Transport Emissions Evaluation Models for Projects (TEEMP)
Transport Emissions Evaluation Models for Projects (TEEMP) Sophie Punte
Michael Replogle
Executive Director CAI-Asia Center
Global Policy Director and Founder Institute for Transportation & Development Policy
Alvin Mejia Environment Specialist CAI-Asia Center
Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions as Catalysts for Environmentally Sustainable Transport Seoul, South Korea 12 April 2011
Agenda
• • • • • •
Introduction to emissions measurement Introduction to TEEMP Run through TEEMP TEEMP limitations Examples of TEEMP application Next steps
2
Introduction to Emissions Measurement
3
Introduction to emissions measurement
• Estimating emissions from transport is an important element in analyzing current and future transport scenarios in cities • Currently, most cities embark on investing in transport infrastructure with relatively little evaluation of the repercussions for environment, climate, energy security • Traditional tools and methodologies for evaluating the emissions impacts of transport plans & projects require a lot of time, data and financial resources 4
Transport Plan & Project Emission Evaluation
Source: Elizabeth Goller & John Rogers, Transport and Activity Measurement Toolkit, World Bank, 2011
5
GHG evaluation methods for transport
• CDM methods (e.g. 0031 Bus Rapid Transit) – Requires ex-ante and ex-post analysis – Data collection: $300-500,000 up-front; $60-100,000/year continuing monitoring: often more than CDM credits pay – Default data must be sharply discounted – Cannot be used in a city without existing mass transit system or if BRT would replace rail-based system – Additionality requirements make ineligible many projects – Highly conservative analysis misses indirect benefits
6
CDM-AM0031 (Bus Rapid Transit): Data Required
Data variable
Recording frequency
Proportion of data to be monitored
Number of vehicles
Before project start and annually (in the case of modal shift for passenger cars)
100% and annually based on a survey of passengers using the new system
Fuel efficiency
Before project start
Sample
Total distance driven by all vehicles in category
Before project start and partially annually
Sample
Passengers transported baseline by vehicle category i
Before project start
100%
Average occupancy rate baseline of vehicle category i
Before project start and for buses and taxis minimum year 3, 6 and 10
Sample
Average trip distance baseline for vehicle category i
Before project start and annually (in the case of modal shift for passenger cars)
Sample and sample survey
Total fuel consumption per vehicle category
Before project start
Sample
Passengers transported by project
Annually
100%
Share of passengers that would have taken transport mode i
Annually
Sample survey
Passengers transported by project who would have used transport mode i
Bi-monthly
Sample survey
Policies that affect baseline
Before project start and annually
100%
7
GHG evaluation methods for transport
• Regional 4-step travel model & emission factor model – Supports baseline and forecasting analysis ex-ante/ex-post – Requires extensive, expensive up-front detailed data collection and coding, surveys, data analysis, calibration and validation – May cost $150,000-$2.5+ million to set up for a city – Once established, requires maintenance, but cheap to run – Traffic engineering models may miss key factors that underlie behavior change and elasticity of demand – Models suggest more precision than they deliver, but when used with care are valuable to compare competing alternatives
8
Transport Activity Measurement Toolkit - TAMT • Emerging best practice tool offers roadmap to move towards well grounded, affordable expost analysis • Costs & capacity are still barriers for ex-ante use in many cities Source: Goller & Rogers, World Bank, 2011
9
70 CO2 60
PM Nox
50 40 30 20 10 0 15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
-10
Impact of Induced traffic 2.5
BAU
e=0
e=0.25
e=0.5
e=0.8
e=1
2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5
10
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
0.0
2005
– Simple, fast, inexpensive, especially good for ex-ante analysis – Default data if local data is lacking: emissions by vehicle type by speed, travel activity parameters, elasticities – Confidence in model outputs sharply bolstered when local data is used instead of defaults – Focus on guiding users to focus project design on factors contributing to more effective GHG reducing projects – Sensitivity to induced demand impacts
Kilotons of CO2 /Km
• TEEMP toolkit
Increase in emission factor (%g/Km) assuming 50 kmph as 0
GHG evaluation methods for transport
11 Credit: Yang JIANG, Daizong LIU, Suping CHEN, Assessment Tools for China Low‐Carbon‐City Projects From the CSTC’s Perspective, 2011
Evolution of TEEMP Transport Projects
Tool development
Pilot testing
Mainstreaming in development banks/agencies private sector, cities
Transport Systems
Cities (transport /energy)
Transport Emissions Evaluation Model for Projects (TEEMP) for roads, railway, BRT, metro, bikeways, bike sharing, walkability improvement projects:* 1st generation: CAI-Asia & ITDP (ADB funding) 2nd generation: CAI-Asia, ITDP, Cambridge Systematics (UNEP GEF& Climate Works Foundation funding) 3rd generation: CAI-Asia (ADB & World Bank funding) Inclusion of economics and co-benefits Improve user-friendliness and flexible applications
City Sketch Analysis tool for urban transport systems - CAI-Asia and ITDP (UNEP GEF funding)
Rapid Assessment Cities Emissions from Transport and Energy tool (RACE) - CAIAsia (ADB funding, in development) Detailed City Emissions Tool 4th generation tool integrating urban development typology & context
ADB transport projects - CAI-Asia (ADB funding) UNEP GEF transport project - #?# World Bank transport projects - CAI-Asia (WB funding) Transport projects in Latin American Cities - Clean Air Institute (World Bank GEF & Climate Works funding) Transport/urban development India/China – ITDP, Veolia, IDDRI, CAI-Asia, TERI (Climate Works/Veolia)
[could be integrated as part of city-wide tool for transport and energy]
RACE testing at three Asian cities - CAI-Asia (ADB funding) 4th generation tool pilots
TEEMP Help Desk – CAI-Asia ADB Guidelines for TEEMP application - CAI-Asia (ADB funding) Regular TEEMP training of ADB officers and consultants CAI-Asia (ADB funding) Training courses and online training materials
[could be integrated as part of city-wide tool for transport and energy]
Guidelines for RACE tool application for development banks, private sector, cities Training on RACE tool Integration in urban planning and project/loan development 12
Introduction to TEEMP
13
Introduction to TEEMP: what and why
• TEEMP – Transport Emissions Evaluation Model for Projects (can be pronounced as “temp” or temporary) • Excel-based, free-of-charge, transparent spreadsheet models • Results of TEEMP evaluation can help facilitate reasonable direction for action and alternate options
14
Introduction to TEEMP: BAU vs Interventions
Business as Usual
