MIO PDD - ESCI KSP

Transcription

MIO PDD - ESCI KSP

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 Macrobus Guadalajara, Mexico
Version 1.5
24/01/2012
A.2.
Description of the project activity:
The objective of the BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) Macrobus in Guadalajara, Mexico is to establish an
efficient, safe, rapid, convenient, comfortable and effective modern mass transit system based on a BRT
system. The Metropolitan area of the city of Guadalajara has a population of around 3.7 million
inhabitants 1. The situation before the project is around 1.6 million vehicles plying the city of Guadalajara
of which more than 1 million private cars, 86,000 motorcycles, 12,000 taxis and around 4,600 public
transit buses 2. The city has also two Light Rail Transit (LRT) lines totaling 24km of tracks 3. Public
transport buses are owned and managed by 17 different private and public enterprises 4.
The PDD includes all phases of Macrobus with a total of 8 exclusive BRT bus lanes plus their feeder
lines. The first line has entered operations March 2009. From 2012 onwards around 1 line per year enters
into operations totaling 185 km of trunk routes by mid 2017 5. The geographical boundary of the project is
the metropolitan area of the city of Guadalajara. Gases included are CO 2 , CH 4 and N 2 O.
The pre-project situation is described in chapter A.4.3. The baseline situation is that passengers would use
conventional modes of transport including buses, taxis, cars, motorcycles and Non-Motorized Transport
thus causing baseline trip emissions in absence of the project. Project emissions are based on the actual
fuel consumption of buses forming part of the project. Leakage emissions are caused 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 the result of reduced GHG
(Greenhouse Gases) emissions per passenger trip comparing the baseline with the project situation. The
BRT Macrobus reduces GHG emissions by improving the resource efficiency of transporting passengers
in the urban area of Guadalajara i.e. emissions per passenger trip 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
passenger transported compared with those used in absence of the project 6 . On trunk routes the
1
File 18, p. 27 based on INEGI 2005 (see footnote 2 of referenced document)
2
File 5
3
File 18, p. 33
4
File 18, p. 33
5
File 16, sheet „trunk routes“
6
Increased efficiency basically due to usage of larger units with less fuel consumption per passenger plus bus-only
lanes which allow for higher average speeds and less stop and go traffic of buses.
page 3




project uses articulated buses with a capacity of 160 passengers, which is around double the baseline
bus capacity of 82 passengers 7.
Mode switching: The BRT system is more attractive to clients due to reduced transport times,
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 transport.
The integration with feeder lines allows for efficient transport trips of customers combining fine
density feeder lines with high capacity trunk routes.
Load increase or change in occupancy: The BRT has a centrally managed organisation dispatching
vehicles on trunk routes. 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.
Reduction of the existing fleet of buses through public transit re-organization. This is an integral part
of the BRT project.
Photo 1: BRT Macrobus, Guadalajara
The BRT Macrobus is a public-private partnership (PPP), in which the public sector is responsible for the
investment to deploy the required infrastructure (segregated lanes, stations, complementary infrastructure,
7
File 6, p. 6-8
page 4
control centre), while the private sector is responsible for the investment of the bus fleet, the ticket selling
and validation system, and for the operation of the trunk and feeder services 8 . The infrastructure
investment is paid through public resources and is not recovered by bus fares. The system intends to be
operationally sustainable however i.e. recover operational expenses through the fixed tariff 9.
Core aspects of the BRT Macrobus are:
 A new infrastructure consisting of 185 kilometres of dedicated bus lanes until 2017 10 serviced by new
articulated 18m Euro 4 diesel buses 11, 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.
 Feeder lines on all BRT routes using at minimum diesel buses Euro 3 or EPA 98 with a capacity of 80
passengers 12.
 Equipment and turnstiles at the entrance to each trunk station will 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 project contributes to sustainable development in a significant manner:
 Improved environment through less GHG and other air pollutant emissions, specifically particle
matter, NO x 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.
 Socio-economic and environmental benefits due to reduced time for transport 13, less congestion, and
improved air quality.
Average expected emission reductions of the project are 54,365 tCO 2 avoided per annum.
8
See contracts files 19 and 20
9
See File 19, p.17/18
10
File 16
11
At minimum, according to national vehicle regulations; see Line 1 trunk buses (see File 14); see Norm NOM044-SEMARNAT-2006 (File 21)
12
See Files 14 and 21
13
File 22, slide 40
page 5
A.3.
Project participants:
Name of Party involved
(*) ((host) indicates a
host Party)
Private and/or public entity(ies)
project participants (*)
(as applicable)
Mexico (host)
Spain
Sistema de Tren Eléctrico Urbano (SITEUR)
Corporación Andina de Fomento - CAF acting as
Trustee for the Iniciativa Iberoamericana del
Carbono
Kingdom of Spain - Ministry of Environment and Rural
and Marine Affairs
Spain
A.4.
Kindly indicate if the Party
involved wishes to be
considered as project
participant (Yes/No)
No
Yes
Yes
Technical description of the project activity:
A.4.1. Location of the project activity:
A.4.1.1.
Host Party(ies):
A.4.1.2.
Region/State/Province etc.:
A.4.1.3.
City/Town/Community etc:
Mexico
State of Jalisco
Guadalajara
A.4.1.4.
Detail of physical location, including information allowing the
unique identification of this project activity (maximum one page):
The project is located within the Metropolitan Zone of Guadalajara composed of the following 8
municipalities: Guadalajara, Zapopan, Tlaquepaque, Tonalá, Tlajomulco de Zúñiga, El Salto, Ixtlahuacan
de Membrillos and Juanacatlán.
The city of Guadalajara has the geographical coordinates of 20° 40′ N, 103° 20’ W.
The geographical boundary of the project is the routes from origin to destination used by the people. The
project itself includes all feeder and trunk bus routes of the BRT. The geographical location of the project
is thus the Metropolitan Zone of Guadalajara 14.
14
Zona Metropolitana de Guadalajara in Spanish
page 6
Map 1: Project Location
Project Location
page 7
Map 2: Trunk Lines of the BRT Project
Source: Centro Estatal de Investigación de la Vialidad y el Transporte, (CEIT), 2010 (idem as in File 93)
A.4.2. Category(ies) of project activity:
Sectoral scope 7: Transport
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 8
Pre-Project Situation
The pre-project scenario is the usage of electric, diesel and gasoline buses, gasoline taxis, gasoline
passenger cars, gasoline motorcycles, Light Transit Rail (LTR) 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.
The number of private vehicles has grown steadily in Guadalajara from around 10,000 units in 1950
(1vehicle per 29 inhabitants) to 1.4 million in the year 2007 (1 vehicle per 2.4 inhabitants) 15.
Figure 1 shows the share of different modes of transport in Guadalajara as of 2007 and figure 2 shows the
same but including only motorized transport. The share of public transit (bus plus train) of total trips is
29% and 49% of motorized trips while private cars have a share of 28% of all trips and 48% of motorized
trips i.e. private modes of transit are equal to public means of transit 16. Only 6 years earlier the share of
public transit in motorized trips was still 68% and of cars only 30% 17 i.e. a drastic shift from public to
private means of transport has taken place with a loss of market share of public transit of 19 percentage
points. This dramatic shift towards private means of transit is due to a massive increase of private cars
(year 2000 754,000 units and year 2008 1.7 million units i.e. 2.3x more 18) and public transit which is
comparatively not attractive enough for inhabitants. With the BRT this trend shall be stopped or even
reverted through fostering an attractive public transit mean which is fast, safe and convenient.
15
File 18, p.29; for 1950 relation vehicles to inhabitants see File 23, p. 9
16
Source see figure 1
17
File 24, p.42
18
File 18, p.29
page 9
Figure 1: Mode Share of Trips in Guadalajara (2007)
Source: Plan de Movilidad Urbana Sustentable, Volumen 3, Anexo Tecnico, p. 56, 2010 based on OriginDestination matrix of the year 2007 (File 24; see also file 7 for calculations)
Figure 2: Mode Share of Motorized Trips in Guadalajara (2007)
Source: Plan de Movilidad Urbana Sustentable, Volumen 3, Anexo Tecnico, p. 56, 2010 based on OriginDestination matrix of the year 2007 (File 24; see also file 7 for calculations)
page 10
Figure 3 shows the public transit trip structures identified in the city based on O-D (Origen-Destination)
surveys.
Figure 3: Public Transit Trip Structures Guadalajara 2007
Volume of
persons
Source: File 22, slide 7 based on Origin-Destination matrix of the year 2007
Prior project the baseline bus system is composed of large buses 19. 78% of buses are diesel and 22% are
gasoline 20. The average age of public transit buses in the year 2010 is of 6 to 7 years 21.
Baseline buses have a low occupation rate of only 22% which shows the inefficiency of the system22.
Emission sources included in the project are all road-based transit means which the passenger could have
used in absence of the project for performing his trip instead of using the BRT. Gases included are hereby
CO 2 , CH 4 and N 2 O with CO 2 being by far the most important gas.
19
See file 6
20
File 5, electric trolleybuses constitute only 0.4%
21
File 5, sheet “model year”
22
File 92, CER spreadsheet; sheet “Baseline EF”, line 143
page 11
Project System
From an organizational viewpoint the system has regulators, managers and operators:
1. Secretariat for Environment and Sustainable Development (SEMADES 23) is the environmental
authority of the State of Jalisco, which issues technical concepts and authorizations regarding the
mitigation measures of environmental impacts.
2. Urban Development Secretariat (SEDEUR 24) is a public entity, which constructs and maintains
the infrastructure.
3. Transport and Road Secretariat (SVT 25) is the public regulatory authority in matter of transport
and road infrastructure of the State of Jalisco.
4. State Research Center of Transport and Road (CEIT 26) is a Public Decentralized Body of the
Government of Jalisco which is in charge of planning, studies and research of public passenger
transport of the State of Jalisco.
5. Urban Electric Train System (SITEUR) is the system manager. SITEUR is a Public Decentralized
Body of the Government of Jalisco with the mission of providing mass urban public transit
service (see Decree 13555 of 1989 27). SITEUR has two main departments, the Urban Electric
Train Department is in charge of managing the electric train lines and the Macrobus Department 28
which is the system manager plans, manages and controls the Macrobus BRT system.
6. Macrobus S.A. de C.V. is the private operator (in the future potentially various private operators),
which invests in buses and operates the trunk and feeder routes of Macrobus. Operators have a
termed contract awarded in an open and competitive bidding process by SITEUR.
7. EB Jalisco S.A. de C.V. is the private operator (in the future potentially various private
operators), which acquires, installs and operates the ticketing and tariff system and is responsible
for the fare collection and distribution. The operator has a termed contract awarded in an open
and competitive bidding process by SITEUR.
23
File 29, see Decree 13570 of 1989 Article 33Bis page 13
24
File 29, see Decree 13570 of 1989, Article 32 page 10
25
File 29, see Decree 13570 of 1989 Article 37 page 18
26
File 94, see Law 17167/1998, Article 36 and 37, pages 12 to 13
27
File 30, see Decree 13555 of 1989 page 1
28
See internal regulations of SITEUR file 31 (see Chapter III, Article 10, Numeral VIII, page 6 and Chapter VI,
Article 28 to 33, page 23)
page 12
Chart 1: Organization Chart of the Project
The entities that take part in the development and monitoring of the CDM Project are:
1. SITEUR through the Special Programmes Management Office 29 . This unit of the Macrobus
Department will be in charge of managing all data in relation to the CDM project.
2. Andean Development Corporation (CAF 30) is a Multilateral Bank, which is the CER buyer.
Features of the BRT Macrobus include exclusive right-of-way lanes, rapid boarding and alighting, preboard fare collection and fare verification for trunk routes (on-board electronically independent of busdriver for feeder routes), enclosed trunk route stations, clear route maps, real-time information displays,
automatic vehicle location technology to manage vehicle movements, modal integration at stations,
29
See internal regulations of SITEUR File 31 (see Chapter VI, Article 32, page 26)
30
www.caf.com
page 13
effective reform of the existing institutional structures for public transit, 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 plans to establish in total 185 km of exclusive separated bus lanes including new busstations 31. Each station has a modular design to ensure uniformity of the corridor’s image with obstaclefree waiting areas and elevated level-access to articulated buses with a high platform. All trunk route
stations have access ramps for mobility-impaired passengers. The trunk routes are complemented by
feeder lines replacing partially the existing conventional bus system. Photos 2 and 3 show the situation
prior and post establishment of BRT trunk routes. Figure 4 shows the projected BRT trunk routes for
Guadalajara including the existing two LRT lines.
Photo 2: Situation Prior BRT Trunk Route
31
File 16
page 14
Photo 3: Situation with BRT Trunk Route
Figure 4: BRT and Feeder Routes as Projected for Guadalajara
LRT routes 1 and 2 under operation have also been included. Phase I BRT Macrobus is operational.
Source: Centro Estatal de Investigación de la Vialidad y el Transporte, (CEIT) 2010, (idem as in File 95)
page 15
Line 1 and 2 of the LRT already operate. They have been added for information purposes.
Phase I of the BRT is already operational since March 2009. All other BRT lines (Phase II to VIII) are
under planning or construction. The feeder routes have not yet been determined in a definitive manner for
all trunk routes. Based on the experience of other BRTs (e.g. Transmilenio Bogota), feeder routes also
change over time in routing, length, bus types and frequencies. This is due to the fact that over time cities
grow, people move and urban areas develop requiring adaptations in public transit systems. Also practical
experience shows the actual demand for specific feeder route lines which are thereafter adjusted. Feeder
routes to a certain extent resemble re-organized baseline bus routes structured however around the trunk
routes to create an integrated mass transit system.
Also routes of trunk and feeder lines are projected. Exact location as well as distances might change over
time due to city development, experience with operations of first lines as well as changing transit demand.
The possible conventional bus routes that could be replaced, eliminated or modified with trunk and feeder
lines of the Macrobus System are listed by phase in the File 96.
The BRT system replaces baseline bus lines in the influence of the project. In Phase I, already
operational, of total 161 bus routes in the zone of influence of the project, 13 routes were eliminated and
substituted through the trunk route, 13 routes were eliminated and substituted through feeder routes, 95
routes were modified and 40 remained unchanged.
Bus Technology
Technology used is Euro IV diesel units 32. Trunk buses are new articulated 18m units with a capacity of
160 persons with platform-level access including room for disabled persons 33. Feeder lines on all BRT
routes use at minimum diesel buses Euro 3 or EPA 98 with a capacity of 80 passengers 34. Bus technology
may change over project time as new units are acquired. This can potentially lead to a change of fuels
used or size and make of buses without changing however any fundamental characteristic of the project.
As projected in total around 800 articulated buses and 1,200 feeder buses will be used in the project as of
2018, when all phases are operational 35. The number of units is based on projections and can change due
to actual passenger demand and experience gained during operations.
32
At minimum, according to national vehicle regulations; see Line 1 trunk buses (see File 14); see Norm NOM044-SEMARNAT-2006 (File 21)
33
See File 25 p. 44 and following for technical details of buses
34
See Files 14 and 21
35
File 16
page 16
Photo 4: BRT Macrobus Trunk and Feeder Bus
Diesel used in the Metropolitan Zone of Guadalajara has since November 2009 15ppm of sulphur 36.
The reduced usage of diesel fuel through the project (this leads to the GHG reduction) also means reduced
SO 2 emissions comparing the baseline with the project situation 37.
The Particle Matter (PM) and NO x emissions of project buses are significantly lower compared to
conventional baseline buses operating currently in Mexico, which have an average age between 6 and 7
years meaning that a large number of buses are Euro II, Euro I or elder. Figure 5 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 NO x 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 NO x (an important pre-cursor of ground-level ozone) emissions are thereby critical components of
local air quality.
36
37
File 97
SO2 emissions are directly correlated to the sulphur contents of the fuel (which is identical in the baseline or the
project situation) and the quantity of fuel consumed
page 17
Figure 5: Emissions of Particle Matter and NO x (Indexed) 38
120
100
Index
80
60
40
20
0
Euro 0
Euro I
Euro II
Particle Matter
Euro III
Euro IV
NOx
Source: Regulations 88/77/EWG for Euro 0; 91/542/EWG for Euro I and II; 1999/96/EG for Euro III and IV
Bus drivers are trained in the usage of the new units through manufacturers whenever required 39.
Transit Management
The operational fleet centre manages trunk bus dispatch, informs passengers, produces reports and
maintains records. Trunk buses will be equipped with GPS (Global Positioning System) or equivalent 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 trunk route
lanes are integrated with feeder lines thus enabling passengers to optimize trip times and routes and
increasing significantly the attractiveness of public transport. Also the system is integrated with the two
existing LRT lines. The transit system operates on concessions eliminating competition at bus-to-bus
level. The existing public transit routes will be re-organized and units are taken out of service in the
metropolitan area of Guadalajara as the new system requires less buses to price the same level of service
through the usage of larger units and through improved occupation rates 40.
Fare System
The system is based on pre-board ticketing using magnetic ticketing. Validation turnstiles at the entrance
to each station will detect each electronic ticket and will deduct the corresponding fare. This will
streamline the boarding process, allow drivers to concentrate on bus operation and will play a key role in
optimizing operations. Fare-card payment machines will be installed at the stations. On feeder routes the
buses have an electronic control of tickets inside the bus. Fare collection is centralized and managed by a
private company through a concession. Tickets are also integrated with the existing LRT lines 41.
38
Euro 0 standard had no particulate limits
39
See for drivers training File 98
40
See section B.2. table 1 for details on public transit re-organization and reduction of baseline buses
41
File 26, slide 12
page 18
Photo 5: Ticketing
The project uses EST (Environmentally Sound Technologies) and best practices in BRT including Euro 4
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 was then reproduced in the BRT Guadalajara 42.
Passengers are informed about the new system and how to use the new system including its fare cards.
SITEUR performed more than ninety thousand home visits around the trunk line (Phase I). It also realized
presentations of the project e.g. at schools or at neighbourhood associations 43.
A.4.4
Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period:
Years
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Total estimated reductions (tonnes of CO 2e )
Total number of crediting years
Annual average over the crediting period of estimated reductions (tCO 2e )
Annual estimation of emission
reductions in tonnes of CO 2e
26,459
52,487
55,723
58,739
58,420
63,639
65,089
380,556
7
54,365
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. Funding is by private means, state and national government 44.
42
See File 27, p.11 or File 28, p. 3 (GTZ sourcebook on BRT)
43
File 99
page 19
Funding does not include any official development assistance and is not counted towards the financial
obligations of Annex 1 parties.
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:
AM0031, Version 03, Baseline Methodology for Bus Rapid Transit Projects.
Additionally following tool is used:
• Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality (Version 05.2)
• Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity consumption
(Version 01).
B.2
Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the project
activity:
The methodology is applicable to project activities that reduce emissions through the construction and
operation of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system for urban road based transport. Table 1 relates the specific
baseline as well as monitoring applicability conditions of the methodology with the proposed project.
Table 1: Applicability Conditions
Applic1bility condition
The project has a clear plan how to reduce existing
public transport capacities either through scrapping,
permit restrictions, economic instruments or other means
and replacing them by a BRT system.
44
File 26, slide 11
45
File 25 p.59/60
46
File 25 p.60 and 132 and following
Project situation
The BRT system includes trunk and feeder lines and
replaces partially the current transport system with a
modern and efficient new system. The project reorganizes the existing bus routes by 45:
- Substitution of existing lines with BRT trunk
lines.
- Substitution of existing lines with BRT feeder
lines.
- Modification of remaining baseline bus lines.
In the direct and indirect area of influence of the BRT
no baseline bus routes are allowed to operate to not
create competition to the BRT 46.
In Phase I, already operational, of total 161 bus routes
in the zone of influence of the project, 13 routes were
eliminated and substituted through the trunk route, 13
routes were eliminated and substituted through feeder
routes, 95 routes were modified and 40 remained
unchanged. The 13 routes replaced by the trunk route
page 20
Local regulations do not constrain the establishment or
expansion of a BRT system.
Any fuels including (liquefied) gaseous fuels or bio-fuel
blends, as well as electricity, can be used in the baseline
or project case. The following conditions apply:
• In the case of gaseous fossil fuels, the
methodology is applicable if equal or more
gaseous fossil fuels are used in the baseline
scenario than in the project activity. The
methodology is not applicable in its current
form if more gaseous fossil fuel is used in the
project activity compared to the baseline
scenario;
• In the case of bio-fuels, project buses must use
the same bio-fuel blend (same percentage of
bio-fuel) as commonly used by conventional
comparable urban buses in the country i.e. the
methodology is not applicable if project buses
use higher or lower blends of bio-fuels than
those used by conventional buses. In addition,
the project busses shall not use a significantly
higher bio-fuel blend than cars and taxis
The project activity BRT system is road-based. The
baseline public transport system and other public
transport options are road- or rail-based (the
methodology excludes air and water based systems from
analysis). However the methodology is not applicable if
the project activity BRT system replaces an urban railbased Mass Rapid Transit System (MRTS), i.e. if
the MRTS stops operating after project implementation
due to the project activity.
The BRT system partially or fully replaces a traditional
public transport system in a given city. The methodology
cannot be used for BRT systems in areas where currently
no public transport is available.
The methodology is applicable if the analysis of possible
baseline scenario alternatives leads to the result that a
lead to elimination of 181 baseline buses, which were
replaced by 41 articulated units. The 13 routes replaced
by feeder buses led to the elimination of 169 baseline
buses which were replaced by 103 feeder buses. The
route operators had to hand-over their route
concessions to be able to participate in Macrobus 47.
No regulations constraining the establishment of BRTs
exist.
Baseline vehicles use gasoline, diesel and electricity.
Project units use diesel only.
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
Mexico 48.
The eventual usage of bio-fuel blends by the project
will be monitored.
The BRT system is road based. The baseline public
transit system is road and rail based (2 LRT lines).
These 2 LRT lines will be continued and are not
replaced by the project. The 2 LRTs lines are integrated
into the project and are managed by the same entity.
They also have a tariff agreement i.e. the project owner
has an integrated public transit system consisting of the
2 LRT lines and the BRT lines. See also Urban
Mobility Plan Volume 2 49.
The BRT system replaces partially the existing public
transport system. Public transport is available in
Guadalajara in areas of operation/influence of the
BRT 50. Figure 6 shows the existing baseline bus routes
in Guadalajara.
Section B.4. of the PDD identifies the baseline as a
continuation of the current public transport system
47
File 32 and 33
48
See also Sener, 2006, File 34
49
File 35
50
See File 18 p 34 to 44 for all routes and operators of baseline bus system
page 21
continuation of the current public transport system is the
scenario that reasonably represents the anthropogenic
emissions by sources of greenhouse gases (GHG) that
would occur in the absence of the proposed project
activity (i.e. the baseline scenario)
Figure 6: Baseline Bus Routes in Guadalajara
Source: Gobierno de Jalisco, p. 44 (File 18)
All applicability conditions for using the methodology are thus fulfilled.
B.3.
Description of the sources and gases included in the project boundary
The spatial project boundary is the metropolitan area of Guadalajara. It is based on the origins and
destinations of passengers using the project system and is based on the outreach of the new project system
including BRT trunk routes as well as feeder routes. The conceptual project boundary is given in Figure
7.
page 22
Figure 7: Conceptual Project Boundary
Emission sources not included
Emissions caused by the
remaining transport system
which continues to
circulate in the project area
(taxis, cars, conventional
public transport)
Emissions caused by
freight, ship, rail and air
transport
Emission sources included
Other emissions
included as leakage
Change of baseline
factors monitored
during project and
included as leakage:
• Change of load
factors of taxis
provoked indirectly
by project;
• Change of load
factor of remaining
conventional buses
provoked indirectly
by project.
Direct project and baseline emissions
Emissions caused by passengers transported
in the BRT project (trunk and feeder units)
Downstream emissions included as
leakage
Congestion change provoked by project
resulting in (inter alia):
• Increased vehicle speed;
• Rebound effect.
Trunk as well as feeder route locations, distances and routings might still change as the current
information is based on planning data and projections. These are constantly updated based on the actual
experience gained with Phase I of the BRT as well as based on normal city development. Table 2 shows
the BRT trunk routes included in the project as of current information status. Figure 4 shows the planned
BRT trunk route locations.
Table 2: Projected BRT Trunk and Feeder Lines Guadalajara
BRT Trunk Line
Distance
Construction
Operationa
(km)
start
l start
Phase I: Calzada
16
3.2008
3.2009
Independencia
Phase II: Corredor
32
1.2011
7.2012
Diagonal
Phase III: Juan Pablo II –
13
1.2012
1.2013
Alamo
Phase IV: Carr. Chapala –
18
1.2013
1.2014
El Salto
Phase V: Lopez Mateos –
15.5
1.2014
1.2015
Zapopan
Phase VI: M. Otero –
11.2
1.2015
1.2016
Plaza Bandera
Phase VII: E.A. la Torre 22
5.2016
6.2017
Vallarta
Phase VIII: Cto.
57
1.2015
6.2017
Periferico
Total
185
Source: Macrobus, 2010, File 16 and CEIT, 2010, File 100
51
Round-way route distance
Number
Feeder Lines
16
Distance Feeder
Lines (km) 51
209
44
605
32
578
8
204
8
105
13
201
7
90
128
1,993
page 23
In line with the methodology the project includes CO 2 , CH 4 as well as N 2 O emissions in the baseline as
well as in the project case. See table 3 for details.
Project
activity
Baselin
e
Table 3: Emissions Sources Included in the Project Boundary
Source
Mobile source emissions of different modes
of transport passengers transported by the
project would have used in absence of the
project BRT
BRT bus emissions of trunk and feeder route
services
Gas
Included?
CO 2
CH 4
N2O
Yes
Yes
Yes
CO 2
CH 4
N2O
Yes
Yes
Yes
Justification /
Explanation
Main source
Main source
B.4.
Description of how the baseline scenario is identified and description of the identified
baseline scenario:
Steps followed to identify the baseline are:



