Thursday, 20 November 2003, 11h00-13h00

Parrallel session

Identifying solutions – Lessons from case studies: Transport

Programme

Introduction: Energy efficiency characteristics of passenger transport modesRoger Behrens, University of Cape Town Low cost bicycle supply and promotion strategies in South African citiesAndrew Wheeldon, Bicycle Empowerment Network Non-motorised transportation network planning and prioritisation initiatives in Cape TownKevin Garrod, City of Cape Town The experience and transferability prospects of Latin American bus rapid transit systemsMaddie Mazaza, City of Cape Town Alternative transport technologies: Current trends and potential in South AfricaMarianne Vanderschuren, University of Cape Town DiscussionResource person: Dioncio Rosas, Mexico City

UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWNFaculty of Engineering & the Built Environment

City Energy Strategies Conference

Parrellel session: Transport

Introduction: energy efficiency characteristics of passenger transport

modes

Roger Behrens

20th November 2003, Cape Town

Energy consumption by passenger travel mode in Asian cities

0.040.06

0.090.12

0.15

0.29

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

walking bicycle bus (busway) bus (mixedtraffic)

passenger train motor car

kilo

watts

per

hou

r per

sea

t kilo

met

re (i

nclu

ding

ene

rgy

need

d to

con

stru

ct g

uide

ways

, man

ufac

ture

veh

icle

s an

d op

erat

e th

e sy

stem

)

Data source: Zegras and Birk (1994)

Energy consumption by passenger travel mode in European cities

Data source: Zeus, European Commission (2000)

27260

550

900

2,100

2,900

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

bicycle walking train (electric) bus motor car(diesel)

motor car (petrol)

kilo

joul

es p

er p

asse

nger

kilo

met

re

Energy consumption by passenger travel mode

Data source: Howes and Fainberg (1991)

200300

625

867 9251,042

1,321

2,083

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

bicycle walking motor car(high

economy)

passengertrain (10

cars)

subway train(10 cars)

motor car bus (40seater)

motorcycle

Britis

h th

erm

al u

nits

per

pas

seng

er m

ile

Energy consumption by passenger travel mode in the United Kingdom

Data source: Hughes 1990

0.100.25

0.700.83

1.151.31 1.40

2.963.13 3.21

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

bicycle passengertrain

(electric)

minibus-taxi

bus(single-decker)

motorcycle

meg

a-jo

ules

per

pas

seng

er m

ile

Energy consumption by passenger travel mode in London

Data source: Tolley and Turton (1995)

0.32

0.84 0.90

2.50

3.15

3.73

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

undergroundpassenger train

passenger train bus motorcycle motor car (outercity)

motor car (innercity)

meg

a-jo

ules

per

pas

seng

er k

ilom

etre

Summary of energy use data (converted to kilojoules per passenger kilometre)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

bicycle walking passengertrain

(electric)

bus(double-decker)

minibus-taxi

bus(single-decker)

motor car(diesel)

motorcycle motor car(petrol)

kilo

joul

es p

er p

asse

nger

kilo

met

re

Zegras and Birk (1994) Zeus (2000) Howes and Fainberg (1991) Hughes (1990) Tolley and Turton (1995)

Energy comsumption and total cost by travel mode in Asian cities

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

energy consumption/seat kilometre, including energy needed to construct guideways, manufacture vehicle and operation the system (kilojoules)

tota

l cos

t/sea

t kilo

met

re (c

ents

)

walking cycling motor car bus (mixed traffic) bus (busway) train

Data source: Zegras and Birk (1994)

Fuel consumption and emissions by travel mode in Indian cities

0

1

1

2

2

3

bicycle walking bus 80 seater(diesel)

bus 40 seater(diesel)

minibus taxi 15seater

motor car

hydrocarbons (grams/passenger km) carbon monoxide (grams/passenger km)nitrogen oxides (grams/passenger km) particulate matter (grams/passenger km)fuel consumption per passenger (litres/100 km)

Data source: Fulton (2003)

Summary of conclusions

• contextual differences and differing definitions and methods of measurement result in inconsistencies across energy efficiency findings

• nevertheless the weight of evidence indicates that non-motorised modes are the most energy efficient, most affordable and least polluting passenger travel modes – followed by electric rail and diesel bus public transport modes

• the weight of evidence further indicates that the low occupancy motor car is the least energy efficient, most unaffordable and most polluting of passenger travel modes

• consequently any strategy to improve a city’s energy efficiency would need to both promote the use of non-motorised and public transport modes, and, because private transport will remain an important even if reduced travel mode, promote the introduction of more efficient and cleaner technologies, operations and fuels