Intervention 1
ORIGIN
Intervention 2
DESTINATION
Intervention 3
City
15
Emissions ( CO2, PM and NOx)
Introduction to TEEMP: emissions savings
No Project Scenario (BAU)
Project Scenario (Intervention) Operating emissions from motorized vehicles within the identified scope
Construction emissions
Time
16
Introduction to TEEMP: based on ASIF
17
Introduction to TEEMP: methodology features • • • • • • • • •
With and without project cases Sketch and detailed analysis * Scorecard to see the impact of design –good vs bad* Emissions from construction, operation and motorized vehicles Dynamic baseline is considered Automatic definition of impact boundaries Quantification of CO2, PM and NOx emissions Tools are excel based spreadsheets with simple input/output tables Default values are provided * Some models only
18
Introduction to TEEMP: Tools
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Bike sharing Bikeways Pedestrian Facility Improvement BRT LRT/MRT Roads Projects – Expressways, Rural Roads and Urban Roads Railway City Sketch Analysis and Other Strategies - Commuter Strategies, Pricing Strategies, Eco-Driving , PAYD Insurance
19
Introduction to TEEMP: Tool development Donor
ADB*
UNEP-GEF
ADB + WB
Developer
CAI-Asia/ITDP
CAI-Asia
TEEMP Generation
First
ITDP/CAI-Asia /Cambridge Systematics Second
Roads Railway BRT Metro Bikeways Walkability Improvement Projects Bike sharing Other Strategies - Commuter Strategies, Pricing Strategies, Eco-Driving , PAYD Insurance City Sketch Analysis
Third
See Note 2
*The emissions impacts of 11 transport projects funded by ADB were analyzed using TEEMP to generate defaults which were applied to the whole transport project portfolio of the bank. 20 Note 2: a 4th generation model is anticipated that will include urban design typologies to provide context sensitivity for TEEMP analysis and better integration across modes, engaging ITDP/CAI-Asia, Veolia, IDDRI, TERI
Introduction to TEEMP: Model development and pilot testing
• Initial model developed on 11 transport projects in Asia: CAI-Asia (ADB funding) • Model extended to TDM and more NMT strategies for GEF transport methodology development (UNEP, ITDP & Climate Works Foundation funding) • Pilot testing on transport projects Asia & Africa: CAIAsia (World Bank funding) • Future pilot testing in Latin America & Asia: Clean Air Institute, ITDP (World Bank GEF, Climate Works & Veolia funding) 21
Introduction to TEEMP- Mainstreaming
• ADB Guidelines for TEEMP application: CAI-Asia (ADB funding) • Regular TEEMP training of ADB officers and consultants: CAI-Asia (ADB funding) • Technical Note and Handbook on GHG Analysis for Transportation: ITDP (IDB funding)
22
Run through TEEMP
23
Run through of TEEMP: major steps
1. Define the Baseline Scenario
2. Define the Project Scenario 3. View the Outputs
24
Run through of TEEMP: baseline scenario
Number of trips
Emissions from the motorized vehicles within the scope of the analysis are quantified under the baseline scenario
Activity
Average Trip Lengths Average Speeds Mode shares (%) Average occupancies
Structure
Vehicle fuel split Vehicle emission standards split
Intensity Fuel
Fuel Efficiencies of vehicles Emission Factors
25
Run through of TEEMP: project scenario (1)
Number of trips
Emissions from the motorized vehicles within the scope of the analysis are also quantified under the project scenario, taking into account the impacts of the project in the ASIF parameters
Activity
Average Trip Lengths Average Speeds Mode shares (%) Average occupancies
Structure
Vehicle fuel split Vehicle emission standards split
Intensity Fuel
Fuel Efficiencies of vehicles Emission Factors
26
Run through of TEEMP: project scenario (2)
Amount of Materials Used
Emissions from the construction of certain types of transport projects are significant and need to be considered in the emissions analysis
Emission Factors for Materials (embodied emissions)
27
Run through of TEEMP: project scenario (3)
Amount of electricity used Emission Factor of the Grid
Emissions from the operation of some project types (e.g. electricity consumption from MRT operations) are considered as well
Fuel used for Project Vehicles
28
Run through of TEEMP: outputs
• Basic outputs include total emission savings for CO2, NOx, PM • Emissions from construction and operation (e.g. electricity use for MRT) are given as outputs for some models • Other indicators such as average yearly emissions savings, emissions savings/kilometer, etc… are included, depending on the type of tool
29
Run through TEEMP: Tools
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Bike sharing Bikeways Pedestrian Facility Improvement BRT LRT/MRT Roads Projects – Expressways, Rural Roads and Urban Roads 7. Railway 8. City Sketch Analysis and Other Strategies - Commuter Strategies, Pricing Strategies, Eco-Driving , PAYD Insurance 30
Bike sharing system (1)
Emissions savings are calculated based on the premise that the bike sharing system will attract riders from motorized modes
31
Bike sharing system (2)
Input Project lifetime (number of years) Average bike trip length (kilometers) Starting number of bikes in the system Maximum number of bikes in the system and year of attainment Number of bikes in the system at the final year of project life Number of trips per bike per day at starting year Maximum number of trips per bike per day for bike sharing scheme Number of trips per bike per day at final year of project life Mode shift from different modes to bikeshare scheme (avoided trips % mode share) Average Speed (km/h) of different modes Occupancy of different transport modes
32
Bikeways (1) Sketch Analysis
Detailed Analysis
• Can be used if adequate data for doing a detailed analysis is not available
• Heavily relies on the differences in mode share values (BAU scenario vs project scenario)
•Scoring system: parameters such as type of facility planned, quality of bike surface, network connectivity, climate, etc. in estimating the emissions savings
•Emissions from the construction of the bikeways can be included •Considers speed impacts on fuel efficiency, and thus on emissions
Bikeways (2)
Sketch
Type of Analysis
Detailed
Input basic information about the project – length of bikeway, width, average bike trip length
Input basic information about the project – BAU, target year with and without project
Input basic information about the project – quality, network connectivity, meteorology (scorecard approach)
Input ASIF parameters for base year, target year with project and target year without project
Details – modeshift and emission factors
Input Amount of materials consumed/km to calculate construction emissions
Output – CO2, PM and NOx
34
Pedestrian facilities improvement (1)
Emissions savings are estimated by comparing the emissions from : 1.the no improvement scenario wherein the ‘walking trips’ % share in the total trips is assumed to go down through time due to deteriorating facilities coupled with rising motorization . 2.the improvement scenario i.e. after the project i.e. walking trips % share in the total trips will rise through time.
