Lisa RayleGraduate Student

Dept. Urban Studies & Planning MITlrayle@mit.edu 1

Madhav PaiTechnical Director - India

EMBARQ, WRI Center for Sustainable Transportmpai@wri.org

January 11, 2010 TRB Annual Meeting

Urban Mobility Forecasts: Emissions Scenarios for Three Indian Cities

2

3

Overview

• Magnitude of future emissions is very uncertain

• Purpose is to illustrate how transport and land use planning policies could influence GHG emissions at the city level

• Estimates future emissions from urban travel under various policy scenarios for Ahmedabad, Mumbai, and Surat

• Uses newly available household travel data

4

Existing research on future transport emissions in India

• Studies of national level (Schipper et al. 2009, Singh 2006)

• City-level studies based on correlations with population and income growth (Bose & Nesamani 2000), vehicle numbers (Das & Parikh 2004), travel characteristics (Fabian & Gota 2009).

• Very few city-level studies based on travel behavior.

5

6

Mumbai Ahmedabad SuratPopulation (2001)

17.7 million 5.4 million 2.4 million

Decadal growth rate

32% 30% 62%

Urban growth • Established major metropolitan area.• Growth continues despite space limitations.

• Fifth largest city in India; typical of large cities. • Growth lower than previous decades, but still significant.

• Huge recent growth; high in-migration rate. • Typical of “now exploding” cities.

City Characteristics

Mumbai Ahmedabade Suratf

Average trip length - motorized (km) 12.4c 14.4 8.5Average trip length - non-motorized (km) 2b 2.3 3.6

Mode split (% of total trips)

Walk 27d 37.6 42

Bicycle 6 17.6 13.4

Auto-rickshaw 6 8.3 10.8

Bus 26 8.4 2.3

Train 20 0.3 0.1

Motorcycle 10 25.3 28.4

Private car 5 2.48 2.6

7Sources: a(9); b(11); c(10); dMode split data for Mumbai based on (9) and (11); e (6); f(

Travel Behavior Characteristics

“Bottom-up” model to estimate emissionsFocus on amount of travel and mode share – factors that can be

influenced by transport and land use policy

8

Mode share

Emissions factor

GHGEmissions

Travel activity f (trip frequency, trip length, vehicle occupancy, population)

f (relative travel cost)

f (energy consumption, vehicle type, fuel mix)

Approach

Sources of travel data

9

Surat 1988, 2004

household surveys - Central Road Research Institute (CRRI), reported in Surat Comprehensive Mobility Plan

2005 Household survey - Consulting Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd.

Ahmedabad 2000 household travel survey, referenced in Ahmedabad BRT Plan Report

Mumbai 2005 Mumbai Comprehensive Development Plan

1993 Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority

2003-2004

World Bank-funded household survey conducted in 2003 and 2004

Scenario 1

• increased household wealth, widespread automobile ownership

• more road space devoted to cars• investment in public transport is low priority• greater car travel at expense of other modes• extreme congestion, but alternatives to driving

unattractive10

Automobility Ubiquity

Scenario 2

• increased household wealth• policies to encourage small vehicles (e.g.

designation of road space, economic incentives)• investment in public transport is low priority• two-wheel vehicles dominate

11

Two-Wheeler World

Scenario 3

• increased household wealth• policies prioritize public transport, walking, and

cycling– investment in public transit– street design promotes non-motorized modes

• coordinated land use planning• increase in transit ridership, stabilization of

motorized share12

Sustainable Urban Transport

Assumed mode share for each scenario, 2040 – Surat

Mode CurrentAutomobility

Ubiquity

Two-Wheeler World

Sustainable Urban

Transport

Walk 42.0 22 18 20

Bicycle 13.4 6 2 15

Auto-rickshaw 10.8 8 5 5

Motorcycle 28.4 12 50 8

Bus 2.3 10 10 45

Train 0.1 0 0 0

Private car 2.6 42 15 7

13

Mode Share (% of total trips)

Methodology: travel activity

14

Daily travel(veh-km/day)

Vehicle occupancy

Daily travel(pass-km/day)

Daily passenger trips

Avg. trip length

Population

Daily trip rate

Trip length-city area ratio

Population

Population density

City size

Trip rate for workers

Trip rate for nonworkers

Workforce participation

rate

Mode split

Historical and projected population growth - Surat

Year

Decadal Growth Rate

1951 -

1961 29%

1971 64%

1981 65%

1991 93%

2001 62%

2011 63%

2021 50%

2031 40%

2041 30%15

Methodology: travel activity

Sources: a(13); b(10); c(11); d(8); e(14); f(15); g(16).