Step 1: Identify all alternatives
Step 2: Analyze options using the latest version of the “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of
additionality”
Step 3: If step 2 results in more than one possible scenario, the baseline scenario is the one with the
lowest emissions.
Step 1: Identification of Options
Basically the city has the option to choose between transport alternatives that favour more the usage of
private cars and options that favour more public transport. The trend in mode share towards private and
away from public transit in Guadalajara shows clearly that private transport means have been favoured in
the past (see chapter A.4.3.) 52. Concerning public transit following basic options for Guadalajara exist:
1.
2.
3.
4.
52
Implementation of a rail-based mass transit system such as metro or Light Rail Transit (LRT);
Continuation of the current road-based transit system combined with 2 LRT lines;
Public transit sector re-organization;
Implementing the project without CDM.
See also conclusion reached in Gobierno de Jalisco, p. 49 (File 18)
page 24
Step 2: Assessment of Options
ALTERNATIVE 1: RAIL- BASED MASS TRANSIT SYSTEM
3 types of rail-based mass rapid transit (MRT) systems are in general considered 53:
•
•
•
Light Rail Transit (LRT) which also includes trams operating as single rail car or as short train of
cars typically on exclusive right-of-way lanes at surface levels. LRTs can also be elevated. LRTs
have carrying capacities comparable to BRTs with less than 30,000 phd (passenger per hour per
direction per line) and trams have capacities in the order of 15,000 phd.
Metros which can function underground, elevated or on surface level. The core difference to
LRTs is the larger capacity of passenger transport. Metros have capacities of up to 70,000 phd per
line.
Sub-urban or inter-urban rail with some stations in the city. The main difference to LRTs is that
carriages are heavier, distances travelled are longer and transport is between cities or between the
city and its sub-urban areas.
Light rail transit (LRT) includes also trams and monorails. LRTs operate as a single rail car or as a short
train of cars typically on exclusive right-of-way lanes at surface levels. This alternative faces similar if
not more severe constraints than a BRT. LRTs typically have a capacity of 10-25,000 phd 54. Table 4
shows differences between BRTs/Bus Lane systems, LRTs and metros and table 5 gives examples of the
carrying capacity of various MRTS worldwide.
Table 4: Comparison BRTs, LRTs and Metros
Characteristic
BRT / Bus lane
LRT / Tram /Monorail
Passenger carrying capacity (phd) 55
15-35,000
10-25,000
Average operating speed (km/h)
15-25
15-25
Space requirement
2-4 lanes taken away from
2-4 lanes taken away
existing road space
from existing road space
Sources: IEA, Bus Systems for the Future, 2002, Table 2.1. and Table 6
Metro
up to 80,000
30-40
Separate from
roadway corridors
Table 5: Passenger Carrying Capacity of Metros/LRTs vs. Planned BRT Lines Guadalajara (phd per line 56)
System/City
phd (passenger per hour per direction) capacity
Metro Mumbai 1
60,000
Metro Sao Paulo East Line
60,000
Metro Bangkok
50,000
Metro Mexico Line B
39,000
LRT Kuala Lumpur
30,000
LRT Tunis
12,000
53
Adapted from File 36: GTZ training course “Mass Transit”, 2004, box 2, page 13
54
IEA, Bus Systems for the Future, 2002, Table 2.1.
55
See examples following table
56
The carrying capacity of each line is independent of other lines and thus carrying capacities of lines cannot be
summed. The logic of a carrying capacity is to see which system along a certain stretch is required i.e. “x”
passengers demand transit services between A and B. The question is thereafter which transport system i.e. metro,
LRT, BRT, simple bus service etc matches best the passenger flow demand along that corridor.
page 25
BRT Guadalajara Phase I line
9,000
BRT Guadalajara Phase II line
7,200
BRT Guadalajara Phase I II line
6,800
BRT Guadalajara Phase IV line
5,500
BRT Guadalajara Phase V line
4,700
BRT Guadalajara Phase VI line
3,800
BRT Guadalajara Phase VII line
5,600
BRT Guadalajara Phase VIII line
5,100
Source: For metros File 37, GTZ, table 10, p.23; for LRT table 1, p.5; Metro Mumbai 1 PDD Mumbai Metro 1, p.6,
For BRT lines Guadalajara File 16
The expected maximum ridership of the BRT Guadalajara lines is between 3,800 and 9,000 phd or 4 to
10x less than the average capacity of e.g. Metro Mexico Line B. This is normal for BRT lines. Worldwide
BRTs are in general made on lines with less than 10,000 phd idem to Guadalajara. See for example the
phd of BRTs listed on the website http://www.chinabrt.org/ with 26 BRT systems worldwide of which
only Bogota and Guangzhou have more than 10,000 phd on a BRT route, whilts all others have less than
10,000 phd or even less than 5,000phd. .Based on the expected passenger demand metro is thus not a
viable alternative for Guadalajara as the very high investment for metros will not be viable with the
expected passenger numbers. No city has built metros for the passenger demand of the BRT lines of
Guadalajara.
The required investment of LRT, metro and BRT options have a significant difference 57:
•
•
•
•
LRT at level with costs between 13-38 million USD per kilometre;
Elevated LRT or monorail with costs between 50-102 million USD per kilometre;
Metro with costs between 41-350 million USD per kilometre;
BRT systems in Mexico cost between 2.8 and 5.3 million USD per kilometre 58.
Metros and LRTs are clearly more expensive than BRTs. As the passenger demand in Guadalajara is
sufficient to be covered through a BRT (see former table) it makes no sense to invest significant
additional resources in a metro or LRT. This is reflected in the strategic mass transit plan of the
Government of Jalisco which focuses on BRT and not on LRT lines 59. The same conclusion comparing
costs of LRTs, metros and BRTs was reached when realizing the due diligence of the project on behalf of
CAF (Andean Development Fund and CER buyer) 60.
Summarized a metro or LRT is due to the expected passenger demand and the very high cost of
LRTs/metros not a feasible option for Guadalajara. While metros or LRTs might be a feasible option for
high passenger demand routes the investment is not justified for low passenger demand routes as is the
case in the BRT routes of Guadalajara. The additional investment required for a LRT (factor 3 to 5 for a
at level LRT and up to factor 30 for an elevated LRT, see above) and for a metro (factor 10 to 100, see
57
See L. Wright, GTZ, Training Course: Mass Transit, 2004, page 16, table 6 (File 36) for LRT, and metros.
58
File 35 p.62
59
File 35, p.11
60
File 27, p. 15
page 26
above) makes this a non-feasible alternative for the identified BRT routes of Guadalajara. This is also
confirmed by the state transport strategy focusing on BRT lines.
ALTERNATIVE 2: CONTINUATION OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM
A continuation of the current transport system complies with all applicable legal and regulatory
requirements. A continuation of the current system has various advantages compared to all other options:


No large-scale public investment requiring additional subsidies
Lowest risk of all options.
The continuation of the current situation is thus clearly a realistic and attractive alternative.
The carrying capacity of the current public transport system is in line with the actual transport demand.
The current occupation rate of only 22% 61 of buses as well as the identified oversupply of buses resulting
in fierce competition for passengers 62 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. 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.
ALTERNATIVE 3: PUBLIC TRANSIT RE-ORGANIZATION
This scenario implies a completely integrated, centrally managed and re-structured transport system
which is a comprehensive and complete change of the current public transport system. No new
infrastructure or hard-ware is required in this case. Currently the transport system has various companies
with many individual bus owners competing between each other for passengers 63 . The proposed reorganization would include a centrally managed control of all units, dispatching them upon demand, a
management and integration of tariffs, a re-definition of routes and significant structural changes from
current operations relying on independent small bus-owners to transit operators embedded in a centrally
controlled operation centre of fleet.
The barrier to implementing such a system is clearly of organizational and management nature with the
considerable risk of non-functioning and the resistance to change of the existing transport sector. To
manage such a change the entity in charge of transport management needs to be very strong and the
involved parties i.e. the existing transport companies, need to agree upon the change. Without offering an
attractive new alternative where the government also invests in new infrastructure thus making a shift
61
File 92, CER spreadsheet sheet “Baseline EF”, line 127
62
Gobierno de Jalisco, File 18, p. 32
63
Gobierno de Jalisco, File 18, p. 33
page 27
financially attractive existing bus and route owners will not be persuaded to change their modus operandi.
An important measure to improve efficiency is for example the reduction of supply in off-peak hours on
routes. However the incentive to be a free-rider is very high and stand-alone organizational measures
have been made in the past in Guadalajara but have reached their limits 64.
ALTERNATIVE 4: THE PROJECT WITHOUT CDM
Alternative 4 is detailed in Chapter B.5 which makes an assessment of this option and shows why the
project without CDM is not feasible.
Step 3: If Step 2 results in more than one possible alternative baseline scenario, the most likely
baseline scenario is the scenario with the lowest baseline emissions
Step 2 only results in one possible baseline alternative.
KEY STEPS TO DETERMINE THE BASELINE
The baseline is a continuation of the current transport system consisting of various transport modes
between which the population chooses:






The existing public transport bus system;
The existing LRT and rail connection lines;
Private passenger car;
Taxis;
Motorcycles;
NMT (Non-Motorized Traffic).
Baseline emissions are those which would have been caused by passengers using the project BRT and in
absence of latter would have used baseline modes of transport. Baseline emissions per trip per mode are
fixed ex-ante and are annually updated based on a technology improvement factor. Total baseline
emissions are calculated based on the number of project passengers, the baseline emission factor per
passenger trip and the mode passengers would have used in absence of the project.
Steps followed to determine baseline emissions are:
1. Identify relevant vehicle categories;
2. Determine emissions per kilometre of vehicle categories through fuel consumption data;
3. Determine emissions per passenger-trip through occupation data per mode category and average
trip distance or for buses based on total emissions and total amount of bus trips made by
passengers.
4. Determine trip modes of BRT passengers in absence of the project based on a survey realized of
BRT users.
5. Calculate total baseline emissions based on the trip mode and the corresponding trip emissions
and the number of passengers transported by the BRT.
For formulas applied see section B.6.
64
See Mass Transit Strategy Government of Jalisco, File 18, p.26 to 45
page 28
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 before the start of validation. Therefore proof is given in table 5 that CDM
was considered before the project starting date. The project starting date is defined in accordance with EB
41 Paragraph 67. EB 49 Annex 22 “Guidelines on the demonstration and assessment of prior
consideration of the CDM (version 3)” was also taken into account.
According to these guidelines the project is an existing project activity as the project starting date is prior
August 2nd 2008 (chapter C guidelines). To demonstrate serious consideration of CDM following steps
are performed based on the guidelines:
A). Awareness of the CDM and demonstrate that this was a decisive factor
Table 6 shows the steps realized prior project starting date.
Table 6: CDM Project Chronology Part A
Milestone
Memorandum of Government of Jalisco to incorporate CDM in the
proposed project
Memorandum of Government of Jalisco to initiate CDM process
Rapid appraisal CDM potential of project by Grütter Consulting for
CAF
Project start date (signature of 1st construction contract)
Date
11.2007
Documentary Proof
File 38, Memo
12.2007
08.03.2008
File 39, Memo
File 40, appraisal
17.03.2008
File 41, contract
Table 6 clearly shows prior consideration of CDM including a Memorandum of the Government of
Jalisco to realize the CDM process and to get the project registered as a climate change project under the
CDM. Also prior project starting date an appraisal of the potential GHG reductions was made.
B).Continuing and real action to secure CDM
Table 7 indicates all actions taken since project start to secure CDM.
Table 7: CDM Project Chronology Part B
Milestone
Project start date (signature of 1st construction contract)
Contact with project developer and buyer of CERs
(multilateral organization)
Contact with project developer (2nd offer; multilateral
organization)
ERPA proposal (multilateral organization)
Contract approval for CDM project development
Press releases announcing signature of CDM contract
Operational start Macrobus
ERPA signature
Date
17.03.2008
27.03.2008
Documentary Proof
File 41, contract
File 42, letter CAF
29.07.2008
File 43, e-mail CAF
10.10.2008
04.12.2008
05.12.2008
10.03.2009
31.07.2009
File 44, e-mail CAF
File 45, letter
File 46, newspaper clips
File 47, invitation for inauguration
File 48, ERPA
page 29
The project has realized various actions to secure CDM including contacts with a multilateral project
developer for the realization of the CDM project development and an ERPA, the signature of an ERPA as
well as newspaper publications informing about the sale of emission reduction credits. Gaps between
documented evidence (only major documents have been included in table 7) are less than 2 years.
The additionality of the project is determined using the “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of
additionality (version 05.2, EB 39 Annex 10)”.
STEP 1. IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE
CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT LAWS AND REGULATIONS
PROJECT
ACTIVITY
Sub-step 1a: Define alternatives to the project activity
Chapter B.4 step 1 identified the four available options as being:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Implementation of a rail-based mass transit system such as metro or Light Rail Transit (LRT);
Continuation of the current road-based transit system combined with 2 LRT lines;
Public transit sector re-organization;
Implementing the project without CDM.
Step 2 in chapter B.4 assessed the feasibility of the 4 options and excluded option 1 and option 3 (see B.4
for details). The remaining options are thus the project in absence of the CDM or a continuation of the
current road-based transit system in conjunction with 2 LRT lines.
Sub-step 1b. Consistency with mandatory laws and regulations:
All alternatives identified are consistent with mandatory laws and regulations. No special law or
requirements exist for BRTs. The most relevant laws for the project are the Environmental Law of the
Federal District 65, the Norm regulating emissions of diesel vehicles in usage (NOM-045-SEMARNAT2006) 66 , the Norm regulating maximum permitted emissions of new diesel vehicles (NOM-044SEMARNAT-2006) 67 and the Norm concerning noise emissions of vehicles (NOM-080-ECOL-1994) 68.
Step 2. Investment analysis
The project proposal is public financed concerning infrastructure. The infrastructure (roads, stations, bus
depots, terminals, fly-over bridges, central control station) is fully public financed through the national
government as well as local government and not repaid by system users 69. Tariffs charged only cover
operational costs plus bus and ticketing system investment.
65
File 106
66
File 101
67
File 102
68
File 103
69
Phase I infrastructure was financed 100% by the Government of Jalisco, while phase II onwards the infrastructure
is financed to 60% by the Government of Jalisco and to 40% by the Federal Government through FONADIN (see
Files 91a and 91b)
page 30
In accordance with the methodology as the project is at least partially public financed concerning
investment no investment analysis is made and the barrier analysis is applied. As no investment analysis
is applied no cost-benefit analysis is applied.
Step 3. Barrier analysis
Sub-step 3a. Identify barriers that would prevent the implementation of the proposed CDM project
activity:
Two important barriers exist for the implementation of the BRT Guadalajara. Both are related to risks of
the project:
 Operational deficits of the system;
 Infrastructure investment cost overrun.
Both barriers do not have a direct impact on the financial returns of the project activity but refer to a risk
of the project. The risks are due to less than expected income and higher than expected operational and/or
investment costs. The risk of an operational deficit and of infrastructure investment cost overruns are
presented and assessed. The monetary risk is in a certain range for each barrier but cannot be pinpointed
with reasonable certainty. It can thus not be incorporated in a transparent manner in a financial calculation
(under Step 2 – Investment Analysis) - also the barriers are not based on investment returns as no returns
are expected but on operational annual deficits and on overruns of projected investments leading to
potential budget problems. It is clear that these risks form a barrier for the city to make a positive decision
on the project in absence of the CDM. The identified risk is demonstrated in the following paragraphs, its
potential magnitude is estimated and it is shown that CDM can alleviate and overcome this risk barrier
thus being decisive for the project to happen.
Economic Barrier for Sustainable Operations
The infrastructure cost of the BRT system were assumed by the government, based on the premises of a
positive social return (see next section). Thus also no financial analysis based on an investment
calculation is realized as the investment is not repaid. However the system should be operationally
sustainable and run without deficits. 70 Prior project start the system was designed to have an operational
profit of 3.7 million MXN per annum. However in practice the system is running an operational deficit of
16.9 million MXN due largely to 11% less passengers than projected, 22% less income than projected
while costs are only 13% lower than anticipated 71.
The barrier for Macrobus prior project decision taking is the risk of running an operational deficit thus not
complying with the system objective and not making the system sustainable. This risk was known prior
70
See File 19, p.17 Art. 7ª: “El sistema Macrobus ha sido disenado como un sistema autonomo en sus flujos y por lo
tanto autosostenible, con la finalidad de que en principio no requira en el tiempo subsidios externos a la
operacion...” cited from SITUER “Titulo de Concesion. Translation by author: “The system Macrobus has been
designed as autonomous in its financial flows and therefore as financially self-sufficient, with the final objective
that in principle over time no external subsidy for operations are required…”
71
File 52
page 31
project start due to already existing experience with BRTs, specifically the Macrobus Mexico, being the
primary BRT system in Mexico.
As of project starting date (17.03.2008) the most prominent and published BRT in Mexico was the BRT
Insurgentes run by Metrobus. The BRT Insurgentes was in operation since 16.06.2005. 72 Table 8
compares expected and actual data of the BRT Insurgentes, Mexico.
Table 8: Expected and Actual Results of BRT Insurgentes, Mexico
Planned
Actual
Operationa Operationa Operational
investment
investment l income
l income
expenses
(million
(million
projected
actual
projected
MXN)
MXN)
(million
(million
(million
MXN)
MXN)
MXN)
247
411
395
337
347
Source: File 53, Macrobus
Operational
expenses
actual
(million
MXN)
364
Expected
operational
profit
(million
MXN)
48
Actual
operational
profit
(million
MXN)
-27
BRT Metrobus Insurgentes runs an operational deficit instead of a projected profit. The deficit per
passenger transported is around 0.3 MXN. Planned on the projected passenger numbers of Macrobus and
assuming a similar deficit per passenger the operational deficit would be 14 million MXN. Table 9 shows
the projected passenger numbers, the projected profit per annum and the deficit projected assuming the
same deficit per passenger as in the case of BRT Insurgentes.
Table 9: Projections Macrobus
Planned passengers per
Expected operational
Deficit risk per
working day 73
profit (million MXN)
passenger (MXN)
141,000
3.7
0.3
Source: File 52 based on data Logit and Macrobus Insurgentes
Projected Deficit with Risk
(million MXN)
14.0
The calculated potential deficit is based on actual performance data of the BRT Macrobus Insurgentes.
The plausibility of the data is checked ex-post with actual data of Macrobus. Table 10 shows that actual
results of Macrobus indicate that the deficit risk calculated is very real and that the actual deficit is even
slightly higher than the anticipated potential deficit.
Table 10: Expected and Actual Results of Phase I Macrobus
Planned investment Actual investment
Expected
Actual
(million MXN)
(million MXN)
operational profit
operational profit
(million MXN)
(million MXN)
600
953
3.7
-16.9
Source: File 52
Anticipated risk of deficit
based on Macrobus
Insurgentes (million MXN)
-14.0
The table above also shows that the deficit is not due to a minor than planned investment. It is basically
due to less than projected passengers and thus lower revenues. While operational costs are also lower than
expected the income side is by far less than projected thus leading to the deficit of around 17 million
72
73
The Insurgentes Extension Sur entered operations 13.3.2008 and Eje 4 entered operations16.12.2008 (File 51)
For calculations 330 working days per annum; same calculation base for BRT Insurgentes calculation of deficit
per passenger and for Macrobus for determination of total deficit per annum i.e. the factor does not influence the
outcome.
page 32
MXN which is very close to the anticipated risk of a deficit of 14 million MXN based on past experience
of Metrobus Insurgentes.
Summarized:
-
The most recognized BRT of Mexico (Insurgentes) runs a deficit of 0.3 MXN per passenger
although it planned to run profits. The risk of not attaining projections is thus evident.
Taking the planning data of Macrobus and applying the risk of a same deficit per passenger
transported Macrobus runs the risk of an annual deficit of around 14 million MXN.
The plausibility of this annual deficit based on experience of Insurgentes is corroborated with expost data which shows that Macrobus is effectively running a deficit of 17 million (close to the
anticipated deficit) instead of the projected operational profit.
The conclusion reached is thus the Macrobus has prior project start the risk of running an operational
deficit, thus not complying with its objective and not being sustainable. The risk magnitude has been
assessed based on data of a comparable and recognized BRT in Mexico and its plausibility has been
corroborated based on the actual performance of Macrobus after project start.
The importance of CDM in eliminating this barrier is shown in Table 11. Based on the historic prices
prior project decision taking and on the CER projections made prior project start the expected CDM
income could cover the anticipated deficit fully. CER income is equal to the potential deficit per
passenger. CDM can thus make a decisive difference by eliminating this risk barrier and by making the
system potentially sustainable without the risk of operational deficits.
Table 11: Impact of CDM
Operational deficit risk
(million MXN)
14
Source: File 52
Operational deficit risk
per passenger (MXN)
0.3
Projected income from
CDM Phase I (million
MXN) 74
14
Projected CDM income
per passenger (MXN)
0.3
Without CDM the system thus has the barrier of potentially not been operationally sustainable and thus
being in non-compliance with the system objective. Therefore the Government of Jalisco looked for
additional financial resources 75. Calculations based on data available prior decision taking show that the
risk of a financial deficit can be covered fully by CDM resources.
Infrastructure Investment Cost Overrun
The government of Jalisco together with the federal government finances 100% of infrastructure costs.
60% is thereby financed through the Government of Jalisco and 40% by Federal Government through
FONADIN 76.
74
Based on 340 MXN per tCER (average secondary CER market price 2nd semester 2007 prior decision taking; see
File 54) and 40,000tCERs per line (Phase I) based on rapid appraisal Macrobus prior project start (file 40)
75
See files 38 and 39
76
Except Phase I financed to 100% by the Government of Jalisco; see Files 91a and 91b
page 33
The risk of an investment cost overrun is significant based on past experience without being able to
pinpoint the risk:
-
Metrobus Insurgentes had an investment cost overrun of 66% 77.
Phase I of Transmilenio Bogota, which is considered as reference for BRTs worldwide had in
overrun in infrastructure costs of 78%. 78
A significant cost overrun had thus been experienced by recognized systems established prior Macrobus.
This is a clear risk for the Government of Jalisco which finances the infrastructure to 60% and which
could therefore run into budgetary problems to finance the system. The plausibility of the risk is again
ascertained by ex-post actual performance of the system where the investment cost overrun for Phase I
was 59% 79 i.e. comparable to the investment cost overrun experienced by Metrobus Insurgentes.
Table 12 shows the projected cost per kilometre 80 and the deficit per kilometre based on a risk projection
of 66% cost overrun as experienced by Insurgentes and an actual 59% cost overrun (for plausibility
purpose) as actually experienced by Macrobus Phase I. This number is compared to the projected CDM
revenue over the entire possible crediting period. CDM can make a substantial contribution towards
covering the risk of infrastructure investment cost overruns and could cover the potential deficit of the
Government of Jalisco (60% of total investment) to more than 100%.
Table 12: Investment Sur-Cost Risk and Impact of CDM
Investment Cost
Investment Sur-Cost of 66%
Actual Investment SurPlanned per km
per km based on Insurgentes
Cost of Phase I (million
(million MXN)
Experience (million MXN)
MXN)
37.5
24.8
22.0
Source: File 52
Projected CDM income
per km (million MXN) 81
17.9
Summarized:
-
-
The barrier of a infrastructure investment cost overrun is real and proven by prominent cases like
the BRT Metrobus Insurgentes as well as the BRT TransMilenio, both existing and widely
studied prior project start of Macrobus. Both had suffered serious investment cost overruns of
more than 60%.
The plausibility of such a cost overrun is shown ex-post with actual data from Phase I of
Macrobus with a cost overrun of 59%.
CDM can make a significant difference by covering more than 100% of the potential cost overrun
in infrastructure for the State of Jalisco, which is the project promoter.
The barriers presented are a real risk for the project and prevent the implementation of the project in
absence of the CDM. The risks are evidenced based on the experience of comparable investments in
77
See table 7
78
File 49
79
See table 9
80
Based on Phase I
81
See table 10 for projected CER revenues; 21 year crediting period based on constant MXN
page 34
BRTs in the same country in the last few years prior project starting date. The magnitude of the risk is
also assessed based on this data without being able to make an exact financial risk assessment. However
an indication can be given that the risk is significant and can lead to a large operational deficit of the
system making it non feasible and non sustainable, and creating potentially severe problems for the
Government of Jalisco.
The identified barriers are real and substantiated by historic public data as well as made plausible through
a comparison with actual performance ex-post of Phase I of Macrobus. No such barriers exist for a
continuation of the current transport system as this requires no investment of the Government. With CDM
the barriers can be removed as the financial income through CDM offers an additional finance source
eliminating the risk barrier identified. This is shown based on historic magnitudes of risk in financial
terms which can be covered entirely through CDM income.
Sub-step 3 b. Show that the identified barriers would not prevent the implementation of at least one of
the alternatives (except the proposed project activity):
The alternative of continuation of the current situation does not face any of the above mentioned barriers
as no major investment of the public sector is required.
Step 4. Common practice analysis
Sub-step 4a. Analyze other activities similar to the proposed project activity:
Features of BRT systems 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 82.
Mexico had by 2005 29 metropolitan areas with more than 500,000 inhabitants 83. Mexico has thus a
potential for a large number of BRTs 84. In practice however at the time of project start only 2 BRTs were
operational being BRT Optibus in Leon and BRT Metrobus Insurgentes in Mexico City of which latter
has also been presented as a CDM project 85. With only 1 city out of a potential of 29 BRTs are obviously
not common practice in Mexico.
82
File 56, GTZ
83
see http://www.citypopulation.de/Mexico-Agglo.html based on Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e
Informática, Mexico, 2005
84
BRTs are feasible in general in cities with more than 500,000 inhabitants due to requiring a certain density of
passenger demand to allow for the effective operation of bus-only routes. Cities with less than 1 million inhabitants
and BRTs include dozens of European and North American cities and in Developing Countries examples of such
cities are Cartagena/Colombia, Pereira/Colombia or Arequipa/Peru. The Colombian public transport policy as
published in the Conpes 3260 (2003) has as policy goal to establish a BRT in all cities with more than 600,000
inhabitants. The Mexican government has also established a policy goal to realize a Mass Rapid Tran sit system
including BRTs in all cities with more than 500,000 inhabitants (Fonadin, see File 57).
85
see www.unfccc.int
page 35
Sub-step 4b. Discuss any similar options that are occurring:
The survey of similar project activities in Mexico realized under step 4a shows clearly that BRT projects
are not common practice. Sub-step 4b of the additionality tool indicates: “If similar activities are widely
observed and commonly carried out, it calls into question the claim that the proposed project activity is
financially unattractive (as contended in Step 2) or faces barriers (as contended in Step 3)”. Having 1
other case in entire Mexico without CDM can neither be considered widely observed nor commonly
carried out. Leon is clearly an exception and not common practice. No public data is available on Leon
and thus also the potential barriers could not be compared with the situation of Leon. Also taking
ACM0016 which is also applicable for BRT and which is used e.g. by the CDM projects of the BRT
Edomex as well as the BRT Metrobus the common practice benchmark is that less than 50% of
comparable cities have implemented a MRTS. In both cases (Metrobus as well as Edomex) it has been
shown that less than 50% of cities have implemented a MRTs (not only a BRT) thus not being common
practice in Mexico.
The steps realized above clearly show that the project activity is not the baseline and is not a viable
alternative under BAU.
B.6.
Emission reductions:
B.6.1. Explanation of methodological choices:
BASELINE EMISSION CALCULATIONS
Key steps to determine the baseline are listed in chapter B.4.
Path A from AM0031 Version 03 is chosen. This is the preferred option according to the methodology.
For the purposes of calculating baseline emissions, first the relevant vehicles categories corresponding to
the baseline are identified. After having identified these categories, the emission factor per passenger trip
per vehicle category is determined. This is calculated ex-ante and includes a fixed technology-change
factor per vehicle category. Total baseline emissions are determined ex-post based on the mode of
transport BRT passengers would have chosen in absence of the project and their respective emission
factor.
1: Determine Vehicle Categories
Relevant vehicle categories in Guadalajara include:






Urban public transport buses (all large buses);
Light Rail Transit (LRT) with 2 lines;
Passenger cars;
Taxis;
Motorcycles;
NMT (Non-Motorized Transport)
page 36
Emissions from passengers which in absence of the project would have used rail-based mass transit
systems are counted as 0 (see AM0031 Version 03, p.13).
Path A of the methodology based on relative data is taken.
2A. Calculate Emissions Per Passenger Based on Relative Data
2A1. Determine Emissions per Kilometre for Vehicle Categories
Relevant fuel types, for each vehicle category, are established. The project monitors annually the share of
fuel types used for passenger cars. If changes larger than 10 percentage points of fuel types used occurs
(for diesel, gasoline or gaseous fuels) or changes larger than 1 percentage points for all other fuels then
the emission factors are adjusted accordingly.
GHG emissions per kilometre are calculated and fixed ex-ante for the first project crediting period. It is a
value based on specific fuel consumption data of the respective category multiplied by an annual
technology improvement factor and the relevant correction factor.
Emissions per Kilometre for Different Vehicle Categories
EFKM ,i =