Pedestrian facilities improvement (2) Input basic information about the project Input calculation parameters: project lifetime, number of trips, annual increase in trips, mode share, trip length and emission factor
Calculate savings without project scenario i.e. depreceation in walking - either using mode share or annual decrease %
Calculate savings with project scenario i.e. improvement in walking - either using mode share or annual increase % or scorecard with walkability indicators
Output – CO2, PM and NOx
Input Parameters 1. Project Lifetime (Number ofYears) 2. Starting Year Total Number of Trips/Day 3. Annual % Increase in Total Trips/day 4. Mode Share 5. Average Trip length 6. Emission Factors 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 36
Bus rapid transit (1) Sketch Analysis • Considers the ridership or the length of BRTS constructed using the current literature available in estimating the emissions •A ridership calculator is provided in TEEMP model to project the ridership of the BRT project
Detailed Analysis • Construction, operation (of BRT buses) and traffic emissions •Land-use factor has been proposed to account for landuse modifications and its subsequent impacts on travel pattern
37
Bus rapid transit (2) Sketch A
Sketch B
Full Model
Basic project information
Basic project information
Basic project information
Input the ridership values or use the ridership estimator
Length of BRT route
Input the ridership values or use the ridership estimator
Emission Factors
Emission Factors
Characteristics of the vehicles within the area of analysis
Outputs
Outputs
Define the BRTS project components – scoring factors Characteristics of the BRT buses Construction parameters Outputs 38
BRT Scoring Factors Components
Description 1a. Infrastructure: Cross Section/ROW (pick one)Dedicated right of way in central verge, w/ barrier Station separated from junction by min of 70 meters TRUE
1b. Infrastructure: station/junction relation 1c. Road works at station (pick one)Passing lanes at station stops, pphpd >6000
Unique/attractively designed shelter TRUE Weather protection at stations TRUE
Illumination TRUE
2a. Station design (select all relevant)
Security personnel at stations TRUE Stations =>3.5 m wide TRUE Multiple docking bays w/ space to pass, pphpd 60% of intersections (high volume) or bus priority at junctions (low volume)
TRUE
Operational control system to reduce bus bunching TRUE Extensive feeder bus services integrated into BRT FALSE integrated fare collection with other public transport FALSE peak-period pricing FALSE Performance based contracting for operators FALSE Passenger information at stops, headway > 5 min., info on vehicles 4. Passenger information and branding
Quality branding of Vehicles & stations FALSE
39
Brochures/schedules FALSE
Bus rapid transit (3) Input Data • 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
MRT/LRT (1) Route Analysis
City Analysis
• Scope of analysis considers the MRT riders only •This analysis does not consider the generated trips to and from the MRT stations and the possibility that the vehicles that they have been using are still in use •Construction and operation emissions are considered
• City transport activity data both with and without metro system are considered for quantifying the impact of metro on city transport system •Construction and operation emissions are considered
41
MRT/LRT (2) Input basic information about the project
Input citywide trip data – mode share, trip length, average occupancy, average speed
Type of analysis – citywide or ridership based
Input ridership projections and current mode share, trip length, average occupancy, average speed of MRT riders
Input citywide data on fleet – fuel wise, and emission standard split and fuel efficiency at 50kmph
Calculate MRT operation emissions either from electricity consumption (top down) or literature review (bottom-up)
Input data on fleet – fuel split, emission standards and fuel efficiency
Emission Factor
Input Amount of materials consumed/km to calculate construction emissions
Output – CO2, PM and NOx
Input mode shift factor and land use factor
MRT/LRT (3) Input Length (km) Years ( start, mid and final) Average Fuel Efficiency of Vehicles at 50 kmph Fuel split for vehicles @ start, mid and final year Emission Standards of Fleet @ start, mid and final year Emission factors -CO2 (kg/unit of consumption), PM (g/km ) , NOx (g/km ) for different vehicles @ 50 kmph and emission standards Electricity consumption - either for start, mid and final year or for all the years or annual average Grid Emission Factors (ton/MWh)- either for start, mid and final year or for all the years or annual average Electricity Grid characteristics ( electricity generation mix - coal, oil based, natural gas and others) Construction materials used (total or per km) - cement, steel and bitumen Method - 1 Method - 2 City Trip mode share ( with and without project) for start, mid Ridership/day start, mid and final year and final year Land use factor ( assume 1 in case one needs to neglect Average Trip Length (km) ( with and without project) for start, landuse impact) mid and final year Average Speed (km/hr) ( with and without project) for start, % mode share in case of No MRT for start, mid and final year mid and final year Average Trip Length (km) ( with and without project) for start, Average Occupancy ( with and without project) for start, mid mid and final year and final year Average Speed (km/hr) ( with and without project) for start, mid and final year Average Occupancy ( with and without project) for start, mid 43 and final year
Roads (1)
• Allows evaluation of three categories of roads expressways, rural roads and urban roads. • It evaluates the impact of widening from single lane to up to six lanes or simple rehabilitation measure i.e. roughness improvement. • The methodology includes both construction and operation emissions both with and without induced traffic. • The savings are derived after comparison of the project with no improvement scenario. 44
Roads (2) Input basic information about the project including sections and traffic projections
The model conducts capacity analysis and derives annual speed based on V/C ratio and saturation limits
Select type of project – expressway, rural roads including village roads and urban roads.