Trip frequency for selected cities and countries

Location Year

Average Per Capita Daily

Trips

Delhia 1969 0.49

Delhia 1981 0.72

Mumbaib 1991 0.95

Mumbaic 2000 1.67

Suratd 1988 1.02

Suratd 2004 1.31International

U.S.e 1995 3.8

U.K.e 1997 2.9

Singaporeg 1991 2

Norwayg 1992 3

Netherlandsg 1995 3.5 16

Methodology: travel activity

Trip length

• Have trip length data by mode, but no historical data• Base future trip length estimates on city size• Suppose that density is given by scenarios. (constant

under Two-Wheeler and Sustainability; somewhat lower under Automobility)

• Assume current relationship between city radius and average trip length remains

• Limitations to this estimate (cities will become more polycentric), but it gives a decent approximation.

17

Methodology: travel activity

Emission Factors for Current Indian Vehicles as Estimated from Three Studies

Vehicle Type Emission Factor

(g CO2/km)

Motorcycle (2-stroke) 45.2

Motorcycle (4-stroke) 34.6

Auto-rickshaw (2-stroke) 87.2

Auto-rickshaw (4-stroke) 85.6

Petrol car 259.9

Diesel car 286.2

Diesel bus 704.8

Train (metro) 1541

Train (suburban rail) 1063

18Sources: a Bose & Nesamani (2009); bMittal & Sharma (2006); cIyer (2006)

Projected Emission Factors for Vehicles in India

19

*actual analysis distinguishes between 2-and 4-stroke

Results: Estimated Travel Activity and CO2 Emissions

Current Automobility Two-WheelerSustainable Transport

2005 2021 2041 2021 2041 2021 2041Total Daily Trips (millions)Mumbai 29.6 65.4 146.9 65.4 146.9 65.4 146.9Ahmedabad 5.6 14.9 39.8 14.9 39.8 14.9 39.8

3.2 10.9 32.6 10.9 32.6 10.9 32.6Total Emissions (million tons CO2/year)Mumbai 2.33 14.89 49.12 6.08 15.20 5.36 10.26Ahmedabad 0.33 3.49 12.32 1.56 4.19 0.93 1.97

0.15 1.56 9.52 0.93 3.62 0.60 1.92Total Per Capita Emissions (kg CO2/person/year)Mumbai 132 490 1011 200 313 176 211Ahmedabad 61 397 933 178 317 106 149

63 262 879 156 334 101 177Ratio to 2005 emissionsMumbai 6.4 21.1 2.6 6.5 2.3 4.4Ahmedabad 10.6 37.4 4.8 12.7 2.8 6.0

10.2 62.3 6.1 23.6 3.9 12.620

21

Growth in population and total daily trips for Surat, 2005-2040

Population

22

Annual CO2 emissions for Surat

23

Per capita emissions: current and under scenarios for 2040

24

Estimated 2040 emissions as a ratio to 2005 levels

25

Percent of total emissions for each mode - Surat

Limitations and sources of uncertainty

• Lack of historical data on trip length and trip frequency– forecasts estimated based on demographic

trends and assumptions about city form– Forecasts validated against data from other

countries, but questions about applicability– Time, congestion constraints could slow growth in

travel distances• Uncertainty in vehicle technology• Unclear when and whether urban populations

will stabilize – how big is too big?

26

Conclusions

• Differences between scenarios reflect great deal of uncertainty, but also opportunity.

• Scenarios show importance of providing good public transport and promoting more sustainable modes, while discouraging automobile travel.– Cities taking some steps: e.g. BRT in Ahmedabad

and Surat, metro in Mumbai• Land use and street design policies also

important to prevent “worst case” scenario• Need for better data on travel behavior

27

Thank you!

Questions?

