Proyecto metrobus

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

page 1

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-PDD)

Version 03 - in effect as of: 28 July 2006

CONTENTS

A. General description of project activity B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period D. Environmental impacts E. Stakeholders’ comments

Annexes

Annex 1: Contact information on participants in the project activity Annex 2: Information regarding public funding Annex 3: Baseline information

Annex 4: Monitoring plan



page 2

SECTION A. General description of project activity A.1. Title of the project activity: BRT Metrobus 2-13, Mexico Version 1.3 23/07/2012

A.2. Description of the project activity: The objective of the BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) Metrobus Lines 2-13 in the Zona Metropolitana del Valle de México (ZMVM)1 is to establish an efficient, safe, rapid, convenient, comfortable and effective modern mass transit system based on a BRT system. The ZMVM has nearly 20 million inhabitants2. The PDD includes the BRT lines 2 to 13 of Metrobus. Line 1 (Insurgentes) due to emission contract agreement reasons has been presented separately and is already a registered CDM project3. The project transports by 2020 annually around 330 million passengers. The geographical boundary of the project is the greater metropolitan area of the city of Mexico known as ZMVM. Gases included are CO2 and CH4. Core aspects of the project are: � A new infrastructure consisting of 13 BRT bus-only routes with a total length of 215 kilometres

serviced by new articulated and on one line 12m buses Euro 3 or Euro 4 diesel buses4 with at-level boarding and alighting, real-time next bus information displays, pre-board ticketing and fare verification and rechargeable electronic cards for payment to streamline the boarding process.

� Equipment and turnstiles at the entrance to each trunk station deduct the corresponding fare. � Centralized coordinated fleet control providing monitoring and communications to schedule services

and real-time response to contingencies along trunk routes. The pre-project situation is around 3.5 million passenger cars, 180,000 motorcycles, more than 150,000 taxis and around 120,000 public transit buses plying the city5 plus various metro lines.6In the baseline the passengers would use existing modes of transport including conventional buses, taxis, cars, motorcycles, rail-based MRTS (Mass Rapid Transit System, basically metro) and Non-Motorized Transport (NMT) thus causing baseline trip emissions in absence of the project. In the baseline situation these modes of transport would continue to operate. The baseline scenario is comparable to the situation prior to the project. The baseline scenario however incorporates technological advancements in terms of emissions per distance driven of various modes of transport as well as eventual fuel changes of baseline modes of transport during the project activity.

1 Greater Mexico City 2 Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática, 2005 census 3 Project 4945 4 File 18 5 File 1 6 Source: Delimitación de las zonas metropolitanas de México 2005; SEDESOL,INEGI, CONAPO; 2005 (see File 16)



page 3

In the project situation the BRT complements other modes of transport and replaces partially trips made by conventional means of transit. The CDM project replaces trips made by conventional transport modes with the BRT being a more efficient, faster, safer and more reliable transport means. Leakage emissions are caused potentially by changes of congestion and speed resulting potentially in a rebound and a speed effect plus potential change of load factors of remaining buses and taxis in the city. Emission reductions are achieved through reducing GHG (Greenhouse Gases) emissions per passenger-kilometre, comparing conventional modes of transport with the BRT. The BRT system has as main environmental aspect that the resource efficiency of transporting passengers in Mexico City is improved i.e. emissions per passenger kilometre are reduced compared to the situation without project. This is realized through following changes: � Improved efficiency: new and larger buses are used which have an improved fuel efficiency per PKM

(Passenger-Kilometre) compared with buses used in absence of the project. � Mode switching: The BRT system is more attractive to clients due to reduced transport times7,

increased safety and reliability and more attractive buses. It can thus attract private car, motorcycle and taxi users with higher emission rates to switch to public transport8.

� Load increase or change in occupancy: The BRT has a centrally managed organisation dispatching vehicles. The occupancy rate of vehicles can thus be increased due to organizational measures. The baseline public transit system is characterized through a large number of private companies competing for the same passengers resulting in an oversupply of buses and low occupation rates.

The BRT Metrobus is a public-private partnership (PPP), in which the public sector is responsible for the investment to deploy the required infrastructure (segregated lanes, stations, terminals, control centre etc.), and the private sector invests in buses, the ticket selling and validation system, and investment to operate the services. The system is managed by Metrobus a decentralized public organism created by the Federal District March 20059. The project contributes to sustainable development in a significant manner: � Improved environment through less GHG and other air pollutant emissions, specifically particle

matter, NOx and sulphur dioxide. This is achieved through a more efficient transport system and through new buses.

� Improved social wellbeing as a result of less time lost in congestion, less respiratory diseases due to less particle matter pollution, less noise pollution and fewer accidents per passenger transported.

� Less accidents due to improved public transit organization and management. � Economic benefits mainly on a macroeconomic level basically by reducing the economic costs of

congestion.

Average expected emission reductions of the project are 134,601 tCO2 avoided per annum.

7 Estimation of Metrobus is 33% of savings in travel time (File 15, p.26 see also same File p.31) 8 See File 15, p.33 9 File 17



page 4

A.3. Project participants:

Name of Party involved

(*) ((host) indicates a

host Party)

Private and/or public entity(ies)

project participants (*)

(as applicable)

Kindly indicate if the Party

involved wishes to be

considered as project

participant (Yes/No)

Mexico (host) Metrobus (public entity) No Mexico Bienes Inmuebles y Tecnología S.A de C.V. (BITSA)

(private entity)

No

Switzerland Grütter Consulting AG (private entity) No

A.4. Technical description of the project activity:

A.4.1. Location of the project activity:

A.4.1.1. Host Party(ies): Mexico A.4.1.2. Region/State/Province etc.: Federal District A.4.1.3. City/Town/Community etc.:

Mexico City A.4.1.4. Details of physical location, including information allowing the

unique identification of this project activity (maximum one page):

The spatial extent of the project is, according to the methodology, the larger urban zone of Mexico City which corresponds to the larger metropolitan area of Mexico City known as ZMVM. The spatial area includes the trip origins and destinations of passengers using Metrobus BRT. While the BRT lines of the project are located in the Federal District the project boundary according to ACM0016 encompasses the entire trip of passengers using the project MRTS i.e. from trip origin to trip destination. Latter can be everywhere in the ZMVM as passengers use partially the system e.g. to get downtown in the DF (Distrito Federal) from their home located e.g. in Estado de Mexico. The geographical coordinates of Mexico City are Latitude 19.4111 and Longitude -99.1167 (equivalent to 19°25’ North and 99°07’ West).



page 5

Map 1: ZMVM

Source: Gobierno del Distrito Federal (GDF), Oficialia Mayor (File 19), Green outlined border of ZMVM

The BRT line included in the project as well as corresponding map is listed in section B.3. A.4.2. Category(ies) of project activity: Sectoral scope 7

A.4.3. Technology to be employed by the project activity:

To compare the pre-project with the project situation a description of the pre-project situation as well as of main features of the project is made.



page 6

Pre-Project Situation The pre-project scenario is the usage of LPG (Liquified Petroleum Gas), diesel, gasoline and electric trolleybuses, taxis, passenger cars, motorcycles, metro, suburban train and NMT (Non-Motorized Transit) for transit purposes. All of these transit modes are partially substituted by the project. The baseline situation is that in absence of the project activity these modes of transit would continue to operate being renovated under BAU (Business As Usual). This is reflected in the technology improvement factor applied to baseline emission factors per mode of transport. Figure 1 shows the trip modes used currently in ZMVM. Around 69% of trips are made by public transit (including taxis) and 31% by private transit, basically passenger cars. Of the share of public transit trips around 67% are made with conventional buses (excluding already operating Metrobus BRT lines which has only 1%), 17% by taxi and 15% by metro to name the most important.

Figure 1: Trip Modes Used in ZMVM 2008

Source: GDF, 2008 (File 21) 1984 the share of public transit in all trips was still 80%10. This share has dropped by 11 percentage points to 69% in 200711. The dramatic increase of private modes of transport and the corresponding relative decrease of public transit is a consequence of increased wealth but just as important also due to the

10 File 22, p.8 11 File 21

Buses

46%

Metrobús BRT

1%

Metro

10%

Taxi

12%

Passenger car

29%

Motorcycle

0%

Bike

2%



page 7

deficiencies of the current public transit system. The pre-project public transit system based on buses lacks organization, is managed in an informal manner and lacks safety and convenience for users. The shift towards private transport means is also a reflection of the focus of public investment on providing infrastructure for private vehicles basically.

The bus system is composed to around 1/3rd each of small12, medium13 and large buses14 (see Figure 2)15. The trend in ZMVM has been towards the usage of smaller units with the corresponding higher emissions per PKM in terms of GHGs as well as local pollutants. 1986 the share of small buses was only 6% of trips and that of larger units 42% while in the year 2000 small units had 55% of all trips and larger units only 9%16. The average EF per PKM (Passenger-Kilometre) of a small bus is 30 gCO2/PKM while that of a large bus is 21 gCO2/PKM or 30% less17. The baseline trend of the bus system is thus worsening and not improving in Mexico. Figure 2: Bus Types Used in ZMVM (2006)

Source: Secretaría del Medio Ambiente del GDF, 2006, File 1; bus capacity see File 89a/b

12 Named Combis or colectivos, capacity of 20 passengers (see capacity File 89a Art.38. p.10 indicates that max 70% of passengers of seating capacity can stand; Combis have a seating capacity of 12 and thus 20 total capacity; see File 89b) 13 Named Micros o Microbus with a capacity of 50 passengers (see capacity File 89a Art.38. p.10 indicates that max 70% of passengers of seating capacity can stand; Micros have a seating capacity of 29 and thus 50 total capacity; see File 89b) 14 Capacity of 85 passengers including 400 electric trolleybuses (see capacity File 89a Art.38. p.10 indicates that max 70% of passengers of seating capacity can stand; Large buses have a seating capacity of 50 and thus 85 total capacity; see File 89b) 15 Small buses are called “colectivos” and have a capacity of 20 passengers; medium buses are called “busetas” or “Micros” or “Minibus” and have a capacity of 50 passengers 16 SETRAVI, p. 29 (File 24) 17 File 8 based on SFC of buses in Mexico City and assuming 50% occupation rate of each unit type.

small buses

33%

medium

buses

30%

large buses

37%



page 8

Photo 1: Combis (small buses), Micros (medium buses) and Autobús (large buses)

Small buses are basically gasoline, medium ones gasoline or LPG and large buses diesel powered18. Around 50% of large diesel buses thereby are prior EPA 98 (equivalent to Euro 3) and around 1/3rd are Euro 1 or prior19. Buses are to a large extent small and medium units leading to having an overall average occupation rate of public transit of only 9 passengers20. Also a surplus offer of public transit buses exists reflected in the low average occupation rate of only 17% which shows the inefficiency of the system21. Project System The BRT Metrobus is a public-private partnership (PPP), in which the public sector is responsible for the investment to deploy the required infrastructure (segregated lanes, stations, terminals, control centre etc.), and the private sector invests in buses, the ticket selling and validation system, and investment to operate the services. The system is managed by Metrobus a decentralized public organism created by the Federal District March 200522. From an organizational viewpoint the system has regulators, managers and operators:

1. Secretaria del Medio Ambiente del Gobierno del Distrito Federal - SMA (Secretariat of Environment)23 is the environmental authority of the Government of the Federal District, which issues technical concepts and authorizations regarding the mitigation measures of environmental impacts. Also the SMA promotes the design, coordination and implementation of projects that reduce Greenhouse Gases in the Federal District.

2. Secretaria de Obras y Servicios del Gobierno del Distrito Federal (Secretariat of Infrastructure

and Services)24 is a public entity, which is responsible for the construction of Metrobus System infrastructure, either with public or private funds.

3. Secretaria de Transporte y Vialidad del Gobierno del Distrito Federal- SETRAVI (Secretariat of

18 File 1 19 File 1c, table 4.3.5., p.103 20 File 8 21 File 8 22 File 17 23 http://www.sma.df.gob 24 http://www.obras.df.gob.mx/



page 9

Transport and Roads)25 is a public entity, which is in charge of regulating transport, and enabling policies and plans for the Federal District transport systems.

4. Metrobus26 is the system manager. Metrobus is a Public Decentralized Body of the Federal

District, which plans, manages and controls the BRT system in Mexico City.

5. Private operators which invest in buses and operate the trunk buses. Operators have contracts awarded in an open and competitive bidding process by Metrobus.

6. Private operators which acquires, installs and operates the ticketing and tariff system and is

responsible for the fare collection and distribution. The operators have contracts awarded in an open and competitive bidding process by Metrobus.

The entities that take part in the development and monitoring of the CDM Project are:

• Metrobus through the Deputy Manager of Toll System and New Technologies. This unit of the Department of Planning, Evaluation and Systems will be in charge of managing all data in relation to the CDM project.

• Grütter Consulting AG and Bienes Inmuebles y Tecnología S.A de C.V. (BITSA) are CDM project developers and project participants. BITSA and Grütter Consulting are responsible for the monitoring reports.

25 http://www.setravi.df.gob.mx/ 26 http://www.metrobus.df.gob.mx/



page 10

Figure 3: Organization Chart of the Project

Features of the BRT system include exclusive right-of-way lanes, rapid boarding and alighting, pre-board fare collection and fare verification, enclosed stations, clear route maps, real-time information displays, automatic vehicle location technology to manage vehicle movements, clean vehicle technologies and excellence in marketing and customer service. The technology deployed has 4 main components: Infrastructure, buses, transit management and fare system. Infrastructure The project includes 13 BRT lanes with a total of 215 km of exclusive separated bus lanes27 including new bus-stations. The following table lists the BRT trunk routes included in the project. Table 1: Project BRT Trunk Routes

Line trunk route Km construction start operation start phd28

2 Eje 4 Sur 20.0 9/2007 12/2008 6,000 3 Eje 1 Poniente 17.0 3/2010 2/2011 5,000 4 Centro Histórico 25.0 7/2011 1/2012 3,100 5a Eje 3 Oriente F1 10.0 2/2012 2013 4,000 5b Eje 3 Oriente F2 18.0 1/2013 2014 4,000 6 Eje 5 Norte 13.0 2014 2015 2,700

27 File 70 28 Passenger per Hour and Direction



page 11

7 Periférico Arco Oriente 20.0 2015 2016 6,000 8 Eje 5 Sur – Eje 6 Sur 28.0 2016 2017 2,600 9 Tláhuac - Chalco 16.0 2017 2018 3,200 10 M. A. de Quevedo 15.0 2018 2019 5,000 11 Miramontes 13.0 2019 2020 4,500 12 Eje 5 Poniente 8.0 2020 2021 3,600 13 AquilesSerdán 12.0 2021 2022 3,500

Source: File 23 Implementation date, length of the individual routes as well as routing might still change depending on evolving city development and planning. Each station has a modular design to ensure uniformity of the corridor’s image with obstacle-free waiting areas and elevated level-access to articulated buses with a high platform. All stations have access ramps for mobility-impaired passengers. Photo 2 shows a typical station on a BRT route of Metrobus. Photo 2: Insurgentes Bus Station

Map 2 shows all MRTS lines in Mexico City while map 3 shows all project lines. In the larger metropolitan area of Mexico City known as ZMVM 5 BRT lines are being planned by the “Secretaria de Comunicaciones del Estado de México”. 4 of these lines are included in the Map below under “Mexibus” (the 5th line is in the neighboring Toluca and therefore in another region not related to the Metrobus lines and is therefore not on the map).



page 12

Map 2: MRTS Lines Mexico City

Source: File 26 and 23b



page 13

Lines Mexibus Line Suburban train Metro Lines Metrobus Lines



page 14

Map 3: Project BRT Lines

-------Line 2-------Line 3-------Line 4------- Line 5a-------Line 5b-------Line 6-------Line 7-------Line 8 ------- Line 9-------Line 10-------Line 11------- Line 12-------Line 13 See also File 23b Bus Technology

Technology used is Euro III and IV diesel units. Buses are new articulated and 12m units with a capacity of 160 (articulated) and 80 (normal size) persons with platform-level access including room for disabled persons29. The type of technology used, Euro category, fuel used as well as bus size might change during project implementation depending on passenger demand, normative regulations and operational convenience. This is however no fundamental characteristic of the project. The project buses identified are thus buses as currently in use or planned while the project system might use other types of buses. 29 See File 18 in line with Norm NOM-044-SEMARNAT-2006 (File 25)



page 15

The emissions of Metrobus BRT buses are significantly lower compared to conventional baseline buses operating currently in Mexico, which are 1/3rd Euro I or elder and around 50% less than Euro III30. Figure 4 compares the emission of different Euro categories of HDVs (Heavy Duty Vehicles). Project vehicles thereby comply all with the standard Euro III or Euro IV. Particle matter emissions of Euro III (Euro IV) engines are factor 4 (20) lower than Euro I and for NOx Euro III (IV) emissions are 2 (3) times lower than Euro I units thus demonstrating the highly significant local emission reductions of project versus baseline buses. Particle as well as NOx (an important pre-cursor of ground-level ozone) emissions are thereby critical components of local air quality which is a major issue in Mexico City31. Photo 3: BRT Bus Insurgentes

Figure 4: Emissions of Particle Matter and NOx (Indexed)32

Source: Regulations 88/77/EWG for Euro 0; 91/542/EWG for Euro I and II; 1999/96/EG for Euro III and IV

30 File 1c, table 4.3.5., p.103 31 See File 1c 32 Euro 0 standard had no particulate limits

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Euro 0 Euro I Euro II Euro III Euro IV

Index

Particle Matter NOx



page 16

Transit Management The operational fleet centre manages trunk bus dispatch, informs passengers, produces reports and maintains records. Buses are equipped with GPS (Global Positioning System) or comparable to identify their position and track distance driven. This is linked to the operation centre. The novelty of the operational fleet centre is that an efficient management of bus fleets and bus dispatch can take place optimizing load factors through coordinated scheduling of service. Also passengers have real-time information about the next available bus and are informed of potential transit problems. The transit system operates on concessions eliminating competition at bus-to-bus level.

Fare System

The system is based on pre-board ticketing using magnetic ticketing. Validation turnstiles at the entrance to each station detect each electronic ticket and deduct the corresponding fare. This streamlines the boarding process, allows drivers to concentrate on bus operation and plays a key role in optimizing operations. Fare-card payment machines are installed at the stations. Fare collection is centralized and managed through a trust fund. Photo 4: Ticketing System

The project uses EST (Environmentally Sound Technologies) and best practices in BRT including Euro III and IV buses, electronic tracking of buses and pre-board ticketing. The first BRT was established in Curitiba, Brazil in the 70ties. Bogota/Colombia then took a leading role early this century in world-class BRT systems. The system approach of Bogota and Curitiba have been replicated by the project. Overall however no technology transfer takes place.



page 17

A.4.4. Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period: Years Annual estimation of emission

reductions in tCO2eq

2013 58,075 2014 67,795 2015 94,948 2016 96,440 2017 123,347 2018 141,987 2019 172,225 2020 174,928 2021 206,517 2022 209,743 Total estimated reductions crediting period (tonnes of CO2eq) 1,346,005

Total number of crediting years 10 Annual average over the crediting period of estimated reductions (tCO2eq) 134,601

A.4.5. Public funding of the project activity:

There is no Official Development Assistance in this project and the project will not receive any public funding from Parties included in Annex I. SECTION B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology

B.1. Title and reference of the approved baseline and monitoring methodology applied to the

project activity:

ACM0016: “Mass Rapid Transit Projects”; Version 03.0.0

This methodology also refers to the latest approved version of the following tools:

• “Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity consumption” Version 01

• “Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion” Version 02 B.2. Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the project

activity:

This methodology applies to project activities that establish and operate a Mass Rapid Transit System. Table 2 relates the specific baseline methodology applicability conditions with the proposed project.

Table 2: Applicability Conditions

Applicability condition Project situation

The project constructs a new rail-based infrastructure or segregated bus lanes. In the case of bus lanes

The BRT trunk routes are a new infrastructure which uses existing road space but involves separates the bus trunk



page 18

the project can be based on existing road infrastructure, but which separates physically bus lanes from mixed traffic.

routes from mixed traffic (with minor exceptions e.g. at traffic crossings).

The segregated bus lanes or the rail-based MRTS replace existing bus routes (e.g. through scrapping units or through closing or re-scheduling existing bus routes) operating under mixed traffic conditions.

Conventional public transit units operating before on the relevant trunk route are scrapped and eventually routes are re-organized. The process used is meetings and agreements with the bus operators on the affected routes. Existing operators are where feasible integrated as new operators of Metrobus33. Not required units are scrapped. For the trunk routes Line 2 and 3 for example 619 units where scrapped.34

The methodology is not applicable for operational improvements (e.g. new or larger buses) of an already existing and operating bus lane or rail-based MRTS.

The BRT is a new system with new infrastructure.

The methodology is not applicable for bus lanes replacing an existing rail-based system.

No rail-based system is replaced by the BRT.

The methodology is applicable for passenger transport only.

The BRT is a passenger transport system

Any fuels including (liquified) gaseous fuels or biofuel blends, as well as electricity can be used in the baseline or project case. The following condition applies for biofuels: project buses must use the same biofuel blend (same percentage of biofuel) as commonly used by conventional comparable35 urban buses in the country i.e. the methodology is not applicable if project buses use higher or lower blends of biofuels than those used by conventional buses. In addition, the project buses shall not use a significantly higher biofuel blend than cars and taxis.

No bio-fuels are used in the baseline or project case. Studies for the usage of bio-ethanol blended with gasoline or biodiesel have been realized but as of today no bio-fuels are used on a commercial scale in Mexico36. The eventual usage of bio-fuel blends by the project will be monitored.

The methodology is not applicable for the implementation of air and water-based transport systems.

No air or water-based transport is included. The BRT is road based.

The methodology is applicable for urban or suburban trips. It is not applicable for inter-urban transport.

The BRT is only urban transport.

The methodology is applicable if the most plausible baseline scenario is the continuation of the use of current modes of transport.

The identified baseline is a continuation of the current urban transit system.

All applicability conditions for using the methodology are thus fulfilled. B.3. Description of the sources and gases included in the project boundary:

33 File 94a/b 34 File 94b 35 Comparable means of the same fuel type e.g. project buses using diesel are compared with conventional buses using diesel etc. The comparison is made for each year of monitoring based on official fuels sold. The term commonly used refers to the majority of units.

