Date post: | 27-Nov-2014 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | yogaanandh |
View: | 410 times |
Download: | 18 times |
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
FINAL REPORT
FOR
A DANIDA-FUNDED PROJECT ON RENEWABLE ENERGY & ENERGY EFFICIENCY
BY
CONSULTANCY UNIT UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA LEVEL 2, BLOCK D, PERDANASISWA COMPLEX
UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA 50603 KUALA LUMPUR
MAY 2005
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Transportation is one of the key factors for the economy and society.
Therefore, transport policymakers have to create the policies frameworks that are
required transport sector to sustain energy with three-dimensional objective namely
ecology, economy and social acceptability. In chapter 2, the report discusses about
international experiences on reduction of energy use in transportation sector. There
are many methods and policies to reduce energy consumption in transport sector,
however only several of them that are suitable to be used in Malaysia are elaborated
in this chapter. Those include fuel economy standard for motor vehicle, fuel
economy labels, fuel switching, fuel taxation, emission abatement, further
improvements to vehicles which are have been implemented in other develop as well
as developing countries. The study found that many policies can be implemented
directly in Malaysia while some others must be modified to make it suitable for this
country. For example fuel economy label guide program can be directly implemented
in this country, however for fuel economy standard must me modified to make it
suitable because Malaysia has it local vehicle manufacturers that have to be
protected.
Emissions in the transportation sector produce adverse effects on the
environment that influent human health, organism growth, climatic changes and so
on. The Kyoto protocol by the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate
change (UNFCC) in December 1997, prescribed legally binding greenhouse gas
emission target about 5% below their 1990 level. About 160 countries including
Malaysia now adopt this protocol. The transportation sector is the main contributors
for emission in the country. In order to calculate the potential emission by this
activity, the type of fuel use should be identified. The study found that there are no
radical changes of fuel used for transportation sector in Malaysia. The data shown
that fuel type use are 53% of petrol, 34% of diesel, 13% of ATF 0.06% Natural Gas,
and 0.03% of electricity in year 2000 to 46% of petrol, 42% of diesel, 12% of ATF,
0.29% Natural Gas and only 0.07% of electricity in the year of 2020. The calculation
is based on emissions for unit fuel used and the type of fuel use and energy demand
iii
in transportation sector. The study found that, the transportation sector has
contributed huge emissions from their activities in this country and the change on
fuel type is necessary to change the pattern of emission production. These are discuss
intensively in chapter 3.
The main part of the transport and energy investigations and projections is
presented in Chapter 4. The first part of the chapter discusses a review of existing
data available from related authorities and transportation studies that were
undertaken to date. Consideration of population growth as well as socio-economic
data and energy use in transportation sector data has also been considered.
Forecasting future transportation growth based on population growth and socio-
economic data and needs up to 20 years is also presented. Consideration of
relationship between transportation trips production and energy consumption is
elaborated. Formulation of a model for forecasting energy consumption by
transportation sector and model validation that takes into consideration the
correlation coefficient is discussed in detail. Furthermore, the uses of the model to
analyze energy consumption based on the modal split scenarios are also presented.
This topic is discussed completely in Chapter 5.
Due to rapid economic growth, the usage of fuel especially petrol and diesel for
transportation sector has increased tremendously. This has caused Malaysian oil
reserve to decrease rapidly over the past decade. As a result, the government is
encouraging the use of alternative fuel in the transportation sector. One of the
proposals is the encouragement to use natural gas (NG) as an alternative fuel and
proposing a suitable policy for it. Study on natural gas vehicle (NGV) has been
undertaken to identify the deficiency and to improve the previous policies. This study
involved respondents (consumers) from public transports (taxi driver, taxi and bus
companies) and owners of pump station to identify their opinion about the policy.
Data collection to identify an overview of the current status of NGV development
including market activities and the future prospects of NGV in Malaysia are
conducted by interviewing respondents.
Malaysia has been experiencing a dramatic increase in the number of vehicles
used, and this is projected to be higher in the future due to increasing income per
iv
capita. Chapter 6 focuses on the potential implementation of fuel economy standards
for motor vehicles in Malaysia. The fuel economy standard is developed based on the
fuel consumption data that is obtained from manufacturers and other related sources.
With the increasing number of vehicles, fuel economy standards are one of the
highly effective policies for decreasing energy use in the transportation sector. Fuel
economy standards are also capable of reducing air pollution and contribute towards
a positive environmental impact. In this study, the potential efficiency improvements
of vehicles are analyzed by using the engineering-economic analysis. Meanwhile the
possible efficiency improvement of motor vehicle in reducing the fuel consumption
of Malaysia’s transportation sector in the future are examined by predicting the
energy, economical and environmental impacts due to its implementation.
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report is impossible to be completed without help and support from
several individuals and organization. We would like to thank and acknowledge all of
them. However, the following individuals and organizations have given very
important input to us to make this study a success, those are:
Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department who have given us the
opportunity to be involved in this project and provided us with latest secondary
data.
Officers from several government agencies and non-government agencies that
provided us with the latest data and information that have been used in this
report.
The respondents that allocated their busy time to fill the questionnaires. Without
their helps it is impossible to complete this report.
Our research assistants Husnawan Mutiara, Mahendra Varman and Yusria
Darma for their excellent work on data collection and data analysis. All individuals that provided input information for us and allocating their time
to make the study a success, we wish to thank them for their help.
We hope this document can be used by energy policymakers and practitioner
especially from Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department in taking
their decision related to energy for transport sector as well as anybody involved in
energy sector in Malaysia.
Masjuki Hj Hassan
Mohd Rehan Karim
T.M. Indra Mahlia
Consultancy Unit, University Of Malaya (UPUM)
Level 2, Block D, Perdanasiswa Complex
University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur December 2004
vi
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY …………………………………………………. ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ………………………………………………….. v
CONTENTS ………………………………………………………………... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ………………………………………………………… x
LIST OF TABLES …………………………………………………………. xiv
NOMENCLATURES ………………………………………………………. xxii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .……………………………….………… 1
1.1 Background .………………………………………………………….. 4
1.2 Objectives of the study … …………………………………………….. 9
1.3 Contributions of the study .……………………………………………. 10
1.4 Limitation of the study .....……………………………………………. 10
1.5 Organization of the report .……………………………………………. 11
CHAPTER 2: INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCES ON REDUCTION OF ENERGY USE IN TRANSPORT SECTOR ……………………………… 142.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………... 16
2.2 Program Review …………………………………………………….... 18
2.3 Transportation Policy in selected countries …………………................ 21
2.3.1 Thailand …………………......................................................... 21
2.3.2 Singapore …………………....................................................... 22
2.3.3 European Countries …………………........................................ 23
2.3.4 Japan …………………............................................................... 24
2.3.5 Australia …………………......................................................... 25
2.3.6 India …………………............................................................... 26
2.3.7 France …………………............................................................. 27
2.3.8 New Zealand ………………….................................................. 27
2.3.9 Netherlands ………………….................................................... 27
2.3.10 Philippines …………………...................................................... 28
2.4 Transportation Regulation …………………………………………….. 30
vii
2.5 Voluntary agreements program ……………………………………….. 30
2.6 Air quality policies ……………………………………………………. 32
2.7 Fuel economy …………………………………………………………. 34
2.8 Conclusions …………………………………………………………… 46
CHAPTER 3: HISTORICAL AND FUTURE TREND OF ENERGY DEMAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FROM THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR ……………………………………………. 503.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………... 51
3.2 Survey data …………………………………………………………..... 53
3.3 Methodology …………………...……………………………………... 57
3.4 Results and Discussion ………………………………………............... 58
3.5 Conclusions …………………………………….................................... 65
CHAPTER 4: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN MALAYSIA …………………………... 664.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………... 67
4.1.1 Modes of Transportation ……………………………………... 68
4.1.2 Transportation Demand Analysis …………………………….. 69
4.1.3 Study Objectives ……………………………………………... 70
4.1.4 Conceptual Framework ………………………………………. 71
4.2 Type of Data Collected ……………………………………….………. 72
4.2.1 Road Transport ……………………………………………….. 72
4.2.2 Rail Transport ………………………………………………... 79
4.2.3 Air Transport ………………………………………………..... 84
4.2.4 Maritime Transport …………………………………………... 91
4.2.5 Passenger Transport Mode Share …………………………….. 92
4.2.6 Number of Vehicle Registration by Type of Fuel ……………. 93
4.2.7 Population ………………………………………………......... 94
4.2.8 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ……………………………… 95
4.2.9 Employment ………………………………………………...... 96
4.3 Review of HNDP and SMURT – KL Study …………………………. 97
4.3.1 Trip Production ………………………………………………. 99
viii
4.3.2 Trip Generation and Attraction Model ……………………….. 100
4.3.3 Trip Production Rates ………………………………………... 103
4.3.4 Model for Forecasting Vehicles ……………………………… 104
4.3.5 Model Share ………………………………………………….. 104
4.4 Future Socioeconomic Framework …………………………………... 105
4.5 Analysis For Transportation Demand ………………………………... 107
4.5.1 Method 1 ……………………………………………………... 108
4.5.2 Method 2 ……………………………………………………... 112
4.5.3 Method 3 ……………………………………………………... 115
4.5.4 Summary of Method 1, Method 2 and Method 3 …………….. 122
4.5.5 Future Total Trip Generation ………………………………… 123
4.5.6 Model Split Scenarios ………………………………………... 125
4.5.7 Future Trip Generation Based on Scenario …………………... 126
4.5.8 Vehicle Kilometer ………………………………………......... 127
4.6 Fuel Consumption In Transportation Sector …………………………. 128
4.6.1 Do Nothing or Do Something Fuel Consumption …………… 131
4.7 Energy Consumption In Transportation Sector ………….…………… 135
4.7.1 Road Transport ……………………………………………….. 136
4.7.2 Rail Transport ………………………………………………... 137
4.7.3 Air Transport ………………………………………………..... 138
4.7.4 Total Energy Consumed by Road, Rail and Air Transport …... 138
4.8 Conclusions and Recommendations …………………….…................. 140
CHAPTER 5: FEASIBILITY AND POTENTIAL OF SWITCHING TO NGV FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN MALAYSIA ………………
144
5.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………... 145
5.2 Survey data …………………………………………………………..... 147
5.2.1 Natural Gas Reserves ………………………………………… 148
5.2.2 Natural Gas Reserve in Malaysia …………………………….. 151
5.2.3 Natural Gas Vehicle in Malaysia and Other Countries ……… 153
5.2.4 Number of Vehicles in Malaysia ……………………………. 156
5.2.5 Price of Oil and Natural Gas in Malaysia …………………… 160
ix
5.3 Methodology ………………………………………………………….. 160
5.3.1 Primary Data Collection …………………………………….... 161
5.3.2 Secondary Data Collection …………………………………… 164
5.3.3 Conducting Economic Analysis ……………………………… 166
5.4 Results and Discussions ………………………………………………. 167
5.4.1 Prediction for Number of Public Transport in Malaysia ……... 167
5.4.2 Public Transportation ……........................................................ 167
5.4.3 Companies and Managers of Pump Station ……...................... 174
5.4.4 Economic Analysis ……........................................................... 176
5.5 Conclusions and Suggestions …………………………………………. 179
5.5.1 Conclusions ……....................................................................... 179
5.5.2 Suggestions ……....................................................................... 181
CHAPTER 6: STUDY ON VEHICLE EFFICIENCY STANDARDS ......…. 188
6.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………... 189
6.1.1 Background ……....................................................................... 189
6.2 Survey data …………………………………………………………..... 191
6.3 Methodology ………………………………………………………….. 194
6.3.1 Fuel Consumption ……............................................................. 194
6.3.2 Engineering Economic Analysis ……....................................... 195
6.3.3 Potential Fuel Savings ……....................................................... 202
6.4 Results and Discussions ………………………………………………. 207
6.4.1 Introduction ……....................................................................... 207
6.4.2 Fuel Consumption ……............................................................. 207
6.4.3 Vehicle Growth ……................................................................. 208
6.4.4 Engineering/Economic Analysis ……....................................... 209
6.4.5 Potential Fuel Savings ……....................................................... 262
6.4.6 Economic Impact of the Standards ……................................... 271
6.5 Conclusions and Recommendations ……………………………….….. 273
6.5.1 Conclusion ……........................................................................ 273
6.5.2 Recommendations ……............................................................. 274
x
LIST OF FIGURES No. Description Page
1.1 Final energy use by sector in 2002 of 33290 ktoe ...……………... 3
1.2 Final consumption for petroleum product in 2002 of 20,635 ktoe .. 8
1.3 Percentage of transportation sector energy use based on fuel types
in 2002 of 13,441 ktoe ……………………………………………..
8
2.1 Austrian draft fuel economy label ………………………………… 36
2.2 Australian draft fuel consumption labels …………………………. 37
2.3 Canadian fuel economy label ………………………...................... 38
2.4 Danish draft fuel consumption label ……………………………... 39
2.5 Swedish fuel economy label ……………………………………… 40
2.6 Swiss draft fuel economy label …………………………………... 41
2.7 US fuel consumption label ……………………………………….. 42
2.8 UK fuel economy label …………………………………………… 43
2.9 Environmental information guide ………………………………... 44
3.1 Predicted energy demand based on percentage fuel mix for
transportation sector in Malaysia …………………………………
59
3.2 Pattern of CO2 and CO emissions production by transportation
sector in Malaysia …………………………………………………
61
3.3 Pattern of SO2 and NOx emissions production by transportation
sector in Malaysia …………………………………………………
61
4.1 Federal highway view towards Kuala Lumpur …………………… 73
4.2 Motorization rates in Malaysia from 1991 to 2002 ……………….. 74
4.3 Trends of private cars and public transport vehicles ……………… 78
4.4 Integrated rail services in Klang Valley …………………………... 82
4.5 LRT passengers per day …………………………………………... 83
4.6 Park ‘n ride at LRT station ………………………………………... 83
4.7 Proportion of passenger by modes ………………………………... 93
4.8 Scatter-plot of observed vs. modeled passenger car volumes
xi
(method 1) ………………………………………………………… 109
4.9 Scatter-plot of observed vs. modeled bus volumes (method 1) …... 110
4.10 Scatter-plot of observed vs. modeled commercial vehicle
(method 1) ........................................................................................
111
4.11 Scatter-plot of observed vs. modeled passenger car volumes
(method 2) …………………………………………………………
113
4.12 Scatter-plot of observed vs. modeled bus volumes (method 2) …... 114
4.13 Scatter-plot of observed vs. modeled commercial vehicle
(method 2) ........................................................................................
115
4.14 Scatter-plot of observed vs. modeled passenger car (method 3) 119
4.15 Scatter-plot of observed vs. modeled bus (method 3) ……………. 120
4.16 Scatter-plot of observed vs. modeled commercial vehicle
(method 3) ........................................................................................
121
4.17 Forecasted petrol consumption by road transport sector (liter/day) . 134
4.18 Forecasted diesel consumption by road transport sector (liter/day) . 134
4.19 Forecasted petrol consumption by road transport sector (ktoe/year) 136
4.20 Forecasted diesel consumption by road transport sector (ktoe/year) 137
4.21 Forecasted energy used in transportation sector (do nothing) …….. 139
4.22 Forecasted energy used in transportation sector (do something) …. 140
5.1 Percentage of vehicles by type ……………………………………. 158
5.2 Increasing number of vehicles in Malaysia (1987 – 2002) ……….. 159
5.3 Number of public transport (bus and taxi) from the year 1987 to
2002 ………………………………………………………………..
159
6.1 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for class I
(City) ………………………………………………………………
238
6.2 Payback period and life cycle cost for class I (city) ………………. 239
6.3 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for class I
(Highway) ………………………………………………………….
240
6.4 Payback period and life cycle cost for class I (highway) …………. 240
6.5 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for class II
(City) ………………………………………………………………
241
xii
6.6 Payback period and life cycle cost for class II (city) ……………... 242
6.7 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for class II
(Highway) ………………………………………………………….
243
6.8 Payback period and life cycle cost for class II (highway) ………… 243
6.9 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for class III
(City) ………………………………………………………………
244
6.10 Payback period and life cycle cost for class III (city) …………….. 245
6.11 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for class III
(Highway) ………………………………………………………….
246
6.12 Payback period and life cycle cost for class III (highway) ……….. 246
6.13 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for class IV
(City) ………………………………………………………………
247
6.14 Payback period and life cycle cost for class IV (city) …………….. 248
6.15 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for class IV
(Highway) ………………………………………………………….
249
6.16 Payback period and life cycle cost for class IV (highway) ……….. 249
6.17 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for 2 stroke
motorcycle (method 1) …………………………………………….
250
6.18 Payback period and life cycle cost for 2 stroke motorcycle
(method 1) …………………………………………………………
251
6.19 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for 2 stroke
motorcycle (method 2) …………………………………………….
252
6.20 Payback period and life cycle cost for 2 stroke motorcycle
(method 2) …………………………………………………………
252
6.21 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for 4 stroke
motorcycle …………………………………………………………
253
6.22 Payback period and life cycle cost for motorcycles 4 strokes …….. 254
6.23 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for medium
duty lorry (class 2 & 3) ……………………………………………
255
6.24 Payback period and life cycle cost for medium duty lorry
(class 2 & 3) ……………………………………………………….
255
xiii
6.25 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for medium
duty lorry (class 4 - 6) ……………………………………………..
257
6.26 Payback period and life cycle cost for medium duty lorry
(class 4 – 6) ………………………………………………………..
257
6.27 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for heavy duty
lorry (class 7 & 8) ………………………………………………….
259
6.28 Payback period and life cycle cost for heavy duty lorry
(class 7 & 8) ……………………………………………………….
259
6.29 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for busses …... 261
6.30 Payback period and life cycle cost for busses …………………….. 261
6.31 Projected fuel savings for cars …………………………………...... 263
6.32 Fuel consumption with and without standards (STD vs BAU) for
cars ………………………………………………………………...
264
6.33 Projected fuel savings for motorcycles …………………………… 265
6.34 Fuel consumption with and without standards (STD vs BAU) for
motorcycles ………………………………………………………..
266
6.35 Projected fuel savings for medium duty lorry (class 2 & 3) ……… 267
6.36 Fuel consumption with and without standards (STD vs BAU) for
medium duty lorry (class 2 & 3) …………………………………..
268
6.37 Projected fuel savings for busses …………………………………. 269
6.38 Fuel consumption with and without standards (STD vs BAU) for
busses ……………………………………………………………...
270
6.A1 Car growth in Malaysia …………………………………………… 283
6.A2 Motorcycle growth in Malaysia …………………………………... 283
6.A3 Lorry growth in Malaysia …………………………………………. 284
6.A4 Bus growth in Malaysia …………………………………………… 284
xiv
LIST OF TABLES No. Description Page
2.1 Examples of transport regulations in selected countries ………..... 30
2.2 Examples of transport voluntary agreement program in selected
countries …………..........................................................................
31
2.3 Emission limits for new cars ……………………………………... 32
2.4 Fuel economy labelling schemes in selected countries ……….... 34
3.1 Final energy use by transportation sector …………........................ 51
3.2 Transportation sector energy use based on fuel types …………….. 53
3.3 CO2, SO2, NOx and CO emission from fossil fuel per GJ energy
use by transportation sector ………………………………………. 54
3.4 Predicted energy demand and fuel mix of transportation sector in
Malaysia …………………………………………………………... 58
3.5 Potential emissions production by transportation sector in
Malaysia …………………………………………………………..
62
4.1 Mode classification scheme ………………………………………. 69
4.2 Number of motocars and motorization rates in Malaysia from
1991 to 2002 ………………………………………………………. 73
4.3 Number of motorcycles and motorization rates from 1991 to 2002 75
4.4 Number of buses, commercial and other vehicles from 1991 to
2002 ……………………………………………………………….. 76
4.5 Proportion of private cars and public transport vehicles from 1991
to 2002 …………………………………………………………….. 77
4.6 Summary of road mileage in Malaysia …………………………… 79
4.7 KTMB passengers and freight traffic from year 1992 to 2002 …… 80
4.8 Rail passengers from 1998 to 2002 ……………………………….. 84
4.9 Air traffic at public-use airports in Malaysia from year 1991 to
2002 ……………………………………………………………….. 85
4.10 Air passengers traffic at public-use airports in Malaysia from year
xv
1990 to 2002 ………………………………………………………. 86
4.11 International air passenger-km data of KLIA …………………….. 87
4.12 Domestic air passenger-km data of KLIA ………………………… 88
4.13 Air passenger-km data of Kota Kinabalu airport …………………. 89
4.14 Air passenger-km data of Kuching airport ………………………... 90
4.15 Air passenger-km data of Penang airport …………………………. 90
4.16 Air passenger-km data of Langkawi airport ………………………. 91
4.17 Total cargo throughput by ports from year 1991 to 2002 ………… 92
4.18 Number of new vehicle registration based on fuel type …………... 94
4.19 Malaysia population from 1991 to 2002 ………………………….. 95
4.20 Gross domestic products (GDP) from 1991 to 2002 ……………… 96
4.21 Employment in all sectors from 1991 to 2002 ……………………. 97
4.22 Trip production regression model ………………………………… 101
4.23 General equation fro the trip generation/attraction model (macro
level) ………………………………………………………………. 102
4.24 General equation fro the trip generation/attraction model (micro
level) ………………………………………………………………. 102
4.25 Average vehicle occupancy and load factor ………………………. 103
4.26 Average daily trip production rates by vehicle type in Malaysia …. 103
4.27 Number of vehicles forecasting models in Malaysia ……………... 104
4.28 Modal share in the Kuala Lumpur metropolitan area …………….. 105
4.29 Projected populations, 2005 – 2020 ………………………………. 106
4.30 Projected employment from year 2005 to 2020 …………………... 106
4.31 Projected gross domestic product (GDP) from year 2005 to 2020 .. 107
4.32 Observed vs. modeled passenger car volumes (method 1) ……….. 109
4.33 Observed vs. modeled bus volumes (method 1) ………………….. 110
4.34 Observed vs. modeled commercial veh. (method 1) ……………… 111
4.35 Observed vs. modeled passenger car volumes (method 2) ……….. 112
4.36 Observed vs. modeled bus volumes (method 2) ………………….. 113
4.37 Observed vs. modeled commercial vehicle (method 2) …………... 114
4.38 No. of cars, busses and commercial vehicle year 1991 to 2002 …... 116
xvi
4.39 No. of daily rail passenger year 1998 to 2002 …………………….. 116
4.40 No. of daily air passenger …………………………………………. 117
4.41 Method 3 regression model ……………………………………….. 118
4.42 Observed vs. modeled passenger car volumes (method 3) ……….. 119
4.43 Observed vs. modeled bus volumes (method 3) ………………….. 120
4.44 Observed vs. modeled commercial vehicle (method 3) …………... 121
4.45 Trips generation models …………………………………………... 123
4.46 Forecasted no. of passengers by type of modes …………………... 124
4.47 Forecasted modal split by type of modes …………………….…… 125
4.48 Future modal split scenarios ………………………………………. 126
4.49 Forecasted no. of vehicles by type of modes (do nothing scenario) 127
4.50 Forecasted no. of vehicles by type of modes (do something
scenario) …………………………………………………………... 127
4.51 Forecasted trip generation rates by type of modes ………………... 127
4.52 Total vehicle-km of the traffic (do nothing scenario) …………….. 128
4.53 Total vehicle-km of the traffic (do something scenario) ………….. 128
4.54 Summary statistics for passenger cars, 1990 – 2000 ……………… 129
4.55 Summary statistics for two-axle trucks, 1990 – 2000 …………….. 129
4.56 No. of new vehicle registration based on fuel types ……………… 130
4.57 Proportion of new vehicle registration based on fuel types ………. 130
4.58 Forecasted no. of vehicles (do nothing scenario) …………………. 132
4.59 Forecasted no. of vehicles (do something scenario) ……………… 132
4.60 Forecasted fuel consumption (do nothing scenario) ……………… 133
4.61 Forecasted fuel consumption (do something scenario) …………… 133
4.62 Energy use by various types of vehicles ………………………….. 135
4.63 Forecasted energy consumption of rail transport …………………. 137
4.64 Forecasted energy consumption of air transport ………………….. 138
4.65 Forecasted energy used in transportation sector (do nothing) …….. 139
4.66 Forecasted energy used in transportation sector (do something) …. 139
5.1 World natural gas reserves by country as January 1, 2003
(EIA2004) ………………………………………………………… 150
xvii
5.2 World natural gas vehicles by country ……………………………. 156
5.3 Number of vehicles in Malaysia (JPJ,2002) ……………………… 157
5.4 Price of fuels in Malaysia …………………………………………. 160
5.5 Prediction of total public transport (bus and taxi) from year 2005
to 2020 …………………………………………………………….. 169
5.6 Feedback obtained based on the survey carried out on NGV user
(taxi driver) ………………………………………………………... 170
5.7 Feedback obtained based on the survey carried out on non - NGV
user (taxi driver) …………………………………………………...
171
5.8 Feedback obtained based on the survey carried out on managers of
bus companies …………………………………………………….. 173
5.9 Estimated annual consumption between petrol and natural gas …... 177
5.10 Estimated annual consumption between diesel and natural gas …... 177
5.11 Estimated annual maintenance cost (RM) for different fuels …….. 178
5.12 Comparison of total operation cost for public transport with
different fuel consumption ………………………………………... 179
6.1 Total number of vehicles in Malaysia …………………………….. 191
6.2 Fuel consumption data (CAR) ……………………………………. 192
6.3 List of motorcycle model and price ……………………………….. 193
6.4 Fuel cost over the vehicle’s 10 years lifetime …………………….. 208
6.5 Types/classes of cars ……………………………………………… 210
6.6 Types/classes of motorcycles …………………………………….. 210
6.7 Types/classes of lorry …………………………………………….. 211
6.8 Potential increase in fuel economy and related price increase for
cars ………………………………………………………………... 212
6.9 Potential increase in fuel economy and cost for motorcycles …….. 213
6.10 Potential increase in fuel economy and related price increase for
medium duty lorry (class 2 & 3) ………………………………….. 214
6.11 Potential increase in fuel economy and related price increase for
medium duty lorry (class 4 - 6) …………………………………… 215
6.12 Potential increase in fuel economy and related price increase for
xviii
heavy duty lorry (class 7 & 8) ……………………………………. 216
6.13 FES and incremental cost of design options for class I car ……….. 218
6.14 FES and incremental cost of design options for class II ………….. 219
6.15 FES and incremental cost of design options for class III …………. 219
6.16 FES and incremental cost of design options for class IV …………. 220
6.17 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for class I
(CITY) …………………………………………………………….. 220
6.18 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for class I
(HIGHWAY) ……………………………………………………… 221
6.19 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for class II
(CITY) …………………………………………………………….. 221
6.20 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for class II
(HIGHWAY) ……………………………………………………… 222
6.21 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for class III
(CITY) …………………………………………………………….. 222
6.22 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for class III
(HIGHWAY) ……………………………………………………… 223
6.23 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for class IV
(CITY) …………………………………………………………….. 223
6.24 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for class IV
(HIGHWAY) ……………………………………………………… 224
6.25 FES and incremental cost of design option for 2 stroke motorcycle
(METHOD I) ……………………………………………………… 224
6.26 FES and incremental cost of design option for 2 stroke motorcycle
(METHOD II) ……………………………………………………. 225
6.27 FES and incremental cost of design option for 4 stroke motorcycle 225
6.28 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for 2 stroke
motorcycle (METHOD I) …………………………………………
226
6.29 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for 2 stroke
motorcycle (METHOD II) ………………………………………... 226
6.30 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for 4 stroke
xix
motorcycle ………………………………………………………… 227
6.31 FES and incremental cost of design option for medium duty lorry
(class 2 & 3) ………………………………………………………. 228
6.32 FES and incremental cost of design option for medium duty lorry
(class 4 - 6) ……………………………………………………….. 229
6.33 FES and incremental cost of design option for heavy duty lorry
(class 7 & 8) ………………………………………………………. 230
6.34 FES and incremental cost of design option for busses ………......... 231
6.35 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for medium
duty lorry (class 2 & 3) …………………………………………… 232
6.36 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for medium
duty lorry (class 4 - 6) ……………………………………………. 233
6.37 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for heavy
duty lorry (class 7 & 8) …………………………………………… 234
6.38 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for bus …... 235
6.39 The input value of baseline models for each class of car
(city driving) ……………………………………………………… 236
6.40 The input value of baseline models for each class of car
(highway driving) ………………………………………………… 236
6.41 The input value of baseline models for each class of motorcycles .. 237
6.42 The input value of baseline models for each class of lorries and
busses ……………………………………………………………... 237
6.43 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for class I car
(CITY) …………………………………………………………….. 238
6.44 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for class I car
(HIGHWAY) ……………………………………………………… 239
6.45 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for class II car
(CITY) …………………………………………………………….. 241
6.46 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for class II car
(HIGHWAY) ……………………………………………………… 242
6.47 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for class III car
xx
(CITY) …………………………………………………………….. 244
6.48 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for class III car
(HIGHWAY) ……………………………………………………… 245
6.49 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for class IV car
(CITY) …………………………………………………………….. 247
6.50 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for class IV car
(HIGHWAY) ……………………………………………………… 248
6.51 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for 2 stroke
motorcycle (method 1) ……………………………………………. 250
6.52 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for 2 stroke
motorcycle (method 2) ……………………………………………. 251
6.53 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for 4 stroke
motorcycle ………………………………………………………… 253
6.54 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for medium duty
lorry (class 2 & 3) ………………………………………………… 254
6.55 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for medium duty
lorry (class 4 - 6) ………………………………………………… 256
6.56 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for heavy duty
lorry (class 7 & 8) ………………………………………………… 258
6.57 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for busses ……….. 260
6.58 Input data for potential fuel saving of cars ………………………... 262
6.59 The calculation of fuel savings for cars …………………………... 263
6.60 Input data for potential fuel saving of motorcycles ……………….. 264
6.61 The calculation of fuel savings for motorcycles ………………….. 265
6.62 Input data for potential fuel saving of medium duty lorry
(class 2 & 3) …………………………………………………….. 266
6.63 The calculation of fuel savings for medium duty lorry
(class 2 & 3) ………………………………………………………. 267
6.64 Input data for potential fuel saving of busses ……………………... 268
6.65 The calculation of fuel savings for busses ………………………... 269
6.66 The calculation result from the cost-benefit analysis for cars …….. 271
xxi
6.67 The calculation result from the cost-benefit analysis for
motorcycle ………………………………………………………… 272
6.68 The calculation result from the cost-benefit analysis for medium
duty lorry ………………………………………………………….. 272
6.69 The calculation result from the cost-benefit analysis for busses ….. 273
xxii
NOMENCLATURES
Symbols Description Unit viAEI Annual efficiency improvement
AFC Annual fuel cost (RM)
viANS Annualized net savings in year i of vehicle (RM)
viAS Applicable stock in year i of vehicle
viAS 1− Applicable stock in year i-1 of vehicle
vsBFC Baseline fuel consumption in the year of standards
enacted for vehicle
(RM)
viBS Bill savings in year i of vehicle (RM)
C Annual maintenance cost (RM)
C,k Constant value
Cd Drag coefficient
Cg Natural gas consumption (Liter/km)
Co The conventional fuel consumption before conversion (Liter/km)
CRF The capital recovery factor
D Annual distance travel (km)
d Discount rate (%) niES Energy use in year i of fuel type n (ktoe)
F Fuel consumption (Liter/100km)
npFE Emission per unit energy of fuel type n (kg/GJ)
viFS Fuel savings in year i of vehicle (liter)
vIC Incremental cost for the more efficient vehicle (RM) vsIIC Initial incremental cost for more efficient vehicle (RM)
rL
Life span of vehicles
(year)
xxiii
LCC Life Cycle Cost (RM)
Mg Maintenance cost of NGV (RM/year)
Mo Maintenance cost before conversion (RM/year)
MPG0 The base year fleet average fuel economy (1/km)
MPGTOT The potential new fleet average fuel economy (1/km)
N Life time of the appliance (year) viNa Number of vehicles in year i
viNa 1− Number of vehicles in year i-1
viNS Net savings in year i for vehicle (RM)
OC Annual operating expenses (RM)
P Fuel price (RM)
Po Price of the conventional fuel (diesel or petrol) (RM/liter)
Pg Price of natural gas (RM/liter)
PAY Payback period (year)
PC Investment cost (RM)
( )viANSPV Present value of annualized net saving in year i (RM)
PWF Present worth factor
R Fuel price (RM)
r Discount rate (%)
S saving (RM/year) vsSFC Standard fuel consumption of vehicle (liter/yr)
viSh Shipments in year i of vehicle
viSSF Shipment survival factor in year i of vehicle
vsTEI Total efficiency improvement of vehicle (%)
iTM Total emission in year i (kg, Ton)
Ui Utilization increase
xxiv
viUFS Initial unit energy savings in year i of vehicle (Liter/year)
vsUFS Initial unit fuel saving (Liter/year)
X Year predicted – year start
Y Predicted value
y Motor vehicles predicted data my The average data
viYse Year of standards enacted of vehicle (year)
viYsh Year i of shipment of vehicle (year)
vTYtc Year target calculation for vehicle (year)
Abbreviations
ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations
ATF Aviation Turbine Fuel
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CF Conversion factor
CNG Compressed Natural Gas
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CSE Centre for Science and Environment
DAF Dutch vehicle Maker Association
EDI Electronic Data Interchange
Gg Gigagram
GHG Green House Gas
GJ Giga Joule
HC Hydrocarbon
IEA International Energy Agency
ktoe Kilo ton oil equivalent
LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas
xxv
LRT Light Rail Transit
I & M Inspection and Maintenance
Mbd Million Barrel per Day
MPG Mile per Gallon
Mt Metric ton
NG Natural gas
NGV Natural Gas Vehicle
OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
PJ Petajoule
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
SULEV Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle
SUV Sport Utility Vehicle
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Transportation is one of the major human activities around the world. Unfortunately,
this activity is burning the limited nonrenewable energy that leads to some negative
impact to our living environment. Therefore, there is a necessity to adopt suitable
energy policy for transportation sector as one of the options to balance the demand
and supply for energy at the government, society and individual levels. This effort
would lead to the preservation of our limited nonrenewable energy resources and our
living environment. In addition, it is the responsibility and contribution of the present
people towards the future generations. Energy planning and policy has become very
important in the public agenda of most developed as well as some developing
countries today. The importance of energy planning and policy is linked to industrial
competitiveness, energy security and environmental advantage. Transportation in
Malaysia is still using traditional fossil fuel type such as gasoline, diesel and
electricity. These activities create millions of tons of greenhouse gases each year.
Pattern of emissions production by transportation sector in Malaysia is has not
analysed accurately yet. Suitable energy planning and policy in transportation sector
can reduce the demand for fossil fuel and hence reduce the production of greenhouse
gases and other emissions. Based on fossil fuel consumption, transportation sector
accounts for almost 49 percent of the national greenhouse gas emissions (MOSTE,
2000). Therefore, suitable policies can play an important role in helping Malaysia to
meet overall greenhouse gas and emissions reduction target and at the same time
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 2
reducing the energy consumption, economic benefit as well as improving the
competitiveness of our product in the international arena.
Energy conservation in the transport sectors helps to reduce the energy
consumption. In most countries, Transportation energy consumption ranges from
20% to 60% of the total electricity consumption. On average, the Transportation
sector in Malaysia uses about 40% of the total energy demand (National Energy
Balance, 2003). The final energy use by sector in Malaysia is presented in Figure 1.1.
This energy is used by a variety of type transport such as motor car, motorcycle, bus,
goods vehicle, train, LRT, airplane, marine and etc to provide transportation services
and other end-uses for society. Ideally, fuel consumption by various vehicles such as
motor car, motorcycle, bus and freight vehicle must be set to a certain level in order
to ensure that they use energy efficiently. For the benefit of the consumers, the
comparable energy consumption of the vehicle must be characterized. Based on type
of fuel used, the petrol (gasoline) and diesel has been the largest of energy share in
transportation sector, which are about 55% and 31% of total energy consumption in
transport sector (National Energy Balance, 2003). In order to reduce energy
consumption in this country, consumer should be educated to select the most
efficient vehicle from the market or to promote alternative fuel. This objective can be
achieved by introducing fuel economy program and implementing suitable policy
such as shifting to public transport and switching to NGV.
Using energy efficiently and caring about the environment are two important
conducive factors under the current global market conditions. Realizing that, energy
efficiency policy is becoming a strategic policy for many nations today. This is also
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 3
the main reason for the Malaysian government to focus extensively and allocate
adequate resources in the 9th Malaysia Plan to encourage the efficient use of energy
resources and to diversify fuel use in transportation sector. Parallel with the interest
shown by the government, this study is investigate energy use in the transportation
sector of Malaysia together with proposing policy recommendations with a view to
reduce energy intensity in the transportation sector.
Transport40%
Industrial 39%
Resid & Comm13%Non Energy
8%Agriculture
0%
Figure 1.1. Final energy use by sector in 2002 of 33290 ktoe (National Energy
Balance 2003)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 4
1.1 Background
For more than two decades, in average Malaysia’s economy grew more than
6% per annum. The Gross Domestic Product increased from RM 79,330 million in
1990 to RM 244,555 million in 2004. At the same time, the per capita income has
increased from RM 6,230 to RM 15,376 (Economic Planning Unit, 2004). Economic
growth is the main driving factor for increased energy demand in transportation
sector in Malaysia. Transportation is a fundamental prerequisite for a society’s
development and improvement of people’s life. As the Malaysian economy grew
rapidly in recent years, the importance of transportation sector has been realized for
both continuous economic growth and improvement of standard of living. The
increasing number of passenger and vehicle time to time increasing trip lengths and
traffic densities, thereby increasing the energy used for propulsion of vehicles.
Moreover, with the increase of income levels as well as unconstrained expansion of
the cities, the private vehicle population has grown year by year in Malaysia.
However, this phenomenon affects to increase of energy consumption especially
from fossil fuels and consequently increase air pollution due to their combustion. In
addition, traffic speeds also lead to increased energy consumption. Other parameters
such as vehicle population, occupancy level, vehicle utilization pattern and fuel
efficiency of different vehicles as well as emissions factor should be taken into the
account in order to optimize energy use in this particular sector.
Since the transportation systems is dependent on petroleum oil, which is
limited in terms of availability, it is important for energy planners to plan for greater
efficiency of energy use in transport sector in this country which would reduce rapid
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 5
use of petroleum oils and also reduce growing air pollution especially on CO2
emission which is two-third comes from transport fuels combustion. Recently, India
as a low per capita income country but have greater CO2 emissions based
transportation sector is already begin to manage the energy use for transport sector
by conducting several studies and policies such as implementing fuels energy
efficiency policy as well as improved the fuels quality standard. Furthermore, some
studies on European and Japanese fuel economy initiatives: what they are, their
prospects for success, their usefulness is given by Plotkin (2002). In European
Countries which are mostly oils importer, the infrastructure improvement was done
by traffic controlled in the cities to avoid traffic jam as well as by implementing strict
rule on the vehicle speed at the highway was successfully reduce total fuel
consumption and maintain air quality (Danielis, 1995); (Liaskas, 2000). Besides that,
by implementing several efficiency policies such as fuel economy program as well as
introducing alternative fuel cars with lower fuel consumption can lower emissions.
Several developed countries such as Japan, England, USA and Sweden have also
implemented the policy to reduce energy intensity by population such as higher
taxation for petroleum fuels as well as for every gram of CO2 emits more than the
level of standard.
Malaysia with the rapid petroleum based fuel growth also tries to introduce
Natural gas to be primary fuel. However, more than 80% of vehicles are still running
with petrol fuels. It is a challenge for Malaysia government to implement energy
security or reducing energy intensity especially in terms of petroleum fuels used in
transport sector. Therefore, comprehensive study must initiate from this date to
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 6
overtake this problem while petroleum crisis and environmental impact being a great
issues recently. This study is necessary to develop energy used database for transport
sector and will be used for total energy used database in this country. The database
will be dedicated to Malaysia policy makers for further action in order to manage
energy consumption and economic growth simultaneously based on energy intensity.
As stated earlier, motor vehicle is one of the major energy consuming in the
transportation sector. According to National Energy Balance (2003), motor vehicle
accounts more than 80% of overall consumption of petroleum product share.
Therefore, it perhaps will save a significant amount of energy in transportation sector
if suitable efficiency policy for motor vehicle implemented in this country.
Since land transport is one of the major energy consumers in the transportation
sector in Malaysia, implementing suitable energy efficiency policy for this sector
may contribute a significant impact on energy consumption in the transportation
sectors and offer great benefits for the consumers, government as well as to the
environment. In agreement to this opinion DeCicco and Mark (1998) states that the
transition toward a more sustainable transportation system can emanate from a suite
of mutually reinforcing policies. Strong efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions
standards would provide the foundation of the technology innovation strategy that
includes pricing reforms, incentive, and voluntary programs. Combined with
enabling R&D, the policies can facilitate market transformation toward advance
technology highway vehicles, efficient air and intercity travel, and renewable fuels.
Improvement in regional planning such as in Klang Valley, Penang and Johor Bahru
and intermodal capacity would help by reducing travel needs and shifting travel to
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 7
more efficient modes. However, Dowlatabadi et al. (1996) claims that savings
gasoline (in transportation sector) is attractive, but is not only one of many goals
society seeks with respect to automobiles; the other include increased safety, lower
emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, and consumers attributes such as
low price, attractiveness, good ride, size and performance. These goals are inherently
contradictory (Lave, 1981), seeking to achieve one goal generally has unintended
consequences in terms of other goals, e.g. lowering emissions leads to increased cost.
Therefore, as a starting point, it is rather imperative to concentrate on land transport
in order to reduce the energy consumption in this sector in order to reduce the
complexity of the study. Final consumption for petroleum product in 2002 is shown
in Figure 1.2 and percentage of transportation sector energy use based on fuel types
is presented in Figure 1.3.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 8
Fuel Oil7.7%
LPG7.5%Kerosene
0.4%
ATF & AV Gas8.6%
Non Energy3.1%
Motor Petrol33.7%
Diesel39.0%
Figure 1.2 Final consumption for petroleum product in 2002 of 20,635 ktoe (National
Energy Balance 2003)
Diesel34.8%
Petrol51.6%
Electricity0.0%
Fuel oil0.0%ATF & AV Gas
13.3%
NG0.2%
Figure 1.3 Percentage of transportation sector energy use based on fuel types in 2002
of 13,441 ktoe (National Energy Balance 2003)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 9
Energy policies and energy technology is a pair and it works simultaneously
and mutually. The technologies continually remove the less efficient product from
the market and energy policies are creating transformations in the market. As the
consumers, become energy conscious, manufacturers use efficiency as a marketing
tool to win their competition in the market. To make this program a success, there
should be a good cooperation between the public and private sector. With an
appropriate policy, the manufacturers and companies will have time to retool and
invest in designing towards more efficient energy use. As a result, the transport
manufacturer will develop more efficient product, which will benefit them, through
increasing demand and competitiveness of the product in the international market.
