Nairobi brtprojectsummary fantakamakate_icct
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Nairobi brtprojectsummary fantakamakate_icct

on

  • 283 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
283
Views on SlideShare
283
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Nairobi brtprojectsummary fantakamakate_icct Nairobi brtprojectsummary fantakamakate_icct Presentation Transcript

  • Clean technology options for GEF Sustran projects in East Africa ! Nairobi Summary! Fanta Kamakaté, Sarah Chambliss, Ray Minjares, Francisco Posada, Vance Wagner, Grace Wu! July 2012!
  • Outline! 1.  About the ICCT! 2.  Clean technology background! 5.  City-wide emission reduction analysis! a.  Data inputs and a.  Project objectives! assumptions! b.  Models! b.  Results! c.  Data sources! 6.  Health and other 3.  Technology selection ! benefits analysis! a.  Technology options! a.  Data inputs and b.  Evaluation criteria! assumptions! c.  Results! b.  Results! 4.  Bus cost of 7.  Findings! ownership analysis! 8.  Acknowledgments! a.  Data inputs and assumptions! b.  Results! 2
  • About the ICCT!
  • About the ICCT! The Council brings together the leading regulators and experts from the world’s top auto markets Our staff are based in offices in the US, China, Belgium and Germany Our goal is to dramatically improve the environmental performance and efficiency of personal, public and goods transport modes in order to protect and improve public health, the environment and quality of life. 4
  • Relevant ICCT projects! §  Global health impacts assessment of transportation-related emissions! §  §  §  Refined national-level health impacts assessments! §  §  §  §  §  §  §  2000 historical snapshot! 2000-2050 projections based on existing and future transportation policy! 2000-2050 projections based on existing and future transportation policy! Ongoing projects for China and India! ICCT-World Bank Diesel Black Carbon Assessment! Technical and Economic Analysis of the Transition to Ultra-Low Sulfur Fuels (consultant analysis)! Costs and benefits of lower sulfur fuels: Implications for SubSaharan Africa! Costs and benefits of reduced sulfur fuels in China! Reducing fuel sulfur content in Central America: A guide to estimating costs and benefits. ! ! 5
  • Clean technology project background!
  • Project objectives! §  Assess the costs and the benefits of a range of clean technology options for the BRT systems in the 3 GEF Sustran cities taking into account:! §  Technology availability! §  Fuel availability and quality! §  Maintenance practices and capacity! 7
  • Project scope! §  §  Developed in consultation with project stakeholders during the initial site visit! Identified two BRT project phases:! §  §  §  §  Evaluated benefits for the entire metropolitan area ! §  §  Phase 1: 2013-2020 ! Phase 2: 2020-2030! In addition evaluated costs and benefits in 2035 after full program implementation! Allows health benefits analysis in line with input data resolution! Two types of scenarios :! §  §  Comparing a “No-BRT” scenario vs. a “BRT” scenario (assuming diesel buses)! Comparing between different options for “clean BRT” technology! 8
  • Approach: Overview! Model costs of each feasible technology/ fuel combination! Determine feasible BRT bus technologies and fuels for each city! INPUT: BRT system assumptions (i.e. target modal shift)! Model emissions from each feasible technology/fuel combination ! Model emissions from road vehicles in BRT scenario Model emissions from road vehicles in no BRT scenario Overall benefits & cost evaluation for each bus technology and fuel scenario! Emissions reductions for each scenario converted to heath benefits expressed monetarily! Emissions and fuel consumption comparison between no BRT and BRT scenarios and different BRT scenarios! 9
  • Approach: Models! Bus Technology and Fuel Evaluation Matrix! -  In-house model developed for this project! -  Ranks technology/fuel options using weighted qualitative metrics! BestBus Model! -  Developed by MJ Bradley for Duke University ! -  Cost of ownership model for a bus depot (different fleet sizes)! -  Outputs include lifecycle costs (in $/km)! ICCT Country Emission Model Template! -  In-house model used for countrylevel emissions analysis! -  Modified for city-level analysis for this project! -  Comprehensive emissions inventory model for multiple vehicle types, technologies, and fuel qualities covering 2000-2050! ICCT City Health Model Template! In-house health impact assessment model! Inputs are results from emissions inventory model! Outputs are premature mortality reduction from PM2.5 exposure abatement! Also includes monetary valuation of health outcomes! -  -  -  -  10
  • Approach: Data sources! §  §  The literature search provided few comprehensive sources of current, localized data required for the analysis! Several approaches were used to fill the data gap:! §  §  §  §  Solicited input from project partners and local experts! Relied on data from projects in other part of the world; prioritized data sources from Asia and South America! Made assumptions and sought review from project partners and other experts! The GEF Sustran project will continue to generate relevant data that could be used to reassess parts of the analysis (i.e. size of BRT system)! 11
  • Technology options selection!