36 File 29



page 19

The spatial extent of the project boundary encompasses the metropolitan area of Mexico city i.e. ZMVM. It is based on the origins and destinations of passengers using the project system. As the project cannot control the trip origins or destinations of passengers, the spatial area of the project is the entire metropolitan/urban area in which the project operates and in which the passengers move from trip origin to trip destination. Table 1 chapter A.4.3. indicates the BRT lines included in the project and map 3 shows the routing of the line.

The project boundary also includes the power plants connected physically to the electricity system that supply power to the project, and/or the captive power plant in accordance with the “Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity consumption”.

The greenhouse gases included in or excluded from the project boundary are shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Emissions Sources Included in or Excluded from the Project Boundary

Source Gas Included? Justification / Explanation

Base

line

Mobile source emissions of different modes of transport for passengers using MRTS

CO2 Yes Major emission source

CH4 Yes

Included only if gaseous fuels are used and excluded for liquid fuels

CH4 emissions are a minor emission source of the total CO2e emissions in diesel/gasoline vehicles Neglecting these emissions in baseline as well as project emissions is conservative as fuel consumption and thus also CH4 emissions are reduced through the project

N2O

No

N2O emissions are a minor source of the total CO2e emissions. Neglecting these emissions in baseline as well as project emissions is conservative as fuel consumption and thus also N2O emissions are reduced through the project

Pro

ject

act

ivity

Project transport system (MRTS)

CO2 Yes Major source CH4 No Not included as MRTS does not use gaseous fuels. N2O No See argument above.

Mobile source emissions of different modes of transport for passengers using MRTS from trip origin to MRTS and from MRTS to trip destination

CO2 Yes Major source CH4 Yes Included for gaseous fuels used. See argument above.

N2O No

See argument above.

Lea

k

age Emissions due to

changes of the CO2 Yes Major emission source CH4 Yes Included for gaseous fuels used. See argument above.



page 20

load factors of taxis and conventional buses; and due to Congestion change (incl. change of vehicle speed and induced traffic (rebound effect))

N2O No

See argument above.

B.4. Description of how the baseline scenario is identified and description of the identified

baseline scenario:

Baseline and additionality are determined together based on the methodology. Page 10 of the methodology states: “If the project activity is deemed to be additional, then the baseline scenario is assumed to be the continuation of the use of current modes of transport provided that the project participants can provide an explanation showing that the existing transport system would be sufficient to meet the transportation demand that will be met by the project system.” The existing transport system managed as of 2007 more than 40 million trips per day including nearly 28 million trips by public transit37. The project will realize in the year 2022 (maximum) slightly more than 1.1 million trips per day38i.e. less than 3% of all trips. Even if these are all additional passengers (and not substituting the other modes) the existing system would only need to have an annual average growth rate of less than 0.2% which is far less than the actual trip growth rate experienced39. The carrying capacity of the current public transport system is in line with the actual transport demand. The current occupation rate of only 17% of buses40 is a clear reference that the current system can fulfil the passenger demand. Increasing passenger demand can be accommodated through improved occupation rates or by establishing new routes using also alternate roads. Also bus operators can add new routes and new units as the current system is profitable for them. This is what has occurred in the last few decades in the city i.e. growing passenger demand has been accommodated without major problems by the baseline bus system with its multitude of operators. The current oversupply of buses (in terms of efficiency of operations) is a clear sign that bus operations are profitable and thus new buses and routes can be added without problems in the baseline system. Also under business as usual the trend of decreasing mode share of public transit and increasing share of private transit would continue as through economic development more people have the means to acquire and maintain a vehicle and would also use their private vehicle if no modern mass transit system with the required level of convenience, speed and comfort is available. Additional transit demand might lead to increased trip times due to increased congestion however the existing transport system relies not on single or fixed routes like a BRT but on a multitude of possible routes and modes of transport using the existing road infrastructure and modes of transit. It is thus highly flexible and can accommodate passenger flows in excess of any single-route based BRT.

37 File 21 38 File 23 39 See File 22 table 3, p.8 for population and trip growth rate 40 File 8



page 21

B.5. Description of how the anthropogenic emissions of GHG by sources are reduced below

those that would have occurred in the absence of the registered CDM project activity (assessment

and demonstration of additionality):

The project starting date is defined in accordance with EB 41 Paragraph 67. The project starting date is the signature of the first construction contract being 18/07/200741.The project starting date is before the start of validation. Therefore proof is given in Table 4 that CDM was considered before the project starting date. EB 62 Annex 13 “Guidelines on the demonstration and assessment of prior consideration of the CDM” was taken into account, specifically Paragraph III. Table 4 shows the steps realized prior project starting date up to publication for validation.

Table 4: CDM Project Chronology until Project Start

Milestone Date Documentary Proof

Project Appraisal Document 01/10/2002 PAD42 PIN of project 28/01/2003 PIN43 Report on CDM for BRT corridors Mexico City 02/02/2004 Report and e-mail

screenshot World Bank44 Non-objection letter DNA for project 05/10/2004 Non-objection letter45 Letter of Intent of World Bank to acquire CERs from project 16/06/2005 Letter of intent46 Methodology proposal for bus lanes taking the example of Metrobus NM0158

05/01/2006 NM015847

Call for Public input methodology NM0158 March/April 2006 UNFCCC48 Review NM 0158 by Meth Panel; result: methodology rejected 06/09/2006 Meth Panel report49 New methodology for MRTS based on Metrobus PDD NM0229 29/05/2007 NM022950 Call for Public input methodology NM0229 July/August 2007 UNFCCC51 Project start date 18/07/2007 Signature 1st

construction contract52

41 File 30 42 File 31; see objectives of project chapter 2.e, p. 3 as well as page 7, point 1a 43 File 32 44 Files 33 and 34 45 File 35; the Non-objection letter refers to climate friendly transport measures as included in the PAD listed previously 46 File 36 47 File 37 48 http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/publicview.html?meth_ref=NM0158 49 File 38 50 File 39 51 http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/publicview.html?meth_ref=NM0229 52 File 30



page 22

Prior project start the project had among others presented a PIN of the project, had received the letter of Non-Objection of the Mexican DNA, had a letter of intent of the World Bank to purchase the CERs, had presented a first methodology proposal which was rejected and a 2nd new methodology proposal (developed by the project participant Grütter Consulting) which was under discussion as of time of project start and had thus clearly showed with numerous actions that CDM was considered seriously prior project start. Methodology AM0031 was not applicable to the project as Metrobus does not operate with feeder lines. The following table shows the actions after project start to secure CDM. Table 5: CDM Project Chronology Project Start until Validation Start

Project start date 18/07/2007 Signature 1st construction contract53

Final review MP NM0229; result: methodology rejected 16/11/2007 UNFCCC54 New methodology for Bus Lanes NM0258 01/02/2008 NM025855 Call for Public input methodology NM0258 March/April 2008 UNFCCC56 Various reviews of Meth Panel of NM0258 06/2008 to 06/2009 UNFCCC57 Approval of NM0258 as ACM0016 at EB 50 16/10/2009 UNFCCC58 Public stakeholder consultation of PDD “BRT Metrobus Insurgentes and Eje 4, Mexico”

05/05/2010 to 03/06/2010

UNFCCC59

Public stakeholder consultation start of a new version of PDD focusing on BRT Metrobus Insurgentes only

15/03/2011 to 13/04/2011

UNFCCC60

Validation start PDD “BRT Metrobus 2-13, Mexico” 12/2011 UNFCCC

The project took continuous and real action to secure CDM status for the project. There are gaps of less than 2 years between such actions. Actions include the discussion of NM0229 (presented by the project participant Grütter Consulting) which was rejected by the EB 11/2007, the presentation again by Grütter Consulting of a new methodology proposal (NM 0258) 02/2008 which was finally approved by the EB 10/2009 and the subsequent presentation of the PDD for validation 05/2010. The project owner thereafter decided to include only the BRT Insurgentes in a first PDD version and made a 2nd version including all other lines. The 1st PDD including only the BRT Insurgentes line was re-presented for validation 03/2011 and was registered 08/2011. The project has thus shown clear and continuous action to secure CDM. The different lines of the BRT Metrobus are part of a system legally created and announced September 27th 200461. Metrobus was created March 9th 2005 to implement this policy62. While this is more of a

53 File 30 54 http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/CDMWF_P3TBHCUTLB1WMZ4U6D2IFPJS66CZMG 55 File 40 56 http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/publicview.html?meth_ref=NM0258 57 http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/CDMWF_Z77MZ2VVZFHZNGOXGXQK6HQDBI2YXP 58 http://cdm.unfccc.int/EB/050/eb50rep.pdf 59 http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/Validation/index.html 60 http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/Validation/index.html 61 File 15 p.5



page 23

policy decision and not yet real action it does show that the corridors are not singular or isolated projects but form part of a larger system. That the different lines are part of a BRT system can be clearly perceived from following sources, all of which are prior to the project starting date:

• The Environmental Secretariat realized in the year 2002 a study in which strategic BRT corridors where identified with the goal of reducing pollution loads and to improve the public sector transport system. The Secretariat identified for this purpose 6 corridors including Av. Insurgentes, Eje 8 Sur, Eje Central, Eje 3 Oriente, E.M.A. de Quevado and F.AV. Tlahuac-Taxquena63.

• In the year 2002, with assistance of the World Bank a program for transport and climate change was designed which included a list of 33 transport corridors to be realized with BRT until 202064.

• In the strategic transport plan 2001 to 2006 published 11/2002 16 trunk routes were identified for the BRT system65.

• Eje 8 was later substituted by Eje 466. • 09/2003 the Government identified 33 strategic BRT trunk routes prioritizing 12 of these67. • The establishment of BRT corridors was also officially announced in the Gaceta Oficial del

Distrito Federal September 24th 200468. • The Environmental Secretariat on October 9th 2003 responded on questions raised concerning the

BRT Lines to the Legislative Assembly of the DF. The representative of the Environmental Secretariat, Dra. Claudia Scheinbaum Pardo thereby explicitly referred to the project as of consisting of various corridors including Insurgentes y Eje 8 Sur, Tlahuac and Eje Central69. The records of the legislative presentation is published as “Diario de Debates” attached as File 45.

Thus clearly an overall objective of 33 BRT corridors was established of which not all are yet sufficiently defined to include in a PDD. The additionality of the project is determined in accordance with the methodology. The project is not realized in a LDC and is not first of its kind. Step 1: Country level assessment The benchmark established in step 1 is that there are less than 3 cities with MRTS in the country. Mexico has more than 3 MRTS as of time of project start date (07/2007) including70:

62 File 17 63 File 41, p.13 and their prioritization on page 23 64 File 41, p. 12 as published in the Gaceta Oficial del DF 26/12/2002 65 File 48, Annex 6, page 81 66 See Article published in El Universal 4/1/2007 (File 43) 67 File 47 p. 7 and 8 68 File 44, p.33ff 69 File 45, p.30 70 File 49; evidence of being or not a CDM project is based on the UNFCCC website of CDM projects



page 24

• Mexico City with various Metro Lines and BRT Insurgentes (registered as a CDM project 08/2011 with project number 4945)71.

• Guadalajara has 2 LRT lines operating since 1989 respectively 199472. The LRT is not registered as a CDM. The BRT of Guadalajara came into operations after the project start date and is in the process of being registered as a CDM project.

• Monterrey has 2 LRT lines operating since 1991 (first part) and 2008 (last part inaugurated). This project is not registered as a CDM project.

• Leon has a BRT since the year 2003. This project is not registered as a CDM project. Step 2: City level assessment

This step aims to determine whether the proposed project activity is common practice in the host city where the proposed CDM project activity is intended to be implemented. For this purpose, project participants shall assess whether the share of trips realized on the existing public transport system(s) in the host city, which belong to the same public transport category as the proposed CDM project activity, is equal or less than 20% of total public transport trips in the host city. The project system is a BRT. The ZMVM has as public transport means metro, conventional bus and BRT (latter is in fact also a registered CDM project as this is only the BRT Insurgentes). The following figure indicates the share of each public transport category. Figure 5: Public Transit Trip Modes Used in ZMVM 2008

Source: GDF, 2008 (File 21)

71 The suburban train only started operations in the year 2008 and the 1st line of the BRT Edomex only started operations 2011 and is also a registered CDM project (project number 3869) 72 The BRT line only came into operations in the year 2009 and is also in the process of being registered as a CDM project (project 5437)

Buses

81%

Metrobús BRT

1%

Metro

18%



page 25

The BRT has slightly more than 1% of public transit trips which is not surprising as it is only 1line. The share is thus clearly less than the benchmark of 20% of the methodology. Step 2 is thus passed (fulfilled) by the project. Step 3: Project level assessment If at least 50% of the total capital investment of the project MRT system is provided by commercial entity(ies) in the form of equity and/or long-term debt, an investment analysis shall be used applying the “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality”. This is the case in the project which has over 60% private investment73 and therefore procedure A of the methodology is followed. Procedure A: Investment analysis

The methodology states: “The aim of this analysis is to determine whether the proposed project activity is not economically or financially feasible using “Option III. Benchmark analysis”, including the sensitivity analysis, provided in the “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality”. Based on the approved methodology following elements are taken into consideration when applying the investment analysis:

• The investment analysis is undertaken from the perspective of the Distrito Federal as owner of Metrobus i.e. as owner of the system74. The entire system costs are thus included.

• The project is not subsidized through public authorities which are not the project owner itself. • In applying the investment comparison analysis, cost overruns of former investments in MRTS or

reduced revenues of former MRTS investments compared to original projections, which make new investments less viable and riskier, can be considered in the investment analysis.

As of project starting date Mexico City had as only operational BRT the Metrobus Insurgentes Line which had started operations 06/2005. The investment cost overrun of this 1st BRT line was 66%75. Mexico City has however a lot of experience with metros. In Line with ACM0016 p. 8 the experience of other MRTS has been included (not only BRTs): “In applying the investment analysis, cost overruns of former investments in MRTS or reduced revenues of former MRTS investments compared to original projections, which make new investments less viable and riskier”. Table 6 relates planned and actual passenger numbers for all metro lines implemented in the last 20 years.

73 File 50; basically with concession agreements; see File 51, p. 7 for business model; see also File 52 for the supply of buses for Eje 4: Buses are leased to the project by the bus producers 74 Metrobus is a Public Decentralized Body of the Public Administration of the DF (see File 17, Art. 1, p.2) 75File 53



page 26

Table 6: Projected versus Actual Passenger Numbers of Metro Lines Mexico City

Line Implementation

Date

projected passengers

per working day76

actual passengers per

working day year 200277

actual as % of

projected Line A 12/08/1991 250,000 206,000 82% Line 8 20/07/1994 660,000 333,000 50% Line B 30/11/200078 421,000 298,000 71% Source: File 54a for projected passengers and File 54b for actual passengers; all actual passenger data is for a full operational year.

The simple average difference between projected and actual passenger numbers is 68% i.e. the metro has 68% of expected passengers. The cumulative difference between projected and actual passenger numbers is 63%. The implication of reduced ridership is a reduction of the fare box revenue and at the same time (to remain conservative) the operational costs are also reduced in the same magnitude to have a conservative assessment (costs will probably reduce in a minor magnitude as not all costs are variable ones but partially costs can be reduced e.g. by running less trains, less electricity consumption, less staff etc). The experience of Metro Mexico with lower than expected passenger numbers is by no way singular: it’s in fact the “normal” case in most metros worldwide. GTZ MRTS training module shows that mass cost overruns and less passengers are typical of rail based systems79. The project thus faces the risk of cost overrun as well as less than expected passengers and thus also less revenues. However the risk of cost overruns has not been included in the financial calculations made thus showing the conservative approach i.e. the IRR calculated is conservative and does not include, as allowed by the methodology, a risk factor based on past experience of the host country with MRTS. The guidelines for the investment analysis Version 5 EB 62 Annex 5 are followed.The principles used for all calculations and their compliance with EB guidance is shown in the following table. Table 7: Investment Principles and EB Guidelines

EB Guideline Project

Points1 and 2: General introduction of Guidance

Point 3: Period of assessment The period of assessment taken is15 operational years which is longer than the life-span of the BRT buses which is fixed as maximum 10 years to the concessionaires (File 56 p.14). The salvage value of the investment is included.

Point 4: Salvage value The salvage value is included based on 30 years for infrastructure

76 1styear of operation 77 This corresponds to first full year of operations for Line B (the first stretch started operations 12.2000 while the 2nd stretch only started operations during the year 2001), 7th year of full operations for Line 8 and 10th year of operation for Line A thus being conservative as passenger numbers increase over time; based on annual divided by 336 (this division factor is used in the referenced file 46; see Line B annual data = 141,552,491 (http://www.metro.df.gob.mx/operacion/compaflu0709.html) and daily data based on File 54a for the same year is 421,335 and thus 336 days). 78 Full stretch; 15/12/1999 first part 79 File 22, GTZ, Table 7



page 27

and 10 years for buses (see File 56, Concession No. STV/METROBUS/007/2010, p. 14, Art. 19) based on the year the investment is realized.

Point 5: Depreciation and other non-cash items

The IRR is based on cash flow and does not include depreciation or other non-cash items.

Point 6: Time of assessment All calculations are based on the financial assessment made 05/2007 (File 55b) which is prior to the project starting date of 18/07/2007 (File 30)

Point 7: Cesation of implementation Not relevant for project Point 8: Provision of spreadsheet Spreadsheet is provided (File 55a) Point 9: Finance expenditures Financing expenditures are not included when calculating the IRR. Point 10: Equity IRR Project and not equity IRR is calculated Point 11: Pre-tax benchmark The project uses a pre-tax benchmark. Point 12-18: Selection of benchmark Project IRR is calculated. The benchmark taken is the Mexican

treasury auction rate which is conservative as lower than commercial lending rates (File 57).

Point 19: Benchmark analysis A benchmark analysis is made as required by ACM0016 Points 20 and 21: Sensitivity analysis Sensitivity analysis is made assuming following changes:

• 10% lower investment costs • 10% lower operational cost stations and ticketing • 10% lower operational costs bus operation • 10% increase in revenues

These are all important cost/revenue variables and all variables which constitute more than 20% of cost respectively revenue.

Table 8 shows the major parameters used for the financial assessment.

Table 8: Major Parameters for Financial Assessment

Parameter Value in million MXN

Investment infrastructure80 11,880 Investment buses 2,221 Salvage value 9,032 Operational costs stations and ticketing (annual average) 247 Operational costs bus operation (annual average) 896 Revenues (annual average) 1,18481 Annual inflation rate 4% Benchmark 7% Sources: File 55a The date of investment decision is 06/2007 based on the financial documents prepared 05/2007. All the input values used in the investment analysis were clearly applicable at the time of investment decision. The discount rate is based on the Mexican 28-day treasury auction rate March 2007 as published by the IMF82. This is conservative as lower than any commercial interest rate. The June rate was also slightly higher with 7.2% than the rate used of March 2007 (7.0%). 80 See for investment infrastructure details and base assumptions File 92 81 Based on an initial fare rate of on average 3.8 MXN per passenger increasing annually by 4%. 82 File 57 Table 6, p.44



page 28

84% of total investment is for infrastructure and 16% for buses. The following figure shows the distribution of the infrastructure investment in the major parts. 60% is for roads and 30% for stations.

Figure 6: Infrastructure Elements

Source: File 55a The following figure shows the investment per line (includes infrastructure plus buses).

Roads

60%

Stations

30%

Ticketing

4%

Dispatch

2%

Studies and

supervision

3%

others

1%



page 29

Figure 7: Investment per Line (million XN)

Source: File 55a The plausibility of core data used is checked in the following paragraphs by comparing values with international literature.

Infrastructure Investment Cost The infrastructure investment cost of 11,880 million MXN is equivalent to around 5.1 million USD per km of trunk road83. This cost is plausible in the international context: IEA estimates initial capital costs for bus lanes of 1-8 million USD/km84. Transmilenio, being one of the most recognized BRT systems worldwide had a very similar cost per km of 5.3 million USD85. Line 2 which is already operational had an actual construction investment of 779 million MXN86 which corresponds to the planned amount for roads and stations87. Above listed elements show that the assumptions made in the financial projections are plausible.

83 10.79 MXN per USD for 06/2007 based on IM, Table 6, p.44 (File 57) resulting in 1,101 million USD with a total of 215 km of trunk route 84 table 2.1 page 29, File 58 85 GTZ, table 5, p.53, File 59 86 File 60 87 The contracts listed in File 60 are for stations and road; 90% of infrastructure investment is for roads and stations (File 55a sheet investment); total planned infrastructure investment for Line 2 was 850 million MXN (File 55a sheet investment Box or File 55b p.22) i.e. 90% is equal to 765 million MXN while actual expenditure was 779 million

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2 3 4 5a 5b 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13



page 30

Operational Cost Nearly 80% of operational costs are for bus operation. The projected bus operation cost per kilometer is MXN 2588 equivalent to USD 2.32 per km89. Bus operation cost per kilometer are compared between various systems:

• BRT TransMilenio Bogota in Colombia paid 2010 the trunk operators USD 2.65/km90. This is 14% more than planned by Metrobus. This is based on a public official report.

• The actual cost paid to the operator for the 1st operational trunk route of the BRT Edomex operating in comparable circumstances in ZMVM (same geographical region) is, based on the Concession agreement signed 3.2009, 28.5 MXN/km i.e. 14% more than the project figure for Metrobus91.