∑ SEC
x
where:
EF KM,i
SEC x,i
EF CO2,x
EF CH4,x
EF N2O,x
Ni
N x,i

x ,i
 N x ,i
× (EFCO 2, x + EFCH 4, x + EFN 2O , x ) × 
 Ni



(1)
Transport emissions factor per distance of vehicle category i (gCO 2e /km)
Specific energy consumption of fuel type x in vehicle category i (litre/km)
CO 2 emission factor for fuel type x (gCO 2 /litre)
CH 4 emission factor for fuel type x (gCO 2e /litre)
N 2 O emission factor for fuel type x (gCO 2e /litre)
Total number of vehicles in category i
Number of vehicles in vehicle category i using fuel type x
To determine the specific fuel consumption the project used for buses (most important baseline emission
source) the (preferred) alternative 1 of the methodology is taken i.e. values are based on data collected in
the city of Guadalajara 86. For all vehicle categories the specific fuel consumption is based on the lowest
and most recent published IPCC values due to lack of data for Guadalajara.
The default value for EF CO2 , EF CH4 and EF N2O for liquid fuels are taken from the methodology (Appendix
A, table A.1).
86
Based on collected samples where the top 20% of the sample was excluded to ensure a conservative approach in
accordance with AM0031 Version 03, p. 8
page 37
Table 13: Default Emission Factors for all Vehicle Categories and Fuel Types (gCO 2e /litre)
Vehicle
CO 2 emission factors
CH 4 emission factors
N 2 O emission factors
category
Gasoline
Diesel
Gasoline
Diesel
Gasoline
Diesel
Bus large
2 313
2 661
11
2
9
21
Bus medium 87
2 313
2 661
12
2
12
36
Bus small
2 313
2 661
13
1
14
51
Taxis 88
2 313
2 661
11
1
14
23
Passenger cars
2 313
2 661
11
1
14
23
Motorcycles
2 313
2 661
29
--7
--Note: CH 4 and N 2 O has been transformed in CO 2 e using GWP factors; Default values represent per vehicle
category the technology with the lowest sum of CO 2e emissions
Source: AM0031, Appendix A, table A.1
No bio-fuels are used by baseline or project vehicles. Also no gaseous fuels are used.
For trolleybuses using electricity the EF is calculated based on the latest approved version of the “Tool to
calculate project, baseline and or leakage emissions from electricity consumption”.
EFKM ,TB = SEC KM ,TB × EFgrid ,CM × (1 + TDL )
Where:
EF KM,TB
SEC KM,TB
EF grid,CM
TDL
(2)
Emission factor per kilometer of trolleybuses (gCO 2 /km)
Quantity of electricity consumed project per kilometer of trolleybuses (kWh/km)
Emission factor for electricity generation in the grid based on combined margin (gCO 2 /kWh)
Average technical transmission and distribution losses for providing electricity
Scenario A of the referenced tool applies as the electricity consumed is from the grid. Option A2 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 tCO 2 /MWh is therefore taken. Hydro power plants constitute clearly less than 50% of total
grid generation as average of the five most recent years as shown in the table below with hydro having
between 12% and 17%. The EF is fixed for the crediting period ex-ante. TDL is also based on the
conservative default value of the referenced tool.
Table 14: Grid Generation Mexico
Type
Thermal
Dual
Combined
Cycle
Diesel
Turbogas
Hydro
Coal
Nuclear
2004
(GWh)
66,334
7,915
72,267
610
2,772
25,076
17,883
9,194
%
31.8%
3.8%
34.6%
0.3%
1.3%
12.0%
8.6%
4.4%
2005
(GWh)
65,077
14,275
73,381
780
1,358
27,611
18,380
10,805
%
29.7%
6.5%
33.5%
0.4%
0.6%
12.6%
8.4%
4.9%
87
Calculated as average between small and large buses.
88
Taken as equivalent to passenger cars.
2006
(GWh)
51,931
13,875
91,064
854
1,523
30,305
17,931
10,866
%
23.1%
6.2%
40.5%
0.4%
0.7%
13.5%
8.0%
4.8%
2007
(GWh)
49,482
13,375
102,674
1,139
2,666
27,042
18,101
10,421
%
21.3%
5.8%
44.2%
0.5%
1.1%
11.6%
7.8%
4.5%
2008
(GWh)
43,325
6,883
107,830
1,234
2,802
38,892
17,789
9,804
%
18.4%
2.9%
45.7%
0.5%
1.2%
16.5%
7.5%
4.2%
page 38
Geothermal
Wind
TOTAL
6,577
6
208,634
3.2%
0.0%
100.0%
7,299
5
218,971
3.3%
0.0%
100.0%
6,685
45
225,079
3.0%
0.0%
100.0%
7,404
248
232,552
3.2%
0.1%
100.0%
7,056
255
235,870
3.0%
0.1%
100.0%
Source: Sener, Electricity Sector Prospective 2009-2024, chart 21, page 110 (Files 58a/b)
2A2. Calculate Emissions per Passenger per Vehicle Category
Emissions per passenger trip are defined per vehicle category. All data is determined prior project start. A
change in the occupancy rate of taxis and buses influencing this indicator is monitored as leakage.
Emissions per Passenger Trip Cars, Taxis and Motorcycles
EFP ,i =
where:
EF P,i
EF KM,i
TD i
OC i
EFKM ,i × TDi
(3)
OC i
Emission factor per passenger transported before project start for vehicle category i (gCO 2eq )
Emission per kilometer of category i (gCO 2eq /km)
Average trip distance for vehicle category i (km)
Average vehicle occupancy rate of vehicle category i 89 (no unit)
Emissions per Passenger Trip for Buses
EFP , Z =
where:
EF P,Z
EF KM,Z,S
DD Z,S
EF KM,Z,M
DD Z,M
EF KM,Z,L
DD Z,L
PZ
EFKM , Z , S × DDZ , S + EFKM , Z , M × DDZ , M + EFKM , Z , L × DDZ , L
PZ
(4)
Emission factor per passenger transported buses baseline (before project start) (gCO 2eq )
Emissions per kilometer small buses (gCO 2eq /km)
Total distance driven (kilometer) by small buses (km)
Emissions per kilometer medium buses (gCO 2eq /km)
Total distance driven (kilometer) by medium buses (km)
Emissions per kilometer large buses (gCO 2eq /km)
Total distance driven (kilometer) by large buses (km)
Passengers transported by buses in the baseline (no unit)
Formula (3) of the methodology (corresponding to formula 4 of the PDD) is simplified in the project case
as only 1 bus size operates in the Metropolitan Zone of Guadalajara.
Formula (4) of the methodology is not used as this formula corresponds to the path B based on sectoral
data.
89
In the case of taxis the taxi driver is not counted
page 39
3. Technological Change
The emission factor is not constant but annually updated according to the technology improvement factor
per vehicle category. The technology improvement factor IR y is a fixed default factor per vehicle
category. The same technology improvement factor is applied over the entire project crediting period. The
technology improvement factor is taken from AM0031 Version 03.
Table 15: Default Technology Improvement Factors (per annum)
Vehicle category
Buses
Passenger cars
Taxis
Motorcycles
Source: AM0031, Version 03, Appendix A, Table A.2
Technology Improvement Factor IR
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.997
4. Change of Baseline Parameters During Project Crediting Period
A change in the trip distance realized by passenger cars, taxis and motorcycles is monitored through
surveys. The corresponding baseline factor is adjusted downwards if the monitored trip distance is shorter
than the values used prior project start. This is conservative as only a reduced trip length is accounted for.
Adjustment for Changing Trip Distance
CDi , y =
where:
CD i,y
TD i
TD i,y
TDi , y
TDi
(5)
Correction factor for changing trip distance in category i for the year y, where i includes T
(taxis), M (motorcycles) and C (passenger cars) (no unit)
Average trip distance in kilometers in category i before project start (km)
Average trip distance in kilometers in category i in the year y (km)
Note:
The adjustment is only made if TD i,y < TD i to ensure a conservative approach
4.1. Change of Fuel Used by Passenger Cars
For passenger cars EF KM,C,y is annually adapted according to changes in fuel composition of passenger
cars. This is only made if the emission factor calculated is lower than the original emission factor used.
5. Policy Effects
The only policy identified which partially affects the project 90 is the regulation on the maximum age for
public transit vehicles (12 years). This is already implemented for baseline vehicles and thus already
90
Apart from general transport policies or strategies as listed in the Master Plan Transit see Files 18, 24 and 35;
latter are however general strategies and not regulations or norms.
page 40
reflected in the baseline emission factors used by the project 91. The regulation is from the year 1998 and
has already been implemented since quite some time. Its potential impact on the specific fuel
consumption 92 is thus reflected in the data collected for fuel consumption and therefore emissions of
baseline buses which were obtained in the year 2009.
The Norm regulating maximum permitted emissions of new diesel vehicles (NOM-044-SEMARNAT2006) 93 has no direct impact on neither baseline nor project emissions as it regulates non-GHG
parameters such as NO x , PM and HCs but neither fuel consumption nor resulting CO 2 emissions.
No other policies which influences public transit in the Metropolitan Zone of Guadalajara has been
identified to impact on GHG emissions..
Monitoring of new policies takes place to identify changes which affect emission reductions of the
project.
Determination of Baseline Emissions
Baseline Emissions
BE y = ∑ (EFP ,i , y × Pi. y )
(6)
i
where:
BE y
EF P,i,y
P i,y
Baseline emissions in year y (tCO 2e )
Transport emissions factor per passenger in vehicle category i in year y (tCO 2e / passenger)
Passengers transported by the project (BRT) in year y that without the project activity would
have used category i, where i = Z (buses, public transport), T (taxis), M (motorcycles), C
(passenger cars), or R (rail-based urban mass transit) 94 (passenger).
The mode passengers would have used in absence of the project is determined through the mode survey
realized 6x annually and detailed in Annex 3.
Emissions from passengers which in absence of the project would have used rail-based mass transit
systems (R) are counted as EF P,R,y = 0 grams per passenger.
Baseline Emissions per Trip per Mode
EFP ,i , y = EFP ,i × IRi ,t × CDi , y
(7)
where:
91
File 90, regulation of maximum age of 12 years for public transport p.25 Article 88 “Reglamento Ley Servicios
Vialidad Transito Jalisco”
92
Elder buses tend to consume more fuel
93
File 102
94
NMT and IT are not included as emissions are 0 for this category in the baseline
page 41
EF P,i,y
EF P,i
CD i,y
Transport emissions factor per passenger before project start (tCO 2e / passenger)
Correction factor for changing trip distance in category i for the year y, where i = T(taxis), M
(motorcycles) or C (passenger cars)
Technology improvement factor at year t for vehicle category i
Age in years of fuel consumption data used for calculating the emission factor in year y
IR i,t
t
Passengers Transported per Baseline Mode
Pi , y = Py × S i , y
where:
P i,,y
(8)
Passengers transported by the project which in absence of latter would have used transport
type i, where i= Z (buses, public transport), T (taxis), C (passenger cars), M (motorcycles), R
(rail-based urban mass transit) NMT (non-motorized transport) and IT (induced transport, i.e.
would not have travelled in absence of project) (passengers).
Total passengers transported by the project monitored in year y (passengers)
Share of passengers transported by the project which in absence of latter would have used
transport type i, where i= Z (buses, public transport), T (taxis), C (passenger cars), M
(motorcycles), R (rail-based urban mass transit), NMT (non-motorized transport) and IT
(induced transport, i.e. would not have travelled in absence of project) (%).
Py
S i,,y
PROJECT EMISSIONS
Project emissions are based on the fuel consumed by the buses of the project (trunk and feeder buses).
Alternative A based on total fuel consumption will be used basically.
[
PE y = ∑ TC PJ , x , y × (EFCO 2, x + EFCH 4, x + EFN 2 O , x )
]
(9)
x
where:
PE y
TC PJ,x,y
EF CO2,x
EF CH4,x
EF N2O,x
Project emissions in year y (tCO 2e )
Total consumption of fuel type x in year y by the project (liter)
CO 2 emission factor for fuel type x (gCO 2 per liter)
CH 4 emission factor for fuel type x (gCO 2e per liter)
N 2 O emission factor for fuel type x (gCO 2e per liter)
No electricity is used by BRT buses.
LEAKAGE
The following leakage sources are addressed:
1. Change of load factor of the baseline transport system due to the project involving taxis and buses.
2. Reduced congestion in remaining roads, provoking higher average vehicle speed, plus a rebound
effect.
page 42
1. Change of Load Factor
The project could have a negative impact on the load factor of the remaining conventional bus fleet. This
is monitored. The monitoring is realized in the years 3 and 7 of the project. Formula (11) is only applied
and leakage is only calculated if the occupation rate of baseline buses drops by more than 10 percentage
points relative to the situation prior project.
Occupation Rate
ROCi , y =
where:
ROC i,y
OC i,y
CV i,y
OCi , y
(10)
CVi , y
Average occupancy rate relative to capacity in category i in year y, where i = Z (buses) or T
(taxis)
Average occupancy of vehicle in category i in year y (passengers)
Average capacity of vehicle i in year y (passengers)
In the case of public transport, the occupancy rate is measured in relation to the bus capacity, as bus sizes
may change over time or before/after project.
Leakage Change Load Factor Buses
 ROC Z , y
LE LF ,Z , y = EFKM ,Z × VDZ × N Z , y × 1 −
 ROC Z , 0
where:
LE LF,Z,y
EF KM,z
VD Z
N Z,y
ROC Z,y
ROC Z,0




(11)
Leakage emissions from change of load factor in buses in year y (tCO 2e )
Baseline transport emissions factor per distance for buses (gCO 2e / kilometer)
Annual distance driven per vehicle for buses before the project start (kilometers)
Number of buses in the conventional transport system operating in year y (buses)
Average occupancy rate relative to capacity of conventional buses in year y
Average occupancy rate relative to capacity of buses before start of project
Note:
If ROC Z,0 - ROC Z, y ≤ 0.1 then LE LF,Z,y = 0, i.e., if the occupancy rate of buses is not reduced by more
than 0.1 then the project has had no negative effect (leakage).
Annual Distance Driven per Bus
VDZ =
∑ DD
∑N
k =S ,M ,L
k =S ,M ,L
Z ,k
Z ,k
(12)
page 43
where:
VD Z
DD Z,k
N Z,k
Distance driven per bus before the project start (kilometers)
Total distance driven by buses of size k (kilometers)
Number of buses in the conventional transport system of size k
Leakage Emissions from Change of Load Factors in Taxis
 OCT , y 

