I am going to present on a research project that WRI is currently working on. This study builds on the GPC and compares the various methods to develop transport sector inventories. This study is limited to the road transport emissions alone; which is the most complex part of transport sector emissions.
Holger has already talked about the importance of cities in tackling climate change. Globally cities are responsible 70% of all GHG emissions with transportation responsible for 15-20% of the total. Road transportation in specific accounts for over 90% of the total transportation emissions in cities.
As I mentioned, road transportation is one of the more complex sectors for accounting. This is due to the various types of trips performed. Broadly there are 3 types of trips – In-boundary trips where both the origin and destination are within the city. Cross-boundary trips which have one end of the trip (either the origin or the destination) outside the boundary of the city and pass through trips where both ends of the trip outside the city boundary. The complexity in accounting arrises due to the responsibility of affecting the various trips. Who is responsible for the cross-boundary and pass-through trips? While the internal trips can be directly influenced by planning by the city, for pass-through trips, the city has very little control.
Recognizing this, the GPC uses the scopes framework to allocate emissions. All internal trips are accounted as Scope 1. Scope 1 emissions are those emissions generated due to sources within the city boundary. For cross-boundary trips, only 50% of the total trip length is assigned to the city. Of this 50% the part that falls within the city boundary is assigned as Scope 1 and the rest as Scope 3. Pass-through trips are excluded altogether.
Coming back to this research, the main objective of the study is to compare and provide a guidance to cities accounting transport sector GHG emissions. This research builds on the 4 methods suggested in the GPC (I will talk about the four methods shortly). This study compares the four methods using the case of Bangalore. How do the results compare with each other? Is one method better than another? If a city wanted to take action, can they chose any one of these methods? These are some questions that are answered.
As I mentioned, the GPC identifies 4 methods for accounting road transport emissions. The fuel based method uses the total fuel consumed in the city as a metric to estimate emissions. The resident travel method uses residents travel VKT and travel patterns to estimate emissions. vehicle registration information combined with average trip lengths etc are used in this method. The geographical allocation method quantifies emissions solely within the boundary of the city irrespective of the origins and destinations of the trip. All trips are cut-off at the city boundary and allocated as Scope 1 emissions to the city. The induced travel method is the most detailed one, where based on the trip types, emissions are quantified.
We have used Bangalore as a case study for comparing the four methods. Even when choosing to work with Bangalore, a very important question we had to answer initially was about the choice of the inventory boundary. Do we chose the corporation limits? The development authority limit or the metropolitan regional limit? For this study we chose the corporation limits. DULT – the directorate of urban land transport, our partner for this study, had a transport model which was limited to the corporation limit. Which was one of the reasons for choosing the corporation boundary. The second reason, was that the corporation would also be the ideal agency to own such an inventory.
For this study we used four data points: fuel sales information (obtained through primary surveys), registered vehicles information from RTO and average trip lengths (from the CTTP/transport model), and the Bangalore transport model developed by DULT. For the emission factors, we used a publication developed by ARAI where they have identified the emission factors for each vehicle type (two-wheelers, cars etc) and the engine capacity (80cc, 150 cc etc). The registered vehicles information and transport model provide information on the various modes but not granular information of engine capacities. To obtain this we conducted parking lot surveys. Based on these data points, we quantified the total road transport emissions for each of the 4 methods identified in the GPC. What we found, was that the Scope 1 emissions are quite comparable with a low variance. The scope 3 emissions on the other hand have a much larger variance. Why is this? The Scope 3 emissions for registered vehicles and fuel methods, underestimate the cross-boundary trips. They are mostly focused on information within the city boundary.
What can we conclude from this? Cities can choose any one of these four methods. Some are more data and time intensive than the others. For resident travel and fuel based methods, more steps need to be performed to arrive at a scopes based distribution. There is some variance in results from the four methods, more so for Scope 3 than Scope 1. If cities are looking to take climate action, they have more control over scope 1 emissions. The variance is much lower there and any of these methods could be used.
The choice of methodology is influenced based on the need: Are cities looking to report emissions? Are they looking to take action based on this inventory. If the answer is the former, fuel based and resident travel methods would be ideal. They are less resource and capacity intensive. On the other hand, if cities want to also take focused actions, the geographical and induced travel methods are much more suitable. These methods are dependent on the transport model and hence are time, resource and capacity intensive.
Let me give you an example of the type of action cities can take. In Bangalore, two-wheeler contribute 29% of the total trips performed in the city. But, they contribute 61%! of the total passenger vehicular emissions. This is striking. Can we do something about it? Maybe create a carbon tax for two-wheelers? But would this mean citizens move towards more energy intensive modes such as the car? Obviously this is a policy decision that needs more analysis. But, measurement can help identify these necessities. Measurement is critical for evidence based action.
Lets consider another example. This shows two growth scenarios for Bangalore: a sustainable transport alterative and an automobile centric alternative. By choosing the sustainable transport alternative, Bangalore can reduce 3.4 million tons and also save 2880 lives! The cost for road infrastructure is also much lower (almost 36%)!
In conclusion, any of the 4 methods prescribed by the GPC can be used for accounting transport emissions. The choice is dependent on the purpose of the inventory. The inventory is the first step towards taking action. Ambitious actions require measurement. These transport inventories can be used to identify policy alternatives, develop mobility plans and also for low-carbon planning. These inventories can potentially be set up as performance tracking tools which would be a complement to smart cities.
CONNECTKaro 2015 - Session 7A - GPC A Measurement Tool for Evidence-Based Action
Supplement to the Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions
emissions: A guide for
ROAD TRANSPORT EMISSIONS
• Globally, cities are responsible for 70% of
the total energy-related CO2 emissions
• Transportation is responsible for 15-20%
of the total urban emissions
• Road transport accounts for over 90% of
all urban transportation emissions
COMPLEXITY IN ACCOUNTING ROAD
ACCOUNTING ROAD TRANSPORT EMISSIONS: GPC
Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3
In-boundary trips X X*
Trans-boundary trips X X* X
Pass through trips Not accounted
OBJECTIVE OF THIS RESEARCH
• Accounting on-road
transport emissions: A guide
for cities builds on the GPC
• Objective: Compare and
provide guidance for cities to
account transport emissions by
any one of the 4 methods
suggested by GPC
• Developed by comparing the
methods using the case study
THE FOUR METHODS FOR ACCOUNTING
TRANSPORT EMISSIONS (GPC)
BANGALORE: A PROFILE
Population 8.47 million
Land area 800 km2
Land use composition Urban development: 600 km2
Green areas: 200 km2
Per capita income $ 1,200
GDP per capita $3,963
Climate Dry tropical savannah climate
Road network Exceeds 3000 Kms
CLIMATE ACTION: AN EXAMPLE
Public Transport Car Two-Wheelers IPT Cycle Walk
Car Two-wheelers IPT Bus
Mode shares in Bangalore Emissions from various modes in Bangalore
Two Wheelers have a mode share of 29% but contribute 61% to the total
passenger vehicle emissions
• GPC methods require more work to
accurately account emissions
• Measurement key for focused, ambitious
• Transport sector inventories: A tool for
• GPC: A measurement tool for low carbon
• Measurement and performance tracking:
Tools for smart cities