  • Technology options: Overview! Diesel! Battery! Hybrid! LPG and CNG! Capacitor! Trolley! Fuel cell! 13
  • Technology options: Overview ! Technology! Initial assessment (based on desk study)! Diesel! -  Range of environmental performance and costs depending on emission standard level! -  Ultra low sulfur diesel (10-15 ppm) required for cleanest technologies! Biodiesel! -  Typically blended with diesel (i.e. B20 with 20% biodiesel and 80% diesel content)! -  Emission benefits scale to level of blend; NOx can increase! -  Cleanest biodiesel buses require similar control technology to cleanest diesel buses! Natural gas and LPG! -  Tailpipe and lifecycle emission benefits over diesel without aftertreatment (Euro III or even Euro IV/V on PM) ! -  Viability contingent on low cost and reliable fuel supply! 14
  • Technology options: Overview ! Technology! Initial assessment (based on desk study)! Hybrid electric! -  Diesel hybrid electric buses can have significant fuel efficiency improvements over conventional diesel! -  Emission performance improved over comparable standard diesel vehicles, but still requires some emission control! -  Incremental costs over conventional diesel are decreasing over time! Trolley bus! -  Zero tailpipe emissions! -  Requires road infrastructure upgrade! -  Requires reliable electricity supply! Battery electric! -  Zero tailpipe emission! -  Current technology has limited range (approx. 100 km)! -  Incremental cost over conventional diesel are decreasing over time! Capacitors and gapbus! -  Technology in development with limited demonstrations ! Fuel cell! -  Some fleet deployment worldwide but significant vehicle incremental cost + infrastructure cost! 15
  • Technology options: Overview! §  Not included for further assessment! §  Battery electric buses: concerns over range! §  Fuel cell buses: large capital and infrastructure costs (hydrogen production and distribution)! §  Capacitor buses: limited information on costs, trolley should be representative of mature costs! 16
  • Technology options: Range of diesel PM control and Euro level! Comparison of filters used to collect particulate matter emissions from buses meeting different tailpipe emission standards: Euro I, II and III! Euro IV and V! Euro VI! Requires low sulfur diesel (10-15 ppm)! 17 Source: Cleaire Advanced Emission Controls LLC!
