Presentation for Transforming TransportationInter-American Development Bank

January 15, 2010Lee Schipper, Ph.D.

Project Scientist, Global Metropolitan Studies, UC BerkeleySenior Research Engineer, Precourt energy Efficiency Center, Stanford

* Opinions strictly those of Dr Schipper. Analysis work funded by the World Bank; Scenario work funded by the Institute for Transportation Policy Studies, Japan

Visioning Scenariosfor Transport and CO2

For Latin America in 2050:You Can’t See the Future

Unless You Have the Right Glasses

Presentation in Two PartsThe Glasses: Framing the CO2 problem as a

transport problem

The Vision: Seeing a different transportation future for L. America

WORLD CARBON EMISSIONS: TRANSPORTThe Latin American Share Is Small

CO2 a Symptom of Latin America’s Transport Problems

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006

MT

on

nes

CO

2

China non-TransportOECD Non TransportRest of World non TransportLat. Am incl Mexico non transportSea and Aviation BunkersChina TransportOECD Transport ex MexicoRest of World TransportLatin Am incl Mexico Transport

CO2 Emissions: Is Latin America Different?Total, Per Capita, or Per GDP

• Low in Total CO2 – Per Capita or Per GDP– L.A. (all sectors) < per capita world avg – Brasil hydro, ethanol ( ETOH)

– Road transport share of total emissions – relatively high despite ETOH

– Total road transport CO2 /GDP high by developing country standards

• Trends over Time– Ratio fell before 1990 as Brazilian ETOH role increased

– Barely fell 1990-2006 as ETOH could not keep pace

– Ratio fell more in most other regions

• What this Means– High emissions/GDP a symptom of poor transport– Low global share of emissions no excuse for indifference or inaction– Act on transport problems, reap emissions reduction as co-benefit

L. America Ic Different: High Emissions for Road TransportHigh Or Low CO2 Not The Issue: The Issue is Transport

Road Transport Emissions Relative to GDP?Falling Only Very Slowly in Latin America

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

US, Canada OECDEurope

OECDPacific

E Europe LAC wMexico

China India

Kilo

gram

s CO

2/$U

S of

GD

P (2

000

PPP)

19902006

* 1990 figure includes many non-transport uses

*

Light Duty Vehicle Ownership and IncomeLatin America is High for Its Income – the Link to CO2

Light Duty Vehicles Dominate Urban Streets and CO2 Emissions

• Global Estimate for All of Latin America– WBCSD Estimates for 2000- 75% of VKT, 43% of rd. trans. emissions– If “Urban” 80% of LDV, minibus, 50% of bus, 10% of heavy freight – – Urban LDV are 80% of VKT and 55% of emissions

• Similar Results from Local Emissions Inventories– Mexico City, Bogota, S Paolo and Santiago– High car share means high congestion– High congestion itself worsens fuel use, local pollution

• High CO2 is Symptom of Poor Urban Transport– Light duty vehicles (and colectivos) clog streets– LDV -> 55% of urban-centered road transport CO2 emissions– Tough measures to address LDV required

Hard to Address CO2 without Improving Urban TransportIncluding Problems of Transit and Land USe

CO2 Emissions from Road Transport in MCMA – The Urban Share by Vehicle Type

*Source: This study based on SMP/WBCSD and IEA/MOMO estimates by mode 2005

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

LDVPassenger

Motorcycles Minibuses Busses LDV freight Med Trucks HeavyTrucks

CO

2,

Mil

lio

n M

etr

ic T

on

ne

s

Total Emissions

Urban Regions

CO2 Emissions from Road Transport in MCMA – Similar Patterns for Bogota, Santiago, S Paulo*

-

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Cars, Pickups and Taxis Buses, colectivos, VW Buses All Trucks

CO

2 E

mis

sio

ns

. M

illi

on

Me

tric

To

nn

es

Compressed Natural Gas

LPG

Diesel

Gasoline

*Source: MCMA Bottom-up Emissions InventoryS. Paulo has lower emissions from LDV because of alcohol, but still bad traffic

The Future for Transport and Emissions as LDV Dominance Grows

• WBCSD Projections: “Sustainable Mobility Project” (SMP) – First truly global mobility-CO2 study– Projected all major regions, all transport modes, all fuels– Signed by CEO of major oil and vehicle makers

• Latin America in Perspective by 2030 – According to SMP– Remains most motorized part of developing world– LDV dominate growth in fuel use despite 20% lower fuel/km– 2030 Emissions 250% of 2000 (other regions narrow gap)

• Dealing with CO2 in Urban Transport Means Facing LDV– “Good Transport” (W Bank) means fewer vkt, probably fewer cars– Transport measures (congestion pricing, vkt fees) and fuel economy– Low CO2 transit vehicles only have a minor impact

Needed: Strong Transport Actions Slowing Car VKT, Strong National Actions on Fuel/CO2 Taxes, Fuel Economy

Future Latin America Passenger Road Transport CO2Driving Force is LDV Ownership and Use

(Source WBCSD Sustainable Mobility Project)

LDVs out of control

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Cars, Mcycles All Buses

CO

2 E

mis

sio

ns.