The average operational cost for bus operations, which represents by far the major cost is thus comparable to other BRTs and is considered as plausible. Revenue The income is based on an average fare rate indexed with an inflation rate assumed of 4% annually. This is an average fare rate applied to the totality of passengers i.e. also to passengers with discounted fares or fare dodgers. For 2012 an average fare rate of 4.3 MXN was assumed. This is plausible given the fact that the 2012 full fare of Metrobus is 5 MXN but elderly > 70 years, children minor of 5 years and people with disabilities do not pay as well as fare dodgers exist 92. The projected fare rate thus is plausible an in line with actual ex-post implementation. The 2nd element of revenues are passenger numbers. The actual passenger numbers of Line 2 in the year 2010 was 38.0 million passengers93whilst the projected passing number for the same year was 45.1 million passengers i.e. actual passenger numbers were only 84% of projected passenger numbers94. The projections thus seem conservative in the sense of not underestimating revenue ex-post. Projected revenues of Line 2 for the year 2010 were 178.3 million MXN95 while actual revenues were 182.5 million MXN96. The projection in terms of revenues was thus quite precise with 2% higher MXN (File 60) i.e. the actual investment in Line 2 was marginally higher than the projected investment indicating ex-post the plausibility of assumptions. 88 File 55b p. 24-26 89 10.79 MXN per USD for 06/2007 based on IM, Table 6, p.44 (File 57) 90 File 62, p.83 : total paid to trunk route operators 2010:$518,881,613,383; File 63 Sheet DM10 Box AM38: Distance 2010 trunk buses: 97,426,579 km; Result $5.326 pesos / Km; based on exchange rate to USD mid 2010 this equals USD 2.65 91 File 61, Art. XVII page 4 92 see http://www.metrobus.df.gob.mx/exencion.html 93 File 88 94 File 55 95 File 55



page 31

revenues than projected. Overall projections concerning revenues are considered therefore based on ex-post data as plausible. Results The IRR of the project is -4.5% even without assuming any risk concerning higher than expected investment or lower than expected passenger numbers. Table 9 includes the sensitivity analysis. Table 9: IRR Sensitivity to Parameter Changes Excluding CER Revenues

Case IRR

Base case -4.5% 10% lower investment cost -4.4% 10% lower station and ticketing cost -4.1% 10% lower bus operation cost -3.1% 10% higher income -2.6% Benchmark 7% Source: File 55a In all cases the IRR is negative and clearly below the benchmark. The investment cost would need to decrease by 95% to achieve the benchmark. This is impossible. The station and ticketing cost could be 0 and still the project IRR would be negative. The bus operation cost would need to decrease by 92% to achieve the benchmark which is clearly not feasible. Fare box revenue would need to increase by 69% i.e. either a 69% higher fare or 69% more passengers or a combination of both to achieve the break-even. This is highly improbable. Increasing the fare by that amount would also result in a reduction of passenger numbers due to price elasticity. Overall the project clearly shows that the result of an IRR below the benchmark is highly robust. From above calculations it is thus clear that the project in absence of the CDM is financially non-feasible. The methodology states on page 8: “If the sensitivity analysis confirms the proposed project activity is not economically attractive, then the proposed project activity is additional.” The sensitivity analysis has confirmed this and therefore the project is additional in accordance with the approved methodology. B.6. Emission reductions:

B.6.1. Explanation of methodological choices:

BASELINE EMISSION CALCULATIONS

96 File 88



page 32

Baseline emissions include the emissions that would have happened due to the transportation of the passengers who use the project activity, had the project activity not been implemented. This is differentiated according to the modes of transport (relevant vehicle categories) that the passengers would have used in the absence of the project. Baseline emissions are calculated per passenger surveyed. For each passenger surveyed the individual baseline emissions are calculated and multiplied with the individual expansion factor thus getting the baseline emissions of all passengers of the specific week surveyed. These are multiplied with the total of the passengers of the period to arrive at baseline emissions. The following steps are made:

Step 1: Conduct a survey, following the procedures presented in Annex 3, in which for each surveyed passenger, the trip distance per transport mode that would have taken place in the baseline is determined. Step 2: Calculate the individual baseline emissions for each surveyed passenger. Step 3: Apply an individual expansion factor to each surveyed passenger in accordance with the survey sample design (as defined in Annex 3), and summarize these to get the total baseline emissions of the period (week) surveyed. To get the annual (or monitoring period) baseline emissions the baseline emissions of the surveyed period (week) are calculated per passenger of the period (week) and multiplied with the total passengers transported per year (or monitoring period). Step 4: Take the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval as total baseline emissions.

PROCEDURE

( )ypyp

pSPER

y

y FEXBEP

PBE ,, ⋅= ∑

(1)

Where: BEy Baseline emissions in the year y (tCO2) BEp,y Baseline emissions per surveyed passenger p in the year y (tCO2) FEXp,y Expansion factor for each surveyed passenger p surveyed in the year y(each surveyed

passenger has a different expansion factor) Py Total number of passengers in the year y PSPER Number of passengers in the time period of the survey (1 week) p Surveyed passenger (each individual) y Year of the crediting period

The baseline emission per surveyed passenger is calculated based on the mode used, the trip distance per mode and the emission factor per mode:

6,,,,, 10−×⋅=∑

i

yiPKMyipyp EFBTDBE (2)

Where:



page 33

BEp,y Baseline emissions per surveyed passenger p in the year y (tCO2) BTD,p,i,y Baseline trip distance per surveyed passenger p using mode i in the year y (PKM) EFPKM,i,y Emission factor per passenger-kilometre of mode i in the year y (g CO2/PKM) i Relevant vehicle category p Surveyed passenger (each individual) y Year of the crediting period For ex-ante estimation of the baseline and indirect project emissions a pre-survey or test survey was realized which is only used to realize ex-ante projections. This survey cannot be done on the BRT project lines as these do not yet exist. Thus the survey was done on another line with a limited amount of passengers as a pre-survey. The survey the same as the methodology but the survey number is far more limited and calculations are based on averages with expansion factors of 1. This is justified as resultants are approximate as passenger numbers, lines, O-Ds and used modes will not be identical on project lines to the selected survey line. This was made the same manner for the registered CDM BRT projects 4945 and 5437 using ACM0016 in Mexico City with the same survey. (1) Identification of the relevant vehicle categories (modes of transport)

The relevant vehicle categories i referred to in equation 2 above may include:

• NMT (Non-Motorized Traffic) with bikes and per foot; • Private passenger car; • Taxis; • Motorcycles; • Buses differentiating between the sub-categories of large, medium and small buses.

Based on footnote 4 of ACM0016 existing rail-based systems (metro and LTR) are not included as their baseline emissions are taken as 0 (conservative approach). Tricycles are not used in Mexico City. Mexico City has only BRT lines of Edomex and Metrobus Insurgentes not included in the project. These BRT lines are however already registered CDM project activities where their total fuel consumption is already included. The BRT Insurgentes (registered CDM project) is part of Metrobus and thus not a baseline alternative as in absence of the CDM this line would not exist. Also BRT lines are in different locations. Therefore this is not included as a separate vehicle category.

If some vehicle categories are not explicitly identified or do not fit into one of the categories above, they should be subsumed in the survey as “others”. Baseline emissions of this category are counted as 0-emissions.97 The index iis used to identify each relevant vehicle category (mode of transport) included in the analysis. (2) Determination of the emission factor per passenger-kilometre (EFPKM,i,y)

97 In indirect project emissions the highest emission factor of all categories is taken if the survey respondent chooses the item “others”.



page 34

Passenger-kilometre (PKM) is defined as the average passenger trip distance multiplied by the number of passengers. The emission factors per PKM are determined ex ante for each vehicle category. Any change in the occupancy rate of taxis and buses influencing the corresponding emission factors is monitored as leakage.

The emission factors per PKM are calculated as follows:

(2.1) Case 1: Emission factor per PKM for electricity-based transport systems (electric trolleybuses)

The electric trolleybuses are no separate vehicle category but part of the baseline bus system. Therefore equation (3) of the methodology is not used. The total emissions from electric trolleybuses are calculated using the “Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity consumption”.

6,,,,, 10)1( −×+××= TDLEFECTE CMgridyiBLyiEL

(3)

Where: TEEL,i,y Total emissions from electric trolleybusesfor year y (tCO2) ECBL,i ,y Quantity of electricity consumed by electric trolleybusesin the year y (MWh) EFgrid,CM Emission factor for electricity generation in the grid based on combined margin

(gCO2/kWh) TDL Average technical transmission and distribution losses for providing electricity Scenario A of the “Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity consumption” applies as the electricity consumed is from the grid. Option A2 of the tool referenced is used with conservative default values. Electric trolleybuses are used only by baseline buses, not by project buses. Baseline electricity consumption is thus higher than project electricity consumption. The default value of 0.4 tCO2/MWh is therefore taken. Low-cost/must-run constitute clearly less than 50% of total grid generation as average of the five most recent years as shown in the table below with low-cost/must run including hydro having between 19% and 24%. The EF is fixed for the crediting period ex-ante. Table 10: Low-cost/must-run generation Mexico

Year Low-cost/must-run generation

(GWh)

% No low-cost/must-run generation

(GWh)

%

2005 45,720 21% 173,251 79% 2006 47,901 21% 177,178 79% 2007 45,115 19% 187,437 81% 2008 56,007 24% 179,863 76% 2009 43,935 19% 191,173 81% Source: Sener (Secretaría de Energía de México), calculation see Excel File CM_1 sheet GEN_05_06_07_08_09 (File 9)”, source of values file 10 (page 117, graph 20)

(2.2) Case 2: Emission factors per PKM for fuel-based transport systems (e.g. road-based vehicles) For fuel-based vehicle categories, the emission factor per PKM is calculated as:



page 35

i

y,i,KMy,i,PKM OC

EFEF = (4)

Where: EFPKM,i Emission factor per passenger-kilometre of vehicle category i in the year y (g CO2/PKM) EFKM,i Emission factor per kilometre of vehicle category i in the year y (g CO2/km) OCi Average occupation rate of vehicle category i prior project start (passengers) i Relevant vehicle category y Year of the crediting period

(2.2.1) Determination of the average occupation rate (OCi)

The average occupation rate of vehicle category i is determined based on visual occupation studies for all vehicle categories i.

For buses, as an alternative, the occupation rate can be based on an average trip distance of bus passengers, total passengers and total distance driven by buses, using the following equation:

B

BPB

BDD

TDBLPBLOC

,×= (5)

Where: OCB Average occupation rate of buses prior to the project start (passengers) PBLB Passengers transported by baseline buses prior to the project start (passengers) TDBLP,B Average trip distance travelled by passengers using baseline buses prior to the project

start (kilometers) DDB Total distance driven by all buses prior to the project start (kilometers)

(2.2.2) Determination of the emission factors per kilometre (EFKM,i,y)

Relevant fuel types, for each vehicle category, have to be identified. The emission factor per kilometre is re-calculated annually based on the recorded share of fuels per category. In case biofuel blends are used the biofuel share of the blend is accounted for with zero emission factor (EFCO2,x,y).

The emission factor per kilometre is not constant but annually updated. Two options can be used to calculate EFKM,i,y. For each vehicle category the project can choose which option to take. During the crediting period the project cannot change between one and the other option, i.e. the decision is fixed for the crediting period. For all road-based vehicle categories option (2) using a fixed technology improvement factor is used. Formula (6) of the methodology is therefore not used.

(2.2.2.1) Option 1: Annual monitoring of the specific fuel consumption (SFC) of the respective vehicle category i:



page 36

Not used by the project.

(2.2.2.2) Option 2: Use of a fixed technology improvement factor (IR) for the respective vehicle category i:

For option (2) the following formula applies:

( )( )

i

x

ixyxCOyxxiyt

iyiKMN

NEFNCVSFC

IREF

∑ ⋅⋅⋅⋅= +

,,,2,,

,, (6)

Where: EFKM,i,,y, Emission factor per kilometre of vehicle category i in the year y (g CO2/km) SFCx,i Specific fuel consumption of vehicle category i using fuel type x prior to the project start

(g/km) NCVx,y Net calorific value of fuel x in the year y (J/g) EFCO2,x,y Carbon emission factor for fuel type x in the year y(g CO2/J) Nx,i Number of vehicles of category i using fuel type x prior to the project start (units) Ni Number of vehicles of category i prior to the project start (units) IRi Technology improvement factor for the vehicle of category i per year t+y (ratio) t Years of annual improvement (dependent on age of data per vehicle category) y Year of the crediting period The technology improvement factor is taken from the methodology and is listed in the following table. Table 11: Default Technology Improvement Factors (per annum)

Vehicle category Technology Improvement Factor IR

Buses 0.99 Passenger cars 0.99 Taxis 0.99 Motorcycles 0.99 Source: ACM0016, Table 4

As various sub-categories of buses exist (small, medium, large units), the following aggregated emission factor is used in which the electric trolleybuses have been added:

ELSML

ELyELKMSySKMMyMKMLyLKM

yBKMDDDDDDDD

DDEFDDEFDDEFDDEFEF

+++

×+×+×+×= ,,,,,,,,

,, (7)

Where: EFKM,B,y Emission factor per kilometre for buses (gCO2/km) EFKM,L/M/S,y Emission factor per kilometre for buses of sub-category L (large buses), M (medium

sized buses),S (small buses) and EL (electric trolleybuses) (gCO2/km) DDL/M/S Total distance driven by buses sub-category L (large buses), M (medium sized buses), S

(small buses) and EL (electric trolleybuses) prior to the project start (kilometre) y Year of the crediting period



page 37

Baseline emissions include the entire emissions which would have been caused by the project passenger in absence of the project from his trip origin to his trip destination. The origin and destination of the trip is assumed to be equal for the baseline as for the project case with exception of induced traffic included only as project but not as baseline trips. The trip distance and the modes used between O and D are however different in the baseline than in the project case. The trip distance may vary as some passengers using the project MRTS may be willing e.g. to make detours due to the higher speed of the MRTS versus conventional bus transport. To fully capture all potential changes the methodology thus compares emissions per O-D trip of the baseline with emissions per O-D trip of the project. The data to determine O-D mode(s) and distances per mode are derived from a representative survey of project passengers. Total baseline emissions are calculated thereafter annually based on these parameters, the emissions per PKM and the amount of passengers transported by the project.

PROJECT EMISSIONS Project emissions are based on the fuel consumed by the BRT (direct project emissions) plus emissions caused by project passengers from their trip origin to the entry station of the BRT and from the exit station of the BRT to their final destination (indirect project emissions).

Figure 8: Direct and Indirect Project Emissions

Project emissions are calculated as follows:

yyy IPEDPEPE += (8)

Where: PE,y, Project emissions in the year y (tCO2) DPEy Direct project emissions in the year y (tCO2) IPEy Indirect project emissions in the year y (tCO2)

Determination of direct project emissions (DPEy)

If the project transport system uses fossil fuels, the latest version of the “Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion” shall be used. The following guidance is given for applying the tool:

Origin Destination

Project Entry Project Exit

Direct project emissions (BRT)

Indirect project emissions Indirect project emissions



page 38

• The parameter PEFC,j,y in the tool corresponds to the direct project emissions from the project transport system that uses fossil fuels in year y (DPEy); and

• Element process j corresponds to the combustion of fuel type x in the project vehicles;

( )∑ ××=x

yxCOyxyxPJy EFNCVFCDPE ,,2,,, (9)

Where: DPEy Direct project emissions in the year y (tCO2) FCPJ,x,y Total fuel consumed of fuel type x in the year y (mass or volume units of fuel) NCVx,y Net calorific value of fuel x in the year y (J/g) EFCO2,x,y Carbon emission factor for fuel type x in the year y (g CO2/J) y Year of the crediting period

If the project has no reliable records on total fuel consumed, the specific fuel consumption of a representative sample of comparable transport units (comparable technology, vintage and size) together with the total distance driven can be taken to calculate the parameter FCPJ,x,y in the tool. Transport units of the sample must be project units running on project routes. The sample criteria are based on technology (e.g. Euro standard), age, and unit size. To be conservative, project fuel consumptions based on sample data shall be based on the upper limit of the uncertainty band at a 95% confidence level. This means that with 95% confidence it is possible to state that the actual project fuel consumption is equal to or lower than the value used by the project.

If the total fuel consumed is determined based on sample measurements, the following equation is used:

yx,PJ,yx,i,yx,PJ, DDSFCFC ⋅= (10)

Where: FCPJ,x,y Total fuel consumed by project transport units using fuel type x in year y (mass or

volume units of fuel) SFCi,x,y Specific fuel consumption of vehicle category i using fuel x in year y (mass or volume

units of fuel per km) DDPJ,x,y Distance driven by transport units consuming fuel x in year y (km)

No electric units are used by the project as of today. Case 2 is thus not relevant.

Determination of indirect project emissions (IPEy) Indirect project emissions are those caused by passengers from their trip origin up to the project activity entry station, and from the project activity exit station up to the trip final destination. The survey realized identifies the origin, the project entry station, the project exit station and the final destination of the passenger plus the modes used between the different points, e.g. bike from origin to project entry station and taxi from project exit station to final destination. The distances between origin and entry and between exit and destination are calculated based, e.g. on public transit routes, electronic maps and GPS (identical



page 39

to baseline trip determination). The emission factors per passenger-kilometre used for indirect project emissions are identical to the baseline passenger-kilometre factors (EFPKM,i,y).

Following core steps are realized:

Step 1: Conduct a survey, in which for each surveyed passenger the trip distance per transport mode used to/from the MRTS is determined.

Step 2: Calculate indirect project emissions for each surveyed passenger.

Step 3: Apply to each surveyed passenger an individual expansion factor in accordance with the survey sample design, and summarize these to get the total indirect project emissions for the survey period (week). To get the annual (or monitoring period) indirect project emissions the indirect project emissions of the surveyed period (week) are calculated per passenger of the survey period (week) and multiplied with the total passengers transported per year (or period).

Step 4: Apply the upper 95% confidence interval to the total indirect project emissions .

( ) 6

pyp,yp,

SPER

yy 10FEXIPE

P

PIPE −×⋅= ∑ (11)

Where: IPEy Indirect project emissions in year y (t CO2) IPEp,y Indirect project emissions per surveyed passenger p in year y (g CO2) FEXp,y Expansion factor for each surveyed passenger p in year y Py Total number of passengers in year y PSPER Number of passengers in the time period of the survey (1 week) P Surveyed passenger (each individual) Y Year of the crediting period

The indirect project emissions per surveyed passenger are calculated based on the transport mode used, trip distance per mode and emission factor per mode.

∑ ×=i

yiPKMyipyp EFIPTDIPE ,,,,, (12)

Where: IPEp,y Indirect project emissions of surveyed passenger p in year y (gCO2) EFPKM,i,y Emission factor per passenger-kilometre of mode i in year y (gCO2/PKM) IPTDp,i,y Indirect project trip distance of surveyed passenger p using mode i in year y (km)

Based on the surveyed passenger and the survey design, the corresponding expansion factors are applied to calculate total indirect project emissions. Total indirect project emissions are determined based on the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval as results are based on a sample/survey.



page 40

Leakage

Leakage emissions include the following sources:

• Emissions due to changes of the load factor of taxis and buses of the baseline transport system due to the project; and,

• Emissions due to reduced congestion on affected roads, provoking higher average vehicle speed, plus a rebound effect.

• Upstream Emissions of Gaseous Fuels (LEUP,y).

The impact on traffic (additional trips) induced by the new transport system is included as project emissions and thus is not part of leakage. This is addressed by including, as project emissions, the emissions from the trips of passengers who would not have travelled in the absence of the project.

Leakage emissions are calculated as follows:

yUPyCONyLFTyLFBy LELELELELE ,,,, +++= (13)

Where: LEy Leakage emissions in year y (tCO2) LELFB,y Leakage emissions due to change of load factor buses in year y (tCO2) LELFT,y Leakage emissions due to change of load factor taxis in year y (tCO2) LECON,y Leakage emissions due to reduced congestion in year y (tCO2) LEUP,y Leakage emissions due to upstream emissions of gaseous fuels in year y (tCO2)

As a conservative approach, it is assumed that for each components LELFB,y, LELFT,y, LECON,y, and LEUP,y, only the positive value (leading to net emissions) is considered. Determination of emissions due to change of load factor of buses (LELFB,y) The project could have a negative impact on the load factor of the conventional bus fleet. Load factor changes are monitored for the entire city as the potential impact is not necessarily in the proximity of the project MRTS (buses can be used in other parts of the city). The load factor of buses is monitored in the years 1 and 4 and of the crediting period. Leakage from load factor change of buses is only included if the load factor of buses has decreased by more than 10 percentage points comparing the monitored value with the baseline value, and are calculated as:

−⋅⋅⋅⋅= 0;

OC

OC1EFADN

10

1maxLE

B

yB,yB,KM,ByB,6yLFB, (14)

Where: LELFB,y Leakage emissions due to a change in load factor of buses in year y (tCO2) NB,y Number of baseline buses in year y (buses) ADB Average annual distance driven by baseline buses (km/bus) EFKM,B,y Emission factor per kilometre of baseline buses in year y (gCO2/km)



page 41

OCB,y Average occupancy rate of baseline buses in year y (passengers) OCB Average occupancy rate of baseline buses prior to the project start (passengers)

Determination of emissions due to change of load factor of taxis (LELFT,y)

The project could have a negative impact on the load factor of taxis. Load factor changes are monitored for the entire larger urban zone of the city as taxis operate all over the larger urban zone of the city and are not confined to deliver their services in certain areas. The load factor of taxis is monitored in the years 1 and 4 of the crediting period. This leakage is calculated as follows:

⋅

−⋅⋅⋅= 0;

10

1

OC

OC1EFADNmaxLE

6T

yT,yT,KM,TyT,yLFT, (15)

Where: LELFT,y Leakage emissions due to change of load factor of taxis in year y (tCO2) NT,y Number of taxis in year y (taxis) ADT Average annual distance driven per taxi (km/taxi) EFKM,T,y Emission factor per kilometre of taxis in year y (gCO2/km) OCT,y Average occupancy rate of taxis in year y (passengers) OCT Average baseline occupancy rate of taxis prior to the project start (passengers)

The maximum load factor change attributed to taxis is the emission reductions due to passengers switching from taxis to the project (calculated by the emission factor per passenger-kilometre for taxis, the trip distance and the number of passengers transported by the project, which would have used taxis in absence of the project). This maximum condition is established as load factors might worsen citywide also due to factors external to the project and leakage from a load factor change taxis due to the project can at maximum be according to the number of passengers transported by the project which in absence of latter would have taken a taxi.

The occupancy rate of taxis is monitored through visual occupation studies counting the number of passengers.

The parameter emission factor per kilometre of baseline taxis in the year y (EFKM,T,y) is calculated using the equation for EFKM,i,y presented in the baseline emissions section, substituting ifor T (taxis).

Determination of emissions due reduced congestion (LECON,y)

The project activity may reduce the number of remaining buses and potentially other vehicles on roads used by mixed traffic and, thus, also reduce congestion. On the other hand, MRTS project activities may also reduce the road space available for conventional buses and individual transport modes. Therefore, two effects resulting from reduced congestion are considered:

• Induced traffic effect (or rebound effect), i.e. more trips of passenger cars on the “affected roads”;

• Changes in vehicle speed effect, i.e. change of emissions due to a reduced or increased speed of cars on “affected roads”.