By the combination of suitable policies and technologies, Malaysia will be able to
promote more efficient energy used product and will begin an important market
transformation for the product in the country. It is expected that energy efficiency
initiatives for transportation sector can indeed be tapped and expanded in Malaysia to
decelerate the growth of energy consumption in the transportation sector, monetary
savings as well as reducing the environmental impact.
1.2 Objectives of the study
The main objective of research is to make policy recommendations with
views to reduce the energy use and environmental emissions in the transportation
sector in Malaysia. In order to achieve this main aim several other objectives have
been identified, and these are:
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 10
To review energy consumption of the transportation sector in Peninsular
Malaysia (particularly in the Klang Valley), Sabah and Sarawak
To identify key energy-consuming sub-sectors within the transportation sector
To examine international experiences related to the reduction of energy use in
transport sector
To analyze historical trend and project future trend of energy demand and
environmental emissions from the transportation sector.
To examine the potential of modal shift to public transport
To examine the feasibility and potential of switching to NGV by commercial
vehicles
To study vehicle efficiency standards
1.3 Contributions of the study
To proposed recommendations with a view to reduce energy intensity in the
transportation sector in this country. The output will be a report entitled “Energy Use
in the Transportation Sector of Malaysia”. It will cover all the points mentioned in
the objectives.
1.4. Limitation of the study
It is noted that an important qualification of the results in this study due to
uncertainty in forecasting. Undoubtedly, pursuing the path outlined here would yield
large reductions in energy used and emissions compare to what will ensue in the
absence of policy change. Leaving aside upheaval in global oil supply or other
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 11
economic disruptions, unforeseen technology changes or other developments could
push demand significantly higher or lower than the baseline assumed in the study.
However, it is believed that the baseline and the data use in this study is more likely
to understate the growth in transportation energy demand than to overstate it.
Another limitation is, in this study is only involve about 452 respondents from
NGVs taxi driver who not yet used NG as fuel. It also interviewed only several
owner/manager of taxis and buses companies, president or chairman of association of
public transportation. We also interviewed limited number of manager/owner pump
station, both that have not been sell NGV and the one who did. However the study
did not discussed about social impact of the policies.
1.5 Organization of the report
The report is the study on energy use in transportation sector of Malaysia. The
study includes several policy recommendations that is suitable to be implemented in
this country. The report is divided into eight chapters and the organization of the
report is as follows:
Chapter 1 is an introduction, which introduces the background, objectives,
contributions and limitation of the study together with organization of the report.
Chapter 2 presents international experiences on reduction of energy use in
transport sector.
Chapter 3 is an analysis on historical and future trend of energy demand and
environmental emissions from the transportation sector.
.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 12
Chapter 4 deals with the transportation system development and energy
consumption in Malaysia.
Chapter 5 examines the feasibility and potential of fuel switching to NGV by
commercial vehicles in Malaysia.
Chapter 6 presents a study on fuel economy standard for motor vehicle in
Malaysia.
References
Danielis, R. (1995). Energy use for transport in Italy : Past trends. Energy Policy 23
(9), 799–807.
DeCicco, J., Mark, J. (1998). Meeting the energy and climate challenge for
transportation in the United States. Energy Policy 26 (5), 395-412.
Dowlatabadi, H., Lave, L.B., Russell, A.G. (1996). A free lunch at higher CAFE? A
review of economic, environmental and social benefits. Energy Policy 24 (3), 253-
264.
Economic Planning Unit, (2004). The Malaysian Economic in Figures, Economic
Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department, Putrajaya, Malaysia.
Liaskas, K., Mavrotas G., Mandaraka, M., Diakoulaki, D. (2000). Decomposition of
industrial CO2 emissions:The case of European Union. Energy Economics 22 (4),
383–394.
MOSTE, J. (2000). Malaysia initial National Communication. Ministry of Science
and Technology and Environment, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 13
National Energy Balance 2002, (2003). Ministry of Energy, Communications and
Multimedia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Plotkin, S. E. (2001). European and Japanese fuel economy initiatives: what they are,
their prospects for success, their usefulness as a guide for US action. Energy Policy
29 (13), 1073–1084.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 14
CHAPTER 2
INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCES ON REDUCTION
OF ENERGY USE IN TRANSPORT SECTOR
SUMMARY
Transportation is one of the key factors for the economy and society. Therefore
transport policymakers have to create the policies frameworks that are required for
transport sector to sustain energy with three dimensional objective namely ecology,
economy and social acceptability. This chapter discusses international experiences
on reduction of energy use in transportation sector. There are many methods and
policies to reduce energy consumption in transport sector, however only several of
them that are suitable to be used in Malaysia will be elaborated in this chapter. Those
include fuel economy standard for motor vehicle, fuel economy labels, fuel
switching, fuel taxation, emission abatement, further improvements to vehicles
which are have been implemented in other develop as well as developing countries.
The study found that many policies can be implemented directly in Malaysia while
other must be modified to make it suitable in this country. For example fuel economy
label guide program can be directly implemented in this country, however for fuel
economy standard must me modified to make it suitable because Malaysia has it
local vehicle manufacturers that have to be protected.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 15
2.1. Introduction
There are many methods and policies to reduce energy consumption in the
transportation sector. To provide an impression of the coverage, a number of these
measures are: relocation of enterprises to reduce transport requirements; increase in
density in zoning; elimination or decrease of fiscal deductibility of travel expenses;
introduction of a four day work week; improvement of car and truck engines;
restriction of energy-consuming options in cars; research and development of
alternative vehicle engines; production of smaller cars; reduction of taxation for car
pooling; creation of parking facilities and reservation of lanes for car pools;
subsidization of public transport; improvement of quality of service of public
transport; introduction of toll roads; taxes on peak hour travel; speed limit; limit on
highway construction; parking levies; parking limitation; introduction of gasoline
coupons; limiting number of gasoline stations; and measures to restrict the energy
consumption in the transport sector. However just several of them that is suitable to
be implemented in Malaysia will be discussed in this study.
2.2. Program review
In America it has been reported that Americans spend more than $500 million
per day to fuel their cars, SUVs, and other light trucks. Nationally, these vehicles
account for 45 percent of U.S. oil consumption which is 8.8 million barrels a day
(mbd). Fuel economy standards have improved the efficiency of America’s cars and
trucks and resulted in dramatic oil savings. Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) standards passed by Congress in 1975 led to a 70 percent increase in
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 16
America’s gas mileage over the subsequent decade. The National Academy of
Science has estimated this saves about 2.8 mbd. However, CAFE standards have
remained static for almost two decades due to federal gridlock. The current standard
of 27.5 miles per gallon (mpg) for automobiles first applied in 1985, and the 20.7
mpg standard for light trucks is only 0.2 mpg above the 1987 standard (but is now set
to rise to 22.2 mpg by 2007). Besides that, in the city of Los Angeles, the state
government are allowing owners of environment friendly electric and “super ultra
low emission vehicle” (SULEV) to park in metered space for free. The concept is to
promote the use of “green” transportation alternative.
Meanwhile, it has been reported in Canada that between 1990 and 2002, the
amount of energy used by the transportation sector increased by 23 percent, from
1877.9 PJ to 2306.0 PJ. As a result, energy-related GHGs rose by 22 percent, or 29.9
Mt. Passenger transportation was the transportation sub-sector that consumed the
most energy in 2002 with 57 percent, while freight transportation accounted for 39
percent and off-road vehicles accounted for 4 percent. Improvements in the overall
energy efficiency of passenger transportation saved 49.8 PJ of energy and 3.5 Mt of
related GHGs. Despite the increasing popularity of larger and heavier light-duty
vehicles with greater horsepower, the light-duty vehicle (cars, light trucks and
motorcycles) segment of passenger transportation helped save 24.8 PJ, while air
transportation avoided 21.2 PJ. Besides that, improvements in the energy efficiency
of freight transportation led to savings of 127.8 PJ of energy and 9.3 Mt of GHGs.
Most of the improvements in freight energy efficiency occurred in heavy trucks and
rail.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 17
Dhakal (2003) on the other hand analyzed the energy and environmental
implications of transportation policies in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal up to the year
2020. From this study, it could be summarized that increasing the average speed of
vehicles on the street to 40 km/h would reduce total energy demands by 27% and
reduce CO2 emissions by 25%. Besides that, the policy to increase the share of public
transportation is expected to bring 27% of savings in total energy demands and 20%
of CO2 reduction in the year 2015. The other policy that is reported to bring
substantial implication is the promotion of electric vehicle. It is reported that this
move would reduce the total energy demand and CO2 emission by 20% in the year
2015.
Meanwhile, in Curitiba, Brazil local authorities have developed an integrated
plan for transport, urban planning, infrastructure, business and local community
development. By planning and zoning residential and industrial development along
so-called arteries in the proximity of public transport, transportation needs have been
managed sustainably. The arteries are supplemented with a system of ring roads.
Separate bus lines operate in close connection with express buses which enter the
residential areas. The move made Curitiba’s gasoline use per capita lower than that
of comparable Brazilian cities. It also led to annual fuel savings of approximately 27
million liters.
In Indonesia on the other hand, “Blue Sky Programme” was launched in 1992,
for mobile sources, the major activities of the program are, among others, to
encourage the use of CNG and LPG as an alternative cleaner fuel for motor vehicle;
to phase-out leaded gasoline and introduce low-sulfur diesel fuel (Winyantoro,
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 18
2001). Additionally inspection and maintenance (I&M) program for vehicles have
been introduced as a first step towards improving ambient temperature in the
Metropolitan Jakarta. I & M program in gasoline fueled cars could result to a five
percent savings in fuel consumption and could reduce the emissions of HC (35%)
and CO (5%). In diesel-fueled car, I & M program could reduce emission of
particulate matter by 45%. At present, I & M program are voluntary but will become
compulsory for all vehicle registered in Metropolitan Jakarta in the near future.
In Western Australia, the state government has devised a plan to move freight
transportation more efficiently between the port and industrial areas. This will see the
use of rail into Fremantle Port increase from three per cent to 30 per cent and reduce
the number of trucks on their roads. The Planning and Infrastructure portfolio has
also reduced the number of six-cylinder vehicles by 15 per cent since 2003 and has
also increased the number of Toyota Prius hybrids in the fleet to 16. Meanwhile,
from February 2001 to June 2004, the State Government has spent more than
$50million on cycling infrastructure, with another $8million earmarked this year. As
a result, the number of people using the Perth Bicycle Network has doubled during
the last five years. Additionally the Government has embarked on the State's biggest-
ever public transport project-the $1.5billion New MetroRail Project. New MetroRail
will carry almost 35,000 people each weekday and take 25,000 cars off their
freeways. It is estimated that work-related patronage on the Southern Suburbs
Railway alone will save almost 15million litres of fuel each year (Mactiernan, 2004).
Meanwhile vehicle emissions in Myanmar are expected to contribute
significantly to air pollution problems which are increasing at a rate of 87.13 Gg CO2
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 19
equivalent per year. In Myanmar, motor vehicle inspection is pursued by the Road
Transport Administration Department of the Ministry of Rail Transportation.
Although Myanmar does not yet have any vehicle emission standards, the
department has adopted standard requirements and testing procedure for motor
vehicle inspection. The requirements include among others, brake minimum
efficiency, exhaust emission (smoke), noise, and depth of tyre groove, which are
based from the existing ASEAN standards (Myint, 2001).
In Korea, motor vehicle registration nationwide has increased 18.1 times, from
527,729 in 1980 to 9,553,062 in 1996. The passenger car ownership increased 27.7
times since 1980, from 249,102 to 6,893,633 in 1996. This figure reflects an
increase of an average 23.1% per year. The road system, which handles more than
90% of the country's transportation, has been intimately connected to Korea's rapid
economic growth and land development since 1960s when it began to expand
dramatically. In preparation for the 21st century, the government is eagerly pursuing
a New Road Policy, with the goal of building a safe, convenient and fast road
system. To achieve this goal, the government plans to reduce the travel time to just
half a day between any points in the country in the early 2000s. The government
also plans to reduce the access time to any road network system from anywhere in
the country to less than thirty minutes. There will be seven north-south trunk routes
and nine east-west trunk routes, totalling 6,160 km. Meanwhile, to meet the rapidly
increasing container traffic, two new terminals, Pusan's fourth phase and
Kwangyang's first phase, which house four berths each are opened in 1998. It is
predicted that Korea's container handling capacity will still lag behind the maritime
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 20
traffic demand of the 21st century. The Korean government has also decided to
develop a new container terminal located about 25 km west of the existing port. This
project will provide 24 modern berth terminals. The construction for the first phase
began in late 1997, and the first 10 berth terminals will commence operations before
2005. Additionally in order to facilitate the flow of cargoes and information in all
areas of trade, the Ministry of Maritime Affairs & Fishery has been operating the
EDI (Electronic Data Interchange) system on a commercial basis since July 1995.
The EDI network (PORT-MIS) provides EDI services by connecting government
agencies, shipping companies, stevedoring companies, trucking companies,
forwarders, and terminals.
In Malaysia, the government embarked on the construction of a integrated
public transport system, emphasizing the environment-friendly features. The
government has implemented two phases of Light Rail Transit (LRT) systems and
the fuel efficient electrified double track commuter service. The improved transport
services is viewed that it will change the pattern of the existing transportation usage,
reducing number of private vehicles on the road thus reducing fuel consumption
which lead to reduction of emission. Apart from that, the Ministry of Finance has
allocated tax exemption on kits and necessary components for converting vehicle to
utilize natural gas. Furthermore, the road tax of vehicles using only natural gas is
discounted by 50% of the prevailing rate while 25% was given to bi-fuel vehicles.
Moreover, special capital allowance was also given to companies operating mono-
gas buses and for NGV petrol station entrepreneur (Norhayati & Yuzlina, 2001).
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 21
2.3 Transportation policy in selected countries
Mobility is one of the key factors for the economy and society. Transport
policymakers have to create the statutory and policy frameworks that are required if
transport needs are to be met taking account of sustainability in its three dimensions
(ecology, economy and social acceptability). In the transport sector, land transport,
especially road transport, can make a significant contribution towards reducing
vehicle emissions if improved fuels and engines are introduced. This scope for
improvement is being exploited. However, if the CO2 emission reduction targets
agreed on in Kyoto protocol are to be met, even more has to be done for the transport
sector. The Government is thus supporting the search for a fuel of the future based on
renewable energy and having extremely low emissions. In conjunction with further
improvements to fuels and vehicles on the basis of fossil resources, the wide-scale
use of renewable energy in transport and in the production of fuel will make it
possible to take a big step towards more sustainable transport. Moreover, the need of
such policy which will be implemented on fossil fuels usage is becomes much
necessary. Among the countries which have been implemented the policy of fuels
usage on transport sector are some European countries, USA, Australia, Japan, etc.
2.3.1. Thailand
According to Thailand Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, Thailand will more
concern on energy policy on fossil fuel started at this year. As the subsidies on petrol
prices come to an end this year, Thailand government is also trying to set a suitable
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 22
policy for energy and fuel conservation, to keep the economy and the country's
coffers in good shape. Paradoxically, the government is letting petrol prices float and
will continue subsidizing diesel at least through to the end of the cool season. That is
the way Thailand can minimize the impact of higher fuel prices in the short term
(Diesel News, 2003)
2.3.2. Singapore
In Singapore the rapid economic development in the last three decades has led
to increased demand for land transportation which is presently heavily dependent on
oil. As a small city-state with no indigenous supply of conventional energy
resources, Singapore needs to constantly promote energy conservation and to explore
the use of alternative fuels. At the same time, the Singaporean government is also
concerned with the environmental problems associated with rapid industrialization.
Various measures and recommendations on promoting clean technology, protection
of the local and global environment, reduction of CO2 and SO2 emissions, etc., were
announced and documented in the Singapore Green Plan (Singapore Ministry of
Environment, 1993). Other policy which has been used in Singapore is to provide
financial incentives to promote the use alternative fuels and electric vehicles. This is
based on a reduction of imported vehicle tax and vehicle road tax (Poh and Ang,
1999).
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 23
2.3.3. European Countries
High oil prices and rising fuel taxes have lead an explosion of fury across the
European continent, resulting in protests and blockades of depots and refineries.
Following the recent oil price rise, the Europeans have finally realized what a
massive burden fuel taxes place on their budgets. In response to the people's outcry
for relief, most European leaders have arrogantly dismissed requests for reduced fuel
taxes, claiming that such an action would be "pandering." Indeed many have argued
that the continuation of massive fuel taxes is a tough but "principled" and virtuous
policy.
Nevertheless, the fact is fuel taxes in the U.K. and Europe is punitively high.
According to a Sept. 11th editorial in Investor's Business Daily, entitled "The French
are Onto Something", taxes comprise $2.82 of the $4.07 gallon in France, $2.56 of
the $3.91 gallon in Germany, and $2.53 of the $3.97 gallon of fuel in Italy. In the
U.S., fuel taxes comprise about 39 cents of the average $1.64 gallon of gas.
However, an acquaintance in England releases a shocking note: "Part of the tax is
pegged to price, so an increase in fuel prices raises the tax. Prices are now some 90
pence per liter, over $6.00 per gallon, with $5.00 of that tax. The average Britain
pays over $100 a week to run his car, and some $80 of it goes to the government."
(Capitalism Magazine, 2000). Of course, Blair and other European leaders have
numerous explanations for why high fuel taxes are so necessary and desirable. One
hired gun, a professor of economics named Andrew Oswald, in an editorial "The
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 24
Economic Case for High Fuel Taxes: published Sept. 12, 2000 by The Financial
Times listed no less than eight reasons, which have been summarized as follows:
(i) If government did not take consumers' money, OPEC would.
(ii) People need to be able to plan for high fuel taxes with certainty - lower taxes
might surprise them.
(iii) It is unfair to cut taxes now, because humans are too selfish to volunteer to pay
higher fuel taxes if the oil price fell.
(iv) Fuel is a good thing to tax because people will keep buying it anyway.
(v) A tax on fuel is a well-deserved punishment for oil's pollution.
(vi) A fuel tax is the next best thing to road-use taxation.
(vii) The fuel tax punishes the rich with cars while helping the poor without cars.
(viii) Our grandchildren might not have enough oil if we don't tax it highly.
2.3.4. Japan
Japan is considering stricter fuel efficiency standards for cars as part of
sweeping revisions of environmental policy to curb pollution and climate change.
Transport Ministry official Yuji Matsuzaki said the ministry's proposal would force
automakers to produce passenger cars and cargo trucks that spew less carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases, which are believed to cause global warming. Under the
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 25
ministry's current guidelines, automakers must make passenger cars 10 percent more
fuel efficient and less polluting by 2010, compared to 2000. Trucks are exempt from
such standards.
2.3.5. Australia
Due to its geographical nature Australia is a highly transport dependent
society. Despite significant efforts to promote the benefits of public transport, its use
has declined while the affordability of motor cars has continued to improve and car
ownership and use are rising. Consumers want affordable and safe cars, cheap fuels,
ample parking, congestion free roads and environmentally friendly vehicles as long
as they don’t have to pay for it. As a community they are hyper sensitive about
petrol prices and as we have seen a few cents a litre rise at the petrol pump can cause
politicians to become weak at the knees. Conversely Governments Federally to the
tune of $12.5billion/year through excise and States receipts of $2.7billionn/year are
keenly aware of the revenue generated from petroleum products (Environment News
Service, 2000).
According to Dr. Sharman Stone, Parliamentary Secretary to Environment
Minister Robert Hill "In European countries there are many smaller cars on the
roads, which have highly efficient motors driven by the cleaner, better quality fuel.
These smaller cars go further on a liter of fuel and they have less effect on the air
quality."
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 26
The transport sector is the largest single contributor to Australia's greenhouse
gas emissions, accounting for almost 16 percent of the 72.6 million tonnes of carbon
dioxide pumped into the environment every year. The new rules will mean higher
octane, lower sulphur content fuel. This should help reduce pollution as well as cut
greenhouse gas emissions. Australia is struggling to meet international commitments
to limit emissions of carbon dioxide and other climate warming gases to eight
percent of 1990 levels. Such emissions have actually grown by 16 percent. The Fuel
Quality Standards Bill forms part of the Australian government's A$1 billion
(US$540,000) greenhouse plan known as Measures for a Better Environment
package. The new law in Australia will introduce tougher penalties to protect
consumers and environment (Australian Greenhouse Office, 2004).
2.3.6. India
According to a Times of India report, India's government has been announced
its final conclusions regarding the "auto-fuel policy report" delivered by an expert
committee headed by India's top science advisor. This report recommended fuel
neutrality (with ultra-low sulfur diesel by 2010) rather than the CNG monopoly
scheme for major cities pushed by India's Supreme Court and anti-diesel "green"
group, Center for Science & Environment (CSE). Currently, the comprehensive
study or results still yet to publish regarding this policy. However, this policy was
aimed to reduce the incentive on diesel oil shared to other alternative fuels.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 27
2.7.7. France
France policymakers so far have implicitly assumed that adequate supplies of
NG would be available for transport. Clearly, NG is one of the possible alternative
fuel that produce major reductions in transport oil use, NG as transport fuels is still
available in large quantities in the years 2020. This now seems unlikely. The IEA has
recently analyzed world energy prospects out to 2020 and beyond (IEA, 1998). For
NG, it was assumed that ultimate reserves, both already produced and still to be
produced, were 260 btoe, slightly less than the 310 btoe estimated for oil. World
demand for NG is growing faster than that for oil as gas increases its share of energy
in the developed countries and gas grids are introduced in an increasing number of
industrializing countries.
2.3.8. New Zealand
The New Zealand example is instructive. A major shift to NG-based transport
fuels occurred in the 1980s, based on CNG and synthetic petrol. At its peak, NG
supplied 30% of New Zealand’s transport fuels. Today, the figure is only about 10%,
and will decline to near zero by 2014, the expected date of gas field exhaustion,
assuming no imports (Statistics New Zealand, 2000).
2.3.9. Netherlands
Based on information provided by the Dutch Auto LPG association in 1999,
the Dutch vehicle maker (DAF) considers CNG (natural gas) to be very well suited
for use in a private vehicle but autogas (i.e. LPG) to be the best fuel for buses. Their
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 28
reasons for this choice are: no need for such a big tank, the composition is clearly
defined and there is no need to have the gas compressed in an expensive compression
station.
2.3.10. Philippines
The Philippines first attempted to commercialize liquid biofuels for motor
vehicles following the oil shocks of the 1970s; unfortunately, the ambitious program
was abandoned during the political crisis of the mid-1980s. Today biofuels are
receiving renewed interest in the Philippines due to a combination of economic and
environmental factors. The principal economic incentive is the reduction of
dependence on imported petroleum. This issue is particularly true for the transport
sector which is almost entirely dependent on oil. Reduction of CO2 emissions
resulting from fossil fuel use is one of the primary environmental considerations
(Philippine Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 2000). As with the
biofuels program of the early 1980s, a biodiesel program can help insulate the
Philippines from world oil price fluctuations, and simultaneously revitalize stagnant
sectors of the economy. These benefits may very well enough to compensate for the
relatively high production cost of biodiesel. Implementation of carbon trading
through the Clean Development Mechanism can also be employed to subsidize such
a program. However, this particular program has been introduced to the government
meeting for further considerations in the future (Philippine Department of Energy,
2002)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 29
2.4. Transport Regulations
Table 2.1 lists various international regulations and or guidelines aimed at
improving new vehicle fuel efficiency for selected countries (OECD Ministry of
Transport, 2000). There are of course many other guidelines and regulations relating
to efforts to reduce emissions by the transport sector but only those directly related
the study that have been listed in this section.
2.5. Voluntary agreements or program
The costs (both financial and environmental) of regulatory measure can
outweigh the benefits of that program. In the case of fuel efficiency standards, the
cost of developing and implementing technological advances and the consumers’
tendency to use some of the savings from reduced fuel consumption to drive further
(the “rebound effect”) could outweigh the actual fuel savings achieved. Voluntary
agreements program can be an alternative means of achieving improved fuel
efficiency. Table 2.2 lists a number of examples of voluntary agreement program
(OECD Ministry of Transport, 2000).
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 30
Table 2.1. Examples of transport regulations in selected countries
Country Regulation description
Czech Republic
Specific fuel consumption targets agreed and implemented
Japan
Fuel efficiency targets for 2000 set, average 8.5% improvement over fiscal 1992 levels. 5% target for average improvement in fuel efficiency for petrol trucks.
Russian Federation Development of vehicle fuel efficiency standards proposed
Sweden
Target for private car average fuel consumption of 6.3 liters per 100 km by 2005 has been proposed. Since new car fuel economy was 8.4 litres/100km in 1993i, this implies an improvement of 25% over the period 1993 to 2005. Volvo has committed itself to a 25% reduction in average fuel consumption by 2005.
Switzerland
Federal Government Ordinance on reducing the specific fuel consumption of cars. Requirement is for a 15% reduction in average fuel consumption in the period 1996 to 2001 (3.2% per year)
United States
Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) standards. Implemented in 1975, came into effect for cars in 1978. Last revised in 1992 currently 27.5 mpg (8.55 litres/100 km).
European Union
Commission Communication COM (95) 689, 20 December 1995, Council Conclusion of 25 June 1996. Objective is to achieve an average of 120 gm/km CO2 emissions (approx. 5 l/100km) for new cars by 2005. Target is aimed at European made vehicles, but plans are to extend the targets to imports as well.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 31
Table 2.2. Examples of transport voluntary agreement programs in selected countries
Country Country Voluntary agreement programs
Austria Agreement with motor vehicle manufacturers to improve fuel efficiency to 3 litres / 100 km. (envisaged measure)
Canada Voluntary agreement with each of the manufacturers on increasing fuel efficiency of new vehicles
France French car manufacturers have set a target of cutting average CO2 emissions to 150 gm/km by 2005
Germany Agreement with domestic vehicle manufacturers on fuel economy. Calls for a 25% reduction in average fuel consumption between 1990 and 2005 (a rate of 1.9% a year)
Sweden Volvo has committed itself to a 25% reduction in average fuel consumption of its cars sold in the EU by 2005.
United Kingdom UK manufacturers are committed to meeting the ACEA target of a 10% improvement in fuel efficiency by 2005.
European Union
Agreement reached between the European Commission and ACEA to cut CO2 emissions down to 140 gm/km approximately 5.7 litres/100 km) by 2008. There is also a commitment to review emissions targets in 2003 with a view towards achieving the Commission’s objective of 120 gm/km (approximately 5 litres/100 km) by 2012.
2.6. Air quality policies
In addition to carbon dioxide, vehicle usage results in other gas emissions,
many of which have implications for local air quality. Three of these are covered by
the Euro standards: carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, all
measured separately for petrol and diesel cars, and also particulate matter for diesel
cars only tabulated in Table 2.3.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 32
Table 2.3. Emission limits for new cars
Limit value (g/km) Mass of
carbon monoxide
(CO)
Mass of hydrocarbons
(HCs)
Mass of oxides of nitrogen (Nox)
Combined mass of hydrocarbons
(HCs) and oxides of nitrogen
(HC + Nox)
Mass of particulate
matter (PM)
Stage I 1993* Directive 91/441/EEC Petrol Diesel
3.16 3.16
- -
- -
1.13 1.13
-
0.18
Stage II 1997* Directive 94/12/EC Petrol Diesel, indirect injection Diesel, direct injection
2.2 1.0 1.0
- - -
- - -
0.5 0.7 0.9
-
0.08 0.10
Stage III 2000 Directive 98/69/EC Petrol Diesel
1.0 0.5
0.1 -
0.08 0.25
-
0.3
-
0.025
Stage IV 2005 Directive 98/69/EC Petrol Diesel
1.0 0.5
0.1 -
0.08 0.25
-
0.3
-
0.025
Stage III came into force from 1 January 2000 (Directive 98/69) and stage IV
comes into force from1st January 2005. (These stages are often referred o as Euro 3
and Euro 4 respectively). These are maximum permitted mean emissions and as the
table indicates, they are being tightened up over the four legislated stages. Diesel
produces about 15% more CO2 per liter than petrol, but diesel engines on the whole
produce less CO2 per km because the diesel engine is inherently more efficient than
the petrol one. At the same time, diesel-engine vehicles emit around ten times the
mass of fine particles and up to twice the oxides of nitrogen of comparable petrol-
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 33
fuelled vehicles. Policy needs, therefore, to be a balanced one, to reflect the impacts
of both local air quality change and global climate change, recognizing that fuels
have different benefits and disadvantages. In Europe, the Directive is part of a trio of
policy approaches, concerned with climate change. These include the voluntary
agreement to reduce missions by technical improvements to new cars and fiscal
measures. In the UK, the fiscal measures include differentiated vehicle excise duty,
related on carbon dioxide emissions, and reduced company car allowances.
2.7. Fuel economy
This chapter compares existing and planned vehicle fuel economy labelling
schemes in several selected countries. Some of the planned schemes within European
countries are refer to earlier drafts of the EU Directive. This is an area of policy that
should considered for every countries around especially for developing countries
that have been rapidly increase in the number of vehicles. The simultaneously survey
in this section gives a dated snapshot of the current situation in the country. So some
of the data given in this study section might be have already change.
Vehicle labelling schemes have been in existence for several years in Sweden
and the United States (both since 1975) and in the UK (since 1983). The American
scheme was amended in 1990 and the Canadian scheme in 1998, in the light of
consumer feedback. There is little evidence of the way these schemes influenced
consumer purchases. Summary of fuel economy energy labels for motor vehicle in
several selected countries is given in Table 2.4 (Brenda et al, 2000). The fuel
economy label for several selected countries is given Figs. 2.1 – 2.9.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 34
Table 2.4. Fuel economy labeling schemes in selected countries
Austria
Australia Belgium Canada Denmark Netherlands Sweden Switzerland USA EU Directive
Planned or Existing
Planned Planned Planned Existing Planned Planned for attachment to cars-existing on website
Existing Planned. Temporary label
in meantime
Existing Directive 1999/94/EC
adopted
Scope As directive
Passenger cars, maybe extension to light commercial
vehicles, 4x4
As directive
New cars, vans,
light duty trucks
As directive As directive All passenger
cars
As directive New cars, vans, light duty trucks
New passenger
cars
Introduction date
As directive
2000 As directive
1998 1 Jan 2000 As directive 1977 As directive but temporary label
prior to that
1975 To be implemented in EU MS by January 18th
2001
Mandatory? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No: Temporary Yes Yes
Units of consumption
L/100km L/100km L/100km L/100km;mpg
mpg L/100km L/100km Not shown;L/100km
in guide
mpg L/100km or km/l or
combination
Comparison by absolute measure or relative scale
Relative by size
and sales weighted
Absolute but perhaps label changed to
appliance star style (relative)
Relative by size and
sales weighted
Absolute Absolute comparing
all cars
Relative by size and sales
weighted
Absolute No scale shown but “efficient”
designation with sales weighted
comparison for all same weight
No scale but range of
consumption shown for
cars of same size
No requirement
for comparison
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 35
Table 2.4. Continue Austria Australia Belgium Canada Denmark Netherlands Sweden Switzerland USA EU Directive Comparison parameter
width X length
None width X length
None None width X length None weight size class N/A
Other measures of consumption
As directive
None As directive
Annual fuel cost (focus of
label)
Krona/yr Krona/20000
km Krona/60000
km
Cost/50000km Cost/litre
None None None Units can be in gallons
and miles if compatible
with Directive 80/181/EEC
CO2 Intention to include
values
No As directive
No Yes (g CO2/km)
Yes (g CO2/km)
Yes (g
CO2/km)
Not shown but
in guide (g /km)
No – intended for the guide
CO2 emissions in
g/km
Environment al Ranking
No No No No No No Yes, ranking 1
to 3
No In guide by ACEEE
No
Printed Guide
Intended Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Online Guide Intended Yes Yes Yes Intended Yes Yes Intended Yes Not required but
considered Fiscal integration
Yes - with fuel
consumpti on tax
(NoVA)
No Intended No Yes with fuel
consumption tax
(green owner)
Yes with relative
consumption
With enviro. rating
Intended – either to CO2
or fuel consumption
No
New cars sold to fleet buyers
15% maximum
10-15% - 10% - 10% - < 5% 10% N/A
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 36
Figure 2.1. Austrian draft fuel economy label
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 37
Figure 2.2. Australian draft fuel consumption labels
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 38
Figure 2.3. Canadian fuel economy label
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 39
Figure 2.4. Danish draft fuel consumption label
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 40
Figure 2.5. Swedish fuel economy label
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 41
Figure 2.6. Swiss draft fuel economy label
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 42
Figure 2.7. US fuel consumption label
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 43
Figure 2.8. UK fuel economy label
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 44
Figure 2.9. Environmental information guide
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 45
2.8. Conclusions
There are not many policies around the world have been implemented for
reducing transport sector energy use other than for motor vehicle. This may be
because the technology replacement for airplane and ship not so progressive such as
for motor vehicle. There was a replacement for railway especially in Japan and
France, however the replacement was not really related to energy but more to
increasing speed of mass railway transport. Therefore the study is more favored to
motor vehicle since they are the major energy consumer in the transportation sector
in this country. Several countries are using the opportunity to experiment with
innovative approaches that go considerably beyond this minimum level. This is in
order to reduce the contribution that new cars are making to environmental
degradation and climate change. The focus on fuel economy provides substantial
benefits to consumers, particularly at a time of rising real oil prices and concerns
about the cost of petrol.
As a result of the proposed fuel economy standard and fuel economy label,
consumers will be able to differentiate efficient vehicle with ease. This will create
healthy competition among vehicle manufactures to come up with a more efficient
vehicle gradually. Eventually if these measures are implemented, it will bring great
benefit to government, consumers as well as to the environment. Overall,
dependency on petrol fuel could be reduced and greenhouse gas emission could be
mitigated. Additionally, the fuel subsidy on petrol and diesel by government in the
future should be withdrawn; consumers will not pay more ton efficient vehicle unless
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 46
it proven will be using lesser amount of fuel and benefit them due to higher cost of
fuel.
References
Australian Greenhouse Office. (2004). Australia Green House Report-(2001).
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/
Brenda Boardman, Nick Banks, Howard R Kirby, Sarah Keay-Bright, Barry J
Hutton. Stephen G Stradling, (2000). Choosing Cleaner Cars: The Role Of Labels
And Guides. Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, UK.
Dhakal S. (2003). Implications of transportation policies on energy and environment
in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Energy Policy, Volume 31, Issue 14, Pages 1493-1507
Hill, NW and Larsen, RP (1990). Draft evaluation of the Federal fuel economy
information program. Interim Report. Argonne National Laboratory. USA
IEA. (1998). World Energy Prospects to 2020, OECD/IEA, Paris
Mactiernan, A. (2001). Western Australia moving to reduce oil dependence, Western
Australia Dept. Planning & Infrastructure.
Myint, S. (2001). Transport Energy Use and Vehicle Emissions in Myanmar,
ASEAN energy bulletin, ASEAN Centre for Energy, Jakarta. Vol. 5, No. 1.
Norhayati K., Yuslina M.Y. (2001). Vehicle Emissions, Measures and Challenges in
Malaysia Road Transporttion Sector, ASEAN energy bulletin, ASEAN Centre for
Energy, Jakarta. Vol. 5, No. 1.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 47
OECD Ministers of Transport. (1997). CO2 Emissions from Transport, European
Conference of Ministers of Transport, OECD.
Philippine Department of Energy (2002). Philippine Energy Plan 2002–2011.
Manila.
Philippine Department of Environment and Natural Resources (2000). Implementing
Rules and Regulations of RA 8749—Clean Air Act of 1999, Manila.
Pirkey, D, McNutt, B, Hemphill, J and Dulla, R (1982), Consumer response to fuel
economy information – alternative sources, uses and formats. SAE Technical Paper
820792, Warrendale, Pa, USA.
Poh K.L and Ang B.W.. (1999). Transportation fuels and policy for Singapore: an
AHP planning approach, Journal. Computer & Industrial Engineering.
Singapore Ministry of Environment. (1993). Singapore Green Plan. Report on by
Ministry of Environment Singapore. Singapore.
Statistics New Zealand (2000) New Zealand Official Yearbook 2000, 102nd edition,
GP Publications, Wellington, NZ.
Widyantoro, T. (2001). Energy Efficiency Towards Sustainable Transport and Clean
Air in Indonesia, ASEAN energy bulletin, ASEAN Centre for Energy, Jakarta. Vol.
5, No. 1.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 48
CHAPTER 3
HISTORICAL AND FUTURE TREND OF ENERGY
DEMAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FROM
THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR
SUMMARY
Emissions in the transportation sector produce adverse effects on the
environment that influent human health, organism growth, climatic changes and so
on. The Kyoto protocol by the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate
change (UNFCC) in December 1997, prescribed legally binding greenhouse gas
emission target about 5% below their 1990 level. About 160 countries including
Malaysia now adopt this protocol. The transportation sector is the main contributors
for emission in the country. In order to calculate the potential emission by this
activity, the type of fuel use should be identified. The study found that there are no
radical changes of fuel used for transportation sector in Malaysia. The data shown
that fuel type use are 53% of petrol, 34% of diesel, 13% of ATF 0.06% Natural Gas,
and 0.03% of electricity in year 2000 to 46% of petrol, 42% of diesel, 12% of ATF,
0.29% Natural Gas and only 0.07% of electricity in the year of 2020. The calculation
is based on emissions for unit fuel used and the type of fuel use and energy demand
in transportation sector. The study found that, the transportation sector has
contributed huge emissions from their activities in this country and the change on
fuel type is necessary to change the pattern of emission production.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 49
3.1. Introduction
Over the past decades, it has been observed that there is an increasing
atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases such carbon dioxide (CO2) and other
emissions that give negative impact to the environment such as sulfur dioxide (SO2),
nitrogen oxide (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO). One of the main contributors of
these gases is generated by transportation sector because a conventional vehicle still
using fossil fuels as their main energy sources. Burning fossil fuels is releases the
emissions such as mentioned gasses which known can cause greenhouse gas
emission effect, acid rain and other negative impact to environmental and
humankind.
CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas and produced when any form of carbon is
burned in an excess of oxygen. Due to this reason, CO2 greenhouse effect in the
world has been enhanced. This means that the atmosphere is trapping more heat that
has to escape to space. This enhancement has linked the greenhouse effect is causing
global warming. CO2 is the largest contributor of greenhouse effect out of all the
gasses produce by human activities.
SO2 is a colorless gas, from the family of sulfur oxides (SOx). It reacts on the
surface of a variety of atmosphere solid particles and can be oxidized within
atmosphere water droplets. Fossil fuel combustion is the main sources of SO2
produce by human activities.
NOx are a collective term used of two types of oxides of nitrogen namely nitric
oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). NO is a colorless, flammable gas with a
slight odor. NO2 is a nonflammable gas with a detectable smell and in certain
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 50
concentration will highly toxic, which is in longtime can cause serious lung damage.
NO2 is plays a major role in the atmospheric reactions that produce ozone or smog.
In the atmosphere, NO2 will mix with water vapor producing nitric acid and
deposited as acid rain.
CO is a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas. Exposure to CO reduces the blood's
ability to carry oxygen. CO is a product of incomplete burning of hydrocarbon-based
fuels. CO consists of a carbon atom and an oxygen atom linked together. During
normal combustion, each atom of carbon in the burning fuel joins with two atoms of
oxygen forming a harmless gas. When there is a lack of oxygen to ensure complete
combustion of the fuel, each atom of carbon links up with only one atom of oxygen
forming CO gas.
Malaysia planning to reduce the production of CO2, SO2, NOx and CO in the
country but the data of production of these gasses is unavailable therefore the study
attempts to estimate potential production of these gases from transportation sector in
this country. With exact figure of these emissions, Malaysia can contribute to
undermine the disaster caused by these gases by maximizing of using renewable fuel.
Similar study on emissions from electricity generation in Malaysia has been
discussed by Mahlia (2002).
3.2. Survey Data
The data used for this study are the fuel consumption data, distribution of fuel
type for transportation sector data and emissions of CO2, SO2, NOx and CO from
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 51
fossil fuel for unit fuel consumption in (g/GJ). These data are collected from the
National Energy Balance (2002). All of the survey data are tabulated in Tables 3.1,
3.2 and 3.3.
Table 3.1. Final energy use by transportation sector
Year Total
(ktoe)
1980 2,398
1985 3,477
1990 5,387
1995 7,827
1996 8,951
1997 10,201
1998 9,793
1999 11,393
2000 12,071
2001 13,137
2002 13,442
Type of fossil fuel used in transportation sector in Malaysia are include, Natural
Gas, Aviation gasoline (Avgas), Motor gasoline (Mogas), Aviation Turbine Fuel
(ATF or Avtur), Diesel oil and fuel oil. Natural Gas fuel is a mixture of gaseous
hydrocarbons (mainly methane) which occurs either in gas fields or in association
with crude oil in oil fields. Aviation gasoline (Avgas) is a special blended grade of
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 52
gasoline for use in aircraft engines of the piston type. Distillation range normally
falls within 30oC and 200oC. Motor gasoline (Mogas) Petroleum distillate for used as
fuel in spark-ignition internal combustion engines. Distillation range is within 30oC
and 250oC. ATF or Avtur is fuel for use in aviation gas turbines mainly refined from
Kerosene. Distillation range within 150oC and 250oC. Diesel oil is Distillation falls
within 200oC to 340oC. Diesel fuel for high speed diesel engines (i.e. automotive) are
more critical on fuel quality than diesel for stationary and marine diesel engines.
Marine oil usually consists of a blend of diesel oil and some residual (asphalt)
material. Meanwhile, fuel oil is heavy distillates, residues or blends is used as fuel
for production of heat and power. Fuel oil production at the refinery is essentially a
matter of selective blending of available components rather than of special
processing. Fuel oil viscosities vary widely depending on the blend of distillates and
residues. Transportation sector energy use based on fuel types is given in Table 3.2
(National Energy Balance, 2002).
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 53
Table 3.2. Transportation sector energy use based on fuel types
Fuel Type (ktoe) Year
Petrol Diesel ATF Fuel oil NG Elect
1980 1296 847 250 - 0 0
1985 2057 1032 386 - 0 0
1990 2889 1826 628 41 0 0
1995 4477 2168 1158 17 5 0
1996 5161 2417 1333 32 4 1
1997 5574 3106 1437 75 5 1
1998 5849 2311 1618 9 4 1
1999 6778 3174 1423 13 0 4
2000 6378 4103 1574 4 7 4
2001 6820 4534 1762 5 14 5.17
2002 6940 4680 1785 4 28 4
The summation of total energy use in Table 3.2 is not very similar to the data
in Table 3.1 is because the are some other types of fuel are not included in the table
such as LPG and Avgas which have been used for transport fuel in a very little
quantity. Time series data for these types of fuels is also unavailable and difficult to
predict.