Mn

To

nn

es

Emissions in 2000

Emissions in 2030, no fueleconomy improvements

Emissions in 2030, w fueleconomy improvements

Bus Rapid Transit – Mexico’s 1st Metrobus Line260,000 people/day over 19km for US $80mnLower emissions, CO2, reduced car traffic

Metrobus as a Case Study in Co-BenefitsHow to Save CO2 Without Even Trying

• The INE Cost Benefit Analysis – – Values of time, less road wear – Value of lower air pollution emissions– Fewer accidents and deaths not counted

• Impacts – 50 000 tonnes/CO2 year from Saved Fuel– Roughly 1/3 from bus switch, 1/3 from better traffic, 1/3 from mode

switch– Fuel saving accure to bus operators, switchers, others in traffic– In $, CO2 small benefit even at $85/tonne CO2

• Lessons: Transport First, CO2 as a Co-benefit– Most of CO2 saving comes from non-project vehicles (!)– Having good long-term data (Inventario) essential for CO2 monitoring– 1 good transport project can spark dozens (Insurgentes II, Eje 4 )

Metrobus CO2 Changes by ComponentCO2 Savings (10% of Corridor Emissions) as Cobenefit were FREE

Source Rogers 2006, 2009

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

Before After

Thou

sand

Ton

nes

CO2

A. 20 Extra Metrobus

B. Original 70 Metrobus on Route

C. Colectivos and RTP Buses Removed

D. Car Users Shifting to Metrobus

E. Delays to vehicles crossing Insurgentes

F. Additional Distance for Left turns

G. Savings from improved parallel traffic

H. Remaining parallel traffic

What Trends and Projections Say About The FutureTreat C02 as a Transport Problem

• Reducing CO2 Intensity of Travel Important– Smaller and more fuel economy vehicles– Higher load factors and better management of vehicles– TDM and congestion management to reduce idling losses

• Reducing Travel in High CO2 Modes More Important– Avoiding Latin America’s high car to GDP growth rate – Urban

Development – Shifting to less C-intensive, more sustainable modes.– Giving real priority to mass transit

• Taking an Integrated Approach Most Important Of AllTaking an Integrated Approach Most Important Of All– Frame problem as transport and urban development, NOT CO2– Count CO2 as important co-benefit of better urban systems– Long-term monitoring and evaluation

Financing for Low Carbon Transit – The Least ProblemStrong Policies – The Hardest Problem

Transport and CO2 in Latin America in 2050:The View from Scenarios

• Projections (WBCSD, IEA even MEDEC): Lots More Carbon– Underlying growth in mobility or freight is not challenged– Opportunities to avoid more CO2-intensive development overlooked– Final values probably beyond reach

• Backcasting (this Assignment) Exposes Opportunities– Global goal (from sponsor, ITPS): 50% of present global transport CO2 – For US, this means 92% reduction– For L America, modest reduction

• Realistic?– 300 million more Latinos/as expected by 2050, even more urbanization– Bogota, MC, Curitiba show avoidance or shifting not impossible– 40 year time frame: 2 generations of vehicles, 1 of infrastructure

Purpose of Scenarios is to turn Weak Links into Opportunities, Not Reinforce Dangerous Trends

“ASIF” Decomposition: Road Map For Scenario Building

Fuel Use UC Back Cast

ICCT Projection only

Trips, Land Uses Our Team

G

= A Si Ii Fi,j

Emissions from Transport

* * *

Occupancy/ Load Factor

Vehicle fuel intensity Vehicle characteristics

Technological energy efficiency

Real drive cycles and routing

Veh-km and pass-km by mode

Modal Energy Intensity

Emissions per unit of energy

or volume or km

Total Transport Activity

Lesson: Attack all Problems of TransportNot Just Technological Efficiency and Fuels

Air pollution, health

impacts Global CO2

Transport and CO2 in Latin AmericaTwo Approaches

• Backcasting from ITPS Goals (Our Team Only)– Worked from goals, using very low CO2 intensities, lower activities– Varied these “ASIF” components to get per capita targets– Final values probably beyond reach

• Projections of Transport Activity, Carbon Intensities (w ICCT)– ICCT provided well researched fuel and CO2 intensities– We varied loads/vehicle and shrunk cars in Glocal to modify

intensities– We projected activities based on European, earlier US experience

• Challenges Common to Both Approaches– L. America data problems except SMP estimates for light duty vehicle– Results testing frontiers of technology– General policy directions clear, but specifics must follow

Transport and CO2 in Latin America in 2050Why Scenarios?