In the case that the implementation of the project activity leads to a reduction of road capacity available for individual motorised transport modes, the impact of changes in congestion shall be monitored in the



page 42

year 1 and 4 of the crediting period. In other cases (e.g., the project provides a new road infrastructure not taken from the existing road space in the city), monitoring of these changes is not required.98 This change in road capacity available for individual motorised transport modes may result from the reduction of road space due to the implementation of MRTS and/or a potential reduction of traffic flow due to the withdrawal of conventional public transport units as a result of the project activity.

To determine whether road capacity is reduced the following procedure shall be applied:

Step a): Determination of the additional road capacity available to motorised transport modes

The following equation determines the additional road capacity, available to the transport modes remaining in operation, as a result of the implementation of project activity in the year when the project MRT system is intended to reach its planned capacity:

∑ −−×=

y BL

PJBL

B

y

yRS

RSRSSRS

N

BSCRARS (16)

Where:

Additional road capacity available to individual motorised transport modes in year y when the project MRT system is intended to reach its planned capacity (in percentage)

BSCRy Bus units retired as a result of the project in year y

BN Number of buses in use in the baseline (units)

Share of road space used by public transport in the baseline (in percentage)

BLRS Total road space available in the baseline (lane-kilometers)

PJRS Total available road space in the project (= RSB minus kilometre of lanes that where reduced due to dedicating bus lanes to the project activity) (lane-kilometers)

The following equation shall be used to determine SRS if no recent and good quality study is available which has calculated this parameter:

CTB

B

TDTDTD

TDSRS

++××

=5.2

5.2 (17)

Where: Share of road space used by public transport in the baseline (in percentage)

BTD Total distance driven by public transport buses in the baseline (kilometers)

TTD Total distance driven in kilometers by taxis in the baseline (kilometers)

CTD Total distance driven in by passenger cars in the baseline (kilometers)

It is assumed that one bus occupies 2.5 times more road space than a personal car or a taxi.

98Emission reductions due to the speed increase of the traffic flow generally overweights the increase in emissions resulting from the traffic induction of passenger cars as a result of reduced congestion.

yARS

SRS

SRS



page 43

For all distance variables the same vintage of data, the same spatial scope and the same time-span (e.g., one month or one year) is required.

ARSy is positive in the project and therefore LECON,y is assumed to be zero. Therefore equations 18 to 22 of the methodology are not used.

Upstream Emissions from Gaseous Fuels (LEUP,y)

Upstream leakage of gaseous fuels shall be only included if the project vehicles consume more gaseous fuels than baseline vehicles. Project vehicles do not consume gaseous fuels. Therefore upstream emissions from gaseous fuels are not included and therefore formulas 23 to 25 of the methodology are not used.

EMISSION REDUCTIONS

yyyy LEPEBEER −−= (18)

Where: ERy Emission reductions in year y (t CO2e/yr) BEy Baseline emissions in year y (t CO2e/yr) PEy Project emissions in year y (t CO2/yr) LEy Leakage emissions in year y (t CO2/yr)

B.6.2. Data and parameters that are available at validation:

In addition to the parameters listed in the tables below, the provisions on data and parameters not monitored in the tools referred to in this methodology apply.

Data / Parameter: SFCC/T/M, G

Data unit: g/km Description: Specific fuel consumed of passenger cars (C), taxis (T) and motorcycles (M)

using gasoline Source of data used: Global Environment Facility (GEF), 2010, Table 3, p. 18, File 4 Value applied: Cars: 82.3

Taxis: 92.6 Motorcycles: 12.3

Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

No national values are available. Value is therefore taken from a broad based international study published by the GEF 2010.

Any comment: To transform from litres to grams the specific weight of gasoline was taken based on International Energy Agency (IEA), 2005, table A.3.8 Calculation: Cars: 11.1 (l/100km) / 100 * 0.741 (kg/l) * 1,000 = 82.3 g/km Taxis: 12.5 (l/100km) / 100 * 0.741 (kg/l) * 1,000 = 92.6 g/km



page 44

Motorcycles: 1.7 (l/100km) / 100 * 0.741 (kg/l) * 1,000 = 12.3 g/km

Data / Parameter: SFCB,L,D

Data unit: g/km Description: Specific fuel consumed of large diesel buses where B stands for vehicle

category Bus and L for sub-category Large and D for fuel type diesel Source of data used: DTP, 2010 (File 11b) Value applied: 690.3 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Data is based on measurements realized of vehicles (not a survey). The lower 95% confidence interval of the sample is taken. Based on EB 65 Annex 2 point 10 the sample size should be large enough to comply with a 95% confidence interval and a 10% error bound. The data was checked with a 5% error bound (instead of 10% i.e. more conservative) and the actual sample size is various times the required sample size. A previous study realized by Senes along corridor Insurgentes shows a comparable value however with a smaller sample99. Nearly 50% of diesel vehicles are elder than 1993. The sample has an average age of 1994 and thus reflects the vehicle average.100 Other factors which lead to a high fuel consumption are the slow moving speed (Baseline speed of buses is 15-19 km/h with peak hour speed of only 10 km/h101), the congestion in Mexico leading to stop-and-go traffic and the altitude. Mexico is located at 2,310 m.s.l. which leads to increased fuel consumption of vehicles102.

Any comment: The value measured is in litres. To transform from litres to grams the specific weight of diesel was taken based on IEA 2005, Table A.3.8. 81.8 (l/100km) / 100 * 0.844 (kg/l) * 1,000 = 690.3 g/km

Data / Parameter: SFCB,L,G

Data unit: g/km Description: Specific fuel consumed of large gasoline buses where B stands for vehicle

category Bus and L for sub-category Large and G for fuel type gasoline Source of data used: GEF, 2010, Table 3, p. 18, File 4 Value applied: 411.5 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

No national values are available. Value is therefore taken from a broad based international study published by the GEF 2010.

Any comment: To transform from litres to grams the specific weight of gasoline was taken based on IEA, 2005, table A.3.8 Calculation:

99 File 64, table 14a. p. 41 100 File 1c, graph 4.3.2., p.101 101 File 65, p. 147/148 102 Less oxygen results in incomplete combustion; more need to drive in full throttle



page 45

55.6 (l/100km) / 100 * 0.741 (kg/l) * 1,000 = 411.5 g/km

Data / Parameter: SFCB,L,EL

Data unit: kWh/km Description: Specific electricity consumed of large electric trolleybuses where B stands for

vehicle category Bus and L for sub-category Large and EL for fuel type electric trolleybus

Source of data used: Gobierno del Distrito Federal (GDF), 2009, File 3 Value applied: 2.48 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Calculated based on vehicle statistics (not sample) with total electricity consumed and total distance driven. Official government report.

Any comment: Total electricity consumed: 57,990,562 kWh (table 21, p.44) Total distance driven: 23,340,531 km (table 21, p.44)

Data / Parameter: SFCB,M,G

Data unit: g/km Description: Specific fuel consumed of medium gasoline buses where B stands for vehicle

category Bus and M for sub-category Medium and G for fuel type gasoline Source of data used: DTP, 2010, File 11c Value applied: 293.3 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Data is based on sample measurements realized of vehicles. The lower 95% confidence interval of the sample is taken. Based on EB65 Annex 2 point 10 the sample size should be large enough to comply with a 95% confidence interval and a 10% error bound. The data was checked and the actual sample size is various times the required sample size. Gasoline buses of this size (50 passengers) are seldom used in other cities. A comparable study realized by Senes 2006103 showed slightly higher values (51 l/100km instead of 40 l/100km). The monitored value is thus plausible.Other factors which lead to a high fuel consumption are the slow moving speed (Baseline speed of buses is 15-19 km/h with peak hour speed of only 10km/h104), the congestion in Mexico leading to stop-and-go traffic and the altitude. Mexico is located at 2,310 m.s.l. which leads to increased fuel consumption of vehicles105.

Any comment: To transform from litres to grams the specific weight of gasoline was taken based on IEA, 2005, table A.3.8 Calculation: 39.6 (l/100km) / 100 * 0.741 (kg/l) * 1,000 = 293.3 g/km

103 File 64, table 14a. p. 41 104 File 65, p147/148 105 Less oxygen results in incomplete combustion; more need to drive in full throttle



page 46

Data / Parameter: SFCB,M,LPG

Data unit: g/km Description: Specific fuel consumed of medium LPG buses where B stands for vehicle

category Bus and M for sub-category Medium and LPG for fuel type LPG Source of data used: DTP, 2010, File 11a Value applied: 315.9 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Data is based on sample measurements realized of vehicles. The lower 95% confidence interval of the sample is taken. Based on EB 65 Annex 2 point 10 the sample size should be large enough to comply with a 95% confidence interval and a 10% error bound. The data was checked and the actual sample size is various times the required sample size. LPG buses of this size (50 passengers) are seldom used in other cities. A comparable study realized by Senes 2006106 showed slightly higher values (73 l/100km instead of 61 l/100km). The monitored value is thus plausible.Other factors which lead to a high fuel consumption are the slow moving speed (Baseline speed of buses is 15-19 km/h with peak hour speed of only 10km/h107), the congestion in Mexico leading to stop-and-go traffic and the altitude. Mexico is located at 2,310 m.s.l. which leads to increased fuel consumption of vehicles108.

Any comment: The value measured is in litres. To transform from litres to grams the specific weight of LPG was taken based on IEA 2005, Table A.3.8. Calculation: 60.5 (l/100km) / 100 * 0.52 (kg/l) * 1,000 = 315.9 g/km

Data / Parameter: SFCB,S,G

Data unit: g/km Description: Specific fuel consumed of small gasoline buses where B stands for vehicle

category Bus and S for sub-category Small and G for fuel type gasoline Source of data used: DTP, 2010, File 11a Value applied: 105.2 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Data is based on measurements realized of vehicles (not a survey). The lower 95% confidence interval of the sample is taken. Based on EB65 Annex 2 point 10 the sample size should be large enough to comply with a 95% confidence interval and a 10% error bound. The data was checked and the actual sample size is various times the required sample size. A comparable study realized by Senes 2006109 showed identical values. The monitored value is thus plausible.

Any comment: The value measured is in litres. To transform from litres to grams the specific weight of gasoline was taken based on IEA 2005, Table A.3.8. Calculation: 14.2 (l/100km) / 100 * 0.741 (kg/l) * 1,000 = 105.2 g/km

106 File 64, table 14a. p. 41 107 File 65, p147/148 108 Less oxygen results in incomplete combustion; more need to drive in full throttle 109 File 64, table 14a. p. 41



page 47

Data / Parameter: EFGrid

Data unit: kgCO2/kWh Description: Emission factor for the grid Source of data used: Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity

consumption version 01, Scenario A Option A2, p. 4 (UNFCCC) Value applied: 0.4 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Default value as provided in “Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity consumption”

Any comment: Electricity is only used in the baseline and hydropower plants constitute in the average of the last 5 years less than 50% of total grid generation (option A2 of referenced tool) see Table 10

Data / Parameter: TDL

Data unit: Description: Average technical transmission and distribution losses for providing electricity Source of data used: Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity

consumption version 01, p.12, UNFCCC Value applied: 3% Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Default value of tool based on usage of electricity for baseline only

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: EFKM,B,CH4

Data unit: gCO2eq/km Description: CH4 emission factor of LPG buses Source of data used: IPCC 2006, table 3.2.4 Value applied: 1.4 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

IPCC value as no national measurements exist

Any comment: The methodology requires that CH4 emissions of vehicles using gaseous fuels are included. 0.067 gCH4 of IPCC is multiplied with the GWP of 21 for CH4 to calculate CO2eq



page 48

Data / Parameter: OCC

Data unit: Passengers Description: Average occupation rate of passenger cars Source of data used: DTP, 2009, File 2 Value applied: 1.48 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Survey realized using upper 95% confidence interval. The sample size required for a 95% confidence level and a 5% maximum error bound of a point estimation of simple random sample is 359 while the actual sample size taken was 117,094 units. Procedure followed TORs for occupation rate studies described in methodology.

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: OCT

Data unit: Passengers Description: Average occupation rate of taxis Source of data used: DTP, 2009, File 12 Value applied: 0.66 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Survey realized using upper 95% confidence interval. The sample size required for a 95% confidence level and a 5% maximum error bound of a point estimation of simple random sample is 2,504 while the actual sample size taken was 52,302 units. Procedure followed TORs for occupation rate studies described in methodology.

Any comment: Excluding driver Is monitored also for determination of leakage occupation rate.

Data / Parameter: OCM

Data unit: Passengers Description: Average occupation rate of motorcycles Source of data used: DTP, 2009, File 13 Value applied: 1.16 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Survey realized using upper 95% confidence interval. The sample size required for a 95% confidence level and a 5% maximum error bound of a point estimation of simple random sample is 151 while the actual sample size taken was 6,337 units. Procedure followed TORs for occupation rate studies described in methodology.

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: OCB

Data unit: Passengers and % Description: Average occupation rate of conventional buses Source of data used: Grütter Consulting AG based on data from Secretaria del Ambiente, GDF and

Metrobus, 2009, File 8 Value applied: 9 passengers and 17% Justification of the Calculation:



page 49

choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Trips on buses per day: 18,651,643 (File 21) Number of buses used per trip: 1.7 (File 7) Passengers on buses per day: Trips on buses per day * number of buses used per trip = 1,651,643*1.7 = 31,723,081 passengers per day Average trip distance on bus of passengers: 6.9 km (File 7) Average daily distance small/medium/large buses: 200/200/226 km (File 1c, Secretaría del Medio Ambiente del GDF, 2008, Table 4.3.10 p.106) Number of small/medium/large buses: 39,746/36,056/43,513 (File 1) Average daily distance driven of all buses: Distance driven * number of units per category = 24,994,338 km Average number of persons on the bus: Passengers * trip distance of passenger / distance driven all buses = 31,723,081 * 6.9 / 24,994,338 = 8.8 passengers Capacity small/medium/large bus: 20/50/85 passengers (File 46, p.24) Average capacity based on weighted capacity of buses based on number of units: 53 passengers Average occupation rate: passengers per bus / average capacity per bus = 8.8/53 = 16.6%

Any comment: Is monitored also for determination of leakage occupation rate.

Data / Parameter: PBLB

Data unit: Passengers Description: Passengers transported by conventional baseline buses per day Source of data used: GDF, File 21 and Metrobus, 2009, File 7 Value applied: 31,723,081 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Based on number of trips per day (18,651,587, File 21) and number of units per trip used (1.7 buses on average, File 7). Both data based on survey (OD and trip surveys).

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: TDBLP,B

Data unit: Kilometre Description: Average trip distance of passengers using conventional baseline buses Source of data used: Metrobus, 2009, File 7 Value applied: 6.9 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Based on survey (OD and trip surveys).



page 50

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: DDB

Data unit: Km Description: Average distance per day driven of conventional baseline buses Source of data used: Secretaria de Ambiente, 2009, File 1c Value applied: 24,994,338 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Based on number of units per category and daily distance driven per unit Average daily distance small/medium/large buses: 200/200/226 km (File 1c, Secretaría del MedioAmbiente del GDF, 2008, Table 4.3.10 p.106) Number of small/medium/large buses: 39,746/36,056/43,513 (File 1) Average daily distance driven of all buses: Distance driven * number of units per category = 24,994,338 km

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: DDL

Data unit: Km Description: Total distance driven of large baseline buses (per annum) Source of data used: Secretaría del Medio Ambiente del GDF, 2008, Table 4.3.10 p.106 , File 1c Value applied: 3,582 million Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Based on number of large buses and average daily distance driven per unit and 365 days per annum

Any comment: Average daily distance of 226 km per bus is based on (File 1c): -223 km per day on days except Sundays - 241 km/day on Sundays Average distance per day: (223*(365-52)+241*52)/365=225.56 Number of large buses (File 1): 43,513 DDL = 225.56*43,513*365=3,582 million km

Data / Parameter: DDM

Data unit: Km Description: Total distance driven of medium baseline buses (per annum) Source of data used: Secretaría del Medio Ambiente del GDF, 2008, Table 4.3.10 p.106, File 1c Value applied: 2,632 million Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Based on number of medium buses and average daily distance driven per unit and 365 days per annum

Any comment: Average daily distance of 200 km per bus is based on File 1c Number of medium buses (File 1): 36,056



page 51

DDM = 200*36,056*365 = 2,632 million km

Data / Parameter: DDS

Data unit: Km Description: Total distance driven of small baseline buses (per annum) Source of data used: Secretaría del Medio Ambiente del GDF, 2008, Table 4.3.10 p.106, File 1c Value applied: 2,901 million Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Based on number of small buses and average daily distance driven per unit and 365 days per annum

Any comment: Average daily distance of 200 km per bus is based on File 1c Number of small buses (File 1): 39,746 DDS: 200*39,746*365 = 2,901 million km

Data / Parameter: ADB

Data unit: Km Description: Average annual distance driven of baseline buses Source of data used: Secretaría del Medio Ambiente del GDF, 2008, File 1c Value applied: 76,403 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Based on DD per category of bus as calculated above divided by total number of buses

Any comment: Calculation: DDL: 3,582,468,803 km (see above) DDM 2,632,088,000 km (see above) DDS: 2,901,458,000 km (see above) Total DD all buses: 9,116 million km Number of buses: 119,315 (File 1) AD: 9,116*10^6/119,315 = 76,403 km

Data / Parameter: ADT

Data unit: Km/taxi Description: Average annual distance driven of taxis

Source of data used: Secretaría del Medio Ambiente del GDF, 2008, Table 4.3.10 p.106, File 1c Value applied: 62,600 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods

Based on daily distance of 200km and 313 operational days



page 52

and procedures actually applied : Any comment: Used for leakage load factor change taxis if calculation is required Data / Parameter: Ni

Data unit: Vehicles Description: Number of vehicles of category i Source of data used: Secretaría del Medio Ambiente del GDF, 2008, File 1 Value applied: Passenger cars (C)

3,389,697 gasoline (100%); 1,879 diesel (0%), 4,209 LPG (0%), 15 CNG (0%) Taxis (T) 154,953 gasoline (100%), 144 diesel (0%), 29 LPG (0%), 0 CNG (0%) Motorcycles (M) 180,701 units. All gasoline Small buses (called combis) (B,S): 39,128 gasoline (98%), 62 diesel (0%), 553 LPG (1%), 3 CNG (0%) Medium buses (called microbuses) (B,M): 19,902 gasoline (55%), 118 diesel (0%), 15,678 LPG (43%), 358 CNG (1%) Large buses (called autobuses) (B,L): 2,196 gasoline (5%), 40,791 diesel (94%), 121 LPG (0%), 0 CNG (0%), 405 electric trolleybuses (1%)


For calculation purposes vehicle categories with a marginal participation in fuel types are omitted. Shares per fuel for calculation purposes: Passenger cars: 100% gasoline Taxis: 100% gasoline Motorcycles: 100% gasoline Small buses: 100% gasoline Medium buses: 56% gasoline and 44% LPG Large buses excluding electric trolleybuses: 95% diesel and 5% gasoline Electric trolleybuses are included as separate category

Any comment: Official statistics

Data / Parameter: RSBL and RSPJ

Data unit: Km Description: Road space in the baseline and project Source of data used: SETRAVI (http://www.setravi.df.gob.mx/wb/stv/estadisticas) and Metrobus ,

2011, File 23 for road space quit by trunk lanes Value applied: Baseline: 20,400

Project 20,185 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Baseline road: assumed 2 lanes minimum (multiplication factor 2) Project trunk routes: 215 km (File 23), all on roads with minimum 3 lanes i.e. maximum 1 lane quit Project road space = 20,400-215 = 20,185

Any comment:



page 53

Data / Parameter: TDB,T,C

Data unit: Km Description: Total distance driven per annum of buses (B), taxis (T) and cars (C) Source of data used: Secretaría del Medio Ambiente del GDF, 2008, File 1 Value applied: Buses: 9,116 million

Taxis: 6,763 million Cars: 20,371


Calculated based on number of units multiplied with the average distance driven per annum in DF: Buses: Number of buses: 43,108+405 large, 36,056 medium and 39,746 small buses Distance driven large buses 226, medium and small buses 200km per day 365 days Taxis: Average distance per annum (ADT, see above): 62,600 Number of taxis: 108,041 (only DF as road space is also based only on DF) Cars: Average distance per annum: 9,390 based on Distance driven in ZMVM, Secretaría del MedioAmbiente del GDF, 2008, Table 4.3.9 p.105, File 1, based on daily distance and 313 days (maximum due to car restriction usage) Number of cars: 2,169,485 (only DF as road space is also based only on DF)

Any comment: NIZ, and VB are not used as the project does no reduce average available road space ARS (see calculation B.6.3). EFCO2,upstream,CH4 and EFCO2,upstream,LNG are not used as the project needs not include leakage upstream of gaseous fuels. The technology improvement factor IR used for buses, cars, taxis, and motorcycles is not included as this is a default factor of the methodology.

B.6.3. Ex-ante calculation of emission reductions:

BASELINE EMISSIONS

Details of the calculation are found in Annex 3. Table 12: Estimated Baseline Emissions (tCO2)

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

147,218 171,449 238,180 242,872 309,748 356,831 432,831 441,358 521,627 531,903

PROJECT EMISSIONS

Details of the calculation are found in Annex 3.



page 54

Table 13: Estimated Project Emissions (tCO2)

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

89,143 103,654 143,232 146,432 186,401 214,844 260,606 266,430 315,110 322,160

LEAKAGE EMISSIONS Leakage emissions are based on load factor change and leakage due to reduced congestion (rebound and vehicle speed change). No change of load factor is projected.