  • Approach: Technology selection! §  Bus technology and fuel feasibility assessment completed after site visits in Nairobi, Kampala, and Addis Ababa, as well as interviews with in-country partners and experts! §  Criteria categories include:! §  §  §  Vehicle and fuel availability and performance! Emissions performance! Cost evaluation! §  Using weighted metrics, a feasibility score was generated for all bus technologies for each city! §  Technologies that were deemed feasible and scored above a minimum threshold were chosen for further, detailed costs and benefits analysis! 18
  • Technology options: Criteria detail and weighting ! §  To rank the option the criteria categories were assigned individual weightings, for example:! § ! Fuel and technology (40)! §  Cost evaluation: compared to diesel ! §  §  §  §  §  §  §  §  §  Fuel available? (15)! Fuel locally refined/produced? (5)! Fuel quality regulated? (2)! Vehicle locally assembled/manufactured? (5)! Operators have experience? (3)! Spare parts available? (2)! Technology is robust? (2)! Good quality of ride- low noise? (6)! §  §  §  §  §  §  §  §  §  Bus purchase cost (37)! Fuel station capital cost (1)! Special maintenance tools (1)! Bus overhaul cost (3)! Operator wages (4)! Bus maintenance (21)! Fuel costs (36)! Fuel station O&M (1)! Depot O&M (1)! Emission performance: compared to diesel Euro IV (70)! §  §  PM, NOx, HC, CO, CO2, BC, CH4, N2O (10 each)! Fuel consumption (l/100km) (10)! 19
  • Technology options: Results! §  ! Based on the availability of fuels, technology emissions performance, and preliminary cost evaluation, the technologies were ranked for each city and for Phases I and and II! Rank Phase I (2013-2020) Hybrid diesel Euro IV Phase II (2020-2030) Electric bus 2 Diesel Euro IV Hybrid diesel Euro VI 3 LPG Euro V Clean diesel Euro VI 1 §  ! Scenarios for costs, emissions, and health analysis were crafted from this technical selection! ! 20
  • Technology options: Scenarios! Scenario! Phase I (2013-2020)! Phase II (2020-2030)! No BRT: Baseline! No BRT! No BRT! BRT 1: Diesel BRT! Euro III! Euro III! BRT 2: Clean diesel BRT! Euro IV! Euro VI! BRT 3: Hybrid diesel BRT! Hybrid Euro IV! Hybrid Euro VI! BRT 4: LPG BRT! LPG Euro V/VI! LPG Euro V/VI! BRT 5: Diesel + Electric trolley BRT! Diesel Euro IV! Electric Trolley! 21
  • BRT bus cost of ownership analysis!
  • Approach: Cost assessment! §  §  BestBus models the cost of ownership at a bus depot level ! Model was upgraded to include additional technologies, and defaults were changed to region-specific inputs! §  §  §  §  §  Biodiesel and LPG included pending more information about availability! Capital costs include:! §  Vehicle purchase and replacement! §  Fueling infrastructure! §  Special tools! Operational costs include:! §  Fuel! §  Vehicle maintenance ! §  Fueling station operation and maintenance ! Life cycle costs in $/km are used to establish total annual cost for each scenario! All costs are expressed in 2011 USD! ! 23
  • Cost of ownership: Model inputs! §  §  Primary inputs to the BestBus model for Nairobi! Allows estimation of $/km for various generic fleet sizes! !"#$%&'()&*$+',&!'%'! -../0#%1$(.! 2$(3"4.1$(&4'%".5&67&89!& :/0;"4&$<&=/.".& =>?&9@.%"0&*"(A%B5&C0& -((/',&?4'3",5&C0& *';$4&>'%".&& D(<,'%1$(& 2'#1%',&)1.+$/(%&4'%".& !1".",&#41+"&#"4&,1%"4& *EF&#41+"&#"4&,1%"4& G,"+%41+1%@&#41+"&#"4&CHB& "#!$%&! '()#((! '*! +((((! "#!$%&,-.! /0/1! /1! '2(!$%&,3!4!56&7!#0/!,89:! 56&7!#0#,89:! ';!$%&,<=->(0';!56&7,<=-! !
  • Cost of ownership: Capital cost inputs – Buses! $400,000 ! $350,000 ! Bus purchase cost, $USD Low! High! $300,000 ! $USD! $250,000 ! $200,000 ! $150,000 ! $100,000 ! $50,000 ! $- ! Baseline Diesel! Source: Data from Brazil (EgisRail, 2010) Biodiesel! Clean Diesel! Hybrid! LPG! Trolley!
