[sustran] CDM Projects (Clean Development Mechanism) - public transport

[Todd Alexander Litman]

Thanks Carlos.

Yes, I think it is critical to understand and manage travel demand. 
There is a lot of specific information on ways to do this in our 
Online TDM Encyclopedia (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm ). It is important 
to understand and apply these strategies in order to maximize the 
effectiveness and benefits of transit investments. For example, 
simply building a busway or train line may do little to reduce 
automobile travel, energy consumption and pollution emissions if we 
fail to create transit oriented development 
(http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm45.htm ) around the stations, and to 
improve complementary modes such as walking and cycling ( 
http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm25.htm ). Equally important is to 
implement pricing reforms, such as higher fuel taxes 
(http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm17.htm ) parking pricing 
(http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm26.htm ), road pricing 
(http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm35.htm ) and distance-based insurance and 
registration fees (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm10.htm ). These and 
other mobility management strategies both support and are supported 
by investments in high quality transit services.

In other words, we should not support transit improvements alone, but 
as part of an integrated program that rationalizes transport. 
Unfortunately, this requires more coordination than currently exists. 
For example, transit investments usually depend on a combination of 
local, regional and federal funds, transit oriented development 
generally depends on local and private investor actions, fuel taxes 
generally require state/provincial and federal action, parking 
pricing generally requires local action, road pricing requires local 
and regional action, and distance-based pricing requires reforms by 
regulators and private companies. It will therefore require 
institutional reforms and creative incentives.

This is not to suggest that such changes are impossible. They are all 
justified for multiple reasons: congestion reduction, road and 
parking facility cost savings, accident reductions, equity 
objectives, improved consumer options and affordability, and support 
for various other planning objectives, and so are the best overall 
emission reduction solutions (http://www.vtpi.org/ster.pdf ). They 
are "Win-Win" strategies 
(<http://www.vtpi.org/wwclimate.pdf>www.vtpi.org/wwclimate.pdf ). In 
other words, they help increase transportation overall system 
efficiency. However, we will need to be creative and build new partnerships.


