nairobi brtprojectsummary fantakamakate_icct

Clean technology options for GEF Sustran projects in East Africa !

Nairobi Summary!

July 2012!

Fanta Kamakaté, Sarah Chambliss, Ray Minjares, Francisco Posada, Vance Wagner, Grace Wu!

Outline!

1.  About the ICCT!2.  Clean technology

background!a.  Project objectives!b.  Models!c.  Data sources!

3.  Technology selection !a.  Technology options!b.  Evaluation criteria!c.  Results!

4.  Bus cost of ownership analysis!a.  Data inputs and

assumptions!b.  Results!

2

5.  City-wide emission reduction analysis!a.  Data inputs and


6.  Health and other benefits analysis!a.  Data inputs and


7.  Findings!8.  Acknowledgments!

About the ICCT!

About the ICCT!

4

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.

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

Relevant ICCT projects!

§  Global health impacts assessment of transportation-related emissions!§  2000 historical snapshot!§  2000-2050 projections based on existing and future transportation policy!

§  Refined national-level health impacts assessments!§  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 Sub-

Saharan 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:!§  Phase 1: 2013-2020 !§  Phase 2: 2020-2030!§  In addition evaluated costs and benefits in 2035 after full program

implementation!§  Evaluated benefits for the entire metropolitan area !

§  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!

9

Determine feasible BRT bus technologies and fuels for each city!

Overall benefits & cost evaluation for each bus

technology and fuel scenario!

Emissions reductions for each scenario

converted to heath benefits expressed

monetarily!

Model emissions from each feasible

technology/fuel combination !

Model costs of each feasible technology/

fuel combination!

Model emissions from road vehicles in

no BRT scenario

Emissions and fuel consumption

comparison between no BRT and BRT

scenarios and different BRT scenarios!

INPUT: BRT system

assumptions (i.e. target

modal shift)!

Model emissions from road vehicles in

BRT scenario

Approach: Models!

10

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 country-level 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!

Bus Technology and Fuel Evaluation Matrix!

-  In-house model developed for this project!

-  Ranks technology/fuel options using weighted qualitative metrics!

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!

13

Diesel! LPG and CNG! Hybrid!

Battery! Trolley! Capacitor!

Fuel cell!

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

§  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: Overview!

Technology options: Range of diesel PM control and Euro level!

17 Source: Cleaire Advanced Emission Controls LLC!

Euro I, II and III! Euro IV and V! Euro VI!Requires low sulfur diesel (10-15 ppm)!

Comparison of filters used to collect particulate matter emissions from buses meeting different tailpipe emission standards:

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 !

§  Fuel and technology (40)!§  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)!

§  Emission performance: compared to diesel Euro IV (70)!§  PM, NOx, HC, CO, CO2, BC, CH4, N2O (10

each)!§  Fuel consumption (l/100km) (10)!

19

§  Cost evaluation: compared to diesel !§  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)!

§  To rank the option the criteria categories were assigned individual weightings, for example:!

!

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!

!

20

§  Scenarios for costs, emissions, and health analysis were crafted from this technical selection!

!

Rank Phase I (2013-2020)

Phase II (2020-2030)

1 Hybrid diesel Euro IV

Electric bus

2 Diesel Euro IV Hybrid diesel Euro VI

3 LPG Euro V Clean diesel Euro VI

!

Technology options: Scenarios!

21

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!

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$(& /0/1!2'#1%',&)1.+$/(%&4'%".& /1!!1".",&#41+"&#"4&,1%"4& '2(!$%&,3!4!56&7!#0/!,89:!*EF&#41+"&#"4&,1%"4& 56&7!#0#,89:!G,"+%41+1%@&#41+"&#"4&CHB& ';!$%&,<=->(0';!56&7,<=-!

!

Cost of ownership: Capital cost inputs – Buses!

Bus purchase cost, $USD

Source: Data from Brazil (EgisRail, 2010)

$- !

$50,000 !

$100,000 !

$150,000 !

$200,000 !

$250,000 !

$300,000 !

$350,000 !

$400,000 !

Baseline Diesel!

Biodiesel! Clean Diesel!

Hybrid! LPG! Trolley!