  • Cost of ownership: Capital cost inputs – Infrastructure! $25,000,000 ! Low! High! $15,000,000 ! $USD! Infrastructure costs: Fuel Station/Electric Grid, $USD $20,000,000 ! $10,000,000 ! $5,000,000 ! $- ! Baseline Diesel! Biodiesel! Clean Diesel! Hybrid! LPG! Trolley! Notes on trolley buses: -  Assuming 50 buses and 18 km of BRT corridor for the trolley -  Infrastructure capital cost for trolley is due to overhead catenaries and electric substations ($800,000 per km) (EgisRail, 2010)
  • Cost of ownership: Operating cost inputBus maintenance ! $0.90 ! $0.80 ! Low! High! $0.70 ! $0.60 ! $USD/km! Bus maintenance cost per km, $USD $0.50 ! $0.40 ! $0.30 ! $0.20 ! $0.10 ! $- ! Baseline Diesel! Biodiesel! Clean Diesel! Hybrid! Notes on trolley buses: -  Assuming 50 buses and 18 km of electric grid -  Maintenance cost for trolleys: $30,000 per annum (SFMTA data) LPG! Trolley!
  • Cost of ownership: Results – Cost per km for 100 buses, Nairobi! Fuel Station/Elec. Grid Maintenance! Fuel! Bus Overhaul Costs! Capital Fuel Station/Elec. Grid! Bus Maintenance! Operator Wages! Capital Special Maintenance Tools! Capital Bus Purchase! $2.50 $2.50 !! $2.00 $2.00 !! $1.86 ! $USD ! $1.65 ! $1.71 ! $1.70 ! $1.71 ! $1.81 ! $1.50 $1.50 !! $1.00 $1.00 !! $0.50 $0.50 !! $0.00 $0.00 !! Baseline Baseline Diesel! Diesel! Biodiesel! Clean Diesel! Hybrid! LPG! Electric Trolley! Note: Assuming 100 buses and 18 km of Electric grid
  • Cost of ownership: Effects of fleet size and BRT corridor length! Cost per km, $USD! $4.00 ! Baseline Diesel! $3.50 ! Biodiesel ! Clean Diesel! $3.00 ! Cost ($/km)! Hybrid! LPG! $2.50 ! Electric Trolley! $2.00 ! $1.50 ! $1.00 ! 0! 100! 200! 300! Fleet size! 400! 500! Inputs: •  Bus fleet: 10, 50, 100, 200, 400 •  BRT corridor (trolleys): 12 km, 24 km and 48 km Effects: •  Fleet size is not very significant for internal combustion options’ costs if more than 100 buses •  BRT corridor and fleet size are very important for trolley bus costs
  • Cost of ownership: Results – fuel/electricity price effects! §  Impact of 50% variation of fuel prices on costs per kilometer traveled! §  §  §  Similar effect on all ICEs: ~22% change! Lower impact on hybrids due to better fuel economy! Little effect on trolley, as capital costs are the main contributor to total cost! 30.0%! ! 40 ft Bus! 60 ft Bus! 25.0%! 20.0%! 15.0%! 10.0%! 5.0%! 0.0%! Baseline Diesel! Biodiesel ! Clean Diesel! Hybrid! LPG! Electric Trolley!
  • Results – Total Annual Cost, Nairobi! Millions! NAIROBI - ANNUAL COST - BRT scenarios! $30! $25! BRT 1 (Euro III diesel)! BRT 2 (Clean diesel)! BRT 3 (Hybrid diesel)! $20! BRT 4 (LPG)! $USD! BRT 5 (diesel+trolley)! $15! $10! $5! $0! 2010! 2015! 2020! 2025! 2030! 2035!
  • Results – Total Annual Fleet Cost in 2035! City! Fuel Costs! Diesel, $/ liter! Fleet size! BRT 1! Euro III Diesel! BRT 2! Clean ! Diesel! BRT 3! Hybrid Diesel! BRT 4! LPG! BRT 5! Diesel + Trolley! Nairobi! $1.22/litter! 295! $23,700,000! $25,600,000! $26,000,000! $28,500,000! $24,600,000! Kampala! $1.11/liter! 100! $8,700,000! $9,400,000! Addis Ababa! $0.79/lliter! 237! $17,500,00! $18,900,000! $20,000,000! $25,300,000! $22,400,000! $9,600,000! $11,000,000! $9,700,000! - LPG price: $4.4/gal (Nairobi data); Electricity price: $0.135/kW-h (regional average)! §  Diesel fuel prices and fleet size impact the relative cost in the region!