The type of equivalency in energy data in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 is given by
tones oil equivalent (toe) unit across different type of fuels. Toe generally refers to
energy content to one metric ton of crude oil. The international table standard defines
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 54
one toe as having a net calorific value of 10 Gcal. There are different definitions in
the literature for ton oil equivalent. The one used in this study is the conversion
factor that 1 toe = 10 Gcal = 41.868 GJ (EIA, 2004; IEA, 2002; UN, 1991).
Since the emission per unit energy conversion as well as the usage of
electricity and fuel oil in transportation sector in this country is very little compare to
other types of fuel that are 0.03% each, therefore emission from these fuel are can be
neglected. Even though Natural Gas also has very little percentage compare to other
fuel but this fuel will be considered in this calculation because from the data given in
Table 3.2, Natural Gas seem to be increased rapidly in the future. Emission from
fossil fuel per GJ energy used by transportation is presented in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3. CO2, SO2, NOx and CO emission from fossil fuel per GJ energy
use by transportation sector
Emission Fuels
CO2 (kg/GJ) SO2 (g/GJ) NOx (g/GJ) CO (g/GJ)
Petrol 73.00 2.28 1368.76 3490.86
Diesel 74.00 2.34 284.55 102.66
ATF 72.00 2.30 310.16 132.06
NG 53.90 0.00 488.00 214.00
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 55
3.3. Methodology
This study uses the scenario approach for the analysis. Schwartz (1996) states
that scenarios are tools for ordering perceptions about alternative future
environments and the end-result might not be an accurate picture of tomorrow,
however can give better decisions about the future. No matter how things might
actually turn out, both the analyst and the policy maker will have a scenario that
resembles a given future and that will help us think through both the opportunities
and the consequences of that future.
This analysis is generally based on modeling methodologies to figure out the
potential emissions from transportation sector in Malaysia in the future. For this
purpose, initially, the type of fuel use for transportation sector should be identified.
Some of the data are already available but others have to be calculated with respect
to the county fuel consumption trend. Several methods have been employed to
analyze and predict unavailable data. Those are linear, logarithmic, quadratic, power
growth and exponential curve fitting. From the calculation found that the best
method used to estimate the rest of the calculation data is polynomial curve fitting.
The best fit from these methods will be used for this study. The method is an attempt
to describe the relationship between variable X as the function of available data and a
response Y. Which seeks to find some smooth curve that best fit the data, but does
not necessarily pass through any data points. Mathematically, a polynomial of order
k in X is expressed in the following form (Klienbaum, 1998):
kk XC...XCXCCY ++++= 2
210 (3.1)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 56
The pattern of emission due to the fuel changes is potential emissions released
by transportation sector in Malaysia. The common gasses are consisting CO2, SO2,
NOx and CO. Emission pattern of the transportation sector can be calculated by the
following equation:
)( 332211 np
nipipipii FEES...FEESFEESFEESCF TM ×++×+×+××= (3.2)
3.4. Results and Discussions
There are two types of data to be analyzed i.e. fuel consumption data based on
fuel type and emission data of transportation sector. These fuels are Petrol, Diesel,
ATF, Natural Gas and Electricity. The usage of the mentioned fuels is potentially to
be increased in the future. Based on the data shown in Table 3.2, using Eq. (3.1), the
petrol consumption by transportation sector in Malaysia from year 2003 to year 2020
can be predicted by the following equation:
9795.0632.1393.1204 221 =++= R ,X .2865 X Y (3.3)
Based on the data shown in Table 3.2, using Eq. (3.1), the diesel fuel
consumption in transportation sector in Malaysia from the year 2003 to 2020 can be
predicted. The total of diesel fuel use in transportation sector can be predicted by the
following equation:
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 57
9183.0 661.10732471.1015 222 =+−= R ,X X Y (3.4)
The total of ATF fuel used for transportation sector in Malaysia can be
predicted by the following equation:
9687.0 52.157 729.4046.194 223 =++= R ,X X Y (3.5)
The total of natural gas fuel uses in transportation sector in Malaysia can be
predicted by the following equation:
7406.0 1026.05059.12755.2 224 =+−= R ,X X Y (3.6)
The total of electricity uses in transportation sector in Malaysia can be predicted
by the following equation:
8214.0 0254.03592.04584.0 225 =+−= R ,X X Y (3.7)
The results of the predicted data based on Equations (3.3), (3.4), (3.5), (3.6) and
(3.7) from the year 2003 to 2020 are tabulated in Table 3.4.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 58
Table 3.4. Predicted energy demand and fuel mix of transportation
sector in Malaysia
Fuel Type (ktoe) Year
Petrol Diesel ATF NG Elect Total
2003 7734 4970 1965 22 6 14 696
2004 8169 5398 2079 25 6 15 678
2005 8616 5847 2197 29 7 16 697
2006 9076 6318 2318 32 8 17 753
2007 9549 6809 2442 36 9 18 846
2008 10 034 7322 2570 41 10 19 977
2009 10 532 7857 2700 45 11 21 145
2010 11 042 8413 2834 49 13 22 350
2011 11 565 8990 2971 54 14 23 593
2012 12 100 9588 3111 59 15 24 873
2013 12 648 10 208 3254 64 16 26 190
2014 13 208 10 849 3400 70 18 27 545
2015 13 781 11 511 3550 75 19 28 936
2016 14 367 12 195 3702 81 20 30 366
2017 14 965 12 900 3858 87 22 31 832
2018 15 576 13 626 4017 93 23 33 336
2019 16 200 14 374 4179 100 25 34 877
2020 16 836 15 143 4344 106 27 36 455
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 59
The predicted fuel percentage trend based on fuel type of energy consumption in
transportation sector in Malaysia is presented in Fig. 3.1.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%20
00
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
ATFNGDieselElectPetrol
Figure 3.1. Predicted energy demand based on percentage fuel mix for
transportation sector in Malaysia
The small changes of energy sources for transportation sector have contributed
for emissions pattern in Malaysia. To replace petrol the authority has to increase the
use of diesel. This replacement can be avoided if Malaysian government plans early.
The authority should switch this replacement to another renewable energy sources
such as bio-diesel or hydrogen fuel. Gradual replacement of petrol and diesel with
natural gas is another alternative option since Malaysia has reserve a large amount of
this fuel and that is known that natural gas has lower emission than petrol and diesel.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 60
This can help to reduce emission in the future and also helps to secure Malaysia’s
energy security. This is due to high cost of imported crude oil and higher cost of
conserving emissions in the future. Conducting life cycle cost analysis of conserved
emissions and investment is necessary. However, this analysis is not discussed in this
study. Detail explanation of cost of conserved emissions is discussed by Krause and
Koomey (1990).
The pattern of emissions is a function of the total energy consumption
multiplied by the percentage of fuel mix and the amount of emissions by the fossil
fuel from every unit of energy used. The pattern of emissions by transportation sector
in Malaysia is tabulated in Table 5 and illustrated in Fig. 3.2 – 3.3.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 61
Figure 3.2. Pattern of CO2 and CO emissions production by transportation
sector in Malaysia
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
1980
1990
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
SO
2 E
mis
sion
(Ton
)
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
NO
x E
mis
sion
(Ton
)
SO2NOx
Figure 3.3.Pattern of SO2 and NOx emissions production by transportation
sector in Malaysia
0
12000000
24000000
36000000
48000000
60000000
72000000
84000000
96000000
108000000
120000000
1980
1990
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
CO
2 Em
issi
on (T
on)
0
300000
600000
900000
1200000
1500000
1800000
2100000
2400000
2700000
CO
Em
issi
on (T
on)
CO2
CO
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 62
Table 3.5. Potential emissions production by transportation sector in Malaysia
Emissions production by transportation (Ton) Year
CO2 SO2 NOX CO
2003 45 008 529 1414 528 397 1 162 818
2004 48 016 315 1509 559 968 1 228 867
2005 51 138 549 1607 592 559 1 296 865
2006 54 375 232 1709 626 169 1 366 811
2007 57 726 362 1814 660 799 1 438 706
2008 61 191 940 1923 696 449 1 512 549
2009 64 771 967 2035 733 119 1 588 341
2010 68 466 442 2151 770 808 1 666 082
2011 72 275 364 2271 809 517 1 745 771
2012 76 198 735 2394 849 245 1 827 408
2013 80 236 554 2521 889 993 1 910 994
2014 84 388 821 2651 931 761 1 996 528
2015 88 655 537 2785 974 548 2 084 011
2016 93 036 700 2923 1 018 355 2 173 443
2017 97 532 311 3064 1 063 182 2 264 823
2018 102 142 371 3209 1 109 028 2 358 151
2019 106 866 878 3357 1 155 894 2 453 428
2020 111 705 834 3509 1 203 780 2 550 654
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 63
The results from Table 3.5 show that the total emissions production from 2003
to 2020 are about 1,363,734,444 tons of CO2, 42,845 tons of SO2, 15,173,572 tons
of NOx and 32,626,252 tons of CO. These are huge amount of emission for small
developing country like Malaysia. The authorities and policymakers should find a
suitable policy to reduce this emission in order to contribute to Kyoto Protocol and to
leave a better environment for future generation.
3.5. Conclusions
The emissions from transportation sector contributed the largest emission for the
country. Government intervention to abate this emission is urgently needed at the
present. The emissions pattern from fossil fuel used in transportation sector can be
reduce by switching from fossil fuel to renewable fuel such as bio-diesel and
hydrogen fuel. This policy offers solution and multiple benefits to utility, society and
most important to protect the environment. Malaysian authority has to find ways to
reduce these emissions, such as by introducing emissions taxation which can be used
to subsidies renewable fuel or lower emission fuel or for replanting threes of the rain
forest in the country. The increase in emissions is suspected due the increase in
vehicle population in Malaysia. The greater the increase in vehicle population, the
higher would be the corresponding emissions. Thus, one would have to conclude that
in order to bring down the emissions to considerably low levels, the growth in
vehicle population, particularly the passenger cars, has to be controlled or as
mentioned early is to introduce low emission fuel or to initiate renewable fuel type.
The data from the study can be a basis for calculating cost benefit analysis for
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 64
implementation of new renewable energy sources for transportation sector and
emission abatement program in Malaysia.
References
Beer T, Grant T, Brown R, Edwards J, Nelson P, Watson H, Williams D. (2000).
Life-cycle Emissions Analysis of Alternative Fuels for Heavy Vehicles. CSIRO
Atmospheric Research Report C/0411/1.1/F2. Australian Greenhouse Office.
Energy Information Administration. (2004). DOE:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/contents.html
IEA. (2002). Oil Information 2002. IEA/OECD, Paris.
Klienbaum DG. (1998). Applied regression analysis and other multivariable
methods. ITP co., USA.
Krause F, Koomey J. (1990). Unit costs of carbon savings from urban trees, rural
trees, and electricity conservation: a utility cost perspective, Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley.
Mahlia TMI. (2002). Emissions from electricity generation in Malaysia. Renewable
Energy 27(2):293-300.
National Energy Balance (2003). Ministry of Energy, Communications and
Multimedia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Schwartz P. (1996). The Art of the Long View: Planning in an uncertain world,
Doubleday, New York.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 65
UN (United Nations). (1991). Energy Statistics: A Manual for Developing Countries,
Series F, No. 56, United Nations, New York.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 66
CHAPTER 4
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND
ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN MALAYSIA
SUMMARY
This chapter discusses the main part of the transport and energy investigations
and projections. The first part of the chapter discusses a review of existing data
available from related authorities and transportation studies that were undertaken to
date. Consideration of population growth as well as socio-economic data and energy
use in transportation sector data has also been considered. Forecasting future
transportation growth based on population growth and socio-economic data and
needs up to 20 years is also presented. Consideration of relationship between
transportation trips production and energy consumption is elaborated. Formulation of
a model for forecasting energy consumption by transportation sector and model
validation that takes into consideration the correlation coefficient is discussed in
detail. Furthermore, the uses of the model to analyze energy consumption based on
the modal split scenarios are also presented.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 67
4.1. Introduction
It has been extensively described in the literatures that transportation sector is
one of the most energy consuming sector in many countries for years. For example in
United States, the consumption of energy in transportation sector (year 1973–2001)
range from 24.5% to 27.9% of the total energy consumed (U.S Department of
Energy, 2002). In year 2001, transportation sector was positioned second after
industrial sector in consuming energy in United States. Japanese transportation sector
consumes about 20-25% of the total energy in recent years. In Malaysia, total amount
of energy consumed in transportation sector was about 40% of the total energy
consumed compared to 39% in industrial sector and only 13% for commercial and
residential sector. These figures show that energy is essential to transportation and on
the other hand could reasonably be judged as in dire need of energy.
Unfortunately, one of the greatest challenges to the transportation system is
that of dealing with its environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of
transportation include large-scale impacts due to the system as a whole as well as
smaller scale impacts due to specific transportation facilities and activities. Air
quality is one of the most important impacts of the transportation besides energy
consumption and land use. Noise pollution and reduced water quality due to the
construction and the operation of transportation facilities and modes are also issues
that have to be taken into consideration. The road transport, mainly automobiles is
the major source of CO2 emission as the major global warming gas.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 68
Therefore, sustainability has become the key word in transportation policy goals in
both developed and developing countries. The planning for urban transportation
systems has to address one additional requirement than in the past. The goal of
achieving long term sustainability in urban transportation should be involved in any
transportation plan.
4.1.1 Modes of Transportation
The transportation system is often analyzed in terms of the various modes of
the transportation. Although very commonly used, the term mode does not have a
very clear definition. In general, it means a “kind” of transportation (Banks, 2002).
The modes are distinguished in terms of their physical characteristics as highway,
rail, air and water transportation. Sometimes the modes are classified as road, rail,
maritime, and air transport. Moreover, in other cases the organizational
characteristics are important: mass transit is almost universally referred to as a
“mode” of transportation, although physically, it is primarily a combination of
highway and rail transportation. Table 4.1 highlights the modes in transportation
system.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 69
Table 4.1 Mode Classification Scheme
Descriptions Freight Passenger
Urban Truck (Highway) Private auto (Highway) Transit (Highway/rail)
Intercity Truck (Highway) Rail Ocean Shipping Inland water Air Pipeline
Private auto (Highway) Bus (Highway) Rail Air
Special purpose Conveyor belt Cable systems
Source: Banks, 2002
4.1.2 Transportation Demand Analysis
The need for transportation is derived from the interaction among social and
economic activities dispersed in space. The diversity of these activities and the
complexity of their pattern of interaction result in numerous determinants of
transportation needs. The reasons people need to travel are endless and range from
the indispensable quest for food and shelter to the voluntary exercise of mobility for
its own recreational value. Commodities are also transported from place to place for
a multitude of reasons, such as from the economic necessities of production and
consumption and from the pursuit of economic advantage and gain.
The initial step in understanding the relationship between socioeconomic
activities and transportation needs is to adopt a meaningful measure of these needs.
The need for transportation is manifested in the form of traffic volume, either in
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 70
terms of the flow of automobiles on road, passengers on a flight, or tons of cargo on
a train.
Transportation demand is defined in much the same way. To transport people
and goods consumes time and energy, for which a cost is incurred (Kanafani, 1983).
Transportation demand analysis is the process of relating the demand for
transportation to the socioeconomic activities that generate it. In this process, the
type, level, and location of human activities are related to the demand for movement
of people and goods between the different points in space where these activities take
place. The results of this analysis are the relationships, often in the form of models,
between measures of activity and measures of transport demand.
Since transportation demand is itself expressed by a relationship between
traffic volumes and transportation cost characteristics, the results of transportation
demand analysis, become, then, relationships between traffic volumes, on the one
hand, and transportation system characteristics and socioeconomic activity levels on
the other.
4.1.3 Study Objectives
The main purpose of this study is to recommend a transportation system policy
in achieving sustainable transport system in Malaysia by reviewing the energy
consumption of transportation sector and correlating the energy consumed with the
transportation characteristics. An analysis of the available historical and existing
transportation data would result in forecasted transportation demand in future.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 71
Several scenarios based on transportation modal split are adopted for supporting the
recommendations.
4.1.4 Conceptual Framework
The study focuses on analysis of the historical and existing transportation
conditions and future transportation demand as well as the energy consumption of
transportation sector. Transportation impacts on the energy consumption based on
varying modal split was also conducted. The analysis has been carried out with
consideration of transportation demand for existing and future conditions. The
following tasks formed the main part of the transport and energy investigations and
projections:
A review of existing data available from related authorities were undertaken;
Consideration of population growth as well as socio-economic data and energy
use in transportation sector data;
Forecasting future transportation growth based on population growth and socio-
economic data and needs up to 20 years;
Consideration of relationship between transportation trips production and
energy consumption;
Formulation of a model for forecasting energy consumption by transportation
sector;
Model validation that takes into consideration the correlation coefficient;
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 72
Use of the model to analyze energy consumption based on the modal split
scenarios.
4.2. Type of Data Collected
A wide range of data is necessary for the successful completion of the study
and this has been identified. Some of the data were obtained from government
agencies while some others were obtained through visual appraisal.
4.2.1 Road Transport
The road transport classification in Malaysia involves several types of vehicles
such as motorcar, motorcycle, bus, commercial vehicle and other vehicles. For modal
split purposes, the vehicles are also classified into private and public services
vehicles. Figure 4.1 shows the types of vehicles on the Federal Highway which
connects Kuala Lumpur to Shah Alam in Selangor.
Motorcars and Motorization
As depicted in Table 4.2 the numbers of motorcars increase significantly every
year. The annual growth of motorcars population from year 1991 to 2002 is about
9.53% while for motorization level is 6.78%. Compared to the population annual
growth rate (2.57% in this case), the increase of motorcars ownership is relatively
higher (almost 10% per year). Figure 4.2 illustrates the motorization rates in
Malaysia from year 1991 to 2002 per 1,000 populations.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 73
Figure 4.1 Federal Highway View towards Kuala Lumpur
Table 4.2 Number of Motorcars and Motorization Rates in Malaysia from 1991 to
2002
Number ('000) Motorization Level
1991 18,547 1863.2 1001992 19,043 1983.0 1041993 19,564 2132.3 1091994 20,112 2350.1 1171995 20,689 2608.6 1261996 21,169 2946.0 1391997 21,666 3333.4 1541998 22,180 3517.5 1591999 22,712 3852.7 1702000 23,275 4212.6 1812001 24,012 4624.6 1932002 24,527 5069.4 207
Annual Growth (%) 2.57 9.53 6.78
Population in '000YearMotorcars
Source: Road Transport Department and Department of Statistics, Malaysia (2002)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 74
Referring to the figure, it is seen that the rate in 1998 appears relatively lower
compared to the other rates during 1991-2002. This may be due to the impact of
economic downturn during that period which has led to a general reduction in car
utilization.
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
YEAR
MO
TOR
IZAT
ION
RAT
ES
Figure 4.2 Motorization Rates in Malaysia from 1991 to 2002
Motorcycles and Motorization
Compared to the motorization rates of motorcars as illustrated above, the
motorization rates of motorcycles seem relatively higher. However, the annual rate of
increase of motorcycles is lower than motorcars (only 4.95% per year). On the other
hand, the population of motorcycles is higher than the population of motorcars.
Nevertheless, referring to Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 the disparity is not significant
between both types of motor vehicles.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 75
Table 4.3 Number of Motorcycles and Motorization Rates from 1991 to 2002
Number ('000) Motorization Level
1991 18,547 2,595.7 1401992 19,043 2,762.7 1451993 19,564 2,970.8 1521994 20,112 3,297.5 1641995 20,689 3,608.5 1741996 21,169 3,951.9 1871997 21,666 4,329.0 2001998 22,180 4,692.2 2121999 22,712 5,082.5 2242000 23,275 5,356.6 2302001 24,012 5,609.4 2342002 24,527 5,842.6 238
Annual Growth (%) 2.57 7.65 4.95
Year Population in '000Motorcycles
Source: Road Transport Department and Department of Statistics, Malaysia (2002)
Bus, Commercial and Other Vehicles
The population of buses, commercial and other vehicles in Malaysia from year
1991 to 2002 is highlighted in Table 4.4. From the table it is seen that bus has the
lowest annual rates amongst the three types of vehicles. Moreover, after comparing
population of all types of vehicles for year 2002, motorcycles accounted the highest
population (48.60%) followed by motorcars (42.17%). Bus population is the lowest
with about 0.43% of the total road transport vehicles.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 76
Table 4.4 Number of Buses, Commercial and Other Vehicles from 1991 to 2002
Year Bus Commercial Other Vehicles
1991 26,147 313,514 143,4721992 27,827 333,674 152,6981993 29,924 358,808 164,1991994 33,529 393,833 178,4391995 36,000 440,723 203,6601996 38,965 512,165 237,6311997 43,444 574,622 269,9831998 45,643 599,149 286,8981999 47,674 642,976 304,1352000 48,662 665,284 315,6872001 49,771 689,668 329,1982002 51,158 713,148 345,604
Annual Growth (%) 6.29 7.76 8.32
Source: Road Transport Department, Malaysia (2002)
Private and Public Transport Vehicles of Road Transport
Public transport is the key player in maintaining congestion at reasonable
levels on the roads. Almost without exception public transport modes makes use of
road space more efficiently than the private car. If some drivers could be persuaded
to use public transport instead of cars the rest of the car users would benefit from
improved levels of service (Ortuzar and Willumsen, 1990).
Table 2.4 detail the modal split between private and public transport modes in
Malaysia from year 1991 to 2002. It needs to be mentioned here that road public
transport modes may also include taxis although this mode is usually referred to as
para-transit.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 77
Motorcars population mentioned earlier involve taxis and hired cars. Referring
to Table 4.5 and Figure 4.3, there is a big gap between the proportion of private cars
and public transport vehicles numbers. For example, in year 2002 the percent share
of private cars is around 97.7% of the total vehicles while the proportion of public
transport vehicles is only about 2.3%. Moreover, public transport share appears to
have a diminishing trend from year 1991 to 2002.
Table 4.5 Proportion of Private Cars and Public Transport Vehicles from 1991 to
2002
Number % Share Bus Taxi Hire Car % Share1991 1,824,679 96.58 26,147 33,444 5,033 3.421992 1,942,016 96.58 27,827 35,596 5,357 3.421993 2,088,300 96.58 29,924 38,278 5,762 3.421994 2,302,547 96.60 33,529 42,204 5,308 3.401995 2,553,574 96.56 36,000 46,807 8,195 3.441996 2,886,536 96.70 38,965 49,485 9,971 3.301997 3,271,304 96.87 43,444 51,293 10,826 3.131998 3,452,852 96.91 45,643 54,590 10,042 3.091999 3,787,047 97.09 47,674 55,626 10,020 2.912000 4,145,982 97.30 48,662 56,152 10,433 2.702001 4,557,992 97.51 49,771 56,579 9,986 2.492002 5,001,273 97.67 51,158 58,066 10,073 2.33
Annual Growth (%) 9.60 6.29 5.14 6.51
YearPrivate Cars Public Transport Vehicles
Source: Road Transport Department, Malaysia (2002)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 78
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
YEAR
% S
HAR
E
Public Transport
Private Cars
Figure 4.3 Trends of Private Cars and Public Transport Vehicles
Road Mileage
Table 4.6 depicts the distribution of road infrastructures for Federal Road and
State Road based on type of pavement. The proportion of paved roads in year 2002
accounts for 78.45% of the total road mileage.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 79
Table 4.6 Summary of Road Mileage in Malaysia (KM)
YearPaved Unpaved Total Paved Unpaved Total Paved Unpaved Total
1991 12,623.10 1,639.70 14,262.80 27,448.20 14,026.60 41,474.80 40,071.30 15,666.30 55,737.60
1992 12,972.40 1,368.90 14,341.30 29,162.67 13,987.69 43,150.36 42,135.07 15,356.59 57,491.66
1993 13,589.95 960.19 14,550.14 30,710.20 14,497.26 45,207.46 44,300.15 15,457.45 59,757.60
1994 13,759.77 990.50 14,750.27 31,743.31 14,713.71 46,457.02 45,503.08 15,704.21 61,207.29
1995 13,846.57 990.50 14,837.07 31,743.31 14,713.71 46,457.02 45,589.88 15,704.21 61,294.09
1996 14,423.75 961.42 15,385.17 32,731.64 15,266.32 47,997.96 47,155.39 16,227.74 63,383.13
1997 14,749.16 961.42 15,710.58 33,920.85 15,349.20 49,270.05 48,670.01 16,310.62 64,980.63
1998 15,141.98 938.91 16,080.89 36,262.85 15,283.33 51,546.18 51,404.83 16,222.24 67,627.07
1999 14,782.00 1,299.00 16,081.00 36,263.00 13,846.00 50,109.00 51,045.00 15,145.00 66,190.00
2000 15,920.50 855.42 16,775.92 35,845.39 14,969.15 50,814.54 51,765.89 15,824.57 67,590.46
2001 16,001.08 855.42 16,856.50 41,135.32 15,025.76 56,161.07 57,136.40 15,881.18 73,017.57
2002 16,128.53 855.42 16,983.95 41,457.35 14,961.68 56,419.03 57,585.88 15,817.10 73,402.98
Annual Growth (%) 3.35 0.09 2.53
Federal Road State Road Total Mileage
Source: Highway Planning Unit, Ministry of Works Malaysia (2002)
4.2.2 Rail Transport
Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad (KTMB) enjoyed a long and eventful track
record dating back over a century to June 1885. Then the railway system has
progressed to a nationwide single track network of 1,700 km spanning the whole of
Peninsular Malaysia operated by the Government-owned enterprise, KTMB
(Abdullah, 2003).
From the 1990’s, new entrants into the railway industry took place.
Development of new rail routes was limited to urban centres within the Klang
Valley. The KTM Komuter service provided the Malaysian public of their first taste
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 80
of modern urban transport through the introduction of Malaysia’s first electrified
train service on 3rd August 1995. The KTM Komuter service consists of two routes
from Rawang to Seremban and Port Klang to Sentul covering a total distance of 150
km.
The KTM passengers and freight traffic from year 1992 to 2002 are shown in
Table 4.7. In terms of passenger number, it is seen in general that passengers of
KTM is on the decrease during 1992 to 2002 while number of container increase
significantly, with an annual growth of 10.91%. Nevertheless, in year 1996 the
passengers increase to 6.111 million passengers from 5.146 million passengers in
year 1995 before dropping back the following year.
Table 4.7 KTMB Passengers and Freight Traffic from year 1992 to 2002
NUMBER PASSENGER-KM TONNE TONNE-KM
( ' 000 ) ( ' 000,000 ) ( ' 000 ) ( ' 000,000 ) TEU
1992 7,614 1,859 3,550 1,081 93,192
1993 6,510 1,553 4,196 1,157 95,569
1994 5,426 1,348 5,164 1,463 121,450
1995 5,146 1,270 5,249 1,416 137,137
1996 6,111 1,370 5,405 1,417 124,588
1997 5,375 1,492 5,106 1,337 135,217
1998 4,924 1,397 3,695 992 112,133
1999 4,344 1,316 3,845 907 106,744
2000 3,825 1,220 5,481 916 255,312
2001 3,511 1,181 4,150 1,094 149,669
2002 3,437 1,123 3,741 1,107 262,478
Annual Growth (%) -7.65 -4.92 0.53 0.24 10.91
PASSENGER FREIGHT
YEARCONTAINER
Source: Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad (KTMB, 2002)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 81
Apart from KTM Komuter, other Klang Valley rail operators such as PUTRA
and STAR Light Rail Transit (LRT), ERL and KL-Monorail converge at KL Sentral.
The STAR LRT was fully completed in September 1998 and covers a route length of
27 km from Ampang to Sentul Timur and Sri Petaling to Sentul Timur. Another
addition to Klang rail showcase was the PUTRA LRT. Running on both elevated and
underground tracks, PUTRA has been operating since full completion in June 1999
and covers a distance of 29 km.
In the meantime, the Express Rail Link (ERL) interface directly with the Kuala
Lumpur International Airport (KLIA) to offer airline passenger seamless rail to air
transfers. In addition to world-class comfort and convenience, the ERL service also
features an airline check-in service at the KL Sentral rail terminal itself.
In addition, the latest project of rail based system is the KL Monorail, which is
a service which connects passengers to the most popular shopping areas within Kuala
Lumpur. The KL Monorail service commenced operation in August 2003.
The Integrated Rail Services (KTM Komuter, PUTRA and STAR LRT, ERL
and KL Monorail) route is depicted in Figure 4.4 while Figure 4.5 depicts the
average daily passenger traffic of the LRT from year 1998 to 2003. Referring to the
figure it is seen that the number of passengers is increasing during the period. The
significant increase of passengers occurred during September 1998 to January 2001.
Since then, the ridership appears to stagnate at around 160,000 commuters/day.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 82
LEGEND
Source: Syarikat Prasarana Negara Berhad (SPNB, 2004)
Figure 4.4 Integrated Rail Services in Klang Valley
The integrated rail services are complemented with supporting facilities such as
feeder bus and park and ride system as depicted in Figure 4.6.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 83
Source: Yusoff, 2003
Figure 4.5 LRT Passengers per Day
Figure 4.6 Park n’ Ride at LRT Station
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 84
Based on the rail passengers data as mentioned earlier, the total rail passengers
from year 1998 to 2002 could be summarized as in Table 4.8. From the table, it is
observed that the total number of rail passengers in year 2002 is more than 56.3
million passengers and most of them are using LRT (93.9%). Moreover, there is a
significant increase of LRT passengers in year 2000 as compared to the previous
year. This may be due to the operation of PUTRA LRT since June 1999.
Table 4.8 Rail Passengers from Year 1998 to 2002
KTMB LRT TOTAL( ' 000 ) ( ' 000 ) ( ' 000 )
1998 4,924 7,300 12,2241999 4,344 10,950 15,2942000 3,825 40,150 43,9752001 3,511 51,100 54,6112002 3,437 52,925 56,362
YEARRAIL PASSENGERS BY YEAR
Source: Consultant’s Estimation
4.2.3 Air Transport
The main air transportation system includes commercial airlines and air freight
carriers. The major market is intercity passenger travel, particularly long-distance
travel. In addition, some intercity freight is shipped by air. The air transportation
system in Malaysia includes 22 public-use airports. Commercial aviation accounted
for more than 32.7 million passengers in year 2002.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 85
Table 4.9 and Table 4.10 illustrate the air traffic (passenger and/or cargo) at
Malaysian airports during 1991 to 2002. Table 4.11 to Table 4.16 highlights the
passenger-kilometer data of Malaysian Airports.
Table 4.9 Air Traffic at Public-use Airports in Malaysia from year 1991 to 2002
Year Passenger Freight (Tonne)
Commercial Aircraft Movements
1991 19,951,836 284,689.9 304,9751992 21,745,245 291,384.5 365,7501993 22,880,336 312,045.1 372,6581994 24,192,387 381,410.0 383,7221995 26,340,287 482,031.4 406,3381996 28,873,231 541,416.5 441,5961997 31,275,494 617,027.6 425,8251998 27,007,630 524,765.7 389,4701999 28,322,902 640,980.5 365,8522000 31,663,342 762,378.0 362,0042001 31,386,848 777,625.6 372,8852002 32,680,018 782,992.9 388,831
Annual Growth (%) 4.59 9.63 2.23
Source: Malaysia Airports Berhad (2002)
Referring to Table 4.9 above, both passenger and cargo is on the increase.
Freight air carriers have the highest annual growth of 9.63% per year during 1991 –
2002. The detail of number of passengers served based on airports in Malaysia are
shown in Table 4.10 as follows.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 86
Table 4.10 Air Passengers Traffic at Public-use Airports in Malaysia from year 1990 to 2002
AIRPORTS 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
KLIA 6,377,290 12,779,711 14,352,848 14,206,055 15,936,882
SUBANG 7,521,282 8,843,558 9,803,856 10,726,468 11,343,648 12,544,729 14,314,547 15,819,863 8,129,104 1,999,302 2,100,727 1,955,689 1,130,169
PULAU PINANG 1,889,564 2,175,706 2,508,718 2,671,395 2,654,485 2,735,604 2,849,399 2,907,033 2,392,823 2,451,352 2,681,718 2,502,777 2,479,946
KOTA KINABALU 1,749,551 1,819,236 1,898,569 1,796,153 2,096,241 2,410,807 2,478,558 2,732,146 2,259,438 2,629,788 2,969,639 2,912,802 3,137,935
KUCHING 1,456,035 1,683,617 1,696,163 1,783,553 1,890,855 2,067,252 2,163,562 2,257,214 1,940,737 2,174,348 2,482,601 2,624,502 2,860,933
PULAU LANGKAWI 165,730 254,820 479,046 719,549 873,144 888,131 867,541 839,064 735,823 793,353 947,293 820,625 712,912
JOHOR BHARU 514,340 688,883 823,574 807,726 708,310 864,561 916,729 1,081,681 810,743 847,500 983,843 966,529 865,136
KOTA BHARU 292,919 339,236 366,008 377,203 446,492 501,528 560,590 602,068 487,541 471,085 512,834 506,632 534,959
IPOH 281,642 342,440 421,224 448,150 261,119 219,228 221,761 196,625 146,211 132,154 147,381 131,387 132,314
KUALA TERENGGANU 110,208 134,848 151,093 156,732 189,930 236,597 282,357 313,384 272,618 297,933 343,186 355,063 309,202
ALOR SETAR 207,943 256,856 313,166 330,522 286,930 304,165 328,129 343,865 239,797 273,933 311,224 306,514 287,465
MELAKA 4,529 2,736 7,777 17,102 10,746 18,323 13,483 6,411 6,962 14,941 12,684 8,467 7,438
KUANTAN 174,687 247,481 300,912 300,483 353,552 374,493 452,684 512,549 403,489 387,375 419,441 433,270 388,746
PULAU TIOMAN 47,235 47,038 50,984 70,991 97,275 102,338 94,556 82,739 80,959 75,425 74,762 83,358 64,067
PULAU PANGKOR n.a n.a n.a 3,933 9,719 10,091 - - - 4,453 6,498 8,999 8,811
LABUAN 210,216 255,198 301,159 315,452 353,843 357,681 546,379 586,091 404,966 447,316 475,490 520,544 548,920
LAHAD DATU 103,120 106,952 85,124 55,531 63,089 73,377 84,467 92,094 79,881 88,632 102,492 104,270 108,151
SANDAKAN 460,488 456,833 393,968 291,549 345,751 380,702 413,740 424,781 374,654 401,517 448,500 444,066 444,601
TAWAU 458,118 454,623 482,541 390,582 406,448 441,256 452,679 461,234 391,164 436,389 461,026 472,301 495,379
BINTULU 226,589 287,605 309,555 291,615 266,593 269,368 289,024 335,698 255,064 263,718 288,449 326,676 363,176
MIRI 802,325 948,672 750,631 736,065 963,067 944,860 922,035 1,049,253 692,439 771,855 913,219 1,003,860 1,135,808
SIBU 532,597 605,498 601,177 589,582 571,150 595,196 621,011 631,701 525,927 580,822 627,487 692,462 727,068
JUMLAH 17,209,118 19,951,836 21,745,245 22,880,336 24,192,387 26,340,287 28,873,231 31,275,494 27,007,630 28,322,902 31,663,342 31,386,848 32,680,018
Source: Malaysia Airports Berhad, 2002
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 87
Table 4.11 International Air Passenger-Km Data of KLIA
Approx.Arrival Departure Total Arrival Departure Total Distance (km) 2002 2003
SINGAPORE 962,062 1,008,872 1,970,934 741,853 778,002 1,519,855 297 584,707,726 450,888,240BANGKOK 386,922 387,194 774,116 380,006 389,869 769,875 1,246 964,228,516 958,945,984MANILA 51,542 50,992 102,534 59,184 56,474 115,658 1,341 137,518,744 155,120,672MEDAN 39,592 58,093 97,685 36,601 50,299 86,900 351 34,301,453 30,514,370JAKARTA 266,068 277,993 544,061 310,774 264,208 574,982 1,129 614,363,583 649,280,139B.SERI BEGAWAN 53,905 63,313 117,218 50,836 55,650 106,486 1,484 173,894,286 157,973,238PHUKET 66,539 64,316 130,855 54,126 50,515 104,641 706 92,406,961 73,895,203DENPASAR 61,408 60,686 122,094 68,206 67,410 135,616 1,962 239,543,105 266,072,679HO CHI MINH CITY 81,758 68,123 149,881 86,878 67,094 153,972 1,048 157,056,028 161,342,871HANOI 23,786 24,955 48,741 46,528 33,667 80,195 2,100 102,374,402 168,439,613PHNOM PEHN 29,692 28,907 58,599 33,107 31,765 64,872 1,035 60,665,851 67,160,107SUBIC BAY 3,842 3,777 7,619 3,444 3,132 6,576 2,434 18,541,179 16,002,991SURABAYA 85,211 96,616 181,827 104,072 82,794 186,866 1,667 303,064,425 311,463,297CEBU 5,829 6,614 12,443 7,342 7,156 14,498 1,341 16,688,569 19,444,738YANGON 27,589 19,553 47,142 32,883 16,293 49,176 1,687 79,544,667 82,976,720MATARAM 0 9,824 9,824 0 10,756 10,756 2,028 19,927,779 21,818,321MANADO 0 0 0 754 785 1,539 2,581 0 3,972,226BALIKPAPAN 0 0 0 38 70 108 1,743 0 188,277PADANG 0 0 0 213 371 584 431 0 251,925HONGKONG 378,672 455,393 834,065 290,777 321,098 611,875 2,541 2,119,065,824 1,554,559,179TOKYO 167,475 168,827 336,302 158,326 161,325 319,651 5,405 1,817,842,223 1,727,837,136TAIPEH 165,902 169,426 335,328 124,163 124,016 248,179 3,243 1,087,322,736 804,736,465SEOUL 82,351 91,481 173,832 97,017 106,655 203,672 4,637 806,114,228 944,491,791GUANGZHOU 108,092 100,762 208,854 94,435 93,280 187,715 2,588 540,454,524 485,752,827FUKUOKA 16,704 17,443 34,147 4,014 4,531 8,545 4,543 155,129,824 38,819,936NAGOYA 26,793 26,371 53,164 22,723 21,844 44,567 5,118 272,082,756 228,085,024OSAKA 74,113 80,350 154,463 62,891 68,313 131,204 4,939 762,833,381 647,966,121KAOHSIUNG 14,184 13,608 27,792 6,543 6,306 12,849 2,983 82,902,408 38,328,045BEIJING 61,172 63,885 125,057 47,227 49,149 96,376 4,410 551,449,359 424,978,077XIAMEN 37,291 32,878 70,169 36,776 33,388 70,164 2,992 209,974,396 209,959,434SHANGHAI HANGQIAU 19,253 19,835 39,088 5,863 5,284 11,147 3,771 147,409,666 42,037,852SHANGHAI PUDONG 73,317 73,545 146,862 79,564 78,781 158,345 3,793 556,979,290 600,528,970HANGZHOU 380 181 561 390 390 780 3,633 2,038,004 2,833,589FUZHOU 7,706 7,627 15,333 13,388 13,718 27,106 3,210 49,212,510 86,998,911MACAU 1,424 2,005 3,429 3,495 5,009 8,504 2,507 8,598,148 21,323,607HAIKOU 0 0 0 644 653 1,297 2,132 0 2,765,044KUNMING 0 0 0 2,167 2,089 4,256 2,475 0 10,533,033MELBOURNE 122,638 90,154 212,792 123,637 125,008 248,645 6,313 1,343,392,283 1,569,738,403PERTH 87,068 88,263 175,331 90,864 97,669 188,533 4,151 727,879,844 782,687,434SYDNEY 154,808 164,475 319,283 143,606 153,414 297,020 6,566 2,096,564,189 1,950,374,731BRISBANE 52,279 51,494 103,773 48,163 51,093 99,256 6,438 668,058,674 638,979,617AUCKLAND 49,287 53,346 102,633 63,278 72,883 136,161 8,716 894,544,722 1,186,773,299ADELAINE 33,055 33,683 66,738 33,879 36,946 70,825 5,680 379,047,167 402,259,816MUMBAI 44,171 40,956 85,127 44,422 41,428 85,850 3,623 308,413,895 311,033,314KARACHI 10,662 9,886 20,548 16,770 12,900 29,670 4,446 91,350,605 131,904,441CHENNAI 132,376 129,706 262,082 147,917 115,149 263,066 2,630 689,363,064 691,951,313NEW DELHI 44,912 43,655 88,567 46,755 44,474 91,229 3,874 343,147,324 353,461,077DHAKA 87,005 89,914 176,919 90,893 61,885 152,778 2,640 467,126,259 403,385,819COLOMBO 38,785 34,449 73,234 52,823 36,214 89,037 2,468 180,755,866 219,760,767BANGALORE 24,112 25,169 49,281 24,393 25,183 49,576 2,879 141,871,168 142,720,420HYDERABAD 12,571 10,682 23,253 10,718 10,314 21,032 4,360 101,389,923 91,705,710KATHMANDU 0 0 0 28,039 14,013 42,052 3,272 0 137,595,296MALE 12,588 13,215 25,803 11,409 11,713 23,122 3,132 80,818,245 72,421,015TASHKENT 7,148 7,148 7,462 7,462 5,370 38,382,068 40,068,130JEDDAH 77,879 73,226 151,105 82,848 85,525 168,373 7,067 1,067,798,714 1,189,824,776DUBAI 36,561 61,394 97,955 43,417 66,845 110,262 5,547 543,333,875 611,597,976AMMAN 8,760 8,881 17,641 8,340 8,687 17,027 7,567 133,487,873 128,841,790TEHERAN 12,728 12,026 24,754 14,958 13,985 28,943 6,332 156,734,927 183,258,422RIYADH 25,176 15,709 40,885 8,784 4,931 13,715 6,376 260,697,409 87,451,754
AIRPORT NAME: KUALA LUMPUR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT2002 Passengers - Km2003
DESTINATIONS
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 88
Table 4.11 International Air Passenger-Km Data of KLIA (cont…)
MEDINAH 5,193 26,803 31,996 6,641 20,188 26,829 7,059 225,853,947 189,381,033ABU DHABI 15,933 15,932 31,865 9,370 10,711 20,081 5,586 177,999,604 112,173,546BEIRUT 9,070 9,658 18,728 12,818 11,445 24,263 7,652 143,299,032 185,650,599CAIRO 6,443 6,628 13,071 10,773 11,476 22,249 7,962 104,073,337 177,150,002MUSCAT 0 5 5 282 315 597 5,210 26,050 3,110,418DOHA 18,324 17,387 35,711 16,981 16,567 33,548 5,911 211,090,221 198,304,576SANAA 3,121 2,884 6,005 3,253 2,874 6,127 6,447 38,712,868 39,499,374LONDON 264,962 270,125 535,087 263,662 253,117 516,779 10,605 5,674,447,276 5,480,296,080AMSTERDAM 110,213 118,074 228,287 125,447 126,403 251,850 10,234 2,336,231,721 2,577,369,535FRANKFURT 63,634 68,468 132,102 59,837 62,947 122,784 9,998 1,320,737,500 1,227,577,426PARIS 42,523 42,304 84,827 48,577 46,859 95,436 10,440 885,577,084 996,332,944ROME 18,506 18,269 36,775 23,892 23,668 47,560 9,728 357,763,208 462,684,383MANCHESTER 36,729 38,343 75,072 49,701 50,097 99,798 10,681 801,820,910 1,065,911,700VIENNA 24,988 33,518 58,506 23,396 28,085 51,481 9,416 550,893,637 484,746,100ZURICH 27,955 27,097 55,052 27,710 28,744 56,454 10,017 551,473,391 565,517,670ISTANBUL 14,445 15,225 29,670 7,806 7,798 15,604 8,375 248,497,367 130,689,347LOS ANGELES 62,375 63,208 125,583 47,206 50,025 97,231 14,157 1,777,915,025 1,376,527,522NEW YORK 12,342 11,665 24,007 15,649 16,864 32,513 15,167 364,105,039 493,112,306BUENOS AIRES 4,117 3,868 7,985 7,468 8,130 15,598 15,900 126,963,276 248,011,669CAPE TOWN 10,481 12,720 23,201 12,832 13,618 26,450 9,543 221,397,385 252,401,225JOHANNESBURG 19,733 19,977 39,710 21,167 20,236 41,403 8,502 337,626,539 352,020,942MAURITIUS 8,511 10,100 18,611 6,956 6,887 13,843 5,445 101,341,097 75,378,261TOTAL 10,670,727 9,981,499 40,040,240,164 39,489,928,630
Source: Consultant’s estimation based on Malaysia Airports Berhad data, 2004
Table 4.12 Domestic Air Passenger-Km Data of KLIA
Approx.Arrival Departure Total Arrival Departure Total Distance (km) 2003 2004
ALOR SETAR 172,382 176,526 348,908 162,770 161,483 324,253 410 142,947,014 132,845,903KOTA KINABALU 566,997 556,864 1,123,861 573,067 544,727 1,117,794 1,625 1,826,573,409 1,816,712,919BINTULU 26,308 24,284 50,592 44,602 39,302 83,904 1,257 63,607,323 105,489,185IPOH 40,397 35,056 75,453 26,486 24,953 51,439 214 16,120,601 10,989,989JOHOR BHARU 192,955 184,187 377,142 239,290 228,524 467,814 250 94,343,957 117,026,011KOTA BHARU 279,643 285,682 565,325 275,469 279,183 554,652 385 217,680,313 213,570,638KUCHING 572,158 579,573 1,151,731 575,501 578,583 1,154,084 966 1,112,963,159 1,115,236,956KUANTAN 176,706 172,265 348,971 158,005 157,165 315,170 200 69,643,479 62,897,878LABUAN 81,222 82,079 163,301 79,802 79,283 159,085 1,526 249,218,686 242,784,518LANGKAWI 286,265 270,888 557,153 311,664 282,598 594,262 455 253,248,826 270,116,384MIRI 141,979 145,487 287,466 149,246 154,724 303,970 1,371 394,019,326 416,640,766PENANG 607,158 590,229 1,197,387 657,345 636,700 1,294,045 325 389,392,048 420,825,375SIBU 76,382 74,487 150,869 90,547 86,134 176,681 1,141 172,069,338 201,508,479SANDAKAN 33,674 31,908 65,582 42,660 43,804 86,464 1,842 120,818,610 159,288,529TERENGGANU 191,615 191,223 382,838 197,812 198,214 396,026 329 126,060,169 130,402,689TAWAU 49,507 49,333 98,840 60,674 61,416 122,090 1,827 180,549,783 223,020,265
TOTAL 6,945,419 7,201,733 5,429,256,043 5,639,356,484
Passengers - Km
AIRPORT NAME: KUALA LUMPUR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
DESTINATIONS2004 (until November)2003
Source: Consultant’s estimation based on Malaysia Airports Berhad data, 2004
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 89
Table 4.13 Air Passenger-Km Data of Kota Kinabalu Airport
Approx.