Using the speeds, the model calibrates the fuel efficiency and emission factors
Input roughness, local traffic details and vehicle split w.r.t. fuel and emission standard, average fuel efficiency at 50kmph, occupancy and loading and other ASIF parameters
Input Amount of materials consumed/km or use defaults to calculate construction emissions
Input induced traffic elasticity with lanemiles, V/C saturation limits, PCU values and Capacity
The model calculates both capacity expansion impact and/or roughness improvement impact
Output – CO2, PM and NOx Input of modify defualt speed-flow values
Roads (3) 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 Capacity Values 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
Railways (1)
• Allows the user to compare the emissions generated by a railway project against a highway within the same route or limit the emissions analysis for the railway • Default numbers based on literature review have been provided which provides reasonable understanding of magnitude of operation emissions by building railway infrastructure • Emissions from the construction and operation of the railway can be included in the analysis
47
Railways (2)
Method 1
Input basic information about the project
Type of analysis – estimate emissions from new railway line or compare with highway
Choose and enter the type of travel activity data you have - pkm, tkm or ridership and trip lengths
Input Highway emission factors in terms of g/pkm and g/tkm Input % utilization rate to capture impact of shift from highways to railways or vice versa
Input the emission factor relevant to region specifi railways or conduct an analysis with Max, Min and average emission factor basd on literature review provided in model or input the electricity consumption and grid emission factors Input Amount of materials consumed/km or use defaults to calculate construction emissions
Method - 2
Output – CO2
48
Railways (3) Input Data • • • • • •
Base Year Passenger-km or ton-km Electricity consumption values 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.
49
TEEMP models – limitations (1) • Needs “live” applications and a mechanism to improve the defaults and the sketch analysis ( e.g. Bike/Walk scorecard) – • Outputs depend on quality of input. Needs better data to estimate impact accurately ( e.g. emission factors) • Co-benefits such as “Value of travel time”, “fuel savings” and “Accident savings” are still not included
TEEMP models – limitations (2)
• Detailed traffic model outputs are required for detailed analysis • After the emissions assessment what? – TEEMP does not answer this – economic analysis? Cost effectiveness? • TEEMP does not include “freight” • Interaction between projects is not evaluated • Little accounting for difference in effects of implementing projects in areas of differing land use patterns 51
Applications of TEEMP
52
Reducing Carbon Emissions from Transport Projects : ADB (1) • Analysis of ADB’s transport portfolio of loans and grants approved during 2000–2009 • Analysis of project emissions over a 20-year life • Gross carbon emissions from construction and operations of ADB-funded transport projects were estimated at 792 million tons • Average of 39.6 million tons annually, which is in the range of the current land transport emissions between the Philippines and Thailand • CO2 impact would have been cut by ¼ if half of funding that went to motorway projects had instead funded road rehabilitation, BRT, NMT projects Source: ADB. 2010. Reducing Carbon Emissions from Transport Projects
53
Reducing Carbon Emissions from Transport Projects : ADB (2)
Cumulative CO2 Construction and Operations Emissions (Million Tons) of ADB-Funded Transport Projects during 2000–2009
54
Reducing Carbon Emissions from Transport Projects : ADB (3)
CO2 Tons Saved per Kilometer per Lane per Year 55
Kathmandu Sustainable Urban Transport Project “Improvement of walkability will create direct reductions in GHG emissions reductions from the improvement of pedestrian facilities in the city-center. Eight kilometers of streets currently open to vehicles will be pedestrianized, 15 km of sidewalks will be improved, and two pedestrian bridges to be added If this component succeeds in increasing pedestrian travel in the Kathmandu Valley at a modest rate of 1% per year over the first 5 years after implementation, it would have an approximate direct GHG impact of 20,600 metric tons of CO2 reduced.” -calculated using TEEMP 56
Integrating Projects: Taking it to scale with NAMAs
• From isolated large-scale projects to integrated transport systems to integrated urban development • From carbon emissions to sustainable development driven by multiple co-benefits • From city plans to national programs 57
Next Generation Tools
• Contextualizing projects in urban development patterns Source: Yang JIANG, Daizong LIU, Suping CHEN, Assessment Tools for China Low‐Carbon‐City Projects: From the CSTC’s Perspective, 2011
58
NAMAs and Co-benefits
59 Source: ADB/CAI-Asia 2010
From city plans to national programs National Government
NAMAS
City
City
City
City
City
City
City
Local Projects
City
City
City
Local Projects
City
City
City
City
City
City
Local Projects
City
61
For more information
CAI-Asia Center
www.cleanairinitiative.org http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/TEEMP [email protected] Sophie Punte, Executive Director [email protected] Bert Fabian, Transport Program Manager [email protected] Sudhir Gota, Transport Specialist [email protected]
www.itdp.org Michael Replogle, Global Policy Director and Founder [email protected] Ramiro Rios, Transport & Climate Specialist [email protected]
Alvin Mejia, Environment Specialist [email protected] Unit 3505, 35th floor Robinsons-Equitable Tower ADB Avenue, Pasig City Metro Manila 1605, Philippines
1210 18th Street NW, 3rd Floor Washington, DC 20036 USA www.itdp.org
Michael Replogle
Executive Director CAI-Asia Center
Global Policy Director and Founder Institute for Transportation & Development Policy
Alvin Mejia Environment Specialist CAI-Asia Center
Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions as Catalysts for Environmentally Sustainable Transport Seoul, South Korea 12 April 2011
Agenda
• • • • • •
Introduction to emissions measurement Introduction to TEEMP Run through TEEMP TEEMP limitations Examples of TEEMP application Next steps
2
Introduction to Emissions Measurement
3
Introduction to emissions measurement