  • City-wide emission reduction analysis!
  • Approach: Emission reduction estimates! §  §  §  The emissions inventory model used is ICCTʼs internal country-level model! The model was adapted to model emissions from on-road vehicles at the city level for Nairobi, Kampala, and Addis Ababa! Vehicle types modeled are:! §  §  §  §  §  §  §  §  §  Passenger cars! Taxis! Minibuses! Light-duty trucks! Heavy-duty trucks! Urban buses (non-BRT)! Motorcycles! BRT buses (BRT cases only)! The model evaluates total emissions of PM10, PM2.5, NOx, and CO2, as well as total fuel consumption to compare:! §  §  No BRT scenario with BRT scenario! Five BRT bus technology scenarios! 34
  • Summary of stock and VKT assumptions! §  The following values are used in the model for 2010 stock and VKT:! Total population of vehicles in the year 2010   Nairobi   Passenger Cars   491,000   Taxis   2,000   Minibuses   23,000   Light-duty Trucks   30,000   Urban Buses (non-BRT)   790   Heavy-duty Trucs   10,000   Motorcycles   8,000   Annual VKT per new vehicle in the year 2010   Nairobi   Passenger Cars   Taxis   8,133   50,000   Minibuses   Light-duty Trucks   18,000   30,000   Urban Buses (non-BRT)   Heavy-duty Trucks   Motorcycles   BRT Buses   15,000   60,000   7,000   50,000   Sources: ! -  UITP, UATP, and TransAfrica, 2010. Report on Statistical Indicators of Public Transport Performance in Africa.! -  University of California at Riverside, Global Sustainable Systems Research, 2002. Nairobi, Kenya Vehicle Activity Study. ! -  ICCT estimates based on comparable international precedent, including Huo, H., et al., 2012. Vehicle-use intensity in China: Current status and future trend. Energy Policy, Volume 43, April 2012, Pages 6–16.! 35
  • Stock growth curves! 36
  • Key inputs and assumptions – 
 Fuels and control fractions! §  Key model inputs and assumptions that are modeled identically for all three cities include:! §  Fueling shares:! §  Assumed 100% gasoline: passenger cars, taxis, motorcycles! §  Assumed 100% diesel: minibuses, light and heavy-duty trucks, urban buses! §  BRT fueling shares are set per scenario assumptions! §  Fuel sulfur levels: identical for diesel and gasoline! §  §  §  §  §  Vehicle control fractions – identical for all vehicles except BRT buses! §  §  §  §  §  ! 2000-2004: 2,500-ppm! 2005-2009: 2,000-ppm! 2010-2014: 350-ppm! 2015-2050: 50-ppm (in line with regional commitments)! Prior to 2000: uncontrolled! 2000-2004: Euro I! 2005-2009: Euro II! 2010-2050: Euro III! BRT bus control fractions set as per scenarios! 37
  • Key inputs and assumptions – 
 BRT system demand (1)! §  BRT system demand is determined with the following assumptions:! §  Total city-wide passenger-km demand is assumed to be identical in no-BRT and BRT cases! §  Total passenger-km demand for the no-BRT case is first calculated by combining cumulative VKT per vehicle type with the following assumed load factors:! Mode   Assumed load factor   Passenger Cars   Taxis   1.5! 1.8! Minibuses   7! Urban Buses (non-BRT)   Motorcycles   BRT Buses   75! 1! 75! 38
  • Key inputs and assumptions – 
 BRT system demand (2)! §  §  §  §  Given the limited information on the capacity of the future BRT, all the analysis was performed assuming a BRT ridership target of 10% of all passenger-VKT in 2030! All modal shift shift is assumed to come from minibuses! Nairobi modal share change between no BRT and BRT cases: ! BRT modal share decreases slightly after 2030 because BRT system remains the same size while overall passenger-km demand grows! 39
  • Key inputs and assumptions – 
 BRT system demand (3)! §  §  Once BRT system passenger-km demand is determined, the demand for number of buses is calculated based on per-bus VKT and load factors! This yields an assumed BRT bus demand in 2030 for each city! Assumed BRT bus demand, 2030   City   Nairobi   Kampala   Addis Ababa   §  295! 100! 237! It is assumed that half of the buses will be deployed in Phase 1 (2013-2019) and half in Phase 2 (2020-2030). BRT bus population growth assumed to be linear over each phase.! Population of BRT Buses! 350! 300! 250! 200! BRT Phase 2! 150! BRT Phase 1! 100! 50! 0! 2010! 2015! 2020! 2025! 2030! 2035! 40