Contact:Lisa Raylelrayle@mit.edu

Madhav Paimpai@wri.org

28

References1. Bose, R., and K.S. Nesamani. Urban Transport, Energy and Environment: A Case of Delhi. Institute of

Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, 2000. 2. Das, A. and J. Parikh. Transport scenarios in two metropolitan cities in India: Delhi and Mumbai. Energy Conversion

and Management, Vol. 45, No. 15-16, 2004, pp. 2603-2625. 3. Fabian, B. and S. Gota. Emissions from India's Intercity and Intracity Road Transport. Clean Air Initiative for Asian

Cities Center (CAI-Asia), 2009.4. Schipper, L., I. Banerjee, and W. Ng. CO2 Emissions from Land Transport in India: Scenarios of the Uncertain.

Submitted to Transportation Research Record, 2009. 5. Singh SK. Future mobility in India: Implications for energy demand and CO2 emission. Transport Policy. 2006 Sep

;13(5):398-412.6. CEPT. Bus Rapid Transit System, Ahmedabad - Final Report. Centre for Environmental Planning and Technology,

2006. 7. Schipper, L., C. Marie-Lilliu, and R. Gorham. Flexing the Link between Transport and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A

Path for the World Bank. Paris: IEA, 2000. 8. CEPT. Surat Comprehensive Mobility Plan and Bus Rapid Transit System Plan: Detailed Project Report. Centre for

Environmental Planning and Technology, 2008. 9. Lea Associates. Mumbai Comprehensive Development Plan. Lea Associates South Asia Ltd., 2005. 10. MMRDA. Regional Plan for Mumbai Metropolitan Region, 1996 - 2011. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development

Authority, 1999. http://www.regionalplan-mmrda.org/. Accessed July 1, 2009. 11. Baker, J., R. Basu, M. Cropper, S. Lall, and A. Takeuchi. Urban Poverty and Transport: The Case of Mumbai. World

Bank, 2005. 12. Hanson, S. and P. Hanson. Gender and Urban Activity Patterns in Uppsala, Sweden. Geographical Review, Vol. 70,

No. 3, 1980, pp. 291-299. 13. Padam, S. and S.K. Singh. Urbanization and urban transport in India: the search for a policy. Europe Transport, Vol.

27, 2004, pp. 26-44.

29

References14. Giuliano, G. and D. Narayan. Another look at travel patterns and urban form: The US and Great Britain. Urban

Studies, Vol. 40, No. 11, 2003, pp. 2295-2312. 15. Miller, E.J. and A. Shalaby. Evolution of Personal Travel in Toronto Area and Policy Implications. Journal of Urban

Planning and Development, Vol. 129, No. 1, 2003, pp. 1-26. 16. Schafer, A. Regularities in travel demand: An international perspective. Journal of Transportation and Statistics, Vol.

3, No. 3, 2000. 17. Mittal, M.L. and C. Sharma. Anthropogenic emissions from energy activities in India: generation and source

characterization. Part II: Emissions from vehicular transport in India. USAID, 2006. 18. Iyer, N. Vehicle technology: 2 and 3 wheelers in Asia: Current and future greenhouse gas emissions. Manila: Asian

Development Bank, 2006. 19. IEA. Energy Statistics - Electricity for India. International Energy Agency, 2006.

http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/electricitydata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=IN. Accessed July 10, 2009. 20. Kenworthy, J.R. Transport Energy Use and Greenhouse Gases in Urban Passenger Transport Systems: A Study of

84 Global Cities. Notre Dame University, Fremantle, 2003. 21. An, F. and A. Sauer. Comparison of passenger vehicle fuel economy and GHG emission standards around the

world. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2004. 22. Jalihal, S.A. and T. Reddy. CNG: An alternative fuel for public transport. Journal of Scientific & Industrial Research,

Vol. 65, 2006, pp. 426-431. 23. Takeuchi, A., M. Cropper, and A. Bento. The Impact of Policies to Control Motor Vehicle Emissions in Mumbai,

India. Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 47, No. 1, 2007, pp. 27-46. 24. Kenworthy, J.R. and F.B. Laube. Patterns of automobile dependence in cities: an international overview of key

physical and economic dimensions with some implications for urban policy. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 33, 1999, 691-723.

25. Cameron I., T.J. Lyons, and J.R. Kenworthy. Trends in vehicle kilometres of travel in world cities, 1960–1990: underlying drivers and policy responses. Transport Policy, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2004, pp. 287-298.

30