• Estimating emissions from transport is an important element in analyzing current and future transport scenarios in cities • Currently, most cities embark on investing in transport infrastructure with relatively little evaluation of the repercussions for environment, climate, energy security • Traditional tools and methodologies for evaluating the emissions impacts of transport plans & projects require a lot of time, data and financial resources 4
Transport Plan & Project Emission Evaluation
Source: Elizabeth Goller & John Rogers, Transport and Activity Measurement Toolkit, World Bank, 2011
5
GHG evaluation methods for transport
• CDM methods (e.g. 0031 Bus Rapid Transit) – Requires ex-ante and ex-post analysis – Data collection: $300-500,000 up-front; $60-100,000/year continuing monitoring: often more than CDM credits pay – Default data must be sharply discounted – Cannot be used in a city without existing mass transit system or if BRT would replace rail-based system – Additionality requirements make ineligible many projects – Highly conservative analysis misses indirect benefits
6
CDM-AM0031 (Bus Rapid Transit): Data Required
Data variable
Recording frequency
Proportion of data to be monitored
Number of vehicles
Before project start and annually (in the case of modal shift for passenger cars)
100% and annually based on a survey of passengers using the new system
Fuel efficiency
Before project start
Sample
Total distance driven by all vehicles in category
Before project start and partially annually
Sample
Passengers transported baseline by vehicle category i
Before project start
100%
Average occupancy rate baseline of vehicle category i
Before project start and for buses and taxis minimum year 3, 6 and 10
Sample
Average trip distance baseline for vehicle category i
Before project start and annually (in the case of modal shift for passenger cars)
Sample and sample survey
Total fuel consumption per vehicle category
Before project start
Sample
Passengers transported by project
Annually
100%
Share of passengers that would have taken transport mode i
Annually
Sample survey
Passengers transported by project who would have used transport mode i
Bi-monthly
Sample survey
Policies that affect baseline
Before project start and annually
100%
7
GHG evaluation methods for transport
• Regional 4-step travel model & emission factor model – Supports baseline and forecasting analysis ex-ante/ex-post – Requires extensive, expensive up-front detailed data collection and coding, surveys, data analysis, calibration and validation – May cost $150,000-$2.5+ million to set up for a city – Once established, requires maintenance, but cheap to run – Traffic engineering models may miss key factors that underlie behavior change and elasticity of demand – Models suggest more precision than they deliver, but when used with care are valuable to compare competing alternatives
8
Transport Activity Measurement Toolkit - TAMT • Emerging best practice tool offers roadmap to move towards well grounded, affordable expost analysis • Costs & capacity are still barriers for ex-ante use in many cities Source: Goller & Rogers, World Bank, 2011
9
70 CO2 60
PM Nox
50 40 30 20 10 0 15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
-10
Impact of Induced traffic 2.5
BAU
e=0
e=0.25
e=0.5
e=0.8
e=1
2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5
10
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
0.0
2005
– Simple, fast, inexpensive, especially good for ex-ante analysis – Default data if local data is lacking: emissions by vehicle type by speed, travel activity parameters, elasticities – Confidence in model outputs sharply bolstered when local data is used instead of defaults – Focus on guiding users to focus project design on factors contributing to more effective GHG reducing projects – Sensitivity to induced demand impacts
Kilotons of CO2 /Km
• TEEMP toolkit
Increase in emission factor (%g/Km) assuming 50 kmph as 0
GHG evaluation methods for transport
11 Credit: Yang JIANG, Daizong LIU, Suping CHEN, Assessment Tools for China Low‐Carbon‐City Projects From the CSTC’s Perspective, 2011
Evolution of TEEMP Transport Projects
Tool development
Pilot testing
Mainstreaming in development banks/agencies private sector, cities
Transport Systems
Cities (transport /energy)
Transport Emissions Evaluation Model for Projects (TEEMP) for roads, railway, BRT, metro, bikeways, bike sharing, walkability improvement projects:* 1st generation: CAI-Asia & ITDP (ADB funding) 2nd generation: CAI-Asia, ITDP, Cambridge Systematics (UNEP GEF& Climate Works Foundation funding) 3rd generation: CAI-Asia (ADB & World Bank funding) Inclusion of economics and co-benefits Improve user-friendliness and flexible applications
City Sketch Analysis tool for urban transport systems - CAI-Asia and ITDP (UNEP GEF funding)
Rapid Assessment Cities Emissions from Transport and Energy tool (RACE) - CAIAsia (ADB funding, in development) Detailed City Emissions Tool 4th generation tool integrating urban development typology & context
ADB transport projects - CAI-Asia (ADB funding) UNEP GEF transport project - #?# World Bank transport projects - CAI-Asia (WB funding) Transport projects in Latin American Cities - Clean Air Institute (World Bank GEF & Climate Works funding) Transport/urban development India/China – ITDP, Veolia, IDDRI, CAI-Asia, TERI (Climate Works/Veolia)
[could be integrated as part of city-wide tool for transport and energy]
RACE testing at three Asian cities - CAI-Asia (ADB funding) 4th generation tool pilots
TEEMP Help Desk – CAI-Asia ADB Guidelines for TEEMP application - CAI-Asia (ADB funding) Regular TEEMP training of ADB officers and consultants CAI-Asia (ADB funding) Training courses and online training materials
[could be integrated as part of city-wide tool for transport and energy]
Guidelines for RACE tool application for development banks, private sector, cities Training on RACE tool Integration in urban planning and project/loan development 12
Introduction to TEEMP
13
Introduction to TEEMP: what and why
• TEEMP – Transport Emissions Evaluation Model for Projects (can be pronounced as “temp” or temporary) • Excel-based, free-of-charge, transparent spreadsheet models • Results of TEEMP evaluation can help facilitate reasonable direction for action and alternate options
14
Introduction to TEEMP: BAU vs Interventions
Business as Usual
Intervention 1
ORIGIN
Intervention 2
DESTINATION
Intervention 3
City
15
Emissions ( CO2, PM and NOx)
Introduction to TEEMP: emissions savings
No Project Scenario (BAU)
Project Scenario (Intervention) Operating emissions from motorized vehicles within the identified scope
Construction emissions
Time
16
Introduction to TEEMP: based on ASIF
17
Introduction to TEEMP: methodology features • • • • • • • • •