  • Approach: Fuel saving benefit assessment! §  Total fuel consumption (including diesel, gasoline, and LPG) from all motor vehicles in each city calculated and compared for baseline (no BRT) and diesel BRT scenario! §  Diesel and gasoline fuel consumption reductions driven by assumptions of which modes the BRT system pulls from! §  Current assumption is BRT system pulls exclusively from diesel minibuses! §  Savings in BRT vs. no BRT scenario are are therefore the reductions in minibus diesel consumption minus the diesel use by the BRT buses! §  Fuel consumption comparison also made between the different BRT technologies! 41
  • Results: Nairobi – BRT technologies
 PM2.5! 42
  • Results: Nairobi – BRT technologies
 NOx! 43
  • Results: Nairobi – BRT technologies
 Fuel Consumption! 44
  • Results: Nairobi – BRT technologies
 Fuel Consumption Reduction! 45
  • Results: Nairobi – BRT vs. no BRT
 Emissions! 46
  • Results: Nairobi, BRT vs. No BRT fuel consumption! Difference in fuel consumption between ! no BRT and BRT cases! 10! million liters! 5! 0! 2010! -5! -10! -15! BRT 1 (diesel)! 2015! 2020! 2025! 2030! 2035! BRT 2 (diesel)! BRT 3 (diesel)! BRT 4 (diesel)! BRT 4 (LPG)! BRT 5 (diesel)! -20! -25! 47
  • Results Summary: PM reduction! 48
  • Results Summary: NOx reduction! ! 49
  • Results Summary: Fuel savings! §  §  §  Different Euro technologies show minimal fuel consumption differences! Use of hybrid buses can deliver significant (~25%) diesel fuel savings compared with diesel buses! Use of trolley and/or LPG buses can deliver significant additional diesel savings! §  Note: LPG consumption is modeled, but additional electricity demand by trolley buses is not! 50
  • Health and other benefits analysis!
  • Approach: Benefits assessment! §  Focus on benefits linked to emissions and fuel use reductions:! §  §  §  Conventional pollutant reduction à air quality and public health benefits! Fuel savings à climate and energy security impacts! Congestion reduction/time saved also modeled quantitatively using international BRT experience and local input data! §  All monetized benefits are expressed in 2011 USD! §  Some un-quantified benefits include:! §  Reduction in exposure for drivers and passengers, foreign exchange savings for local fuels, climate benefits! ! 52
  • Approach: Health benefits assessment! 1. Emissions! (Tg PM2.5)! 2. Concentrations! (μg/m3)! 3. Impact! (Persons /year)! 4. Value! ($ USD)! 1.  Emissions! •  Average annual change in PM2.5 emissions derived from emissions inventory baseline and scenarios! 2.  Concentrations! •  Average annual change in PM2.5 concentrations derived from intake fraction-based conversion of emissions inventory and compared against baseline air quality measured via satellite! 3.  Impact! •  Average annual change in mortality derived from baseline estimates of cause-specific mortality and changes in the population-attributable fraction! 4.  Valuation! •  Total value of premature deaths avoided given by the value of statistical life (VSL) based on willingness-to-pay studies! 53
  • Approach: Health benefits valuation! Table: Select benefit valuation inputs Variable! Value! Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) (1)1! $6.7 million USD (2010$)! U.S. VSL (2)2! $9.7 million USD (2010$)! Income elasticity! 1, 1.5! Discount rate! 6%! GNI per capita annual growth rate! 3.15% (Kenya), 6.65% (Ethiopia), 5.99% (Uganda) Mortality lag distribution! 30% in year 1;! 50% years 2-5;! 20% years 6-20! 1.  Base VSL determination! •  VSL (1): U.S. wage study! •  VSL (2): international metaanalysis of wage studies! 2.  Benefit (VSL) transfer to study countries! •  Chose two recommended income elasticities ! •  Lower bound of VSL is present value of total future income! 3.  Project VSL growth using income growth rates ! 4.  Apply mortality lag to realistically distribute benefits temporally! 5.  Apply discount to determine net present value ! 1. Viscusi, W.K., 2004. The Value of Life: Estimates with Risks by Occupation and Industry. Economic Inquiry 42, 29–48.! 2. Viscusi, W.K., Aldy, J.E., 2003. The value of a statistical life: a critical review of market estimates throughout the world. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 27, 5–76. 54
  • Results – Cumulative and annual health benefits in 2035 !
