Incremental LUTP Benefits of Transport Investments. By: Elkin Bello and Shomik Mehndiratta

Transcription

1 Incremental LUTP Benefits of Transport Investments. By: Elkin Bello and Shomik Mehndiratta Annex 1 has provided an estimate of Green House Gas (GHG) savings of the proposed BRT Line 1 based on a conventional analysis that includes estimates of savings relative to a without-project baseline in terms of operational efficiencies (from fewer bigger better buses) and mode shift (from taxis and private vehicles). These estimated GHG savings are important direct impacts of the proposed investment. However, this analysis does not capture additional savings that are expected to accrue from the implementation of a broader program of activities related to transport and land use that the city is implementing. BRT Line 1 is an initial investment as part of this Integrated Land Use & Transport Planning (LUTP) program that includes a series of public transport investments combined with complementary land use plans. The global experience suggests that the successful implementation of such LUTP would result in generating significant GHG savings in addition to savings associated with any particular investment project or policy by itself. These additional savings would result from creating a dense transit-oriented urban environment that would fundamentally alter the demand for motorized trips. Here we present an estimate of the additional GHG savings associated with LUTP including some assessment to those savings that could be attributable to BRT Line 1 as the first demonstration element of the LUTP. Conceptualizing the incremental GHG benefits from implementation of a comprehensive LUTP. While any particular project (such as BRT Line 1) can have an incremental impact on a city s transport system by attracting trips that would have been made using private motorized modes in the baseline, a successful LUTP has the possibility of materially altering the baseline demand for motorization and motorized trips. Figure 1 illustrates this dynamic: Curve C1 (blue) reflects a Business as Usual baseline with motorization rates rising rapidly once per capita incomes hit a threshold (about $5000) plateauing due to either network/system saturation or a fully motorized society is reached. Curve C2 (red) reflects the with project scenario. Following BRT implementation, modal shift is expected to occur from private to public transport (PT) modes. This curve reflects the underlying assumption of the project s GHG analysis: that no single project affects the overall motorization rate in the city and that the BRT would capture some marginal private modes users based on convenience and efficiency improvements. Despite this shift, the motorization rate growth trend is maintained, only delaying the scenario of system saturation. Curve C3 (yellow) reflects the impact of a LUTP program. The global experience suggests that implementation of a successful LUTP amplifies the competitive advantage of public transport and that of complementary active modes such as walking and cycling. Network effects kick in for public transport, making it a competitive alternative vis a vis private modes for a large share of the trips. If the LUTP successfully incorporates parking/pricing elements for autos, this competitive edge is further amplified. Complementary land use policy that directs development about transit hubs further amplifies this impact. In combination, such policies result in fewer trip-makers buying cars, and those with cars being coerced or persuaded to using them less. Note that the total GHG savings derived from such lower demand from motorization (as illustrated in C3) is additive to the project(s)-specific savings associated with the project(s) per-se (difference between C1 and C2, and all other subsequent elements within the LUTP program presented in dotted curves). 1

2 Figure 1 Conceptualization of LUTP effects in motorization rates The LUTP effect the global experience. Figure 2 illustrates the potential for LUTP impact in the use and dependence of private modes. The Figure presents private mode share levels of a range of global cities. The vertical axis is motorization levels expressed in private modes use. The horizontal axis presents the relative success of the cities in establishing a LUTP program measured in terms of: (i) strength and maturity of Transport Demand Management (TDM) policies in place (parking restrictions/congestion pricing), (ii) mass transit implementation, and (iii) prominence of active mobility. Cities like Hong Kong, Tokyo and Singapore reflect best practice in LUTP design and implementation: a combination of a dense high quality public transit system, coordinated land use, and TDM measures to reinforce the advantage of public and non-motorized transport. The range of western European cities have only slightly less successful LUTPs perhaps in part due to lower population densities and a lingering dependence on private mobility. US cities illustrate a scenario where public transport competitiveness is limited, policies implicitly favor auto ownership and use, and there is little coordination with sustainable, efficient, and smart land use. Note that per capita incomes in all of these North American, European and Southeast Asian cities is well over 15k/year (ranging from 37 to 75k USD1). Successful LUTP implementation can take Sub-Saharan cities like Dakar, Nairobi and others, to motorization levels as seen in Southeast Asian super powers like Hong Kong and Singapore. A base case where motorization rates rise with incomes unabated by supportive public transport investments, and complementary pricing, parking, and land use policy could lead to motorization levels of Indian, and Chinese cities in the short-term, and possibly towards US levels in the long-term. 1 Values from Source: World Bank/ Knoema. 2

3 Figure 2 LUTP impact in the use and dependence of private modes Quantifying the impact of LUTP. The potential of a LUTP to reduce baseline demand for motorization trips requires developing a dynamic long-term motorization model that responds to alternative supply and policy scenarios. This is fundamentally different from a bottom-up estimate of incremental impacts of one-off projects (like the BRT). The International Transport Forum (ITF) has developed such a modeling approach to motorization demand in rapidly growing cities (initially for a range of 10 Indian and Chinese cities) under different scenarios of intervention. The study 2 explored how urban mobility would develop under different policy scenarios for five Chinese and five Indian cities, notably how effective different types of policies and measures are in reducing transport CO2 emissions. The study evaluated three scenarios: i) Status Quo: where no additional measures within the transport sector (infrastructure or regulatory) are put in place to deviate the existing trend; ii) Robust Governance: where stronger government intervention is key in regulating motorization trends while promoting PT use; and iii) Integrated LUTP: where a systemic prioritization for sustainable urban transport development principles is adopted on top of the Robust Governance scenario regulatory and policy measures. Differences in terms of maturity of the dialogue of urban motorization between cities yield variations in the expected outcomes of CO 2 emissions per scenario tested. In general, a LUTP plan has bigger potential to generate savings in cities where: (i) income and motorization levels are relatively low (Dakar: 26 private vehicles/1000 inhab); and (ii) significant population growth is still expected. Cities 2 Low-Carbon Mobility for Mega Cities What Different Policies Mean for Urban Transport Emissions in China and India. International Transport Forum: Global dialogue for better transport. OECD/ITF