CTB

B

TDTDTD

TDSRS

++××

=5.2

5.2

Where: Share of road space used by public transport in the baseline (in percentage)

BTD Total distance driven by public transport buses in the baseline (kilometers)

TTD Total distance driven in kilometers by taxis in the baseline (kilometers)

CTD Total distance driven in by passenger cars in the baseline (kilometers)

Table 14: Data Used for SRS Calculation

Parameter Unit Value Source

TDB Km 9,116,014,803 File 1, See B.6.1. above for procedure TDC Km 20,371,464,150 File 1, See B.6.1. above for procedure TDT Km 6,763,366,600 File 1, See B.6.1. above for procedure

Result: SRS = 46%

∑ −−×=

y BL

PJBL

B

y

yRS

RSRSSRS

N

BSCRARS

Where:

Additional road capacity available to individual motorised transport modes in year y when the project MRT system is intended to reach its planned capacity (in percentage)

BSCRy Bus units retired as a result of the project in year y

BN Number of buses in use in the baseline (units)

Share of road space used by public transport in the baseline (in percentage)

BLRS Total road space available in the baseline (lane-kilometers)

PJRS Total available road space in the project (= RSB minus kilometre of lanes that where reduced due to dedicating bus lanes to the project activity) (lane-kilometers)

Table 15: Data Used for ARS Calculation

Parameter Unit Value Source

SRS % 46% Calculated see above BSCRy Buses See below Per year based on relation between project buses

and scrapped buses (see below)

SRS

yARS

SRS



page 55

NB Buses 119,315 File 1, see B.6.1. includes only buses in DF RSBL Km 20,400 http://www.setravi.df.gob.mx/wb/stv/estadisticas,

assumed 2 lanes minimum see B.6.1. RSPJ Km 20,185 RSBL minus trunk roads (File 23) see B.6.1.

BSCR calculation:

Buses scrapped/replaced per project bus: 4.1 conventional baseline buses are scrapped / replaced per project bus (calculated based on Eje 4 scrappped units (279, File 27) divided by project bus units Eje 4 year 2011 (68 buses, File 23)

Table 16: BSCR

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Project buses 172 199 271 279 353 408 494 509 604 622 BSCR 705 816 1,111 1,144 1,447 1,672 2,025 2,087 2,476 2,550 Project bus fleet File 23, BSCR calculated with factor 4.1 (see above)

Based on above listed equation ARSy is 5.1% and thus positive in the project and thereforeLECON,y is assumed to be zero.

B.6.4 Summary of the ex-ante estimation of emission reductions:

Year Estimation of

project activity

emissions

(tCO2e)

Estimation of

baseline

emissions

(tCO2e)

Estimation of

leakage

(tCO2e)

Estimation of

overall emission

reductions

(tCO2e)

2013 89,143 147,218 0 58,075 2014 103,654 171,449 0 67,795 2015 143,232 238,180 0 94,948 2016 146,432 242,872 0 96,440 2017 186,401 309,748 0 123,347 2018 214,844 356,831 0 141,987 2019 260,606 432,831 0 172,225 2020 266,430 441,358 0 174,928 2021 315,110 521,627 0 206,517 2022 322,160 531,903 0 209,743 Total (tCO2e) 2,048,012 3,394,017 0 1,346,005

B.7. Application of the monitoring methodology and description of the monitoring plan:

B.7.1 Data and parameters monitored:

All data collected as part of monitoring should be archived electronically and be kept at least for 2 years after the end of the last crediting period. 100% of the data should be monitored if not indicated otherwise in the tables below. All measurements should be conducted with calibrated measurement equipment according to relevant industry standards.



page 56

In addition to the parameters listed in the tables below, the provisions on data and parameters monitored in the tools referred to in this methodology apply. Data / Parameter: NCVx

Data unit: J/kg Description: Net calorific value of fuel type x being specifically gasoline (G), diesel (D)

and LPG (LPG) Source of data to be used: IPCC 2006, table 1.2 Value of data applied for the purpose of calculating expected emission reductions in section B.5

Gasoline: 42.5 *10^6 Diesel: 41.4 *10^6 LPG: 44.8 *10^6

Description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:

No national value; IPCC default value lower 95% confidence interval Annual monitoring

QA/QC procedures to be applied:

Any future revision of the IPCC Guidelines is taken into account.

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: EFCO2,x

Data unit: gCO2/J Description: CO2 emission factor for fuel type x being specifically gasoline (G), diesel

(D) and LPG (LPG) Source of data to be used: IPCC 2006, table 1.4 Value of data applied for the purpose of calculating expected emission reductions in section B.5

Gasoline: 67.5*10^-6 Diesel: 72.6*10^-6 LPG: 61.6*10^-6


No national value; IPCC default value lower 95% confidence interval Annual monitoring


Any future revision of the IPCC Guidelines is taken into account.

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: Nx,C/T/B

Data unit: Vehicles Description: Number of passenger cars (C), taxis (T) and baseline buses (B) using fuel

type x Source of data to be used: Secretaría del Medio Ambiente del GDF Value of data applied for the purpose of calculating expected emission reductions in section B.5

No change projected


Registration statistics Annual; latest available data not elder than 3 years



page 57


Any comment: Required to check if passenger cars or taxis use different fuels than those used for calculating the baseline parameter. The usage of biofuel blends is also checked.

Data / Parameter: P

Data unit: Passengers Description: Total passengers transported by the project Source of data to be used: Metrobus Value of data applied for the purpose of calculating expected emission reductions in section B.5

Table 17: Million Passengers per Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

102 121 169 174 224 261 320 330 394 405 For projections based on File 23. Values are rounded mathematically. For non-rounded values see Annex 3. Projections based on expected passengers per line consistent with the number of buses and the finance file.


Turnpike controls at stations and electronic smart cards will be used as well as eventually other control measures. Only passengers are included which enter stations of the trunk lines included in the project. Equipment of turnpikes and electronic smart cards are and can not be calibrated. Continuously monitored, aggregated at least annually


Control with ticket revenues. Fare dodgers are not counted which makes the numbers conservative. Revenues are not 100% identical to passenger numbers as e.g. tickets can be pre-charged with various trips.

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: FCPJ,x

Data unit: Liters Description: Total fuel of type x consumed by the project transport units Source of data to be used: Metrobus Value of data applied for the purpose of calculating expected emission reductions in section B.5

Table 18: Fuel Consumed per Year (million liter)

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

9.2 10.6 14.5 14.9 18.9 21.8 26.4 27.2 32.2 33.2 For projections based on File 23 for DD (see above) and the SFC (see below) based on File 5. Projections based on FC = SFC*DD Rounded values. For non-rounded values see Annex 3


Various methods exist and will potentially be used by operators such as RFID, DD*SFC (based on sample measurements or in the case of Volvo units based on electronic measuring based on Volvo Techtool), fuel invoices or logbooks. Continuously monitored, aggregated at least annually

QA/QC procedures to be Control with fuel invoices.



page 58

applied: Control with previous years as well as with SFC of comparable buses

(articulated and bi-articulated diesel buses). If deviations of specific fuel consumption are above normal fluctuations (defined as upper and lower 90% confidence level boundaries based on the monthly data recorded for the crediting period) then data is checked for consistency and potential errors. The filling stations are not owned by the project. The calibration of the fuel pumps follows the laws of Mexico.The data is thus based on filling station reports / data as also indicated in the approved methodology and is not a measurement of Metrobus.

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: DDPJ,x

Data unit: Km Description: Distance driven by project units using fuel type x Source of data to be used: Metrobus Value of data applied for the purpose of calculating expected emission reductions in section B.5

Table 19: Distance Driven per Year (million km)

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

12.9 14.9 20.3 20.9 26.5 30.6 37.1 38.2 45.3 46.7 For projections based on File 23. Rounded values (mathematical rounding). For non-rounded values see Annex 3. Projections based on average number of buses and average annual distance per bus required for the transport of projected passengers.


Based on GPS or comparable or on number of turnovers per day and trip distance. Continuously monitored, aggregated at least annually


Control with payment made to operators based on distance driven if applicable. Check with annual distance driven. The DD is only used for QA of fuel consumption through SFC. GPS are not calibrated. The GPS calibrates itself automatically and on a continuous base with 3 satellites and triangulates its position with these 3 satellites. The procedure of determining a 2-D position is based on using signals received from the best (or only) three available GPS satellites. Altitude is assumed to be known and constant. A 2-D position solution will only be determined if signals from three or more satellites are available. Odometers of buses, if latter are used, are also not calibrated. The information of DD is also only used for QA purposes and not for ER calculations.

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: SFCi,x

Data unit: l/km Description: Specific fuel consumption of vehicle category i (BRT buses)using fuel x Source of data to be used: Metrobus Value of data applied for the purpose of calculating

Articulated units: 0.712 For projections based on File 5



page 59

expected emission reductions in section B.5

All diesel units


Calculated based on distance and fuel consumed Calculated annually


SFC is not based on samples but on total data and thus calculated.

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: OCB/T

Data unit: Passengers Description: Average occupancy rate of buses and taxis Source of data to be used: Survey realized by project proponent or 3rd party Value of data applied for the purpose of calculating expected emission reductions in section B.5

No change of occupation rate previewed to baseline. This assumption is based on practical experience in TransMilenio Bogota which had no change of occupation rates of baseline buses or taxis. See verification report TransMilenio 2009 (published on www.unfccc.int).


For taxis based on visual occupation studies excluding the driver. Monitoring year 1 and 4


For details concerning measurement procedures see guidelines in Annex 3. Survey realized using upper 95% confidence interval. Procedure follows TORs for occupation rate studies described in methodology. For taxis the same study as for the baseline performed is made (File 12) For buses the same calculation procedure and the same studies as for the baseline performed are made (File 8)

Any comment: Leakage from load factor change of buses is only included if the load factor of buses has decreased by more than 10 percentage points (methodology p.18). The baseline value was 8.8 passengers idem to 16.6%. 10 percentage point change is 6.6% (16.6%-10%=6.6%) idem to an average of 3.5 passengers. No leakage needs thus be calculated if the bus occupation rate is more than on average 3.5 passengers.

TDIZ, NIZ, MS, VP NB are not used as the project does not need to include the congestion leakage. PEEL and TEEL are not used as the project system is a BRT and rail-based baseline systems are included with 0-emissions.

B.7.2. Description of the monitoring plan:

Monitoring Plan Objective The aim of the monitoring plan is to have all the information required of optimum quality. The monitoring manual provides procedures for this to continue, the organizational structure, key elements for each of the data required and the steps to follow to ensure good data quality.



page 60

Organizational Structure and Responsibilities The Department of Planning, Evaluation and Systems within Metrobus is responsible for all elements related to the CDM project. Within this division, a person shall be dedicated to data management for the CDM project – the Deputy Manager of Toll System and New Technologies. The responsibilities of the Deputy Manager of Toll System and New Technologies are:

• Compile and make available all information required for monitoring; • Control data and information in accordance with the monitoring manual; • Archive all documents in the manner and frequency in accordance with the monitoring manual; • Collect all data by the required frequency for monitoring the CDM project in accordance with the

monitoring manual; • Review the quality of data and, if required, arrange for collection of additional data; • Prepare an annual monitoring report; • Answer all questions and requests for additional information required by the DOE during

verification, in addition to responding to all questions received during the site visit to the UNFCCC.

All data should be archived electronically – any reports or correspondence received in "hard copy" should be scanned electronically. The staff of Metrobus will be trained on the Monitoring Manual by Grütter Consulting AG once the project is registered. Data Collection for Monitoring Following is a summary of all data that must be collected:

Table 20: Monitoring Parameters

Index Indicator Minimal

gathering

frequency

Data source

1 Fuel types used by cars, taxis, buses incl. bio-fuel usage

Annual Department of Transport, Environmental Secretariat

2 Passengers transported annual Metrobus 3 Fuel consumption BRT units Annual Metrobus 4 Distance driven BRT units Annual Metrobus

5 Passenger survey for indirect project and baseline emission per passenger and mode share baseline

Year 1 and 4 complete survey and year 1 only re-test survey

realized by external survey company

6 Number of buses and taxis Year 1 and 4 Department of Transport, Environmental Secretariat

7 Occupation rate buses and taxis Year 1 and 4 Metrobusor external survey company 8 Net Calorific Value Annual IPCC 9 Emission factors of fuels Annual IPCC



page 61

For the survey on mode of transport see the Annex A5.

B.8. Date of completion of the application of the baseline study and monitoring methodology and

the name of the responsible person(s)/entity(ies):

Completion date: 20/12/2011 The PDD as well as the methodology used for this PDD was developed by Grütter Consulting AG. Staff involved in the elaboration of this PDD include Dr. Jürg M. Grütter, CEO Grütter Consulting AG and Susana Ricaurte Farfán, Colombia Country Manager Grütter Consulting AG. The PDD was realized in cooperation with the Mexican partner of Grütter Consulting, AG Bienes Inmuebles y Tecnología S.A de C.V (BITSA) under the management of David Gutierrez. Grütter Consulting AG is responsible for the baseline determination of the project and author of the methodology used for this project. Contact person: Jürg M. Grütter [email protected] www.transport-ghg.com Grütter Consulting AG is also a project participant. SECTION C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period

C.1. Duration of the project activity:

C.1.1. Starting date of the project activity:

18/07/2007 The project starting date is the signature of the first construction contract110.

C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of the project activity:

Infrastructure minimum 30 years C.2. Choice of the crediting period and related information:

C.2.1. Renewable crediting period:

C.2.1.1. Starting date of the first crediting period:

NA

110 File 30



page 62

C.2.1.2. Length of the first crediting period:

NA C.2.2. Fixed crediting period:

C.2.2.1. Starting date:

01/01/2013 C.2.2.2. Length:

10 years, 0 months SECTION D. Environmental impacts

D.1. Documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts, including transboundary

impacts: The environmental impact of the project is considered positive. Following environmental impacts are expected: � Reduction of air pollution basically particle matter, NOx and HCs due to using Euro 3 and Euro 4

buses plus having a more efficient public transport system which spurs people to shift from taxis, passenger cars and motorcycles to the less polluting public transport.

� Positive impact on potential transboundary air pollution due to reduced emissions of air pollutants (PM, NOx, SO2 basically)

111. Transboundary air pollution is a particular problem for pollutants that are not easily destroyed or react in the atmosphere to form secondary pollutants. Typical transboundary air pollutants are carbon monoxide, PM10, non-methane VOCs112 and NOx (resulting potentially in ground-level ozone which again is a major component of smog) or sulphur dioxide (SO2 together with NOx are primary precursors of acid rain). All these pollutants are related to the combustion of diesel, gasoline or gaseous fuels. The project activity reduces the usage of fossil fuels – this is the reason why it reduces GHG emissions. Less usage of fossil fuels is parallel to less SO2 emissions as latter are dependent on the sulphur contents of the fuel used. At the same time the project uses only Euro III and Euro IV units while conventional buses have to 50% still technology Euro II, I or even elder with much higher NOx and PM emissions (see chapter A.4.3. and Figure 3). Diesel buses are only minor emitters of NMVOCs and of CO (gasoline vehicles are major emitters of latter). As also the quantity of gasoline vehicles (basically taxis and cars but also small buses) is reduced through mode shift we also have a reduction of these emissions. Thus, while not being quantified, it is obvious that the project will contribute, albeit in a limited manner, to reduce the problem of transboundary air pollutants in the

111 For a general description of Transboundary Air Pollution see article by F. DiGiovanni, EOLSSS, 2006 (File 67); For the relevance of Mexico City on global air pollution and transboundary effects see e.g. H. Akimoto, Global Air Quality and Pollution, Science Vol. 302, 5/12/2003, citing specifically Mexico City on p.1719 (File 68) 112 Volatile Organic Components



page 63

area of Mexico. This is also confirmed by the Environmental Impact Manifest and by the environmental permit113.

� Reduced noise pollution due to a reduced amount of vehicles, improved traffic fluidity with less stop-and-go traffic and more modern units.

For each line of the project an environmental permit is required based on the Environmental Law of the DF114. Lines which have not yet started construction will receive the permits prior construction start. D.2. If environmental impacts are considered significant by the project participants or the host

Party, please provide conclusions and all references to support documentation of an environmental

impact assessment undertaken in accordance with the procedures as required by the host Party:

The project complies with all legal requirements of the environmental legislation of the Federal District, enforced by the Environmental Authority. The project realized for each line an Environmental Impact Manifest (EIM)115. The major conclusion of the EIM is a positive environmental impact from the project due to transit reorganization. Negative impacts are during construction being mainly temporary traffic disruption, construction debris and temporary affection of vegetation. The EIM identifies potential major environmental impacts and has a contingency plan which includes a monitoring section as well as follow-up part. The EIM determines a baseline idem to the situation prior project including not only environmental but also social and cultural aspects. The potential impacts are typical of road construction such as cutting trees, debris, noise and air pollution during construction, etc. The permits of environmental impact have been granted to the Line 2-Eje 4 Sur, Line 3-Eje 1 Poniente and Line 4-Centro Historico by the Secretariat of Environmental of the Federal District116. The environmental permit identifies various positive environmental impacts being basically117:

• Improved air quality and less pollution. • Improved transit and public transit management. • Integration of municipal transport, development and environmental policies. • Fleet substitution (small, medium buses) for new trunk buses with proper maintenance.

No major negative environmental impacts were identified. The environmental permits include the mitigation measures and responsibilities (for minor impacts).

113 File 69, File 70 and File 71 114 File 69, File 70 and File 71 115 File 72, File 73 and File 74; see also letter File 91a and 91b concerning sufficiency of EIM and EIM for new lines 116 File 69, File 70 and File 71 117 File 69, p. 26, File 70, p. 5, and File 71, p. 3



page 64

SECTION E. Stakeholders’ comments

E.1. Brief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled: Main stakeholders identified include persons living near construction sites of trunk routes, the general public and owners as well as drivers of existing (baseline) buses. Persons Living Near to Construction Sites Persons living near to construction sites or sites (neighbours) where major bus-stations are built are potentially affected by these activities. Also some people needed to be relocated. Various meetings were organized with the affected people and their comments were received. Meetings such as “Roundtable Workshops with Neighbours” were carried out and convened by the Federal District Government by the Secretariat Office General Direction for Political Agreement, Citizen and Social Attention118, which also carried out the relevant monitoring according to each case as demanded. General Public

Prime beneficiaries due to a reduced travel time, less congestion (also relevant for users of private vehicles) and an improved air quality are the users of the public transport system. Metrobus through a professional company completed customer satisfaction surveys, monitoring the quality of offered services on a regular base as well as receiving client complaints119. Stakeholders and system users as well as public in general may also address complaints or remarks through the Metrobus120website or phone costumer service (number 57616870 or 57616860, ext. 121). People placing complaints receive a personal addressed answer through the same mechanism used for addressing the complaint. Records of all complaints as well as follow-up measures are maintained by Metrobus. Complaints concern, e.g, speeding, crowded buses, bus delays etc. All complaints are categorized according to type of complaint and means through which complaints were made (e.g. written, phone, Internet). Corrective measures are taken by Metrobus based on these reports. Owners and Drivers of Baseline Buses Owners and drivers of the existing (baseline) public transport system fear suffering economic losses and express their desire to be included in the system. Metrobus has been coordinating the project development closely with the transport organizations and carried out numerous meetings with their representatives to discuss all parts of the project. The existing transport sector is directly involved in the system as operators of the trunk route121.

118 File 75, File 76 and File 77 119 File 78 120 http://www.metrobus.df.gob.mx/quejas.html; http://www.metrobus.df.gob.mx/foro.html?id=191-2 121 File 79



page 65

In the case of the line Eje 4 Sur and line Eje 1 Poniente concession titles for operations were granted to small-scale bus owners who previously operated public transport routes in this corridor122. For the case of Eje 4 operating concessions were granted to four enterprises: “Corredor Eje 4-17M, S.A de C.V, Corredor Oriente Poniente, S.A. de C.V, Corredor Tecaltes Tacubaya, S.A de C.V and Transportes SAJJ, S.A. de C.V.” which were established for operating the corridor and grouped 279123 small-scale bus owners who operated Routes # 110, 49, 53, 27 and 11 of conventional public transport. For the case of Eje 1 Poniente operating concession was granted to Movilidad Integral de Vanguardia S.A.P.I de C.V.124which was established for operating the corridor and grouped 153125 small-scale bus owners who operated Routes # 1, 3 and 88 of the conventional public transport system126. Since 01/2007 various stakeholder meetings with numerous representatives were held, all of which are documented127. Major information channels were used including numerous leaflets on different topics, mass media communication, open phone line or e-mail128. A stakeholder meeting for all lines was also made additionally 06/06/2012 (environment day) realized at the Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana with 20 people assisting129. See also Annex for summary130. E.2. Summary of the comments received: As a general condition, the community was permanently informed and also participated actively in the development of the project. It is important to mention that the community inquiries made to the Metrobus have been attended in a timely fashion and from its very beginning. The community through civil organizations such as residents associations have been participating in the project. The main questions raised concerned the system itself, its purpose and constitution, benefits, the impact of the project on housing and workplaces, construction time periods, traffic management, relocation retailers, public space rehabilitation, pedestrian alleys in construction site, among others131. Comments from bus owners were focused basically on potential job and income losses and their involvement and participation in the systems operation. Negotiation meetings and roundtables were held with transport companies. The stability of bus owner’s is a key element for a successful outcome of any mass transport system. An extraordinary effort was made by Metrobus to address this matter in order to assure that bus owners were included in the transport restructuring activity.

122 For Line Corredor Historico, the concession title has not been granted. 123 File 80, p. 14 124 File 81 125 File 82, p. 39 126 File 82, p. 37 table 7 127 File 83 and 95 128 File 84 129 File 96 130 File 97 131 File 75, File 76 and File 77



page 66

As a result, organized small-scale bus owners established the enterprises Corredor Eje 4-17M S.A de C.V132, Corredor Oriente Poniente S.A. de C.V133, Corredor Tecaltes Tacubaya S.A de C.V134 and Transportes SAJJ S.A. de C.V135 and Movilidad Integral de Vanguardia S.A.P.I de C.V.136through which a request for the concessions were finally granted. At the institutional level, the open communication between the different levels of government have been vital to the project. It is well known that the construction of a mass transport system in a big city is very complex and requires the interaction of many government agencies and other public and private companies with services in the area such has telephone, water, gas to mention a few137. The project in general terms received a very positive reaction and the stakeholders suggest keeping

an open communicating channel. E.3. Report on how due account was taken of any comments received: The remarks received from people living near to construction sites were followed-up and integrated by Government Secretariat Office General Direction for Political Agreement, Citizen and Social Attention. Records of requests and complaints as well as the respective corrective actions are documented. Informational documents and brochures were distributed among the community. Also many seminars and presentations were made by officials from Metrobus. Comments considering trunk road constructions are diverse and include information requests, access to roads, traffic caused, financial compensation, among others. People who placed complaints, remarks or questions received a direct feedback from Metrobus who relied on the same communication channel (e.g. mail, phone, webpage) as used by the person depositing a claim. Metrobus has a service improvement plan which is based on evaluation reports. Included aspects concern both infrastructure as well as operational issues. Possible outcomes are e.g. an increase of bus frequencies, improved maintenance, driving practices for bus drivers, trainings to avoid disrespectful behavior towards women in buses, among others. The results of roundtables and discussions with bus owners prompted significant changes in the way how small enterprises participate in Metrobus. As a result the concessions for the operation “Line Eje 4 Sur and Line Eje 1 Poniente” were granted to the enterprises Corredor Eje 4-17M S.A de C.V138, Corredor Oriente Poniente S.A. de C.V139, Corredor Tecaltes Tacubaya S.A de C.V140 and Transportes SAJJ S.A.

