stoa project “eco-efficient transport” lunch debate, european parliament, brussels, 7.5.2013

KIT – University of the State of Baden-Wuerttemberg and National Research Center of the Helmholtz Association

INSTITUTE FOR TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AND SYSTEMS ANALYSIS (ITAS)

www.kit.edu

STOA Project “Eco-Efficient Transport” Lunch Debate, European Parliament, Brussels, 7.5.2013

Jens Schippl (KIT- ITAS)On behalf of the ETAG Consortium

2 European Technology Assessment GroupITAS DBT FCRI ISI IST ITA TC RathenauETAG

Structure of the Presentation

1. Background and approach of the project

2. Scenarios on eco-efficient transport

3. Results from the stakeholder consultation

4. Key areas towards eco-efficiency

5. Conclusions

| Jens Schippl | ITAS, KIT | 07.05. 2013


A need for eco-efficient transport

Transport is a basic pillar of economic growth and quality of life

Transport comes along with several negative externalities: Emission of GHG, other pollutants (PM) and noise Segregation, land use, losses in biodiversity Congestion and raising oil prices are challenges for mobility of people

and goods

Some illustrative figures: 1995 - 2009, GDP grew annually by 1.8%, while passenger transport

grew an average of 1.4% and freight transport 1,2%. Further growth is expected - mainly in the freight sector GHG emissions from transport continue to grow, while they are

decreasing in other sectors. Transport still relies almost entirely on oil Transports share of the final energy consumption was around one

third (31.5%), up from 26.3% in 1990. 82% of the total energy used in transport can be attributed to road

transport



Aims and approach of the project

The project aims at achieving a better understanding on the feasibility and desirability of approaches towards eco-efficient transport

Approach in a nutshell: Technology assessment supported by a consultation of stakeholders with scenario building as an integrative element

Qualitative scenarios were developed and quantified with the transport model ASTRA (modelling was carried out by TRT Trasporti e Territorio, Italy)

The feasibility and desirability of the scenarios and their elements was the subject of a stakeholder consultation (managed by DBT)

Note: scenarios are not used for predicting the future but

• to learn about differing views on the pros and cons of different approaches

• because they offer a systemic view on the mutual relationship between factors that are important for the development of a complex system



Phase 1: Scoping phase - Overview on eco-efficient transport

Phase 2: Assessing the potentials of eco-efficient technologies and concepts

Phase 3: Designing draft scenarios on eco-efficient transport futures (supported by TRT Trasporti e Territorio)

Phase 4: Stakeholder consultation on scenarios / elements of the scenarios (supported by Danish Board of

Technology)

Phase 5: Final version of scenarios and final report

Project Structure



Conceptualisation of eco-efficient transport

Eco-efficient transport is understood as getting access to a certain activity/purpose (working, shopping, recreation, etc.) with a smaller ecological footprint

In the project: Main focus on emissions and energy consumption (reference to LCA where possible)

Three basic strategies to achieve more eco-efficiency in transport:

1. Making transport modes cleaner (users/goods use the same modes)

2. Changing the modal split (users/goods use different modes)

3. Reducing growth rates in transport demand (users/goods have different origins/destinations)



Scenario approach


REF Reference, cf. GHG-TransPoRD

AFS Advanced framework scenario

I Scenario I AFS + ‚cleaner modes‘

II Scenario II AFS + ‚modal shift‘

III Scenario AFS + ‚reduced growth‘

Full Full scenario AFS + I + II + III


Advanced framework scenario (AFS)

General assumptions that apply to all scenarios:

Focus is on road, rail and waterborne transport (excluding aviation)

There is a continuous, though moderate growth in GDP (+1,7%)

a rather technology-optimistic approach was applied

> high - sometimes extremely high - rates in innovation / technological change

> Strong progress in science and technology development has been made

> R&D investment is still high in general

> European economies are driven by a sort of “Green New Deal” Clean technologies are a key pillar of EU competitiveness

> Most of the energy consumed comes from renewable sources

In this context, it is possible to establish stringent standards and strong incentives for technological progress