Best wishes,
-Todd Litman


At 02:23 PM 29/11/2008, Carlosfelipe Pardo wrote:
>Hi,
>
>This discussion goes directly to the issue of what measures can have 
>a long term (positive) effect in transport. Recently I've been 
>having discussions with city planners and urbanists about it, and to 
>an extent they may be right when they say that before jumping to 
>measures on transport one should work on the purposes of trips and 
>how to reduce those trips. This would be similar to the shift from 
>purely technological measures (i.e. change the bus, use cleaner 
>fuels) to more demand-based measures. In this case, it would be 
>going further back and asking why demand is there and trying to 
>reduce those motives (the typical answer being higher densities and 
>mixed land uses, etc, but more measures can be implemented!). It may 
>be easier to work on this with high-income population than 
>low-income (similar to the Annex I and Non-Annex I issue), but the 
>former are those who are more mobile than the latter and probably 
>more polluting in some cases.
>
>A related anecdote: I was once in a conversation with an employee of 
>a UN agency who worked in transport. He told us that he loved his 
>4500 cc car, and that regardless of increasing fuel prices he'd 
>still come to the office by car. Thankfully, he was seldom at the office...
>
>The above is not really a novel idea, but good to think about it in 
>the context of carbon, transport and financing, and what to do and 
>discuss in Copenhaguen (all the best to those who can make it there).
>
>Best regards,
>
>Carlos
>
>
>Todd Alexander Litman wrote:
>>I agree with Lee on two points. First, investments in alternative 
>>modes by themselves are an inefficient way to conserve energy and 
>>reduce emissions. It is far more important to implement pricing 
>>reforms which discourage automobile travel and encourage the 
>>purchase of more efficient vehicles then to simply invest in public 
>>transit, since only about 5% of fuel savings result from shifts to 
>>public transit - the rest results from other changes such as the 
>>purchase of more efficient vehicles, and shifts to walking, 
>>cycling, ridesharing, and closer destinations.
>>
>>Second, public transit service improvements are justified on many 
>>other grounds besides climate change emissions, so focusing on this 
>>one objective would result in underinvestment in public transit. It 
>>is far better to justify public transit improvements due to their 
>>economic and social benefits (congestion reduction, road and 
>>parking facility cost savings, consumer savings, accident 
>>reductions, improved mobility for non-drivers) rather than focusing 
>>on energy conservation and emission reduction benefits.
>>
>>That being said, climate change concerns are stimulating a lot of 
>>rethinking about transportation planning goals and practices. If 
>>the CDM can help justify some additional investment in efficient 
>>transportation, I'm all for it. Ideally, climate change emission 
>>reduction advocates should work with other interest groups 
>>(economic development, traffic safety, equity, public health, 
>>consumer interests, etc.) to build support for the substantial 
>>changes required to create truly sustainable transportation systems.
>>
>>Let me tell you a related story. I'm currently writing a paper 
>>concerning methods for monetizing (measuring in monetary units) 
>>carbon emissions. There are two general approaches: damage costs, 
>>which may be hundreds of dollars per tonne, and control costs, 
>>which are probably much lower, perhaps $30-50 per tonne. A 
>>colleague wants to use the higher value for analysis because he 
>>assumes that will justify greater reductions in vehicle travel, but 
>>I'm not convinced. A very high climate change value will justify 
>>technical solutions that ONLY reduce emissions (such as regulations 
>>and incentives that increase fuel efficiency or shifts to 
>>alternative fuels) since the high value implies that climate change 
>>is the dominant, while a lower value will justify more mobility 
>>management solutions that reduce total vehicle travel and therefore 
>>help achieve multiple planning objectives.
>>
>>For more information see:
>>"Win-Win Transportation Emission Reduction Strategies" 
>>(<http://www.vtpi.org/wwclimate.pdf>www.vtpi.org/wwclimate.pdf )
>>"Smart Transportation Emission Reduction Strategies" 
>>(<http://www.vtpi.org/ster.pdf>www.vtpi.org/ster.pdf )
>>"Carbon Taxes: Tax What You Burn, Not What You Earn" 
>>(<http://www.vtpi.org/carbontax.pdf>www.vtpi.org/carbontax.pdf )
>>
>>
>>Best wishes,
>>-Todd Litman
>>
>>
>>At 09:24 AM 23/11/2008, Lee Schipper wrote:
>>
>>>Why would you want public transport in CDM, when the 
>>>values/costs/benefits of time saved, lower air pollution, less 
>>>noise, greater rider security and safety etc DWARF the carbon 
>>>values...and when adding a CDM component slows the entire 
>>>improvement of transport down immensely while all of us don our 
>>>green visors and count carbon.
>>>
>>>Counting that carbon is VERY hard 
>>>(http://embarq.wri.org/en/Article.140.aspx examined some of these 
>>>issues including a paper we wrote for the 2007 ECEEE conference on 
>>>measuring CO2 emissions CHANGES from transport projects).
>>>
>>>I'm VERY worried about CO2 in transport, but I'm convinced CDM and 
>>>like process that link to "carbon finance" either slow the process 
>>>down (see GEF grant progress), put too much focus on reducing CO2 
>>>rather than improving transport (they are not the same), filter 
>>>our vision to projects whose carbon savings are relatively to 
>>>measure (hybrid buses, proven but expensive) or ones with tiny and 