Arrival Departure Total Arrival Departure Total Distance (km) 2002 2003BALIK PAPAN - - - 1,956 1,885 3,841 805 0 3,093,922CEBU 1,610 2,253 3,863 1,818 2,166 3,984 1,004 3,878,977 4,000,502BANDAR SERI BEGAWAN 48,380 47,027 95,408 47,324 45,404 92,728 166 15,822,742 15,378,338SINGAPORE 20,775 23,979 44,754 6,430 11,872 18,302 1,431 64,037,616 26,187,904MANILA 5,434 5,564 10,998 5,832 6,391 12,223 1,097 12,062,597 13,406,616POCHENTONG 0 0 0 0 22 22 1,379 0 30,338TARAKAN, INDON 38 2 40 869 938 1,807 335 13,393 604,996DENPASAR, BALI - - 0 138 101 239 1,634 0 390,564PALAWAN - - 0 0 39 39 1,097 0 42,775MANADO - - 0 734 753 1,487 1,100 0 1,635,336BANGKOK - - 0 7 162 169 1,907 0 322,364JAKARTA - - 0 - - 0 1,694 0 0HO CHI MINH - - 0 - - 0 1,168 0 0NARITA 5,378 3,237 8,615 11,377 9,134 20,511 4,143 35,694,218 84,984,099TOKYO / NARITA / OSAKA 9,093 6,592 15,685 - - 0 4,143 64,987,786 0TAIPEH 41,770 40,974 82,743 32,857 31,841 64,699 2,199 181,949,084 142,269,558HONG KONG 40,775 42,106 82,881 42,072 41,559 83,631 1,836 152,165,750 153,542,537SEOUL 11,155 8,591 19,746 16,671 15,104 31,775 3,681 72,678,123 116,950,056KANSAI, OSAKA - - 0 - - 0 3,775 0 0SHENZHEN 524 506 1,030 - - 0 1,872 1,927,867 0GUANGZHOU 274 274 549 - - 0 1,940 1,064,425 0KAOHSHIUNG 21,302 19,145 40,448 10,843 11,031 21,874 1,908 77,190,993 41,743,752SHANGHAI,PUDONG - - 0 397 396 793 2,862 0 2,269,239MACAU - - 0 362 345 707 1,821 0 1,287,407CANTON - - 0 2,318 2,342 4,660 3,795 0 17,682,712XIAMEN - - 0 547 528 1,075 2,081 0 2,236,590PUSAN - - 0 1,391 1,395 2,786 3,509 0 9,775,630SAPPORO, JAPAN - - 0 355 0 355 4,823 0 1,712,227PERTH 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,211 0 0SYDNEY 0 0 0 5,001 4,654 9,655 5,770 0 55,713,476JEDDAH - - 0 1,406 1,572 2,978 8,411 0 25,044,344ARLANDA, SWEDEN 362 2,150 2,512 - - 0 9,890 24,843,722 0BAHRAIN 718 353 1,071 - - 0 7,264 7,779,487 0SHARJAH DUBAI 1,408 358 1,766 - - 0 6,780 11,974,032 0TOTAL 412,109 380,339 728,070,813 720,305,283
Pasenger - KmDESTINATIONS
AIRPORT NAME: KOTA KINABALU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
2002 2003
Source: Consultant’s estimation based on Malaysia Airports Berhad data, 2004
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 90
Table 4.14 Air Passenger-Km Data of Kuching Airport
Approx.
Arrival Departure Total Arrival Departure Total Distance (km) 2002 2003SINGAPORE 52,641 65,359 118,000 34,696 34,977 69,673 705 83,197,679 49,124,098BRUNEI 9,518 8,722 18,241 4,315 4,784 9,099 638 11,630,712 5,801,680PONTIANAK 9,676 8,859 18,535 13,009 15,253 28,262 209 3,877,588 5,912,515MANILA 2,133 2,114 4,247 549 512 1,061 1,862 7,908,527 1,975,863BALIK PAPAN 0 3 3 1,092 1,089 2,181 790 2,371 1,724,058SUBIC BAY 0 0 0 226 875 1,101 1,838 0 2,023,424YANGON 0 216 216 0 0 0 2,313 499,590 0BANDUNG 0 0 0 0 7 7 981 0 6,864SELETAR 0 0 0 0 120 120 705 0 84,608NATUNA 0 0 0 0 26 26 209 0 5,439KOTA KINABALU 0 0 0 0 92 92 803 0 73,867MANADO 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,622 0 0JAKARTA 0 0 0 0 0 0 943 0 0HONGKONG 4,264 3,456 7,720 2,480 1,993 4,473 2,347 18,122,560 10,499,833HIROSHIMA 0 12 12 0 0 0 4,348 51,627 0FUZHOU 352 318 670 0 0 0 4,348 2,912,955 0XIAMEN 0 0 0 174 361 535 2,696 0 1,442,124CANTON 0 0 0 548 492 1,040 4,335 0 4,507,919TAIPEH 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,871 0 0PERTH 8,608 4,273 12,880 4,658 9,241 13,899 3,764 48,486,527 52,320,972JEDDAH 2,191 1,924 4,115 943 973 1,916 8,003 32,933,548 15,334,308MADRAS 0 0 0 0 4 4 4,096 0 16,385FRANKFURT 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,716 0 0TOTAL 184,639 133,489 209,623,683 150,853,957
AIRPORT NAME: KUCHING INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
2002 2003 Passenger-KmDESTINATIONS
Source: Consultant’s estimation based on Malaysia Airports Berhad data, 2004
Table 4.15 Air Passenger-Km Data of Penang Airport
Approx.
Arrival Departure Total Arrival Departure Total Distance (km) 2002 2003PHUKET 0 0 0 80 79 159 382 0 60,664MEDAN 176,241 147,065 323,306 172,979 151,772 324,751 262 84,770,632 85,149,550SINGAPORE 283,366 298,680 582,046 186,936 197,088 384,024 603 351,062,001 231,624,652MANILA 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,488 0 0BANGKOK 70,525 74,974 145,500 0 0 0 958 139,388,729 0SUBIC BAY 0 2 2 59,124 55,259 114,383 2,428 4,855 277,677,921HO CHI MINH CITY 0 114 115 229 932 0 213,526B.S.BEGAWAN 0 63 11 74 1,623 0 120,091NARITA 1,295 0 1,295 2,457 4 2,461 5,313 6,882,871 13,075,556GUANGZHOU 13,399 13,167 26,565 554 0 554 2,428 64,489,996 1,344,899ZHENGHOU 274 252 527 112 108 220 3,537 1,862,762 778,182TAIPEH 28,698 24,257 52,954 34,933 34,923 69,856 3,135 165,987,547 218,966,063KUNMING, CHINA 116 0 116 1,993 1,998 3,991 2,206 255,917 8,804,872CHENGDU, CHINA 0 133 133 478 143 621 2,836 377,239 1,761,396HONG KONG 12,818 33,215 46,033 29,589 20,285 49,874 2,393 110,172,602 119,365,180SHANGHAI 0 4 4 598 322 920 3,622 14,500 3,332,294CANTON 0 0 0 7,609 8,517 16,126 4,196 0 67,672,583PUDONG, CHINA 0 0 0 0 334 334 3,647 0 1,217,937KANSAI 0 0 0 83 0 83 4,837 0 401,462WUHAN 0 0 0 164 164 328 3,186 0 1,044,902XIAMEN 0 0 0 586 546 1,132 2,865 0 3,243,513JEDDAH 7,432 7,029 14,460 6,121 5,137 11,258 6,810 98,469,885 76,662,361SAN PEDRO HULA, HONDURAS 290 0 290 0 254 254 17,544 5,087,873 4,456,275LONDON 0 0 0 2,990 0 2,990 10,273 0 30,717,474TOTAL 1,193,232 984,622 1,028,827,410 1,147,691,353
Passenger-Km
AIRPORT NAME: PENANG INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
DESTINATIONS2002 2003
Source: Consultant’s estimation based on Malaysia Airports Berhad data, 2004
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 91
Table 4.16 Air Passenger-Km Data of Langkawi Airport
Approx.
Arrival Departure Total Arrival Departure Total Distance (km) 2002 2003PHUKET 45 42 87 0 0 0 253 22,054 0SINGAPORE 36,166 39,112 75,279 31,654 32,228 63,882 729 54,847,922 46,544,400SELETAR 0 0 0 17 9 26 729 0 18,944KANSAI 290 0 290 0 0 0 4,796 1,390,821 0HONG KONG 5,735 5,086 10,821 2,722 2,692 5,414 2,339 25,314,601 12,665,579INCHON, SEOUL 0 0 0 798 353 1,151 4,421 0 5,088,015DENMARK 0 33,202 33,202 0 0 0 9,243 306,884,403 0FINLAND 909 1,129 2,038 0 0 0 8,554 17,432,682 0RUSSIA 297 0 297 0 0 0 7,687 2,280,826 0YEKATERINBURG, RUSSIA 90 89 179 90 89 179 7,687 1,375,904 1,375,904LONDON 2,435 0 2,435 2,435 0 2,435 10,155 24,728,317 24,728,317MILAN 376 0 376 376 0 376 9,580 3,602,223 3,602,223AUCKLAND 607 0 607 0 0 0 9,119 5,538,533 0TOTAL 125,611 73,463 443,418,287 94,023,382
AIRPORT NAME: LANGKAWI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
2002 2003 Passenger-KmDESTINATIONS
Source: Consultant’s estimation based on Malaysia Airports Berhad data, 2004
4.2.4 Maritime Transport
The market for maritime transportation system is intercity freight. Usually
coastwise shipping specializes in bulk goods while foreign going shipping carries all
types of cargo. This system provides low speed and relatively low accessibility, but
extremely high capacities.
The maritime transport in Malaysia consists of foreign going and coastal
shipping. The types of ship that operated in Malaysian ports includes oil tanker,
liquefied gas carriers, oil carriers, cargo carriers, passenger carriers, container ships
and vehicle carriers. There are fourteen (14) ports throughput cargo carriers with
total cargo as shown in Table 4.17. It is seen also that cargo carriers have annual
growth rates of 6.33% per year.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 92
Table 4.17 Total Cargo Throughput by Ports from year 1991 to 2002
PORT 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
KELANG 26,296 28,403 30,788 33,857 40,034 49,025 55,767 47,342 60,970 65,277 70,150 82,271
PULAU PINANG 12,062 13,219 14,362 15,135 16,675 17,501 19,693 16,476 18,760 20,473 20,453 21,800
JOHOR 10,711 10,741 11,798 13,223 16,504 19,017 20,805 19,322 21,512 24,536 27,306 29,019
KUANTAN 2,842 2,877 3,401 4,159 4,208 5,052 5,855 5,500 5,510 6,027 7,532 8,999
BINTULU 12,931 13,590 14,698 15,284 18,639 21,816 24,586 23,342 23,641 24,897 25,210 25,592
TG.BRUAS 534 531 538 461 389 510 579 710 746 818 679 708
KUCHING 2,939 3,138 3,396 3,726 4,282 5,658 6,055 4,051 4,743 5,301 5,368 5,983
MIRI 9,774 8,966 7,109 6,722 7,123 6,536 4,403 4,270 6,867 6,033 5,813 5,692
RAJANG 5,424 5,890 5,543 5,789 5,946 5,971 5,576 4,534 5,107 5,582 5,052 4,691
PEL-PEL SABAH 13,679 14,159 13,168 14,579 16,257 17,455 19,608 16,595 16,789 18,074 17,831 19,018
PORT DICKSON 12,195 11,310 13,081 12,984 12,215 13,677 13,853 12,395 10,122 7,829 12,842 12,595
KEMAMAN 1,700 1,019 2,542 1,960 2,568 2,538 3,631 1,798 2,001 2,155 2,054 1,480
TELUK EWA 1,544 1,560 1,713 2,053 2,538 4,758 3,234 2,964 2,586 3,167 3,589 3,487
TANJUNG PELEPAS 248 n.a n.a
TOTAL 112,631 115,403 122,137 129,932 147,378 169,514 183,645 159,299 179,354 190,417 203,879 221,335
Annual Growth Rate (% ) = 6.33
Source: All the Ports and Marine Department, 2002
4.2.5 Passenger Transport Mode Share
In terms of number of passenger carried, road transport is still leading amongst
the transportation modes in Malaysia. In year 2002, more than 85% of passengers
were carried by road transport and about 14% by rail services. The air transport mode
only serves about 0.24% of the total daily passengers. The transport mode share for
daily passengers is illustrated in Figure 4.7.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 93
Transport Mode Share in 2002
Road85.71%
Rail 14.05%
Air0.24%
Figure 4.7 Proportion of Passenger by Modes
2.4.6 Number of Vehicle Registration by Type of Fuel
According to Road Transport Department for year 1999, 2000 and 2002, about
57% of the total new vehicles registered is passenger car which 99.6% uses petrol
and only 0.4% passenger car uses diesel. On the other hand, for bus registration, the
proportion of bus is only 0.03% of the total vehicles and 90.5% of the bus using
diesel. The number of new vehicle registration in year 1999, 2000 and 2002 based on
fuel type is represented in Table 4.18.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 94
Table 4.18 Number of New Vehicle Registration Based on Fuel Type
Petrol Diesel Petrol Diesel Petrol DieselP. Car 294,928 1,548 338,866 1,061 409,224 1,290Bus 22 223 24 205 10 102Lorry 3,923 4,998 5,257 10,472 4,271 3,250Motorcycle 236,759 12 238,672 15 222,661 14Others 2,274 6,348 2,699 9,431 5,014 10,790
Types of Traffic Mode
No. of Vehicle Registration Based on Fuel Type 1999 2000 2002
Source: Road Transport Department, Malaysia (2002)
4.2.7 Population
Malaysia with approximately 330,000 square km of land consist about 24.5
million populations in 2002. The annual population growth rate during the period
1991 to 2002 is around 2.57%. As seen in Table 4.19, population of Malaysia has
been growing from 18.5 million in 1991 to 24.5 million in 2002. It means the
population has grown 1.3 times in these 12 years.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 95
Table 4.19 Malaysia Population from 1991 to 2002
1 1991 18,5472 1992 19,0433 1993 19,5644 1994 20,1125 1995 20,6896 1996 21,1697 1997 21,6668 1998 22,1809 1999 22,712
10 2000 23,27511 2001 24,01212 2002 24,527
2.57
Year Population in '000No
Annual Growth (%)
Source: Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2002
4.2.8 Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
The Gross Domestic Products (GDP) and the Gross Domestic Products (GDP)
per Capita of Malaysia during year 1991 to 2002 periods are shown in Table 4.20.
The GDP annual rate is 5.95% while GDP per Capita is 3.30%.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 96
Table 4.20 Gross Domestic Products (GDP) from 1991 to 2002
1 1991 116,093 6,2592 1992 126,408 6,6383 1993 138,916 7,1014 1994 151,714 7,5435 1995 166,625 8,0546 1996 183,292 8,6597 1997 196,714 9,0798 1998 182,237 8,2169 1999 193,422 8,516
10 2000 209,959 8,93611 2001 210,640 8,77212 2002 219,309 8,942
5.95 3.30
Gross Domestic Product Per Capita (GDP/P) (RM)No Year Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) (Million)
Annual Growth (%)
Source: Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2002
4.2.9 Employment
Referring to Table 4.21 it can be seen that in Malaysia, the unemployment rates
decrease 0.55% per year as the result of 3.08% annual growth rate of employment.
Number of employment in 2002 achieved 9.5 million from only 7.0 million in 1992.
Compared to the population annual growth rate of 2.57%, the employment rate is
relatively higher.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 97
Table 4.21 Employment in All Sectors from 1991 to 2002
1 1992 7,047.8 3.72 1993 7,383.4 4.13 1995 7,645.0 3.14 1996 8,399.3 2.55 1997 8,569.2 2.56 1998 8,599.6 3.27 1999 8,837.8 3.48 2000 9,321.7 3.19 2001 9,535.0 3.6
10 2002 9,542.6 3.5
3.08 -0.55Annual Growth (%)
No Year Employment ('000) Unemployment Rates (%)
Source: Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2002
4.3 Review of HNDP and SMURT – KL Study
The HNDP (Highway Network Development Plan) Study was conducted from
May 1991 to February 1993 with the technical cooperation from the Government of
Japan (JICA – Japan International Cooperation Agency). The HNDP Study targeted
the following two objectives covering the whole of Malaysia (Peninsular Malaysia,
Sabah and Sarawak).
To formulate a development plan of the national highway network up to the year
2010;
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 98
To prioritize new and improved linkages in the planned network with respect to
technical and economic consideration, and to formulate a road development
program.
The highway network development plan was approved by the cabinet
and incorporated as the basic guidelines for the future development of highways in
the Mid-Term Review of the Sixth Malaysian Plan. Subsequently, the Government of
Malaysia and the Government of Japan through JICA had conducted another
transportation study called A Study on Integrated Urban Transportation Strategies for
Environmental Improvement in Kuala Lumpur. The study started in March 1997 and
ended in February 1999. The study is also called as “Strategies for Managing Urban
Transport in Kuala Lumpur,” and the abbreviation of the study is known as
“SMURT-KL”.
The objectives of SMURT-KL study are:
To formulate urban transportation policies and strategies to alleviate traffic
congestion and to improve the quality of the urban environment by promoting
the usage of public transportation; and
To formulate an Urban Transportation Master Plan in Kuala Lumpur
Metropolitan Area for the period up to the year 2020.
The target year of the Master Plan was defined as the year 2020, with and
intermediate target year of 2010.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 99
4.3.1 Trip Production
The trip production is defined as the process of estimating the total trip
generated within the study area. Trips are usually thought of as being two-way
excursions originating at the trip-maker’s home. In general, trips to be produced by
residential development and attracted by economic or other activity. Trips are
normally stratified by purpose: for each trip type, the number produced in a
particular zone is assumed to depend on the size and characteristics of the zone’s
resident population. Where there is more than one predictive factor (x), this is
accomplished through multiple regression. In this technique, a function of the form is
fitted to data. αj is coefficient to be determined through regression analysis.
kk xxxy αααα ++++= ...22110 (3.1)
In the HNDP Study, the multiple linear regression is selected over other
method (such as grow factor method, trip production rate method, or the vehicle
based method) to model trip production. This is due to the high correlation and no
major difference among the results from the total passenger and the freight demand
and the low reliability as the growth factor and the trip production method. The
multiple regression utilize the population, employment, GDP, and GDP per capita.
The trip production model as well as the correlation coefficient from the HNDP
Study is illustrated in Table 4.22.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 100
4.3.2 Trip Generation and Attraction Model
The trip generation is defined as the number of trips generated by each traffic
zones per unit of time and the trip attraction is defined as those attracted be each
traffic zone per unit of time in the study area. The total trip generation and attraction
by zone is controlled by trip production whereby passenger and the freight are
converted into vehicle trips.
The trip generation step is to estimate the number of vehicle-trips, which will
begin or end in each traffic analysis zone within a study area for a typical day of the
target year. Each trip has two ends, which are described in terms of trip purposes
such as work trips, school trips, shopping trips, and social or recreational trips. Trip
ends at residential zones are referred to as productions, and trip ends at
nonresidential zones are referred to as attractions.
According to land use, trips can also be classified as home-based or as non
home-based. A home-based trip consists of trips that either begin or end at a resident
zone. For example, a home-based work trip would be considered to have a trip end
produced in the resident zone and attracted to the work zone. A non-home-based trip
consists of trips that neither begin nor end at a resident zone. Commonly used
methods for trip generation include regression models, trip-rate analysis models, and
cross-classification models.
The equations for the tip Generation and Attraction Model for the Macro and
the Micro Level is shown in Table 4.23 and Table 4.24 respectively. Table 4.25
shows the average vehicle occupancy and average load factor.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 101
Table 4.22 Trip Production Regression Model
Types of
Transport Mode
Formula Coefficient
Passenger
Passenger Car
Bus
Rail
Air
All Modes
-165,938 + 69.39 POP + 33.293 GDP
-275,744 + 89.970 POP + 2.903 GDP
-1,872 + 0.987 GDP/P
-3,644 + 1.365 GDP/P
-102,335 + 158.671 POP + 36.371 GDP
0.989
0.953
0.764
0.987
0.991
Freight
Lorry
Rail
Air
Water
All Modes
-31,265 + 8.961 GDP – 7.742 EMP
-1,042 + 0.0449 GDP
-19 + 0.00013 GDP + 0.00447 EMP
-4,928 + 0.0569 GDP + 1034 EMP
-31,895 + 9.150 GDP – 8.601 EMP
0.842
0.808
0.987
0.989
0.845
Source: HDNP Study, 1991
Note: EMP = Employment GDP = Gross Domestic Product
POP = Population GDP/P = Gross Domestic Product per Capita
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 102
Table 4.23 General Equation for the Trip Generation/Attraction Model (Macro
Level)
Vehicle Type Generation /
Attraction
Formula Coefficient
Car Generation
Attraction
-112170 + 1216.71 ZEMP
-112133 + 1216.63 ZEMP
0.945
0.945
Bus Generation
Attraction
253.73 ZEMP
254.1 ZEMP
0.838
0.838
Lorry Generation
Attraction
20720 + 17.31 GDP
20766 + 17.31 GDP
0.803
0.803
Source: HDNP Study, 1991
Note: ZEMP = Employment by Zone ZGDP = GDP by Zone
Table 4.24 General Equation for the Trip Generation/Attraction Model (Micro Level)
Source: HDNP Study, 1991
Note: EMP = Employment GDP = Gross Domestic Product
POP = Population
Vehicle Type Generation/
Attraction
Formula Coefficient
Car Generation
Attraction
75.84 POP + 962.18 EMP
73.895 POP + 967.514 EMP 0.945
0.945
Bus Generation
Attraction
4.216 POP + 1.485 GDP
4.156 POP + 1.500 GDP 0.838
0.838
Lorry Generation
Attraction
48.814 POP + 164.706 EMP
47.374 POP + 168.298 EMP 0.803
0.803
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 103
Table 4.25 Average Vehicle Occupancy and Load Factor
Vehicle Type Average Vehicle Occupancy
Average Load Factor
Car 1.8 -
Bus 28 -
Lorry - 1.9
Source: HDNP Study, 1991
4.3.3 Trip Production Rates
Besides providing the trip production and as well as the trip generation and trip
attraction, the HNDP Study also highlighted the average daily trip production rates as
shown in Table 4.26.
Table 4.26 Average Daily Trip Production Rates by Vehicle Type in Malaysia
State P.Car Goods Veh Bus Taxi All Vehicle
Perlis 3.9 4.5 7.8 7.4 4.2 Kedah 3.5 3.6 7.2 6.9 3.7 P. Pinang 3.5 3.7 6.8 9.2 3.6 Perak 3.8 4.6 5.7 8.2 4.0 Kuala Lumpur 2.8 3.0 6.9 6.8 2.9 Selangor 3.1 3.5 8.4 5.1 3.3 N. Sembilan 3.6 3.2 9.2 5.8 3.6 Melaka 3.0 2.9 5.6 4.1 3.0 Johor 3.7 3.8 7.1 5.8 3.8 Pahang 3.7 3.7 6.5 4.4 3.8 Terengganu 3.6 3.3 5.3 4.5 3.5 Kelantan 3.7 3.9 4.6 5.7 3.8
Malaysia 3.4 3.6 7.1 6.1 3.5
Source: HDNP Study, 1991
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 104
4.3.4 Model for Forecasting Vehicles
HNDP study provides linear regression model for forecasting number of
vehicles by areas that is obtained from the analysis of number of vehicles by states.
The areas stated here is for Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak. The linear
regression models are illustrated in Table 4.27.
Table 4.27 Number of Vehicles Forecasting Models in Malaysia
Vehicle Type Formula Coefficient
P. Car -10,981+ 24.9448 GDP 0.944
Bus -166 + 1.6175 POP 0.730
Lorry -1,805 + 7.2319 GDP 0.909
Source: HDNP Study, 1991
4.3.5 Modal Share
Referring to SMURT-KL study, the share of the public mode of transport in the
Kuala Lumpur metropolitan area was estimated at 24.0 percent in 2000, 23.6 percent
in 2010, and 25.6 percent in 2020 under the Base case (as shown in Table 4.28). In
Base case, both highway and public transportation network was assumed to have
been completed according to the schedule.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 105
Table 4.28 Modal Share in the Kuala Lumpur Metropolitan Area
Motor- Conventional Trunk Bus Private Mode Public Modecycle Bus and Rail of Transport of Transport1162 2876 943 28 4038 971 5009
(23.2%) (57.4%) (18.8%) (0.6%) (80.6%) (19.4%) (100.0%)1464 3520 1075 486 4984 1561 6545
(22.4%) (53.8%) (16.4%) (7.4%) (76.1%) (23.9%) (100.0%)1461 3514 1084 487 4975 1570 6545
(22.3%) (53.7%) (16.6%) (7.4%) (76.0%) (24.0%) (100.0%)1467 3490 1094 494 4957 1587 6545
(22.4%) (53.3%) (16.7%) (7.5%) (75.7%) (24.2%) (100.0%)1391 4722 1346 622 6113 1968 8084
(17.2%) (58.4%) (16.7%) (7.7%) (75.7%) (24.4%) (100.0%)1411 4770 1312 592 6181 1904 8084
(17.5%) (59.0%) (16.2%) (7.3%) (76.5%) (23.6%) (100.0%)1411 4622 1408 643 6033 2052 8084
(17.5%) (57.2%) (17.4%) (8.0%) (74.6%) (25.4%) (100.0%)1307 5986 1674 883 7292 2556 9852
(13.3%) (60.8%) (17.0%) (9.0%) (74.0%) (26.0%) (100.0%)1316 6013 1632 891 7329 2523 9852
(13.4%) (61.0%) (16.6%) (9.0%) (74.4%) (25.6%) (100.0%)1316 5686 1837 1013 7002 2850 9852
(13.4%) (57.7%) (18.6%) (10.3%) (71.1%) (28.9%) (100.0%)Source: SMURT-KL EstimateWO: Without area pricing, trunk bus system, and new highwaysBASE: With trunk bus system and highway development but without area pricing schemeMP: SMURT-KL Master Plan Case (including area pricing scheme, highway development, trunk bus system
Damansara-Cheras LRT development in 2020).Kuala Lumpur metropolitan area; the city of Kuala Lumpur and its conurbation area.
HIS
WHO
BASE
MP
BASE
MP
1997
2000
2010
2020
WO
BASE
MP
WO
Year Case Car Total
4.4 Future Socioeconomic Framework
The likely future changes in the travel demand for each traffic zone in the study
area are assessed by the examination of the control totals for the study area. The
control total is established by making the appraisal of the changes in the following
socio-economic framework and indicators.
Existing and Future Population;
Existing and Future GDP ;
Existing and Future Employment; and
Historical Traffic Growth.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 106
Table 4.29 shows the forecasted population in Malaysia. The average annual
population growth for the period 1991 – 2002 was approximately 2.57%. The
population of the country is expected to reach 38.748 million by the year 2020.
Meanwhile, Table 4.30 provides the forecasted employment within the study area.
The employment is expected to reach 16.465 million people by the year 2020 with an
average annual growth rate of 3.08%. For the Gross Domestic Product, the forecasted
data is illustrated in Table 4.31.
Table 4.29 Projected Populations, 2005 - 2020
1 2005 26,4692 2010 30,0553 2015 34,1264 2020 38,748
No Year Population in '000
Source: Consultant’s estimation, 2004
Table 4.30 Projected Employment from year 2005 to 2020
1 2005 10,451 3.42 2010 12,161 3.33 2015 14,150 3.34 2020 16,465 3.2
No Year Employment ('000) Unemployment Rates (%)
Source: Consultant’s estimation, 2004
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 107
Table 4.31 Projected Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from year 2005 to 2020
1 2005 260,854 9,8562 2010 348,310 11,5913 2015 465,087 13,6314 2020 621,016 16,031
Gross Domestic Product Per Capita (GDP/P) (RM)No Year Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) (Million)
Source: Consultant’s estimation, 2004
4.5 Analysis for Transportation Demand
Referring to the HNDP Study as mentioned above, there are several models for
estimating the trip generation within the study area. Trip generation could be
estimated in the unit of person trips (for people movement) and tonnage (for goods
movement) and sometimes in vehicular units depending on the purposes of the study.
In this study, it will concentrate on the number of vehicles particularly for
passenger car, bus and commercial vehicles. Three types of techniques are used in
determining the number of vehicles, namely Method 1, Method 2 and Method 3. In
the first method, the regression model as depicted in Table 4.22 was utilized. From
these regression models, the number of passengers is obtained and then using the
vehicle occupancy of each mode, the number of vehicles was determined.
In the second method, the model for forecasting number of vehicles as shown
in Table 4.27 was utilized. In this method the number of vehicles was determined
faster. Method 3 was obtained by developing models to forecast number of vehicles
and/or passengers based on the existing data. However, the incorporated parameters
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 108
in the models still using the parameters of the models from the HNDP study. This is
because the parameters that significantly affected the number of vehicles and/or
passengers had been determined and validated in the study.
Nevertheless, in order to obtain the optimum results, three types of techniques
for determining the number of vehicles were compared. Moreover, the method used
to judge whether one technique is better than the other is based on the disparity of the
numbers from modeled versus observed and also the linear correlation of the model.
4.5.1 Method 1
Table 4.32, Table 4.33, and Table 4.34 show the number of observed and
modeled vehicles from year 1991 to 2002 by utilizing Method 1. The table also
provides the annual growth rates between the observed and modeled data. Figure 4.8,
Figure 4.9, and Figure 4.10 depict the scatter-plot and R-square of observed and
modeled number of vehicles.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 109
Table 4.32 Observed Vs. Modeled Passenger Car Volumes (Method 1)
Observed Modelled1991 1,863.2 2,770.11992 1,983.0 2,980.01993 2,132.3 3,231.41994 2,350.1 3,489.21995 2,608.6 3,787.31996 2,946.0 4,114.11997 3,333.4 4,381.51998 3,517.5 4,133.51999 3,852.7 4,360.92000 4,212.6 4,688.52001 4,624.6 4,729.52002 5,069.4 4,909.7
Annual Growth (%) 9.53 5.34
YearP.Car ('000)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Observed Numbers
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Mod
elle
d Nu
mbe
r
Method 1
Passenger Car
R Sq Linear = 0.913
Figure 4.8 Scatter-plot of Observed vs. Modeled Passenger Car Volumes (Method 1)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 110
Table 4.33 Observed Vs. Modeled Bus Volumes (Method 1)
Observed Modelled1991 26,147 61,7841992 27,827 64,4471993 29,924 67,4181994 33,529 70,5061995 36,000 73,9061996 38,965 77,1761997 43,444 80,1651998 45,643 80,3151999 47,674 83,1842000 48,662 86,7082001 49,771 89,1472002 51,158 91,700
Annual Growth (%) 6.29 3.66
YearBus
010000
2000030000
4000050000
6000070000
8000090000
100000
Observed Numbers
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
Mod
elle
d Nu
mbe
rs
Method 1
Bus
R Sq Linear = 0.968
Figure 4.9 Scatter-plot of Observed vs. Modeled Bus Volumes (Method 1)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 111
Table 4.34 Observed Vs. Modeled Commercial Veh. (Method 1)
Observed Modelled1992 333,674 551,0071993 358,808 608,6311995 440,723 738,2491996 512,165 813,7831997 574,622 876,3931998 599,149 807,9911999 642,976 859,7722000 665,284 935,7942001 689,668 938,1372002 713,148 978,992
Annual Growth (%) 7.89 5.92
YearCommercial
0100000
200000300000
400000500000
600000700000
800000900000
10000001100000
12000001300000
14000001500000
1600000
Observed Number
0100000200000300000400000500000600000700000800000900000
1000000110000012000001300000140000015000001600000
Mod
elle
d Nu
mbe
r
Method 1
Commercial
R Sq Linear = 0.936
Figure 4.10 Scatter-plot of Observed vs. Modeled Commercial Vehicle (Method 1)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 112
4.5.2 Method 2
Similar to the analysis in Method 1, in this method the observed and modeled
volumes were analyzed. Table 4.35, Table 4.36, and Table 4.37 show the number of
observed and modeled vehicles form year 1991 to 2002. While Figure 4.11, Figure
4.12, and Figure 4.13 depict the scatter-plot and R-square of observed and modeled
number of vehicles.
Table 4.35 Observed vs. Modeled Passenger Car Volumes (Method 2)
Observed Modelled1991 1,863.2 2,884.91992 1,983.0 3,142.21993 2,132.3 3,454.31994 2,350.1 3,773.51995 2,608.6 4,145.41996 2,946.0 4,561.21997 3,333.4 4,896.01998 3,517.5 4,534.91999 3,852.7 4,813.92000 4,212.6 5,226.42001 4,624.6 5,243.42002 5,069.4 5,459.6
Annual Growth (%) 9.53 5.97
YearP.Car ('000)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 113
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Observed Numbers
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Mode
lled
Num
bers
Method 2
Passenger Car
R Sq Linear = 0.895
Figure 4.11 Scatter-plot of Observed vs Modeled Passenger Car Volumes (Method 2)
Table 4.36 Observed vs. Modeled Bus Volumes (Method 2)
Observed Modelled1991 26,147 29,8341992 27,827 30,6361993 29,924 31,4791994 33,529 32,3651995 36,000 33,2981996 38,965 34,0751997 43,444 34,8791998 45,643 35,7101999 47,674 36,5712000 48,662 37,4812001 49,771 38,6732002 51,158 39,506
Annual Growth (%) 6.29 2.59
YearBus
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 114
010000
2000030000
4000050000
6000070000
8000090000
100000
Observed Numbers
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
Mode
lled
Num
bers
Method 2
Bus
R Sq Linear = 0.955
Figure 4.12 Scatter-plot of Observed vs. Modeled Bus Volumes (Method 2)
Table 4.37 Observed vs. Modeled Commercial Vehicle (Method 2)
Observed Modelled1991 313,514 837,7681992 333,674 912,3651993 358,808 1,002,8221994 393,833 1,095,3751995 440,723 1,203,2101996 512,165 1,323,7441997 574,622 1,420,8111998 599,149 1,316,1151999 642,976 1,397,0042000 665,284 1,516,5972001 689,668 1,521,5222002 713,148 1,584,216
Annual Growth (%) 7.76 5.96
YearCommercial
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 115
0100000
200000300000
400000500000
600000700000
800000900000
10000001100000
12000001300000
14000001500000
1600000
Observed Number
0100000200000300000400000500000600000700000800000900000
1000000110000012000001300000140000015000001600000
Mode
lled N
umbe
rMethod 2
Commercial
R Sq Linear = 0.946
Figure 4.13 Scatter-plot of Observed vs. Modeled Commercial Vehicle (Method 2)
4.5.3 Method 3
As mentioned earlier, Method 3 was obtained by developing models to forecast
number of vehicles and/or passengers based on the existing data. Nevertheless, the
parameters in the models are the same as that used in the HNDP study. The
parameters involve population, GDP and GDP per capita. The multiple linear
regression type was adopted for the model.
The available historical number of vehicles and passengers from year 1991 to
2002 had been analyzed to develop the model. The number of vehicles consists of
number of passenger cars, buses, and commercial vehicles. As for passenger data, the
numbers of rail and air transport passengers were analyzed.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 116
The following tables illustrate number of passenger cars, buses, commercial
vehicles, and also numbers of rail and air transport passengers till year 2002.
Table 4.38 No. of Cars, Buses and Commercial Vehicle Year 1991 to 2002
P.Car Bus Commercial1991 1,863.2 26,147 313,5141992 1,983.0 27,827 333,6741993 2,132.3 29,924 358,8081994 2,350.1 33,529 393,8331995 2,608.6 36,000 440,7231996 2,946.0 38,965 512,1651997 3,333.4 43,444 574,6221998 3,517.5 45,643 599,1491999 3,852.7 47,674 642,9762000 4,212.6 48,662 665,2842001 4,624.6 49,771 689,6682002 5,069.4 51,158 713,148
Annual Growth (%) 9.53 6.29 7.76
YearTypes of Traffic Mode
Source: Road Transport Department, Malaysia (2002)
Table 4.39 No. of Daily Rail Passenger Year 1998 to 2002
KTMB LRT TOTAL1998 13,490 20,000 33,4901999 11,901 30,000 41,9012000 10,479 110,000 120,4792001 9,619 140,000 149,6192002 9,416 145,000 154,416
YEARRAIL PASSENGER PER DAY
Source: Consultant’s estimation from KTMB (2002) and Yusoff (2003)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 117
Table 4.40 No. of Daily Air Passenger
1991 54,6631992 59,5761993 62,6861994 66,2811995 72,1651996 79,1051997 85,6861998 73,9941999 77,5972000 86,7492001 85,9912002 89,534
Year Average Daily Air Passenger
Source: Consultant’s estimation from MAB data (2002)
The trip generation models for Method 3 are summarized in Table 4.41. These
regression models are used to obtain the numbers of passenger car, bus and lorry as
well as the number of rail and air transport passengers per day.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 118
Table 4.41 Method 3 Regression Model
Types of
Transport Mode
Formula R-sq
Passenger Car -9829378 + 662.701 POP – 7.1 GDP 0.989
Bus -38218 + 2.813 POP + 0.102 GDP 0.975
Lorry -201949 + 4.133 GDP 0.946
Rail -1353404 + 167.51 GDP/P 0.791
Air -21093.4 + 11.861 GDP/P 0.955
Source: Consultant’s Estimation
Note: GDP = Gross Domestic Product POP = Population
GDP/P = Gross Domestic Product per Capita
The following Table 4.42, Table 4.43, and Table 4.44 show the number of
observed and modeled vehicles or passengers by utilizing Method 3. Figure 4.14,
Figure 4.15, and Figure 4.16 depict the scatter-plot and R-square of observed and
modeled number of vehicles or passengers.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 119
Table 4.42 Observed vs. Modeled Passenger Car Volumes (Method 3)
Observed Modelled1991 1,863.2 1,637.51992 1,983.0 1,892.91993 2,132.3 2,149.41994 2,350.1 2,421.71995 2,608.6 2,698.21996 2,946.0 2,898.01997 3,333.4 3,132.01998 3,517.5 3,575.41999 3,852.7 3,848.62000 4,212.6 4,104.32001 4,624.6 4,587.92002 5,069.4 4,867.6
Annual Growth (%) 9.53 10.41
YearP.Car ('000)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Observed Number
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Mode
lled N
umbe
r
Method 3
Passenger Car
R Sq Linear = 0.989
Figure 4.14 Scatter-plot of Observed vs. Modeled Passenger Car (Method 3)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 120
Table 4.43 Observed vs. Modeled Bus Volumes (Method 3)
Observed Modelled1991 26,147 25,7961992 27,827 28,2441993 29,924 30,9851994 33,529 33,8321995 36,000 36,9761996 38,965 40,0261997 43,444 42,7931998 45,643 42,7631999 47,674 45,4002000 48,662 48,6702001 49,771 50,8132002 51,158 53,146
Annual Growth (%) 6.29 6.79
YearBus
010000
2000030000
4000050000
6000070000
8000090000
100000
Observed Number
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
Mode
lled N
umbe
r
Method 3
Bus
R Sq Linear = 0.975
Figure 4.15 Scatter-plot of Observed vs. Modeled Bus (Method 3)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 121
Table 4.44 Observed vs. Modeled Commercial Vehicle (Method 3)
Observed Modelled1991 313,514 277,8631992 333,674 320,4951993 358,808 372,1911994 393,833 425,0851995 440,723 486,7121996 512,165 555,5971997 574,622 611,0701998 599,149 551,2371999 642,976 597,4642000 665,284 665,8122001 689,668 668,6262002 713,148 704,455
Annual Growth (%) 7.76 8.83
YearCommercial
0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1400000 1600000
Observed Number
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Mode
lled N
umbe
r
Method 3
Commercial
R Sq Linear = 0.946
Figure 4.16 Scatter-plot of Observed vs. Modeled Commercial Vehicle (Method 3)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 122
4.5.4 Summary of Method 1, Method 2 and Method 3
According to the simple linear regression of the three methods that had been
employed as shown in Table 4.45, it could be concluded that all methods have good
fitness with the observed volumes (in this case, the observed data was obtained from
the official statistic report). This is based on the R square values.