4 that start with the endowment of higher population densities (such as Mumbai) have the potential to generate higher savings from a LUTP by preventing sprawl. Figure 3 Population and densities for ITF s city study (extracted from the document. Densities revised) Figure 3 identifies the cities in the study, providing information on population and urban densities. The results of the study for the five selected Indian cities are shown in Figure 4. Emission pathways are obtained from the test of the various measures per scenario within the local urban contexts. 4

5 Figure 4 Possible emissions pathways. Development of transport CO2 emissions to 2050 under different scenarios in Indian cities Source: OECD/ITF 2015 Measuring the LUTP impact for Dakar. The Dakar BRT project is envisioned as the first step of a broader comprehensive LUTP (see Box 1). The impact of the Dakar LUTP is interpolated from the ITF findings [normalized for population]. As Figure 5 illustrates, income and motorization levels in Dakar are lower 5

6 than those of the Indian cities assessed by the ITF, and significantly lower than those of the Chinese cities analyzed. Jaipur in India is closest in population, motorization rates, and income levels. Figure 5 Motorization rate and Income per capita for ITF cities and Dakar Motorization Rate Income per cap ,000 Motorization Rate (veh/1000 inhab) ,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 Income per capita (USD) 0 0 Source: Various databases consulted by the author. Population densities in Dakar (6,053 ppl/km 2 ) are comparable to those in Jaipur (6,841 ppl/km 2 ). As such using the estimates from Jaipur are conservative in that a successful LUTP implementation in Dakar has the potential to avoid significant sprawl which could be the norm in the absence of a LUTP, particularly when comparing urban areas: Jaipur 1500 km 2 to Dakar 550 km 2. 6

7 DENSITY POPO/HA Figure 6 Changes in Population Density and GDP per Capita in Indian Cities /1/1989 1/1/1994 1/1/1999 1/1/2004 1/1/2009 1/1/2014 Belgaum Coimbatore Hindupur Hyderabad Jaipur Jalna Kanpur Kolkata Kozhikode Malegaon Parbhani Pune Sitapur Vijayawada GDP Per Capita GDP PER CAPITA (CONSTANT 2020 Using estimates from Jaipur as a base, using an adjustment factor of 10% to be additionally conservative, suggests that a full LUTP could save Dakar about 2.14 million tons of CO 2 over a 20-year period. To avoid double counting of the incremental impact of particular projects, there is a need to subtract from this estimate of aggregate savings, the savings associated with project-level impacts (mode shift effects due to BRT implementation). Figure 6 shows the results of the short-term emission savings projected over the project s lifetime 3. For the purposes of the calculation, it is assumed that the total LUTP has the incremental impact of five times the project-specific savings related to Dakar BRT Line 1 over this period i.e. 365k CO 2 x 5 = 1.82 m tons of CO 2 over a 20-year period. 3 Calculated as per the official World Bank s T&I GP guidance note on Urban Transport and GHG emissions. Savings from (i) Operational Efficiency gains through improvements in engine technologies (diesel and CNG) of PT fleet, combined with optimization and rationalization of service plans, and (ii) Modal Shift gains are due to trips attracted to PT, that would have otherwise chosen private modes. 7

8 Figure 7 GHG emission savings Dakar BRT. Source: Author using GHG accounting data GHG Emission Savings - Dakar BRT (tco 2 ) 365,943 71, , , , , , , , ,000 Modal Shift Private->Public Op Eff Diesel Added Op Eff CNG This would suggest that in addition to the mode shift from particular initiatives the demand response from a lower motorization rate from a LUTP implementation would be about 0.32 million tco , 17% Mode Shift Demand Response 1.82, 83% The Government of Senegal (GoS) has adopted a comprehensive strategy for sustainable urban mobility in Dakar (PSE and La Lettre de Politique des deplacements urbains a Dakar LPDUD ) with the primary objective of limiting the increase of private modes of motorized transport. This national strategy is strongly linked to the country s international pledge to combating climate change in the form of its international commitment for climate change (INDC). It is supported on 5 pillars: The development of an integrated land-use and transport planning for sustainable mobility, The construction of an efficient integrated public transport network with priority over the private modes, combining modern and informal sectors and favoring active modes (walking, bicycle use, etc.), The continued development of the road network, and the improvement of traffic and parking management with the goal of reducing congestion, accidentality and air pollution, The establishment of a simple and effective institutional governance framework, and 8

9 The determination of securing, increasing, diversifying, and ensuring the sustainability of funding for urban mobility. An important element of the World Bank supported intervention is to (i) articulate a medium term investment plan; (ii) support the establishment of governance systems that allow for the successful implementation of complementary policies for automobiles and land use. Box 1 Summary of Government of Senegal s LUTP initiative 9