NECTAR C1 Work Shop
Measuring equity effects of carbon charge on car
commuters : A case study of Manchester Airport
29th September 2012
Dr Chikage Miyoshi
Department of Air Transport
School of Engineering
Cranfield University
1
© Chikage Miyoshi Cranfield University
Background
2
Carbon emissions from airport sources
Source: Gatwick Airport (2009)
3
Car alone users : 92 % of the total emissions
Majority of car alone users starts at 0800 and finish at 1700
4
Motivation: Mitigation methods
The marginal abatement cost
• Calculate the marginal abatement cost, which is the NPV
divided by the carbon savings over the life of the project. A negative
cost means that there is a saving from this abatement project.
• Car sharing scheme
• Working at home
• Incentive for using public transport (e.g. free ticket)
Carbon charge for car users
Current situation at Manchester Airport
• Closer parking space for car sharers
• Staff car parking space is located in the end of airport
( 20 minutes walk to the office area)
5
Topic : Equity effects of carbon charge on commuters
•Carbon charge for car users and Equity effects on airport
computers : a case study of Manchester Airport
The important factors for the net impact of carbon charge are
(1) the travel pattern change, and
(2) how revenues are used.
6
Objectives
Objective 1 : carbon footprint and the damage cost
 Estimate the carbon footprint and the damage cost of carbon dioxide
emissions by commuters on airport surface access.
 Identify the users produce larger emissions on the mode by using
Manchester Airport in the UK as a case study.
Objective 2 : Equity effects of carbon charge on commuters
The issue of equity how different groups benefit from the use of the carbon
charge revenue
 Investigate the impact of carbon charge on travel behaviour to see the
change of mode share by using the MNLM
 Estimate the net effect of charges by travel mode user
7
Methodology
8
Data and assumptions used
Establish ‘ Vehicle emission factor’ by speed after considering
fleet composition in the Manchester metropolitan area.
Fuel consumption factor (g/km) – Speed coefficient
Source: National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory
Fleet composition data : The Manchester Emissions Inventory 2006 update (2009)
Pre-Euro I : 0.09%
Euro I:12.2%
Euro II : 86.9%
Petrol :78%
Diesel : 22%
Bus speed adjustment factors:
A factor of 0.713
 Manchester Airport staff survey in 2008 and 2009
Sample size: 1,645
Origin : postcode
Mode: car alone, car with passenger, a passenger in a car, train, bus, taxi,
walking, and bicycle , job type, gender, etc
 The number of employees : 18,000
 The damage cost of carbon : £51 per tonne in 2009 price
 Software: Excel and STATA
9
‘Car alone’ residence and drive zone within 30 min
Airport
10
Calculation methodology: Model 1
The total fuel consumption on the route by individual vehicle
𝐹𝐶𝑖𝑗 = 𝐸𝐹𝑗𝑙𝑠 ∗ 𝑑𝑗
Where 𝐹𝐶𝑖𝑗 is the fuel consumption for vehicle 𝑙 on the route j,
𝑑𝑗 is the route distance in km;
S is the average speed for the trip in km per hour;
𝐸𝐹𝑗𝑙𝑠 is emission factor of vehicle 𝑙 on at speed 𝑠 on the route
𝐸𝐹𝑣 = 𝑎 + 𝑏. 𝑣 + 𝑐. 𝑣 2 + 𝑑. 𝑣 𝑒 + 𝑓. ln 𝑣 + 𝑔𝑣 3 +
ℎ
𝑖
+ 2 + 𝑗/𝑣 3 . 𝑥
𝑣 𝑣
where,
𝐸𝐹 is the emission rate expressed in g/km;
𝑣 is the average vehicle speed in km/h;
𝑎 to 𝑗, and 𝑥 are coefficients.
Source:
the Transport Research Laboratory Database of Emissions factors (Barlow and
11
Boulter, 2009).
Calculation methodology: Model 3
The welfare change
𝑃𝑗𝑎1 𝐶𝑗𝑎 −
∆𝑊𝑎 = −
𝑗
1
2
𝑃𝑗𝑎1 𝐶𝑗𝑎
−
𝑃𝑗𝑎0 − 𝑃𝑗𝑎1 𝐶𝑗𝑎 +
𝑗
1
2
𝑃𝑗𝑎0 − 𝑃𝑗𝑎1 𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑎
𝑗
Total charges
𝑗
−
1
2
1
2
𝑃𝑗𝑎0 − 𝑃𝑗𝑎1 𝐶𝑗𝑎
𝑗
𝑃𝑗𝑎0 − 𝑃𝑗𝑎1 𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑎
𝑃𝑗𝑎
𝐶𝑗𝑎
𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑎
Value of carbon saved
𝑗
∆𝑊𝑎
where
Value of changes in travel mode
Total welfare change of a ( car alone)
is the probability for a trip from j to airport with mode a
Carbon charge on mode a
Carbon cost per trip from j to airport mode a
12
Result 1 :Carbon footprint :employees
Car alone’ drives longer and emit more.
Results
Share (%)
Driving
time
Distance
(km)
Ave.