LELF ,T , y = EFKM ,T × VDT × NT , y × 1 −
 OC 
T ,0 

where:
LE LF,T,y
EF KM,T
VD T
N T,y
OC T,y
OC T,0
(13)
Leakage emissions from change of load factor in taxis in year y (tCO 2e )
Transport emissions factor per distance of taxi baseline (tCO 2e / kilometer)
Distance driven per taxi on average before the project starts (kilometres)
Number of taxis operating in year y (taxis)
Average occupancy rate of taxi for the year y (passengers)
Average occupancy rate of taxi before project start (passengers)
Note:
If OC T,0 - OC T,y ≤ 0.1 then LE LF,T,y = 0, i.e. if the occupancy rate of taxis is not reduced by more than 0.1
then the project has had no negative effect (leakage).
2. Impact of Reduced Congestion on Remaining Roads
The project reduces the number of remaining buses and potentially other vehicles on the road used
formerly for mixed traffic and thus also congestion. Congestion change occurs basically in the road where
the new trunk lane operates and which was formerly used by mixed traffic. Reduced congestion has the
following impacts relevant for GHG emissions:
•
•
“Rebound effect” leading to additional trips and thus higher emissions
Higher average speeds and less stop-and-go traffic leading to lower emissions
The impact of induced traffic (additional trips) provoked through the new transport system is addressed
directly in the project emissions and is not part of the leakage 95.
The congestion and the speed impact are only calculated ex-ante and not monitored.
Step 1: Calculate additional road-space available.
Additional Road Space Available
95
The survey of passengers includes as categories passengers which in absence of the project would not have
realized the trip.
page 44
ARS y =
where:
ARS y
BSCR w
NZ
SRS
RSB
RSP
BSCRw
RSB − RSP
× SRS −
RSB
NZ
w=1... y
∑
(14)
Additional road space available in year y (percentage)
Bus units scrapped by project in year w, where w = 1 to y (buses)
Number of buses in use in the baseline (buses)
Share of road space used by public transport in the baseline (percentage)
Total road space available in the baseline (kilometers)
Total available road space in the project (= RSB minus kilometre of lanes that where reduced
due to dedicated bus lanes) (kilometers)
If ARS y < 0, then we have a reduced road space in that year, and thus increased emissions due to reduced
vehicle speed, but reduced emissions due to a negative “rebound effect”.
Share Road Space Public Transit
This formula is required to determine SRS if no recent and good quality study is available which has
calculated this parameter.
SRS =
DDZ
DDZ + DDT + DDC
where:
SRS
DD Z
DD T
DD C
(15)
Total distance driven by public transport buses baseline (kilometers)
Total distance driven in kilometers by taxis baseline (kilometers)
Total distance driven in by passenger cars baseline (kilometers)
Step 2: Assess the rebound impact of the additional road space
Rebound Effect
LETRIPS , y = ITR × ARS y × TRC × TDC × EFKM ,C × D y
where:
LE TRIPS,y
ITR
ARS y
TR C
TD C
EF KM,C
Dy
(16)
Leakage emissions from additional and/or longer trips in year y (tCO 2e )
Elasticity factor for additional and/or longer trips: the factor is fixed at 0.1
Additional road space available (percentage)
Number of daily trips realized by passenger cars baseline (trips)
Average trip distance for passenger cars (kilometers)
Transport emissions factor per distance of passenger cars before the project start (gCO 2e /
km)
Number of days buses operate in year y (buses)
Step 3: Assess the impact of changing vehicle speed from passenger cars
page 45
Speed Effect
LE SP , y = TRC × TDC × [EFKM ,VP ,C − EFKM ,VB ,C ]× DW y
where:
LE SP,y
TR C
TD C
EF KM , VP,C
EF KM,VB,C
DW y
(17)
Leakage emissions from change in vehicle speed in year y (tCO 2e )
Average trip distance driven by passenger cars (kilometers)
Transport emissions factor per distance for passenger cars at project speed (gCO 2 / km)
Transport emissions factor per distance for passenger cars at baseline speed (gCO 2 / km)
number of days per year in year y
CORINAR Speed Emission Factor
CORINAR speed emission factor equation:
EFKM , m ,C = 135.44 − 2.314 × V + 0.0144 × V 2
(18)
Where:
EFKM , m ,C
=
V
=
Transport emissions factor per distance for passenger cars traveling at speed m
(gCO 2 per km)
Vehicle speed (km/h); calculated both for the project speed (VP) and baseline
speed (VB)
Step 4: Sum of Congestion Impacts and Determination of Leakage Factor
The sum of the rebound and the speed impact is included as leakage. The congestion impact is only
calculated ex-ante.
Congestion Leakage
LECONG , y = LETRIPS , y + LE SP , y
where:
LE CONG,y
LE TRIPS,y
LE SP,y
(19)
Leakage emissions from reduced congestion in year y (tCO 2e )
TOTAL LEAKAGE
where:
LE y
LE LF,Z,y
Emissions leakage in year y (tCO 2e )
(20)
page 46
LE LF,T,y
LE CONG,y
If LE y < 0, then leakage is not included
If LE y > 0, then leakage is included.
EMISSION REDUCTIONS
ER y = BE y − PE y − LE y
where:
ER y
BE y
PE y
LE y
(21)
Emission reductions in the year y (tCO 2e )
Leakage emissions in year y (tCO 2e )
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
A sensitivity analysis is carried out for all data and parameters, which are used to calculate baseline,
project and leakage emissions (see Annex 3).
B.6.2. Data and parameters that are available at validation:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data used:
Value applied:
Justification of the
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
and procedures actually
applied :
Any comment:
SEC T/C
l/100km
Specific energy consumption taxis / cars
IPCC, 1996, table 1.27 and 1.36
8.1
No local measurements available.
Lowest of all published default values gasoline cars was taken.
100% of taxis and 100% of cars in Guadalajara are gasoline (Gobierno de
Jalisco, 2010, file 5)
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Value applied:
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
applied :
SEC M
l/100km
Specific energy consumption motorcycles
IPCC, 1996, table 1.42
2.4
Lowest of all published default values motorcycles was taken.
100% of motorcycles in Guadalajara are gasoline (Gobierno de Jalisco, 2010,
file 5)
Data year 1996 (relevant for technology improvement factor)
page 47
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Value applied:
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
applied :
SEC Z,D
l/100km
Specific energy consumption of diesel buses
Alianza de Camioneros, 2009 (File 13)
36.0
Based on measurements of a sample made in Guadalajara. Top 20% consumers
were excluded from the calculation (see methodology p. 8) thus being
conservative.
The plausibility of the data is assessed below.
Table 16: Comparison SEC Z,D Guadalajara with Other Data Sources (l/100km)
Type of bus
Guadalajara
Buses in other cities 96
Large
36
34-82
The monitored value for diesel buses are at the lower end of the range reported
by other cities.
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Value applied:
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
applied :
All buses same size (Gobierno de Jalisco, 2005, File 6)
SEC Z,TB
kWh/100km
Specific energy consumption of electric trolleybuses
Sistecozome, 2010 (File 15)
191
Based on monitoring of all units by operator of electric trolleybuses
Table 17: Comparison SEC Z,T B Guadalajara with Other Data Sources
(kWh/100km)
Guadalajara
191
120-248
Quito and Mexico city both have higher values while Zhengzhou has lower
values. Electricity consumption of trolleybuses depends very much on
technology and size of the bus. The monitored value is however inside the range
of other cities.
Any comment:
All buses same size (Gobierno de Jalisco, 2005, File 6, p.6-8)
96
Mexico City (File 59), Barranquilla (File 60), Quito (File 61), Zhengzhou (File 62), Mumbai (File 63)
97
Quito (File 65), Mexico City (File 64, table 21, p. 44), Zhengzhou (File 62)
page 48
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Value applied:
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
applied :
Any comment:
SEC Z,G
l/100km
Specific energy consumption of gasoline buses
IPCC, 1996, table 1-29
43.5
Lowest of all published default values large gasoline buses was taken.
All buses same size (Gobierno de Jalisco, 2005, File 6, p. 6-8)
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Value applied:
N Z,L,D / N Z,L and N Z,L,TB / N Z,L and N Z,L,G / N Z,L
%
Share of large diesel, electric trolley and gasoline buses
Gobierno de Jalisco, 2010 (File 5)
Large diesel buses: 77.6%
Large electric trolleybuses: 0.4%
Large gasoline buses: 22.0%
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Value applied:
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
DD Z
km
Distance driven per baseline bus per day
Grütter Consulting AG, 2010 (File 8)
288
Based on sample of> 300 buses with different routes
Plausibility of data is checked with annual distance per bus per year:
EF Grid,CM
kgCO 2 /kWh
Emission factor for the grid
UNFCCC, Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from
electricity consumption, Version 1.0
page 49
Value applied:
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
applied :
Any comment:
0.4
Default value based on Scenario A, Option A2 with more baseline electricity
consumption than project electricity consumption and less than 50% hydro.
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
TDL
Value applied:
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
applied:
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Value applied:
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Value applied:
choice of data or
description of
Average technical transmission and distribution losses for providing
electricity
Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity
consumption version 1.0 (UNFCCC)
3%
Default value of tool based on usage of electricity for baseline only
OC T
Passengers
Average occupation rate of taxis
0.6
Upper 95% confidence interval taken
Excludes driver of taxi
The sample size required for a 95% confidence level and a 5% maximum error
bound of a point estimation of simple random sample is 3,486 while the actual
sample size taken was 5,538 units.
Specific study realized based on TORs (Terms of Reference) of methodology
p.35.
See TORs Annex 3. The same study is performed again year 3 and 7 for leakage
monitoring.
OC C
Passengers
Average occupation rate of passenger cars
1.57
bound of a point estimation of simple random sample is 434 while the actual
page 50
measurement methods
and procedures actually Same TORs as for taxi occupation rate study.
applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Value applied:
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
applied :
Any comment:
OC M
Passengers
Average occupation rate of motorcycles
1.16
bound of a point estimation of simple random sample is 144 while the actual
Same TORs as for taxi occupation rate study.
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
PZ
Passenger trips
Passengers trips with buses in the baseline per day
Gobierno de Jalisco, Plan de Movilidad Urbana Sustentable, Vol. 3, p. 59, 2010,
(File 7)
2,585,256
Based on official Origin-Destination survey
Value applied:
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Value applied:
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
applied :
Any comment:
TD C,T,M
kilometer
Average trip distance of users of passenger cars, taxis and motorcycles
for passenger cars; 6.1
for taxis: 7.7
for motorcycles: 6.7
Survey monitors the trip distance and latter is adjusted in case the monitored
trip distance is lower than the baseline trip distance. Based on survey of BRT
users of Phase I. With an extended BRT trip distances tend to get larger, thus
conservative.
page 51
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Value applied:
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
applied :
Any comment:
NZ
Buses
Total number of baseline public transport buses in Guadalajara
4,648
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Value applied:
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
applied :
Any comment:
NT
Taxis
Total number of taxis in Guadalajara
11,831
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Value applied:
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
applied :
Any comment:
Nc
Cars
Total number of passenger cars in Guadalajara
1,062,900
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
VD T,C,Z
Km
Annual average distance driven of taxis, cars and buses in Guadalajara
Cars: Colectivo Ecologista Jalisco, Table 2, 2009 (File 23)
Taxis: Grütter Consulting AG, 2010 (File 2)
Buses: Alianza de Camioneros, 2010 (File 12)
Taxis: 78,029
Cars: 17,532
Value applied:
page 52
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
applied :
Buses: 88,174
Cars based on daily average distance driven (File 23, p.9) and number of days
per annum.
Taxis based on sample measurements (File 2).
Buses based on average daily distance driven (File 8, see above) and average
operational days per annum (File 12)
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Value applied:
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
applied :
Any comment:
ROC Z,0
%
Average occupancy rate relative to capacity of buses baseline
Various (see below)
22%
Step 1:
Passenger-Kilometre (PKM) of baseline bus passengers = Passenger trips (File
7) * # buses used per trip (File 9) * average trip distance (File 9) = 2,585,256 *
1.51 *6.28 = 24,515,466 PKM
Step 2:
Baseline bus km = total number of buses (File 5) * average distance per bus
(File 8) = 4,648 * 288 = 1,339,321 km
Step 3:
Average number of passengers on bus = PKM /KM baseline buses =
24,5151,466 / 1,339,321 = 18 passengers
Step 4:
Average occupation rate = number of passengers / bus capacity (File 6, based
on lower end) = 18 / 82 = 22%
Same type of study is realized for leakage monitoring
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
TR C
trips
Number of daily trips realized by passenger cars baseline
Gobierno de Jalisco, Plan de Movilidad Urbana Sustentable, Vol. 3, p. 59, 2010,
(File 7)
2,661,894
Value applied:
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
SRS
%
page 53
Description:
Share of road space used by public transport in the baseline
Calculation
Value applied:
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
applied :
Any comment:
2%
Based on formula of AM0031 Version 03
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Value applied:
SRS =
DDZ
DDZ + DDT + DDC
RSB
km
Road space available baseline
Centro Estatal de Investigación de la Vialidad y el Transporte, 2010 (File 10)
21,199
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Value applied:
RSP p
km
Road space available project
Macrobus, 2010 (File 16)
Table 18: Road Space Quit Cumulative (km)
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
48
61
79
95
106
2017
185
2018
185
Road space project = road space baseline – road space quit by trunk lines
choice of data or
Based on trunk routes planned
description of
measurement methods
applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Value applied:
BSCR
buses
Buses not required due to the project
Macrobus, 2010 (File 16)
Based on retirement factor of 4 baseline buses per articulated trunk bus and 1.6
page 54
baseline buses per feeder bus as realized in Phase I of Macrobus (File 17). Total
number of retired buses (freeing up road space) is maximum the amount of
baseline buses – amount of feeder buses which operate on the same road
network.
Table 19: Buses not Required due to Project (Cumulative)
Baseline buses
Project feeder buses
Maximum buses retired
Retirement articulated
max
Retirement max feeder
buses
Max retired
Actual potential
retired
2012
4,648
107
4,541
2013
4,648
321
4,327
2014
4,648
393
4,255
2015
4,648
525
4,123
2016
4,648
752
3,896
2017
4,648
854
3,794
2018
4,648
1,145
3,503
685
851
1,195
1,731
2,150
3,450
3,551
514
1,199
628
1,479
840
2,035
1,204
2,934
1,367
3,517
1,832
5,282
1,941
5,492
1,199
1,479
2,035
2,934
3,517
3,794
3,503
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
applied :
Any comment:
Used only for calculation of leakage congestion
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Value applied:
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
applied :
Any comment:
VB
km/h
Vehicle speed baseline of passenger cars
25
Based on measurements during various times on numerous roads.
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Value applied:
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
VP
km/h
Vehicle speed project
25
No correlation between speed and vehicle numbers found on monitored roads.
All monitored roads have when realizing a correlation speed to number of
vehicles a R2 of less than 0.4. Thus with reduced vehicle numbers no speed
change can be expected.
Used to determine congestion leakage in case of speed differences baseline to
project.
page 55
applied :
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Value applied:
choice of data or
description of
measurement methods
applied :
Any comment:
FD G
g/l
Fuel density gasoline
IEA, Energy Statistics Manual, 2005
740.7
Default factors used from the methodology are not listed again in the PDD. Default factors used are:
•
•
•
Technology improvement factor for buses, cars and taxis (AM0031, Version 03, Table A.2).
Emission factor per liter of fuel for various vehicle types (AM0031, Version 03, Table A.1.).
Elasticity factor trips (AM0031, Version 03, appendix leakage parameter point 5)
B.6.3
Ex-ante calculation of emission reductions:
BASELINE EMISSIONS
Data is based on projections of passenger numbers and their mode participation which can have
significant variations compared to actual values due to difficulties of exact projections in transport.
Table 20: Estimated Baseline Emissions (tCO 2 )
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
48,510
94,136
113,217
141,781
158,560
2017
193,734
2018
222,015
Total
971,954
2017
129,364
2018
156,317
Total
587,172
For details of calculations see Annex 3.
PROJECT EMISSIONS
Table 21: Estimated Project Emissions (tCO 2 )
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
21,761
41,303
57,001
82,254
99,171
LEAKAGE EMISSIONS
page 56
Table 22: Estimated Leakage Emissions (tCO 2 )
2012
2013
2014
Load factor leakage
0
0
0
Rebound leakage
290
346
493
Speed leakage
0
0
0
Leakage of project
290
346
493
2015
0
789
0
789
2016
0
969
0
969
2017
0
731
0
731
2018
0
608
0
608
Total
0
4,225
0
4,225
B.6.4
Year
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Total
(tCO 2e )
B.7
Summary of the ex-ante estimation of emission reductions:
Estimation of project
activity emissions
(tCO 2e )
21,761
41,303
57,001
82,254
99,171
129,364
156,317
Estimation of baseline
emissions (tCO 2e )
48,510
94,136
113,217
141,781
158,560
193,734
222,015
Estimation of
leakage
(tCO 2e )
290
346
493
789
969
731
608
Estimation of overall
emission reductions
(tCO 2e )
26,459
52,487
55,723
58,739
58,420
63,639
65,089
587,172
971,954
4,225
380,556
Application of the monitoring methodology and description of the monitoring plan:
B.7.1
Data and parameters monitored:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data to be
used:
Value of data applied
for the purpose of
calculating expected
emission reductions in
section B.5
Description of
measurement methods
and procedures to be
applied:
QA/QC procedures to
be applied:
Any comment:
P PJ
Passengers
Passengers transported by project
Macrobus (SITEUR)
Data / Parameter:
S PJ,i
Table 23: Projected passengers (millions)
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
96
189
230
290
328
2017
405
2018
469
For projections based on Macrobus, 2010 (File 16)
Passenger numbers based on entry statistics based on data from agent
responsible for ticketing and revenues. Revenues are not 100% identical to
passenger numbers as e.g. tickets can be pre-charged with various trips.
Frequency: daily collection aggregated monthly.
Checked with ticket sales and control of fare collection company data by
Macrobus.
page 57
Data unit:
Description:
used:
for the purpose of
section B.5
Description of
measurement methods
applied:
QA/QC procedures to
be applied:
Any comment:
%
Share of passengers which in absence of the project would have used mode i
Survey realized by independent 3rd Party
Modal distribution of users of BRT Macrobus:
 Buses: 92 %
 Passenger cars: 3%
 Taxis: 2%
 Motorcycles: 0%
 Rail-based transit system: 2%
 Non-Motorized Transport and Induced Traffic: 1%
Projections based on survey realized on Phase I of Macrobus by Grütter
Consulting AG, 2010 (File 3)
Survey based on AM0031 Version 03 with details in Annex 3
Frequency: 6x annually
Average values of the 6 surveys are used
Survey QA/QC see Annex 3
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
used:
for the purpose of
section B.5
TC T/F
Liter
Total diesel fuel consumed by the project (trunk and feeder buses)
Macrobus (SITEUR)
Description of
measurement methods
applied:
QA/QC procedures to
be applied:
Based on reports of operators with records of fuel consumption. Monthly record.
Frequency: monthly
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Table 24: Projected Fuel Consumption Project (million liter)
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
8.11
15.39
21.24
30.65
36.95
48.20 58.24
Control of specific fuel consumption. Distance driven is therefore recorded. If
deviations of specific fuel consumption are above normal fluctuations (due e.g. to
changing load factors, ambient conditions and driver) then data is checked for
consistency and potential errors.
In case of deviations further controls are performed e.g. with fuel invoices.
For projections based on average distance driven per bus type (DD) as well as
average fuel consumption per kilometre per bus type. Macrobus, 2010 files 16
and 14
DD T/F
page 58
Data unit:
Description:
used:
for the purpose of
section B.5
Kilometres
Distance driven of BRT buses (trunk and feeder buses)
Macrobus (SITEUR)
Table 25: Projected Distance of BRT Buses (million km)
Bus type
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Articulated
7.2
13.9
19.6
28.3
35.2
trunk buses
Feeder buses
8.8
16.1
21.5
30.8
35.0
2017
47.3
2018
58.1
42.7
49.7
Projections based on Macrobus, 2010, File 16
Description of
measurement methods
applied:
QA/QC procedures to
be applied:
Any comment:
Buses are separated in articulated buses operating on trunk routes and feeder
buses. This separation is made due to different types of buses used and different
driving conditions. The same separation is made in fuel consumption.
Distance measurement based on GPS or comparable means or number of turnarounds and distance per turn-around. Calibration of GPS according to
manufacturer.
Frequency: monthly
Used to control fuel consumption based on specific fuel consumption (see above)
Used only for QA/QC
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
used:
for the purpose of
section B.5
Description of
measurement methods
applied:
QA/QC procedures to
be applied:
Any comment:
NT / NZ
Taxis / Buses
Number of taxis/buses in Guadalajara
Gobierno de Jalisco
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
for the purpose of
OC T
Passengers
Average occupation rate of taxis
Specific studies realized by third party
No change to baseline projected.
This assumption is also based on no change after project implementation
No change to baseline projected
No projection available and no change of occupation rate is previewed. If no
change of occupation rate occurs the parameter needs not be monitored.
Frequency: year 3 and 7. Data is only required if the load factor of taxis and/or
buses is more than 10% lower than the baseline value
Used to calculate leakage load factor.
page 59
section B.5
Measurement
procedures (if any):
QA/QC procedures:
Any comment:
monitored in Bogota. See verification report TransMilenio 2009 (published
on www.unfccc.int).
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
for the purpose of
section B.5
Measurement
QA/QC procedures:
Any comment:
ROC Z
%
Average occupation rate of buses relative to capacity
Specific studies realized by third party
This assumption is also based on no change after project implementation
monitored in Bogota. See verification report TransMilenio 2009 (published
on www.unfccc.int).
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
for the purpose of
section B.5
Measurement
X i,C
None
Fuel type used by passenger cars of users of the project BRT
QA/QC procedures:
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Monitoring realized in the year 3 and the year 7.
Same methodology is used as for baseline study (see Annex 3)
Used for calculating leakage load factor of taxis.
Leakage load factor change taxis has to be included if the occupation rate of taxis
drops below 0.5 (0.6 baseline factor – 0.1 see methodology p. 17)
Monitoring realized in the year 3 and the year 7.
Same methodology is used as for baseline
Used for calculating leakage baseline buses
Leakage load factor change baseline buses has to be included if the occupation
rate of baseline buses drops below 12% (0.22 baseline factor – 0.1; see
methodology p. 17). This parameter is not monitored anymore if all baseline
buses are integrated as feeder units i.e. if no more baseline buses operate in
Guadalajara.
Data for the specific fuel consumption of passenger cars is adapted if the survey
shows that a change of fuels has occurred and if the new EF is lower than the
baseline one.
Frequency: 6x per year
Survey QA/QC see Annex 3
TD C/T/M
Kilometres
page 60
Description:
used:
for the purpose of
section B.5
Description of
measurement methods
applied:
QA/QC procedures to
be applied:
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
used:
for the purpose of
section B.5
Description of
measurement methods
applied:
QA/QC procedures to
be applied:
Any comment:
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data:
for the purpose of
section B.5
Measurement
QA/QC procedures:
Trip distance of project passengers which in absence of the BRT would have used
passenger cars, taxis or motorcycles
The baseline emission factor per mode is adjusted if the monitored distance is less
than the original values used.
Frequency: 6x per year
QA/QC procedures of survey see Annex 3
Policies
None
Review of relevant transport and fuel policies
National and local government sources of policies
None
Annually the relevant transport and fuel policies are listed and their potential
influence or impact on the project is assessed.
Frequency: annual
XZ
None
Bio-fuel content of fuels used by project and baseline buses
Supplier of fuel
Project buses will use same bio-fuel content as baseline buses in case bio-fuel
usage is made complimentary in the future. Currently no bio-fuels are used.
Frequency: annually
page 61
Any comment:
Used to assess the applicability condition
All the above monitored data will be stored for 2 years after the end of the crediting period.
B.7.2
Description of the monitoring plan:
The monitoring plan has two aims: to ensure the environmental integrity of the project activity and to
ensure that the data monitoring requirements are closely aligned with the current practice of the project
operator.
The Special Programmes Management Office will be in charge of managing all data in relation to the
CDM project including responsibility for data collection, quality assurance, reports and data storage.
QA and QC is assured by a special monitoring software plus manual containing inter alia how to proceed
with key measurements and survey, how to screen data for quality and how to handle potential errors.
Staff in charge will be trained on the software and the manual before operational start of the project. Also
during the first year of operations Macrobus will receive backstopping services by Grütter Consulting AG
on monitoring issues.
The responsibilities of Macrobus are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Collect in the required frequency all data for the monitoring of the CDM project.
Perform data and information quality control according to this manual.
File all documents in the manner and timing that this manual demands.
Check data quality and collect, if required, additional data.
Store all data: All data must be filed electronically. Hard copy reports and mails are to be scanned
so there is an electronic copy. Every year an electronic file is created and named “Macrobus BRT
CDM Monitoring year …”. At least two (2) copies are kept in the form of CDs or DVDs or other
data recording devices in separate places. All documents are to be saved for up to two (2) years
after the last CERs were issued.
6. Realize an initial monitoring report using the UNFCCC format valid at the moment to be
controlled by CAF. Grütter Consulting will realize the 1st monitoring report for the project.
Features of the software include:
 All parameters required for baseline, leakage and project emissions are included. The same
parameters and definitions are used as in the PDD.
 The software asks for all the data to be monitored in the frequency specified in the PDD.
 The software calculates baseline, leakage and emission reductions in tons of CO 2eq using the formulas
listed in the PDD and the data monitored.
 For various data elements “normal” or average ranges of data were specified. If data inserted falls
outside this range the software automatically challenges the data entry thus avoiding typing errors or
data errors.
page 62
A (Spanish) monitoring manual has been realized for Macrobus 98 and staff will be familiarized with this
manual in a special training course. The Manual defines responsibilities and procedures, has a section on
all data variables to be monitored, includes monitoring report formats as well as the Spanish formats of
the modal split survey, the load factor taxi and the load factor buses surveys. The data section has for
each data variable information on how to collect the required information, the frequency of collection,
data units (including transformation of common data units), quality control measures to be realized, steps
to be taken in case of data problems, how to enter data in the monitoring software (step by step guide) and
some additional hints and comments.
The monitoring manual can be reviewed by the validator. The manual has been implemented successfully
by TransMilenio and is thus based on working experience.
For further details see Annex 4.
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: 02/08/2010
The PDD as well as the methodology used for this PDD was contracted by CAF and developed by Grütter
Consulting AG. Staff involved in the elaboration of this PDD are Dr. Jürg M. Grütter, CEO and Susana
Ricaurte Farfán, Colombia Country Manager for Grütter Consulting AG.
Contact person: Jürg M. Grütter
jgruetter@gmail.com
www.transport-ghg.com
Grütter Consulting AG is not a project participant.
The PDD was realized on behalf of CAF.
For CAF:
Camilo Rojas Garcia
Technical Coordinator PLAC+e
crojas@caf.com
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:
17/03/2008
98
File 104
page 63
The starting date of the project is the date of signature of the 1st construction contract for the BRT 99.
C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of the project activity:
30 years (infrastructure).
BRTs are basically a new transport system without an operational lifetime. The operational life-time of
the infrastructure is over 30 years. This is the minimum life-span for the infrastructure of the BRT system.
Buses are renewed after around 10-12 years. The project is however not about renewal of buses but about
a new mass urban transport system. If project buses are renewed during the life-span of the new BRT
system the potential changes in fuel consumption are taken into account by the project methodology.
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:
01/01/2012 or the date of registration whichever later
C.2.1.2.
Length of the first crediting period:
7 years, 0 months
C.2.2. Fixed crediting period:
C.2.2.1.
Starting date:
C.2.2.2.
Length:
Not applicable
Not applicable
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 from:
99
File 41
page 64
 Reduction of air pollution basically particle matter, NO x and HCs due to using new 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, NO x , SO 2 basically). 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 VOCs 100 and NO x (resulting potentially in
ground-level ozone which again is a major component of smog) or sulphur dioxide (SO 2 together with
NO x are primary precursors of acid rain).
 Reduced noise pollution due to a reduced amount of vehicles, improved traffic fluidity with less stopand-go traffic and more modern units.
For each phase of the project an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) or an Environmental Impact Manifest
(EIM) is realized. Up to date three studies have been performed corresponding to Phase I (in operation),
Phase II and Phase III 101 and a study was realized for the fuel station of the trunk and feeder buses of the
System 102. Also the Secretariat for Environment and Sustainable Development (SEMADES) which is the
Environmental Authority of the State of Jalisco has issued technical concepts and authorizations of the
EIS or EIM and for mitigation measures of environmental impacts 103. SEMADES for the Phase II has
elaborated a Green Plan (Plan Verde) that establishes the technical criteria for trees in the area of
influence of the project 104.
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 State of Jalisco,
enforced by the Environmental Authority (SEMADES) 105.
The Environmental Impact Study or Environmental Impact Manifest report separates impacts in 106:
•
•
•
Site preparation impacts such as caused by demolitions or excavations.
Construction impacts caused e.g. by stations, bus-lanes, etc.
Operational impacts e.g. due to changes of traffic flows.
An environmental impact matrix is prepared 107. The positive and negative environmental impacts of the
project are basically in the area of air quality, noise, waste and quality of life. The major environmental
impacts identified during the different phases (site preparation, construction, operational) are:
100
Volatile Organic Components
101
Files 66 to 68
102
File 69
103
Files 70 to 72
104
File 73
105
File 74
106
File 66 p. 193 - 207, File 67 p 285 - 302 and File 68 p. 280 - 296
page 65
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
During construction negative impacts on dust, noise, affected persons who live near to
construction sites, and removed green areas where bus-stations are built. However these impacts
are temporary and mitigation measures are provided for;
Reduced transport time and thus a positive impact on the quality of life;
Safe and efficient transport medium thus improving quality of life;
Improved air quality and less pollution;
Reduced noise pollution due to reduced amount of vehicles, an improved traffic fluidity with less
stop-and-go traffic and more modern units;
Recovery of green spaces along the corridors;
Potential negative impact on people working in the conventional transport sector (see stakeholder
part);
Creation of additional jobs e.g. temporary construction jobs and permanent jobs for the operation
of the BRT system;
Operation of an safe and rapid mass transit public transport system;
Improved signalling creates positive benefits for the community e.g. in terms of less accidents;
Improved wellbeing of the community due to the BRT operations;
Roads constructed increases the value of land and thus generates a positive impact.
For negative environmental impacts mitigation measures are identified 108 . Negative impacts are
temporary and are considered as non-significant. The overall conclusion is that the project has positive
environmental impacts 109 and potential negative environmental impacts during construction are
minimized therefore the global impact is positive 110.
Environmental authorization and technical concepts have been issued for the Phase I and Phase II111. The
BRT Phases II - VIII have not yet started construction, however the phases II and III already have the
EIM 112.
SECTION E. Stakeholders’ comments
E.1.
Brief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled:
Main stakeholders identified include the general public, people living near construction sites of trunk
routes and owners as well as drivers of existing (baseline) buses.
107
File 66 p. 193, File 67 p. 284 and File 68 p. 280
108
File 66 p. 217- 223, File 67 p. 316 - 325 and File 68 p. 310- 317
109
File 66 p.208, File 67 p. 302 and File 68 p. 296
110
File 66 p.208, File 67 p. 302 and File 68 p. 296
111
File 74
112
File 67 and File 68
page 66
General Public
They are the users of the public transport system and the prime beneficiaries due to a reduced travel time,
less congestion (also relevant for users of private vehicles), less accidents and an improved air quality.
Various meetings with involved institutions took place to achieve a general consensus on the project 113.
Stakeholders and system users as well as public in general may also address complaints or remarks
through the Macrobus 114 website or phone costumer service. 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 the Customer Service Department of
Macrobus. Complaints concern, e.g. speeding, full buses, bus delays, lack of buses, damages in the busstation, etc. All complaints are categorized monthly according to the type of complaint and means through
which complaints were made (e.g. written, phone, Internet) 115 . Based on these reports, corrective
measures are taken by Macrobus.
Macrobus, through a professional company, performed a customer satisfaction survey and monitors the
quality of offered services on a regular base. The main result of the survey shows that 9 out of 10 users
recommend using Macrobus and 75% of users agree with construction more BRT lines 116.
People Living Near to Construction Sites
Persons living near to construction sites or sites where major bus-stations are built are potentially affected
by these activities. Various meetings were organized with the affected people and their comments were
received 117 . Awareness campaigns were done in schools, senior community, disabled people, among
others 118, as well as a census was carried out of residents located on Independencia corridor 119. Other
communication channels used by the people are the local newspaper and the Office of the Government of
the State of Jalisco; through these channels the population can write and receive a solution to complaints,
doubts or questions 120.
Owners and Drivers of Baseline Buses
Owners and drivers of the existing (baseline) public transport system fear to suffer economic losses and
want to be included in the system. Macrobus has been coordinating the project development closely with
the transport organizations and has held numerous meetings with their representatives to discuss all parts
113
File 75 with meeting records
114
http://www.macrobus.gob.mx; Macrobus@live.com
115
File 76 with reports of complaints 2009 and 2010
116
File 77 customer satisfaction survey
117
File 78 with meeting records
118
File 79
119
File 80 with census
120
File 81
page 67
of the project 121 with the objective of democratizing the system, incorporating requirements of the
existing transport sector into Macrobus and reducing resistance to the project. The existing transport
sector is directly involved in the system as operator of trunk route and feeder lines. A workshop was also
organized by the Government of the State of Jalisco and the International Association of Public Transport
in October 7-9 2008 to present the project 122. The attendees were small bus company owners, transport
companies 123, government officials (Federal, State and Municipal), civil organizations, NGO´s, among
others. 124
In order to participate in the project “Macrobus”, small bus company owners (in total 609 125), decided
themselves to constitute a legal entity having as entrepreneurial activity the transport enterprise
“Operadora Macrobus S.A. de C.V”. After a local competitive bidding process (CPL01/08) by SITEUR
(Sistema de Tren Eléctrico Urbano) 126 the concession was granted to the company “Operadora Macrobus
S.A. de C.V” 127.
E.2.
Summary of the comments received:
At construction sites, concerns are basically about disruptions of services, congestion and other
inconveniences of daily life related to the direct (e.g. noise, dust) or indirect (e.g. congestion) construction
impacts. Grievances of the citizens were registered and reports were made for immediate relief. 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, procedures for real-estate sales among affected residents,
compensations for the value of real-estate sales and procedures for obtaining it, construction time periods,
traffic management, among others.
In general the community was at all times informed and actively participated in the development of the
project. It is important to mention that all the community inquiries made to the government have been
addressed in time and form since the very beginning. The community through civil organizations such as
residents associations have been participating in the project at all levels of government. With the active
participation of the municipalities and other Government Agencies, Jalisco has been able to respond to
the community.
At the institutional level, the open communication between the different levels of government and
different governments has 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
121
File 82 with meeting records.
122
File 85 and File 86 agenda and program of the workshop
123
File 87 attendees of small bus company owners and transport companies
124
File 88 attendees of public and private organizations
125
File 83
126
http://www.macrobus.gob.mx; see “concesiones”
127
File 84
page 68
and other public and private companies with services in the area such as telephone, water, gas, to mention
a few 128.
Comments of bus owners were basically a potential loss of jobs and income and their involvement and
participation in the systems operation. Negotiation meetings and roundtables were held with transport
companies. The bus owner’s stability is a key element in the success of any mass transport system. An
extraordinary effort was made to address this matter by Macrobus in order to make sure that bus owners
were included in the transport restructuring activity.
The project in general terms received a very positive reaction and the stakeholders suggested keeping an
open communication 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
Macrobus. 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 given by officials from Macrobus. Comments considering trunk road
constructions are diverse and include information requests, access to roads, traffic caused, and financial
compensations, among others.
People who raised complaints, remarks or questions, received a direct feedback from Macrobus who
relied on the same communication channel (e.g. mail, phone, webpage) as used by the person depositing a
claim. Macrobus 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, among others.
The roundtables and discussions with bus owners resulted in significant changes in the way how transport
enterprises participate in the BRT system. These meetings were also critical in reducing the resistance of
the transport sector towards the BRT. Affected persons have been included in the operation of the BRT as
system operators as far as possible. The route restructuring and concession negotiation continues to be a
daily action for Macrobus in the expansion of the BRT system in the Metropolitan Zone of Guadalajara.
As a result the concession for operation “Phase I- Corredor Independencia” was granted to the enterprise
“Operadora Macrbobús S.A. de C.V”, constituted by bus owners who operated the route long before the
initiation of Macrobus.
128
File 89
page 69
Annex 1
CONTACT INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROJECT ACTIVITY
Organization:
Street/P.O.BOX:
Building:
City:
State/Region:
Postfix/ZIP:
Country:
Telephone:
FAX:
E-Mail:
URL:
Represented by:
Title:
Title:
Last Name:
Middle Name:
First Name:
Department:
Mobile:
Direct FAX:
Direct tel:
Personal E-Mail:
Sistema de Tren Eléctrico Urbano (SITEUR)
Av. Juarez No. 685 3er Piso
Organization:
Corporación Andina de Fomento – CAF acting as Trustee for the
Iniciativa Iberoamericana del Carbono
Carrera 9 No 76 - 49 Piso 7
Ing. Baring
Bogotá
Street/P.O.BOX:
Building:
City:
State/Region:
Postfix/ZIP:
Country:
Telephone:
FAX:
E-Mail:
URL:
Represented by:
Title:
Title:
Last Name:
Guadalajara
Jalisco
44100
Mexico
+55 10573757
+55 10573761
denise.fr@siteur.gob.mx
www.siteur.gob.mx
General Director
Ms
Denise
de Font-Réaulx
General Direction
+55 10573761
+55 10573760
denise.fr@siteur.gob.mx
Colombia
(57.1) 744 94 44
(57.1) 313 27 21/87
mtorres@caf.com
www.caf.com
Head of the PLAC+e
Mrs
Gomez
page 70
Middle Name:
First Name:
Department:
Mobile:
Direct FAX:
Direct tel:
Personal E-Mail:
Organization:
Street/P.O.Box:
Building:
City:
State/Region:
Postfix/ZIP:
Country:
Telephone:
FAX:
E-Mail:
URL:
Represented by:
Title:
Salutation:
Last Name:
Middle Name:
First Name:
Department:
Mobile:
Direct FAX:
Direct tel:
Personal E-Mail:
Mary
Environment Direction
(571) 313 27 21/87
(571) 743 73 53
mtorres@caf.com
Kingdom of Spain - Ministry of Environment and Rural and Marine
Affairs
C/ Alcalá 92
Madrid
Madrid
28009
SPAIN
+34 91 436 15 49
+34 91 436 15 01
and@marm.es
Alicia Montalvo
General Director of the Climate Change Office
Mrs.
Montalvo
Alicia
General Direction of the Spanish Climate Change Office
+34 91 436 15 01
+34 91 436 15 49
and@marm.es
page 71
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.
page 72
Annex 3
BASELINE INFORMATION
A.1. BASELINE EMISSIONS
A.1.1. Formulas
EFKM ,i =

