Transport Projects in Asia

Transcription

1 Insights on Co-benefits in Transport Projects in Asia Sudhir Gota Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities Center Traditional approach of transport project appraisal NPV, IRR BCR FYRR etc BENEFITS COSTS 1. Transport Infrastructure costs 2. Vehicle costs Fixed and Variable (Fixed d Costs Vehicle purchase, Registration i cost, Taxes, Insurance. Variable Costs - Fuel, Oil, Tires, Parking, Toll, Maintenance, Repair) 3. Travel Time costs 2

2 Benefits in transport projects Wider Impact Direct Impact What's the incentive to quantify this? Source: ADB and CAI Asia Center, How to quantify Co-benefits? Depends on many factors! 1. Scale of analysis project, zonal, organizational, city, regional or national 2. Accuracy sketch or detailed 3. Project Duration? 4. When do want to apply this ex-ante or ex-post? 5. Data availability and quality? 6. To what level of analysis or boundary hidden? induced? impact on landuse? 7. Resources available? 8. Baseline static or dynamic? 9. What BAU? What do we do with the measurements?

3 How to Quantify? There exists it different approaches toevaluate projects, calculate l co benefits and one needs to use appropriate tools depending upon data, accuracy, resources, requirement etc. Source :- CAI Asia Co-benefits in studies/projects in Asia No Study/ Research Benefits Quantified/Results 1 Felix Creutzig and He In, social costs of climate change amount to 1.4 billion RMB per annum which was valued higher than Noise (0.9 Billion RMB/annum), accidents (1 billion RMB/a) but less than air pollution (19.8 Billion RMB/annum) and Congestion (22.8 Billion RMB/annum). (2009) 2 Delhi Metro Delhi Metro Rail Corporation has helped the city of to save Rs. 20,725.1 million by 2007, of which h the travel time savings constitute 35%. Delhi Metro has also prevented 28, (2008) tons of carbon dioxide from being emitted into the atmosphere every year. 3 Murthy et.al l(2006) This research suggests that accounting for benefits from the reduction of urban air pollution due to the Mt Metro has increasedthe economicrateof return by 1.4%. 4 TERI and WBCSD (2008) Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Trafficdecongestion (33.79%)? Reduced fuel consumption (24.63%) Savings in travel time (28.14%) Reductions in accidents (7.59%) and Reduction in air Pollution (5.84%) 6

4 Co-benefits in studies/projects in Asia Delhi Metro, 1.The impact of metro on residential land value is less as compared to the commercial properties. For Residential area, on an average land value within 500m of metro line increased by 11.3%. For Commercial area it increased by 18.1%. 2.Threshold limit for the residential properties is approximately up to 500m from metro line and 800m for commercial properties. 3. Increase in land value is highly dependent on the income of the people in the zones Seoul BRTS, Land price premiums in the 5 to 10 % range were estimated for residences within 300 meters of BRT stops. For retail shops and other non residential uses, impacts were more varied, ranging from 3 to 26 % premiums over a smaller impact zone of 150 meters from the nearest BRT stop. Source :- Shivanand Swamy, CEPT and Robert Cavero 7 Co-benefits in transport Marikina Bikeways 66 Km of Bikeways, 3.45 million$ (funded by Marikina, GEF/WB) Bike share 30% 25% 20% 15% In 2015 is 12.3% (GEF estimates) In 2006 already 9.8% (compared 10% to 2.8% in 2000) 5% Impact on IRR Savings 0% CO 2 = 256 Kilo tons PM = 24 tons NOx = 130 tons EIRR With Fuel Marikina Bikeway Project EIRR with CO2 + PM +Nox 8

5 Other Insights 1. Important to consider dynamic baseline 2. Estimating speeds is critical and be careful of speed flow equations 3. Consider Induced traffic 4. Consider Replication effect 5. Make realistic traffic projections 6. Consider construction impact 7. Select appropriate lf lifecyclel 8. Consider technological improvements over lifecycle 9 Importance of Dynamic Baseline Modeshift to BRT 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9 th 10th 11th 12 Month Month Month Month Month Month Month Month month month month month Walk Cycle Rickshaw Wheeler Wheeler Bus Shared Rickshaw Other charecteristics Avg pax./bus/d ay Average Trip length PPHPD (weekday) Source : Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation

6 Select appropriate lifecycle Ton ns/year/k km Impact ofproject LifeonEmissions CO2 saved (20 years) with construction CO2 saved (10 years) with construction 11 Source : ADB (2010) Reducing Emissions from Transport Projects Co-benefits in Economic Analysis 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 10.73% 10.37% 18.09% 20.96% EIRR EIRR With EIRR With EIRR With EIRR With EIRR With VOC + VOT VOC + VOT VOC + VOT VOC + VOT VOC + VOT + CO2 + CO2 + CO % 13.11% EIRR With VOC + VOT 31.17% 17% 32.22% EIRR With VOC + CO2 EIRR With VOC EIRR Laos Rural Access Roads Project (c1) Laos Rural Access Roads Project (c2) (Ho Chi Minh City Long Thanh Dau Giay Expressway Surat Manor Expressway As a thumbrule for Highway Projects, Fuel Costs are 38% (say 40%) of total VOC, travel time costs are 12% of VOC and Maintenance Part and Labor are 12% of total VOC Source : ADB 2010