132 File 85 133 File 86 134 File 87 135 File 42 136 File 81 137 File 83 138 File 85 139 File 86 140 File 87



page 67

de C.V141and Movilidad Integral de Vanguardia S.A.P.I de C.V.142 constituted by bus owners who operated the route long before the initiation of the Metrobus BRT operation.

141 File 42 142 File 81



page 68

Annex 1

CONTACT INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROJECT ACTIVITY

Organization: Metrobús Street/P.O.Box: Av. Cuauhtémoc No.16, 5° piso,

Col. Doctores, Deleg. Cuauhtémoc

Building: City: México State/Region: Distrito Federal Postcode/ZIP: 06720 Country: México Telephone: (52-55)-57-61-69-38 FAX: E-Mail: [email protected] URL: www.metrobus.df.gob.mx Represented by: Title: Director General Salutation: Mr Last name: Calderón Middle name: First name: Guillermo Department: Dirección General Mobile: (52-55)-5530431674 Direct FAX: (52-55)-57616938 Direct tel: (52-55)-57616938 Personal e-mail: [email protected] Organization: BIENES INMUEBLES Y TECNOLOGIA S.A DE C.V Street/P.O.Box: Blvd Adolfo Lopez Mateos 379 Piso 2 Col San AngelInn Building: CorporativoAltavista City: Mexico State/Region: Distrito Federal Postcode/ZIP: 01760 Country: Mexico Telephone: (52) (55) 56683524 FAX: (52) (55) 56683524 E-Mail: [email protected]

URL: Represented by: Title: General Manager Salutation: Last Name: Gutierrez Huerta Middle Name: Alberto



page 69

First Name: David Department: Mobile: (52) (55) 20958733 Direct FAX: Direct tel: (52) (55) 56683524 Personal E-Mail: [email protected]

Organization: Grütter Consulting AG Street/P.O.Box: Thiersteinerstr. 22/5 Building: City: Reinach State/Region: BL Postcode/ZIP: 4153 Country: Switzerland Telephone: ++ 41 61 711 15 91 FAX: ++ 41 61 206 95 26 E-Mail: [email protected] URL: www.transport-ghg.com Represented by: Title: CEO Salutation: Last Name: Grütter Middle Name: Michael First Name: Jürg Department: Mobile: 591 705 82 987 Direct FAX: Direct tel: 591 2214 83 11 Personal E-Mail: [email protected]



page 70

Annex 2

INFORMATION REGARDING PUBLIC FUNDING

There is no Official Development Assistance in this project and the project will not receive any public funding from Parties included in Annex I.

Annex 3

BASELINE INFORMATION

A.1. BASELINE EMISSIONS

A.1.1. Formulas

( )ypyp

pSPER

y

y FEXBEP

PBE ,, ⋅= ∑

Where: BEy Baseline emissions in the year y (g CO2) BEp,y Baseline emissions per surveyed passenger p in the year y (g CO2) FEXp,y Expansion factor for each surveyed passenger p surveyed in the year y(each surveyed passenger has a different expansion factor) Py Total number of passengers in the year y PSPER Number of passengers in the time period of the survey (1 week) p Surveyed passenger y Year of the crediting period

∑ ⋅=i

y,i,PKMy,i,py,p EFBTDBE

Where: BEp,y Baseline emissions per surveyed passenger p in the year y (g CO2) BTDp,i,y Baseline trip distance p per surveyed passenger using mode i in the year y (PKM) EFPKM,i,y Emission factor per passenger-kilometre of mode i in the year y (g CO2/PKM) i Relevant vehicle category p Surveyed passenger y Year of the crediting period

i

y,i,KMy,i,PKM OC

EFEF =


CDM – Executive Board page 72

Where: EFPKM,i Emission factor per passenger-kilometre of vehicle category i in the year y (g CO2/PKM) EFKM,i Emission factor per kilometre of vehicle category i in the year y (g CO2/km) OCi Average occupation rate of vehicle category i prior project start (passengers) i Relevant vehicle category y Year of the crediting period

B

BPB

BDD

TDBLPBLOC

,×=

Where: OCB Average occupation rate of buses prior project start (passengers) PBLB Passengers transported by baseline buses prior project (passengers) TDBLP,B Average trip distance of passengers using baseline bus (kilometre) DDB Distance driven by all baseline buses (kilometre)

( )( )

i

x

ixyxCOyxxiyt

iyiKMN

NEFNCVSFC

IREF

∑ ⋅⋅⋅⋅= +

,,,2,,

,,

Where: EFKM,i,,y, Emission factor per kilometre of vehicle category iin the year y(g CO2/km) SFCx,i Specific fuel consumption of vehicle category i using fuel type x prior project start (g/km) NCVx,y Net calorific value of fuel x in the year y (J/g) EFCO2,x,y Carbon emission factor for fuel type xin the year y(g CO2/J) Nx,i Number of vehicles of category i using fuel type x prior to project start (units) Ni Number of vehicles of category i prior to project start (units) IRi

t+y Technology improvement factorfor the vehicle of category iper year t+y(ratio) i Relevant vehicle category x Fuel type t Years of annual improvement (dependent on age of data per vehicle category)



y Year of the crediting period

SML

ySySKMyMyMKMyLyLKM

yBKMDDDDDD

DDEFDDEFDDEFEF

++

×+×+×= ,,,,,,,,,

,,

Where: EFKM,B,y Emission factor per kilometre of buses (gCO2/km) EFKM,L/M/S,y Emission factor per kilometre of buses sub-category L (large buses), M (medium sized buses) and S (small buses) (gCO2/km) DDL/M/S Total distance driven of buses sub-category L (large buses), M (medium sizedbuses) and S (small buses) prior project start (kilometre) y Year of the crediting period

)1(,,,,, yyELyTBBLyTBEC TDLEFECBE +××=

Where: BEEC,TB,y Baseline emissions from electricity consumption of trolleybuses in the year y (tCO2) ECBL,TB,y Quantity of electricity consumed by baseline trolleybuses in the year y (MWh) FEEL,y Emission factor for electricity generation in the grid in the year y(tCO2/MWh) TDLy Average technical transmission and distribution losses for providing electricity in year y



A.1.2. Data Used

Table A.1. Baseline Parameters

Parameter Description Value Unit Source

EFgrid,CM Emission factor of grid 0.4 tCO2/MWh UNFCCC TDL Average technical and distribution losses for providing electricity 3% UNFCCC SFCTB Quantity of electricity consumed by trolleybuses 248 kWh/100km File 3 SFCC Specific fuel consumption cars (gasoline) 11.1 l/100km File 4 SFCT Specific fuel consumption taxis (gasoline) 12.5 l/100km File 4 SFCM Specific fuel consumption motorcycles (gasoline) 1.7 l/100km File 4 SFCB,L,D Specific fuel consumption large diesel buses 81.8 l/100km File 11b SFCB,L,G Specific fuel consumption large gasoline buses 55.6 l/100km File 4 SFCB,M,LPG Specific fuel consumption medium LPG buses 60.5 l/100km File 11a SFCB,M,G Specific fuel consumption medium gasoline buses 39.6 l/100km File 11c SFCB,S Specific fuel consumption small buses (gasoline) 14.2 l/100km File 11a NCVG Net calorific value gasoline 42.5 MJ/kg IPCC NCVD Net calorific value diesel 41.4 MJ/kg IPCC NCVLPG Net calorific value LPG 44.8 MJ/kg IPCC EFCO2,G CO2 emission factor gasoline 67.5 gCO2/MJ IPCC EFCO2,D CO2 emission factor diesel 72.6 gCO2/MJ IPCC EFCO2,LPG CO2 emission factor LPG 61.6 gCO2/MJ IPCC EFCH4,LPG CH4 emission factor of LPG buses 1.4 gCO2/km IPCC Specific weight gasoline 0.741 kg/l IEA, 2005, Table A.3.8) Specific weight diesel 0.844 kg/l IEA, 2005, Table A.3.8) Specific weight LPG 0.522 kg/l IEA, 2005, Table A.3.8) IR Technology improvement factor 0.99 no unit Methodology table 2 Share diesel of large buses (excluding electric trolleybuses) 95% % File1 Share gasoline of large buses (excluding electric trolleybuses) 5% % File1 Number of large electric trolleybuses 405 % File1 Share gasoline of medium buses 56% % File1 Share LPG of medium buses 44% % File1 OCC Occupation rate cars 1.48 passengers File 2 OCT Occupation rate taxis 0.66 passengers File 12 OCM Occupation rate motorcycles 1.16 passengers File 13



OCB Occupation rate conventional baseline buses 9 passengers File 8 NB,S Number of small buses 39,746 buses File 1 NB,M Number of medium buses 36,056 buses File 1 NB,L Number of large buses excluding electric trolleybuses 43,108 buses File 1 DDB,S Daily distance driven small bus 200 kilometre File 1 DDB,M Daily distance driven medium bus 200 kilometre File 1 DDB,L Daily distance driven large bus 226 kilometre File 1 P Passengers transported by the project See table A4 passengers File 23 BTDPS,i Baseline trip distance of the surveyed passenger using mode i Value per

passenger surveyed

km File 6

Table A2. Emissions per Kilometre of Modes (gCO2/km)

Mode 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Passenger car 229 227 225 222 220 218 216 214 211 209 Taxi 258 255 253 250 248 245 243 240 238 235 Motorcycle 34 34 34 33 33 33 32 32 32 31 Conventional Bus 1,092 1,082 1,071 1,060 1,049 1,039 1,029 1,018 1,008 998

Table A3. Emissions per Passenger-Kilometre of Modes (gCO2/PKM)

Mode 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Passenger car 155 153 152 150 149 147 146 144 143 141 Taxi 391 387 383 379 375 371 368 364 360 357 Conventional Bus 125 123 122 121 120 119 117 116 115 114 Motorcycle 30 29 29 29 28 28 28 28 27 27



A.1.3. Results

Table A4. Baseline Emissions

Parameter unit 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Passengers transported passengers

102,489,686 120,564,376 169,181,308 174,256,747 224,484,449 261,218,983 320,055,552 329,657,219 393,546,935 405,353,344

Baseline emissions per passenger

gCO2/passenger 1,436 1,422 1,408 1,394 1,380 1,366 1,352 1,339 1,325 1,312

Total

baseline

emissions tCO2 147,218 171,449 238,180 242,872 309,748 356,831 432,831 441,358 521,627 531,903



A.2. PROJECT EMISSIONS A.2.1. Formulas

yyy IPEDPEPE +=

Where: PEy Project emissions in the year y(tCO2) DPEy Direct project emissions in the year y(tCO2) IPEy Indirect project emissions in the year y(tCO2) y Year of the crediting period

( )∑ ××=x

yxCOyxyxPJy EFNCVFCDPE ,,2,,,

Where: DPEy Direct project emissions in the year y (tCO2) FCPJ,x,y Total fuel consumed of fuel type x in the year y (mass or volume units of fuel) NCVx,y Net calorific value of fuel x in the year y (J/g) EFCO2,x,y Carbon emission factor for fuel type x in the year y(g CO2/J) y Year of the crediting period

yxPJyxiyxPJ DDSFCFC ,,,,,, ×=

Where: FCPJ,x,y Total fuel consumed of fuel type x in the year y (mass or volume units of fuel) SFCi,x,y Specific fuel consumption of vehicle category i using fuel x in the year y (mass or volume unit per kilometre) DDPJ,x,y Distance driven of project units consuming fuel x in the year y(km) y Year of the crediting period



( )ypyp

pSPER

y

y FEXIPEP

PIPE ,, ⋅= ∑

Where: IPEy Indirect project emissions in the year y (g CO2) IPEp,y Indirect project emissions per surveyed passenger p in the year y (g CO2) FEXp,y Expansion factor for each surveyed passenger p surveyed in the year y(each surveyed passenger has a different expansion factor) Py Total number of passengers in the year y PSPER Number of passengers in the time period of the survey (1 week) p Surveyed passenger y Year of the crediting period

∑ ×=i

yiPKMyipyp EFIPTDIPE ,,,,,

Where: IPEp,y Indirect project emissions per surveyed passenger p in the year y (g CO2) IPTDp,i,y Indirect project trip distance p per surveyed passenger using mode i in the year y (PKM) EFPKM,i,y Emission factor per passenger-kilometre of mode i in the year y (g CO2/PKM) i Relevant vehicle category p Surveyed passenger y Year of the crediting period

A.2.2. Data Used

Table A5. Project Parameters

Parameter Description Value Unit Source

FCy Quantity of diesel fuel consumed by the project buses See table A6 liters File 23 and 5 SFCPJ Specific fuel consumption BRT buses 71.2 l/100km File 5 DDPJ Distance driven BRT buses Table A6 kilometre File 23 EFPKM,i Emission factor per passenger-kilometre of mode “i” gCO2/PKM See table A.1. (the same emission factors are



used in the baseline and the project case)

IPTDPS,i Indirect project trip distance of the surveyed passenger using mode “i” Value per passenger surveyed

km File 6

P Passengers transported by the project See table A6 passengers File 23

Table A6. Passengers Transported and Fuel Consumed

Parameter unit 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Passengers transported passengers

102,489,686 120,564,376 169,181,308 174,256,747 224,484,449 261,218,983 320,055,552 329,657,219 393,546,935 405,353,344

Distance Driven km

12,891,669 14,924,308 20,309,706 20,918,997 26,484,235 30,570,541 37,083,682 38,196,192 45,267,280 46,625,298

Fuel consumed Liters

9,182,100 10,629,849 14,465,603 14,899,571 18,863,416 21,773,890 26,412,879 27,205,265 32,241,652 33,208,902

A.2.3. Results

Table A7. Project Emissions

Parameter unit 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Indirect project emissions per passenger gCO2eq 643 636 630 623 617 611 605 599 593 587 Direct project emissions tCO2eq 23,290 26,962 36,691 37,791 47,845 55,227 66,994 69,004 81,778 84,231 Indirect project emissions tCO2eq 65,853 76,692 106,541 108,640 138,555 159,616 193,612 197,426 233,331 237,928 Total project emissions tCO2eq 89,143 103,654 143,232 146,432 186,401 214,844 260,606 266,430 315,110 322,160



A.3. EMISSION REDUCTIONS

A.3.1. Formulas

yyyy LEPEBEER −−=

Where: ERy Emission reductions in year “y” (t CO2e/yr) BEy Baseline emissions in year “y” (t CO2e/yr) PEy Project emissions in year “y” (t CO2/yr) LEy Leakage emissions in year “y” (t CO2/yr)

A.3.2. Results

Table A8. Emission Reductions in tCO2

Parameter unit 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Baseline emissions tCO2 147,218 171,449 238,180 242,872 309,748 356,831 432,831 441,358 521,627 531,903 Project emissions tCO2 89,143 103,654 143,232 146,432 186,401 214,844 260,606 266,430 315,110 322,160 Leakage emissions tCO2 - - - - - - - - - - Emissions reductions tCO2 58,075 67,795 94,948 96,440 123,347 141,987 172,225 174,928 206,517 209,743

For ex-ante estimation of the baseline and indirect project emissions a pre-survey or test survey was realized which is only used to realize ex-ante projections. This survey cannot be done on the BRT project lines as these do not yet exist. Thus the survey was done on another line with a limited amount of passengers as a pre-survey. The survey the same as the methodology but the survey number is far more limited and calculations are based on averages with expansion factors of 1. This is justified as resultants are approximate as passenger numbers, lines, O-Ds and used modes will not be identical on project lines to the selected survey line. This was made the same manner for the registered CDM BRT projects 4945 and 5437 using ACM0016 in Mexico City with the same survey.

A.4. TORs OCCUPATION RATE STUDIES

A.4.1. TAXIS

The actual number of passengers is counted in a given point within a given time period. The counting is based on visual occupation counting the number of passengers occupying the vehicle excluding the driver. The procedures to establish visual occupation are:

1. Locations, days and times for field study are defined, avoiding days immediately after or before a holiday. Atypical seasons (school or university vacations) should be avoided. Details for the studies are:

a. Sites:

i. Hank Gonzalez – Av. Central

ii. Hank Gonzalez - Rafael M. Hidalgo

iii. Hank Gonzalez - R1

iv. Buenavista

v. Glorieta de Insurgentes

vi. Viaducto y Insurgentes

vii. Calzada de Gpe Y Noe

viii. Mariano Escobedo y Marina Nacional

ix. Oriente 101 y Eduardo Molina

x. R1 - La Gobernadora

xi. R1- San Agustin

xii. Periferico - R1

b. Time: 7 AM to 10 AM, 11AM to 2PM and 3PM to 6PM

c. Days: 5 weekdays

2. Field data is collected. Coverage of the occupation counts should be higher than 95% of the number of taxis that cross the checkpoint. 100% coverage is desired. To control this outcome a separate vehicle count is advised. Data can be adjusted with the actual count;

3. Occupation is the number of passengers using the vehicle. The driver is not counted. Taxis without passengers are counted as zero occupation;

4. The total number of vehicles and the total number of passengers is reported. The average occupation rate of vehicles is the total number of passengers divided by the total number of vehicles in which counts were performed;



page 82

A.4.2. Occupation Rate Buses

Occupation rate of buses have been determined based on:

• Number of passengers transported per bus type per day (based on passenger statistics or trip statistics and survey of the number of buses used per trip)

• Capacity per bus type • Distance driven per bus type per day • Average passenger trip distance on each bus • Number of buses per type

See for details File 8 and the corresponding studies. The same approach should be used to determine the occupation rate of buses during the project execution for leakage determination.



page 83

Annex 4

MONITORING INFORMATION

Some additional details are given concerning the monitoring manual prepared by Grütter Consulting AG for Metrobus. The objective of this manual is to collect all required data by the Monitoring and Verification Protocol in a manner that guarantees an optimal quality of monitoring. This manual therefore establishes which procedures are needed to follow, the structural organization and also the key elements of the required data. This manual is intended for all personnel in charge of data gathering and processing for the Metrobus project. It was written by Susana Ricaurte Farfán, Grütter Consulting AG. The manual is divided into the following parts: � Structure and Responsibilities: establishes who is responsible for monitoring � Data: Includes an overview of all data required for monitoring

Organizational Structure and Responsibilities

The Direction of Planning and Evaluation inside Metrobus is in charge of all aspects related with the CDM project. Inside this division a specific person is assigned the task of data collection, review and all other tasks as outlined in the monitoring manual for the project. The responsibilities of Metrobus are:

• Deliver all information required for monitoring. • Perform data and information quality control according to this manual. • File all documents in the manner and timing that this manual demands. • Collect in the required frequency all data for the monitoring of the CDM project. • Check data quality and collect, if required, additional data • File all documents in the manner and timing that this manual demands.

The responsibilities of BITSA are:

• Perform data and information quality control according to this manual. • File all documents in the manner and timing that this manual demands. • Collect in the required frequency all data for the monitoring of the CDM project. • Check data quality and collect, if required, additional data

Core responsibilities of Grütter Consulting AG are:

• File all documents in the manner and timing that this manual demands. • Realize an annual monitoring report. • Answer all inquiries and additional information requests by the DOE for the verification report of

the CERs. Furthermore, reply to all inquiries received during the process of issuance by UNFCCC.



page 84

All data collected as part of monitoring should be archived electronically and be kept at least for 2 years after the end of the last crediting period. All data must be filed electronically. For each data a sub-chapter or control spreadsheet has been realized. The following table summarizes all data required for monitoring.

Index Indicator Minimum

gathering

frequency

Data source

1 Fuel types used by cars, taxis, buses incl. bio-fuel usage

Annual Department of Transport, Environmental Secretariat

2 Passengers transported annual Metrobus 3 Fuel consumption BRT units Annual Metrobus 4 Distance driven BRT units Annual Metrobus

5 Passenger survey for indirect project and baseline emission per passenger and mode share baseline

Year 1 and 4 complete survey and year 1 only re-test survey

realized by external survey company

6 Number of buses and taxis Year 1 and 4 Department of Transport, Environmental Secretariat

7 Occupation rate buses and taxis Year 1 and 4 Metrobus or external survey company 8 Net Calorific Value Annual IPCC 9 Emission factors of fuels Annual IPCC

The parameters which use equipment and are monitored by the project owner are:

• Passenger numbers based on turnpikes and electronic smart cards. This equipment has no calibration.

• Distance driven of BRT buses used only for QA purpose and not part of ER calculations. GPS equipment and odometers are not calibrated.

• Fuel consumption of buses. Fuel stations are to a large extent not managed by the project and therefore also equipment of fuel stations are not managed by the project. Calibration of fuel stations and control of latter is controlled by the Government. (http://www.profeco.gob.mx/verificacion/combustible.asp) following the law NOM-005-SCFI-2005 and therefore the project will not realize fuel station calibration nor have calibrations of latter for monitoring and verification purposes.



page 85

A.5. METHODOLOGICAL DESIGN OF BRT SURVEY

The methodological design of the survey is presented in detail. Following points are discussed:

1. Survey objective

2. Target population

3. Sample frame

4. Sample design

5. Relative error level

6. Geographical coverage

7. Sample frequency

8. Sample size including an assessment of the pilot survey

9. Selection method of the sample

10. Methodology for information collection and estimation of the parameter

11. Data verification and validation including QA and QC

12. Survey realization

13. Calculation of trip distance in the survey



page 86

Technical Summary Data Sheet of the Survey

Strategy and sample design in the BRT passenger survey

Parameter Main parameters:

• Baseline emissions;

• Indirect project emissions.

Secondary parameters and inputs:

• Proportion of passengers proportion using each mode of transport, with the project and in absence of the project;

• The average distance travelled by these modes with the project and in absence of the project.

Target

population

Passengers over 12 years using the BRT.

Sample frame Passenger flow in all the stations of the BRT.

Sample design Two staged probabilistic design:

• First stage: stratified – simple random sampling (SRS);

• Second stage: systematic sampling based on passengers flow per station.

