[PDF] Good to Go? Assessing the Environmental Performance of New

View - Download Good to Go? Assessing the Environmental Performance of New

Previous PDF

Next PDF

Good to Go

A ssessing the Environmental P erformance of New Mobility

Corporate Partnership Board

Report

Corporate Partnership Board

ReportG

ood t o Go A ssessing the Environmental P erformance of New Mobility

The International Transport Forum

T

he International Transport Forum is an intergovernmental organisation with 62 member countries. It acts

as a think tank for transport policy and organises the Annual Summit of transport ministers. ITF is the only

global body that covers all transport modes. The ITF is politically autonomous and administratively integrated with the OECD. The ITF works for transport policies that improve peoples" lives. Our mission is to foster a deeper understanding of the role of transport in economic growth, environmental sustainability and social inclusion and to raise the public profile of transport policy. The ITF organises global dialogue for better transport. We act as a platform for discussion and pre-

negotiation of policy issues across all transport modes. We analyse trends, share knowledge and promote

exchange among transport decision -makers and civil society. The ITF"s Annual Summit is the world"s largest gathering of transport ministers and the leading global platform for dialogue on transport policy. The Members of the Forum are: Albania, Armenia, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China (People"s Republic of), Croatia,

Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India,

Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta,

Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovak Republic,

Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,

Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, the

United Kingdom, the United States and Uzbekistan.

About the Corporate Partnership Board

The Corporate Partnership Board (CPB) is the International Transport Forum"s platform for engaging with

the private sector and enriching global transport policy discussion with a business perspective. The members of the ITF Corporate Partnership Board are: AB InBev, Airbus, Alstom, Aramco, Bird, Bosch,

Cruise, ExxonMobil, Grin, Iberdrola, Incheon International Airport, Kakao Mobility, Kapsch TrafficCom,

Kyyti Group, Michelin, NXP, Penta Security, PTV Group, RATP Group, Siemens, SNCF, Spea Engineering, Total, Toyota, Uber, Valeo, Volvo Cars, Volvo Group and Waymo.

Disclaimer

F

unding for this work has been provided by the ITF Corporate Partnership Board. This report is published

under the responsibility of the Secretary -General of the ITF. It has not been subject to the scrutiny of ITF

or OECD member countries and does not necessarily reflect their official views or those of the members

of the Corporate Partnership Board.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

GOOD TO GO? ASSESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF NEW MOBILITY

© OECD/ITF 2020

3

Acknowledgements

The principal authors of this report are

Pierpaolo Cazzola and Philippe Crist of the International Transport

Forum (ITF).

The report

is draws from contributions and insights that emerged at the ITF Corporate Partnership Board (CPB) Workshop “Lifecycle Assessment of Emerging Urban Transport Business Models", held on

1 October 2019 at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in Paris, France

Participants

in this workshop are listed in Annex B.

Special thanks for further contributions and insightful comments during the review process go to: Sarah

De Bortoli (Eurovia and ENPC/IFSTTAR/UPEM), Pierre-Olivier Calendini (Aramco), Matt Chester

(independent), Eppler Steffen (Bosch), Nicolas Erb (Alstom), Lina Fedirko (ClimateWorks), Patrick Gaillard

(Aramco), Victor Gordillo (Aramco), Adam Gromis (Uber), Melinda Hanson (Bird), Agnès Jullien (IFSTTAR),

Alex Jung (Bird), Kazunori Kojima (Toyota), Marion Lagadic (6t), William Lilley (Aramco), Lucien Mathieu

(Transport and Environment), Michiko Namazu (Uber), Nicolas Rankovic (Aramco), Eddy Van Bouwel (ExxonMobil), Yi Wen (University of Tennessee), Michael Wang (Argonne National Laboratory), Laurence

Wilse-Samson (Bird) and Marta Yugo (Concawe).

The work for this report was carried out in the context of a project initiated and funded by the International

Transport Forum's Corporate Partnership Board. CPB projects are designed to enrich policy discussion with

a business perspective. They are launched in areas where CPB member companies identify an emerging

issue in transport policy or an innovation challenge to the transport system. Led by the ITF, the project

development is carried out in a collaborative fashion in working groups consisting of CPB member companies, external experts and ITF staff. Members of the Corporate Partnership Board companies that have been involved in this work include: Alstom, Aramco, Bird, Bosch, ExxonMobil, Grin Scoot ers, Michelin, RATP Group, Siemens, Toyota, Uber and Valeo.

At the International Transport Forum,

credits go to Jari Kauppila and Luis Martinez for their contributions during the workshop and their review of the report. Sokob Challener supported the project and Hilary

Gaboriau edited the draft.