7 Co-benefits in Economic Analysis 13 Barriers 1.measurement of co benefits It can be difficult, costly, and time consuming 2.depends onthe qualityof data 3.low awareness, 4.fragmented policies and institutions, 5.limited tools, and institutional capacity to apply such tools. 6.quantification of co benefits in monetary terms? 14

8 CAI-Asia Center Sophie Punte, Executive Director Bert Fabian, Transport Program Manager Sudhir Gota, Transport Specialist Alvin Mejia, Transport Specialist Unit 3510, 35 th floor Robinsons-Equitable Tower ADB Avenue, Pasig City Metro Manila 1605 Philippines Extra slides 16

9 Ex-ante and Ex-post require different approaches DETAILED ANALYSIS SKETCH ANALYSIS Modified from John Rogers, World Bank 17 Estimating Speed is critical CO 2 PM NOx SPEED 2W 3W Cars LCV Bus HCV Car LGV Bus HGV Car LGV Bus HGV

10 Be careful with Speed flow equations Average Sp peed (kmph h) Cars 60 Bus 50 LCV 40 2 axle MAV V/C Ratio China Experience V/C Ratio India Experience ( four Lane) Not accurate after V/C ratio exceeds 1 Source : Green Transport- ADB, HCM-2000 and IRC 19 Vehicle Operating Costs Roughness(1) KMPL Rougness Truck Large (m/km) Truck Small Medium Truck Large Car Mini Bus Bus Trailer Assuming roughness is decreased from 13 to 2 for 1 km, assuming 1000 large buses/day = savings of 400, Pesos/Year/km on fuel ONLY Source : modified from Green Transport- ADB 20

11 Vehicle Operating Costs Roughness (2) 21 Source : World Bank Review Transportation User Costs (1) 22 Source : Modified from World Bank Review

12 Transportation User Costs (2) Based on a World bank review of 44 projects 1. Fuel Costs are 38% (say 40%) of total VOC for ASEAN 2. Travel Time costs are 12% of VOC for ASEAN 3. Maintenance Part and Labor are 12% of total VOC for ASEAN Thus, in case you have CO2, back calculate fuel use and then derive VOC!! 23 Include Induced Traffic Impact of Induced traffic 2.5 BAU e=0 e=0.25 ilotons of CO2 C /Km e=0.5 e=0.8 e= Ki Source : ADB

13 Consider Replication Effects where possible BRT expansion after Gold Standard BRT Projects tems BRT syst length of km) combined (k Worldwide c after Curitiba after Bogotá after Quito, Brisbane, & European cities Source : ITDP 25 Make realistic traffic projections Actual/Forecast Ratio Man nila LRT 3 KL PUTRA H K Airport Pusan Bangko ok (green) Bang gkok Blue Shangh hai Line 1 Shangh hai Line 2 Shangh hai Line 3 Shangh hai Line 5 Beijin ng Line 13 Beijing Bat tong Line Beiji ing Line 5 Guangzh ou Line 1 Nanji ing Line 1 She enzhen Fi rst Phase Tianjin Bi nhai Line Delhi i Phase I Source : Phil. Sayeg, Sam Zimmerman and others 26

14 Impact of Construction 1. construction causes delay, increased and slow vehicle 90% operation, accident, and 80% environmental costs 2. A typical 4 lane high speed road generates 2000 tons/km of CO 2 emissions. i 100% Fuel Production 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 3. In a metro construction 10% emissions are of high intensity 0% and it can range from 3 to 12 years of operation emissions edans S SUVs Bus edans S SUVs Bus Operation and Maintainance Manufacture Road Construction and Maintainance GHG mt GGE PM10 (kg) Per Vehicle Life 27 Source : Mikhail Chester el al. Consider Technological Improvements 1. By assuming an annual increase in fuel efficiency of 1% and 3% in a typical Indian expressway project, it has been estimated that the decrease amounts to 4700 tons/km, tons/km cumulatively over twenty years lifecyclel orin other words reductions of 11% and 29% from without ih change in technology scenario. 2. The fuel can become less carbon intensive, more cleaner and thus may change the emission profile. Analyst needs to consider such improvements in future. 3. Though the impact would be similar in with and without project case but it would prevent inflating the numbers!! 28

15 Co-benefits in Economic Analysis 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 10.73% 10.37% 18.09% 20.96% EIRR EIRR With EIRR With EIRR With EIRR With EIRR With VOC + VOT VOC + VOT VOC + VOT VOC + VOT VOC + VOT + CO2 + CO2 + CO % 13.11% EIRR With VOC + VOT 31.17% 17% 32.22% EIRR With VOC + CO2 EIRR With VOC EIRR Laos Rural Access Roads Project (c1) Laos Rural Access Roads Project (c2) (Ho Chi Minh City Long Thanh Dau Giay Expressway Surat Manor Expressway Quantifications with CO 2 with 85 $/ton, PM10 with $/ton and NOx as 3500 $/ton. CO 2 would make significant impact on economic analysis ONLY when it exceeds 400$/ton Source : ADB 2010