With and without project cases Sketch and detailed analysis * Scorecard to see the impact of design –good vs bad* Emissions from construction, operation and motorized vehicles Dynamic baseline is considered Automatic definition of impact boundaries Quantification of CO2, PM and NOx emissions Tools are excel based spreadsheets with simple input/output tables Default values are provided * Some models only
18
Introduction to TEEMP: Tools
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Bike sharing Bikeways Pedestrian Facility Improvement BRT LRT/MRT Roads Projects – Expressways, Rural Roads and Urban Roads Railway City Sketch Analysis and Other Strategies - Commuter Strategies, Pricing Strategies, Eco-Driving , PAYD Insurance
19
Introduction to TEEMP: Tool development Donor
ADB*
UNEP-GEF
ADB + WB
Developer
CAI-Asia/ITDP
CAI-Asia
TEEMP Generation
First
ITDP/CAI-Asia /Cambridge Systematics Second
Roads Railway BRT Metro Bikeways Walkability Improvement Projects Bike sharing Other Strategies - Commuter Strategies, Pricing Strategies, Eco-Driving , PAYD Insurance City Sketch Analysis
Third
See Note 2
*The emissions impacts of 11 transport projects funded by ADB were analyzed using TEEMP to generate defaults which were applied to the whole transport project portfolio of the bank. 20 Note 2: a 4th generation model is anticipated that will include urban design typologies to provide context sensitivity for TEEMP analysis and better integration across modes, engaging ITDP/CAI-Asia, Veolia, IDDRI, TERI
Introduction to TEEMP: Model development and pilot testing
• Initial model developed on 11 transport projects in Asia: CAI-Asia (ADB funding) • Model extended to TDM and more NMT strategies for GEF transport methodology development (UNEP, ITDP & Climate Works Foundation funding) • Pilot testing on transport projects Asia & Africa: CAIAsia (World Bank funding) • Future pilot testing in Latin America & Asia: Clean Air Institute, ITDP (World Bank GEF, Climate Works & Veolia funding) 21
Introduction to TEEMP- Mainstreaming
• ADB Guidelines for TEEMP application: CAI-Asia (ADB funding) • Regular TEEMP training of ADB officers and consultants: CAI-Asia (ADB funding) • Technical Note and Handbook on GHG Analysis for Transportation: ITDP (IDB funding)
22
Run through TEEMP
23
Run through of TEEMP: major steps
1. Define the Baseline Scenario
2. Define the Project Scenario 3. View the Outputs
24
Run through of TEEMP: baseline scenario
Number of trips
Emissions from the motorized vehicles within the scope of the analysis are quantified under the baseline scenario
Activity
Average Trip Lengths Average Speeds Mode shares (%) Average occupancies
Structure
Vehicle fuel split Vehicle emission standards split
Intensity Fuel
Fuel Efficiencies of vehicles Emission Factors
25
Run through of TEEMP: project scenario (1)
Number of trips
Emissions from the motorized vehicles within the scope of the analysis are also quantified under the project scenario, taking into account the impacts of the project in the ASIF parameters
Activity
Average Trip Lengths Average Speeds Mode shares (%) Average occupancies
Structure
Vehicle fuel split Vehicle emission standards split
Intensity Fuel
Fuel Efficiencies of vehicles Emission Factors
26
Run through of TEEMP: project scenario (2)
Amount of Materials Used
Emissions from the construction of certain types of transport projects are significant and need to be considered in the emissions analysis
Emission Factors for Materials (embodied emissions)
27
Run through of TEEMP: project scenario (3)
Amount of electricity used Emission Factor of the Grid
Emissions from the operation of some project types (e.g. electricity consumption from MRT operations) are considered as well
Fuel used for Project Vehicles
28
Run through of TEEMP: outputs
• Basic outputs include total emission savings for CO2, NOx, PM • Emissions from construction and operation (e.g. electricity use for MRT) are given as outputs for some models • Other indicators such as average yearly emissions savings, emissions savings/kilometer, etc… are included, depending on the type of tool
29
Run through TEEMP: Tools
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Bike sharing Bikeways Pedestrian Facility Improvement BRT LRT/MRT Roads Projects – Expressways, Rural Roads and Urban Roads 7. Railway 8. City Sketch Analysis and Other Strategies - Commuter Strategies, Pricing Strategies, Eco-Driving , PAYD Insurance 30
Bike sharing system (1)
Emissions savings are calculated based on the premise that the bike sharing system will attract riders from motorized modes
31
Bike sharing system (2)
Input Project lifetime (number of years) Average bike trip length (kilometers) Starting number of bikes in the system Maximum number of bikes in the system and year of attainment Number of bikes in the system at the final year of project life Number of trips per bike per day at starting year Maximum number of trips per bike per day for bike sharing scheme Number of trips per bike per day at final year of project life Mode shift from different modes to bikeshare scheme (avoided trips % mode share) Average Speed (km/h) of different modes Occupancy of different transport modes
32
Bikeways (1) Sketch Analysis
Detailed Analysis
• Can be used if adequate data for doing a detailed analysis is not available
• Heavily relies on the differences in mode share values (BAU scenario vs project scenario)
•Scoring system: parameters such as type of facility planned, quality of bike surface, network connectivity, climate, etc. in estimating the emissions savings
•Emissions from the construction of the bikeways can be included •Considers speed impacts on fuel efficiency, and thus on emissions
Bikeways (2)
Sketch
Type of Analysis
Detailed
Input basic information about the project – length of bikeway, width, average bike trip length
Input basic information about the project – BAU, target year with and without project
Input basic information about the project – quality, network connectivity, meteorology (scorecard approach)
Input ASIF parameters for base year, target year with project and target year without project
Details – modeshift and emission factors
Input Amount of materials consumed/km to calculate construction emissions
Output – CO2, PM and NOx
34
Pedestrian facilities improvement (1)
Emissions savings are estimated by comparing the emissions from : 1.the no improvement scenario wherein the ‘walking trips’ % share in the total trips is assumed to go down through time due to deteriorating facilities coupled with rising motorization . 2.the improvement scenario i.e. after the project i.e. walking trips % share in the total trips will rise through time.