However, as can be observed from the scatter-plots of the observed and the
predicted volumes for Method 1 and Method 2, there is a correction factor that needs
to be applied in order to bring the predicted volumes to be close to the actual
observed volumes. Although the R-square values are showing good correlation
between the respective sets of data, however, the models do not give good prediction
of the forecasted volumes. Methods 1 and 2 based on models derived from the
HNDP study appear not to be able to give a good prediction of the forecasted
volumes.
Results obtained by using the models developed based on more recent data as
shown in Method 3 indicate less disparity between the modeled and the observed
trips and a better coefficient of correlation. Therefore, Method 3 was chosen to be
employed in this study.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 123
Table 4.45 Trips Generation Models
Types of Transport
Mode Method Formula Coeffi-
cient
Method 1 -165,938 + 69.39 POP + 33.293 GDP 0.913
Method 2 -10,981+ 24.9448 GDP 0.895 Passenger Car
Method 3 -9,829,378 + 662.701 POP – 7.1 GDP 0.989
Method 1 -275,744 + 89.970 POP + 2.903 GDP 0.968
Method 2 -166 + 1.6175 POP 0.955 Bus
Method 3 -38,218 + 2.813 POP + 0.102 GDP 0.975
Method 1 -31,265 + 8.961 GDP – 7.742 EMP 0.912
Method 2 -1,805 + 7.2319 GDP 0.940 Lorry
Method 3 -201,949 + 4.133 GDP 0.946
4.5.5 Future Total Trip Generation
The traffic projections shall take into account present and potential traffic
generating sources based on existing and future economic development plans, land
use development plans as well as committed and future road schemes, population and
historical traffic growth and other socioeconomic factors.
As mentioned earlier, the model was developed based on the HNDP Study in
year 1991 and the validation process utilized the data from year 1991 to 2002.
However, in order to acquire an optimum result in forecasting the future trip
generation as well as taking into consideration the model validation using the
existing data, the HNDP 1991 regression model was revised. The new regression
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 124
models for forecasting the future trip generation was formulated in Method 3 of this
study. After employing the model and the forecasted population and socioeconomic
data in future, the future trip generation was obtained. Numbers of passengers by
type of modes are shown in Table 4.46.
The number of trips obtained as shown in Table 4.46 is referred to as “Do
Nothing Scenario”. In this scenario the proportion of passengers using private and
public modes was based on the trends in year 1991 to 2002. As seen in Table 5.16,
the proportion of passengers using passenger car is about 80% of the total passengers
generated. The proportion of passenger car is decreased from year to year. It is
estimated that passenger using private car only at 79.66% of the total passengers by
year 2020.
Table 4.46 Forecasted No. of Passengers by Type of Modes
2005 2010 2015 2020
P. Car 10,547,847 13,706,961 17,070,648 20,591,743
Bus 1,759,738 2,291,907 2,946,068 3,755,477
Rail 297,527 588,159 929,955 1,331,920
Air 95,805 116,384 140,586 169,048
TOTAL 12,700,917 16,703,411 21,087,256 25,848,189
Types of Traffic Mode
No. of Passenger per day by year
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 125
Table 4.47 Forecasted modal split by type of modes
2005 2010 2015 2020P. Car 83.05 82.06 80.95 79.66Bus 13.86 13.72 13.97 14.53Rail 2.34 3.52 4.41 5.15Air 0.75 0.70 0.67 0.65
TOTAL 100 100 100 100
Types of Traffic Mode
Modal Split by Year (%)
According to Table 4.47, it could be seen that passenger car has the highest
proportion in transport modal split in future. However, this would occur if there is no
adjustment from the transport authority in terms of the share of modal usage.
4.5.6 Modal Split Scenarios
The transport authorities had set up a target for modal split amongst the land
transport modes, particularly for private and public transport (bus and rail). For
example, as mentioned earlier, in SMURT-KL study, it was targeted around 70
(P.Car) : 30 (Public) by year 2020 under MP Case option.
The Malaysian Government plans to set up a modal split target of 40 (P.Car) :
60 (Public). However, according to experience in developed countries and the
transportation demand analysis as mentioned above it is not easy to achieve the
target. Therefore, some scenarios of transport modal split between passenger car and
public transport need to be set up in order to illustrate the impact of modal share on
number of vehicles (referred as “Do Something Scenario”). Afterwards, based on the
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 126
scenarios of modal split as well as the number of vehicles the future transport
infrastructures could be determined.
The adopted future modal split scenarios for this study is shown in Table 4.48.
The scenarios based on the future modal split scenarios estimated in SMURT-KL
study under Base Case option. The modal split target of 40 (P.Car) : 60 (Public) by
Malaysian Government is also taken into consideration.
Table 4.48 Future Modal Split Scenarios
Bus Rail Total2005 76.0 16.6 7.4 24.0 100.02010 76.3 16.4 7.4 23.8 100.02015 76.5 16.2 7.3 23.5 100.02020 75.5 16.4 8.2 24.6 100.0
Target 40.0 40.0 20.0 60.0 100.0
Total (%)Year P. Car (%)Public Transport (%)
Source: Consultant’s estimation based on SMURT-KL study (1999)
4.5.7 Future Trip Generation Based on Scenarios
The following tables show the forecasted no. of passengers as well as the
forecasted no. of vehicles and the total vehicle trips.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 127
Table 4.49 Forecasted No. of Vehicles by Type of Modes (Do Nothing Scenario)
2005 2010 2015 2020
P. Car 5,859,915 7,614,978 9,483,693 11,439,857
Bus 62,848 81,854 105,217 134,124
Lorry 876,161 1,237,616 1,720,256 2,364,709
Types of Traffic Mode
No. of Vehicle by Year
Table 4.50 Forecasted No. of Vehicles by Type of Modes (Do Something Scenario)
Target (40 : 60)
2005 2010 2015 2020 2020
P. Car 5,322,158 7,026,449 8,902,335 10,763,840 5,706,476
Bus 74,730 97,153 121,191 150,406 366,845
Lorry 876,161 1,237,616 1,720,256 2,364,709 2,364,709
Types of Traffic Mode
No. of Vehicle by Year
Table 4.51 Forecasted Trip Generation Rates by Type of Modes
2005 2010 2015 2020P. Car 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.8Bus 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.5Lorry 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2
Types of Traffic Mode
Future Trip Generation Rates
Source: Consultant’s estimation based HNDP study (1991)
4.5.8 Vehicle-Kilometer
According to HNDP Study, the mean trip length for the total vehicle
population is 17.2 km. The trip length distribution for passenger car and taxi display
a similar pattern to the total. For goods vehicle, the average trip length is found to be
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 128
about 21.5 km. Table 4.52 illustrates the forecasted Vehicle-km for “Do Nothing
Scenario” while Table 5.22 for “Do Something Scenario” respectively.
Table 4.52 Total Vehicle-km of the Traffic (Do Nothing Scenario)
2005 2010 2015 2020
P. Car 312,450,674 392,932,873 473,046,626 550,943,528
Bus 12,820,947 16,452,616 20,832,906 26,154,217
Lorry 73,466,060 106,434,970 151,640,538 213,533,222
Types of Traffic Mode
Total Vehicle-kilometer
Table 4.53 Total Vehicle-km of the Traffic (Do Something Scenario)
Target (40 : 60)
2005 2010 2015 2020 2020
P. Car 283,777,489 362,564,759 444,048,467 518,386,527 274,823,871
Bus 15,244,983 19,527,670 23,995,907 29,329,247 71,534,749
Lorry 73,466,060 106,434,970 151,640,538 213,533,222 213,533,222
Types of Traffic Mode
Total Vehicle-kilometer
4.6 Fuel Consumption In Transportation Sector
In general, the fuel consumption by transportation modes are calculated by
multiplying the trip length of vehicle traveling with the fuel consumed per vehicle-
km. The fuel consumption of passenger car, bus and lorry adopted in this study is
based on the average fuel consumption per vehicle-km analyzed from the U.S.
Highway Statistics, 2000. Table 4.54 and Table 4.55 provide details on the data.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 129
Table 4.54 Summary Statistics for Passenger Cars, 1990 - 2000
Registration Veh-Travel Fuel Use Fuel Use per Fuel Use per
(thousands) (million miles) (million gallons) Veh-mile (gallon) Veh-km (liter)
1990 133,700 1,408,266 69,568 0.04940 0.11620
1991 128,300 1,358,185 64,318 0.04736 0.11139
1992 126,581 1,371,569 65,436 0.04771 0.11222
1993 127,327 1,374,709 67,047 0.04877 0.11472
1994 127,883 1,406,089 67,874 0.04827 0.11354
1995 128,387 1,438,294 68,072 0.04733 0.11133
1996 129,728 1,469,854 69,221 0.04709 0.11077
1997 129,749 1,502,556 69,892 0.04652 0.10941
1998 131,839 1,549,577 71,695 0.04627 0.10883
1999 132,432 1,569,100 73,283 0.04670 0.10986
2000 133,621 1,601,914 72,916 0.04552 0.10707
Annual Growth (%) -0.01 1.30 0.47 -0.82 -0.82
YEAR
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, 2000
Table 4.55 Summary Statistics for Two-Axle Trucks, 1990 - 2000
Registration Veh-Travel Fuel Use Fuel Use per Fuel Use per
(thousands) (million miles) (million gallons) Veh-mile (gallon) Veh-km (liter)
1990 48,275 574,571 35,611 0.06198 0.14579
1991 53,033 649,394 38,217 0.05885 0.13843
1992 57,091 706,863 40,929 0.05790 0.13620
1993 59,994 745,750 42,851 0.05746 0.13516
1994 62,904 764,634 44,112 0.05769 0.13570
1995 65,738 790,029 45,605 0.05773 0.13578
1996 69,134 816,540 47,354 0.05799 0.13641
1997 70,224 850,739 49,389 0.05805 0.13656
1998 71,330 868,175 50,462 0.05812 0.13672
1999 75,356 901,022 52,859 0.05867 0.13799
2000 79,085 924,018 52,832 0.05718 0.13449
Annual Growth (%) 5.06 4.87 4.02 -0.80 -0.80
YEAR
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, 2000
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 130
Referring to the data from the Road Transport Department 1999 – 2002, for the
new vehicle registration, 57.23% of the total vehicles are passenger car using petrol
while 0.22% is passenger car using diesel. Bus is only 0.03% of the total vehicle
registered with more then 90% of the bus using diesel. Table 4.56 and 4.57 depicts
the new vehicle registration based on fuel type in year 1999, 2000 and 2002
respectively.
Table 4.56 No. of New Vehicle Registration Based on Fuel Types
Petrol Diesel Petrol Diesel Petrol DieselP. Car 294,928 1,548 338,866 1,061 409,224 1,290Bus 22 223 24 205 10 102Lorry 3,923 4,998 5,257 10,472 4,271 3,250Motorcycle 236,759 12 238,672 15 222,661 14Others 2,274 6,348 2,699 9,431 5,014 10,790
Types of Traffic Mode
No. of Vehicle Registration Based on Fuel Type 1999 2000 2002
Source: Consultant’s estimation from Transport Statistics Malaysia
Table 4.57 Proportion of new vehicle registration based on fuel types
Petrol Diesel Petrol Diesel Petrol Diesel Petrol DieselP. Car 53.523 0.281 55.854 0.175 62.322 0.196 57.233 0.217Bus 0.004 0.040 0.004 0.034 0.002 0.016 0.003 0.030Lorry 0.712 0.907 0.866 1.726 0.650 0.495 0.743 1.043Motorcycle 42.966 0.002 39.339 0.002 33.910 0.002 38.738 0.002Others 0.413 1.152 0.445 1.554 0.764 1.643 0.540 1.450
AverageTypes of Traffic Mode
Proportion of Vehicle based on Fuel Type (%)1999 2000 2002
Source: Consultant’s estimation from Transport Statistics Malaysia
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 131
4.6.1 Do Nothing and Do Something Fuel Consumption
The forecasted number of vehicles by types of fuel is shown as in Table 4.58
and Table 4.59. While the total fuel consumption by passenger car, bus and lorry is
determined as in Table 4.60 and Table 4.61. The fuel consumption is also based on
Do Nothing and Do Something scenarios.
Figure 4.17 and Figure 4.18 present the forecasted total petrol and diesel
consumed by the vehicles in year 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020 respectively. From the
figures, it is seen that if the modal split set up is achieved (by year 2020), the petrol
consumption may be reduced by about 4.7%. However, the decrease of diesel
consumption is not quite significant although the modal split scenario is achieved.
The reduction of diesel consumption may be only around 1.9%. The significant
decrease of petrol consumption would occur if the set up modal split target of 40
(P.Car) : 60 (Public) by Government of Malaysia is achieved. Under the 40:60 modal
split, the petrol consumption may be reduced by about 40% and although it is a
significant decrease in petrol consumption the increase of diesel, however, is not
relatively high (only 27%).
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 132
Table 4.58 Forecasted No. of Vehicles (Do Nothing Scenario)
P.Car Bus Lorry
Petrol 5,837,738 5,997 237,885
Diesel 22,177 56,851 638,276
Petrol 7,586,159 7,810 336,023
Diesel 28,819 74,044 901,593
Petrol 9,447,802 10,039 467,064
Diesel 35,891 95,177 1,253,192
Petrol 11,396,563 12,797 642,038
Diesel 43,294 121,327 1,722,671
Type of Fuel
Forecasted No. of Vehicle Based on Fuel Type
2005
Year
2010
2015
2020
Table 4.59 Forecasted No. of Vehicles (Do Something Scenario)
P.Car Bus Lorry
Petrol 5,302,017 7,130 237,885
Diesel 20,142 67,600 638,276
Petrol 6,999,857 9,270 336,023
Diesel 26,592 87,883 901,593
Petrol 8,868,644 11,563 467,064
Diesel 33,691 109,628 1,253,192
Petrol 10,723,104 14,351 642,038
Diesel 40,736 136,055 1,722,671
Petrol 5,684,879 35,002 642,038
Diesel 21,596 331,842 1,722,671Target
Type of FuelYear
Forecasted No. of Vehicle Based on Fuel Type
2005
2010
2015
2020
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 133
Table 4.60 Forecasted Fuel Consumption (Do Nothing Scenario)
P.Car Bus Lorry
Petrol 31,126,820 183,496 4,585,103
Diesel 118,247 1,739,646 6,434,807
Petrol 39,144,581 235,474 6,642,731
Diesel 148,706 2,232,419 9,322,515
Petrol 47,125,637 298,165 9,464,063
Diesel 179,025 2,826,771 13,282,018
Petrol 54,885,847 374,325 13,326,857
Diesel 208,506 3,548,807 18,703,126
Type of Fuel
Forecasted Fuel Consumption by Type of Mode (Liters)
2010
2015
2020
Year
2005
Table 4.61 Forecasted Fuel Consumption (Do Something Scenario)
P.Car Bus Lorry
Petrol 28,270,353 218,190 4,585,103
Diesel 107,396 2,068,558 6,434,807
Petrol 36,119,263 279,485 6,642,731
Diesel 137,213 2,649,666 9,322,515
Petrol 44,236,796 343,435 9,464,063
Diesel 168,051 3,255,951 13,282,018
Petrol 51,642,468 419,767 13,326,857
Diesel 196,184 3,979,620 18,703,126
Petrol 27,378,380 1,023,822 13,326,857
Diesel 104,008 9,706,390 18,703,126
Year Type of Fuel
Forecasted Fuel Consumption by Type of Mode (Liters)
2005
2010
2015
2020
Target
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 134
33,073,645
43,041,478
54,044,294
65,389,093
35,895,419
46,022,786
56,887,866
41,729,05968,587,030
2005
2010
2015
2020
YEAR
PETROL (LITER/DAY)
DO NOTHING
DO SOMETHING
TARGET 40:60
Figure 4.17 Forecasted Petrol Consumption by Road Transport Sector (liter/day)
8,610,760
12,109,394
16,706,020
22,878,930
8,292,700
11,703,640
16,287,814
22,460,43928,513,524
2005
2010
2015
2020
YEAR
DIESEL (LITER/DAY)
DO NOTHING
DO SOMETHING
TARGET 40:60
Figure 4.18 Forecasted Diesel Consumption by Road Transport Sector (liter/day)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 135
4.7 Energy Consumption in Transportation Sector
In this study, the future trip generation (both person trips and vehicle trips) was
obtained by employing the trip generation model that was formulated in the previous
studies. By utilizing the models, besides having the number of trips, several trips
characteristics of the study area was also established. This involves the average travel
distance of trip maker’s (vehicles or passengers). The vehicle-kilometer or
passenger-kilometer is the key point in estimating the energy consumed in
transportation sector. Table 4.62 below shows the energy use by various types of
vehicles based on passenger travel distance.
Table 4.62 Energy Use by Various Types of Vehicles
No. Vehicle Type Energy Use
(btu/passenger-mile)
1 Single-occupancy automobile 8,360
2 New heavy rail 3,080
3 Carpool 2,390
4 Old heavy rail (existing) 2,320
5 Light rail transit 2,590
6 Bus 1,420
7 Aircraft* 3,666
Source: Grava (2003), * Davis et al (2002)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 136
4.7.1 Road Transport
In Section 4.6.1 of this report, the forecasted total fuel consumption by road
transport modes till year 2020 has been highlighted. The fuel consumption consists
of petrol and diesel. Referring to Davis et al (2002) there is about 125,000 btu in one
gallon gasoline and 138,700 btu in one gallon diesel. On the other hand, the National
Energy Balance (2000) states that 1000 toe = 43.3 TJ petrol and 1000 toe = 42.496
TJ diesel. After adopting that 1 btu = 1,055 joule, the total energy consumed in road
transport sector based on both scenarios could be illustrated as in Figure 7.1 and 7.2.
Referring to Figure 4.19 and 4.20, it is seen that in “Do Nothing” scenario the
consumption of petrol would achieve 20,142 ktoe/year and diesel about 7,457
ktoe/year by 2020. While the consumption of petrol would only about 19,203
ktoe/year and diesel at 7,596 ktoe/year in “Do Something” scenario.
9,713
12,640
15,871
19,203
10,541
13,515
16,706
12,25420,142
2005
2010
2015
2020
YEAR
PETROL (ktoe/year)
DO NOTHING
DO SOMETHING
TARGET 40:60
Figure 4.19 Forecasted Petrol Consumption by Road Transport Sector (ktoe/year)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 137
2,859
4,021
5,547
7,596
2,753
3,886
5,408
7,4579,467
2005
2010
2015
2020
YEAR
DIESEL (ktoe/year)
DO NOTHING
DO SOMETHING
TARGET 40:60
Figure 4.20 Forecasted Diesel Consumption by Road Transport Sector (ktoe/year)
4.7.2 Rail Transport
Figure 4.20 shows the forecasted energy consumed by rail transport until year
2020. The rail transport mode involves the intercity, commuter and transit. Most of
the rail transport passengers choose transit as their transport mode. Referring to
KTMB data, it was estimated that the intercity passenger travel distance is about
300km. While the travel distance for transit passengers was estimated only 10km in
average.
Table 4.63 Forecasted Energy Consumption of Rail Transport
2005 2010 2015 2020
Rail 55 110 173 248
Types of Traffic Mode
Energy Consumption (ktoe/year)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 138
4.7.3 Air Transport
According to the data from Malaysia Airports Berhad, it was estimated that the
average travel distance for domestic flights is 780km. While for international flights
the average travel distance achieve 3,350km. It needs to be emphasised here that the
calculation of the forecasted fuel consumption of air transport involve departure and
arrival passengers. The forecasted energy consumed by the air transport till year
2020 as shown in Table 4.64
Table 4.64 Forecasted Energy Consumption of Air Transport
2005 2010 2015 2020
Air 3,629 4,409 5,326 6,404
Types of Traffic Mode
Energy Consumption (ktoe/year)
4.7.4 Total Energy Consumed by Road, Rail and Air Transport
This section summarizes the forecasted total energy use by road, rail and air
transport mode in Malaysia up to the next twenty years. Table 4.65 and Table 4.66
tabulated the total energy use based on the Do Nothing and Do Something scenarios.
While Figures 4.21 and 4.22 shows the energy use in graph format.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 139
Table 4.65 Forecasted Energy Use in Transportation Sector (Do Nothing)
2005 2010 2015 2020
Road 13,295 17,401 22,114 27,599
Rail 55 110 173 248
Air 3,629 4,409 5,326 6,404
TOTAL 16,979 21,920 27,613 34,251
Types of Transport Mode
Energy Use (ktoe/year)
Table 4.66 Forecasted Energy Use in Transportation Sector (Do Something)
2005 2010 2015 2020
Road 12,572 16,660 21,418 26,799
Rail 55 110 173 248
Air 3,629 4,409 5,326 6,404
TOTAL 16,256 21,179 26,917 33,451
Types of Transport Mode
Energy Use (ktoe/year)
Forecasted Energy Use by Road, Rail & Air Transport in Malaysia under Do Nothing Scenario (ktoe per year)
55 110 173 248
3,629 4,409 5,326 6,404
13,295
17,401
22,114
27,599
2005 2010 2015 2020YEAR
Total (year 2020) =34,251 ktoe Rail RoadAir
Figure 4.21 Forecasted Energy Use in Transportation Sector (Do Nothing)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 140
Forecasted Energy Use by Road, Rail & Air Transport in Malaysia under Do Something Scenario (ktoe per year)
55 110 173 248
3,629 4,409 5,3266,404
12,572
16,660
21,418
26,799
2005 2010 2015 2020YEAR
Total (year 2020) =33,451 ktoe Rail RoadAir
Figure 4.22 Forecasted Energy Use in Transportation Sector (Do Something)
4.8 Conclusions and Recommendations
Several points could be concluded from the energy use in the transportation
sector study that has been successfully completed. The conclusions are highlighted as
follows:
In recent times, the transportation sector accounts for about 40% of the total
energy consumed in Malaysia. This phenomenon indicates transportation is the
highest sector consuming energy;
The motorization levels of motorcars in the past ten years increase with 6.78%
annual rate while the population growth is only 2.57%;
In terms of number of vehicles, even though the number of public transport
vehicles has been increasing, the proportion of the public transport vehicles to
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 141
all vehicles is decreasing. The proportion of public vehicles is only 2.33% of the
total road transport vehicles in year 2002;
It is only 0.4% of the total new registered passenger car (1999-2002) using
diesel while the rest (99.6%) are petrol cars;
The transport modal share in 2002 shows that 85.71% of passengers is served by
road transport. The rail passengers is about 14.05% while air transport carries
0.24% of the total passengers;
Based on the trip generation model developed in this study which is based on
the model from the HNDP Study in 1991, it is forecasted that more than 25.8
million person trips per day may use the transportation modes by year 2020 and
around 80% would use the passenger car.
The total fuel consumption (petrol + diesel) under Do Nothing scenario is
around 91 million liters per day while for Do Something scenario is more than
88.3 million liters per day (decrease up to 3%);
If a 40 : 60 modal split between Passenger Car and Public transport (Bus + Rail)
is achieved in year 2020, the petrol consumption will reduce significantly (up to
40%) while the increase of diesel consumption would only 27%;
Although there is a reduction in petrol and diesel consumption due to the 40 : 60
modal split (if this is achieved), the rail services system would have to cope with
more than 3.8 million passengers per day by year 2020;
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 142
It was forecasted that the total energy use by road, rail and air transport modes
would achieve 33,451 ktoe by year 2020 (Do Something Scenario) with the
proportion of road transport 80.1%, rail 0.7%, and air transport 19.2%.
Based on the study findings as mentioned, some recommendation regarding to the
energy use in transportation sector could be put forward:
The study has shown that a shift in the number of passengers from passenger car
to public transport would reduce the fuel consumption and as well as the
emission levels. Therefore, all the factors that may increase the demand for
public transport modes should be taken into consideration. It is essential to stress
here that improvement to the public transport system has to be embarked upon
on a significant level and comprehensive scale.
Besides the socioeconomic variables, there are supply variables that could
persuade the people to choose their transport modes. The transport authorities
and particularly the rail services operator need to consider these variables in
their policy during the planning and operation of rail system. The supply
variables involves amongst others:
in-vehicle travel time;
access, waiting and transfer times;
travel cost;
qualitative and attitudinal variables such as comfort, reliability, and
safety and the wish to have a different mode choice.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 143
References Abdullah, M. S., (2003), Development in Malaysia’s Rail Transport Sector, Paper Material in Railtech 2003 International Conference and Exhibition, 27-29 May 2003. Banks, J. H., (2002), Introduction to Transportation Engineering, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York. Davis et al, (2002), Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 22, for U.S. Department of Energy. Dept. of Statistics Malaysia, (2002), Malaysian Economic Statistics-Time Series, Putrajaya. Economic Planning Unit-JICA, (1996), The Feasibility Study on Kuala Lumpur Outer Ring Road Project in Malaysia, Final Report. Grava, S. (2003), Urban Transportation System: Choices for Communities, McGraw-Hill, New York. JICA, (1992), Highway Network Development Plan (HNDP) Study in Malaysia, Interim Report (1), Kuala Lumpur. Kanafani, A. K., (1983), Transportation Demand Analysis, McGraw-Hill, New York. Klang Valley Planning Division-JICA, (1999), A Study on Integrated Transportation Strategies for Environmental Improvement in Kuala Lumpur (SMURT-KL), Final Report. Ministry of Transport Malaysia, (2002), Transport Statistics Malaysia 2002, Putrajaya. Montgomery, D. C. and Runger G. C., (2003), Applied Statistics and Probability for Engineers, 3rd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York. National Energy Balance 2002, (2003), Ministry of Energy, Communications and Multimedia, Kuala Lumpur Malaysia. Ortuzar, J. D. and Willumsen, L. G., (1990), Modelling Transport, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 144
Udomsri R. and Kongboontiam P., (2003), Fuel Consumption Models of Household Vehicles in Chiangmai Urban Area, Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 5, 2003, Fukuoka Japan. Yusoff, Z. M., (2003), Mobility of People: LRT Experience, Paper Presented in Best Practices Engineering Conference, 8-9 September 2003, Kuala Lumpur.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 145
CHAPTER 5
FEASIBILITY AND POTENTIAL OF
SWITCHING TO NGV FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES
IN MALAYSIA
SUMMARY
Due to rapid economic growth, the usage of fuel especially petrol and diesel for
transportation sector has increased tremendously. This has caused Malaysian oil
reserve to decrease rapidly over the past decade. As a result, the government is
encouraging the use of alternative fuel in the transportation sector. One of the
proposals is the encouragement to use natural gas (NG) as an alternative fuel and
proposing a suitable policy for it. Study on natural gas vehicle (NGV) has been
undertaken to identify the deficiency and to improve the previous policies. This study
involved respondents (consumers) from public transports (taxi driver, taxi and bus
companies) and owners of pump station to identify their opinion about the policy.
Data collection to identify an overview of the current status of NGV development
including market activities and the future prospects of NGV in Malaysia are
conducted by interviewing respondents.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 146
5.1. Introduction
Natural gas is categorized as a fossil fuel because it was formed from the
remains of tiny sea animals and plants from 200-400 million year ago. The pressure
combined with the heat of earth transforms this organic mixture into petroleum and
natural gas. Its main ingredient is methane, therefore its can be used as an alternative
fuel for transport. There are many advantages of natural gas compared to petrol and
diesel as a fuel. The primary advantages are the fact that natural gas can improve
thermal efficiency and reduce emissions of the engine. It also helps to curb the
growing air pollution and the greenhouse effect because it is cleaner and also cheaper
than petrol and diesel.
Modes of transportation in the USA, United Kingdom, Canada, China, India,
Argentina, and Brazil and also in Pakistan are already using natural gas as a fuel.
Natural gas used in developed nations is mainly because of the environmental
benefits. Meanwhile in developing countries, it is mainly because of the economic
factors. Natural gas has been used as a fuel for transport since 1920’s. To date, Italy
has about 240 compressed natural gas (CNG) refuelling station and about 300,000
NGVs on the road. New Zealand has about 250,000 vehicles converted to natural gas
and refuelling network of about 250 stations. Argentina being at the fore front of the
NGV league has 700,000 NGVs and has over 800 refuelling stations. Other country
like Thailand, Indonesia, Bangladesh, India, USA, Canada, France, United Kingdom,
Holland and Australia has only few NGVs (IANGV, 2004).
Natural gas in Malaysia can be as considered economically beneficial in future
because it will reduce operation cost and reduces foreign exchange of oil import. The
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 147
economic advantage of using natural gas as a vehicular fuel is more apparent in fleet
operations, where a vehicle travels the same or similar route everyday, and returns to
the same location for refuelling. Beside that natural gas is also capable of making the
environment cleaner because it’s unleaded and reduces a discharge of emissions than
petrol and diesel.
The vehicles that have been converted to NGV can also use petrol or diesel as
fuel, so it’s easier for consumer to use this fuel. Usually consumers use any type of
fuel that can be obtained easily and priced reasonably. The idea that using natural gas
is dangerous is totally unproven as they are safer than petrol at ambient temperature.
Over 40 years worldwide experience with NGV has prove that the inherent safety
and integrity of compressed natural gas storage tanks and refueling system is save
enough if not saver than any other conventional fuel.
As Malaysian government attempt to encourage a new environmental friendly
fuel, natural gas has been recognized as an alternative fuel for transport instead petrol
and diesel. Referred to Kyoto Protocol, this is one of the progressive programs in
order to decrease the emissions of greenhouse gas about 5% over the amount in 1999
periodic for the year 2008 to 2012. The transportation is the sector that produces the
highest greenhouse gas emission in Malaysia. Therefore, that’s one of the main
factors why the government encouraging this sector to use natural gas as an
alternative fuel. The other reason is Malaysia has large amount of natural gas reserve
than oil.
Research in Australia shows that vehicles which use compressed natural gas
(CNG) could reduce about 1152 kg greenhouse gas for 12,000 km traveled (AGO,
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 148
2001). However the actual results depend on the size and transport fuel consumption,
and distance traveled. Therefore a comprehensive study must be conducted to
identify suitable policies to public and private vehicle everyone in Malaysia to use
natural gas as fuel. A similar study has been done in other country such as in USA
and Europe (e-mail).
In Malaysia, natural gas has been used as an alternative fuel for commercial
vehicles especially for taxis. Petronas had introduced the NGV Commercial
Program (NGVP) in 1991 to encourage the usage of natural gas with the target to
convert about 1100 petrol vehicles by the year 1993. However, today there are about
10 000 NGVs many of them taxi and about 40 gas refuelling stations in Malaysia
(Petronas NGV, 2004).
5.2. Survey Data
This section discusses about the collected data in this study. The collected data
include current policies, world natural gas reserves, number of vehicles in Malaysia
and other related data will be discussed extensively in this section. First part of this
section is started with a review about the current situation and policies that involve
both natural gas and NGV. Meanwhile the second part discusses about the natural
gas reserves. World reserve and the importance of natural gas in Malaysia are also
elaborated in this section. Furthermore, NGV in Malaysia and other countries will
also be presented.
Due to many advantages of NGV especially because of energy security of a
country, the government of Malaysia encourages the usage of natural gas as an
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 149
alternative fuel for public transportation in Klang Valley where natural gas refueling
stations are easier to find compared to other states. Natural gas is not only cheaper,
but it also reduces air pollution in city like Kuala Lumpur, Johor Bahru and Penang.
The incentives programs introduced by government to encourage consumers to use
natural gas are (Department of Environment, 2002):
Exception of import duty and tax for conversion kit.
Keeping the price of natural gas is 50% lower than gasoline.
Road tax reduction scheme,
i. 50% for mono - gas vehicles (only use natural gas).
ii. 25% for bi-fuel vehicles (use petrol and natural gas).
Until October 2004, there were more than 11,500 vehicles mostly taxis already
converted to NGVs. This data include 1000 mono gas taxis that have been introduced
in Klang Valley area and 40 natural gas refuelling station for all these vehicles
(Petronas NGV, 2004)1. However, this is still below the expected target from the
government policy which is 50% of taxis in Klang Valley use natural gas as fuel in
2004.
5.2.1. Natural Gas Reserves
Before the policies are implemented for natural gas, the most important thing
to know is the reserve of natural gas in Malaysia as well as throughout the world.
World natural gas demand continues to grow and increase its market share inline
with the total world primary energy consumption. According to the International
1 Data until October 2004 obtained from Petronas NGV Sdn. Bhd.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 150
Energy Outlook (2000), natural gas remains the fastest growing fuel component of
world energy consumption. From the forecast period from 1997 to 2020, natural gas
usage is projected to be more than double which will reach 167 trillion cubic feet
(Tcf) in 2020 compared to only 82 Tcf in 1997 in Malaysia.
Over the 1997 to 2020 period, the natural gas usage increase tremendously
around the world except in Middle East and Africa. Developing countries especially
in Asia and South and Central America will set the highest growth of natural gas
usage. Large percentage of increment is also projected in industrialized countries,
including the United State, European Union and Russia.
The world natural gas reserves were estimated at 5,504 Tcf. The former Soviet
Union has only about 6% of world oil reserves but they have about 40% of world
natural gas reserves. This is mostly (about 30.5%) located in the Russian Federation
(Energy Information Administration, 2004). This makes Russia as the largest reserve
of natural gas in the world, more than double of the second largest reserve, Iran.
Geographically, natural gas reserves are more than oil reserves. In the Middle East,
Qatar, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and UAE also have a very large reserve of natural gas.
Reserve to production ratio is exceeding 100 years in Middle East and Africa, and
83.4 years in the former Soviet Union. Meanwhile, South and Central America have
another 71.5 years but in North America and Europe the ratio are relative low, at
11.4 years and 18.3 years respectively. The reserve to production ratios average for
natural gas for the world is 63.4 years compared with only 41 years for oil. Table 5.1
shows world natural gas reserves by countries.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 151
Table 5.1. World natural gas reserves by country as January 1, 2003 (EIA2004)
Country Reserves (Tcf) Percentage (%)
World 5,504 100.0
Top 20 Countries 4,778 86.8
Russian 1,680 30.5
Iran 812 14.8
Qatar 509 9.2
Saudi Arabia 225 4.1
United Arab Emirates 212 3.9
United States 187 3.4
Algeria 160 2.9
Venezuela 148 2.7
Nigeria 124 2.3
Iraq 110 2.0
Indonesia 93 1.7
Malaysia 72 1.3
Turkmenistan 71 1.3
Uzbekistan 66 1.2
Kazakhstan 65 1.2
Netherlands 62 1.1
Canada 60 1.1
Kuwait 53 1.0
China 53 1.0
Mexico 9 0.2
Rest of the world 733 13.3
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 152
5.2.2. Natural Gas Reserve in Malaysia
Malaysia has 72 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas reserves. Natural gas
production has been rising steadily in recent years, reaching 1.9 Tcf in 2001, up
sharply from 1.5 Tcf in 2000. Natural gas consumption in 2001 was estimated at 1.1
Tcf, with LNG exports of around 0.8 Tcf (mostly to Japan, South Korea, and
Taiwan)2.
One of the most active locations in Malaysia for gas exploration and
development is the Malaysia-Thailand Joint Development Area (JDA), located in the
lower part of the Gulf of Thailand and governed by the Malaysia-Thailand Joint
Authority (MTJA). The MTJA was established by the two governments for joint
exploration of the once-disputed JDA.
A fifty – fifty partnerships between Petronas and Amerada Hess is being
developed in the location, while the Petroleum Authority of Thailand (PTT) and
Petronas also share equal interests in the remaining locations. PTT and Petronas
announced an agreement in November 1999 to proceed with the development of a
gas pipeline from the JDA to a processing plant in Songkla, Thailand, and a pipeline
linking the Thai and Malaysian gas grids as well. Malaysia and Thailand will
eventually take half of the gas produced. The rest of initial production will remain to
Malaysia.
The project had been controversial in Thailand because they are opposed by
local residents in Songkla along the pipeline route. In May 2002, the Thai
government announced the final decision to commence construction on the project
2 Data on September 2003
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 153
later in 2002, through the pipeline route was altered slightly to avoid some populated
areas. Construction has begun, and the delivery of natural gas to Malaysia is
scheduled to begin by mid-2005.
Exxon Mobil announced in March 2002 that they would move forward with the
development of the offshore Bintang natural gas field in the South China Sea. The
field contains about 1 Tcf of reserves, and it is expected to reach peak output of 335
Mmcf/d. The commercial production at Bintang gas field began in February 2003.
Malaysia accounted for approximately 14% of total world LNG exports in
2002. After long delay, Malaysia preceded a long-planned expansion of Bintulu LNG
complex in Sarawak. In February 2000, Petronas signed a contract with a consortium
headed by Kellogg Brown and Root for construction of the MLNG Tiga facility. This
consist two LNG liquefaction trains and a total capacity of 7.6 million metric tons
(370 Bcf) per year, which was completed in April 2003. The Bintulu facility is
among the largest LNG liquefaction in the world, with the total capacity of 23
million metric tons (1.1 Tcf) per year.
Most of the production from the new LNG trains will be sold contracts to
Japan. Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO), Tokyo Gas, and Chubu Electric have signed
contracts for LNG from the project. A fire at the MLNG Tiga plant in August 2003,
has forced a temporary shutdown for reparation and the facility back to normal
operation in April 2004.
In addition, Malaysia exports 150 million cubic feet of LNG per day (Mmcf/d)
to Singapore via pipeline. Surprisingly, Malaysia also is an importer of gas from
Indonesia. Petronas signed an agreement in April 2001 with Indonesian oil and gas
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 154
company Pertamina for the import of gas from Conoco's West Natuna offshore field
in Indonesian waters.
The move is being seen as part of Malaysia’s strategy to become a hub for
natural gas integration in Southeast Asia. Natural gas delivery from the pipeline
commenced in mid-2003. Additionally there also have been preliminary discussions
of a project to link gas deposits from Sarawak to the Philippine.
As the frontrunner in Malaysian NGV industry development, Petronas’s
primary focus is to convert commercial vehicles, particularly the petrol taxi to NGV
taxi. Today there are about 35 NGV refueling station and more than 8,300 vehicles
running on natural gas3 (email). In addition, approximately 1,000 mono gas vehicles
have been introduced in Malaysia from joint venture between Petronas and Marta
Automobile. Furthermore the NGV transit bus program is expected to be
implemented soon be in Putrajaya.
5.2.3. Natural Gas Vehicle in Malaysia and Other Countries
NGV usage throughout the world has increased rapidly in recent years. This
situation is mainly due to the following factors:
Natural gas is relatively cheap (compared to other fossil fuel like petrol and
diesel).
The availability of natural gas
Growing awareness regarding environmental pollution
3 Data until January 2004 (International Association for NGV)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 155
Today about 0.18% of world transport uses natural gas as fuel. There are
approximately 3.5 million NGV (IANGV, 2004) throughout the world out of 650
million vehicles. Subsequently some international markets have made drastic
changes to encourage consumers to use natural gas vehicles.
Countries like USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Sweden and
Italy have a long established record on the usage of natural gas as an alternative fuel
for vehicle. In these countries, natural gas vehicles are increasing rapidly. In other
countries although there are move towards this scenario but the development is not
so impressive. The reasons are because the NGV markets in these countries are
mainly based on economic consideration. Besides that, the high investment cost for
converting to NGV is also a problem. Another problem is the huge management cost
involved in setting up the infrastructure such as natural gas refuelling station and
pipeline.
NGV have been introduced in Europe, Canada, New Zealand, Australia,
Argentina and USA for a long time. Argentina, who is the frontrunner of NGV, has
1,243,024 of NGV and records an average of 3000 vehicles per month converted to
NGV. Moreover they have setup about 1,105 natural gas refuelling stations4.
Meanwhile, Italy has been using NGV since 1930’s and to date they have about
400,800 NGV on the road with 463 natural gas refuelling station5. Venezuela also
currently introduced National Program for NGV and constructed 140 natural gas
refuelling station all over the country.
4 Data on March 2004. 5 Data on July 2003.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 156
Canada has more than 20,505 vehicles converted to NGV. Canadian
government also introduced many incentives such as the incentive for installing
conversion kit to encourage Canadians to use NGV. Meanwhile USA has about
130,000 natural gas vehicles where natural gas has been used as a fuel for transport
since 1960’s.
The development and the use of NGV in Asia are still lower compared to
European Union, South and North America. Asian countries like India, China, Japan,
Indonesia and Pakistan have recently started using natural gas as a fuel for
transportation. For example India already has 159,159 vehicles using natural gas
followed by China, where more than 69,300 vehicles use this fuel. While Pakistan
has about 540,000 vehicles, Japan has more than 18,463 vehicles and Indonesia
about 4,660 NGV.
In Malaysia, the consumption of natural gas has also been increasing rapidly in
the recent years; the major consumer is oil and gas industry. Small amount of natural
gas are also used in transportation sector, following the launch of government
campaign to promote its use. Meanwhile in Terengganu, Petronas had introduced a
pilot program to promote natural gas involving 21 converted vehicles and one natural
gas refuelling station in 1986. Table 5.2 show top countries with number of NGV
and refuelling station (IANGV, 2004).
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 157
Table 5.2. World natural gas vehicles by country
Country Vehicles Refuelling Station
Argentina 1,243,024 1,105
Brazil 600,000 600
Pakistan 540,000 574
Italy 400,800 463
India 159,159 166
USA 130,000 1,300
China 69,300 270
Egypt 52,000 79
Venezuela 50,000 140
Ukraine 45,000 130
5.2.4. Number of Vehicles in Malaysia
As a result of rapid income growth per capita in Malaysia, the number of
vehicles has increased tremendously. With the increase of oil price, (petrol and
diesel) and the decreasing oil reserve in this country, NGV seems to be a better
alternative for Malaysia. As the biggest national car manufacturer, Proton and
Perodua could play an important role to manufacture vehicles and conversion kit for
NGV in the future. The increasing number of vehicles in Malaysia from 1987 till
2002 is inspected in Table 5.3 (JPJ, 2004).