Older people are much more active and mobile compared to 2010

Younger people in urban areas are more flexible in modal choice



Scenario I, II und III

Scenario I: Cleaner ModesSpeed limits all over Europe; efficiency and CO2 taxes are phased in for all modes; fossil fuels banned after 2040

Energy density of batteries allow for ranges about 400km; trucks running on gas or hydrogen; extreme increase in energy efficiency of trains and vessels; breakthrough in ultra-light, robust, cheap, and recyclable materials

Scenario II: Modal Shift

Speed limits all over Europe; efficiency and CO2 taxes are phased in for all modes; subsidies on basis of top runner model; fossil fuels banned after 2040

Extreme high toll for highways and national roads across Europe; extreme subsidies for investments in infrastructure for intermodality; extreme subsidies for investments in infrastructure for rail and water; ICT makes PT system much more attractive

Scenario III: Avoid and reduce physical transport

Oil price of around 300$/barrel; accelerated urbanisation – increasing importance of regional clusters of production and consumption > shift of mobility on shorter trip length; reduction in long-distance holiday trips;

Extreme increase in Tele-X (tele-working, tele-shopping, video-conferencing etc.)> reduction in transport activities; Increased load factors of HDV and LDV



Main settings of the scenarios

Advanced

Framework

scenario (AFS)

Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III

Main focus on Technology

optimistic

approach

Market penetration

of cleaner

technologies

Shift to more eco-

efficient modes

Avoiding and

reducing physical

transport

Main policy

orientation

towards

“Green new deal” R&D, regulations

and incentives

Financing of

infrastructures

Fostering virtual

mobility and eco-

efficient land-use

planning

Main technological

changes are

related to

Various Fuels & propulsion

+ vehicles / vessels

Infrastructures +

clean technologies

ICT

Consequences for

the users

Not many changes

in travel patterns

The same modes

being used by users

and for goods -

unchanged travel

patterns

A shift to other

modes regarding

users and goods

but origins and

destinations

basically remaining

the same

Origins and/or

destinations

changing, and in the

passenger sector a

shift from trips to

virtual mobility

taking place



STOA-scenarios: CO2-reductions


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Inde

x 19

90=1

00

comparison Index CO2

REF:GHG_TransPoRD

AFS

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Scenario FULL


STOA scenarios: transport demand

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000(b

illio

n pk

m/t

km)

scenarios transport demand (2050)

Passengerdemand

Freightdemand



STOA scenarios: car fleet composition

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

(in

%)

car fleet composition (technology 2050)

Fuel cells

Biofuel

Electric

Hybrid

LPG

CNG

Diesel

Gasoline



Modal Split Passengers

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

(com

pute

d on

p-km

)modal share - passengers % (2050)

Slow

Air

Train

Bus

Car



Modal Split Freight

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

(com

pute

d on

t-km

)modal share - freight % (2050)

Maritime

Rail freight

Road freight



Preliminary conclusions

AFS achieves more eco-efficiency than the REF - but does not meet WP goals

Scenario I: Extreme technological change is assumed and high acceptance for corresponding policy > likeliness can be questioned

Scenario II: not that much dependent on technological progress but modal shift is hard to achieve; investments in infra for modals shift and for cleaner fuels needed

The overall eco-efficiency of scenario I and II strongly depend on developments in the energy sector

Scenario III: “Success” not so dependent on developments in the energy system; further developments in virtualisations are uncertain (but surprises are possible); societal acceptance unsure but crucial; approach of just cutting physical mobility might be too simplistic

Scenarios I, II and III are able to met the WP targets for CO2 (on TTW basis) > but with different approaches



Stakeholder consultation

The stakeholder consultation was carried out in two steps:

1. A survey was conducted to collect opinions related to the feasibility and desirability of elements of the scenarios

2. A workshop was carried out. The results of the survey were used to focus and trigger the debate in the workshop.

The invited stakeholders were mainly Brussels-based organisations in the transport area and the workshop was held in Brussels.