Stratum: Stations.

Sub stratum: Days in the week and hours.

Relative error

level (CV)143

For the survey a global desired level of precision (relative standard error or coefficient of variation – CV) between 5% and 10% for the parameters of interest, which implies at the same time having precision levels of 90/10 is targeted. Results obtained are based on a 95% confidence level using the more conservative boundary.

Coverage Urban area where the BRT operates.

Size of Universe Generally, in one day the project line of Metrobus BRT transport between 280,000 passengers (1st year) and 480,000 passengers (4th year).

Sample size The sample size ranges from 6,000 to 8,000 surveys with a re-test sample size of around 50% of the original sample144. The final sample size determination depends on the transport system characteristics regarding daily passenger flow and number of stations.

Pilot Test The pilot test was realized in October 2009 during one week on a continuous base. The sample size was 1,153 users of the BRT Line Insurgentes and Eje 4145. The sample was distributed in accordance with the daily passenger flow per station.

Sample

frequency

year 1 and year 4 full survey plus year 1 only re-test survey.

Method of

information

The information will be obtained through the face-to-face application of the established questionnaire on a random base.

143 Relative error level refers to the coefficient of variation (CV), which is calculated as the ratio between the standard deviation of the average and the population average. 144 The re-test sample size is determined based on the variances encountered in the original sample 145 The information collected in the BRT lines of Metrobus is used as this represents the most recent and trustworthy information.



page 87

collection

Consistency of

the survey

results

The internal consistency of the results of the survey are carefully checked. The reliability will be measured using the Cronbach's alpha. A reasonable coefficient is over 0.7, values over 0.9 shall be rechecked to avoid redundancy of data. In case the survey does not demonstrate internal consistency in its results, it will be rejected and another survey will be arranged.

1. Survey Objective

The survey objective is to determine:

• The baseline emissions caused by passengers which use the BRT and in absence of latter would have used other modes of transport to realize their trip;

• The indirect project emissions of passengers using the BRT which correspond to the emissions caused from the trip origin to the BRT entry station and from the BRT exit station to the final destination.

2. Target Population

The target population are passengers over 12 years of age. Smaller children are excluded due to problems in answering the questions. Also smaller children in general are accompanied by their parents or an adult and thus have the same trip sequence as the adult person.

3. Sample Frame

The simple frame is the passenger flow in all the stations of the BRT. Data for the passenger frame is obtained from the system manager.

4. Sample Design

A two staged probabilistic design is applied:

• First stage: Stratified – Simple Random Sampling (SRS);

• Second stage: Systematic sampling based on passengers flow per station.

The stratification model used is represented by the following scheme, where the process for a specific day is shown. It applies routinely for the seven measurement days.



page 88

Main strata (Stations): First a cluster analysis is performed grouping the stations depending on the passenger flow per station to provide information for busier stations and less frequented stations. In practical terms three groups of stations are created: stations with a high, medium and low passenger volume. In the case of large heterogeneity of passenger flows an additional group is included to control this variability.

Sub strata: Sub strata are built from the passenger flow information reported per day and hour. Sub strata are formed in such a manner that information is taken for the seven days of the week, and within each day, hour brackets are arranged according to the passenger flow.

In a BRT there are generally predefined hourly passenger flow ranges (peak/off-peak hours) through which the fixed hours when passengers are surveyed during the 7 week days are defined taking into account that peak hours have to be included i.e. in each of these hours information is collected and off-peak hours are partially included.

The sample is distributed for each day according to the average passenger flow per day and within the day, as per the users per day or hour range. Within each day, a random station selection process is carried out within the defined strata, in such a way that during the evaluation week the possibility for all stations to be visited is created. The station grouping is carried out according to a multi-variant cluster analysis, using as classification variable the passenger flow reported daily by each station.

5. Relative Error Level

For the survey a global desired level of precision (relative standard error or coefficient of variation - CV) between 5% and 10% for the parameters of interest, which implies at the same time having precision levels of 90/10 is achieved.

It is considered that the result of an estimate is:



page 89

• Statistically robust if its coefficient of variation is less than 5%;

• Practical acceptable if its coefficient of variation is between 5% and 10%;

• Of low precision if its coefficient of variation is higher than 10% and less than 15%;

• It is not considered as robust if its coefficient of variation is higher than 15%.

For the results obtained a 95% confidence level is calculated taking the (conservative) lower boundary for baseline emissions and the (conservative) upper boundary for indirect project emissions.

6. Geographical Coverage

The geographical coverage is the area where the BRT operates (project boundary).

7. Sample Frequency

The survey is realized year 1 and year 4 with a re-test in the year 1 only. The survey shall take place during an entire week. The selected week shall not correspond to a public

holiday and shall be representative for the average demand for transport services in the considered

year.

8. Sample Size

8.1. Assessment of Pilot Survey Results

The main objective of the pilot survey is to obtain primary information for the adjustment of the survey design as well as a justification of the sample size. The pilot survey was realized October 2009 on the BRT lines of Metrobus (Insurgentes and Eje 4) with 1,153 surveys being realized. The survey design and implementation was supervised by Grütter Consulting AG. The main results of the survey are:

• The standard deviation is high (around 100%) i.e. differences of emissions between passengers are high. This is considered when determining the sample size.

• To obtain precise results the sample size must be sufficient to also cater for modes used in a less frequent manner. This is the case for passenger cars, which are only used by around 1% of the passengers in the baseline cae i.e. in absence of the project BRT. The sample size must be determined in an adequate manner to get an acceptable level of error also for mode proportions of 1%.

8.2 Determination of the Sample Size



page 90

For the calculation of the sample size, a global desired level of precision (relative standard error or coefficient of variation – CV) between 5% and 10% for the parameters of interest, which implies at the same time having precision levels of 90/10, i.e. a minimum confidence level of 90% and a maximum precision level of 10% was determined.

In general determining the sample size is done by simulation following the Särndal methodology (1992), in which a CV is fixed and the sample size is found by solving n of the formula of the estimator variance according to the design used in each case.

100tö

)tö(VCV

y

y ⋅

=

CV: Relative standard error or the coefficient of variation of the estimator

ytö : Estimator of the population total or population mean, for example, estimator of total emissions in the

baseline situation and project situation.

)ö( ytV : Standard error of the estimator ( ytö ), calculated as square root of variance ( )ö( ytV ).

The stratification structure complies with the principles of independence and invariance, reason for which in the formula for the CV of this study, the estimated variance of the estimator results from adding those obtained in each stratum.

The main parameter of interest is the distance per mode of transport for each passenger. The distance per mode is oneparameter i.e. D(i) indicating distance of mode i used by the passenger.

However an important parameter to determine the sample size is the percentage of passengers which use mode (i). This is relevant as only few passengers of the new system would have used certain modes such as passenger cars (the large majority of users come from conventional public transport). However even if their share is low they could still have an impact on emission reduction calculations due to their high emission factor. For the survey to be reliable it needs a sufficient number of respondents also in modes used less frequently. The sample size determination is thus influenced strongly by the share of passengers per mode to have the desired precision level for this variable and therefore also for our main parameter of interest being the distance per mode.

In practical terms, the procedure for determining the sample size is:

1. The results of the pilot test are taken as reference for the simulation (mean and standard deviation); This is especially important concerning share of modes for passengers as this determines the sample size to a considerable extent as some modes have a low frequency (e.g. passenger cars, potentially taxis and motorcycles).

2. Simulation is subject to the modification of standard deviations larger than the one found in the pilot test, with the objective of obtaining an optimum sample size even under high variability conditions (limitation of the maximum variability level);

3. The simulation process is first done under a SRS design (Simple Random Sampling), and under the

multistage design (see the formulae described insection 10) and thereafter the design effect (Deff)



page 91

is simulated corresponding to the ratio between the variance of a multi-stage design, and the variance of a SRS design;

4. Finally, based on the simulation and the presentation of different scenarios corresponding todifferent sampling sizes and various assumptions about the standard deviations of parameters ofinterest (for instance by using a deff factor between 2 and 3), the sample size that best adjusts tothe expected error levels is taken.

Design Effect (Deff):

2yU

2

lkklU

yMAS

ypy

SN

1

n

1N

yy

)tö(V

)tö(V)tö,p(Deff

−

∆∑∑==

((

N: Population size n: sample size

ky : The variable of interest, for example, trip distances per mode of passengers of the MRTS.

∑ −−

=U

UkyU yyN

S 22 )(1

1: Variance population of the parameter

lkklUyp yytV((

∆∑∑=)ö( : Variance of estimator with other design than SRS (with the same expect sample

size n). This formula of the variance depends on sample designing, but it can calculate indirectly supposing a deff value (simulation).

kl∆ : Covariante between elements Ik and Il.

k

kk

yy

π=

(

or l

ll

yy

π=

(

: Variable value on probability of selection ( kπ or lπ ).

The ratio between the variance of the particular design and the variance under a SRS design, is called the design effect (Deff). In this way, when Deff is less than 1 it implies that the selected design has more precision than the SRS one, and when it is larger than 1, the proposed design is less efficient than the SRS one. In the simulation case, the Deff value was assumed between 1 and 3.5, in such a way that the sample size is considered under the worst scenario i.e. when the variance associated to the multi-stage design was factor 2.5 fold the SRS.Sample size simulation were performed considering the variation coefficient (less than 10%), the design effects (deff) (value between 1.5 and 3.5) and the lowest frequencies for the modal proportions (between 5 and 10%) to be estimated. In the following based on the pilot survey the survey size and the proportion of mode usage is simulated for each BRT segment. To simulate the sample size the departure point is the SD of the pilot survey which is augmented progressively by 10% until duplicating the SD with a deff of 2 taking a scenario based on the identification of 4 or possibly less stratus in the grouping of stations.

The simulation results show that even with an extreme scenario of double standard deviation than measured in the pilot survey the coefficient of variation are below 5.8% in the average baseline emissions for each segment of analysis and below 10% for the average indirect project emissions for a sample size



page 92

of 2,500 units. To obtain error levels below 5% for indirect project and baseline emissions the sample size must be between 6,000 and 8,000 units.

On the other hand the simulation results of the mode proportions indicate that a sample size of 8,000 users is required to obtain an acceptable representative value (CV minor 15%) in the lowest proportion of modes (passenger cars).

Simulation of Sample Size - Baseline

1,3

1,8

2,3

2,8

3,3

3,8

4,3

4,8

5,3

5,8

14

28

15

71

17

14

18

56

19

99

21

42

22

85

24

28

25

70

27

13

28

56

Simulation of sample size: CV Vs. Standard deviation

- Baseline (Insurgentes)

CV (n=2500) CV (n=3000) CV (n=4000)

CV (n=5000) CV (n=6000) CV (n=7000)

CV (n=8000)

Mean= 1456 grCO2

Deff =2



page 93

Simulation of Sample Size- Project

The graphs below provided for illustrative purposes only present the result of such simulations. They show that a sample size of 6,000-8,000 would be sufficient even facing extreme scenarios such as with a deff of 3.5.

1,3

2,3

3,3

4,3

5,3

6,3

7,3

8,3

9,3

10,3

10

95

12

04

13

13

14

23

15

32

16

42

17

51

18

61

19

70

20

80

21

89

Simulation of sample size: CV Vs. Standard deviation

- Proyect (Insurgentes)

CV (n=2500) CV (n=3000) CV (n=4000)

CV (n=5000) CV (n=6000) CV (n=7000)

CV (n=8000)

Mean= 648 grCO2

Deff =2



page 94

Simulation of Sample Size with Deff 1.5

Proportion CV

(n=2000)

CV (n=3000)

CV

(n=4000)

CV

(n=5000)

CV

(n=6000)

CV

(n=7000)

CV

(n=8000)

1% 27.2 22.1 19.1 17.1 15.6 14.4 13.4

2% 19.1 15.6 13.5 12.0 11.0 10.1 9.5

3% 15.5 12.7 10.9 9.8 8.9 8.2 7.7

4% 13.4 10.9 9.4 8.4 7.7 7.1 6.6

5% 11.9 9.7 8.4 7.5 6.8 6.3 5.9

6% 10.8 8.8 7.6 6.8 6.2 5.7 5.3

7% 9.9 8.1 7.0 6.3 5.7 5.3 4.9

8% 9.3 7.5 6.5 5.8 5.3 4.9 4.6

9% 8.7 7.1 6.1 5.5 5.0 4.6 4.3

10% 8.2 6.7 5.8 5.2 4.7 4.3 4.1

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%

CV

(%

)

Proportion

Simulation of sample: CV Vs. Proportion - Deff 1.5

CV (n=2000)

CV (n=3000)

CV (n=4000)

CV (n=5000)

CV (n=6000)

CV (n=7000)

CV (n=8000)


Proportion CV

(n=2000)

CV

(n=3000)

CV

(n=4000)

CV

(n=5000)

CV

(n=6000)

CV

(n=7000)

CV

(n=8000)

1% 31.4 25.6 22.1 19.7 18.0 16.6 15.5

2% 22.1 18.0 15.5 13.9 12.7 11.7 10.9

3% 17.9 14.6 12.6 11.3 10.3 9.5 8.9

4% 15.4 12.6 10.9 9.7 8.9 8.2 7.6

5% 13.7 11.2 9.7 8.6 7.9 7.3 6.8

6% 12.5 10.2 8.8 7.8 7.2 6.6 6.2

7% 11.5 9.4 8.1 7.2 6.6 6.1 5.7

8% 10.7 8.7 7.5 6.7 6.1 5.7 5.3

9% 10.0 8.2 7.1 6.3 5.7 5.3 5.0

10% 9.5 7.7 6.7 5.9 5.4 5.0 4.7

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%

CV

(%

)

Proportion

Simulation of sample: CV Vs. Proportion - Deff 2

CV (n=2000)

CV (n=3000)

CV (n=4000)

CV (n=5000)

CV (n=6000)

CV (n=7000)

CV (n=8000)


Proportion CV

(n=2000)

CV

(n=3000)

CV

(n=4000)

CV

(n=5000)

CV

(n=6000)

CV

(n=7000)

CV

(n=8000)

1% 35.1 28.6 24.7 22.1 20.1 18.6 17.4

2% 24.7 20.1 17.4 15.5 14.1 13.1 12.2

3% 20.0 16.3 14.1 12.6 11.5 10.6 9.9

4% 17.3 14.1 12.2 10.9 9.9 9.1 8.5

5% 15.4 12.5 10.8 9.7 8.8 8.1 7.6

6% 13.9 11.4 9.8 8.8 8.0 7.4 6.9

7% 12.8 10.5 9.1 8.1 7.4 6.8 6.4

8% 11.9 9.7 8.4 7.5 6.9 6.3 5.9

9% 11.2 9.1 7.9 7.1 6.4 5.9 5.5

10% 10.6 8.6 7.4 6.7 6.1 5.6 5.2

468

101214161820222426283032343638

1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%

CV

(%

)

Proportion


CV (n=2000)

CV (n=3000)

CV (n=4000)

CV (n=5000)

CV (n=6000)

CV (n=7000)

CV (n=8000)



page 97


Proportion CV

(n=2000)

CV

(n=3000)

CV

(n=4000)

CV

(n=5000)

CV

(n=6000)

CV

(n=7000)

CV

(n=8000)

1% 38.4 31.3 27.1 24.2 22.0 20.4 19.0

2% 27.0 22.0 19.0 17.0 15.5 14.3 13.4

3% 21.9 17.9 15.5 13.8 12.6 11.6 10.9

4% 18.9 15.4 13.3 11.9 10.8 10.0 9.4

5% 16.8 13.7 11.9 10.6 9.6 8.9 8.3

6% 15.3 12.5 10.8 9.6 8.8 8.1 7.6

7% 14.1 11.5 9.9 8.9 8.1 7.5 7.0

8% 13.1 10.7 9.2 8.2 7.5 6.9 6.5

9% 12.3 10.0 8.6 7.7 7.0 6.5 6.1

10% 11.6 9.4 8.2 7.3 6.6 6.1 5.7

468

1012141618202224262830323436384042

1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%

CV

(%

)

Proportion

Simulation of sample: CV Vs. Proportion - Deff 3

CV (n=2000)

CV (n=3000)

CV (n=4000)

CV (n=5000)

CV (n=6000)

CV (n=7000)

CV (n=8000)



page 98


Proportion CV

(n=2000)

CV

(n=3000)

CV

(n=4000)

CV

(n=5000)

CV

(n=6000)

CV

(n=7000)

CV

(n=8000)

1% 41.5 33.8 29.2 26.1 23.8 22.0 20.5

2% 29.2 23.8 20.6 18.4 16.7 15.5 14.4

3% 23.7 19.3 16.7 14.9 13.6 12.6 11.7

4% 20.4 16.6 14.4 12.9 11.7 10.8 10.1

5% 18.2 14.8 12.8 11.4 10.4 9.6 9.0

6% 16.5 13.5 11.6 10.4 9.5 8.7 8.2

7% 15.2 12.4 10.7 9.6 8.7 8.1 7.5

8% 14.1 11.5 10.0 8.9 8.1 7.5 7.0

9% 13.3 10.8 9.3 8.3 7.6 7.0 6.6

10% 12.5 10.2 8.8 7.9 7.2 6.6 6.2

468

101214161820222426283032343638404244

1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%

CV

(%

)

Proportion


CV (n=2000)

CV (n=3000)

CV (n=4000)

CV (n=5000)

CV (n=6000)

CV (n=7000)

CV (n=8000)



page 99

9. Selection Method of the Sample

Stations, hours and passengers must be selected for the sample. The selection method guarantees a random and non-biased selection process especially important in face-to-face interviews. The random distribution allows that the sample mirrors the total population in any other non-observed variables such as age, gender, religion, personal preferences etc. A control is realized if the sample matches the total population in various of these parameters to ascertain that the sample reflects truly the population with all its characteristics.

a) Selection of Stations and Evaluation Hours

Given that there is a complete list of stations that are part of each established group (stratum), the selection of stations is carried out according to a SRS design, through the negative coordinated algorithm.

The same happens for the defined hour ranges: within each range a specific hour is selected under this method for the sample selection.

Algorithm of the Negative Coordinated Method

N: Universe size n: Sample size to be selected.

A value 0<π <1 is fixed and for each one of the universe elements random events Nξξ ,,1 K are carried

out uniformly distributed (0,1). Which ones belong to the sample is decided as follows:

� If πξ <k then k belongs to the sample.

� If πξ ≥k then k does not belong to the sample. In this way the probabilities of being part of the sample of the first and second order are

2, ππππ == klk

Since the expectation of the simple size is equal to ∑U kπ in the SRS design, it complies with

nnEU ks ==∑ π)( therefore the departure point is from an expected sample size equal to n , further it

is said that Nnk /==ππ and from that value, the selection is carried out.

b) Selection of Passengers

Given that there is no reference frame or list frame for the identification of BRT users, the selection of the sample in the last stage will be performed according to the systematic sampling design, replicated identically for each stratum and considering the following steps:

1. A random starting point is generated according to the statistics tables of uniform distribution between 1 and the average flow of passengers in the evaluation hour;

2. Systematic selection of passengers: every n passenger entering the station, starting with the random number. In this way, if the random number is 20, the first passenger selected is the 20th that enters the



page 100

station, the 2nd n+20 and thus successively every n passenger. The number n, called selection interval will be determined based on the passenger flow per hour and the sample distribution of the specific measurement day.

10. Methodology for Information Collection and Estimation of the Parameter

a). General Considerations on Information Collection The information will be obtained through the face-to-face application of the established questionnaire. According to the selected days and hour range, each survey interviewer will carry out the number of established surveys. Given that the selection of people is done randomly in a time range, the start point, that is, the person number from which the contact begins is random and is defined by the appointed pollster supervisor. The random selection of individuals, as well as the sufficiency in the sample size, enables obtaining dispersion and representation of the study population through the sample. Further, it allows controlling factors that may affect the user type, in terms of use of modes of transport and distance in these travels. Some of these such as the social-economic level, the residence zone, owning a vehicle, among others, are represented within the selected sample. It is recommended that additional to the surveyors other personnel systematically and in parallel to the information collection asks about and registers the system users on their social-economic level, gender (observable) and age, with the purpose that these data guarantee that people included in the sample correspond to the general demographic characteristics of the system users. The age ranges recommended are: 1. From 12 to 17 years 2. From 18 to 25 years 3.From 26 to 35 years 4.From 36 to 45 years 5.From 46 to 55 years 6.From 56 to 65 years 7. More than 65 years old. If the person surveyed is not willing to answer the question, the interviewer will locate the person in the range according to his/her appearance. For socio economic levels the ranges recommended are 5 different ranges of salary. In measurements of later years, when any of the modes of transport to which the survey refers, are extinct at the moment of applying the survey or simply to clarify the issue or modes of transport to which the question refers to, photos or graphs with an amplified size can be used, to guarantee the correct interpretation of the question.

b). Method of Estimation and Expansion Factors

In accordance with the sample strategy and with the sample design specified in section 4 there exist 2 stages in the method of estimation and selection of sampling observation units: 1. Selection of stations (SRS design) 2. Selection of passengers in accordance with the systematic design taking as auxiliary information the flow of passengers in the range of hours defined. Having in mind that the design used in each stratum is identical the probabilities of inclusion will be calculated in an equivalent basis in each stratum.



page 101

First stage

,Ihsp

Ihsp

IiN

n=π

Iiπ : Probability of inclusion in the sample in the first stage (I).

Ihspn : Number of stations sp selected in the stratum h (3 stratus are created i.e. high, medium and low passenger flow)

IhspN : Total number of stations sp in the stratum h.

sp: stations of the system

Second stage

,/ihsp

ihsp

ikN

n=π

ik /π : Probability of inclusion of the individual passenger k in the sample in the second stage (i), given the

selection of the first stage (I).

ihspn : Number of passengers selected in the station sp, in stratum h.

ihspN : Total number of passengers in the station sp, in stratum h The general formula to calculate the expansion factor is:

k

If π1

= , where k indicates the kth element of the sample.

