Mainstreaming transport co- benefits approach: a practical guide - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Mainstreaming transport co- benefits approach: a practical guide benefits approach: a practical guide to evaluating transport projects Jane Romero Cli Climate Change Group Ch G IGES

Outline Out e o Overview o Why quantify co-benefits? Wh q antif co benefits? o How to quantify – challenges and options o Case study – Bangkok BRT Case study Bangkok BRT o Summary and way forward 6 th Regional EST Forum: “Sustainable Mobility” 2 Jane Romero IGES | http://www.iges.or.jp

“Traffic is not just a line of cars. It is a web of connections. A real solution will look at relationships across the entire road network and all the other systems y that are touched by y it : our supply pp y chains, our environment, our companies, the way people and communities live and work.” IBM 2010 Commuter Pain Survey The transport co benefits approach aims to reduce The transport co-benefits approach aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions , prevent environmental pollution and support sustainable development all at pollution , and support sustainable development all at the same time . 6 th Regional EST Forum: “Sustainable Mobility” 3 Jane Romero IGES | http://www.iges.or.jp

time savings vehicle operating road safety costs costs benefits benefits savings air quality GHG improvement reductions 6 th Regional EST Forum: “Sustainable Mobility” 4 Jane Romero IGES | http://www.iges.or.jp

Why quantify co-benefits? y q y everyone appreciates the “co-benefits approach” but operationalizing the concept is perceived as hard work operationalizing the concept is perceived as hard work with less incentive o the numbers serve as proof to influence th b f t i fl better decision-making and implementation o if it can be measured, it can be managed if it b d it b d o the ‘proof’ can leverage financing 6 th Regional EST Forum: “Sustainable Mobility” 5 Jane Romero IGES | http://www.iges.or.jp

Not a new tool, bringing in more benefits Cost benefit CDM CDM Co-benefits C b fit Analysis PDD for CDM C/B Analysis “PDD for NAMAs” Environmental impacts often GHG reduction GHG reduction neglected measured measured measured measured numerically numerically Balance bet. GHG and other co- SD impacts benefits measured in Other SD impacts monetary terms measured measured SD benefits numerically also mentioned Construction qualitatively emissions should emissions should also be added for MRV Co-benefits large projects 6 th Regional EST Forum: “Sustainable Mobility” 6 Jane Romero IGES | http://www.iges.or.jp

Transport Co-benefits Guidelines Available for download at: http://www.cobenefit.org time savings vehicle road safety road safety operating operating benefits costs savings GHG air quality reductions improvement 6 th Regional EST Forum: “Sustainable Mobility” 7 Jane Romero IGES | http://www.iges.or.jp

Time savings = − BT BT o BT Benefit of travel time saving w ( ) 365 = ∑∑ × × α × Total Travel time cost (per year) BT Q T i ijl ijl j j l where where, BT : Benefit of travel time saving BT : Total Travel time cost with/without project i Q : traffic volume for j vehicle type on link l , with/without project (vehicle/day) yp , / p j ( / y) Q j ijl ijl T : average travel time for j vehicle type on link l , with/without project (minute ） ijl α : value of time for j vehicle type (monetary unit/minute*vehicle) j i = i = i O O i : i : i w w with project, with project without project without project, Unit value of time per vehicle type (in US $/vehicle ‐ minute) j : vehicle type Vehicle type (j) Japan Thailand l : link Passenger car 0.44 0.061 Bus 4.10 0.031 Van 0.53 ‐ Small truck 0.52 ‐ Ordinary truck 0.70 0.031 Motorcycle Motorcycle ‐ 0 010 0.010 Note: Based on 2008 data and prices 6 th Regional EST Forum: “Sustainable Mobility” 8 Jane Romero IGES | http://www.iges.or.jp

