a Road
slide52

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. Theemissions 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.

slide53

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 @ V/C = 1,1.5,2, 2.5 etc.

53

estimating speed is critical
Estimating Speed is critical

Need to Manage traffic in this speed range

54

slide55

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

slide57

TEEMP Models – Roads (Expressway, Rural and Urban)

Example – Expressway in VietNam (ADB)

57

slide58

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

slide59

TEEMP Models – Railway Sketch Analysis

Example – Expressway in VietNam (ADB)

59

slide60

TEEMP Models – Limitations

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

Sudhir Gota, Transport Specialist

sudhir@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@cai-asia.org

62