Thus the expansion factors are: First stage

,Ihsp

Ihsp

In

Nf =

where Ihspn and IhspN are as previously defined. Second stage



page 102

,ihsp

ihsp

in

Nf =

where ihspn and ihspN are established according to the total flow of passengers in the station sp during

the day. Estimator of the total for the variable of interest146:

∑ ∑=h

s i

Ihsp

Ihsp

I

tn

Nt ππ

öö ,

πtö corresponds to π Estimator of sample designs without replacing sample units, see Särndal et al. (1992)

where

∑=is

ksp

ihsp

ihsp

i yn

Nt πö

Where “si” represents the sample of passengers in the second phase and “k” the information of the kth individual selected

Estimator of the variance:

( ) ( )∑ ∑

−+−=

hs sihspihsp

ihsp

ihsp

Ihsp

Ihsp

stIhspIhsp

Ihsp

Ihsp

I iISNn

n

N

n

NSNn

n

NtV 22

ˆ)ˆ(ˆ π ,

where

( )[ ]22ˆ

ˆˆ1

1∑ ∑−

−=

I II s s Ihspii

Ihsp

stntt

nS ππ , and ( )22

1

1∑ −

−=

iI s kspksp

ihsp

ys yyn

S

The parameter (R) is not used to calculate directly BE or IPE or the distance per mode of transport which is the main parameter and the one required for calculating BE and IPE. It is however fundamental to determine the required simple size as proportions of passengers using various transport modes are required for the simple size determination as well as eventually for leakage calculations. (R) is also required for various other parameters where proportions are determined in the survey (e.g. income

146The variables of interest used to calculate totals correspond to the trip distances per mode of passengers of the BRT (the parameter is not distance alone it is trip distance per mode) both in the baseline situation (for BE) and in the project situation (for IPE).



page 103

category). These other parameters are not used directly to determine BE or IPE but are important information sources to assess if the survey has any bias or if other factors such as gender or income influence the outcome. The parameter (R) is therefore used for survey information gathered based on proportions. Estimator for the variable of interest:

π

π

z

y

t

tR

ˆ

ˆˆ = ,

where πyt̂ and πzt̂ are totals

R represents the relation between the two variables, which in the particular case is a proportion, where

πzt̂ estimates the universe of the study (N).

The parameter (R) is not used to calculate directly BE or IPE or the distance per mode of transport which is the main parameter and the one required for calculating BE and IPE. It is however fundamental to determine the required simple size as proportions of passengers using various transport modes are required for the simple size determination as well as eventually for leakage calculations. (R) is also required for various other parameters where proportions are determined in the survey (e.g. income category). These other parameters are important information sources to assess if the survey has any bias or if other factors such as gender or income influence the outcome. The parameter (R) is therefore used for survey information gathered based on proportions. Thereafter ty and tz represent the estimators associated to the total of the two variables.

Variance Estimator:

( ) ( )∑ ∑

−+−=

hs uihspihsp

ihsp

ihsp

Ihsp

Ihsp

ustIhspIhsp

Ihsp

Ihsp

I ikISNn

n

N

n

NSNn

n

NRV 22

ˆ)ˆ(ˆ

Where:

πz

kspksp

kshpt

zRyu

ˆ

ˆ−= ,

Thus it is established that:

( )[ ]22ˆ

ˆˆ1

1∑ ∑−

−=

I II s s Ihspuiui

Ihsp

ustntt

nS , and ( )22

1

1∑ −

−=

ik s kspksp

ihsp

u uun

S

Other alternative methods to estimate the variance, especially helpful in multi-staged designs of complex samples can be used such as Jacknife or Bootstrap.



page 104

Based on the formerly described formulas and based upon if it is a total or a proportion the parameter πt̂

and associated the variance )ˆ(ˆ πtV is determined.

To calculate the confidence interval a normal distribution is assumed (sufficient sample size) using the formula for a 95% confidence interval:

)ˆ(ˆ*ˆ975.0 ππ tVZt ±

πt̂ represents BE y IPE, both calculated separately. For BE the lower confidence interval is taken and for

IPE the upper one. Summarized to calculate the expansion factor the following data is required next to the data resultant from the survey:

• Number of stations; • Passenger flow per station per hour, day and week; • Selection rate of passengers surveyed per hour per station (i.e. each n passenger was selected for

an interview) Based on this information the total baseline and the total indirect project emissions for the BRT for the survey week can be calculated with a confidence interval of 95%. For the total baseline emissions the lower 95% boundary is taken and for the indirect project emissions the upper 95% boundary to have a conservative calculation of emission reductions. For total annual or period baseline (indirect project) emissions the baseline (indirect project) emission per passenger of the survey week is calculated and thereafter multiplied with the total passengers transported by the BRT per annum or period.

11. Data Verification and Validation Including QA and QC

a). Criteria for Evaluating Data Consistency

Considering that in each one of the years there will be at least two measurements, the weekly measurement and the test-retest, through these the consistency on information collection is guaranteed. The test and the re-test are done in the same year but in different periods. The assessment of consistency can be carried out by three supplementary statistical methods:

1. A mean difference test is performed through a t – Student test, where the differences presented between both measurements are evaluated, for: 1.Proportion of users that use each type of modes of transport and 2. Average trip travel distance.

To perform the mean difference test, it is necessary to determine beforehand, if the two samples come from the same population. Thereafter a F test is carried out to determine the variability difference between one and the other. To assess that data used to estimate the



page 105

study parameters follow the same distribution the Mann Whitney non-parametric U test and the Wilcoxon T test can be used.

2. To evaluate the users proportion per modes of transport, the Pearson's Chi Square can be used, where categories are defined for each mode of transport.

3. Globally and internally in each survey realized, consistency of data reported in the survey may be assessed through the Cronbach alpha coefficient. In practice it is assumed that values higher than 0.7 in the coefficient indicate an adequate consistency degree. Values over 0.9 should be rechecked to avoid redundancy of data.

For the internal consistency the Cronbach alpha coefficient is used whilst to test for consistency between different periods of measurement the first two options of testing are used. The Cronbach alpha coefficient will be calculated for each stratum established as these a priori control the variations in the responses and therefore the control eliminates biases which could be generated due to hetereogenity and inconsistency in information.

With the goal of evaluating the possible correlation between BE and IPE a hypothesis test based on the Pearson or Spearman coefficient is made. The parameter to determine the existence of correlation is the p value. If the p value is less than 0.05 (significance value) it is concluded that the correlation is significant.

If a correlation between BE and IPE exists147 the variance associated to the estimator (defined as the difference between the two parameters) would have a covariance different from 0. If the variables x and y are correlated then:

Var(X-Y) = Var(X) + Var(Y) – 2 Cov (X,Y), where COV (X,Y) isnot 0.

If the correlation is significant complex estimators and alternative methods of variance need to be used which do not guarantee however that the estimators are unbiased and have a minimal variance. On the other hand if the correlation is non-significant the estimation of the two parameters BE and IPE separately leads to the same result as calculating them jointly.

Realizing the estimation of BE and IPE guarantees that even in the case of correlation we have no problem with the bias in the variance of the estimators i.e. even if we determine correlation the results are correct and no additional step needs to be taken. In the case of having no correlation we could also determine directly the difference between BE and IPER per passenger reaching the same result (in the case of correlation it is necessary in all cases to make the estimation of BE and IPE separately).

12. Survey Realization

The survey must be realized through a company with minimum 3 years of experience in comparable surveys in the respective country to ensure a professional survey execution. Following principles are to be followed in the survey realization:

• Non-responses should be recorded;

147This is however not expected and empirical data from surveys realized have shown no correlation.



page 106

• Record and store all original surveys; • Surveys are conducted at BRT stations when people wait for boarding the bus. It should be

avoided to realize the survey with people de-boarding the bus as latter will not want to invest time in a survey thus potentially giving wrong answers.

A supervisor should be used in the field to carry out the field verifications, guaranteeing the validity of the gathered information as well as the attained coverage.

13. Calculation of Trip Distance in the Survey

Trip distances need to be determined for each surveyed passenger. The following procedures are applied:

• For NMT, rail-based passengers, others and induced traffic this is not required as the applied EF is “0”

• For users of buses either: o the shortest possible geographical distance based on electronic maps or measuring the

distance between the two points with GPS or a comparable mean or through distance measurement on maps.

or o Measuring the actual distance from the bus entry station to the bus exit station based on

(electronic) route maps of the bus operators with official distances or measuring e.g. with GPS the distances between the involved stations.

• For users of passenger cars, taxis, motorcycles, and other modes of motorized transport except buses based on the shortest possible geographical distance based on electronic maps or measuring the distance between the two points with GPS or a comparable mean or through distance measurement on maps.

A default questionnaire to be used is included below.



page 107

A.6. PASSENGER SURVEY USED

SECTION A: Data Concerning Surveyor

Survey ID (correlative number): ……………………………. Interviewer:…………………………… Date: .-…………………………………. Time:……………………………………. Point (station) where interview was performed:………………………….. Survey response/completeness: � Survey was fully completed � Survey was fully or partially not responded Comments/Observations of surveyor:………………………….. SECTION B: General Data of Interviewed Person This section can also be filled out at the end of the interview!

Age of surveyed person: � 12-17 years � 18-25 years � 26-35 years � 36-45 years � 46-55 years � 56-65 years � over 65 years Gender of the surveyed person �female� male Socio-economic level of the surveyed person (monthly income) �<$1,500 pesos � between $1,501 and $4,500 pesos � between $4,501 and $7,500 pesos �between$7,501 and $15,000 pesos �>$15,000 pesos

SECTION C: Trip Data of Interviewed Person Question 1 “Describe the trip you are currently realizing” 1.1. Your trip origin (home, office, others) Address:……………………………… 1.2. Your entry station of BRT (station name):…………………… 1.3. Your exit station of BRT (station name):…………………… 1.4. After exiting BRT you go where ? Address:……………………………………. Notes: …………………………………………………………………………………………………… Explanations for the interviewer:

- The question refers to the current trip the passenger is making.



page 108

- The trip origin and the trip destination must be identified with a clear address. Use a map if it is

unclear. If the person does not know or does not want to disclose this information then stop at

this point.

- The BRT stations identified in 1.2 and 1.3. must be listed with their official names.

- The BRT refers to all Metrobus BRT lines

Question 2

“How did you reach the BRT entry station?” Please refer to the mode on which you performed the longest stretch if you used various modes. Tick 1: � Bus � Taxi � Car � Motorcycle � Metro or train � Cycle or walk Explanations for the interviewer:

- Only tick 1 answer (the mode used for the longest stretch of this trip segment)

Question 3

“How will you reach your office/home/other place after exiting the BRT station?” Please refer to the mode on which you performed the longest stretch if you used various modes. Tick 1: � Bus � Taxi � Car � Motorcycle � Metro or train � Cycle or walk Explanations for the interviewer:

- Only tick 1 answer (the mode used for the longest stretch of this trip segment)

Question 4 Assuming that the BRT Metrobus would not exist.Would you have made the trip you are currently doing anyway or would you have stayed at home/office/origin? � I would not have done the trip�The questionnaire is terminated � I would have made the trip” �Continue below (question 5) Explanations for the interviewer:

- The purpose of this question is to know if the passenger made this trip only because the BRT

exists. In absence of the BRT he/she would not have made any trip and would have stayed at

his/her point of origin.

Question 5

“Have you moved your home or workplace since start of operations of the BRT Metrobus in 2011?” � No �continue below (question 6) � Yes: “Has the availability of the BRT Metrobus been an important factor when choosing the location

of your new home or new workplace?” � No �continue below (question 6)



page 109

� Yes � “What was your former trip starting point and trip destination at the time before you moved your home or workplace ?”

Starting point address:…………………………. Destination point address: ………………………..

Question 6

Assuming that the BRT Metrobus you are currently using would not exist: How would you have made the same trip you are doing now? From Home/Office/Others (Address) ……… ….. to point (Address) …………… by *………………. From point (Address)……………… …………... to point (Address) …………….by *……………... From point (Address)……………… …………... to point (Address) …………….by *……………... From point (Address)……………… …………... to point (Address) …………….by *……………... *can be � Bus � Metro, Train, LTR � Taxi � Car � Motorcycle � Cycle or per foot It can NOT be the BRT

Explanations for the interviewer:

- For each segment of the trip make a separate answer

Question 7

“Have you used a taxi in the last 6 months?” � Yes � No

Question 8

“Do you have a car / car pool / access to company car and have you used a car / car pool or company car in the last 6 months?” � Yes � No Question 9

“Do you have a motorcycle / scooter or share a motorcycle / scooter and have you used this in the last 6 months?” � Yes � No



page 110

Details Stakeholder Meetings

Line 2 – Eje 4 Sur:

File Invitation Date Site Nu. Of

participants

Origin of

participants

Issues

which

arose

Agreements Follow up

1 Working groups/ by phone

14/01/2008

Casa de cultura Jesús Romero Flores, del Cuauhtémoc

14 Neighbors of Delegación Cuauhtémoc

Disagreement with closing Calle de Culiacán, esq. Eje 4

Revise traffic flow to avoid congesiton

New meeting 4/3/2009

2 Working groups;announcement through previous group

14/11/2008

Modulo Deportivo patio oriente, ubicado en Av. Canal San Juan

Same group as previous

Neighbours Colonia Ejercito Constitucionalista, delegación Iztapalapa

Lack of lighting on road

New lights were installed

concluded


19/03/ 2009

Salón la Fuerza del Diálogo

13 Neighbours of Delegación BenitoJuárez

Road closure

Instalment of traffic light

Concluded

4 Oficio/ 18/05/ 2009

22/05/2009

Calle 247-A y Avenida Rio Frio, Col Cuchilla del Moral Delegación Iztacalco

Group, not counted

Vecinos de Delegación Iztacalco e Iztapalapa

Traffic flow and garden which interrupts traffic flow

Garden will not be removed

Concluded


13/08/2008

Salón la Fuerza del Diálogo

10 Vecinos de Delegación Iztapalapa

Work progress infrastructure

None New meeting 20/08/ 2008

Line 3 – Eje 1 Poniente:

File Invitation Date Site Nu. Of

participants

Origin of

participants

Issues

which

arose

Agreements Follow up

1 22/11/2010

Salón La Fuerza del Diálogo

24 Vecinos de la Colonia Narvarte, Delegación Benito Juárez

Confirmation of road design

No tree cutting, reforestation, lighting improvements, traffic signalling improvements, open dialogue

2 6/12/2010 Public entities 6 representatives of public entities and chief of delegation Benito Juárez

Non conformity of neighbours of Colonia Narvarte, with infrastructure of line 3

Proposal to be presented to the neighbours was approved

.

3 27/12/2010

24 Neighbours of Colonia Narvarte, Delegación Benito Juárez

Presentation of above mentioned proposal

Proposal is approved by the community

Proposal approved and signed by community



page 111

Appendix I. LIST OF DOCUMENTS USED/CITED

File 1a/b/c, Secretaría del Medio Ambiente del GDF, Inventario de Emisiones Contaminantes Criterio de la ZMVM 2006, 2008 and Website: http://www.ste.df.gob.mx/servicios/flotaveh.html File 2a/b, DTP, Survey occupation rate passenger cars, 2009 File 3, SENER, Prospectiva del Sector Energetico 2009-2024, 2009 File 4, GEF, Manual for Calculating GHG Benefits for GEF Transportation Projects, 2010 File 5, Metrobus, BRT buses Metrobus, 2009 File 6, Metrobus, Survey Metrobus bus users, 2009 File 7, Metrobus, Survey Metrobus bus users – data trip distance per mode, 2009 File 8, Grütter Consulting AG, occupation rate buses, 2010 File 9, Grütter Consulting AG, File Combined Margin Mexico based on SENER, "Electricity Sector Prospective various years" File 10, SENER, Prospectiva del sector Electrico 2010-2025, 2011 File 11a, DTP, SFC small buses and medium LPG buses, 2009 File 11b, DTP, SFC large diesel buses, 2010 File 11c, DTP, SFC medium gasoline buses, 2010 File 12a/b/c, DTP, Survey occupation rate taxis, 2009 File 13a/b/c, DTP, Survey occupation rate motorcycles, File 14, IEA, Energy Statistics Manual, 2005 File 15, Ciudad de Mexico, Metrobus Descripcion General File 16, Compilation MRTS systems Mexico, various sources File 17, Gobierno del Distrito Federal (GDF), Creation of Metrobus, 2005 File 18, Metrobus, especificaciones buses File 19, GDF, map DF and ZMVM File 20, Ferrocarriles Suburbanos, company information, 2010 File 21a/b, GDF, Encuestas Origen Destino, 2008 File 22, GTZ, Training Course: Mass Transit, 2004 File 23a/b, Metrobus, projections, 2011 File 24, Ciudad de Mexico, Acuerdo por el Que se Ordena la Publicación del Programa Integral de Transporte y Vialidad 2001-2006, 2002 File 25, SEMARNAT, NOM-044-SEMARNAT-2006 File 26, Google Map, all MRTS lines Mexico City File 27a/b, SETRAVI (Secretaría de Transporte y Vialidad), buses chatarizadas Eje 4 and Insurgentes Sur, 2010 File 28, GDF, Acuerdos respecto al Otorgamiento de Concesiones Eje 4 Sur, 2008 File 29, SENER, Potenciales y Viabilidad del Uso de Bioetanol y Biodiesel para el Transporte en Mexico, 2006 File 30, GDF, construction contract Line 4, 18/07/2007 File 31, PAD Mexico Introduction of climate friendly measures in transport, 2002 File 32, World Bank, PIN Mexico Air Quality and Sustainable Transport Project, 2003 File 33, M. Osses, Aspectos ambientales proyecto BRT Mexico, 2004 File 34, World Bank, e-mail, 16/02/2004 File 35, COMEGEI/SEMARNAT, Non-Objection Letter, 2004 File 36, World Bank, Letter of Intent to Purchase ERs, 16/06/2005 File 37, NM0158, 2006 File 38, MP22 Meeting report, 2006 File 39, NM0229, 2007 File 40, NM0258, 2008 File 41, GDF, Programa de Corredores Estrategicos



page 112

File 42, GDF, Concesion No STV/Metrobus/005/2008 File 43, F. Cancino, Cambian nuevo Metrobus a Eje 4 Sur, El Universal, 04/01/2007 File 44, GDF, AVISO POR EL QUE SE APRUEBA EL ESTABLECIMIENTO DEL SISTEMA DE TRANSPORTE PUBLICO DENOMINADO “CORREDORES DE TRANSPORTE PÚBLICO DE PASAJEROS DEL DISTRITO FEDERAL, 24/09/2004 File 45, Asamblea Legislativo del Distrito Federal, Diario de los Debates, 09/10/2003 File 46, Presidencia Municipal Guanajato, Reglamento De Transporte Municipal Para El Municipio De Guanajuato, 2003 File 47, GDF, Selección de los Corredores en el DF y los retos para el cambio del sistema, 2003 File 48, Ciudad de Mexico, Acuerdo por el que se ordena la publicación del programa integral de transporte y vialidad 2001-2006 File 49, ZMVM definition, various sources File 50, Metrobus, finance model Metrobus, 2011 File 51, Metrobus, general presentation, 2011 File 52, Volvo finance, 2008 File 53, Metrobus, Investment Insurgentes, 2010 File 54a/b/c, STC, actual and planned metro passengers, 2011 File 55a/b, Metrobus finance sheet, 2011 File 56, Concession contracts, various File 57, IMF, Mexico 2007 File 58, IEA, Bus Systems for the Future, 2002 File 59, GTZ, BRT version 2, 2005 File 60, Secretaria de Obras y Servicios, Investment Line 4 File 61, GDF, Dictamen de solicitud de otorgamiento de concesión Transmasivo, 2008 File 62, Transmilenio, Informe de Gestion 2010, 2011 File 63, Transmilenio, Monitoring Report 2010, 2011 File 64, SENES, Medidas de Linea Base para el Corredor Insurgentes, Ciudad de Mexico, 2006 File 65, GDF, Diseño conceptual, funcional, operacional y proyecto ejecutivo del corridor estrategico Insurgentes “Diagnóstico de la situación actual”, 2004 File 66, Compania de Trolebus Quito, SFC trolleybuses, 2008 File 67, F. DiGiovanni et al.,Transboundary Air Pollution, 2006 File 68, H. Akimoto, Global Air Quality and Pollution, Science 302, 1716, 2003 File 69, SMA, environmental permit Eje 4, 2007 File 70, SMA, environmental permit Eje 1, 2009 File 71, SMA, environmental permit Line 5, 2011 File 72, Colinas de Buen, MIA je 4, 2007 File 73, GDF, MIA Ejee 1, 2009 File 74, GDF, MIA Line 5, 2011 File 75, Metrobus, stakeholder documents Eje 4 File 76, Metrobus, stakeholder documents Eje 1 File 77, Metrobus, stakeholder documents Line 5 File 78, Metrobus, encuestas de opinión 2008 to 2011 File 79, Metrobus, stakeholder roundtables bus owners File 80, GDF, Acuerdos respecto al Otorgamiento de Concesiones Eje 4 Sur, 2008 File 81, STV, Concesion Nu. STV/Metrobus/007/2010 File 82, STV, Declaratoria de necesidad para la prestacion del servicio de transporte publico colectivo de pasajeros en el corredor de transporte publico de pasajeros “Metrobus Eje 1 Poniente”, 2010 File 83, Metrobus, institutional stakeholder meetings File 84, Metrobus, communication channels public File 85, STV, Concesion Nu. STV/Metrobus/004/2008



page 113

File 86, STV, Concesion Nu. STV/Metrobus/006/2008 File 87, STV, Concesion Nu. STV/Metrobus/003/2008 File 88, Metrobus, Revenue and Passengers Eje 4, 2011 File 89a, Asamblea Legislativa del DF, Reglamento para el Servicio de Transporte de Pasajeros en el Distrito Federal, 1999 File 89b, Metrobus, bus capacity explanation, 2012 File 90a/b/c, PEMEX, fuel data sheets, 2012 File 91a, Metrobus, Explanation concerning EIM, 16/02/2012 File 91b, Asamblea Legislativa del DF, Ley Ambiental del Distrito Federal, 2000 File 92, Metrobus, Detail Infastructure Cost Projeciton, 16/02/2012 File 93, Volvo, Price of articulated bus 2007, 12/04/2012 File 94a, Metrobus, Bus Line replacement and scrapping, 16/02/2012 File 94b, SETRAVI, scrapped units Line 2 and 3 of Metrobus, 28/02/2012 File 95, Metrobus, Presentation to public, 08/06/2007 File 96, stakeholder meeting, 06/06/2012 File 97, summary of stakeholder meetings

-----

Proyecto metrobus

Education

Transcript of Proyecto metrobus