Pedestrian facilities improvement (2) Input basic information about the project Input calculation parameters: project lifetime, number of trips, annual increase in trips, mode share, trip length and emission factor
Calculate savings without project scenario i.e. depreceation in walking - either using mode share or annual decrease %
Calculate savings with project scenario i.e. improvement in walking - either using mode share or annual increase % or scorecard with walkability indicators
Output – CO2, PM and NOx
Input Parameters 1. Project Lifetime (Number ofYears) 2. Starting Year Total Number of Trips/Day 3. Annual % Increase in Total Trips/day 4. Mode Share 5. Average Trip length 6. Emission Factors 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 36
Bus rapid transit (1) Sketch Analysis • Considers the ridership or the length of BRTS constructed using the current literature available in estimating the emissions •A ridership calculator is provided in TEEMP model to project the ridership of the BRT project
Detailed Analysis • Construction, operation (of BRT buses) and traffic emissions •Land-use factor has been proposed to account for landuse modifications and its subsequent impacts on travel pattern
37
Bus rapid transit (2) Sketch A
Sketch B
Full Model
Basic project information
Basic project information
Basic project information
Input the ridership values or use the ridership estimator
Length of BRT route
Input the ridership values or use the ridership estimator
Emission Factors
Emission Factors
Characteristics of the vehicles within the area of analysis
Outputs
Outputs
Define the BRTS project components – scoring factors Characteristics of the BRT buses Construction parameters Outputs 38
BRT Scoring Factors Components
Description 1a. Infrastructure: Cross Section/ROW (pick one)Dedicated right of way in central verge, w/ barrier Station separated from junction by min of 70 meters TRUE
1b. Infrastructure: station/junction relation 1c. Road works at station (pick one)Passing lanes at station stops, pphpd >6000
Unique/attractively designed shelter TRUE Weather protection at stations TRUE
Illumination TRUE
2a. Station design (select all relevant)
Security personnel at stations TRUE Stations =>3.5 m wide TRUE Multiple docking bays w/ space to pass, pphpd 60% of intersections (high volume) or bus priority at junctions (low volume)
TRUE
Operational control system to reduce bus bunching TRUE Extensive feeder bus services integrated into BRT FALSE integrated fare collection with other public transport FALSE peak-period pricing FALSE Performance based contracting for operators FALSE Passenger information at stops, headway > 5 min., info on vehicles 4. Passenger information and branding
Quality branding of Vehicles & stations FALSE
39
Brochures/schedules FALSE
Bus rapid transit (3) Input Data • 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
MRT/LRT (1) Route Analysis
City Analysis
• Scope of analysis considers the MRT riders only •This analysis does not consider the generated trips to and from the MRT stations and the possibility that the vehicles that they have been using are still in use •Construction and operation emissions are considered
• City transport activity data both with and without metro system are considered for quantifying the impact of metro on city transport system •Construction and operation emissions are considered
41
MRT/LRT (2) Input basic information about the project
Input citywide trip data – mode share, trip length, average occupancy, average speed
Type of analysis – citywide or ridership based
Input ridership projections and current mode share, trip length, average occupancy, average speed of MRT riders
Input citywide data on fleet – fuel wise, and emission standard split and fuel efficiency at 50kmph
Calculate MRT operation emissions either from electricity consumption (top down) or literature review (bottom-up)
Input data on fleet – fuel split, emission standards and fuel efficiency
Emission Factor
Input Amount of materials consumed/km to calculate construction emissions
Output – CO2, PM and NOx
Input mode shift factor and land use factor
MRT/LRT (3) Input Length (km) Years ( start, mid and final) Average Fuel Efficiency of Vehicles at 50 kmph Fuel split for vehicles @ start, mid and final year Emission Standards of Fleet @ start, mid and final year Emission factors -CO2 (kg/unit of consumption), PM (g/km ) , NOx (g/km ) for different vehicles @ 50 kmph and emission standards Electricity consumption - either for start, mid and final year or for all the years or annual average Grid Emission Factors (ton/MWh)- either for start, mid and final year or for all the years or annual average Electricity Grid characteristics ( electricity generation mix - coal, oil based, natural gas and others) Construction materials used (total or per km) - cement, steel and bitumen Method - 1 Method - 2 City Trip mode share ( with and without project) for start, mid Ridership/day start, mid and final year and final year Land use factor ( assume 1 in case one needs to neglect Average Trip Length (km) ( with and without project) for start, landuse impact) mid and final year Average Speed (km/hr) ( with and without project) for start, % mode share in case of No MRT for start, mid and final year mid and final year Average Trip Length (km) ( with and without project) for start, Average Occupancy ( with and without project) for start, mid mid and final year and final year Average Speed (km/hr) ( with and without project) for start, mid and final year Average Occupancy ( with and without project) for start, mid 43 and final year
Roads (1)
• Allows evaluation of three categories of roads expressways, rural roads and urban roads. • It evaluates the impact of widening from single lane to up to six lanes or simple rehabilitation measure i.e. roughness improvement. • The methodology includes both construction and operation emissions both with and without induced traffic. • The savings are derived after comparison of the project with no improvement scenario. 44
Roads (2) Input basic information about the project including sections and traffic projections
The model conducts capacity analysis and derives annual speed based on V/C ratio and saturation limits
Select type of project – expressway, rural roads including village roads and urban roads.