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 158
Table 5.3. Number of Vehicles in Malaysia (JPJ, 2002)
Type of Vehicle
Private Public Vehicle Year
Motorcycle Car Bus Taxi Hire& Drive Cargo Other Total
1987 1,929,978 1,356,678 19,439 24,868 3,741 233,103 106,677 3,674,484
1988 2,030,418 1,427,283 20,452 26,161 3,937 245,232 112,226 3,865,709
1989 2,182,468 1,534,166 21,984 28,120 4,232 263,597 120,629 4,155,196
1990 2,388,477 1,678,980 24,057 30,774 4,631 288,479 132,016 4,547,414
1991 2,595,749 1,824,679 26,147 33,444 5,033 313,514 143,472 4,942,038
1992 2,762,666 1,942,016 27,827 35,596 5,357 333,674 152,698 5,259,834
1993 2,970,769 2,088,300 29,924 38,278 5,762 358,808 164,199 5,656,040
1994 3,297,474 2,302,547 33,529 42,204 5,308 393,833 178,439 6,253,334
1995 3,608,475 2,553,574 36,000 46,807 8,195 440,723 203,660 6,897,434
1996 3,951,931 2,886,536 38,965 49,485 9,971 512,165 237,631 7,686,684
1997 4,328,997 3,271,304 43,444 51,293 10,826 574,622 269,983 8,550,469
1998 4,692,183 3,452,852 45,643 54,590 10,042 599,149 286,898 9,141,357
1999 5,082,473 3,787,047 47,674 55,626 10,020 642,976 304,135 9,929,951
2000 5,356,604 4,145,982 48,662 56,152 10,433 665,284 315,687 10,598,804
2001 5,609,351 4,557,992 49,771 56,579 9,986 689,668 329,198 11,302,545
2002 5,842,617 5,001,273 51,158 58,066 10,073 713,148 345,604 12,021,939
The current number of vehicles data have not been published yet by the
Department of Road and Transport (JPJ) and Department of Statistic. Table 5.3
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 159
shows that the total number of vehicles till 2002 in Malaysia are 12,021,939. The
percentage of vehicles by type are presented in Figure 5.1.
Motorcycle 48,60%Car 41,60%
Taxi 0,48%
Other 2,87%
Hire & Drive 0,08%
Cargo 5,93% Bus 0,43%
Figure 5.1. Percentage of Vehicles by Type.
Figure 5.1 shows that 41.60% of vehicles are car and 48.60% are motorcycle
that contributed to a larger number of vehicles in Malaysia. Bus and taxi only
represents 0.43 % and 0.48 % each respectively, while hire and drive, cargo, other
modes of transportation contributes about 8.88 % of Malaysia’s vehicles.
Figure 5.2 below shows the rate of increased number of vehicles in this country
starting from 1987 to 2002.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 160
3674484
3865709
4155196
4547414
4942038
5259834
5656040
6253334
6897434
7686684
8550469
9141357
9929951
10598804
11302545
12021939
0
2000000
4000000
6000000
8000000
10000000
12000000
14000000
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Year
Num
ber o
f veh
icle
Figure 5.2. Increasing Number of Vehicles in Malaysia (1987 – 2002)
The increasing number of vehicles (bus and taxi) that is involved in the study is
shown in Figure 5.3.
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
Year
Num
ber o
f Pub
lic T
rans
port
BusTaxi
Figure 5.3. Number of Public Transport (Bus and Taxi) from the year 1987 to
2002.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 161
5.2.5 Price of Oil and Natural Gas in Malaysia
The price of natural gas at pump station had been steady since 1992 at RM
0.565 per liter, while as 2002, petrol and diesel cost are RM 1.30 and RM 0.701 per
liter each respectively. Therefore, there is more advantage for consumers to use NGV
especially in long term. However due to the increase in world fuel price, the price of
fossil fuel increased again this year. The new price for a liter of petrol, diesel and
NGV is presented in Table 5.4.
Table 5.4.Price of Fuels in Malaysia.
Fuel Price6
Petrol RM 1.42
Diesel RM 0.831
Natural Gas RM 0.585
5.3. Methodology
Suitable methods had been adapted in order to obtain more information
regarding this topic. The reference used for data collection are books, journals,
internet, observations, questionnaires, interviews and visiting workshops that
installed the spare part for NGV. The secondary data are mostly collected from
government body such as Department of Statistic, Department of Road and
Transportation and other government agencies that are related to this study.
6 Prices on October 2004.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 162
Site visits have also been done to identify the actual situation on the site and to
obtain some technical data. This is necessary to obtain more information and
suggestions regarding the usage of natural gas directly from the mechanic and user.
Respondents have been picked randomly to gather their suggestion. Generally, there
are two types of data collected namely primary data and secondary data that will be
discussed in detail in the following sub section.
5.3.1 Primary Data Collection
Two methods are used to get the primary data i.e. by interviews and
questionnaires. Interviews are conducted to collect qualitative data from users and
suppliers who are involved directly or indirectly with natural gas vehicles.
Questionnaires are used to collect the responds especially from those who are already
using natural gas vehicles regarding their opinion about natural gas and NGV. There
are also other methods used to collect the data, which is discussed below.
Literature Review
Literature review is an important step to start the study. In this stage, a lot of
information are collected especially from the internet, journals and reference books
about scenario of natural gas vehicles in others country that have already introduced
this policy. References from journals provide information about the current
development of natural gas around the world. All the information are necessary
especially to compare the current scenarios and achievements from the usage of
natural gas vehicles in Malaysia.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 163
Interviews
Interviews are conducted on respondents that have experience with natural gas
vehicles to obtain their views and opinions about natural gas as an alternative fuel.
The actual information and other related data can only be collected from these
interviews. For example the problems related to natural gas vehicles either from the
user or from supplier of natural gas could only be easily collected from interview. It
is important to forecast all the data the estimate the situation and problems that will
be faced by the user and supplier as well as the policy in the future.
Site Visit
Throughout the whole process of data collection, site visits have played a
major role in order to get a clear view regarding the related problems of NGV
policies in this country. The information obtained from site visits are used as the
supporting data for other presented information.
Questionnaire
Questionnaires are substantial for collecting quantitative data from a large
number of respondents. It is compulsory to obtain their opinions and comments to
identify the problems faced by the NGV users, determine the prospect of potential
users in the future and to propose an appropriate policy for them.
As mentioned earlier, there are three types of respondents involved in this
process. They are:
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 164
Public Transports
i. Taxis (NGV user).
ii. Taxis (non NGV user).
iii. Taxi Companies.
iv. Bus Companies.
Public Transports
Companies and Owners of Pump Station
i. Natural gas refueling stations.
ii. Other pump stations.
For obtaining the necessary information from companies and owners of pump
stations, conducting interviews seems to be a better way because there are only a
small number of them. For taxi drivers, all their comments and suggestions are
collected from questionnaires. Therefore two sets of questionnaires and four sets of
interview questions that have been prepared for this study. Some explanation about
these questionnaires and interview questions are discussed below:
(i) Questionnaire for taxi drivers.
Questionnaire for taxi drivers have been divided into two sections. First section is for
natural gas vehicle users and the other section for non natural gas vehicle users. It is
necessary to have the opinion and comments from both sides because they will
become the pioneer NGV user in Malaysia.
(ii) Questionnaire for taxi and bus company managers.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 165
Different from the questionnaire for taxi drivers, this part focuses on the problems
faced for using NGV. Hopefully the public transportation companies (taxi or bus
company) can give their opinion or input in order to find the solution for the
problems faced natural gas user or non-user.
(iii) Interview with the owners of pump station.
The interview form is also divided into two divisions; first part is the questions for
the companies or owners of pump station that sell natural gas. Another set of
question is set up for the owners of conventional pump station. The questions allow
us to collect a qualitative data on the problems faced at supply and demand as well as
the safety of NGV refueling station.
5.3.2 Secondary Data Collection
Unlike primary data collection, the secondary data collection is conducted to
collect some information about the current situation and condition related to natural
gas policy in the country. These data are necessary for this study because:
To recognize the current policies.
To identify the agencies that is related to this study.
To identify similar policies in other countries.
To identify the actual transport data in Malaysia.
To analyze the economic aspect from using NGV.
The methods to collect the secondary data and defining the entire process
above are discussed in the following sub section.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 166
Identification of the Current Policy
In identifying all related policies regarding natural gas vehicles and natural gas
storage, information from individuals and related government bodies are useful as
references. Beside that, to ensure all the information obtained are correct, these
information are compared with the data collected from Department of Road and
Transport, Department of Statistics and other private agencies like Petronas NGV
etc.
Identification of the Related Agencies
Information from Petronas NGV and Gas Malaysia are obtained in order to
identify all related agencies and individuals involved in natural gas vehicle programs
and natural gas storage. Other related information is referred to individuals that are
considered expert in this field and other agencies that are willing to contribute to this
study.
Identification of Policies in Other Countries
In order to get some information about similar policies in other countries and
the problems faced by these countries from natural gas usage and natural gas vehicle
programs, references such as books, journals and magazines are referred. There are
also some secondary data collected from the homepage of agencies that have already
implemented similar programs on natural gas vehicles.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 167
Identification of Quantity of Vehicles
To identify the number of vehicles in this country, relevant data are collected
from the Department of Road and Transport and from the annual report published by
Department of Statistics. These data are used to estimate the total number of
registered vehicles that may be converted to natural gas vehicle in the future. These
data are also used to predict the total number of vehicles in Malaysia in the future.
5.3.3 Conducting Economic Analysis
Economic analysis or Cost-Benefit Analysis is used to calculate the economic
impact from the usage of natural gas. There are number of factors that will influence
the economic analysis for this study. The factors are types of engine used (petrol or
diesel), size of vehicles (light, medium or heavy duty) and annual traveled distance.
To analyze the economic benefit from using natural gas as an alternative fuel in
Malaysia, the life cycle cost formulae have been adapted for this study. The
economic analysis for NGV will justify the possibility of using natural gas as an
alternative fuel in this country. The cost-benefit analysis conducted in this study is
only for taxis, private transports, buses and trucks.
The computation of potential savings from NGV is calculated by the following
equation.
S = D [Co Po – Cg Pg] + [Mo – Mg] (5.1)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 168
Potential savings result from conversion of commercial vehicles to NGV will
be discussed in following section.
5.4. Results and discussions
This section will discuss the results on NGV based on references and the data
collected. This data will be used to predict natural gas and NGV usage in the future.
Then, the study analyses the economic aspect and the differences between
conventional fuel vehicles and NGV.
5.4.1 Prediction for Number of Public Transport in Malaysia
Forecast for the future can be predicted by referring to the increasing rate of
vehicles in the recent year. The total number of public transport that is expected to
use NGV until 2020 is presented in Table 5.5.
5.4.2 Public Transportation
As discussed earlier, public transportation involved in this study are only buses
and taxis. For taxis, the questionnaires are divided into two section; first section for
NGV users and the other is for non – NGV users. For buses, the managers or owners
of the bus companies are interviewed to obtain qualitative data because commercial
bus companies have never used natural gas as a fuel.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 169
Public Transport (NGV user)
There are two types of NGV in this country, firstly mono – gas and second is
bi-fuel vehicle. Table 5.6 below summarizes the results obtained from questionnaire
for NGV users in Malaysia.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 170
Table 5.5. Prediction of Total Public Transport (bus and taxi) from
year 2005 until 2020
Year Bus Taxi
2005 60,108 69,100
2006 62,472 71,586
2007 64,835 74,071
2008 67,198 76,557
2009 69,562 79,042
2010 71,925 81,528
2011 74,289 84,013
2012 76,652 86,499
2013 79,015 88,984
2014 81,379 91,470
2015 83,742 93,955
2016 86,106 96,441
2017 88,469 98,926
2018 90,832 101,412
2019 93,196 103,897
2020 95,559 106,383
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 171
Table 5.6.Feedback obtained based on the survey carried out
on NGV user (taxi driver).
Survey Choice & Answers Results (%)
Type of fuel Natural gas only
Bi fuel
47.12
52.88
Government policies for NGV Agree
Disagree
Not Sure
Others
63.28
29.42
6.86
0.44
Pricing control by government Need
No need
Not sure
97.12
1.33
1.55
Promotion by government Good
Poor
Not sure
5.75
86.28
7.97
Problem faced by NGV users Refueling station
Expensive kit
Time to refuelling
Not sure
84.30
10.61
4.65
0.44
Reduce air pollution Yes
No
Not sure
88.72
2.65
8.63
Safety aspect
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Not sure
Other
46.68
23.01
29.42
0.89
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 172
Non NGV user
About 216 respondents (non NGV taxi driver) have been interviewed for this
study. Results from this questionnaire are summarized in Table 5.7.
Table 5.7. Feedback obtained based on the survey carried out
on non - NGV user (taxi driver).
Survey Choice & Answers Results (%)
Type of fuel Petrol
Diesel
78.24
21.75
Ready to used NGV in the future Yes
No
Not sure
Other
76.85
8.80
13.43
0.92
Pricing of natural gas Cheap
Expensive
Not sure
Other
85.19
4.17
9.26
1.38
Promotion by government Good
Poor
Not sure
12.96
79.17
7.41
Problem faced to used NGV Refueling station
Expensive kit
Time to refueling
Not sure
60.65
31.02
4.63
3.70
Reduce air pollution Yes
No
Not sure
83.80
2.31
13.89
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 173
Bus Companies
Unlike managers of taxi companies, managers of bus companies did not give
much cooperation for this study. This is maybe because they are not involved
directly as a natural gas user. Only three companies gave their cooperation in the
study. The companies are Transnasional Ekspress Sdn. Bhd. (Respondent 1), Airport
Coach Sdn. Bhd. (Respondent 2) and Triton Sdn. Bhd. (Respondent 3). All these
companies are agree with the policies introduced by government for public transport.
Results from the interview are summarized in Table 5.8
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 174
Table 5.8. Feedback obtained based on the survey carried out on
managers of bus companies.
Survey Results & Opinions
Natural Gas Consumption
Suitable to use natural gas as a fuel because it is environmental friendly. Need subsidy from government and are convinced that operation cost will decrease after converting to NG. Not ready to use natural gas because high capital and do not have enough infrastructures.
Government Policies
Policy necessary for bus companies are price subsidy for price of bus and natural gas. Government must control the price of natural gas so it becomes stable. Subsidies are necessary for conversion kit, exemption of tax when purchasing spare parts and importing NGV bus. Improve the entire infrastructure
Problems that will be faced by Natural Gas users
Spare part costs for NGV bus are more expensive. No conscientious study especially on maintenance and capital cost per kilometer. Not enough infrastructures like pipe line and refuelling station. Technical problems i.e. about the efficiency when bus is running natural gas. Price subsidies problems either for conversion kit or natural gas supply. No professional staff, less spare parts in the market and could not afford to construct private refuelling station.
Promotion Bus companies did not get any information about natural gas either from the government or private bodies. Promotion must be more aggressive i.e. by road shows, campaign and interaction program between government and bus companies.
Environment Natural gas vehicles can reduce environmental pollution and greenhouse effect.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 175
5.4.3. Companies and Managers of Pump Station
Seven managers of Petronas natural gas refuelling station and six non natural
gas pump station managers have been interviewed in order to get the necessary
information. The important parts of the interview are discussed below.
Managers of Natural Gas Refuelling Station
Out of seven surveys, from which two are from Johor Bahru Petronas
refuelling stations, it is found that they have been providing natural gas service from
two to four years. This was accomplished from Petronas’s initiative to prepare this
fuel. On average these stations sell about 12,000 to 80,000 litres per month.
Sometimes the number totals to 270,000 litres per month. However in terms of
economical revenues, these are not a very stimulating amount. Although more taxi
drivers use natural gas, which translates to less taxi drivers who buy petrol, thus
dropping the sales, however less profit is coming from natural gas retail if compared
to the retail of conservative fuels. The NGV station owners also question ‘Mother-
Daughter’ system which is used in NGV retailing. Problems arise when natural gas
arrives sometimes too late due to the long distance of the mother station. Moreover,
sometimes the pumps pressures are too weak which is caused by the compressors.
They suggested direct gas system as a solution to these problems. According to them,
this system will save time, journey costs and the gas pressure will be sufficient all the
time.
At the same time there are also benefits gained from NGV retailing, such as
owners need not to worry about maintenance and infrastructures. All these are taken
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 176
care by Petronas. However, there are stations that claimed safety for daughter
stations are less strict than mother stations. This was based on past occurrence from
few stations that had experienced leakages on nozzles and problems with
compressors. It is hoped that the government and Petronas would give more exposure
and training to operators and gas station owners before opening new NGV stations.
The training should stress on safety because the lack of it will cause problems and
disrupt station operation. In addition to that, the devices in use are fairly sensitive
and can easily be out of order if handled without proper training. In order to wait for
experts from Petronas-NGV for repairs will consume a lot of time.
In general, the respondents (station owners of NGV) are satisfied with
government’s policy to help both the station and consumers. However they believe
that the government should reconsider the costly NGV vehicle conversion when
drafting the policy. The government should also promote more about the benefits of
NGV usage to the public. The national automobile industry should also take the
opportunity in joining the government to design a car that is NGV-ready.
Managers of Pump Station (Non – Natural Gas)
Six interviews had been conducted on owners of gas stations who did not have
NGV service in their premises. There was a lot of information obtained that supports
this study. All of the interviewed respondents said that they were interested in selling
this fuel. However, a few problems made them suspend their decisions. Among them
are lack of infrastructure and the delay waiting for Petronas’s instructions. This is
because the building of an NGV pump station is fully funded by the company. Some
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 177
of the respondents had already applied and are waiting for the construction process.
Another owner was waiting for the final word from Petronas Dagangan Berhad
(PDB) whether he could start NGV service.
Another problem that prevented them from not getting involved in the NGV
distributions is the lack of information from the government and Petronas concerning
the profits and losses in fuel preparation. Other problems that should be the concern
are the lack of NGV consumers in Malaysia. It seemed that almost all the NGV
consumers are exclusively. They hope for more efforts from the government to
introduce more consumer-friendly policies that will increase the fuel usage in
general. When number of consumers reaches the peak point, there will be no more
doubt for station owners to start serving the needs of NGV-modified cars.
Economically their profits will rise according to the increase of products they have to
offer. Meanwhile, respondents propose to Petronas to avoid disruptions in the supply
and instalments when delivering natural gas.
In a nutshell, it can be summarised that the station owners are highly interested
to be involved in distributing NGV, provided that the problems discussed above can
be overcomed by the government and Petronas in effort to increase infrastructure
readiness for NGV usage.
5.4.4. Economic Analysis
To conduct economic analysis the first thing that must be known is fuel
consumption costs, maintenance costs, engine type and fuel type (petrol or diesel).
Thus, it is important to identify the difference between fuel consumption and
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 178
maintenance requirement before and after converting to NGV. Tables 5.9, 5.10 and
5.11 show the information that have been gathered from various source based on the
annual fuel consumption and annual maintenance cost for commercial Proton taxis7.
However this information will be changing with respect to location and time.
Table 5.9. Estimated annual consumption between petrol and natural gas8
Fuel Type Petrol NG
Distance traveled per year 48,000 km 48,000 km
Car model Proton Iswara Proton Iswara
Engine capacity (liter) 1.5 1.5
Fuel consumption 0.071 liters/km 0.078 liters/km
Current fuel price per liter RM 1.420 RM 0.585
Table 5.10. Estimated annual consumption between diesel and natural gas
Fuel Type Diesel NG
Distance traveled per year 48,000 km 48,000 km
Car model Proton Wira Proton Wira
Engine capacity (liter) 2.0 2.0
Fuel consumption 0.078 liters/km 0.078 liters/km
Current fuel price per liter RM 0.831 RM 0.585
7 Majority taxis in Malaysia using Proton. 8 Qualitative data in table obtained from various sources like references, interviews and prediction.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 179
Table 5.11. Estimated annual maintenance cost (RM) for different fuels
Components Petrol Bi - fuel Diesel Dual - fuel
Engine oil (15W to 45W) 152 114 152 114
Engine oil filter 56 42 56 42
Spark plug 72 90 - -
Air filter 60 60 60 60
Battery water 8 8 8 8
Labour charges 100 100 100 100
Estimated Total Cost 448 414 376 324
By using equation (5.1) the estimated annual saving per year based upon the data
presented in table 5.9, 5.10 and table 5.11 above is as follows:
For conversion of petrol to NGV (bi – fuel), the estimated annual saving is:
S = 48,000 x ([0.071 x 1.42] – [0.078 x 0.585]) + (448 – 414)
S = RM 2023
For conversion of diesel to NGV (dual – fuel), the estimated annual saving is:
S = 48,000 x ([0.078 x 0.831] – [0.078 x 0.585]) + (376 – 324)
S = RM 973
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 180
Economic analysis is required to estimate the direct saving achieved by using
natural gas as an alternative fuel. The result clearly indicated that there is a
significant annual savings and if this program is implemented at national scale for
both types of petrol or diesel engine. Comparison of total running cost for different
types of vehicles is presented in Table 5.12.
Table 5.12. Comparison of total operation cost for public transport
with different fuel consumption.
Components Petrol
(RM)
Bi – fuel
(RM)
Diesel
(RM)
Dual – fuel
(RM)
Fuel consumption cost per year 4,839 2,190 3,111 2,190
Maintenance cost per year 448 414 376 324
Total cost 5,287 2,604 3,617 2,514
From Table 5.12, the annual expenditure from using natural gas as fuel is
approximately 51% less compared to petrol and approximately 28 % less compared
to diesel. Further savings can be achieved if the usage of natural gas could prolong
the life span of the engine due to the clean combustion process in the engine.
5.5. Conclusions and Suggestions
5.5.1. Conclusions
There are two parts of this section. In the first part, summary of the research
will be discussed. This covers the conclusions gained from the study conducted.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 181
Meanwhile, the second part consists of suggestions for future implementations.
These suggestions are presented according to results of the study to promote the
usage of NGV in this country. Some of the suggestions and conclusions are based on
following:
Survey of NGV usage was conducted in some parts of Peninsular Malaysia,
such as Johor Bahru, Penang, Kuala Lumpur and Selangor.
This survey involved selected taxi drivers, both NGV users and non-users, gas
station owners, and both taxi and public bus companies owners as respondents.
This study discusses the respondent’s views about NGV. Interviews with
managers of both taxi and public bus are also included.
Many conclusions can be drawn from this research, however only the most
important aspect will be taken into consideration and discussed in detail in this
section. The conclusions are:
A survey for taxi drivers, conducted on 452 respondents, shows that the usage of
NGV was very helpful, because of the fact that NGV is relatively cheap. It is
more economical than petrol or diesel and produces less environmental impact.
The government’s policy to introduce NGV in Malaysia has not been very
successful so far, which was to control the price of NGV to remain 50% cheaper
than petrol. Other policies include road tax exemptions. Such policies will
stimulate more users and periodically more gas stations to provide to NG.
The problems for the taxi drivers who use NGV are the lack of NGV refuelling
stations. The drivers have to queue up, sometimes over an hour in order to refill
in the certain places. The distance between two gas stations that provide NGV
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 182
pumps is also quite far, where 84% respondents who claimed that the lack of
NGV pumps in gas stations is their main problem of using NGV.
NGV users agree with government policy to control the fuel price, but they are
happy that the government will continue promoting the benefits and the safety
of NGV to a broader audience via premier mass media.
A survey on taxi drivers that did not use NGV was conducted on 216
respondents. Two main problems that caused them not to change to NGV are the
fact that the price of conversion kit (31%) which is required to modify their cars
is quite expensive and the lack of gas stations (61%) that provide NGV pumps is
another problem.
Air pollution has become a global problem today and Malaysia, as one of Asia’s
unwitting contributor to the environmental woe. However using NGV will
reduce and ultimately solve this dilemma. In addition, natural gas as fuel for the
transportation sector in the future will help the country’s economy by using our
very own fuel, since Malaysia ranks twelfth for natural gas reserves.
Calculations show that a huge savings can be gained by NGV users, which is
51.75% and 40.67% for switching from diesel and petrol by taxi drivers. This
fact should motivate consumers to use natural gas as fuel.
5.5.2 Suggestions
Only the important suggestions that have higher possibility than others will be
discussed in depth in this section. Those are:
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 183
To increase NGV usage in Malaysia, the advantages of using this fuel should be
further promoted in prime mass media. Campaigns and seminars are also
necessary to achieve this goal. Additional incentives provided by the
government to NGV users will also encourage more users and suppliers. For
example, tax cuts for both users and gas station owners and other benefits. This
should also be applied to oil companies who market natural gas as their main
product.
The cost for converting a car to NGV is approximately RM 2800. Although this
is considered reasonable, there are not many users converting to NGV because
the lack of NGV refuelling station around the country. Therefore the number of
NGV refuelling station must be increased to adapt with future demands. Failure
to do so will a slow down or even will contribute to no growth of NGV users.
Further R&D on NGV must be conducted by providing grants for researcher to
conduct studies in new areas, such as natural gas usage for motorcycles.
Both the government and the private sectors should increase their investments in
adding infrastructures, and also to conduct more awareness campaigns regarding
NGV benefits.
Public Transport
This part is an action plan for every category of public transports, such as taxi
drivers who use natural gas, non-users, taxi and bus companies.
The government expectantly will provide more facilities or a more effective
policy in order to attract more people to use natural gas as the main fuel in the
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 184
future. Infrastructure such as refuelling stations that provide NGV should be
built more especially in the urban and the surrounding areas. These parts are
known as the focus point of public transport operations.
The price to modify a conventional car to NGV should be reduced. This policy
will surely do well to the public and taxi drivers who have not converted their
cars yet. This can raise the total NGV users to a desired level.
Government through related bodies can organise workshops and trainings for
technicians and mechanics so they can understand how an NGV engine works
and how to repair it. This will also enable them to open workshops for fixing
NGV.
Another important aspect is to cut the price tag of conversion kit and to have
sufficient stocks of the kits. It can be done by attracting several national and
multinational companies to work together with local companies to produce this
kit. Argentina did it in the 90s; they invited 20 multinational companies to
produce and assemble these components according to the country’s
specifications.
Set up a target plan that predicts the number of cars to be converted and the
number of related infrastructures has to be added for the convenience of the
growing natural gas users.
For NGV cars, the obvious problem is the tank size. It takes up the boot space,
and also increases the weight of the car. This surely creates problems for certain
vehicles that have a weight limit such as buses, lorries or vans. These tanks can
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 185
be installed underneath the vehicle. This will also allow the tank’s capacity to be
increased.
Subsidy is needed by bus companies, some countries offer up to 50% subsidy for
companies who want to buy NGV buses and provide loan rates up to 50%.
Another option to promote natural gas usage is to raise the price margin between
conventional fuel and natural gas. This can be done in two ways: either to
withdraw the subsidy for diesel or to offer subsidy for the natural gas in such a
way that the difference will become apparent. This is caused by the fact that
natural gas and diesel are tagged at almost the same price, and for major
companies that have their own depot, diesel might be cheaper than natural gas.
Exemptions or reductions of any sort of taxes for buses might motivate bus
companies to buy NGV buses. This will also cause prices of NGV buses to drop
lower than conventional buses.
Pilot projects are necessary for promotion of natural gas.
Oil Companies and Gas Station Managers
As the supplier, oil companies are the final stop before natural gas becomes
available to the public. Thus, it is important to convince them regarding the profits
available from natural gas distribution. That is why an action plan for suppliers
should be included. These are elaborated below:
The most important issue that leads the list is the need for more NGV pumps in
every gas station. This issue is most prevalent especially in the urban areas
where NGV stations are inadequate and is situated far causing difficulty for
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 186
NGV users to refill conveniently. Long queues seen in the NGV pumps create
an impression that natural gas is an uncommon fuel and difficult to find. It is
hoped that Gas Malaysia Sdn. Bhd will develop a network of pipes that will
meet demands and Petronas as the nation’s oil company can provide NGV
services in each refuelling station throughout the nation.
By hook or by crook, the government has to force all the oil companies in
Malaysia to be involved in providing NGV in their gas stations, especially
which located close to the natural gas pipe line network.
It is vital to focus on the refuelling station system at first. Soft loan and
incentives from the government is really important as a starting point. NGV
stations are more expensive than the conventional ones in terms of construction,
operation and maintenance because it requires more advanced technology.
When it is developed for consumer use, the cost will be more expensive because
consumers require a technology that is quick and easy to use. Initiatives from
the natural gas suppliers are needed to manage the logistic networking of natural
gas. Financial assistants may be needed by Petronas to solve this problem due to
the huge investment cost involved.
NGV acceptance in the future is dependant on market transformation, which is
through tax results, interests from motor and car industries and supplier’s
involvement. Therefore, a taxation policy is necessary for conventional fuel so
that NGV price will be more competitive and will draw the interest of new
users.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 187
Throughout this research, the lack of refilling infrastructure (NGV pumps) has
been recognised as the critical issue. If this is not solved soon, it will become the
major obstacle to attract more users in the future. This will also affect the long
term policy to encourage the use of natural gas as fuel in Malaysia. This classic
problem is often referred as ‘Chicken and Egg Syndrome’ and must be rectified
as soon as possible by installing more NGV pumps in gas stations by any
possible. Consumers will not use NGV if there are insufficient natural gas
stations. This suggestion has been considered alongside the fact that building
natural gas pumps stations is very expensive (1.5 million for daughter and 5
million for mother). Lack of these stations will retard the growth of NGV and
natural gas users. If the problem can be solved, it will bring the desired results
because of the benefits from using this fuel.
References
IANGV, (2004). International Association for Natural Gas Vehicles.
http://www.iangv.org/
Petronas NGV, (2004). Personal Communication with Operation and Services
Department of Pertonas NGV.
Department of Environment, (2002). Urban Air Quality Management: Motor Vehicle
Emission Control in Malaysia. Department of Environment, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 188
Energy Information Administration, (2004). International Energy Outlook. Office of
Integrated Analysis and Forecasting U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC
USA.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 189
CHAPTER 6
STUDY ON VEHICLE EFFICIENCY
STANDARDS
SUMMARY
Malaysia has been experiencing a dramatic increase in the number of vehicles
used, and this is projected to be higher in the future due to increasing income per
capita. This study focuses on the potential implementation of fuel economy standards
for motor vehicles in Malaysia. The fuel economy standard is developed based on the
fuel consumption data that is obtained from manufacturers and other related sources.
With the increasing number of vehicles, fuel economy standards are one of the
highly effective policies for decreasing energy use in the transportation sector. Fuel
economy standards are also capable of reducing air pollution and contribute towards
a positive environmental impact. In this study, the potential efficiency improvements
of vehicles are analyzed by using the engineering-economic analysis. Meanwhile the
possible efficiency improvement of motor vehicle in reducing the fuel consumption
of Malaysia’s transportation sector in the future are examined by predicting the
energy, economical and environmental impacts due to its implementation.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 190
6.1. Introduction
Air pollution is one of the environmental concerns in Malaysia. The major
contributor to air pollution in this country is road vehicles. As a result, the adoption
of fuel economy standards for vehicles is one of the options to reduce the emission.
The fuel economy standard could also play an important role in helping Malaysia to
meet overall greenhouse gas and emissions reduction target and at the same time
improve the competitiveness of the vehicle in the international arena.
Buying a fuel efficient vehicle enables thousands of ringgit to be saved on
fuel bills and reduces up to tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions over its life-time.
Choosing an efficient vehicle is a good start to fuel-efficient driving and riding.
However, the driving and riding habits and the type of vehicles driven will determine
the fuel consumption of the vehicle. In order to reduce fuel consumption of vehicles,
consumers should be educated to select the most fuel-efficient vehicle from the
market. This objective could only be achieved by setting a fuel economy standard.
6.1.1. Background
The tremendous growth of private vehicles is caused by an increase in
standards of living as well as lack of efficient public transportation system. As a
result, the Department of Environment (DOE) have undertaken several measures to
regulate and control emission from vehicles in Malaysia. These are:
The Environmental Quality (Clean Air) Regulations 1978
The Environmental Quality (Control of lead concentration in automobile
gasoline) Regulations 1985
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 191
The Environmental Quality (Control of emission from petrol engines)
Regulations 1996
The Environmental Quality (Control of emission from diesel engines)
Regulations 1996
The Environmental Quality (Control of Emission from Petrol Engines)
Regulations of 1996 Part II stated that petrol engine vehicles having a specified
capacity shall comply with the prescribed emission standards. In addition, emission
test for a petrol engine shall be conducted in accordance with the methods as
specified in the regulation and in an approved facility.
Due to the low awareness among policy makers in implementing fuel
economy standards and lack of enforcement for certification of standards, vehicle
manufacturers are ignoring fuel economy as one of the main criteria during
production. If high efficiency vehicles are not required, it probably does not pay to
invest in the development. However with an appropriate policy, the manufacturers
will have time to retool and invest in designing the vehicles that are more economic
and efficient. As a result, the manufacturers will develop more efficient vehicle,
which will benefit them as well as the consumers through the increase in demand and
competitiveness of the product in the international market. From the implementation
of both fuel economy standards and labels, Malaysia will be able to promote more
efficient vehicle and will begin an important market transformation for efficient
vehicle in this country. The fuel economy standards and labels could also contribute
towards monetary savings as well as reducing the environmental impact such as
greenhouse gasses.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 192
6.2. Survey data
The data necessary for this study is the total number of vehicles in the
country year by year which is presented in Table 6.1(JPJ, 2004). Fuel consumption
data for vehicle is also necessary in order to calculate the fuel economy. These data
is presented in Table 6.2 (Australian Greenhouse Office, 2003) and 6.3 (Berjaya
Motor, 2004).
Table 6.1. Total number of vehicles in Malaysia
Type of transport
Personal transport Public transport Year
Motorcycle Car Bus Taxi Hire& DriveFreight Other Total
1987 1,929,978 1,356,678 19,439 24,868 3,741 233,103 106,677 3,674,484
1988 2,030,418 1,427,283 20,452 26,161 3,937 245,232 112,226 3,865,709
1989 2,182,468 1,534,166 21,984 28,120 4,232 263,597 120,629 4,155,196
1990 2,388,477 1,678,980 24,057 30,774 4,631 288,479 132,016 4,547,414
1991 2,595,749 1,824,679 26,147 33,444 5,033 313,514 143,472 4,942,038
1992 2,762,666 1,942,016 27,827 35,596 5,357 333,674 152,698 5,259,834
1993 2,970,769 2,088,300 29,924 38,278 5,762 358,808 164,199 5,656,040
1994 3,297,474 2,302,547 33,529 42,204 5,308 393,833 178,439 6,253,334
1995 3,608,475 2,553,574 36,000 46,807 8,195 440,723 203,660 6,897,434
1996 3,951,931 2,886,536 38,965 49,485 9,971 512,165 237,631 7,686,684
1997 4,328,997 3,271,304 43,444 51,293 10,826 574,622 269,983 8,550,469
1998 4,692,183 3,452,852 45,643 54,590 10,042 599,149 286,898 9,141,357
1999 5,082,473 3,787,047 47,674 55,626 10,020 642,976 304,135 9,929,951
2000 5,356,604 4,145,982 48,662 56,152 10,433 665,284 315,687 10,598,804
2001 5,609,351 4,557,992 49,771 56,579 9,986 689,668 329,198 11,302,545
2002 5,842,617 5,001,273 51,158 58,066 10,073 713,148 345,604 12,021,939
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 193
Table.6.2. Fuel consumption data (CAR)
Engine Displacement (liter) City (liter/100km) (average)
Highway (liter/100km) (average)
1 7.1 5.8 1.3 7.4 5.8 1.4 7.6 5.4 1.5 7.7 5.6 1.6 8.3 5.9 1.7 7.9 6.4 1.8 8.9 6.1 1.9 9.3 6.2
2.0(medium) 9.8 6.7 2.0(large) 10.7 7.8
2.2(medium) 9.6 6.5 2.2(large) 10.4 6.6
2.3(medium) 10.8 6.8 2.3(large) 10.3 7.6
2.4(medium) 10.7 6.6 2.4(large) 10.1 6.3
2.5(medium) 10.1 7.8 2.5(large) 11.1 7.0
2.6 10.5 6.8 2.7 11.4 7.2 2.8 10.8 6.6 3.0 11.1 7.1 3.2 11.7 7.6 3.3 13.3 8.3 3.8 11.6 7.1 4.0 12.3 7.6 4.2 14.5 8.3 4.3 11.7 7.8 4.4 12.5 7.9 5.0 14.0 8.6 5.6 15.6 9.3 5.7 13.3 8.1 6.75 19.6 12.0
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 194
Table 6.3 List of motorcycle model and price
Manufacturer Model Price
Honda DREAM C1003-MA 4247.65
DREAM C100M3-MA 4550.52
WAVE NF1004-MA 4194.03
WAVE NF100M4-MA 4530.53
Suzuki FD110KS 4927.09
FD110MS 5267.43
RU110 5921.31
RU110U 6165.09
RGV120 6417.24
FXR150 8412.95
AG100 5718.93
AN125 7629.40
UE125TAM VR125 6677.28
Yamaha RXZ CATALYZER 7528.33
NOUVO AT115 6017.63
LAGENDA 110(K) 5044.63
LAGENDA 110(E) 5452.50
Y110 SS2 6228.76
Y125 6830.89
Y125 ZR 7161.82
YAMAHA EGO 115cc 4872.00
SR-V 4403.00
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 195
6.3. Methodology
In order to evaluate the performance and improvement for the vehicles fuel
economy standard in the study, there are several methods that have been considered
and the most important approach is to include the fuel consumption effect,
engineering economy analysis and motorcycle emission (GHG). These methods have
been also used by many countries around the world.
6.3.1. Fuel consumption
Basic Calculation
As there is a rapid vehicle penetration in most Asian countries, the situation
in Malaysia is no exception. Rapid industrialization, high economic and population
growth has accelerated the use of vehicle tremendously. This can be shown through
the increase in the number of road vehicle ownership. In our study, to calculate the
average of each and every data that is collected, the arithmetic mean method is used.
If each of the data is assigned as yi and the quantity of the data is n, therefore,
arithmetic mean is as follow:
∑=
=n
iim y
ny
1
1 (6.1)
The driving habits, the type of vehicle and the conditions which it is driven
under determines the vehicle’s fuel consumption and fuel cost. The annual fuel cost
can be estimated using the following equation:
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 196
AFC (RM) = [ ]100
DFR ×× (6.2)
Vehicle Growth
The polynomial method can be used to predict the total number and the
growth of vehicles in the future. The method is attempted to describe the relationship
between variable x as the function of available data and response y. It seeks to find a
smooth curve that the best fits the data, but does not necessarily pass through all data
points. Mathematically, a polynomial of order k in x is an expression in the following
form:
kk xcxcxccy ++++= ...2
210 (6.3)
Fuel consumption units
There are 2 types of units that represent the fuel consumption or the fuel
economy standards. Miles per gallon is the unit that is in use in the United States of
America. Most of the European countries use liter per 100 kilometer as the unit for
fuel consumption and FES indication. In order to convert from one unit to the other,
it is calculated with the following equation:
( ) ( )gallonmilesa
kmLa /614.15192.4100/
100⎟⎠⎞
⎜⎝⎛= (6.4)
6.3.2 Engineering Economy Analysis
In order to conduct the engineering economic analysis, the data on types and
specification of vehicles are collected. Besides that, the fuel consumption data from
other countries are also collected for reference. In this study, the
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 197
engineering/economic approach is adopted for proposing the standards. Engineering
economy analysis is a method used for estimating the potential vehicle fuel economy
improvement by enumerating specific technologies as well as estimating its
cumulative impact on fuel economy and its cost. Substituting more efficient but more
expensive technology or technological innovation is not the only way to improve fuel
economy. Higher miles per gallon (mpg) could also be achieved by reducing vehicles
size and performance as well as by cutting back on accessories and luxury features.
However these strategies sometimes require trading off attributes that consumer’s
value. Attributes such as acceleration, can be translated into dollar values only with a
great uncertainty. Thus, if many attributes are significantly changed to increase mpg,
the proof of minimal adverse consequences is lost. For this reason, most studies
estimate the costs of increased fuel economy while attempting to hold all other
vehicle attributes at least approximately constant. The following seven steps are the
basis for conducting an engineering economic analysis:
1. Select vehicle classes
2. Select baseline values
3. Select design options for each classes
4. Calculate fuel consumption improvement for each design option
5. Combine design options and calculate the fuel consumption improvement
6. Develop cost estimates for each design option
7. Generate cost-fuel consumption curve
Once these steps are completed, it is possible to analyze the economic impact
of the potential fuel consumption improvement on the consumers by carrying out a
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 198
life cycle cost and payback period analysis. As the standard is in place, the fuel
consumption levels are able to develop because the standard is a minimum value
target. The baseline level for the fuel consumption is selected based on the average
fuel consumption in each class of the vehicle.
Selection of vehicle classes.
All vehicles are classified according to their classes. For this purpose, the
vehicle classification is obtained from the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries
VFACTS Report. The classes are differentiated according to the engine displacement
and are adopted in the analysis. The broad classes are light, small, medium, large,
people movers, sports, prestige and luxury vehicles. Only 4 main classes will be
considered in this study.
These are:
(i) Light (Class I)
3 or 4 cylinder passenger cars, hatch or sedan, up to 1.5 liters.
(ii) Small (Class II)
4 cylinder passenger cars, hatch, sedan or wagon, 1.6-1.9 liters.
(iii) Medium (Class III)
4 cylinder passenger cars, hatch, sedan or wagon, over 1.9 liters.
(iv) Large (Class IV)
6 or 8 cylinder passenger cars, hatch, sedan or wagon.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 199
For motorcycle, the classes are:
(i) 2-stroke
The engine displacement ranging from 80 cc to 150 cc.
Examples: Suzuki RGV 120, Yamaha RX-Z 135, Yamaha 125z.
(ii) 4-stroke
The engine displacement ranging from 80 cc to 150 cc.
Examples: Honda EX-5, Suzuki FX-R 150, Yamaha E-Go 115.
For lorry the classes are:
(i) Class 2 and 3: Light duty lorries.
(ii) Class 4 – 6: Medium duty lorries.
(iii) Class 7 and 8: Heavy duty lorries.
Selection of baseline unit.
The baseline unit is selected to provide basic design features during the
analysis. For products without any additional design option for improvement, the
baseline models are the one that has fuel consumption value equal to the minimum or
the average of the existing models. Selecting the least efficient model as the baseline
model is recommended since this permits analysis of trial at all possible levels of
efficiency starting from the least efficient models. Therefore, the least efficient
model from the market of each class is selected as the baseline model for
engineering/economic analysis.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 200
Selection of design option for each class.
Design options are changes to the design of a baseline model that improve its
fuel consumption value. The potential design options are selected based on the
substitution of more efficient component to the baseline product. The data for the
potential design improvement is collected from the database developed in other
countries.
Fuel consumption improvement for each design option
Fuel consumption improvement of each design option is determined by
calculating potential improvement from component substitutions to the baseline
models. For the entire vehicle, the fuel consumption improvement is calculated based
on the potential design options (component substitution) for improving the fuel
economy standard (FES).
Fuel consumption improvement of combination design options.
Fuel consumption calculations are performed for the various components
substitution for the baseline product in accordance to the input from manufacturers of
the baseline models. For combination design options, fuel economy standard (FES) is
determined through cumulative improvement of each design option.