$USD!

Low!High!

Cost of ownership: Capital cost inputs – Infrastructure!

Infrastructure costs: Fuel Station/Electric Grid, $USD

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)

$- !

$5,000,000 !

$10,000,000 !

$15,000,000 !

$20,000,000 !

$25,000,000 !

Baseline Diesel!

Biodiesel! Clean Diesel!

Hybrid! LPG! Trolley!

$USD!

Low!

High!

Cost of ownership: Operating cost input- Bus maintenance !

Bus maintenance cost per km, $USD

Notes on trolley buses: -  Assuming 50 buses and 18 km of electric grid -  Maintenance cost for trolleys: $30,000 per annum (SFMTA data)

$- !

$0.10 !

$0.20 !

$0.30 !

$0.40 !

$0.50 !

$0.60 !

$0.70 !

$0.80 !

$0.90 !

Baseline Diesel!

Biodiesel! Clean Diesel! Hybrid! LPG! Trolley!

$USD/km!

Low!High!

Cost of ownership: Results – Cost per km for 100 buses, Nairobi!

Note: Assuming 100 buses and 18 km of Electric grid

$0.00 !

$0.50 !

$1.00 !

$1.50 !

$2.00 !

$2.50 !

Baseline Diesel!

Biodiesel! Clean Diesel! Hybrid! LPG! Electric Trolley!

$USD

!

Fuel Station/Elec. Grid Maintenance! Bus Maintenance!Fuel! Operator Wages!Bus Overhaul Costs! Capital Special Maintenance Tools!Capital Fuel Station/Elec. Grid! Capital Bus Purchase!

$1.65 ! $1.71 ! $1.70 ! $1.71 !$1.86 ! $1.81 !

$0.00 !

$0.50 !

$1.00 !

$1.50 !

$2.00 !

$2.50 !

Baseline Diesel!

Biodiesel! Clean Diesel! Hybrid! LPG! Electric Trolley!

Cost of ownership: Effects of fleet size and BRT corridor length!

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

Inputs: •  Bus fleet: 10, 50, 100,

200, 400 •  BRT corridor (trolleys): 12 km, 24 km and 48 km

$1.00 !

$1.50 !

$2.00 !

$2.50 !

$3.00 !

$3.50 !

$4.00 !

0! 100! 200! 300! 400! 500!

Cost

($/k

m)!

Fleet size!

Cost per km, $USD!

Baseline Diesel!

Biodiesel !

Clean Diesel!

Hybrid!

LPG!

Electric Trolley!

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!

!

0.0%!

5.0%!

10.0%!

15.0%!

20.0%!

25.0%!

30.0%!

Baseline Diesel!

Biodiesel ! Clean Diesel! Hybrid! LPG! Electric Trolley!

40 ft Bus!60 ft Bus!

Results – Total Annual Cost, Nairobi!

$0!

$5!

$10!

$15!

$20!

$25!

$30!

2010! 2015! 2020! 2025! 2030! 2035!

$USD

!M

illio

ns!

NAIROBI - ANNUAL COST - BRT scenarios!

BRT 1 (Euro III diesel)!

BRT 2 (Clean diesel)!

BRT 3 (Hybrid diesel)!

BRT 4 (LPG)!

BRT 5 (diesel+trolley)!

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! $9,600,000! $11,000,000! $9,700,000!

Addis Ababa! $0.79/lliter! 237! $17,500,00! $18,900,000! $20,000,000! $25,300,000! $22,400,000!

- 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!

34

§  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!

Summary of stock and VKT assumptions!

§  The following values are used in the model for 2010 stock and VKT:!

35

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 8,133 Taxis 50,000

Minibuses 18,000 Light-duty Trucks 30,000

Urban Buses (non-BRT) 15,000 Heavy-duty Trucks 60,000

Motorcycles 7,000 BRT Buses 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.!

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!§  2000-2004: 2,500-ppm!§  2005-2009: 2,000-ppm!§  2010-2014: 350-ppm!§  2015-2050: 50-ppm (in line with regional commitments)!

§  Vehicle control fractions – identical for all vehicles except BRT buses!§  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:!