Vehicle operating costs savings BR = = − BR BR BR BR BR Benefit of vehicle operating cost reduction Benefit of vehicle operating cost reduction o w ( ) 365 = ∑∑ × × β × Total Travel time cost (per year) BR Q L i ijl l j j l where where, BR : Benefit of vehicle operating cost reduction Ordinary road （ DID ） （ Unit ： US $/vehicle ･ km ） BR : Total vehicle operating cost with/without project Ave. i Passenger passenger Q : traffic volume for j vehicle type on link l , with/without project (vehicle/day) Q : traffic volume for vehicle type on link l with/without project (vehicle/day) Speed Speed Small Small Ordinary Ordinary car ijl （ km/hour ） car class truck truck Bus L : Link length of link l (km ） (incl. bus) l 5 0.47 1.20 0.48 0.36 0.82 β : value of vehicle operating cost for j vehicle type (monetary unit/minute*vehicle) 10 j 0.34 1.01 0.35 0.31 0.67 i = without project, i = with project, O 15 0.30 0.94 0.31 0.29 0.60 i : w 20 0.27 0.89 0.28 0.27 0.55 j : vehicle type 25 0.26 0.86 0.27 0.26 0.51 30 0.25 0.84 0.26 0.25 0.48 l : link 35 35 0 24 0.24 0 82 0.82 0 25 0.25 0 25 0.25 0 45 0.45 40 0.24 0.81 0.25 0.24 0.44 45 0.24 0.81 0.24 0.24 0.43 50 0.23 0.80 0.24 0.24 0.42 55 0.23 0.80 0.24 0.24 0.41 60 0.24 0.80 0.24 0.24 0.41 Note1) Prices in 2008 Note2) Unit cost between classes of speed in the table should be calculated by linear interpolation. Note3) Values of 60km/h are used respectively, in the case of speeds beyond 60km/h 6 th Regional EST Forum: “Sustainable Mobility” 9 Jane Romero IGES | http://www.iges.or.jp

F Framework of accident loss k f id t l calculation Roadside type Traffic volume Link length （ Link conditions ） Number of major intersections Number of lanes Median strip or not? Casualty , fatal injury, Number of human injury accidents minor injury per accident Number of accident with material loss Cost of loss per person for each category Cost of material Loss of loss per congestion per Cost of loss accident (no accident (no accident with accident with per accident id t human injury) human injury with human injury involved involved Material loss Congestion loss Human loss Cost of total loss due to traffic accident 6 th Regional EST Forum: “Sustainable Mobility” 10 Jane Romero IGES | http://www.iges.or.jp

Estimation of emission reductions Bottom up ER i = Σ (BE i,k – PE i,k ) Traffic volume BE i,k = Σ (Q BL,j,k × L k × EF i, j, VBL,k ) PE i,k = Σ (Q PJ,j,k × L k × EF i, j, VPJ,k ) × L × EF PE Σ (Q ) Emission factor Top down ER = Σ (BE – PE) BE = Σ (FC BL,m × NCV m × Ef m ) Amount of fuel PE = Σ (FC PE = Σ (FC PJ,m × NCV m × EF m ) × NCV × EF ) 6 th Regional EST Forum: “Sustainable Mobility” 11 Jane Romero IGES | http://www.iges.or.jp

Transport Co-benefits Calculator 6 th Regional EST Forum: “Sustainable Mobility” 12 Jane Romero IGES | http://www.iges.or.jp

C Case study: Bangkok BRT t d B k k BRT Emission reductions 6 th Regional EST Forum: “Sustainable Mobility” 13 Jane Romero IGES | http://www.iges.or.jp

Summary and way forward o The transport co-benefits guidelines and calculator are easy-to-use tools to empower y p local transport practitioners in mainstreaming co-benefits approach in their planning and pp p g policy making processes o Data is often not available but possible to p start with initial ‘default’ values o Data collection and management should be g strengthened to access external financing and support 6 th Regional EST Forum: “Sustainable Mobility” 14 Jane Romero IGES | http://www.iges.or.jp

Thank you for your attention. Email: romero@iges.or.jp Websites: www.iges.or.jp | ww.cobenefit.org 6 th Regional EST Forum: “Sustainable Mobility” 15 Jane Romero IGES | http://www.iges.or.jp