Cost estimates for each design option
The cost estimates for each design option is the cost of producing the vehicle
with the improved design options. The expected cost of manufacturing each design
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 201
option is obtained from vehicle manufacturers. However, when manufacturing costs
are unavailable, the expected costs is estimated based on retail price, or from the
design options that already exists in the market place. If the data is still unavailable
from these sources, the necessary data will be collected from published reference
materials.
Cost efficiency curves
The cost efficiency curve is determined by calculating life cycle cost (LCC)
for the vehicle due to the fuel consumption or fuel economy standard improvement
based on each design option, and combination design options. The LCC is the sum of
investment cost and the annual operating cost discounted over the lifetime of the
appliance. LCC is calculated by the following equation:
( )∑ −+=
N
tt
rOCPCLCC
1 1 (6.5)
If operating expenses are constant over time, the LCC is simplified to the
following equation:
LCC = PC + (PWF)(OC) (6.6)
To calculate the life cycle cost, the annual operating cost for the baseline unit
should be identified. The annual operating cost (OC) of vehicle is the sum of annual
fuel cost (A) and annual maintenance cost (C). It can be calculated as follows:
OC = A + C (6.7)
The annual fuel cost of a vehicle is given in Eq. (6.2), meanwhile the annual
maintenance cost is the total cost of the components being replaced and the labor
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 202
cost when the vehicle is being serviced. The components are lubricant, oil filter,
spark plug and gasket.
Meanwhile, to determine the present worth factor, it is calculated by the
following equation:
( ) ( ) ⎥⎦
⎤⎢⎣
⎡
+−=
+= ∑ N
N
t rrrPWF
1111
11
1 (6.8)
The payback period (PAY) measures the amount of time needed to recover
the additional investment (increment cost) as a result of increased fuel consumption
through lower operating cost. PAY is calculated by solving the following equation:
01
=∆+∆ ∑PAY
tOCPC (6.9)
In general, PAY is found by interpolating the results between two years when
the above expression changes sign. If OC is constant, the equation has the solution as
given below:
OCPCPAY
∆∆
−= (6.10)
The PAY is the ratio of incremental cost (from the baseline to the more
efficient vehicle) to the decrease in annual operating expenses. If PAY is greater than
the lifetime of the vehicle, it means that the increment in purchase price is not
recovered by the reduced operating expenses.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 203
6.3.3 Potential fuel savings
Baseline fuel consumption
The baseline fuel consumption is usually based on the test data. To obtain the
baseline fuel consumption in the future, predictions are made using the annual fuel
efficiency improvement. The baseline fuel consumption in a particular year can be
calculated by the following equation:
( )( )YscYpdvi
vYsc
vs AEIBFCBFC −
+×= 1 (6.11)
Initial unit fuel savings
The initial unit fuel savings is the difference between the annual unit fuel
consumption of a unit meeting the standard and the unit fuel consumption of the
average unit that would have been shipped in the absence of standard. Initial unit fuel
savings can be calculated by the following equation:
vs
vs
vs SFCBFCUFS −= (6.12)
Shipment
Shipment data comprise the number of registered vehicle in predicting year
minus the number of registered vehicle in the previous year. The shipment for
vehicle can be expressed by the following equation:
vi
vi
vi NaNaSh 1−−= (6.13)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 204
Total efficiency improvement
Total efficiency improvement is a percentage ratio of initial unit fuel savings
and baseline fuel consumption of vehicle while the standards are enacted. Thus, total
efficiency improvement can be calculated using the following equation:
%100×= vs
vsv
s BFCUFS
TEI (6.14)
Scaling Factor
The scaling factor would linearly scale down the unit fuel savings of vehicle
and the incremental cost to zero over the effective lifetime of the fuel economy
standards. The scaling factor can be expressed by the following equation:
( ) vs
vsv
ivi
vi TEI
AEIYseYshSF ×−−= 1 (6.15)
Unit fuel savings
The unit fuel savings were adjusted downward in the years after the standards
are implemented using the efficiency trend scaling factor. This factor accounts for
the natural progress in efficiency that is expected in the baseline case. The unit fuel
savings for vehicle can be calculated by the following equation:
vs
vi
vi UFSSFUFS ×= (6.16)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 205
Shipment survival factor
The shipment survival factor is a function of the annual retirement rate and
the retirement function. The shipment survival factor for motorcycles can be
calculated using the following equation:
( )( ) ⎥
⎦
⎤⎢⎣
⎡×−−−
−= v
vvi
vTv
i LLYshYtc
SSF3/23/4
3/21 (6.17)
Applicable stock
The applicable stock is the shipments in a particular year plus the number of
vehicles affected by standards in previous year multiplied by shipment survival
factor. The applicable stock can be calculated using the following equation:
( ) vi
vi
vi
vi ASSSFShAS 1−+×= (6.18)
Fuel savings
To determine the unit fuel savings in a particular year, the fuel savings for
vehicle associated with the standard is multiplied by the scaling factor and the
number of vehicles purchased in that year. The fuel savings can be calculated by the
following equation:
∑=
××=T
si
vi
vi
vi
vi SFUESASFS (6.19)
Economic impact of the standards
The economic impact consists of potential bill savings, net savings and
cumulative present value. The economic impact is actually a function of fuel savings
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 206
and the investment for more efficient vehicle due to the fuel economy standards. The
description of each variable is explained in the following section.
Initial incremental cost
Initial incremental cost per unit of motor vehicle is a function of unit fuel
savings and incremental cost which can be calculated using the following equation:
vvs
vs ICUESIIC ×= (6.20)
Capital recovery factor.
Capital recovery factor is the correlation between the real discount rate and
the lifespan of the motor vehicle. This correlation can be expressed by the following
mathematical equation :
( )( )rLddCRF
−+−=
11 (6.21)
Bill savings
The bill savings is the fuel savings multiplied by the average fuel price and
can be expressed as follows:
ni
vi
vi PFFSBS ×= (6.22)
Net savings
There are two ways to estimate economic impact; annualized costs and cash
flow. In the first method, the incremental cost is spread over the lifetime of the
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 207
vehicle so that the pattern of expenditures matches the flow of bill savings. This
method smoothes the net saving over time. The annualized net RM savings in a
particular year, which is the main economic indicator used in this analysis, is
calculated using the following equation:
vvi
T
si
vi
ni
vi
vi IICSFCRFASPFFSANS ×××−×= ∑
=
(6.23)
The second method considers the cash flow over the lifetime of the
investment assuming that the vehicle is paid for in full when it is purchased.
Purchasers incur the incremental cost when the appliance is purchased, but benefits
of higher energy efficiency are spread over the lifetime of the vehicle. To calculate
the net savings in a certain year in terms of actual cash flows, the following equation
is used:
vvi
vi
ni
vi
vi IICSFShPFESNS ××−×= (6.24)
Cumulative present value
The cumulative present value can be calculated using the percentage of real
discount rate. The cumulative present value of annualized net savings can be
expressed in the mathematical form as follows:
( )( )( )∑
=−+
=T
siYdri
viv
i dANS
ANSPV1
(6.25)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 208
6.4. Results and discussions
6.4.1 Introduction
This chapter contains results on fuel economy standards for motor vehicles
and their impact at national level. The engineering/economic approach is applied to
examine potential fuel economy improvement of the least efficient model of motor
vehicles in Malaysia. Fuel consumption calculation is modified based on the theory
that is in use in several countries. Predicted economic and energy impact due to the
implementation of fuel economy standards is also discussed. Finally, the potential
recommendations related to fuel economy standards are presented.
6.4.2 Fuel Consumption
In order to calculate the annual fuel cost, the petrol cost is considered at
RM1.42 per liter. For a vehicle achieving 8 liter/100 km and traveling 15000 km per
year, the annual fuel cost is estimated to be:
km 15000RM1.42km 100
liter 8××=FC
RM1704=
Based on this simple calculation, the lifetime vehicle traveling cost can be estimated
consequently and the effect of even small differences in fuel consumption can be
predicted.
For example, if a vehicle achieving 8 liter/100 km is compared with the one
achieving 10 liter/100 km, the annual fuel cost will be RM1704 and RM2130 each
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 209
respectively. Over the lifetime of the vehicle which is 10 years, the estimated cost of
fuel is presented in Table 6.4.
Table 6.4 Fuel cost over the vehicle’s 10 years lifetime
Fuel consumption Fuel cost
2 liter / 100 km RM 4260
3 liter / 100 km RM 6390
4 liter / 100km RM 8520
5 liter / 100 km RM10650
6 liter / 100 km RM 12780
8 liter / 100 km RM 17040
10 liter / 100km RM 21300
12 liter / 100 km RM25560
6.4.3 Vehicle growth
The total vehicles are predicted based on the data collected from Jabatan
Pengangkutan Jalan (JPJ) Malaysia and using Eq. (3.3). The results are presented in
Appendix A. Meanwhile, the potential vehicle growth in Malaysia in the future is
predicted using the following equation:
• Car
9986.0R , 06E14943512826 22 =+++= xxy (6.26)
• Motorcycle
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 210
9951.0R , 06E21631926.7761 22 =+++= xxy (6.27)
• Lorry
9824.0R , 2124002452613.747 22 =++= xxy (6.28)
• Bus
9855.0R , 177234.22964618.4 22 =++= xxy (6.29)
6.4.4 Engineering/economic analysis
Engineering/economic analysis is conducted to evaluate the fuel economy
standards for vehicles in Malaysia. The first step for this analysis is the selection of
vehicles classes. The baseline unit selected for analysis is the average or the least
efficient models obtained from the market through data collection. The design
options for baseline units in each class are selected and the potential fuel economy
improvement is determined through this analysis. In order to analyze the life cycle
cost and payback period the incremental cost for each design option is identified.
Each step of the procedure is discussed in the following section.
Selection of vehicle classes
The first step in the engineering/economic analysis is the grouping of vehicles
types into separate classes. The classes are selected according to the engine
displacement whereby different fuel economy standards are applicable. The classes
are shown in Table 6.5, 6.6 and 6.7.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 211
Table 6.5 Types/Classes of cars.
Class Type Engine
Displacement
Light (Class I) 3 or 4 cylinder passenger cars, hatch
or sedan.
above 1.5 liters
Small (Class II) 4 cylinder passenger cars, hatch, sedan
or wagon.
1.5-1.9 liters
Medium (Class III) 4 cylinder passenger cars, hatch, sedan
or wagon.
over 1.9 liters
Large (Class IV) 6 or 8 cylinder cars, hatch, sedan or
wagon.
over 1.9 liters
Table 6.6 Types/Classes of motorcycles
Types of motorcycles Model
2 Stroke
- engine displacement from 80cc to
150cc
Yamaha RX-Z 135, Yamaha110SS2,
Yamaha 125Z, Suzuki RGV120,
Suzuki RU110
4 Stroke
- engine displacement from 80cc to
150cc
Suzuki FXR150, Suzuki FD110MS,
Yamaha Lagenda 110, Honda Dream
C100, Honda Wave NF100
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 212
Table 6.7 Types/Classes of lorry
Class Type GVW
2 and 3 Minivan, Utility van, Step van, Conventional
van, Full-size pickup, Walk-in truck, City
delivery truck
6001Ib to 14000Ib
4 - 6 Conventional van, City delivery truck, Large
walk-in truck, Bucket, Beverage truck, Single-
axle truck, Rack truck, School bus
14001Ib to 26000Ib
7 - 8 Refuse truck, Furniture truck, Medium
conventional truck, Dump truck, Cement
truck, Heavy conventional truck, COE sleeper
truck, City transit bus
26001Ib and above
Selection of baseline unit
The design options are changes made to the design of the baseline model that
will improve fuel economy of the vehicle. Selection of design options are made
based on substitution of the present components used by vehicle to a more efficient
one. Some of the options are already adopted by existing vehicle and others are being
developed in Malaysia or in other countries such as Japan, United States, Europe and
other car manufacturers. The potential improvement for design options from each
class are determined based on input and suggestion from manufacturers and
references for the least efficient model. The lists of potential design options proposed
in this study for the least efficient model are tabulated in table 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 6.11 and
6.12.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 213
Table 6.8 Potential increase in fuel economy and related price increase for cars
No. Technology Potential fuel efficiency
improvement (%)
Potential average retail price
increase (RM) A Engine technologies production-
intent engine technologies
A.1 Engine friction and other
mechanical/hydrodynamic loss
reduction
1- 5 133-532
A.2 Application of advanced low
friction lubricants
1 30-42
A.3 Multi-valve, overhead camshaft
valve trains
2-5 399-532
A.4 Variable valve timing 2-3 133-532
A.5 Variable valve lift and timing 1-2 266-798
A.6 Cylinder deactivation 5-7 426-958
A.7 Engine accessory improvement 5-10 319-426
A.8 Engine downsizing and
supercharging
2-6 1330-2128
B Transmission technologies production-intent transmission technologies
B.1 Continuous variable transmission
(CVT)
4-8 532-1330
B.2 Five speed automatic
transmission
2-3 266-585
C Vehicle technologies production-intent vehicle technologies
C.1 Aerodynamic drag reduction on
vehicle designs
1-2 0-532
C.2 Improved rolling resistance 1-1 21 53-213
C.3 Vehicle weight reduction (5%) 3-4 798-1330
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 214
Table 6.9 Potential increase in fuel economy and cost for motorcycles
No Technology Potential fuel efficiency
improvement (%)
Potential average retail price increase
(RM) A Fuel Injection
Direct – injection (2
stroke)
Port – injection (4 stroke)
30 – 35
12 - 15
1005
1005
B Petrol saver 5 - 10 201
C Motorcycle weight reduction (5%) 4 350
D Aerodynamic drag reduction on
motorcycle’s design
1 250
E Application of advanced low
friction lubricant
1 20
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 215
Table 6.10 Potential increase in fuel economy and related price increase for Medium
Duty Lorry (class 2 & 3)
No Technology Potential fuel efficiency
improvement (%)
Potential average retail price increase
(RM) A A1 B B1 C C1 D D1 D2 E E1 E2 F F1
AERODYNAMICS Lower coefficient of drag through hood and cab configuration, bumper and underside baffles ROLLING RESISTANCE Low rolling resistance tires TRANSMISSION Advance transmission with lock-up, electronic controls and reduced friction. DIESEL ENGINE Turbocharged, direct injection engine with better thermal management Integrated starter/alternator with idle off and limited regenerative braking GASOLINE ENGINE Electronic fuel injection, DOHC and multiple valves Integrated starter/alternator with idle off and limited regenerative braking VEHICLE MASS Mass reduction through high strength, lightweight material
2.5
2.5
2.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
2280
684
2750
2660
4560
2660
3800
4600
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 216
Table 6.11 Potential increase in fuel economy and related price increase for Medium
Duty Lorry (class 4-6)
No Technology Potential fuel
efficiency
improvement
(%)
Potential
average retail
price increase
(RM)
A A1 A2 A3 B B1 C C1 D D1 D2 E E1 E2
AERODYNAMICS Cab top deflector, sloping hood, cab side flares Closing/covering of gap between tractor and trailer, aerodynamic bumper, underside air baffles, wheel well covers Van leading and trailing edge curvatures ROLLING RESISTANCE Low rolling resistance tires TRANSMISSION Advance transmission with lock-up, electronic controls and reduced friction. DIESEL ENGINE Turbocharged, direct injection engine with better thermal management Integrated starter/alternator with idle off and limited regenerative braking GASOLINE ENGINE Electronic fuel injection, DOHC and multiple valves Integrated starter/alternator with idle off and limited regenerative braking
2.5
4.0
1.0
2.5
2.0
8.0
5.0
5.0
8.0
2850
3040
1520
1064
3420
3800
4560
3800
4560
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 217
Table 6.12 Potential increase in fuel economy and related price increase for Heavy
Duty Lorry (class 7 & 8)
No Technology Potential fuel
efficiency
improvement (%)
Potential average
retail price
increase (RM)
A A1 A2 A3 B B1 C C1 D D1 E E1 E2 F F1
AERODYNAMICS Cab top deflector, sloping hood, cab side flares Closing/covering of gap between tractor and trailer, aerodynamic bumper, underside air baffles, wheel well covers Trailer leading and trailing edge curvatures ROLLING RESISTANCE Low rolling resistance tires TRANSMISSION Advance transmission with lock-up, electronic controls and reduced friction. AUXILIARIES Electrical auxiliaries (air compressor, hydraulic pump, radiator fan) DIESEL ENGINE Internal friction reduction through better lubricants and improved bearings Increased peak cylinder pressure VEHICLE MASS (TARE) Mass reduction through high-strength, lightweight material
2.0
2.5
1.3
3.0
2.0
1.5
2.0
4.0
10.0
2850
5700
1900
2090
7600
1900
1900
3800
7600
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 218
Fuel consumption improvement for each design option
Fuel consumption improvement is calculated based on the selection of design
options for each class. This analysis takes into account the potential fuel
consumption improvement for each design options independently. The incremental
cost estimates for using these options were obtained from manufacturers and other
references. The incremental costs are the investment cost to produce vehicle with the
new design option. The results of design options improvement for baseline design
(no design change) for class I, II, III and IV motor vehicles are presented in Table
6.13, 6.14, 6.15 and 6.16. For the 2 stroke and 4 stroke motorcycles, the results are
presented in Table 6.25, 6.26 and 6.27. Table 6.31, 6.32, 6.33 and 6.34 shows the
results of the design option improvements for lorries and busses.
Fuel consumption improvement for combination design options
The fuel consumption improvement for combined design options are started
from the baseline design. The design changes are then accumulated together with
fuel economy standard improvements. The incremental cost for design options are
calculated cumulatively and based on priority of the highest fuel economy standard
improvement and the lowest incremental cost. The calculation results of are tabulated
in Table 6.17 - Table 6.25. For the 2 stroke and 4 stroke motorcycles, the results are
presented in Table 6.28, 6.29 and 6.30. Meanwhile, Table 6.35, 6.36 and 6.38 shows
the results for the improvement of combination design option for lorries and busses.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 219
Baseline - 6.9 (city) & 5.4 (highway)
Least efficient - 7.6 (city) & 5.8 (highway)
Table 6.13 FES and incremental cost of design options for class I car
Design
Options
Technological
Improvements
FES
City Highway
FES
-( % )
Cost
( RM )
%Price
( % )
0 Least efficient design 7.60 5.80 0 0 0
A.2 Application of
advanced low friction
lubricant
7.52 5.74 1 42 0.10
A.3 Multi-valve, overhead
camshaft valve trains
7.22 5.51 5 532 1.24
B.2 Five speed automatic
transmission
7.37 5.63 3 585 1.36
C.2 Improved rolling
resistance
7.49 5.71 1.5 213 0.50
Baseline - 8.4 (city) & 6.04 (highway)
Least efficient - 9.3 (city) & 6.4 (highway)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 220
Table 6.14 FES and incremental cost of design options for class II
Design
Options
Technological
Improvements
FES
City Highway
FES
-( % )
Cost
( RM )
% Price
( % )
0 Least efficient design 9.30 6.40 0 0 0
A.1 Engine friction and other
losses reduction
9.21 6.34 1 133 0.19
A.2 Application of advanced
low friction lubricant
9.21 6.34 1 42 0.06
A.4 Variable valve timing 9.02 6.21 3 532 0.76
A.7 Engine accessory
improvement
8.84 6.08 5 319 0.46
C.2 Improved rolling
resistance
9.16 6.30 1 53 0.08
Baseline - 10.4 (city) & 7.0 (highway)
Least efficient - 11.1 (city) & 7.8 (highway)
Table 6.15 FES and incremental cost of design options for class III
Design
Options
Technological
Improvements
FES
City
Highway
FES
-( % )
Cost
( RM )
% Price
( % )
0 Least efficient design 11.1 7.8 0 0 0
A.2 Applications of advanced,
low friction lubricants
11.0 7.72 1 42 0.04
A.7 Engine accessory
improvement
10.55 7.41 5 319 0.34
B.1 Continuously variable
transmission (CVT)
10.66 7.49 4 532 0.56
C.2 Improved rolling
resistance
11.0 7.72 1 53 0.06
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 221
Baseline - 11.5 (city) & 7.3 (highway)
Least efficient - 13.3 (city) & 8.3 (highway)
Table 6.16 FES and incremental cost of design options for class IV
Design
Options
Technological
Improvements
FES
City Highway
FES
-( % )
Cost
( RM )
Price
( % )
0 Least efficient design 13.3 8.3 0 0 0
A.1 Engine friction and other
mechanical/
hydrodynamic losses
12.64 7.89 5 532 0.48
A.2 Application of advanced
low friction lubricant
13.17 8.22 1 42 0.04
A.4 Variable valve timing 12.90 8.05 3 532 0.48
A.7 Engine accessory
improvement
12.64 7.89 5 319 0.29
C.2 Improved rolling
resistance
13.17 8.22 1 53 0.05
Table 6.17 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for class I (CITY)
No Design options FES
Imp.
Cum. FES
imp (%)
Price
(RM)
Cum.
Price imp.(%)
0 Least efficient design 7.60 0 43000 0.00
1
0+Application of advanced low
friction lubricant
7.52
1.0
43042
0.10
2
1+Multi-valve,overhead camshaft
valve trains
7.15
5.9
43532
1.33
3 2+Improved rolling resistance 7.04 7.4 43213 1.83
4 3+Five speed automatic transmission 6.83 10.1 43585 3.19
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 222
Table 6.18 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for class I
(HIGHWAY)
No Design options FES
Imp.
Cum. FES
imp (%)
Price
(RM)
Cum. Price
imp.(%)
0 Least efficient design 5.80 0 43000 0.00
1
0+Application of advanced low
friction lubricant
5.74
1.0
43042
0.10
2
1+Multi-valve, overhead camshaft
valve trains
5.45
5.9
43532
1.33
3 2+Improved rolling resistance 5.37 7.4 43213 1.83
4 3+Five speed automatic transmission 5.21 10.1 43585 3.19
Table 6.19 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for class II (CITY)
No Design options FES Imp. Cum. FES
imp (%)
Price (RM) Cum. Price
imp.(%)
0 Least efficient design 9.30 0.0 70000 0.00
1
0+Applications of advanced , low
friction lubricants
9.21
1.0
70042
0.06
2 1+Improved rolling resistance 9.11 2.0 70095 0.14
3 2+Engine accessory improvement 8.66 6.9 70414 0.59
4
3+Engine friction and other loss
reduction
8.57
7.8
70547
0.78
5 4+Variable valve timing 8.32 10.6 71079 1.54
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 223
Table 6.20 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for class II
(HIGHWAY)
No Design options FES Imp. Cum. FES
imp (%)
Price
(RM)
Cum.
Price
imp.(%)
0 Least efficient design 6.30 0.0 70000 0.00
1
0+Application of advanced low
friction lubricant
6.24
1.0
70042
0.06
2 1+Improved rolling resistance 6.17 2.0 70095 0.14
3
2+Engine accessory improvement 5.87
6.9
70414
0.59
4
3+Engine friction and other losses
reduction
5.81
7.8
70547
0.78
5 4+Variable valve timing 5.63 10.6 71079 1.54
Table 6.21 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for class III (CITY)
No Design options FES Imp. Cum. FES
imp (%)
Price
(RM)
Cum.
Price
imp.(%)
0 Least efficient design 11.10 0.0 95000 0.00
1
0+Application of advanced low
friction lubricant
10.99
1.0
95042
0.04
2 1+Improved rolling resistance 10.88 2.0 95095 0.10
3 2+Engine accessory improvement 10.34 6.9 95414 0.44
4 3+Continuous variable transmission
(CVT)
9.92 10.6 95946 1.00
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 224
Table 6.22 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for class III
(HIGHWAY)
No Design options FES Imp. Cum.
FES imp
(%)
Price
(RM)
Cum.
Price
imp.(%)
0 Least efficient design 7.80 0.0 95000 0.00
1
0+Application of advanced low friction
lubricant
7.72
1.0
95042
0.04
2 1+Improved rolling resistance 7.64 2.0 95095 0.10
3 2+Engine accessory improvement 7.26 6.9 95414 0.44
4 3+Continuous variable transmission
(CVT)
6.97 10.6 95946 1.00
Table 6.23 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for class IV
(CITY)
No Design options FES
Imp.
Cum. FES
imp (%)
Price
(RM)
Cum. Price
imp.(%)
0 Least efficient design 13.30 0.0 110000 0.00
1
0+Application of advanced low
friction lubricant
13.17
1.0
110042
0.04
2 1+Improved rolling resistance 13.04 2.0 110095 0.09
3
2+Engine accessory improvement 12.38 6.9 110414 0.38
4
3+Engine friction and other losses
reduction
11.76
11.5
110946
0.86
5 4+Variable valve timing 11.41 14.2 111478 1.34
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 225
Table 6.24 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for class IV
(HIGHWAY)
No Design options FES Imp. Cum. FES
imp (%)
Price (RM) Cum. Price
imp.(%)
0 Least efficient design 8.30 0.0 110000 0.00
1
0+Application of advanced low
friction lubricant
8.22
1.0
110042
0.04
2 1+Improved rolling resistance 8.13 2.0 110095 0.09
3
2+Engine accessory improvement 7.73
6.9
110414
0.38
4
3+Engine friction and other losses
reduction
7.34
11.5
110946
0.86
5 4+Variable valve timing 7.12 14.2 111478 1.34
2 STROKE MOTORCYCLE
Baseline = 2.9 liter/100km
Least efficient = 3.65 liter/100km
Table 6.25 FES and incremental cost of design option for 2 stroke motorcycle
(METHOD I)
Design
Options
Technological Improvements FES
(liter/100k
m)
FES
–(%)
Cost
(RM)
% Price
(RM)
0 Least efficient design 3.65 0 0 0
A.1 Fuel Injection
Direct -injection (2 stroke)
2.56 30 1005 16
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 226
Table 6.26 FES and incremental cost of design options for 2 stroke motorcycle
(METHOD II)
Design
Options
Technological
Improvements
FES
(liter/100k
m)
FES
–(%)
Cost
(RM)
% Price
(RM)
0 Least efficient design 3.65 0 0 0
E Application of advanced
low friction lubricant
3.61 1 20 0.3
B Petrol saver 3.29 10 201 3
C Motorcycle weight
reduction (5%)
3.5 4 350 5.3
D Aerodynamic drag reduction
on design
3.61 1 250 3.8
4 STROKE MOTORCYCLE
Baseline = 2.30 liter/100km
Least efficient = 2.92 liter/100km
Table 6.27 FES and incremental cost of design options for 4 stroke motorcycle
Design
Options
Technological
Improvements
FES
(liter/100km)
FES
–(%)
Cost
(RM)
% Price
(RM)
0 Least efficient design 2.92 0 0 0
E Application of advanced
low friction lubricant
2.89 1 20 0.4
B Petrol saver 2.63 10 201 3.9
A.2 Fuel injection
Port –injection
2.57 12 1005 19.5
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 227
2 STROKE MOTORCYCLE
Table 6.28 FES and incremental cost of combined design option for 2 stroke
motorcycle (METHOD I)
No Design options FES
Imp.
Cum. FES
imp (%)
Price
(RM)
Cum.
Price imp.(%)
0 Least efficient design 3.65 0 6634.06 0.00
1
0+Fuel Injection
Direct -injection (2 stroke)
2.56 30 7639.06 15.0
Table 6.29 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for 2 stroke
motorcycle (METHOD II)
No Design options FES
Imp.
Cum. FES
imp (%)
Price
(RM)
Cum.
Price imp.(%)
0 Least efficient design 3.65 0 6634.06 0.00
1
0+ Application of advanced low
friction lubricant
3.61
1
6654.06 0.3
2 1+ Petrol saver 3.25 11 6855.06 3.0
3
2+ Motorcycle weight reduction
(5%)
3.12
14
7205.06 9.0
4
Aerodynamic drag reduction on
design
3.09 15 7455.06 12.0
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 228
Table 6.30 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for 4 stroke
motorcycle
No Design options FES Imp. Cum. FES
imp (%)
Price (RM) Cum.
Price
imp.(%)
0 Least efficient design 2.92 0 5163.72 0.00
1
0+ Application of advanced
low friction lubricant
2.89
1
5183.72
0.4
2 1+ Petrol saver 2.63 11 5384.72 4
3 2+ Fuel injection
Port –injection
2.29 22
6389.72 24
LORRIES
Medium Duty lorry (class 2 and 3)
Least efficient design = 20.59 liter/100km
Baseline = 16.45 liter/100km
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 229
Table 6.31 FES and incremental cost of combined design for Medium Duty lorry
(class 2 and 3)
Design
Options
Technological
Improvements
FES
(liter/100k
m)
FES
–(%)
Cost
(RM)
% Price
(RM)
0 Least efficient design 20.59 0 0 0
B1 Low rolling resistance tires 20.08 2.5 684 0.53
D1 Turbocharged, direct
injection engine with better
thermal management
19.56 5.0 2660 2.05
A1 Lower coefficient of drag
through hood and cab
configuration
20.08 2.5 2280 1.75
D2 Integrated starter/alternator
with idle off and limited
regenerative braking
19.56 5.0 4560 3.51
F1 Mass reduction through
high strength, lightweight
material
19.56 5.0 4600 3.54
C1 Advance transmission with
lock-up, electronic controls
20.18 2.0 2750 2.12
Medium Duty lorry (class 4-6)
Least efficient design = 28 liter/100km
Baseline = 22 liter/100km
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 230
Table 6.32 FES and incremental cost of combined design for Medium Duty lorry
(class 4 - 6)
Design
Options
Technological
Improvements
FES
(liter/100k
m)
FES
–(%)
Cost
(RM)
% Price
(RM)
0 Least efficient design
28.00 0 0 0
B1 Low rolling resistance tires
27.3 2.5 1064 0.38
D1 Turbocharged, direct
injection engine with better
thermal management
25.76 8.0 3800 1.36
A2 Closing/covering of gap
between tractor and trailer
26.88 4.0 3040 1.09
D2 Integrated starter/alternator
with idle off and limited
regenerative braking
26.60 5.0 4560 1.63
A1 Cab top deflector, sloping
hood, cab side flares
27.30 2.5 2850 1.02
A3 Van leading and trailing
edge curvatures
27.72 1.0 1520 0.54
C1 Advance transmission with
lock-up, electronic controls
and reduced friction.
27.44 2.0 3420 1.22
Heavy Duty lorry (class 7 & 8)
Least efficient design = 42.42 liter/100km
Baseline = 32.85 liter/100km
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 231
Table 6.33 FES and incremental cost of combined design for Heavy Duty lorry (class
7 & 8)
Design
Options
Technological
Improvements
FES
(liter/100k
m)
FES
–(%)
Cost
(RM)
% Price
(RM)
0 Least efficient design
42.42 0 0 0
B1 Low rolling resistance tires
41.15 3.0 2090 0.42
F1 Mass reduction through
high-strength, lightweight
material
38.18 10.0 7600 1.54
E1 Internal friction reduction
through better lubricant and
improved bearings
41.57 2.0 1900 0.39
E2 Increased peak cylinder
pressure
40.72 4.0 3800 0.77
D1 Electrical auxiliaries 41.78 1.5 1900 0.39
A1 Cab top deflector, sloping
hood, cab side flares
41.57 2.0 2850 0.58
A2 Closing/covering of gap
between tractor and trailer,
aerodynamic bumper
41.36 2.5 5700 1.16
Bus
Least efficient design = 40.58 liter/100km
Baseline = 32.00 liter/100km
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 232
Table 6.34 FES and incremental cost of combined design for busses
Design
Options
Technological
Improvements
FES
(liter/100km)
FES
–(%)
Cost
(RM)
% Price
(RM)
0 Least efficient design 40.58 0 0 0
B1
Low rolling resistance tires 39.36 3.0 2090 0.43
F1 Mass reduction through
high-strength, lightweight
material
36.52 10.0 7600 1.58
E1 Internal friction reduction
through better lubricant and
improved bearings
39.77 2.0 1900 0.40
E2 Increased peak cylinder
pressure
38.96 4.0 3800 0.79
D1 Electrical auxiliaries 39.97 1.5 1900 0.40
A1 Cab top deflector, sloping
hood, cab side flares
39.77 2.0 2850 0.59
A2 Closing/covering of gap
between tractor and trailer,
aerodynamic bumper
39.57 2.5 5700 1.19
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 233
Table 6.35 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for
Medium Duty lorry (class 2 and 3)
No Design options FES
Imp.
Cum. FES
imp (%)
Price
(RM)
Cum.
Price imp.(%)
0 Least efficient design 20.59 0 130000 0.00
1 0+ Low rolling resistance tires 20.08 2.5 130684 0.50
2
1+ Turbocharged, direct injection
engine with better thermal
management
19.07 7.4
133344 2.60
3
2+ Lower coefficient of drag
through hood and cab configuration
18.59
9.7
135624
4.30
4
3+ Integrated starter/alternator with
idle off and limited regenerative
braking
17.66
14.2
140184
7.80
5
4+ Mass reduction through high
strength, lightweight material
16.78
18.5
144784
11.40
6 5+ Advance transmission with lock-
up, electronic control
16.45 20.1 147534 13.50
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 234
Table 6.36 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for
Medium Duty lorry (class 4-6)
No Design options FES
Imp.
Cum. FES
imp (%)
Price
(RM)
Cum.
Price imp.(%)
0 Least efficient design 28.00 0 280000 0.00
1 0+ Low rolling resistance tires 27.30 2.5 281064 0.40
2
1+ Turbocharged, direct injection
engine with better thermal
management
25.12
10.3
284864 1.70
3
2+ Closing/covering of gap between
tractor and trailer
24.11
13.9
287904 2.80
4 3+ Integrated starter/alternator with
idle off and limited regenerative
braking
22.91 18.2 292464 4.50
5
4+ Cab top deflector, sloping hood,
cab side flares
22.33
20.2
295314 5.50
6 5+ Van leading and trailing edge
curvatures
22.11 21.0 296834 6.00
7 6+ Advance transmission with lock-
up, electronic controls and reduced
friction.
21.67 22.6 300254 7.20
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 235
Table 6.37 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for
Heavy Duty lorry (class 7 and 8)
No Design options FES
Imp.
Cum. FES
imp (%)
Price
(RM)
Cum.
Price imp.(%)
0 Least efficient design 42.42 0 492000 0.00
1 0+ Low rolling resistance tires 41.15 3.0 494090 0.40
2
1+ Mass reduction through high-
strength, lightweight material
37.03
12.7
501690
2.00
3
2+ Internal friction reduction
through better lubricant and
improved bearings
36.29
14.4
503590
2.40
4
3+ Increased peak cylinder pressure 34.84
17.9
507390
3.10
5 4+ Electrical auxiliaries 34.32 19.1 509290 3.50
6
5+ Cab top deflector, sloping hood,
cab side flares
33.63
20.7
512140
4.10
7 6+ Closing/covering of gap between
tractor and trailer, aerodynamic
bumper
32.79
22.7
517840
5.30
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 236
Table 6.38 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for Bus
No Design options FES
Imp.
Cum. FES
imp (%)
Price
(RM)
Cum.
Price imp.(%)
0 Least efficient design 40.58 0 480700 0.00
1 0+ Low rolling resistance tires 39.36 3.0 482790 0.40
2
1+ Mass reduction through high-
strength, lightweight material
35.43
12.7
490390
2.00
3
2+ Internal friction reduction
through better lubricant and
improved bearings
34.72 14.4
492290
2.40
4
3+ Increased peak cylinder pressure 33.33
17.9
496090 3.20
5 4+ Electrical auxiliaries 32.83 19.1 497990 3.60
6 5+ Cab top deflector, sloping hood,
cab side flares
32.17 20.7
500840
4.20
7 6+ Closing/covering of gap between
tractor and trailer, aerodynamic
bumper
31.37
22.7
506540
5.40
Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation
The life cycle cost and payback period are calculated using equations 6.5 to
6.11 and input data discussed in the previous section. At the same time, some input
values such as discount rate, fuel price, vehicle lifespan, average mileage, baseline
data and least efficient model for each class are required. The input data are tabulated
in Table 6.39 and Table 6.40 for motor vehicles. Table 6.41 displays input data for
the motorcycle and Table 6.42 for lorries and busses.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 237
Table 6.39 The input value of baseline models for each class of car
(City Driving).
Variable Class I Class II Class III Class IV
Engine Displacement (liters) 1.0-1.4 1.5-1.9 2.0-2.5 2.0-6.75
Baseline FES (litres/100km) 6.9 8.4 10.4 11.5
Least efficient FES (litres/100km) 7.6 9.3 11.1 13.3
Fuel price (RM/liter) 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42
Discount rate (%) 7 7 7 7
Vehicle lifespan (years) 10 10 10 10
Average mileage use (km/year) 15000 15000 15000 15000
Table 6.40 The input value of baseline models for each class of car
(Highway Driving).
Variable Class I Class II Class III Class IV
Engine Displacement (liters) 1.0-1.4 1.5-1.9 2.0-2.5 2.6-6.75
Baseline FES (litres/100km) 5.4 6.04 7.0 7.3
Least efficient FES (litres/100km) 5.8 6.4 7.8 8.3
Fuel price (RM/liter) 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42
Discount rate (%) 7 7 7 7
Vehicle lifespan (years) 10 10 10 10
Average mileage use (km/year) 15000 15000 15000 15000
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 238
Table 6.41 The input value of baseline models for each class of motorcycles
Variable 2 Strokes
(Method I)
2 Strokes
(Method 2)
4 Strokes
Engine Displacement (cc) 80-150 80-150 80-150
Baseline FES (litres/100km) 2.90 2.90 2.30
Least efficient FES (litres/100km) 3.65 3.65 2.92
Fuel price (RM/liter) 1.42 1.37 1.37
Discount rate (%) 7 7 7
Vehicle lifespan (years) 10 10 10
Average mileage use (km/year) 15000 15000 15000
Table 6.42 The input value of baseline models for each class of lorries and busses
Variable Class 2 & 3 Class 4-6 Class 7 & 8 Bus
GVW 6001Ib to
14000Ib
14001Ib to
26000Ib
26001 and
over
26001 and
over
Baseline FES
(litres/100km)
16.45 22.00 32.85 32.00
Least efficient FES
(litres/100km)
20.59 28.00 42.42 40.58
Fuel price (RM/liter) 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42
Discount rate (%) 7 7 7 7
Vehicle lifespan (years) 15 15 15 15
Average mileage use
(km/year)
20000 20000 20000 25000
The cumulative impact due to design changes on all type of vehicles for FES
and prices are presented in Figures 6.1, 6.3, 6.5, 6.7, 4.9, 6.11, 6.13, 6.15, 6.17, 6.19,
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 239
6.21, 6.23, 6.25, 6.27 and 6.29. Meanwhile, the cumulative payback period and life
cycle cost due to motor vehicle usage are shown in Table 6.44 - 6.58. It is also shown
in Figures 6.2, 6.4, 6.6, 6.8, 6.10, 6.12, 6.14, 6.16, 6.18, 6.20, 6.22, 6.24, 6.26, 6.28
and 6.30.
Table 6.43 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for Class I car (CITY)
No Design options FES Imp. Price
(RM)
OC
(RM)
LCC
(RM)
PAY
(Year)
0 Least efficient design 7.60 43000 1,805 55,676 0.00
1
0+Application of advanced
low friction lubricant
7.52 43042 1,789 55,604 2.59
2
1+Multi-valve,overhead
camshaft valve trains
7.15 43532 1,708 55,574 5.96
3
2+Improved rolling
resistance
7.04 43213 1,686 55,626 6.60
4 3+Five speed automatic
transmission
6.83 43585 1,641 55,895 8.36
3+
Five
spe
ed a
utom
atic
tra
nsm
issi
on
2+Im
prov
ed ro
lling
re
sist
ance
Leas
t effi
cien
t des
ign
0+A
pplic
atio
ns o
f ad
vanc
ed, l
ow fr
ictio
n lu
bric
ants
1+M
ulti-
valv
e, o
verh
ead
cam
shaf
t val
ve tr
ains
42,000
42,500
43,000
43,500
44,000
44,500
7.6 7.52 7.15 7.04 6.83
FES (liter/100km)
Vehi
cle
Pric
es(R
M)
Figure 6.1 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for Class I (City)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 240
55,67655,604 55,574
55,626
55,895
2.59
5.96 6.
60
8.36
0.00
55,400
55,500
55,600
55,700
55,800
55,900
56,000
7.60 7.52 7.15 7.04 6.83
FES (liter/100km)
LCC
(RM
)
0.001.002.003.004.005.006.007.008.009.00
PAY
(Yrs
)
LCC PAY
Figure 6.2 Payback period and life cycle cost for Class I (City)
Table 6.44 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for Class I car (Highway)
No Design options FES Imp. Price
(RM)
OC
(RM)
LCC
(RM)
PAY
(Year)
0 Least efficient design 5.80 43000 1421 52983 0.00
1 0+Application of
advanced low friction
lubricant
5.74 43042 1409 52939 3.40
2 1+Multi-valve, overhead
camshaft valve trains
5.45 43532 1348 53041 7.81
3 2+Improved rolling
resistance
5.37 43213 1330 53132 8.65
4 3+Five speed automatic
transmission
5.21 43585 1296 53475 10.95
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 241
Leas
t effi
cien
t des
ign
0+A
pplic
atio
ns o
f ad
vanc
ed, l
ow fr
ictio
n lu
bric
ants
1+M
ulti-
valv
e, o
verh
ead
cam
shaf
t val
ve tr
ains
2+Im
prov
e ro
lling
re
sist
ance
3+Fi
ve s
peed
aut
omat
ic
trans
mis
sion
42,000
42,500
43,000
43,500
44,000
44,500
5.80 5.74 5.45 5.37 5.21
FES (liter/100km)
Vehi
cle
Pric
es (R
M)
Figure 6.3 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for Class I (Highway)
52,983 52,93953,041
53,132
53,475
0.00
3.40
7.81 8.