• Globalization – – Universal concern for CO2 – rapid advances in technology– Less local concern for transport, but some actions on congestion– CO2 intensity falls greatly, but activity rises --

• “Glocalization -– Less local interest in CO2, but strong local interest in improved transport – Large deviation from BAU activity projections but growth– Much smaller cars, higher load factors all modes

• Backcasting – for ½ Present CO2/capita, Lat. Am Close– Lat. Am great reduction in CO2 intensities but more travel, freight activity– Either scenario requires strong policies and governance now, not in 2049– Fuel economy stds, road pricing and tolling, etc all need time

Results Show Outcomes, but No Guarantee of ResultsCo-Benefits, “Good Transport” not CO2 Key Drivers

Three Modes Dominate EmissionsCars, Flying, Trucking

• Cars, Trucks, Air – WBCSD Estimates for 2000- 75% of VKT, 43% of rd. trans. CO2 in LA– Few countries have good data on vehicle use, fuel intensity– No reliable “data” on fuel use/km; no national travel surveys, etc

• Trends Mixed and Uncertain– Latin Am has very high car ownership/GDP – own production Car use– Ownership rising in L. America – need to understand driving factors– Air Travel in L. America uncertain – Mostly Int’l travel?

• What Matters– Even Given the Uncertainties– Much better economy and utilization factors, serious look at rail– Slowdown in growth in LA and end to car-focused development– Major shift in transport and developmental policies-

Broad Brush Appropriate, but Details Lacking to Validate individual policies’ or technologies’ impacts

Travel and Freight Emissions Projected with ICCT: Latin America

1

10

100

1000

1000 10000 100000Tonne - km or Passenger-km per Capita

CO2,

gra

ms/

tonn

e-km

or p

asse

nger

-km

Actual LA 2005 TravelActual LA 2005 FreightGlocal 2050 Trave lProjGlocal 2050 Freight ProjGlobal 2050 Travel ProjGlobal 2050 Freight ProjTravel Share of 2050 TargetFreight Share of 2050 Target

De-Carbing Transport in Latin America AS – Activity and Mode Shares

• Avoid Carbon Intensive Development (is it too late for NA?)– For Latin America, large break with trends ala MC, Bogota– Push against enclaves like Santa Fe (MC); other land use changes– For new regions, Curitiba model of cleaner development

• Switch: Big Push for Better Transport in Both Scenarios– For Latin America, big increase in share of bus, rail, little increase in air – Strong integration of all modes in urban, inter-urban travel– Support from congestion pricing, road tolls, CO2 taxes, etc

• Improve by Operations, Technology – But How Far?– Higher load factors on all modes reduce CO2 intensity – Better logistics reduce fuel waste in trucking, delivery– Strong TDM to reduce present 20-30% fuel waste in congestion

Projections Show Modest Increase in Travel (and Freight)Did We Put In Enough?

De-Carbing Transport in L. America IF – Fuel Intensity and Carbon Content

• Vehicles– Shrinking cars and improving vehicle technology for cars, trucks– New generation of buses, hybrid mini buses, newest aircraft– For both regions, technology and changes in transport contribute

• Operations– Measures to increase loading – more pkt or tonne-km for each vkt– Real transport demand measurement to reduce losses in congestion– Stronger enforcement of maintenance for clean and fuel saving

• Fuels – Dilemma for L America is Biofuels– Careful exploitation of ethanol and fuel cells from low-carbon sources– Hoped-for role of biodiesel– Electrification of rail (still limited role)

Figures Used Imply Much Higher Efficiency Than TodayThis Means Reversal of Apparent Trends in L. Am. Today

Travel and Carbon Intensity AssumptionsPie in the Sky or Realistic

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Actual Base Projection,WBCSD

Global Glocal

2005 2050 2050 2050

Mill

ion

Mto

nnes

CO

2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Lite

rs/1

00 K

M, L

ight

Dut

y V

ehic

les

LDV

BUS

RAIL

AIR

Liters Per 100 KM, LDV

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Actual Base Projection,WBCSD

Global Glocal

2005 2050 2050 2050

Pas

seng

er K

m P

er C

apita

by

Mod

e

AIR

RAIL

BUS

LDV

Scenarios Results for Latin AmericaWith A Real Effort, Latin America Will Have Lower Emissions Tomorrow

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Actual Base Projection,WBCSD

Global Glocal

2005 2050 2050 2050

Millio

n M

ton

ne

s C

O2

Fuel Cycle Losses, all Modes

AIR

RAIL

BUS

LDV

Key Messages: Saving CO2 in Latin America• Transport Matters A Lot for CO2; CO2 Matters Little for Transport Personal and goods mobility grows with income- how to change that? Technology improvements important, but activity growth the major problem Frame problem as a transport problem: High Co2 = symptom of bad transport

• Freight Harder to Change than Travel? Specialization within a country/region and globalization Trucking still more flexible than rail; can the patterns shift back Packages don’t complain like people – improved handling and logistics more important than

technology alone

• CO2 In Transport – Not by Tailpipe Alone (Further thoughts) Strengthening non-car transport is much more than a CO2 issue Easier for L. America to avoid if leaders want that? Finance good transport: how and why if leaders only want cars?

Don’t Hang Ordinary Peoples’ Transport Ordeal on CO2Improve Transport Without Waiting, Take the CO2 Cobenefit

TECHNOLOGY LEAPFROGGING Gracias

Lee Schipper – schipper@berkeley.edu