∑ SEC
x
where:
EF KM,i
SEC x,i
EF CO2,x
EF CH4,x
EF N2O,x
Ni
N x,i

x ,i
 N x ,i
× (EFCO 2, x + EFCH 4, x + EFN 2O , x ) × 
 Ni



Transport emissions factor per distance of vehicle category i (gCO 2e / km)
Specific energy consumption of fuel type x in vehicle category i (litre/km)
CO 2 emission factor for fuel type x (gCO 2 / litre)
CH 4 emission factor for fuel type x (gCO 2e / litre)
N 2 O emission factor for fuel type x (gCO 2e / litre)
Total number of vehicles in category i
Number of vehicles in vehicle category i using fuel type x
EFKM ,TB = SEC KM ,TB × EFgrid ,CM × (1 + TDL )
Where:
EF KM,TB
SEC KM,TB
EF grid,CM
TDL
EFP ,i =
Emission factor per kilometer of trolleybuses (gCO 2 /km)
Quantity of electricity consumed project per kilometer of trolleybuses (kWh/km)
Emission factor for electricity generation in the grid based on combined margin (gCO 2 /kWh)
Average technical transmission and distribution losses for providing electricity
EFKM ,i × TDi
OC i
where:
EF P,i
EF KM,i
TD i
OC i
EFP , Z =
where:
EF P,Z
EF KM,Z,S
DD Z,S
EF KM,Z,M
DD Z,M
EF KM,Z,L
DD Z,L
PZ
CDi , y =
where:
CD i,y
TD i
129
page 73
Emission factor per passenger transported before project start for vehicle category i (gCO 2eq )
Emission per kilometer of category i (gCO 2eq /km)
Average trip distance for vehicle category i (km)
Average vehicle occupancy rate of vehicle category i 129 (no unit)
EFKM , Z , S × DDZ , S + EFKM , Z , M × DDZ , M + EFKM , Z , L × DDZ , L
PZ
Emission factor per passenger transported buses baseline (before project start) (gCO 2eq )
Emissions per kilometer small buses (gCO 2eq /km)
Total distance driven (kilometer) by small buses (km)
Emissions per kilometer medium buses (gCO 2eq /km)
Total distance driven (kilometer) by medium buses (km)
Emissions per kilometer large buses (gCO 2eq /km)
Total distance driven (kilometer) by large buses (km)
Passengers transported by buses in the baseline (no unit)
TDi , y
TDi
Correction factor for changing trip distance in category i for the year y, where i includes T (taxis), M (motorcycles) and C (passenger cars) (no
unit)
Average trip distance in kilometers in category i before project start (km)
In the case of taxis the taxi driver is not counted
TD i,y
page 74
Average trip distance in kilometers in category i in the year y (km)
BE y = ∑ (EFP ,i , y × Pi. y )
i
where:
BE y
EF P,i,y
P i,y
Passengers transported by the project (BRT) in year y that without the project activity would have used category i, where i = Z (buses, public
transport), T (taxis), M (motorcycles), C (passenger cars), or R (rail-based urban mass transit) 130 (passenger).
EFP ,i , y = EFP ,i × IRi ,t × CDi , y
where:
EF P,i,y
EF P,i
CD i,y
IR i,t
t
Transport emissions factor per passenger before project start (tCO 2e / passenger)
Correction factor for changing trip distance in category i for the year y, where i = T(taxis), M (motorcycles) or C (passenger cars)
Technology improvement factor at year t for vehicle category i
Age in years of fuel consumption data used for calculating the emission factor in year y
Pi , y = Py × S i , y
where:
P i,,y
Py
130
Passengers transported by the project which in absence of latter would have used transport type i, where i= Z (buses, public transport), T (taxis),
C (passenger cars), M (motorcycles), R (rail-based urban mass transit) NMT (non-motorized transport) and IT (induced transport, i.e. would not
have travelled in absence of project) (passengers).
Total passengers transported by the project monitored in year y (passengers)
NMT and IT are not included as emissions are 0 for this category in the baseline
S i,,y
page 75
Share of passengers transported by the project which in absence of latter would have used transport type i, where i= Z (buses, public transport),
T (taxis), C (passenger cars), M (motorcycles), R (rail-based urban mass transit), NMT (non-motorized transport) and IT (induced transport, i.e.
would not have travelled in absence of project) (%).
A.1.2. Data Used
Table A.1. Baseline Parameters
Parameter
Description
SEC C
Specific energy consumption cars
SEC T
Specific energy consumption taxis
SEC M
Specific energy consumption motorcycles
SEC D
Specific energy consumption diesel buses
SEC G
Specific energy consumption gasoline buses
SEC TB
Specific energy consumption electric trolleybuses
EF CO2,G,C/T
CO 2e emission factor gasoline cars and axis
EF CO2,G,M
CO 2e emission factor gasoline motorcycles
EF CO2,D,Z
CO 2e emission factor large diesel buses
EF C02,G,Z
CO 2 emission factor of large gasoline buses
IR
IR
OC C
OC T
OC M
TD C
TD T
TD M
PT Z
DD Z
Share diesel buses
Share gasoline buses
Share electric trolleybuses
Technology improvement factor buses, taxis, cars
Technology improvement factor motorcycles
Occupation rate cars
Occupation rate taxis
Occupation rate motorcycles
Trip distance passenger car
Trip distance taxi
Trip distance motorcycle
Passenger trips baseline buses (total per day)
Distance driven per day per bus
Value
8.1
8.1
2.4
36.0
43.5
191.0
2,338
2,349
2,684
2,333
Unit
l/100km
l/100km
l/100km
l/100km
l/100km
kWh/100km
gCO 2 /l
gCO 2 /l
gCO 2 /l
gCO 2 /l
77.6%
22.0%
0.4%
0.99
0.997
1.57
0.60
1.16
6.1
7.7
6.7
2,585,256
288
percentage
percentage
percentage
no unit
no unit
passengers
passengers
passengers
km
km
km
passenger trips
km
Source
IPCC, 1996
IPCC, 1996
IPCC, 1996
File 13
IPCC, 1996
File 15
AM0031, Version 03
AM0031 Version 03
AM0031 Version 03
IPCC 2006, table 3.2.4
and calculation
File 5
File 5
File 5
AM0031 Version 03
AM0031 Version 03
File 1
File 1
File 1
File 4
File 4
File 4
File 7
File 8
NZ
Si
P
page 76
Number of baseline buses
Share of passengers using mode i for the baseline trip
Passenger trips realized by the project
4,648
See table A2
See table A5
Buses
%
passenger trips
File 5
File 3
File 16
Table A2. Baseline Mode Share of Surveyed Passengers (File 3)
Mode
Share of passengers using this mode
Passenger car
3%
Taxi
2%
Bus
92%
NMT incl. Induced
1%
Motorcycle
0%
Rail-based system (LRT)
2%
Table A3. Emissions per Kilometre of Modes (gCO 2 /km)
Mode
2012
2013
Bus baseline
928
919
Passenger car
161
160
Taxi
161
160
Motorcycle
54
54
2014
910
158
158
53
2015
901
156
156
53
2016
891
155
155
53
2017
883
153
153
53
2018
874
152
152
53
Table A4. Emissions per Passenger-Trip of Modes (gCO 2 /PKM)
Mode
2012
2013
Bus baseline
481
476
Passenger car
627
620
Taxi
2,069
2,049
Motorcycle
310
309
2014
471
614
2,028
308
2015
467
608
2,008
308
2016
462
602
1,988
307
2017
457
596
1,968
306
2018
453
590
1,948
305
page 77
A.1.3. Results
Table A5. Baseline Emissions
Parameter
Passenger trips project
Baseline emissions from cars
Baseline emissions from taxis
Baseline emissions from buses
Baseline emissions from motorcycles
Total baseline emissions
unit
passengers
tCO 2
tCO 2
tCO 2
tCO 2
tCO 2
Figure A1: Sources of Baseline Emissions
2012
96,432,157
1,610
4,305
42,481
114
48,510
2013
189,019,096
3,124
8,354
82,435
223
94,136
2014
229,625,036
3,758
10,047
99,143
270
113,217
2015
290,457,157
4,705
12,582
124,154
340
141,781
2016
328,105,177
5,262
14,070
138,844
383
158,560
2017
404,934,000
6,429
17,192
169,642
471
193,734
2018
468,724,000
7,368
19,701
194,402
544
222,015
page 78
A.2. PROJECT EMISSIONS
A.2.1. Formulas
[
PE y = ∑ TC PJ , x , y × (EFCO 2, x + EFCH 4, x + EFN 2 O , x )
]
x
where:
PE y
TC PJ,x,y
EF CO2,x
EF CH4,x
EF N2O,x
Total consumption of fuel type x in year y by the project (liter)
CO 2 emission factor for fuel type x (gCO 2 per liter)
CH 4 emission factor for fuel type x (gCO 2e per liter)
N 2 O emission factor for fuel type x (gCO 2e per liter)
A.2.2. Data Used
Table A6. Project Parameters
Parameter
Description
TC D
Total fuel consumed project buses
P
Passengers transported by the project
Value
See table A7
See table A7
Unit
liter
passengers
Source
Calculated based on Files 14 and 16
File 16
Table A7. Passengers Transported and Fuel Consumed
Parameter
Diesel fuel consumed (liters)
2012
8,107,773
2013
15,388,674
2014
21,237,503
2015
30,645,937
2016
36,948,931
2017
48,198,269
2018
58,240,360
Passengers
96,432,157
189,019,096
229,625,036
290,457,157
328,105,177
404,934,000
468,724,000
page 79
A.2.3. Results
Table A8. Project Emissions
Parameter
Total project emissions
unit
tCO 2
2012
21,761
2013
41,303
2014
57,001
2015
82,254
2016
99,171
2017
129,364
2018
156,317
page 80
A.3. LEAKAGE EMISSIONS
A.3.1. Formulas
ROCi , y =
where:
ROC i,y
OC i,y
CV i,y
OCi , y
CVi , y
Average occupancy rate relative to capacity in category i in year y, where i = Z (buses) or T (taxis)
Average occupancy of vehicle in category i in year y (passengers)
Average capacity of vehicle i in year y (passengers)
 ROC Z , y
LE LF ,Z , y = EFKM ,Z × VDZ × N Z , y × 1 −
 ROC Z , 0
where:
LE LF,Z,y
EF KM,z
VD Z
N Z,y
ROC Z,y
ROC Z,0
VDZ =
Baseline transport emissions factor per distance for buses (gCO 2e / kilometer)
Annual distance driven per vehicle for buses before the project start (kilometers)
Number of buses in the conventional transport system operating in year y (buses)
Average occupancy rate relative to capacity of conventional buses in year y
Average occupancy rate relative to capacity of buses before start of project
∑ DD
∑N
k =S ,M ,L
k =S ,M ,L
where:




Z ,k
Z ,k
VD Z
DD Z,k
N Z,k
page 81
Distance driven per bus before the project start (kilometers)
Total distance driven by buses of size k (kilometers)
Number of buses in the conventional transport system of size k
 OCT , y 

LELF ,T , y = EFKM ,T × VDT × NT , y × 1 −
 OC 
T ,0 

where:
LE LF,T,y
EF KM,T
VD T
N T,y
OC T,y
OC T,0
Transport emissions factor per distance of taxi baseline (tCO 2e / kilometer)
Distance driven per taxi on average before the project starts (kilometres)
Number of taxis operating in year y (taxis)
Average occupancy rate of taxi for the year y (passengers)
Average occupancy rate of taxi before project start (passengers)
ARS y =
where:
ARS y
BSCR w
NZ
SRS
RSB
RSP
SRS =
BSCRw
RSB − RSP
× SRS −
RSB
NZ
w=1... y
∑
Additional road space available in year y (percentage)
Bus units scrapped by project in year w, where w = 1 to y (NB: if buses are not scrapped the estimated amount of retired buses is taken) (buses)
Number of buses in use in the baseline (buses)
Total road space available in the baseline (kilometers)
Total available road space in the project (= RSB minus kilometre of lanes that where reduced due to dedicated bus lanes) (kilometers)
DDZ
DDZ + DDT + DDC
where:
SRS
DD Z
DD T
DD C
Total distance driven by public transport buses baseline (kilometers)
Total distance driven in kilometers by taxis baseline (kilometers)
Total distance driven in by passenger cars baseline (kilometers)
LETRIPS , y = ITR × ARS y × TRC × TDC × EFKM ,C × D y
where:
LE TRIPS,y
ITR
ARS y
TR C
TD C
EF KM,C
Dy
Elasticity factor for additional and/or longer trips: the factor is fixed at 0.1
Additional road space available (percentage)
Average trip distance for passenger cars (kilometers)
Transport emissions factor per distance of passenger cars before the project start (gCO 2e / km)
Number of days buses operate in year y (buses)
LE SP , y = TRC × TDC × [EFKM ,VP ,C − EFKM ,VB ,C ]× DW y
where:
LE SP,y
TR C
TD C
EF KM , VP,C
EF KM,VB,C
DW y
Average trip distance driven by passenger cars (kilometers)
Transport emissions factor per distance for passenger cars at project speed (gCO 2 / km)
Transport emissions factor per distance for passenger cars at baseline speed (gCO 2 / km)
number of days per year in year y
EFKM , m ,C = 135.44 − 2.314 × V + 0.0144 × V 2
page 82
page 83
Where:
EFKM , m ,C
=
V
=
Transport emissions factor per distance for passenger cars traveling at speed m
(gCO 2 per km)
Vehicle speed (km/h); calculated both for the project speed (VP) and baseline
speed (VB)
where:
LE CONG,y
LE TRIPS,y
LE SP,y
LE y = LE LF , Z , y + LE LF ,T , y + LE CONG , y
where:
LE y
LE LF,Z,y
LE LF,T,y
LE CONG,y
Emissions leakage in year y (tCO 2e )
A.3.2. Data Used
Table A9. Leakage Parameters
Parameter
Description
NZ
Number of buses baseline
NC
Number of cars
NZ
Number of taxis
DD C
Average distance driven by cars per annum
DD T
Average distance driven by taxis per annum
DD Z
Average distance driven by buses per annum
Value
4,648
1,062,900
11,831
17,532
78,029
88,174
Unit
Buses
Cars
taxis
kilometre
kilometre
kilometre
Source
File 5
File 5
File 5
File 23 p.9
File 2
Calculation based on Files8 and 12
RSB
RSP
BSCR
ITR
TR
VB
VP
FD G
page 84
Road space baseline
Road space project
Buses scrapped or not required through project
Elasticity factor for additional and/or longer trips
Number of daily trips realized by passenger cars baseline
Vehicle speed baseline
Fuel density gasoline
Table A10. Congestion and Speed Leakage
2012
Road space quit cumulative
48
Units retired cumulative
1,199
ARS
0.3%
25
21,199
See table A10
See table A10
0.1
2,661,894
25
See table A10
740.7
2015
95
2,934
0.8%
25
2016
106
3,517
1.1%
25
kilometre
kilometre
buses
none
Trips
km/h
km/h
g/l
File 10
RSB-RSP = road space quit
File 16
AM0031 Version 03
File 7
File 11
File 11
IEA
2013
61
1,479
0.4%
25
2014
79
2,035
0.5%
25
2017
185
3,794
0.8%
25
2018
185
3,503
0.7%
25
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
290
346
493
789
969
731
608
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
290
346
493
789
969
731
608
A.3.3. Results
Table A11. Leakage Results in tCO 2
Rebound effect tCO 2eq
Speed effect tCO 2eq
Total congestion leakage tCO 2eq
page 85
A.4. EMISSION REDUCTIONS
A.4.1. Formulas
ER y = BE y − PE y − LE y
Where:
ER y
BE y
PE y
LE y
Emission reductions in year “y” (t CO 2 e/yr)
Baseline emissions in year “y” (t CO 2 e/yr)
Project emissions in year “y” (t CO 2 /yr)
Leakage emissions in year “y” (t CO 2 /yr)
A.4.2. Results
Table A12. Emission Reductions in tCO 2
Parameter
Baseline emissions
Project emissions
Leakage emissions
Emission Reductions
2012
48,510
21,761
290
26,459
2013
94,136
41,303
346
52,487
2014
113,217
57,001
493
55,723
2015
141,781
82,254
789
58,739
2016
158,560
99,171
969
58,420
2017
193,734
129,364
731
63,639
2018
222,015
156,317
608
65,089
Total
971,954
587,172
4,225
380,556
page 86
A.5. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
A sensitivity analysis is carried out for data and parameters, which are used to calculate baseline, project and leakage emissions. The sensitivity
analysis is performed on all parameters except default and IPCC values listed as monitored values/parameters or values to be monitored. The
sensitivity analysis is based on calculating the change of the data parameter that would be required to reduce emission reductions by 5%. This value
gives an indication of the magnitude of change of the data parameter required to significantly change calculated emission reductions. Based on the
methodology sensitive parameters are those where a change of less than 10% leads to a reduction of ERs of more than 5%.
Table A13: Sensitivity Analysis
Parameter
Original
value
Project parameters
Project passengers
See table A5
Project fuel consumption
Baseline parameters
Specific fuel consumption
cars
taxis
motorcycles
diesel buses
See table A7
% Change required
for 5% less ERs
Sensitive o
Not
2% less
Sensitive
3% more
Sensitive
8.1 l/100km
> 50% reduction
8.1 l/100km
23% reduction
2.4 l/100km
> 50% reduction
36.0 l/100km
3% reduction
Comment
The amount of project passengers is recorded daily by the system and also compared
with fare revenues, thus this data is well controlled.
Data of fuel consumption is recorded per bus and for all units. Data is compared with
previous values of buses of the same category and in case of significant differences
data is checked for errors per unit or fuel receipts. Data is thus well controlled.
Not
sensitive
Not
sensitive
sensitive
Data is based on more than 300 measurements realized. Top 20% of consumption
levels are excluded based on AM0031 Version 3.
The sample size required for a 95% confidence level and a 5% maximum error bound
of a point estimation of simple random sample is 95 while the actual sample size taken
was 315 units i.e. more than 3x the required sample size.
page 87
Comparison SEC Z,D Guadalajara with Other Data Sources (l/100km)
Type of bus
Guadalajara
Large
36
34-82
The monitored value for diesel buses are at the lower end of the range reported
by other cities. Mexico City has e.g. a values of 82 l/100km.
IPCC 1996 values are also higher than the measured value. IPCC reports SFC
US Heavy Duty Vehicles between 41.7 and 45.5 l/100km (table 1-32).
The value is thus monitored, the sample size inside the required confidence
interval, the data is plausible and conservative compared with other cities and
the IPCC.
gasoline buses
electric trolleybuses
Passenger trips baseline
buses per day
Distance driven per bus
per day
43.5 l/100km
191
kWh/100km
2.585 million
passenger trips
288 km
11% reduction
2% more
Not
sensitive
Not
sensitive
Sensitive
2% less
sensitive
> 50% reduction
size required for a 95% confidence level and a 5% maximum error bound of a
point estimation of simple random sample is 72 while the actual sample size
taken was 360 units i.e. around 4x the required sample size.
Occupation rate passenger
cars
Occupation rate taxis
1.57
> 50% increase
0.60
30% increase
Occupation rate
motorcycles
1.16
> 50% increase
131
This data is based on extensive household surveys realized to check the number of trips
and the number of buses used per trip made by independent parties.
The data is based on measurements of 360 bus units on numerous routes. The sample
Not
sensitive
Not
sensitive
Not
sensitive
Mexico City (File 59), Barranquilla (File 60), Quito (File 61), Zhengzhou (File 62), Mumbai (File 63)
page 88
Average trip distance cars
6.1
> 50% reduction
Average trip distance taxis
7.7
23% reduction
Average trip distance
motorcycles
6.7
> 50% reduction
Annual distance per car
17,532 km
> 50% change
Annual distance per taxi
78,029 km
> 50% change
Annual distance driven
per bus
SRS
88,174 km
> 50% change
2%
> 50% change
See Table A10
> 50% change
Vehicle speed baseline
25 km/h
> 50% change
See Table A10
> 50% change
Bus units retired
Not
sensitive
Not
sensitive
Not
sensitive
Not
sensitive
Not
sensitive
Not
sensitive
Not
sensitive
Not
sensitive
Not
sensitive
Not
sensitive
page 89
A.6. TORS OCCUPATION RATE STUDIES
A.6.1. 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 study
are:
a. Sites:
Road
Direction
CALLE MEDRANO, ESQUINA AVENIDA MOTA PADILLA
AVENIDA CRUZ DEL SUR, ESQUINA CALLE CONCHITAS
CALLE MANUEL ACUÑA, ESQUINA AVENIDA AMERICA
AVENIDA NIÑOS HEROES, ESQUINA JUAREZ
CALLE JESUS GARCIA, ESQUINA AVENIDA ALCALDE
E-W
N-S
E-W
S-N
W-E
b. Time: 6 AM to 9 PM
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. To control this outcome a separate vehicle count is advised.
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;
Occupation rate studies passenger cars and taxis were performed in an identical manner.
A.6.2. BUSES
Occupation rate buses have been determined based on:
•
•
•
•
•
Passenger trips per day (based on O-D survey)
Number of buses used per trip based on survey
Average trip distance on bus based on survey
Distance driven per bus based on survey
Number of buses based on vehicle statistics
page 90
•
Capacity per bus type based on government decree
See for details CER spreadsheet and the corresponding studies. The same approach can be used to
determine the occupation rate of buses during the project execution for leakage determination if data e.g.
on passenger trips is available. Otherwhise a corresponding study can be realized based on surveys e.g. of
sample routes using average trip distance and average numbers of passengers on bus.
page 91
A.7. DETAILS OF SURVEY TO IDENTIFY MODE OF TRANSPORT
The survey will be realized bimonthly (6 times per year) with a minimal number of 1,000 passengers each
to secure a confidence interval of 95% with a 5% error. Basically the survey asks the passengers which
mode of transport they would have used in absence of the BRT. The categories of transport modes to
choose from include public transport (buses), taxis, passenger cars, motorcycles, Non-Motorized
Transport (bicycle and pedestrian) and induced traffic (passenger would not have realized the trip in
absence of the project). Passengers not willing to give an answer or who cannot identify a mode of
transport are retired from the survey. The relative distribution is measured and the absolute numbers are
calculated based on total passengers transported. The survey is in accordance with the approved
methodology AM0031 Version 03.
SURVEY MEASUREMENT OBJECTIVES AND DATA TO BE COLLECTED
The survey measurement objectives are:
1. Determine the mode of transport passengers of the BRT would have used in absence of the
project activity.
2. Determine for passengers which would have used passenger cars in absence of the project the
type of fuel used by the passenger car they would have taken in absence of the project.
3. Determine for passengers which in absence of the project activity would have used taxis,
motorcycles or passenger cars the trip distance on the project system.
Data to be collected is:
1. Mode passengers would have used in the baseline
2. Trip distance on the project system of passengers which respond with passenger cars,
motorcycles and taxis
3. Type of fuel used by cars for respondents of passenger cars
TARGET POPULATION
Target population are the users of the BRT system.
SURVEY SAMPLING PRINCIPLES INCLUDING SAMPLE SIZE AND DESIRED PRECISION
1. The sampling size is determined by the 95% confidence interval and the 5% maximum error
margin. The sampling size used is minimum 500 valid surveys.
2. Sampling must be statistically robust and relevant i.e. the survey has a random distribution and is
representative of the persons using the project transport system.
3. The methodology to select persons for interviews is based on a systematic random sampling based
on the flow of passengers per station per day. The number of surveys conducted per station shall
be proportional to the average number of entry passengers at that station (e.g. if 10% of
passengers used station 1 as entry point then 10% of the surveys shall be conducted at that
station). Records of minimum 1 week of passengers (entry station and passengers per day) shall
be used to realize the survey design. Brackets per day can be used e.g. 6-9, 9-12, 12-15, 15-18.
Also various stations can be clustered together. Surveys are conducted on stations of the BRT
page 92
trunk routes. A new distribution of the surveys per station and per time bracket needs to be made
if new trunk routes enter into operation.
4. Only persons over age 12 are interviewed
5. The survey is realized on all week days including weekends with the sample size per day being
proportional to the number of passengers transported by the project per corresponding week day
(e.g. if 15% of weekly passengers use the bus lane on Mondays then 15% of the surveys are
conducted on Mondays). Surveys shall be conducted during the entire period of operation of the
system e.g. 6AM to 11PM.
DATA COLLECTION PRINCIPLES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Non-responses should be recorded
Follow the defined sampling process
Note comments and other contextual events
Record and store all original surveys
Surveys are conducted at bus stations when people wait for bus-boarding. 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.
6. A random selection of respondents needs to take place. This can be ensured by asking every “x”th
person entering the station (e.g. every 10th), starting counting upon termination of a questionnaire.
7. The specified number of surveys is realized for each station/time bracket.
SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION PRINCIPLES AND QA
1. The survey is realized by an independent third party with experience in surveys and/or transport.
The company is trained by Grütter Consulting AG on the survey and the 1st survey is realized
before project registration checking all procedures with staff of Grütter Consulting.
2. Training of survey staff should take place to ensure an appropriate application of the survey.
3. The survey requires in general less than 5 minutes for its performance.
4. During data collection random checks on surveyors are realized either through an independent
party or through the project owner/developer to ensure that data is collected according to
established procedures.
SURVEY FREQUENCY
The survey is realized minimum 6x annually preferably every 2nd month. The selected weeks for surveys
shall not correspond to a public holiday.
DATA REPORTING, PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS
1. Persons who respond negative to the control questions (2a, 3a, 4a) are counted as non respondent.
This is conservative as the control question is only realized for respondents which indicate to
having used high emission modes such as cars or taxis in the baseline. The control question is not
a separate question but a question directly related to the foregoing one to control or ensure the
response given and to eliminate potential answers given on purpose wrongly. Therefore bivariable or bi-dimensional contingency tables are not applied.
2. A report is issued for each survey indicating all collected data
page 93
3. Data between years is compared. Minor variances might occur over time in terms of modes used
and distances.
A translated version of the questionnaire to be used by the BRT Macrobus is included below:
Interviewer:……………………………
Date: .-………………………………….
Time:…………………………………….
Name of person interviewed:……………………..
Phone number of person interviewed (if available):……………………..
Age over 12?  Yes continue  No:  stop
BRT station where the interview was performed:……………..
Question 1:
Assuming that Macrobus would not exist: What mode of transport would you have used for this specific
trip you are doing currently?
For the interviewer:


The question is related to this specific trip and not to the trips realized by the
person during the year in general.
To clarify mention that you are comparing Macrobus with the public transport
system existing formerly respectively with the public transport system which still
exists in other parts of the city
Multiple choice answers to question 1:
(only tick one; if the passenger would have used more than one transport mode for the trip he is realizing
currently then tick the mode which involves the longest distance):
1. conventional bus based public transport (not Macrobus) → survey finished
2. private car → please go to 2
3. taxi → please go to 3
4. motorcycle → please go to 4
5. per foot or bike → survey finished
6. Light Rapid Rail → survey finished
7. would not have made the trip (induced traffic) → please go to 5
Question 2: If the passenger responds with private car then ask:
2A. Do you or your family own a car or do you have access to a car (e.g. company or friends car) or have
you used a passenger car in the last 6 months?
□ NO
□ YES
2B. What fuel does the car use to which you have access?
□ gasoline □ diesel □ gas (CNG, LNG or LPG) □
electric
□ I don’t know □
other:…….
page 94
2C. In which station did you start your trip (feeder line or trunk line) and where will you finish your trip
(feeder line or trunk line)?
For the interviewer: Please advise the passenger that the original departing and final point is required.
This may include bus trans-boarding such as first using a feeder line and then a main line. It is thus the
origin and final destination of the passenger trip and not of the ride on this specific bus-line.
Entry station: ……………………………………………………
Departure station: ……………………………………………………
Question 3: If the passenger responds with taxi then ask:
3A. Have you used in the last 6 months a taxi?
□ NO
□ YES
3B. In which station did you start your trip (feeder line or trunk line) and where will you finish your trip
Entry station: ……………………………………………………
Question 4: If the passenger responds with motorcycle then ask:
4A. Have you used in the last 6 months a motorcycle?
□ NO
□ YES
4B. In which station did you start your trip (feeder line or trunk line) and where will you finish your trip
Entry station: ……………………………………………………
5. If the passenger responds with induced traffic (he would not have made the trip in absence of
Macrobus) realize one or various control questions to ascertain that he has understood the question such
as:
• Without Macrobus you would have stayed at home? If the answer is NO it is NOT induced traffic
• You do this trip only due to Macrobus? If the answer is NO it is NOT induced traffic
• Will you immediately return back after this trip with Macrobus or will you do something at the
destination like go to work, school? If the answer is NO i.e. the person goes to work or another
activity it is NOT induced traffic
Please report after these questions the correct answer for induced traffic
page 95
page 96
Annex 4
MONITORING INFORMATION
A.4.1. Monitoring Plan
The monitoring plan has two aims: to ensure the environmental integrity of the project activity and to
ensure that the data monitoring requirements are closely aligned with the current practice of the project
operator.
The monitoring methodology for the project is based on measuring the total emissions of the new
transport system. From a methodological viewpoint data is basically derived from measurements.
The Special Programmes Management Office is in charge of managing all data in relation to the CDM
project including responsibility for data collection, quality assurance, reports and data storage.
QA and QC is assured by a special monitoring software containing inter alia how to proceed with key
measurements and survey, how to screen data for quality and how to handle potential errors. Staff in
charge will be trained by Grütter Consulting AG with backup support at least during the first monitoring
year. The software elaborated for monitoring includes:





Baseline, leakage and project default data;
All data required to be monitored;
Identification of person entering data;
Statistical check of data;
Automatic calculations of data based on PDD formulas;
The propriety software is available for the DOE for validation purposes.
A (Spanish) monitoring manual has been realized for Macrobus and staff will be familiarized with this
manual in a special training course realized before CDM project registration. The Manual defines
responsibilities and procedures, has a section on all data variables to be monitored, includes monitoring
report formats as well as the Spanish formats of the modal split survey and the load factor taxi survey.
The data section has for each data variable information on how to collect the required information, the
frequency of collection, data units (including transformation of common data units), quality control
measures to be realized, steps to be taken in case of data problems, how to enter data in the monitoring
software (step by step guide) and some additional hints and comments. The monitoring manual can be
reviewed by the validator.
The responsibilities of Macrobus are:
7. Collect in the required frequency all data for the monitoring of the CDM project.
8. Perform data and information quality control according to this manual.
9. File all documents in the manner and timing that this manual demands.
10. Check data quality and collect, if required, additional data.
11. Store all data: All data must be filed electronically. Hard copy reports and mails are to be scanned
so there is an electronic copy. Every year an electronic file is created and named “Macrobus BRT
CDM Monitoring year …”. At least two (2) copies are kept in the form of CDs or DVDs or other
page 97
data recording devices in separate places. All documents are to be saved for up to two (2) years
after the last CERs were issued.Realize an initial monitoring report using the UNFCCC format
valid at the moment to be controlled by CAF. Grütter Consulting will realize the 1st monitoring
report for the project.
12.
Below an example of one of the data parameters to be monitored to demonstrate the structure of the
manual (all data parameters are managed the same manner).
Data Parameter: Data Trunk Route Fuel Consumption
Monitored Data
Fuel consumption: The fuel consumption is based on records by the operations department. Latter
receives from each driver the data of fuel consumed. Data is therefore collected per bus and summarized
in a data-sheet on a monthly base.
Measurement Frequency and Units
Measurements are continuous and data is aggregated and reported monthly (calendar months). The unit
used for fuel is gallons.
Information Source
Macrobus, Operations Department based on data submitted by trunk operators.
Quality Control
Data plausibility control: control is carried out through specific consumption of fuel (l per 100km).
Values are controlled with previous years.
In the event that data is significantly higher or lower than in previous years, the following measures are to
be taken:
1. Control the distance: Is the data correct and reasonable? Divide the total distance with the number
of buses in operation.
2. Control the fuel consumption: Is the data correct and reasonable? Divide the total fuel consumed
with the number of buses in operation.
3. Is the specific consumption too high or too low: Compare the data with the previous months. Have
any previous values fallen outside the range?
4. If differences cannot be explained then:
o Check fuel receipts with invoices
o Check calibration of filling station
o Check documentary filling controls (data transmission and storage)
o Check distance measurement controls (data transmission and storage)
o Check if other vehicles are using the filling stations
page 98
Appendix 1: List of Documents Used/Cited
File 1: Grütter Consulting, 2010, occupation rates of cars, taxis and motorcycles
File 2: Grütter Consulting, 2010, distance driven taxis
File 3: Grütter Consulting, 2010, Annex survey Macrobus
File 4: Grütter Consulting, 2010, survey Macrobus
File 5: Secretaría de Finanzas, Gobierno del Estado de Jalisco, 2010, vehicle statistics
File 6: Gobierno del Estado de Jalisco, 2005, Norma SVT/01/2005
File 7: Centro Estatal de Investigación de la Vialidad y el Transporte, 2010, Plan de Movilidad Urbana
Sustentable, Volumen 3, Anexo Tecnico
File 8: Grütter Consulting, 2010, distance driven buses
File 9a to 9e: Grütter Consulting, 2010, distance driven buses and bus passengers
File 10a to 10c: Centro Estatal de Investigación de la Vialidad y el Transporte, Gobierno del Estado de
Jalisco, 2010, road network
File 11a to 11f: Grütter Consulting, 2010, speed survey
File 12: Alianza de Camioneros, 2010, operational days of buses
File 13: Alianza de Camioneros, 2010, SFC diesel buses
File 14: Operadores Macrobus S.A. de C.V., 2009, Survey SFC and distance driven BRT buses
File 15: Sistecozome, Gobierno del Estaod de Jalisco, 2010, SFC electric trolleybuses
File 16: Macrobus, SITEUR, 2010, BRT core data
File 17: Macrobus, SITEUR, 2010, route reorganization
Sustentable, Volumen 1
File 19: SITEUR, 2008, Titulo de concesion
File 20: SITEUR, 2009, contrato de recaudo
File 21: SEMARNAT, 2006, NOM-044-SEMARNAT-2006
File 22: Gobierno del Estado de Jalisco, Hacia una movilidad urbana sustentable (no date)
File 23: Colectivo Ecologista Jalisco, Inventario de Emisiones Contaminantes de las Fuentes Móviles en
la ZMG: Balance a cuatro años de la NOM para disminuir el contenido de azufre en los combustibles (no
date)
File 25: Gobierno del Estado de Jalisco, Estudio de impacto vial Macrobus Fase III (no date)
File 26: Gobierno del Estado de Jalisco, Hacia una movilidad urbana sustentable (no date)
File 27: CAF, 2009, debida diligencia financiera
File 28: GTZ, 2005, Bus Rapid Transit
File 29: Gobierno del Estado de Jalisco, 1989, Ley Organica Del Poder Ejecutivo Del Estado De Jalisco
File 30: SITEUR, 1988, decreto 13555
File 31: SITEUR, 2009, reglamento interno
File 32: Macrobus, 2010, route reorganization
File 33a to File 33h: Macrobus, 2010, route reorganization support documents
File 34: SENER, 2006, Potenciales y viabilidad del uso de bioetanol y biodiesel para el transporte en
Mexico
File 36: GTZ, Training Course Mass Transit, 2004
File 37: GTZ, Mass Transit Options, 2005
File 38: OCOIT, Gobierno del Estado de Jalisco, 2007, Memorandum
page 99
File 39, OCOIT, Gobierno del Estado de Jalisco, 2007, Memorandum 2
File 40, Grütter Consulting, 2008, Rapid appraisal CDM potential BRT Guadalajara, Mexico
File 41, SEDEUR, 2008, Contract 007.01/2008-SEDEUR-CZM-AX
File 42, CAF, 2008 letter
File 43, CAF, 2008, e-mail
File 44, CAF, 2008, e-mail ERPA
File 45, SITEUR, 2008, letter
File 46, various newspapers, press releases, 2008
File 47, Macrobus, 2009, operational start
File 48, CAF, 2009, ERPA
File 49, Grütter Consulting, cost overrun Transmilenio (no date)
File 50, Consejo Nacional de Politica Economica y Social, Conpes 3093, 15/11/2000
File 51, Macrobus, 2009, costs
File 52, Macrobus, finance sheet, 2010
File 53, Macrobus, 2010, cost overruns
File 54, EEX, 2009, EU-ETS prices
File 55, IDU, Cost Transmilenio Phase I
File 56, GTZ, 2005, Bus Rapid Transit
File 57, FONADIN, 2008, Lineamientos del Programa de Apoyo Federal al Transporte Masivo
File 58a and 58b, Sener, 2009, persepctiva del sector electrico 2009-2024
File 59, Senes, 2005, Insurgentes Corridor Data
File 60, Sobusa, 2009, SFC buses Barranquilla
File 61, Translatinos S.A., SFC buses Quito, 2009
File 62, Zhengzhou Bus Communication Company, SFC buses ZZ, 2009
File 63, BEST, 2009, SFC buses Mumbai
File 64, Ciudad de Mexico, 2009, Plan de accion para el uso eficiente de la energia en el Distrito Federal
File 65, COMPAÑÍA DE TROLEBUS QUITO S.A. 2008, SFC electric trolleybuses Quito
File 66, AU, 2009, Estudio De Impacto Ambiental Para La Fase I Del Sistema De Transporte Masivo
Macrobus
File 67, AU, 2009, Manifestación De Impacto Ambiental Modalidad Específica Proyecto Macrobus Fase
II
File 68, AU, 2010, Manifestación De Impacto Ambiental Macrobus Fase III y IIIA
File 69, AU, 2009, Establecimiento De Una Estacion De Autoconsumo De Combustible Para Las
Unidades Del Sistema De Transporte Masivo
File 70, Gobierno del Estado de Jalisco, 2009, carta consideraciones tecnicas
File 71, Gobierno del Estado de Jalisco, 2009, Autorizacin en materia ambiental
File 72, Gobierno del Estado de Jalisco, 2009, Oficio SEMADES 0709/5923/2009
File 73, Gobierno del Estado de Jalisco, 2009, Plan Verde
File 74, Gobierno del Estado de Jalisco, 2010, certificacion ambiental
File 75, various, stakeholder documents
File 76, various, stakeholder documents 2
File 77, Berumen, 2009 encuesta entre usuarios de Macrobus
File 80a to 80f, various, stakeholder documents 5
File 81a to 81d, various, stakeholder documents 6
File 82, Macrobus, 2008, participants list
File 83, SITEUR, accionistas (no date)
page 100
File 84, SITEUR, 2008, Titulo de concesion
File 85, SITEUR, orden del dia (no date)
File 86, UITP, 2008, seminario DAL
File 87, UITP, 2008, lista transportistas (no date)
File 88, UITP, 2008, lista otros
File 89ª to 89i, various, stakeholder documents 7
File 90, Reglamento de la Ley de Vialidad y Transito de Jalisco
File 91a and 91 b, Resumen Financimiento Macrobus
File 92, Grütter Consulting, CER spreadsheet
File 93, CEIT, 2010, Map with trunk lines
File 94: Gobierno del Estado de Jalisco, 1998, Law 17167 of 1998
File 95, CEIT, 2010, Map with trunk and feeders lines
File 96, CEIT, 2010, List of the possible conventional bus routes
File 97, PEMEX, 2010, Report of the diesel quality
File 98a to File 98g, Operadora Macrobus S.A. de C.V., 2009 and 2010, Training for the drivers of
Macrobus System
File 99, SITEUR 2009 and 2010, Socializing of the Macrobus′s users
File 100, CEIT, 2010, List of the projected feeder lines
File 101, NOM-045-SEMARNAT-2006
File 102, NOM-044-SEMARNAT-2006
File 103, NOM-080-ECOL-1994
File 104, Grütter Consulting, Monitoring Manual Macrobus CDM project, 2010
File 105, SEMARNAT, 2006, NOM-086-SEMARNAT-SENER-SCFI-2005
File 106, Gobierno del Estado de Jalisco, 1989, Ley 13596
----------------------------------------------------------------

MIO PDD - ESCI KSP

Transcription

Similar documents

www.dubigeon.co.za - The African Business Journal

StarMetro Showcases Zero Emission Bus

PDF

Team Engagement

For more about Metrotrans Logistics, our full company

Experience with CDM Project Campaigns

ad- Casket

Teaching Social Skills in Study Hall - Ohio Speech