Speed
(km/h)
Fuel
(litter)
CO2 (kg)
One way
CO2
(g)/pkm
Car alone
72%
22
18
45
1.1
2.6kg
152g
Car
with pax
4%
20
16
44
1.04
2.4kg
76g
Pax
in a car
Bus
6%
14
10
40
0.66
1.51kg
79g
8%
15
7
27
3
7kg
79g
Train
4%
25
20
1.5kg
76.7g
Bicycle
2%
6
0
0
Taxi
1%
11
7
35
1.05
163g/km
Motorcycle
1%
(19)
14
41
0.48
34g/km
Walked
2%
(10)
6
0
0
0.46
13
The damage cost of carbon by commuter
£25 per tonne
£ 51 per tonne
£76 per tonne
Car alone
£16
£33
£50
Car with a passenger
£7
£15
£22
A passenger in a car
£5
£10
£14
Train
£5
£10
£16
Bus
£3
£7
£10
Share of CO2
Annual damage cost of CO2
in 2009 price
14
Net effects without distribution
(1) Carbon charge revenues are split evenly
(2) Carbon charge revenues are split taking account of each
damage cost
15
Net effects including distribution
(1) Carbon charge revenues are split evenly
(2) Carbon charge revenues are split taking account of each
damage cost
16
Net effect of charges : Gender
Female travel more by car, not so much on public transport, bike and walking.
17
Net effects of charges : Income
88% of bike and walkers are low and medium income group
Female, low and medium income groups use ‘a passenger in a car’.
Low income : many bus travellers
Medium: many train travellers
18
Net effects of charges : Age group
Younger and elder group have more benefit
Cyclist : age group 16-34
Walker: age group 45-54
19
Findings and Discussions
• Carbon charge affects the travel behaviour to reduce ‘car alone’
users.
• The total amount of carbon is saved: 2,755 tonne / £140,515 p.a.
• Car alone users are affected the most.
• The total net welfare benefits including distribution are £9.43 per
employee and year.
• The total charges revenues are £165 per employee and year.
• Revenues are distributed to employees in the range from £159 to £192
per individual and year.
• The public transport users, walkers, and cyclist have more benefits
• Car sharers have significant benefit as well.
Combination with ‘ car sharing scheme’
• Car sharing scheme, which yield another revenue , could add additional
Incentives to commuters, not only for car users but also less carbon
travellers.
20
Thank you so much indeed
Chikage Miyoshi
E-mail: c.miyoshi@cranfield.ac.uk
21
© Chikage Miyoshi Cranfield University
Case study: car sharing scheme
Assumptions:
The total number of employees : 18,000*
A 72% of staff use car- alone:12,960
Car sharing scheme : A 30% of car-alone user reduction per car sharing
member
Capital cost : £20,000 including software and marketing**
Annual cost : £20,000 including administration cost, Kiosk maintenance
Incentive to car sharer : £150 per person p.a.
Incentive to other mode users: £200 per person p.a.
Annual benefit: £500 p.a. per car parking space
Project life : 10 years
Discount rate: 5%
Cost of carbon : £51 per tonnes of carbon ***
Source: * Manchester Airport (2008)
** Department for Transport (2010)
*** Department of Energy and Climate Change (2007)
22
Marginal abatement cost of carbon by car sharing scheme
Discount rate (5%) and Carbon price (£51 in 2009 price)
Number of
members
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
Annual
cost/benefit(£)
5,000
30,000
55,000
80,000
105,000
Annual carbon
saving ( tonnes)
14,512
14,840
15,168
15,497
15,825
MAC ( notdiscounted)
£/tonnes
3
4
6
7
8
Discounted life
saving carbon
(tonnes)
112,056
114,591
117,126
119,661
122,197
MAC
( discounted )
£/ tonnes
39
32
24
17
11
23
Findings
Objective 1: Carbon foot print
• Private car users accounted for more than 90% in 2009.
• 165,000 tonnes of carbon were produced in 2009 by passengers’
surface access transport.
• The damage cost of carbon becomes more than £8.5 million in 2009
price.
Objective 2: factors affect the travel mode choice
• D/P produces more than 57% of emissions.
• The fuel price affects on the travel mode share
• The impact of D/P charge on the emission reduction
Objective 3: Carbon foot print by employee and car sharing
• Car sharing scheme with 3,000 members could reduce 15,000
tonnes of carbon per year.
• Subsidy is required for the successful implementation.
24
Sustainable airport development
Sustainable airport development =
management of private cost/benefit & external cost/benefit
The best for society = the best for the company
= the best for employees
Managing externalities = Risk management = prepare it!!
Cranfield Models
• Cranfield carbon emissions calculator
• Cranfield airport surface access carbon emission
calculator (C-ASACEC)
• Cranfield High Speed Train carbon emission
calculator (C-HSTCEC)
25
© Chikage Miyoshi Cranfield University
‘Car alone’ residence and drive zone within 30 min
Multi nominal logit regression
To investigate the impact of fuel cost on the mode choice
Case specific
variables
Gender
1 for male, 0 for female
Age
Eight age group from 1 to 8, small numbers mean
younger.
Type of work
1 for full time, 0 for part time
Shift work
1 for shift, 0 for no shift
Total cost (£)
Commuting cost per trip and person
e.g. fuel cost is half for car with passenger and a
passenger in a car mode
£7 for train user , £3.5 for bus user ,£0 for walking and
bicycle user
Fuel cost (£)
Fuel cost per trip if a commuter takes car alone
26
Result 2: The impact of fuel price on mode choice
27
Majority of car alone users
Majority of users starts at 0800 and finish at 1700
200
180
160
140
120
100
Start
Finish
80
60
Time
40
20
2300
2200
2100
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
Data source: Manchester airport staff survey in 2009
28
Result 3 : employees’ study
• Car alone users : 72%
• Average carbon emissions of car alone users : 156 g/pkm
• Majority of them are not shift workers.
• Car sharing scheme with 3,000 members might reduce
more than 15,000 tonnes of carbon per year.
•The abatement cost of carbon is £ 7 per tonne.
•The value of incentives is based on the assumption. For the
successful implementation, the staff survey should be
conducted for estimating the incentives.
29