65
10.9
5
52,600
52,800
53,000
53,200
53,400
53,600
5.80 5.74 5.45 5.37 5.21
FES (liter/100km)
LCC
(RM
)
0.002.00
4.006.00
8.0010.00
12.00
PAY
(Yrs
)
LCC PAY
Figure 6.4 Payback period and life cycle cost for Class I (Highway)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 242
Table 6.45 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for Class II car (City)
No Design options FES Imp. Price
(RM)
OC
(RM)
LCC
(RM)
PAY
(Year)
0 Least efficient design 9.30 70000 2167 85219 0.00
1 0+Application of
advanced low friction
lubricant
9.21 70042
2147 85122 2.12
2 1+Improved rolling
resistance
9.11 70095 2127 85038 2.41
3 2+Engine accessory
improvement
8.66 70414 2030 84675 3.03
4 3+Engine friction and
other losses reduction
8.57
70547
2012 84671
3.53
5 4+Variable valve timing 8.32 71079 1957 84825 5.15
Leas
t effi
cien
t des
ign
0+A
pplic
atio
n of
adv
ance
d, lo
w
lubr
ican
ts
1+Im
prov
ed ro
lling
resi
stan
ce
2+En
gine
acc
esso
ry
impr
ovem
ent
3+E
ngin
e fri
ctio
n an
d ot
her
redu
ctio
n lo
sses
4+V
aria
ble
valv
e tim
ing
69,400
69,600
69,800
70,000
70,200
70,400
70,600
70,800
71,000
71,200
9.30 9.21 9.11 8.66 8.57 8.32
FES (liter/100km)
Vehi
cle
pric
es (R
M)
Figure 6.5 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for Class II (City)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 243
85,0
38
84,8
25
84,6
71
84,6
75
85,1
2285,2
190.00
2.122.41
3.033.53
5.15
84,30084,40084,50084,60084,70084,80084,90085,00085,10085,20085,300
9.30 9.21 9.11 8.66 8.57 8.32
FES (liter/100km)
LCC
(RM
)
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
PAY
(Yrs
)
LCC PAY
Figure 6.6 Payback period and life cycle cost for Class II (City)
Table 6.46 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for Class II car (Highway)
No Design options FES Imp. Price
(RM)
OC
(RM)
LCC
(RM)
PAY
(Year)
0 Least efficient design 6.40 70000 1549 80881 0.00
1 0+Application of
advanced low friction
lubricant
6.34
70042
1536 80827 3.08
2 1+Improved rolling
resistance
6.27 70095 1522 80785 3.50
3 2+Engine accessory
improvement
5.96 70414 1455 80635 4.41
4 3+Engine friction and
other loss reduction
5.90
70547
1443
80674
5.13
5 4+Variable valve timing 5.72 71079 1405 80946 7.48
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 244
1+Im
prov
ed ro
lling
re
sist
ance
0+A
pplic
atio
ns o
f ad
vanc
ed, l
ow lu
bric
ants
Leas
t effi
cien
t des
ign
2+En
gine
acc
esso
ry
impr
ovem
ent
3+E
ngin
e fri
ctio
n an
d ot
her
loss
redu
ctio
n
4+V
aria
ble
valv
e tim
ing
69,40069,60069,80070,00070,20070,40070,60070,80071,00071,200
6.40 6.34 6.27 5.96 5.90 5.72
FES (liter/100km)
Vehi
cle
Pric
es (R
M)
Figure 6.7 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for Class II (Highway)
80,8
81
80,8
27
80,7
85
80,9
46
80,6
35
80,6
74
0.00
3.083.50
4.415.13
7.48
80,400
80,500
80,600
80,700
80,800
80,900
81,000
6.40 6.34 6.27 5.96 5.90 5.72
FES (liter/100km)
LCC
(RM
)
0.001.002.003.004.005.006.007.008.00
PAY
(RM
)
LCC PAY
Figure 6.8 Payback period and life cycle cost for Class II (Highway)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 245
Table 6.47 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for Class III car (City)
No Design options FES Imp. Price
(RM)
OC
(RM)
LCC
(RM)
PAY
(Year)
0 Least efficient design 11.10 95000 2550 112912 0.00
1 0+Application of
advanced low friction
lubricant
10.99 95042
2527 112788 1.78
2 1+Improved rolling
resistance
10.88 95095 2503 112677 2.02
3 2+Engine accessory
improvement
10.34 95414 2387 112182 2.54
4 3+Continuous variable
transmission (CVT)
9.92 95946
2299 112096 3.77
Leas
t effi
cien
t des
ign
0+Ap
plic
atio
ns o
f adv
ance
d,
low
fric
tion
lubr
ican
ts
1+Im
prov
ed ro
lling
resi
stan
ce
2+E
ngin
e ac
cess
orie
s im
prov
emen
t
3+C
ontin
uous
ly v
aria
ble
trans
mis
sion
(CV
T)
94,400
94,600
94,800
95,000
95,200
95,400
95,600
95,800
96,000
96,200
11.1 10.99 10.88 10.34 9.92
FES (liter/100km)
Vehi
cle
pric
e (R
M)
Figure 6.9 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for Class III (City)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 246
112,
912
112,
788
112,
677
112,
182
112,
096
0.00
1.782.02
2.54
3.77
111,600
111,800
112,000
112,200
112,400
112,600
112,800
113,000
11.10 10.99 10.88 10.34 9.92
FES (liter/100km)
LCC
(RM
)
0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.00
PAY
(RM
)
LCC PAY
Figure 6.10 Payback period and life cycle cost for Class III (City)
Table 6.48 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for Class III car
(Highway)
No Design options FES Imp. Price
(RM)
OC
(RM)
LCC
(RM)
PAY
(Year)
0 Least efficient design 7.80 95000 1847 107975 0.00
1 0+Application of
advanced low friction
lubricant
7.72
95042
1831 107901 2.53
2 1+Improved rolling
resistance
7.64 95095 1814 107838 2.87
3 2+Engine accessory
improvement
7.26 95414 1733 107585 3.62
4 3+Continuous variable
transmission (CVT)
6.97 95946
1671 107683 5.36
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 247
Leas
t effi
cien
t des
ign
0+Ap
plic
atio
ns o
f ad
vanc
ed, l
ow fr
ictio
n lu
bric
ants
1+Im
prov
ed ro
lling
re
sist
ance
2+En
gine
acc
esso
ry
impr
ovem
ent
3+C
ontin
uous
ly v
aria
ble
trans
mis
sion
(CVT
)
94,40094,60094,80095,00095,20095,40095,60095,80096,00096,200
7.80 7.72 7.64 7.26 6.97
FES (liter/100km)
Vehi
cle
Pric
es (R
M)
Figure 6.11 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for Class III (Highway)
107,
683
107,
585
107,
838
107,
901
107,
975
0.00
2.532.87
3.62
5.36
107,300
107,400107,500
107,600
107,700
107,800107,900
108,000
108,100
7.80 7.72 7.64 7.26 6.97
FES (liter/100km)
LCC
(RM
)
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
PA
Y (R
M)
LCC PAY
Figure 6.12 Payback period and life cycle cost for Class III (Highway)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 248
Table 6.49 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for Class IV car (City)
No Design options FES Imp. Price
(RM)
OC
(RM)
LCC
(RM)
PAY
(Year)
0 Least efficient design 13.30
110000 3019 131203 0.00
1 0+Application of
advanced low friction
lubricant
13.17
110042
2991 131047 1.48
2 1+Improved rolling
resistance
13.04 110095 2963 130903 1.69
3 2+Engine accessory
improvement
12.38 110414 2824 130246 2.12
4 3+Engine friction and
other losses reduction
11.76
110946
2692 129843
2.89
5 4+Variable valve timing 11.41 111478 2617 129856 3.67
Leas
t effi
cien
t des
ign
0+A
pplic
atio
ns o
f adv
ance
d,
low
fric
tion
lubr
ican
ts
1+Im
prov
ed ro
lling
resi
stan
ce
2+E
ngin
e ac
cess
ory
impr
ovem
ent
3+E
ngin
e fri
ctio
n an
d ot
her
loss
redu
ctio
n
4+V
aria
ble
valv
e tim
ing
109000
109500
110000
110500
111000
111500
112000
13.3 13.17 13.04 12.38 11.76 11.41
FES (liter/100km)
Vehi
cle
pric
e (R
M)
Figure 6.13 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for Class IV (City)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 249
131,
203
131,
047
130,
246 12
9,85
6
129,
843
130,
903
0.00
1.481.69
2.12
2.89
3.67
129,000
129,500
130,000
130,500
131,000
131,500
13.30 13.17 13.04 12.38 11.76 11.41
FES (liter/100km)
Life
Cyc
le C
ost (
RM
)
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Payb
ack
Per
iod
(Yrs
)
LCC PAY
Figure 6.14 Payback period and life cycle cost for Class IV (City)
Table 6.50 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for Class IV car
(Highway)
No Design options FES Imp. Price
(RM)
OC
(RM)
LCC
(RM)
PAY
(Year)
0 Least efficient design 8.30
110000 1954 123723 0.00
1 0+Application of
advanced low friction
lubricant
8.22 110042
1936 123941 2.38
2 1+Improved rolling
resistance
8.13 110095 1919 123571 2.70
3 2+Engine accessory
improvement
7.73 110414 1832 123282 3.40
4 3+Engine friction and
other losses reduction
7.34
110946
1750 123229
4.63
5 4+Variable valve timing 7.12 111478 1703 123438 5.89
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 250
Leas
t effi
cien
t des
ign
0+A
pplic
atio
ns o
f adv
ance
d,
low
fric
tion
lubr
ican
ts
1+Im
prov
ed ro
lling
resi
stan
ce
2+E
ngin
e ac
cess
ory
impr
ovem
ent
3+En
gine
fric
tion
and
othe
r lo
ss re
duct
ion
4+Va
riabl
e va
lve
timin
g
109000
109500
110000
110500
111000
111500
112000
8.30 8.22 8.13 7.73 7.34 7.12
FES (liter/100km)
Vehi
cle
Pric
es (R
M)
Figure 6.15 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for Class IV
(Highway)
123,
438
123,
229
123,
282
123,
571
123,
641
123,
723
0.00
2.382.70
3.40
4.63
5.89
122,900
123,000
123,100
123,200
123,300
123,400
123,500
123,600
123,700
123,800
8.30 8.22 8.13 7.73 7.34 7.12
FES (liter/100km)
LCC
(RM
)
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
PA
Y (Y
rs)
LCC PAY
Figure 6.16 Payback period and life cycle cost for Class IV (Highway)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 251
Table 6.51 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for 2 stroke motorcycle
(method 1)
No Design options FES Imp. Price
(RM)
OC
(RM)
LCC
(RM)
PAY
(Year)
0 Least efficient design 3.65 6634.06 894.5 12916 0
1 0+Direct – injection 2.56 7639.06 661.2 12283 4.31
Leas
t effi
cien
t des
ign
0+D
irect
inje
cted
6000
6200
6400
6600
6800
7000
7200
7400
7600
7800
3.65 2.56
FES (liter/100km)
Mot
orcy
cle
pric
es(R
M)
Figure 6.17 Impact of design option changes on price and FES for 2 stroke
motorcycle (method 1)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 252
1291
6
1228
3
0
4.31
11800
12000
12200
12400
12600
12800
13000
3.65 2.56
Fuel consumption(liter/100km)
Life
cyc
le c
ost (
RM
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
Payb
ack
perio
d (y
ears
)
LCCPAY
Figure 6.18 Payback period and life cycle cost for 2 stroke motorcycle (method 1)
Table 6.52 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for 2 stroke motorcycle
(method 2)
No Design options FES Imp. Price
(RM)
OC
(RM)
LCC
(RM)
PAY
(Year)
0 Least efficient design 3.65 6634.06 894.5 12916 0
1 0+Application of advanced
low friction lubricant
3.61 6654.06 886.7 12882 2.57
2 1+Petrol saver 3.25 6855.06 809.7 12542 2.61
3 2+Motorcycle weight
reduction (5%) 3.12 7205.06 782.0 12697 5.08
4 3+Aerodynamic drag
reduction on design 3.09 7455.06 775.3 12901 6.89
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 253
Leas
t effi
cien
t des
ign
0+A
pplic
atio
n of
adv
ance
d,
low
fric
tion
lubr
ican
ts
1+Pe
trol s
aver
2+M
otor
cycl
es w
eigh
t re
duct
ion
3+A
erod
ynam
ic d
rag
redu
ctio
n on
des
igns
6200
6400
6600
6800
7000
7200
7400
7600
3.65 3.61 3.25 3.12 3.09
FES (liter/100km)
Mot
orcy
cle
pric
es (R
M)
Figure 6.19 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for 2 stroke
motorcycle (method 2)
1291612882
12542
12697
12901
0
2.57
2.61
5.08
6.89
12300
12400
12500
12600
12700
12800
12900
13000
3.65 3.61 3.25 3.12 3.09
Fuel consumption (liter/100km)
Life
cyc
le c
ost (
RM
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
PAyb
ack
perio
d (y
ears
)
LCC (RM)PAY (years)
Figure 6.20 Payback period and life cycle cost for 2 stroke motorcycle (method 2)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 254
Table 6.53 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for 4 stroke motorcycle
No Design options FES Imp. Price
(RM)
OC
(RM)
LCC
(RM)
PAY
(Year)
0 Least efficient design 2.92 5163.72 751.0 10435 0
1 0+Applications of
advanced low friction
lubricant
2.89 5183.72 744.7 10412 3.22
2 1+Petrol saver 2.60 5384.72 683.2 10181 3.26
3 2+Port-injection 2.29 6389.72 616.7 10719 9.13
Leas
t effi
cien
t des
ign
0+Ap
plic
atio
ns o
f ad
vanc
ed, l
ow fr
ictio
n lu
bric
ants
1+Pe
trol s
aver
2+Po
rt-in
ject
ed
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
2.92 2.89 2.6 2.29
FES (liter/100km)
Mot
orcy
cle
pric
es (R
M)
Figure 6.21 Impact of design options changes on prices and FES for 4 stroke
motorcycle
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 255
1043
5
1018
1
1071
9
1041
2
0
3.22
3.26
9.13
9900100001010010200103001040010500106001070010800
2.92 2.89 2.60 2.29
Fuel consumption (liter/100km)
Life
cyc
le c
ost (
RM
)
012345678910
Pay
back
per
iod
(yea
rs)
LCC PAY
Figure 6.22 Payback period and life cycle cost for motorcycles 4 strokes
Table 6.54 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for Medium Duty Lorry
(class 2 & 3)
No Design options FES Imp. Price
(RM)
OC
(RM)
LCC
(RM)
PAY
(Year)
0 Least efficient design 20.59 130000 6197.56 186460 0.00
1 0+ Low rolling resistance tires
20.08 130684 6051.37 185812 4.7
2 1+ Turbocharged, direct injection engine with better thermal management
19.07 133344
5766.30 185875 7.8
3 2+ Lower coefficient of drag through hood and cab configuration
18.59 135624 5630.89 186921 9.9
4 3+ Integrated starter/alternator with idle off and limited regenerative braking
17.66
140184 5366.85 189076
12.3
5 4+ Mass reduction through high strength, lightweight material
7.12 144784
5116.01 191391 13.7
6 5+ Advance transmission with lock-up, electronic controls
16.45 147534 5020.69 193272 14.9
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 256
Leas
t effi
cien
t des
ign
0+Lo
w ro
lling
resi
stan
ce ti
res
1+Tu
rboc
harg
ed, d
irect
in
ject
ion
engi
ne w
ith b
ette
r th
erm
al m
anag
emen
t
2+Lo
wer
coe
ffici
ent o
f dra
g th
roug
h ho
od a
nd c
ab
conf
igur
atio
n
3+In
tegr
ated
sta
rter w
ith id
le
off a
nd li
mite
d re
gena
rativ
e br
akin
g
4+M
ass
redu
ctio
n th
roug
h hi
gh s
treng
th, l
ight
wei
ght
mat
eria
l
5+A
dvan
ce tr
ansm
issi
on w
ith
lock
-up,
ele
ctro
nic
cont
rols
120000
125000
130000
135000
140000
145000
150000
20.59 20.08 19.07 18.59 17.66 16.78 16.45
FES (liter/100km)
Lorr
y pr
ice
(RM
)
Figure 6.23 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for
medium duty lorry (class 2 & 3)
1864
60
1858
12
1858
75
1869
21 1890
76 1913
91 1932
72
4.7
7.8
9.9
12.3 13
.7 14.9
0.0
182000
184000
186000
188000
190000
192000
194000
20.59 20.08 19.07 18.59 17.66 16.78 16.45
FES (liter/100km)
Life
cyc
le c
ost
0.02.04.06.08.010.012.014.016.0
Payb
ack
perio
ds
LCC PAY
Figure 6.24 Payback period and life cycle cost for medium duty lorry (class 2&3)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 257
Table 6.55 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for Medium Duty Lorry
(class 4 - 6)
No Design options FES Imp. Price
(RM)
OC
(RM)
LCC
(RM)
PAY
(Year)
0 Least efficient design 28.00
280000 8452.0 356998 0.00
1 0+ Low rolling resistance
tires
27.30 281064 8253.2
356251 5.35
2 1+ Turbocharged, direct
injection engine with
better thermal
management
25.12 284864
7632.9 354400 5.94
3 2+ Closing/covering of
gap between tractor and
trailer
24.11
287904 7347.6 354841 5.94
4 3+ Integrated
starter/alternator with idle
off and limited
regenerative braking
22.91 292464 7005.2 356282
9.9
5 4+ Cab top deflector,
sloping hood, cab side
flares
22.33 295314
6842.6 357650 12.3
6 5+ Van leading and
trailing edge curvatures
22.11 296834 6779.2
358592 13.7
7 6+ Advance transmission
with lock-up, electronic
controls and reduced
friction
21.67 300254 6653.6 360868 11.26
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 258
Leas
t effi
cien
t des
ign
0+Lo
w ro
lling
resi
stan
ce ti
res
1+Tu
rboc
harg
ed, d
irect
in
ject
ion
engi
ne w
ith b
ette
r th
erm
al m
anag
emen
t
2+C
losi
ng g
ap b
etw
een
tract
or a
nd tr
aile
r
3+In
tegr
ated
sta
rter w
ith id
le
off a
nd li
mite
d re
gena
rativ
e br
akin
g
4+C
ab to
p de
flect
or, s
lopi
ng
hood
, cab
sid
e fla
res
5+V
an le
adin
g an
d tra
iling
ed
ge c
urva
ture
s
6+A
dvan
ce tr
ansm
issi
on w
ith
lock
-up,
ele
ctro
nic
cont
rols
, re
duce
d fri
ctio
n
265000
270000
275000
280000
285000
290000
295000
300000
305000
28.00 27.30 25.12 24.11 22.91 22.33 22.11 21.67
FES (liter/100km)
Lorr
y pr
ices
(RM
)
Figure 6.25 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for
medium duty lorry (class 4-6)
3569
98
3562
51
3544
00
3548
41 3562
82 3576
50
3585
92 3608
68
0
5.94 7.
16
8.62 9.
52 10.0
6 11.2
6
5.35
350000
352000
354000
356000
358000
360000
362000
28.00 27.30 25.12 24.11 22.91 22.33 22.11 21.67
FES (liter/100km)
Life
cyc
le c
ost (
RM
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12Pa
ybac
k pe
riod
(yea
rs)
LCC PAY
Figure 6.26 Payback period and life cycle cost for medium duty lorry (class 4-6)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 259
Table 6.56 Life-cycle costs and payback period calculation for Heavy Duty Lorry (class 7 & 8)
No Design options FES Imp. Price
(RM)
OC
(RM)
LCC
(RM)
PAY
(Year)
0 Least efficient design 42.42 492000 12797.3 608556.5 0.00
1 0+ Low rolling resistance
tires
41.15 494090 12435.9
607354.8 5.78
2 1+ Mass reduction
through high-strength,
lightweight material
37.03 501690
11267.3 604311.4 6.33
3 2+ Internal friction
reduction through better
lubricant and improved
bearings
36.29
503590 11056.9 604295.6 6.66
4 3+ Increased peak
cylinder pressure
34.84 507390 10644.7 604340.6 7.15
5 4+ Electrical auxiliaries 34.32 509290
10496.2 604888.8 7.51
6 5+ Cab top deflector,
sloping hood, cab side
flares
33.63 512140 10301.3
605963.4 8.07
7 6+ Closing/covering of
gap between tractor and
trailer, aerodynamic
bumper
32.79 517840 10062.5 609488.6 9.45
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 260
Leas
t effi
cien
t des
ign
0+Lo
w ro
lling
resi
stan
ce ti
res
1+M
ass
redu
ctio
n th
roug
h hi
gh-s
treng
th, l
ight
wei
ght
mat
eria
l
2+In
tern
al fr
ictio
n re
duct
ion
thro
ugh
bette
r lub
rican
ts a
nd
impr
oved
bea
rings
3+In
crea
sed
peak
cyl
inde
r pr
essu
re
4+E
lect
rical
aux
iliarie
s
5+C
ab to
p de
flect
or, s
lopi
ng
hood
, cab
sid
e fla
res
6+C
losi
ng o
f gap
bet
wee
n tra
ctor
and
tra
iler,a
erod
ynam
ic b
umpe
r
475000
480000
485000
490000
495000
500000
505000
510000
515000
520000
42.42 41.15 37.03 36.29 34.84 34.32 33.63 32.79
FES (liter/100km)
Lorr
y pr
ice
(RM
)
Figure 6.27 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for
heavy duty lorry (class 7 & 8)
6085
56.5
6073
54.8
6043
11.4
6042
95.6
6043
40.6
6048
88.8
6059
63.4
6094
88.6
0
5.786.33 6.66
7.157.51
8.07
9.45
601000.0
602000.0
603000.0
604000.0
605000.0
606000.0
607000.0
608000.0
609000.0
610000.0
42.42 41.15 37.03 36.29 34.84 34.32 33.63 32.79
FES (liter/100km)
Pay
back
per
iods
(RM
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Life
Cyc
le C
ost (
year
s)
LCC PAY
Figure 6.28 Payback period and life cycle cost for medium duty lorry (class 7-8)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 261
Table 6.57 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for Busses
No Design options FES Imp. Price
(RM)
OC
(RM)
LCC
(RM)
PAY
(Year)
0 Least efficient design 40.58 480700 14805.9 615581.7 0.00
1 0+ Low rolling resistance
tires
39.36 482790 14373.7
613734.6 4.84
2 1+ Mass reduction through
high-strength, lightweight
material
35.43 490390
12976.4 608604.6 5.30
3 2+ Internal friction reduction
through better lubricant and
improved bearings
34.72
492290 12724.8 608213.1 5.57
4 3+ Increased peak cylinder
pressure
33.33 496090 12231.8 607522.0 7.15
5 4+ Electrical auxiliaries 32.83 497990 12054.4 607805.2 7.51
6 5+ Cab top deflector, sloping
hood, cab side flares
32.17 500840 11821.3
608531.7 8.07
7 6+ Closing/covering of gap
between tractor and trailer,
aerodynamic bumper
31.37 506540 11535.7 611630.5 9.45
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 262
Leas
t effi
cien
t des
ign
0+Lo
w ro
lling
resi
stan
ce ti
res
1+M
ass
redu
ctio
n th
roug
h hi
gh-s
treng
th, l
ight
wei
ght
mat
eria
l
2+In
tern
al fr
ictio
n re
duct
ion
thro
ugh
bette
r lub
rican
ts a
nd
impr
oved
bea
rings
3+In
crea
sed
peak
cyl
inde
r pr
essu
re
4+E
lect
rical
aux
iliar
ies
5+C
ab to
p de
flect
or, s
lopi
ng
hood
, cab
sid
e fla
res
6+C
losi
ng g
ap b
etw
een
tract
or a
nd tr
aile
r, ae
rody
nam
ic b
umpe
r
465000
470000
475000
480000
485000
490000
495000
500000
505000
510000
40.58 39.36 35.43 34.72 33.33 32.83 32.17 31.37
FES (liter/100km)
Bus
pric
e (R
M)
Figure 6.29 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for busses
6155
81.7
6137
34.6
6086
04.6
6082
13.1
6075
22.0
6078
05.2
6085
31.7 61
1630
.5
0
4.84
5.30 5.57 5.
98 6.28 6.
75
7.90
602000.0
604000.0
606000.0
608000.0
610000.0
612000.0
614000.0
616000.0
618000.0
40.58 39.36 35.43 34.72 33.33 32.83 32.17 31.37
FES (liter/100km)
Life
cyc
le c
ost (
RM
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Payb
ack
perio
ds (y
ears
)
LCC PAY
Figure 6.30 Payback period and life cycle cost for busses
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 263
6.4.5 Potential Fuel Saving
Like any other developing countries, it is difficult to get a complete data in
this country because lack of planning. The calculation for potential saving is
conducted only for class I car, 2 stroke and 4 stroke motorcycles with engine
displacement range between 80cc-150cc, medium duty lorry (class 2 & 3) and for
busses. It is because these types of vehicles are the most popular in Malaysia and is
assumed as an average case study. The calculation results from implementing
potential fuel savings for motor vehicles and motorcycles in Malaysia are tabulated
in Tables 6.59, 6.61, 6.63 and 6.65. To derive the results, some of input data are
necessary. The input data are shown in Tables 6.58, 6.60, 6.62 and 6.64.
Table 6.58 Input data for potential fuel saving of cars
Description Values
Year standard enacted 2006
Discount rate 7%
Incremental cost RM1372
Life span 10 year
Baseline Fuel Consumption 1035 liter/year
Current average fuel price RM 1.42 per liter
Standards fuel consumption 780 liter/year
Annual efficiency improvement 3%
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 264
Table 6.59 The calculation of fuel savings for cars
Year Shipment Applicable
stock
Scaling
factor
Unit fuel
savings
Fuel savings
(liter)
2006 3410533 3410533 1.00 154.09 525520504
2007 3820953 7231486 0.818 126.07 911684945
2008 4028153 11259639 0.636 98.06 1104071579
2009 4388000 15647639 0.455 70.04 1095957079
2010 4772587 20420226 0.273 42.02 858136793
2011 5210249 25630475 0.091 14.01 359030529
0
200000000
400000000
600000000
800000000
1000000000
1200000000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
Fuel
sav
ing
(lite
r)
Figure 6.31 Projected fuel savings for cars
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 265
0
5000000000
10000000000
15000000000
20000000000
25000000000
30000000000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
BAU STD
Figure 6.32 Fuel consumption with and without standards (STD vs BAU) for cars
Table 6.60 Input data for potential fuel saving of motorcycles
Description Values
Year standard enacted 2006
Discount rate 7%
Incremental cost RM1024
Life span 10 year
Baseline Fuel Consumption 408 liter/year
Current average fuel price RM 1.42 per liter
Standards fuel consumption 330 liter/year
Annual efficiency improvement 3%
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 266
Table 6.61 The calculation of fuel savings for motorcycles
Year Shipment Applicable
stock
Scaling
factor
Unit fuel
savings
Fuel
savings
(liter)
2006 4402302
4402302 1.000
53.89
237227739
2007 4794891 9197194 0.712
38.34
352646296
2008 5173601 14370794
0.423
22.80
327631557
2009 5579414 19950208 0.135
7.25
144719730
0
50000000
100000000
150000000
200000000
250000000
300000000
350000000
400000000
2006 2007 2008 2009
Year
Fuel
sav
ing
(lite
r)
Figure 6.33 Projected fuel savings for motorcycles
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 267
Figure 6.34 Fuel consumption with and without standards (STD vs BAU) for
motorcycles
Table 6.62 Input data for potential fuel saving of medium duty lorry
(class 2 & 3)
Description Values
Year standard enacted 2006
Discount rate 7%
Incremental cost RM17534
Life span 15 year
Baseline Fuel Consumption 3290 liter/year
Current average fuel price RM 1.42 per liter
Standards energy consumption 2600 liter/year
Annual efficiency improvement 3%
0
1000000000
2000000000
3000000000
4000000000
5000000000
6000000000
7000000000
8000000000
9000000000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
BAU STD
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 268
Table 6.63 The calculation of fuel savings for medium duty lorry (class2 & 3)
Year Shipment Applicable
stock
Scaling
factor
Unit fuel
savings
Fuel savings
(liter)
2006 564335
564335 1.00
495.56 279662323
2007 628286 1192621 0.81
402.70
480270038
2008 654307 1846928
0.63
309.84
572255376
2009 699629 2546557 0.44
216.98
552557113
2010
723431 3269988 0.25 124.12 405878712
2011
749309 4019297 0.06 31.26 125654265
0
100000000
200000000
300000000
400000000
500000000
600000000
700000000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
Fuel
sav
ing
(lite
r)
Figure 6.35 Projected fuel savings for medium duty lorry (class 2 & 3)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 269
0
2000000000
4000000000
6000000000
8000000000
10000000000
12000000000
14000000000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
BAU STD
Figure 6.36 Fuel consumption with and without standards (STD vs BAU) for
medium duty lorry (class 2 & 3)
Table 6.64 Input data for potential fuel saving of busses
Description Values
Year standard enacted 2006
Discount rate 7%
Incremental cost RM25840
Life span 15 year
Baseline Fuel Consumption 8750 liter/year
Current average fuel price RM 1.42 per liter
Standards energy consumption 7500 liter/year
Annual efficiency improvement 3%
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 270
Table 6.65 The calculation of fuel savings for busses
Year Shipment Applicable
stock
Scaling
factor
Unit fuel
savings
Fuel
savings
(liter)
2006 41426
41426 1.000
1027.20
42553287
2007 45914 87341 0.779
800.61
69926150
2008 48122 135463
0.559
574.02
77759082
2009 50162 185625 0.338
347.44
64492846
2010 51159 236785 0118 120.85 28614731
Figure 6.37 Projected fuel savings for busses
0
10000000
20000000
30000000
40000000
50000000
60000000
70000000
80000000
90000000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
Fuel
sav
ing
(lite
r)
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 271
Figure 6.38 Fuel consumption with and without standards (STD vs BAU) for busses
It has been noted that the fuel economy standards for vehicles are only
effective for a certain period because annual efficiency of the vehicles are still
improving 3% per year even without the standard. Figure 6.31, 6.33, 6.35, 6.37
shows that the annual savings for the fuel consumption increase sharply in the
beginning of the analysis period. Over time, the projected technological
improvement in the baseline begins to catch up with the standard. Referring to Table
6.59, 6.61, 6.63 and 6.65, the standard for cars is only effective for about 6 years
from 2006 to 2011, for motorcycles it is effective for 4 years from 2006 to 2009.
Meanwhile for lorry, the standard is effective for about 6 years from 2006 to 2009
and for busses it is effective for 5 years from 2006 to 2010. Table 6.59, 6.61, 6.63
and 6.65 also shows that minimum fuel economy standards or fuel consumption
program starting in 2006 will save approximately 359 GL (Giga-Liter) of fuel at the
0
500000000
1000000000
1500000000
2000000000
2500000000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
BAU STD
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 272
end of 2011 for cars, 145 GL of fuel at the end of 2009 for motorcycles, 126 GL of
fuel at the end of 2011 for medium duty lorry (class 2 & 3) and 286 GL of fuel at the
end of 2010 for busses
6.4.6 Economic impact of the standards
The calculation result from cost-benefit analysis is tabulated in Table 6.66 to
6.69. This study has proved that the introduction of fuel economy standard for motor
vehicle offer great benefits in some aspect for consumers, governments as well as the
environment, which is not considered in this study.
Table 6.66 The calculation result from the cost-benefit analysis for cars
Year Bill savings
(Mil. RM)
Annualized net
savings
(Mil. RM)
Net savings
(Mil. RM)
Present value of
ANS
(Mil. RM)
2006 938.7 -128196 -906048 -97800
2007 1628.5 -222397 -829752 -158566
2008 1972.2 -269328 -679722 -179464
2009 1957.7 -267348 -528465 -166491
2010 1532.9 -209334 -344614 -121834
2011 641.3 -87582 -125322 -47639
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 273
Table 6.67 The calculation result from the cost-benefit analysis for motorcycle
Year Bill savings (Mil. RM)
Annualized net savings
(Mil. RM)
Net savings (Mil. RM)
Present value of ANS
(Mil. RM) 2006 336 -34249
-242584
-26129
2007 501 -50913
-187761
-36300
2008 465 -47302
-120316
-31519
2009 206 -20894
-41239
-13011
Table 6.68 The calculation result from the cost-benefit analysis for medium duty
lorry
Year Bill savings
(Mil. RM)
Annualized net
savings
(Mil. RM)
Net savings
(Mil. RM)
Present value of
ANS
(Mil. RM)
2006 397.1 -537992 -4903200 -410431
2007 681.9 -923905 -4435620 -658731
2008 812.6 -1100860 -3553880 -733549
2009 784.6 -1062960 -2661000 -661961
2010 576.3 -780797 -1573870 -454431
2011 178.4 -241723 -410564 -131482
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 274
Table 6.69 The calculation result from the cost-benefit analysis for busses
Year Bill savings
(Mil. RM)
Annualized net
savings
(Mil. RM)
Net savings
(Mil. RM)
Present value of
ANS
(Mil. RM)
2006 60.4 -120667 -1099520 -92056
2007 99.3 -198288 -949769 -141376
2008 110.4 -220499 -713677 -146928
2009 91.6 -182881 -450252 -113889
2010 40.6 -81142 -159714 -47225
6.5. Conclusions and recommendations
6.5.1 Conclusion
Due to the increasing number of vehicles in Malaysia, the fuel consumption
will grow rapidly in the future if there is no government intervention. In order to
reduce the growth, fuel economy standards should be implemented in Malaysia.
Apart from reducing fuel consumption, the program also indirectly reduces
emissions. The present study has demonstrated that implementation of fuel economy
standards for motor vehicle will lead to the following conclusions:
The result of the study has proven that the consumer, manufacturers,
government and the environment will receive tremendous benefit from
implementing the fuel economy standards. It is possible to save fuel
approximately 115.5 liter for cars, 84 liter for 2 stroke motorcycle, 94.5 liter for
4 stroke motorcycle, 828 liter for medium duty lorry (class 2 & 3) and 2302.5
liter for busses. Although now the consumers have to pay a higher price for
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 275
purchasing vehicle, they will save from the lower annual fuel cost; which is
RM164.01 for cars, RM119.28 for 2 stroke motorcycle, RM134.19 for 4 stroke
motorcycle, RM1175.76 for medium duty lorry (class 2 & 3) and RM3269.55
for busses.
By calculating the impact of the fuel economy standards, approximately 916 GL
of fuel could be saved at the end of 2011.
In brief, this study presents the importance to propose the fuel economy
standards in Malaysia and shows that the fuel consumption improvement is an
effective method to reduce fuel energy consumption growth in the transportation
sector.
6.5.2 Recommendation
The study proposes several recommendations to gain an optimum impact
from possible fuel economy standards implementation for vehicles in Malaysia. The
recommendations are:
The government needs to establish a framework to continually collect data from
the dealers who sell their vehicles in the Malaysian market. From these data,
fuel economy label should be developed that meets the fuel economy standards
in order to enable the consumers to select and purchase the best fuel efficient
vehicle.
Implementation of the fuel economy standard is the responsibility of the
government. However cooperation between relevant institutions such as SIRIM,
PTM and also the manufacturers should be reinforced to increase the synergy in
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 276
order to produce a successful test procedure, fuel economy standards and label
program.
An independent laboratory for testing purposes owned by the Malaysian
government or an independent body should be developed as one of the main step
to implement the fuel economy standards. This includes the facility to predict
traffic behavior, vehicle maintenance and the type of road.
Malaysian government should conduct awareness campaign on how to drive
efficiently. In order to drive more efficiently, these are the recommended
guidelines:
Driving Habits
There are infinite variations of possibilities that can affect driving style. Some factors
that influence the driving techniques of the driver are
Types of road
Weather condition
Traffic flow
The type of roads and weather conditions are the two things beyond the control of the
driver. However, traffic flow can be improved and streamlined by proper road
management and improved driving skills. Meanwhile, fuel can also be saved by
strictly avoiding unnecessary of these following driving habits:
• Throttling
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 277
Frequent acceleration and braking consumes up to 50% extra fuel required to reach a
particular destination if diving at a cruising speed of 45 km/hr. It causes excessive
tire wear and also reduces life of brake pads. Always accelerate gently and anticipate
stops to avoid sudden braking.
• Idling
Switch off vehicles engine when not in use and avoid excessive throttling when
waiting at the traffic light. Do not leave vehicles unattended with engine idling, as
this wastes fuel.
• Use of clutch
Using the clutch unnecessarily reduces a lot of useful power generated by engine and
results in wasted fuel. Always use the clutch smoothly and only when necessary.
Maintenance Schedule
By following the manufacturer's instructions on maintenance will not only reduce the
fuel bill but also increase the life of the engine. An energy conscious motorist can
save as much as 10% of fuel bill and help the nation to save valuable amount of fuel.
In the following section information is provided on checks of various components
that need to be thoroughly monitored at the time of tune-up.
Tune Up
Regular tuning can save up to 10% fuel. Black smoke from exhaust is due to
incomplete combustion of fuel. A proper fuel consumption record needs to be
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 278
maintained. If it drops more than 10%, the motorcycle needs to be tuned by a
competent mechanic.
Tyre Pressure
Under inflated tires not only reduce the tire life by as much as 25%, but due to
increased rolling resistance, it also increases the fuel consumption. Tests have shown
that a 25% under inflation increases fuel consumption by 5%.
Spark Plugs
The spark plug is ensured to be properly inspected and cleaned. The following are
also checked:
- Spark plug gap
- Wear or erosion of electrode
- Fouling
- Carbon deposits
- Cracks Deformation
It is advisable that the spark plug is cleaned in a spark plug cleaner for these
following engines:
- 2 stroke motorcycle engine: spark plugs needs to be cleaned every 300km and
replaced after every 5,000 km.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 279
- 4 stroke motorcycle engine: spark plugs needs to be cleaned every 3,000 km
and replaced after every 15,000 km
Air Cleaner
Filter needs to be cleaned using compressed air every 1,000 km and replaced after
every 3,000 km
Battery
Proper maintenance of battery will ensure easy starts. To maintain the battery is in
top condition, battery electrolyte needs to be checked with a hydrometer and ensured
that the specific gravity of battery electrolyte is between 1.260 -1.280 (at
20°C/68°F). The battery is recharged if the hydrometer shows specific gravity less
than 1.220. Battery electrolyte level also needs to be checked. This should be
between the upper and lower limits indicated on the battery. If required, distilled
water is added to raise the level to the upper mark.
Exhaust System
The performance of a two stroke engine is dependent upon the condition of the
diffuser pipe in the exhaust muffler. Over a short period of time it gets choked due to
carbon deposits. The diffuser pipe requires monthly cleaning to remove the deposited
carbon. This should be done by using a wire brush. Note:
Engine Lubricants
The usage of a multiviscosity engine oil is encouraged.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 280
New modified or slippery oils are designed to improve fuel efficiency by 3 to
8%.
Dirty engine oil causes added friction and engine wear.
Engine oil should be changed after the engine has properly warmed up.
Always drain oil thoroughly by removing the drain bolt.
Remember to reinstall the drain bolt before filling up the recommended oil up to
the proper level.
To check the engine oil level, support the motorcycle on the main stand with the
engine stopped. Wait for 2-3 minutes after shutting off the engine and then
check the oil level.
Engine lubricant when added in right proportion on two stroke engine reduces
engine wear and increases engine life. It also reduces formation of deposits in
the combustion chamber and minimizes spark plug fouling.
References
Aprilia DiTech Information. [2004].www.speed-sports.com
Bleviss D. 1988. The new Oil Crisis and Fuel Economy Technologies: Preparing the
Light Transportation Industry for the 1990s. New York.
Australian Greenhouse Office, Fuel Consumption label [2003]
Fuel Consumption Guide, 22nd Edition [2001-2002]; Australian Greenhouse Office
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 281
Fuel Economy Guide [2004], U.S Department of Energy, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. www.fueleconomy.gov
Berjaya Motor Sdn. Bhd. Klang, Selangor.
C.Difiglio, L.Fulton [1999]; How to reduce US automobile greenhouse gas
emissions; Paris, France.
Energy and Environ. Anal., Inc. 1979. Technological/Cost Relations to Update.
DOE.
Energy and Environ. Anal., Inc. 1990. An assessement of Potential Passenger Car
Fuel Economy Objectives for 2010, Arlington.
Energy and Environ. Anal., Inc.1990. Analysis of The Fuel Economy Boundry for
2010 and Compirason to Prototypes. U.S
Ford A, Sutherland RJ. 1982. The Outlook for Improved Automobile Fuel Efficiency.
Los Alamos
Fuel Catalyst Technical Buletin.www.protecusa.com
Gray CL, von Hippel F. 1981. The Fuel Economy of Light Vehicles. Sci. Am.
Greene D.L and DeCicco,J [2000]; Engineering-Economic Analyses of Automotive
Fuel Economy Potential in the United States.
Heavenrich RM and Hellman KH. 1999. Light Duty Automotive Technology and
Fuel Economy Trends Through 1999. EPA.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 282
Hittman Assoc., Inc. 1976. Fuel Economy Cost Relationship for Future Automobiles.
Federal Energy Administration, Columbia
Honda Worlwide Technology Close-up.www.world.honda.com
John M. DeCicco [1995]; Projected Fuel Savings and Emissions reductions from
light Vehicles Fuel Economy Standards
Mahlia, T.M.I., Masjuki, H.H. & Choudhury, I.A. [2002a]. Theory of energy
efficiency standards and labels, Energy Conversion and Management.
Mahlia, T.M.I., Masjuki, H.H. & Choudhury, I.A. [2002b]. Development of energy
labels for room air conditioner in Malaysia: methodology and results, Energy
Conversion and Management.
Mahlia, T.M.I., Masjuki, H.H. , Choudhury, I.A. & Amalina, M.A. [2003]. Cost-
Benefit Analysis of Implementing Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards for
Household Refrigerator-Freeezers in Malaysia.
Mahlia, T.M.I., Masjuki, H.H., Choudhury, I.A. & Norleha, A.R. [2002]. Projected
Electricity Savings from Implementing Minimum Energy Efficiency Standard for
Household Refrigerators in Malaysia
Malaysia Motor Trader.[2004]. The Car Listed Prices in Ringgit Malaysia.
www.motortrader.com.my
Mark Archer, Greg Bell. [2001]. Advanced Electronic Fuel Injection System – An
Emissions Solution for Both 2- and 4-stroke Small Vehicle Engines. Synerjet System
Integration, Balcatta, Australia.
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 283
Pakistan Energy and Management Centre. Improve Fuel Efficiency of Motorcycle.
www.peemac.sdnpk.org
Petrol saver.[2003] Advance Magnetic Device.www.petrolsaver.org.uk
Sam Leighton, Steven Ahern [2003]. Fuel Economy Advantages on Indian 2 Strokes
and 4 Strokes Motorcycles Fitted With Direct Fuel Injection. SAE Paper. Orbital
Engine Company, Australia.
Stephane Barbusse [2001]. Motorcycles, Mopeds :Polluting Emissions and Energy
Consumption. Initial Observations. ADEME, Transport Technology Department,
France.
Stacy C. Davis, Susan W. Diegel [2003].Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition
23. Center for Transportation Analysis Engineering Science and Technology
Division.
Technology Roadmap for The 21st Century Truck
Program.[2000].www.gov.doe/bridge
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 284
APPENDIX A
0
20000004000000
60000008000000
1000000012000000
1400000016000000
18000000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Year
Car
s
Figure 6.A1 Car growth in Malaysia
0
2000000
4000000
6000000
8000000
10000000
12000000
14000000
16000000
18000000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Year
Mot
orcy
cles
Figure 6.A2 Motorcycle growth in Malaysia
ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 285
0200,000400,000600,000800,000
1,000,0001,200,0001,400,0001,600,0001,800,0002,000,000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Year
Lorr
ies
Figure 6.A3 Lorry growth in Malaysia
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Year
Bus
ses
Figure 6.A4 Bus growth in Malaysia