Andrew Kelly Luke Redmond23rd / 24th March 2009

NIAM – 2nd Meeting at Laxenburg

Plans for the development of a policy and measures resource tailored toward the needs of the AQ/GHG modelling and policymaking

communities

www.PolicyMeasures.comwww.PolicyMeasures.com

Outline

Part 1

• Overview of concept and desired outcome• Note on scope and scale of the resource• Possible approach to managing contributions

Part 2

• Provisional structure of overall site• Sample structure for measure information

Concept

Modelling guides, policy & measures research and related work

Resource principally for modellers and policy teams

Open access but moderated resource

Not a discussion forum – Network is too small

Scope and Scale

General information on all types of measures (categories)

Including guides and material related to modelling and policy for AQ / GHG

No threshold on scale as of yet, but keeping the focus on the needs of the modelling and policy communities linked to NECD & Gothenburg for the moment

Referenced detail of measure information adapted for use by the modelling and policy communities

Desired Outcome

Maintain a progressively building and evolving resource

At a minimum we will track and include work most relevant to Ireland

Passive information exchange from International modelling and policy research

Provide support to developing modelling teams

Managing Contributions

Data submissions for policies/measures will need flexible but clear templates for different kinds of measures (part 2)

What we need

Once we have developed a reasonable level of content we can consider the second phase of development and how to manage access

Submissions should be restricted to an initial group prepared to make some contribution. We (Ireland) are prepared to devote quite a bit of time initially

Uploads of guides and papers should also undergo some peer review (or have appropriate caveats)

Part 2Provisional Site Structure

Provisional structure of information

Broad Concept of Site Structure

Elements of “Static” Content

• Potential tags/categories for filtering/analysing measures

• Potential “parameterising” measures

Technical Non-technical

Community Based National based

Locally based Sectoral focus

Pollutant focus Theory or applied

Infrastructure provision Type of economic instrument

Short term measure (implementation) Long term measure (implementation)

Direct costs Welfare impacts (economic, social, health)

Indirect costs – what boundaries? Other benefits (e.g. reduced congestion)

Control strategy impact Demand impact

Fuel mix impact Removal efficiency

Applicability Effect over time

Political feasibility Synergy factor with other measures

Example of Website Measure ElementsQuality Bus Corridor

• Infrastructural Measure – Transport Focused

• Quality bus corridors can be implemented as policy measures in any urban centre provided there exists a public bus network. Constraints can exist where existing single lane systems are in place and space to expand is limited.

• Quality bus corridors (QBCs) are generally designed to encourage modal shift amongst commuters from private cars to public buses with the goal of reducing traffic congestion.

• A secondary effect of QBCs – if successful in delivering this modal shift – can be to reduce private transport demand and associated emissions.

Measure Type Tagging the measure

Level of Measure Application Possibilities and limitations

Aim Objectives of the measure

• QBCs can result in an indirect reduction of all associated car emissions.

• In many urban areas, political and infrastructural restrictions have limited the feasibility of road pricing as a response to urban congestion. As a result the allocation of dedicated road space to bus transportation has emerged as a second-best option. Such initiatives are generally referred to as quality bus corridors (QBC) or bus rapid transit systems (BRT).

• A QBC is a dedicated bus lane which operates separately from all other traffic modes. QBCs aim to

reduce passenger journey time from their set out location to their final destination. QBCs give priority to buses and save journey time where roads are congested with other traffic.

• If the public bus network is to be seen as a viable alternative to the private car through the implementation of QBCs, QBC operators must ensure that in addition to reduced journey time the QBC network must offer increased service frequency, comfort, safety and value for money.

• QBCs are normally developed along major route ways into and out off large urban centres. Development along such route ways is prioritised over minor route ways due to the close proximity of large population/commuter catchment areas to major route ways. If QBCs are to be successful and achieve significant modal shift it is critical that private car users are able to access the bus network with relative inconvenience.

Pollutant Focus Pollutants influenced

Measure Description General information

Air Quality

• Significant modal shift from private car to QBC services should result in reduced car emissions in urban centres which will contribute to improving air quality.

Reduced Congestion

• Policy makers sometimes target reducing urban traffic congestion through the use of HOV (high occupancy vehicles) or car pooling. HOV generally refers to a situation where more than one commuter occupies a single vehicle.

• HOVs are permitted to travel on special road lanes set aside purely for use by HOVs. As a result HOVs benefit from quicker journey times in comparison to single occupancy vehicles.

• Policy makers believe that the less congested freer flowing HOV lanes will act as an incentive to single drivers to car pool in order to reduce their commute time. It is at policy makers’ discretion to determine the minimum occupancy for a HOV.

• The policy debate concerning the implementation and operation of QBCs often cite that these corridors may be simultaneously used as a dedicated free way for HOVs. This can provide complications though with respect to the free flowing nature of the QBC for the bus service.

Policy Synergy Policy overlaps to consider

May require definitions for parameters such as:

• Demand factor e.g. Alteration to energy demand – reduced passenger car travel• Switch Factor e.g. Alteration to energy balance – possible increase in bus energy• Control Factor e.g. No perceived impact on the control strategy • Costs e.g. Work is ongoing on a ‘manageable’ approach to cost

Also may need to consider the following:

• Temporal variation e.g. Sustained impact over time or changing?• Synergy with package e.g. QBC with parking and road pricing measure• Defining applicability e.g. Political acceptability, state of existing infrastructure

• McDonnell, S. (2006) The use of bus priority measures as a policy instrument to mitigate transport-generated externalities, Unpublished PhD Thesis, School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Policy, UCD Dublin: Dublin.

Modelling Parameters How do we represent the impact of the measure?

References Allow for evidence-led development

Contact

AP EnvEconNovaUCDBelfield, Dublin 4Ireland

Andrew.Kelly@APEnvEcon.com

Luke.Redmond@APEnvEcon.com

www.APEnvEcon.com

www.IMPIreland.ie