  • Results – Health Benefits, Nairobi!
  • Results – Health Benefits, Nairobi!
  • Results – Incremental Health Benefits, all cities! -  S2: Diesel Euro IV and and Euro VI by 2020 ! -  S3: Hybrid Diesel Euro IV and Euro VI by 2020! -  S4: LPG! -  S5: Diesel Euro IV and Trolley by 2020!
  • Approach: Time saving benefit assessment! Variable! Value! No-BRT average speed! 17 kph1! BRT average speed! 22 kph1! Average trip length! 6 km! Value of travel time saved (VTTS) (using GNI per capita)! $0.84 (Kenya), $0.52 (Ethiopia), $0.64 (Kampala) (2011 USD)! GNI per capita annual growth rate! 3.15% (Kenya), 6.65% (Ethiopia), 5.99% (Uganda)! Discount rate! 6%! Hours worked per yr! 1920 hrs! VTTS as percentage of wage rate! 100%2! 1.  2.  1.  Value of Travel Time Saved (VTTS) determination! •  GNI per capita used to calculate wage! •  VTTS is 100% of prevailing wage ! •  Project prevailing wage growth using GNI growth rate! 2.  Hours of time saved with BRT! •  Time reduction per km traveled is estimated using Guangzhou, Chinaʼs BRT data ! •  Total annual hours saved calculated using total annual passenger-km traveled on BRT buses! 3.  Apply discount rate to determine net present value ! ! Hughes, Colin and Xianyuan Zhu. Guangzhou, China Bus Rapid Transit Emissions Impact Analysis. The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP): May 2011.! Button, K (1993). Transport Economics. Hants, England; Brookfield, Vt. Aldershot. 59
  • Results – Time savings benefits, Nairobi!
  • Findings and conclusions!