The project was managed by Pierpaolo Cazzola and Philippe Crist. Sharon Masterson manages the

Corporate Partnership Board and its activities.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4 GOOD TO GO? ASSESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF NEW MOBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020

7MNOH RI ŃRQPHQPV

What is new about new mobility? ..................................................................................................... 10

Aim of this report........................................................................................................................... 13

How to measure environmental impacts of new mobility .................................................................. 14

What is a life cycle assessment? .................................................................................................... 14

Key components of life cycle assessments in transport ................................................................ 15

Key impacts that life cycle assessments can assess ....................................................................... 17

Measuring the life cycle assessment impacts of transport vehicles and services .......................... 17

The importance of assessing energy use and carbon dioxide emissions in transport ................... 18

Does new mobility challenge existing life cycle assessment methods and practice? How so? ..... 19

Do new mobility services improve environmental outcomes? ........................................................... 22

Energy use and carbon dioxide emissions of new mobility versus other transport options .......... 22

Variability of results to changes in key input parameters .............................................................. 29

Multimodal trips ............................................................................................................................ 41

Effects of changes in technologies and business models on energy and greenhouse

gas emissions ................................................................................................................................. 45

Ensuring that new mobility improves energy and climate outcomes ................................................. 47

Strategies to reduce energy use and GHG emissions for new mobility ......................................... 49

Policies to improve data quality and enable greater transparency ............................................... 50

Regulatory, economic and voluntary measures............................................................................. 52

Notes ................................................................................................................................................. 65

References ......................................................................................................................................... 69

Annex A. Methodological details backing the results of the analysis .................................................. 80

Vehicles.......................................................................................................................................... 80

Fuels/energy vectors ..................................................................................................................... 81

Infrastructures ............................................................................................................................... 83

Operational services ...................................................................................................................... 84

Annex B. Workshop participants ........................................................................................................ 86

)LJXUHV

Figure 1. Key components of life cycle assessments used in transport .............................................. 16

Figure 2. Central estimates of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of urban transport

modes per pkm.................................................................................................................................. 23

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GOOD TO GO? ASSESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF NEW MOBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020 5 Figure 3. Central estimates of life-cycle energy requirements of urban transport

modes per pkm.................................................................................................................................. 24

Figure 4. Central estimates of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of urban transport

modes per vkm .................................................................................................................................. 25

Figure 5. Central estimates of life-cycle energy requirements of urban transport

modes per vkm .................................................................................................................................. 26

Figure 6. Life-cycle GHG emissions/pkm with different assumptions on occupancy........................... 29

Figure 7. Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of first-generation shared e-scooters ......................... 30

Figure 8. Life-cycle greenhouse emissions of the new generation of shared e-scooters and

effects of further improvements for their further reduction.............................................................. 32

Figure 9. Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions and energy/pkm of private cars ................................. 33

Figure 10. Life-cycle GHG emissions and energy/pkm of ridesourcing cars ........................................ 37

Figure 11. Life-cycle GHG emissions/pkm of ridesourcing cars .......................................................... 38

Figure 12. Life-cycle GHG emissions/pkm of buses ............................................................................ 39

Figure 13. Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions/pkm of metros and urban trains .............................. 40

Figure 14. Life-cycle GHG emissions/pkm of selected examples of multimodal trips ......................... 41

Figure 15. Shares of emissions from different life cycle assessment components for

selected modes ................................................................................................................................. 48

Figure 16. Life-cycle GHG emission impact of ridesourcing services operated by

vans and minibuses ........................................................................................................................... 62

7MNOHV

Table 1. Weight, battery capacities and final energy consumption used for the assessment of

life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions and energy intensities ............................................................... 27

Table 2. Lifetimes, mileages, loads and service vehicles characteristics used for the assessment of

life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions and energy intensities ............................................................... 27

Table 3. Modal substitution from ridesourcing, carsharing and micromobility................................... 42

%R[HV

Box 1. Deadheading across different modes of transport .................................................................. 20

Box 2. Low-carbon synthetic fuels ..................................................................................................... 35

Box 3. Regulatory incentives for better environmental performances of transport

vehicles and fuels .............................................................................................................................. 52

TABLE OF CONTENTS

6 GOOD TO GO? ASSESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF NEW MOBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020

Box 4. Driver profiles in the case of ridesourcing and market size of highly used

ridesourcing vehicles ......................................................................................................................... 55

Box 5. Implications labour policies on ridesourcing for its energy and environmental impacts .......... 60

Box 6. Life cycle GHG emissions/pkm from ridesourcing services operated by

vans and minibuses ........................................................................................................................... 62

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

GOOD TO GO? ASSESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF NEW MOBILITY

© OECD/ITF 2020

7

Executive summary

What we did

People

in cities across the globe are rapidly adopting new mobility forms, helped by digital connectivity and electrification technologies. This report examines the energy and climate impact of such services,

including personal and shared electric kick-scooters, bicycles, e-bikes, electric mopeds. It also covers

ridesourcing, i.e. for-hire vehicle services with drivers that use smartphone apps to connect drivers with

passengers.