38

Mode Assumed load

factor Passenger Cars 1.5!

Taxis 1.8!Minibuses 7!

Urban Buses (non-BRT) 75!Motorcycles 1!BRT Buses 75!

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!

§  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.!

40

City Assumed BRT bus

demand, 2030 Nairobi 295!

Kampala 100!Addis Ababa 237!

0!

50!

100!

150!

200!

250!

300!

350!

2010! 2015! 2020! 2025! 2030! 2035!

Population of BRT Buses!

BRT Phase 2!

BRT Phase 1!

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 technologiesPM2.5!

42

Results: Nairobi – BRT technologiesNOx!

43

Results: Nairobi – BRT technologiesFuel Consumption!

44

Results: Nairobi – BRT technologiesFuel Consumption Reduction!

45

Results: Nairobi – BRT vs. no BRTEmissions!

46

Results: Nairobi, BRT vs. No BRT fuel consumption!

47

-25!

-20!

-15!

-10!

-5!

0!

5!

10!

2010! 2015! 2020! 2025! 2030! 2035!

mill

ion

liter

s!

Difference in fuel consumption between !no BRT and BRT cases!

BRT 1 (diesel)!

BRT 2 (diesel)!

BRT 3 (diesel)!

BRT 4 (diesel)!

BRT 4 (LPG)!

BRT 5 (diesel)!

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!

52

§  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!

!

Approach: Health benefits assessment!

53

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!

Approach: Health benefits valuation!

54

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 meta-

analysis 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 !

Table: Select benefit valuation inputs

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.

Results – Cumulative and annual health benefits in 2035 !

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!

59

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 !

!

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.  Hughes, Colin and Xianyuan Zhu. Guangzhou, China Bus Rapid Transit Emissions Impact Analysis. The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP): May 2011.!

2.  Button, K (1993). Transport Economics. Hants, England; Brookfield, Vt. Aldershot.

Results – Time savings benefits, Nairobi!

Findings and conclusions!

Findings: Nairobi- Annual cost in 2035 vs. annual benefits for clean technologies*!

62

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!


$24.6! $0.07 to $0.7!

$24! $6.6!

* This assessment does not include the cost of BRT infrastructure (road, stations, ticketing system etc…)

All values in 2011 million $/year

Findings: Kampala- Annual cost in 2035 vs. annual benefits for clean technologies*!

63





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!


$9.6! $0.02 to 0.22! $6.3! $3.4!


$9.7! $0.02 to 0.22! $7.5! $3.4!



Findings: Addis Ababa- Annual cost in 2035 vs. annual benefits for clean technologies*!

64





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!


$20! $0.14 to 1.5!!

$10.7! $7.7!


$22.4! $0.14 to 1.5!!

$12.7! $7.7!



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 Africa-wide 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!

69

Phase 1: 2013-2020!

Phase 2: 2020-2030!

§  Feasibility scores determined for each technology and each city:!

!"#$#% &"'("#$#% )*+,"(-.,'/0 -.,'/1 -.,'/11 -.,'/111 -.,'/12 -.,'/12 -.,'/12 -.,'/12 -.,'/2 -.,'/21

34",'+" 560 565 565 575 589 5:; 5<6 5:= 577 587>4?@4%4 556 559 559 569 5:6 3A 57= 3A 3A 3A

A(("$/A+4+4 5;8 5;8 5;8 598 57; 3A 58; 3A 3A 3A

&4$#%"B#/!"#$#% CDEF"G*

!"#$%&' !"#$%' !"#$%'& !"#$%&' !"#$%' !"#$%'& !"#$%&' !"#$%' !"#$%'&()*#$+* ,-. ,-/ .01 ,/2 ,3/ ,44 .04 .01 .,56)78)9) ,/3 ,35 ,44 (: (: (: ,35 ,33 ,42

:;;*<%:+)+) ,20 ,2- ,-4 (: (: (: ,-5 ,-4 .02

=*>?@*A<A9 B*$;*A<A9 C?+#*; !9ADE%B"<

!"#$%&' !"#$%' !"#$%'&,42 ,-0 .00 .,5

(: (: (: ,2/(: (: (: .11

FGH