  • Findings: Nairobi- Annual cost in 2035 vs. annual benefits for clean technologies*! Scenarios! Annual technology cost! Annual health benefits! Annual fuel savings benefit! Annual time savings benefit! BRT 1: Diesel BRT! $23.7 ! $0.06 to 0.6! $19! $6.6! BRT 2: Clean diesel BRT! $25.6! $0.07 to $0.7! $19! ! $6.6! BRT 3: Hybrid diesel BRT! $26! ! $0.07 to $0.7! $20! $6.6! BRT 4: LPG BRT! $28.5! ! $0.07 to $0.7! $16! $6.6! BRT 5: Diesel + Electric trolley BRT! $24.6! $0.07 to $0.7! $24! $6.6! All values in 2011 million $/year * This assessment does not include the cost of BRT infrastructure (road, stations, ticketing system etc…) 62
  • Findings: Kampala- Annual cost in 2035 vs. annual benefits for clean technologies*! Scenarios! Annual technology cost! Annual health benefits! Annual fuel savings benefit! Annual time savings benefit! BRT 1: Diesel BRT! $8.7! $0.02 to 0.21! $5.9! $3.4! BRT 2: Clean diesel BRT! $9.4! $0.02 to 0.22! $5.9! $3.4! BRT 3: Hybrid diesel BRT! $9.6! $0.02 to 0.22! $6.3! $3.4! BRT 5: Diesel + Electric trolley BRT! $9.7! $0.02 to 0.22! $7.5! $3.4! All values in 2011 million $/year * This assessment does not include the cost of BRT infrastructure63 (road, stations, ticketing system etc…)
  • Findings: Addis Ababa- Annual cost in 2035 vs. annual benefits for clean technologies*! Scenarios! Annual technology cost! Annual health benefits! Annual fuel savings benefit! Annual time savings benefit! BRT 1: Diesel BRT! $17.5! $0.14 to 1.4! $10.0! $7.7! BRT 2: Clean diesel BRT! $18.9! $0.14 to 1.5! ! $10.0! $7.7! BRT 3: Hybrid diesel BRT! $20! $0.14 to 1.5! ! $10.7! $7.7! BRT 5: Diesel + Electric trolley BRT! $22.4! $0.14 to 1.5! ! $12.7! $7.7! All values in 2011 million $/year * This assessment does not include the cost of BRT infrastructure (road, stations, ticketing system etc…) 64
  • Findings: Annual cost in 2035 vs. annual benefits for clean technologies! §  Benefits evaluated within the range of costs of implementing a range of BRT technologies! §  The bulk of the benefits are from implementing the BRT system; clean technologies can provide additional fuel savings and health benefits! §  Health benefits very dependent on scale of intervention; ICF analysis for lower sulfur and improved vehicles showed benefits 2.5 to 4 times greater than refinery upgrade costs for East Africawide implementation! §  Final report will incorporate comments received at national workshop included updated inputs and assumptions! 65 !
  • Recommendations: Research and data needs! §  Analysis can be refined once BRT systems are further defined (length, capacity)! §  Improving data collection on vehicle fleet (population, annual vkt, emissions factors) would significantly improve the evaluation of benefits and the ability to manage the impacts of vehicle population growth! 66
  • Acknowledgment! §  §  §  §  §  §  §  §  §  §  §  §  §  §  UNEP and UN-Habitat! Rahab Mundara! KURA! Ministry of Transport! Ministry of Energy! Ministry Nairobi Metropolitan ! City council of Nairobi! KIPPRA! University of Nairobi! Energy Regulatory Commission! Easy Coach! KBS! CMC! VBD! 67
  • Additional slides! 68
  • Technology options: Results! §  Feasibility scores determined for each technology and each city:! Phase 1: 2013-2020! F"G* 34",'+" >4?@4%4 A(("$/A+4+4 -.,'/0 560 556 5;8 &4$#%"B#/!"#$#% -.,'/1 -.,'/11 565 565 559 559 5;8 5;8 -.,'/111 575 569 598 !"#$#% &"'("#$#% -.,'/12 -.,'/12 589 5:; 5:6 3A 57; 3A )*+,"( CDE -.,'/12 -.,'/12 -.,'/2 -.,'/21 5<6 5:= 577 587 57= 3A 3A 3A 58; 3A 3A 3A Phase 2: 2020-2030! =*>? ()*#$+* 6)78)9) :;;*<%:+)+) !"#$%&' ,-. ,/3 ,20 @*A<A9 !"#$%' ,-/ ,35 ,2- B*$;*A<A9 !"#$%'& !"#$%&' !"#$%' !"#$%'& .01 ,/2 ,3/ ,44 ,44 (: (: (: ,-4 (: (: (: !"#$%&' .04 ,35 ,-5 C?+#*; !"#$%' .01 ,33 ,-4 FGH !9ADE%B"< !"#$%'& !"#$%&' !"#$%' !"#$%'& .,5 ,42 ,-0 .00 .,5 ,42 (: (: (: ,2/ .02 (: (: (: .11 69