Using the speeds, the model calibrates the fuel efficiency and emission factors
Input roughness, local traffic details and vehicle split w.r.t. fuel and emission standard, average fuel efficiency at 50kmph, occupancy and loading and other ASIF parameters
Input Amount of materials consumed/km or use defaults to calculate construction emissions
Input induced traffic elasticity with lanemiles, V/C saturation limits, PCU values and Capacity
The model calculates both capacity expansion impact and/or roughness improvement impact
Output – CO2, PM and NOx Input of modify defualt speed-flow values
Roads (3) 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 Capacity Values 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
Railways (1)
• Allows the user to compare the emissions generated by a railway project against a highway within the same route or limit the emissions analysis for the railway • Default numbers based on literature review have been provided which provides reasonable understanding of magnitude of operation emissions by building railway infrastructure • Emissions from the construction and operation of the railway can be included in the analysis
47
Railways (2)
Method 1
Input basic information about the project
Type of analysis – estimate emissions from new railway line or compare with highway
Choose and enter the type of travel activity data you have - pkm, tkm or ridership and trip lengths
Input Highway emission factors in terms of g/pkm and g/tkm Input % utilization rate to capture impact of shift from highways to railways or vice versa
Input the emission factor relevant to region specifi railways or conduct an analysis with Max, Min and average emission factor basd on literature review provided in model or input the electricity consumption and grid emission factors Input Amount of materials consumed/km or use defaults to calculate construction emissions
Method - 2
Output – CO2
48
Railways (3) Input Data • • • • • •
Base Year Passenger-km or ton-km Electricity consumption values 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.
49
TEEMP models – limitations (1) • Needs “live” applications and a mechanism to improve the defaults and the sketch analysis ( e.g. Bike/Walk scorecard) – • Outputs depend on quality of input. Needs better data to estimate impact accurately ( e.g. emission factors) • Co-benefits such as “Value of travel time”, “fuel savings” and “Accident savings” are still not included
TEEMP models – limitations (2)
• Detailed traffic model outputs are required for detailed analysis • After the emissions assessment what? – TEEMP does not answer this – economic analysis? Cost effectiveness? • TEEMP does not include “freight” • Interaction between projects is not evaluated • Little accounting for difference in effects of implementing projects in areas of differing land use patterns 51
Applications of TEEMP
52
Reducing Carbon Emissions from Transport Projects : ADB (1) • Analysis of ADB’s transport portfolio of loans and grants approved during 2000–2009 • Analysis of project emissions over a 20-year life • Gross carbon emissions from construction and operations of ADB-funded transport projects were estimated at 792 million tons • Average of 39.6 million tons annually, which is in the range of the current land transport emissions between the Philippines and Thailand • CO2 impact would have been cut by ¼ if half of funding that went to motorway projects had instead funded road rehabilitation, BRT, NMT projects Source: ADB. 2010. Reducing Carbon Emissions from Transport Projects
53
Reducing Carbon Emissions from Transport Projects : ADB (2)
Cumulative CO2 Construction and Operations Emissions (Million Tons) of ADB-Funded Transport Projects during 2000–2009
54
Reducing Carbon Emissions from Transport Projects : ADB (3)
CO2 Tons Saved per Kilometer per Lane per Year 55
Kathmandu Sustainable Urban Transport Project “Improvement of walkability will create direct reductions in GHG emissions reductions from the improvement of pedestrian facilities in the city-center. Eight kilometers of streets currently open to vehicles will be pedestrianized, 15 km of sidewalks will be improved, and two pedestrian bridges to be added If this component succeeds in increasing pedestrian travel in the Kathmandu Valley at a modest rate of 1% per year over the first 5 years after implementation, it would have an approximate direct GHG impact of 20,600 metric tons of CO2 reduced.” -calculated using TEEMP 56
Integrating Projects: Taking it to scale with NAMAs
• From isolated large-scale projects to integrated transport systems to integrated urban development • From carbon emissions to sustainable development driven by multiple co-benefits • From city plans to national programs 57
Next Generation Tools
• Contextualizing projects in urban development patterns Source: Yang JIANG, Daizong LIU, Suping CHEN, Assessment Tools for China Low‐Carbon‐City Projects: From the CSTC’s Perspective, 2011
58
NAMAs and Co-benefits
59 Source: ADB/CAI-Asia 2010
From city plans to national programs National Government
NAMAS
City
City
City
City
City
City
City
Local Projects
City
City
City
Local Projects
City
City
City
City
City
City
Local Projects
City
61
For more information
CAI-Asia Center
www.cleanairinitiative.org http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/TEEMP [email protected] Sophie Punte, Executive Director [email protected] Bert Fabian, Transport Program Manager [email protected] Sudhir Gota, Transport Specialist [email protected]
www.itdp.org Michael Replogle, Global Policy Director and Founder [email protected] Ramiro Rios, Transport & Climate Specialist [email protected]
Alvin Mejia, Environment Specialist [email protected] Unit 3505, 35th floor Robinsons-Equitable Tower ADB Avenue, Pasig City Metro Manila 1605, Philippines
1210 18th Street NW, 3rd Floor Washington, DC 20036 USA www.itdp.org