>>>often questionable savings (like small additions of biodiesel to bus fuel).
>>>
>>>I'm not against rewarding carbon saving or efforts at mass 
>>>transit, but the proportions of $ for carbon are tiny compared to 
>>>the overall pot of time, transport, urban development.  Can Mexico 
>>>City honestly say that their Metrobus was "additional", ie., would 
>>>not have been undertaken to save $$ millions in saved time, 
>>>accidents, local air pollution, reduced numbers of cars on the 
>>>road (according to a nice report by the Instituto Nacional de 
>>>Ecologia published in 2006) for a few hundred thousand $ of carbon 
>>>finance funds arranged after the fact?
>>>
>>>Juerg Gruetter has made a good case for CDM and carbon financing 
>>>of BRT projects, but in the end these only affect a small amount 
>>>of CO2 (in buses) and, while they draw a modest number of riders 
>>>from cars, still leave the rest of cars untouched. My fear is that 
>>>CDM draws interest to those easily bankable projects and away from 
>>>the much greater challenge, use of cars and other light duty vehicles.
>>>
>>>In four Latin American cities (Mexico City region, Bogota, S 
>>>Paulo, and Santiago) cars and taxis appear to account for 65-70% 
>>>of all direct GHG emissions from road traffic (including 
>>>trucks).  Without policies and projects that reduce that traffic 
>>>(and its growth) SIGNIFICANTLY, the savings from 'urban transport 
>>>projects" in general will be small.  Since most fo the carbon is 
>>>in cars, most of the change has to come from cars. How do you 
>>>measure that and sell the results against a rapidly growing 
>>>baseline? And cars and trucks are not "cdm-able", i.e., owned by 
>>>the kinds of entities that can be part of CDM directly. Of course 
>>>$$ could be given to cities who undertook strong transport 
>>>measures, but again, why would they not undertake those measures 
>>>anyway? And why would national governments not want to promulgate 
>>>fuel economy standards to save oil?
>>>
>>>In short, is this really about $$ or political will?
>>>Finally, consider the following very rough numbers that illustrate 
>>>the scale of the problem.
>>>    * World GDP 60 Trillion (until the crash)
>>>    * World gross investment $10 TN (remember buildings burn 
>>> energy leading to CO2 emissions, too)
>>>    * Investments in transport infrastructure (road, rail, port, 
>>> air, facilities like transfer stations) - my guess $1-2 TN
>>>    * World purchase of private household transport equipment $1TN 
>>> (40 mn cars $25 000/car)
>>>    * World purchase of road fuels (roughly 2 TN)
>>>
>>>Are we really talking about  putting hundreds of billions YEARLY 
>>>into doing what is the right thing even if CO2 was not a problem. 
>>>Conversely, if we had a CO2 free fuel tomorrow, we'd still have a 
>>>traffic mess worldwide. So maybe focusing on transport and Co2, 
>>>rather than more broadly clean development - and understanding why 
>>>developing cities' traffic is such a mess even before CO2 is 
>>>considered - is higher on the agenda. If there are going to be N-S 
>>>transfers, aka Overseas Development Assistance, is CO2 "abatement" 
>>>the most cost effective way of using money for development?
>>>
>>>Realistically, how can CDM have more than a demonstration effect? 
>>>If so, then let's forget CDM as such and move to  a wider effort to
>>>
>>>Demonstrate various regional policy and technical solutions, 
>>>investing (for once) in enough competence building and data 
>>>gathering so localities can monitor traffic, emissions, fuel, 
>>>safety etc better. Our EMBARQ project in se Asia (PSUTA) 
>>>discovered that authorities' ability to monitor even the most 
>>>elementary problems of transport was pretty meager 
>>>--http://embarq.wri.org/en/ProjectCitiesDetail.aspx?id=9
>>>
>>>Some of these issues will be discussed at the upcoming COP (Dec 
>>>5). Maybe Climate negotiations are not the right place to decide 
>>>how to use the streets? There will also be a spirited discussion 
>>>during Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting in Washington 
>>>DC, both during the meeting itself and at a special side event 
>>>Friday 16 January.  This note is copied to several of those 
>>>involved in these discussions. Watch this space!
>>>
>>>Lee Schipper, Ph.D
>>>Project Scientist
>>>Global Metropolitan Studies
>>>2614 Dwight Way 2nd floor
>>>University of California Berkeley
>>>CA 94720-1782 USA
>>>TEL +1 510 642 6889
>>>FAX +1 510 642 6061
>>>CELL +1 202 262 7476
>>>
>>
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>Todd Alexander Litman
>>Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
>>litman at vtpi.org
>>Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
>>1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
>>"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
>>-------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT 
>>NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS.
>>Please go to 
>>http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the 
>>real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The 
>>yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot 
>>post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site 
>>makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement.
>>
>>================================================================
>>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, 
>>equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing 
>>countries (the 'Global South').
>>
>

Sincerely,
Todd Alexander Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
litman at vtpi.org
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"