10 days before the workshop at the 22.1.2013 stakeholder received background information including summaries of the scenarios



Questionnaire and workshop on thesis/ assumptions

> your own expertise

> in which period would you expect this development to become true

> Which of the following factors could impede this development

> Is this development desirable

> Reaching this developments would have the following impacts



14 Thesis (1-7) – extracted from the scenarios

1. Half of the road based freight transport (tkm) in the EU will be carried out by alternative propulsion technology (e.g. by hydrogen, gas, or biofuels).

2. More than half of the passenger cars sold per year will be battery electric vehicles with driving ranges of 400–500 km.

3. Only local zero emission (tank-to-wheel) passenger vehicles will be allowed in European cities of more than 100.000 inhabitants.

4. In Europe, half of the passenger kilometres travelled by car will be made using full autonomous driving systems. This allows driving without human assistance as the car keeps the road and navigates on its own.

5. An interoperable electronic ticketing application for public transport will be available all over Europe. This will enable users to use the same means of payment for different modes and services (including conventional public transport and e.g. bike-sharing, car-sharing).

6. In Europe, public transport, cycling (including e-bikes) and walking will have a modal share of 75 % in urban areas of more than 100.000 inhabitants.

7. An interoperable road charging system on the trans-European road network will be implemented in all EU states, taking account of the external costs of air pollution, noise pollution and congestion.



14 Theses (8-14)

8. A sophisticated EU regulatory framework (e.g. loan guarantee schemes, risk facility funds, creation of additional revenue streams) will make infrastructure investments more attractive to the private sector. That way, private capital will bear half the EU infrastructure development costs.

9. Common technical, administrative and legal standards will be identical in the European rail network. This will enable operators to seamlessly run trains across Europe.

10. The freight transport volume (tkm) on inland waterways will increase by 50 % (compared to 2012).

11. In waterborne transport, operational improvements (e.g. speed reduction, autopilot upgrade) and new technologies (e.g. alternative propulsion systems, propeller design, auxiliary use of wind power) will lead to a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 50 % (compared to 2012).

12. Widespread application of tele-x (tele-working, tele-shopping, video-conferencing, etc.) will lead to a reduction of transport-related greenhouse gas emissions by 25 % (compared to 2012).

13. A trend of regionalisation (driven by e.g. transport costs, societal values and related policies) will lead to a stronger spatial concentration of production and consumption of goods and services.

14. Underground transport systems (urban freight tubes) will be implemented and used for more than half of the urban goods distribution in larger European agglomerations (> 500.000 inhabitants).



Results of the workshop I

Overall agreement on focusing on core elements of scenario II as the most robust scenario – in combination with some mobility elements in scenario III

Scenario I could be an enabler for scenarios II and III – especially in times with a high need for growths impulses and employment.

Lack of societal acceptance as impeding factor in scenario III – thesis

Many stakeholders emphasized the need for “mobility management” (ICT- based for integrating different transport modes)

Technical approaches of scenario I are needed anyway to cope with future challenges – but there is a need to look beyond technologies

Eco-efficient transport is also about service, attractiveness, information, planning, cooperation, usability, management and alternative mobility options

Better infrastructure for modal shift has to be pushed through public funding and subsidies for investments in infrastructures

b



Results of the workshop II

An eco-efficient development in transport also requires that individual citizens change their transport behaviour (as in scenario II and III)

Incentives are necessary to change people’s transport behaviour. “We could profit from better understanding of the transport needs and behaviour in order to foster changes”

A gap between European policy and reality was identified; EU needs to have more focus on the implementation of EU strategies

In many cases (in particular for scenario II) uncoordinated institutional actions and responsibilities hinder a more eco-efficient transport system

Critics of public transport systems: also at member state level lack of coordination between different operators of public transport lead to a public transport system, which was not easy to use, not flexible, convenient or assessable.



Results of the workshop III

Feasibility and desirability of alternative fuels for the freight sector and progress in battery technologies was assessed rather positively in the survey

Investments needed to implement the supporting infrastructures: “Industry alone is not able to sustain alternative fuel vehicles and infrastructure roll out”

Thesis on integrated ticketing was rated with high feasibility and desirability

Relative high desirability + feasibility for thesis on tele-X (tele-working, tele-shopping etc.)