The focus of the study is twofold: First, it assesses if current life cycle assessment methodologies are fit for

purpose and able to address full life-cycle impacts of new mobility services, and proposes methodological

improvements where they are not. Second, the report analyses the life-cycle performance of a range of

new vehicles and services based on their technical characteristics, operation and maintenance, and compares it with that of privately owned cars and public transport.

The scope of the analysis expands

beyond usual life-cycle assessments of transport vehicles to include impacts due to the operation and

maintenance activities that are specific to these new mobility services.

Drawing on these analyses, the report identifies solutions to make new mobility a useful part of the urban

transport mix while helping to increase energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in order to address climate change.

What we found

Private bicycles and e-scooters use significantly less energy and emit much less GHG per person-kilometre

over their life cycle than cars. Mopeds, metros and buses are the next most efficient urban modes. Energy

use and GHG emissions from shared micromobility (involving e-scooters, bikes, e-bikes and mopeds) are

comparable in magnitude to those of metros and buses. This is the case especially when actions are taken

to extend lifetime mileage and minimise energy use and GHG emissions from operational services. Ridesourcing vehicles and taxis have the highest energy and GHG emission impacts per passenger

kilometre of all urban mobility options, despite the clear value they provide to users and the contribution

they can make to make travel more multimodal.

Energy use and GHG emissions depend on the propulsion technologies and their energy vectors, ridership

characteristics, the frequency with which infrastructure (e.g. roads, railways, bike lanes) is used, as well as

operational practices. A range of actions can improve the environmental perform ance of new mobility services. Enhancing

capacity use, i.e. increasing in the number of passengers transported per kilometre of vehicle travel, is

especially relevant for ridesourcing and taxi services.

Fostering a

rapid transition towards more efficient powertrains and energy vectors (such as electric vehicles) will reduce energy use and emissions. Design solutions that extend vehicle life are especially important for improving the environmental performance of shared micromobility.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

8 GOOD TO GO? ASSESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF NEW MOBILITY © OECD/ITF 2020

Incentives that encourage the use of smaller and lighter cars over operating large and heavy ones are

powerful tools to reduce energy use and emissions. However, large size is not an issue if it enables significant increases in occupancy, as can be the case with vans and minibuses that provide on-demand ridesourcing services Improvements in operations can reduce energy use and GHG emissions of new mobility thanks to lower

servicing requirements per kilometre of service. The reduction of “deadheading", i.e. the empty vehicle

travel necessary to provide transport services with passengers on board, is crucial in this respect. The e

ffective integration of new mobility services with public transport can strengthen the capacity of new

mobility and public transport to replace travel with personal single-passenger cars. This can do much to

help new mobility make a positive contribution to transport"s environmental performance, rather than a

detrimental one. The smooth integration of new mobility services into the existing policy framew orks for more sustainable

transport requires a mix of both general and specific policies. Beyond environmental objectives, these

should support industrial development and innovation, and enhance economic productivity, for instance

in battery manufacturing. Two types of policy interventions are well suited for this purpose. First, requiring

quotesdbs_dbs27.pdfusesText_33

[PDF] BETTER WHEN I`M DANCIN` - Anciens Et Réunions

[PDF] Betterave à sucre - Agriculture du Maghreb - Instruments De Musique

[PDF] Betterave Rouge - Cartes De Crédit

[PDF] Betterave rouge Salade grecque Sauté de canard aux olives

[PDF] Betteraves b vinaigrette Colombo de poulet S - Garderie Et Préscolaire

[PDF] Betteraves Bouillon au Vermicelle Poulet Basquaise Riz Créole

[PDF] Betteraves Cordon bleu Gratin de courgettes Flan Salade de riz

[PDF] Betteraves et oeuf dur Pavé de colin sauce marseillaise Boulgour

[PDF] Betteraves fines herbes Coleslaw Pamplemousse au sucre Finger

[PDF] bettina beaulivre - Amberieu-en

[PDF] Bettina Bradbury Poster and Program Final.pub - Histoire

[PDF] Bettina Dennerlein - Asien-Orient-Institut - Anciens Et Réunions

[PDF] Bettina Eltrop / Anneliese Hecht / Hedwig Lamberty

[PDF] bettina engelhardt

[PDF] Bettina Tausendfreund