Harmonised standards for rail was assessed as uncertain but highly desirable

Main controversies on measures restricting car transport in urban areas. A majority welcomed these approaches but there were clear critical voices as well, pointing at negative consequences on the economy

Controversial opinions related to desirability and impacts were also characteristic for thesis 7 regarding the road charging system

High degree in uncertainty can be observed for feasibility and desirability of thesis on autonomous driving (No 4) of thesis on infrastructure investments (No 8) of the thesis 12 on regionalisation (No 12)



“Key areas” for reaching scenario II

Twelve key areas were identified that are of major relevance for realising scenario II (which was considered as the most promising one)

1. Energy system

2. Cleaner cars

3. Cleaner trucks

4. Smart logistics

5. Automation

6. Integrated ticketing

7. Access instead of ownership

8. Shift to rail

9. Shift to short sea and inland shipping

10. Awareness of / making use of changes in habits and attitudes

11. Urban Design

12. Mobility pricing



Key area “Energy System”

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Skinner et al. Pasaoglu et al.Highly

STOAScenario 2

Skinner et al. Pasaoglu et al.Highly

STOAScenario 2

in %

Assumed alternative propulsion car fleet compositions 2030/2050 (EU 27)

Fuel cells

Electric

Hybrid

LPG

CNG

Biofuels

20502030Notes: Diagram excluding gasoline/dieselSources: Own diagram, figures rounded and adapted from Skinner and



Key area “Energy System”

Scenarios show: different fuels mixes are possible in the future

Scenario I and II: energy mix is highly crucial for the eco-efficiency of the scenarios > electricity and hydrogen in transport

In the survey the alternative fuels thesis were rated as very desirable and feasible

Transport share of energy consumption 31,5% > transport matters for energy; energy matters for transport

Future energy system: design is uncertain

Higher shares in fluctuating renewables in the energy system are envisioned > Storage + flexible approaches important

Flexibility as a quality criteria

Example for an flexible approach: Windgas

Makes use of excess power from windmills to produce H2, Biogas, electricity

Biogas but also H2 can be stored in the exiting gas network



Key area “Automation” Thesis 4: In Europe, half of the passenger kilometres travelled by car will be made using full autonomous driving systems. This allows driving without human assistance as the car

keeps the road and navigates on its own. Desirability and feasibility are uncertain

The trend is visible: driver assistance systems, automation in aviation, the google-car, driverless shuttles, unmanned air vehicles, progress in robotics etc.

Can be beneficial for eco-efficiency: e.g. more efficient organisation of transport, fuel efficient driving, platooning (convoys)

Can also increase the competitiveness of car transport > hamper modal shift

New business models possible


> Important issue, because it might change the whole system

> more knowledge on potentials and impacts needed; including aspects of user acceptance


Conclusions

Scenario II is most robust > modal shift needed but difficult to achieve

Systemic perspectives are needed to assess eco-efficiency.

LCA needed to assess the ecological footprint of single technologies or approaches

Also systemic perspectives needed to assess impacts in a broader context

R&D strategies for alternative fuels and propulsion technologies need to be embedded into a broader context (LCA, systemic view, user acceptance; cross-cutting roadmaps)

Stakeholders argued that there was too much focus on fuels and technologies

ICT: effective, bottom up, high dynamics, innovative, huge potentials

High relevance of non-technical factors > Many developments are impeded because of uncoordinated political actions (e.g. shift to rail)

Better understanding of the consumers and the market needed

Mobility management: broad agreement on general level but controversy on how to realised it

Better integration of land-use planning and transport planning is crucial



Conclusions (continued)

Policies should take the following points into account:

1. Research and development remains a basis for more eco-efficiency

2. More focus on understanding and un-locking the potentials of ICT

3. New business models (car-sharing, car2go, dynamic-rider-ship) are low-hanging fruits

4. LCA and systemic perspective needed (flexibility as an criteria)

5. Understanding consumers / markets (needed for scenario II)

6. Co-ordination and harmonisation

7. Long-term strategies (land-use planning) needs to take long-term acceptability into account



Thank you for your attention!


stoa project “eco-efficient transport” lunch debate, european parliament, brussels, 7.5.2013

Documents