India Transport Emissions – 2007 – Quantifying emissions without reliable data

Sudhir Gota

You simply cannot generate reliable emission estimates without accurate data. In fact, I would not hesitate to claim that “Without reliable data, transport emissions forecasting is as good as “fortune telling””. You need to consider the numbers with a pinch of salt or many a times consider the estimates as only numbers!

The reason why I am coming up with such an argument is because yesterday India released its 2007 Green House Gas inventory. I think it has some big problems with the transport estimates. It claims that the “road transport sector emitted 123.55 million tons of CO2e, which is 87% of the total emissions from the transport sector”. The transport sector emissions include all GHG emissions from road transport, railways, aviation and navigation. It suggests that “the total number of registered vehicles in the country has increased from 5.4 million in 1981 to 99.6 million in 2007. Two wheelers and cars constitute nearly 88% of the total vehicles at the national level”.

The problem with the total numbers of vehicles in India is that registered vehicles cannot be used for estimates as we don’t have active scrappage/renewal system. Not many people have an idea as to how to guess the number of vehicles on road. Even the activity information (vehicle travel/year in km) is not available on public domain and often people borrow the numbers from some isolated studies and from other countries or other researchers.

In order to highlight the data issues, following are some of the critical issues

1. Vehicles

a. No breakdown by mode type and engine technology (e.g. Euro 1 or Euro 2 compliant, etc.)

b. limited data on active vehicle fleet

c. No data on splitting small cars with big cars, MUV’s, LCV’s

d. Isolated surveys to determine age of the vehicles

2. Fuels

a. No fuel split available - gasoline, diesel, alternative fuel

3. Activity

a. No data on urban vs rural share of movement

b. Occupancy – how many people/load

c. Annual surveys and proper methodologies on vehicle-km travelled, passenger-km travelled, and tonnes-km rarely exist

d. Reasonable data on fuel consumption per km travelled on various transport modes. This issue is critical as quoted values from lab testing differs from actual on road values

4. Emission factors

a. lack of locally representative emission factors for existing vehicle fleet

Coming back on the India’s 2007 estimate of 123 million tons in 2007 for an activity information of 99 million vehicles is too low as seen from the below graphic. In fact the estimates of CO₂ /vehicles is lesser (1.2) than what researchers have quantified for passenger transport (ratio of 1.5 for passenger vehicles. Including commercial vehicles in estimation would expand this figure to a range of 2 to 4).

Strangely, the same authors, in an earlier study had quantified 106 million tons in 2000 with 48 million vehicles. Then why is that the doubling of vehicle numbers not showing impact?

One thing that hits hard in the below graphic is the huge variation of CO₂ and vehicles. It seems that researchers do not agree with each other … a classic case of elephant and the blind men !!

FREIGHT TRANSPORT – THE MISSING LINK

Sudhir Gota

Will more trucks on more roads yield higher GDP?

Under the changing climate many cities are initiating several city based passenger transport strategies to combat growing externalities from transport. When we hear interviews, read papers – we often see policy makers charting down the magic bullets to solve the negative spillovers from transport and most often they overlook one vital clog in the wheel – freight transport.

In Asian countries, trucks are the most visible freight carriers with mini vans playing significant roles within cities. The truck-freight growth often shadows GDP growth rates thus making policy makers assume that more trucks on road would invariably mean spiraling increase in GDP. More often this is misapprehension.

Though trucks offer highest flexibility, increase in trucks means high rebound congestion with each additional truck slowing down others and thus ensuring that that we are moving our freight while accelerating the consumption of valuable resources. In order to keep the movement easy on the pocket we often subsidize diesel with devastating consequences.

The other misapprehension floating in the market which many agencies quote is

“Equipment utilization rates for the trucking fleet, which average 60,000 km to 100.000 km per truck-year, are less than a quarter o f those in developed economies”

This is used as a basis for expanding roads without realizing the fact that average trucks in developed countries cover the same distances.

In order to understand the importance of trucks on environment and transport, let’s consider the case of China;

“Diesel vehicles (majority freight) constitute only 12% of total fleet in 2005. Since they are commercially operated, they travel length and breadth of the country accumulating mileages. This increases the share of diesel in total vehicle kilometer travel to nearly 29%. Since the trucks operate at low economy and efficiency, the share of diesel vehicle in total CO2 jumps to 72% and in PM emissions to 91%!!”

Or Thailand

“The share of total energy consumption is 51% for the freight transport mode, 32% for the nonurban passenger transport mode and 17% for the urban transport mode”

Or India

“Unfortunately the rail road mode share competition does not replicate zeno’s paradox. In 1950’s the rail-road ton-km share was 90%-10%. In 2000 it is 27%-73%. Volume in both the sectors show positive growth but rail represents slow growth, road represents high. With government doubling the investments on super highways roads would continue to attract more freight in future.

It’s clear that the freight contribution in transport is huge and thus provides the most opportunities. There are many reasons for the inefficiency in the Asian logistics sector, prime being fragmented market.

Majority of trucking industry is divided with multiple operators. Consider China, where majority oftrucking companies have on average around one truck and fewer than two employees. A decade earlier, India had 77% of fleet under operators owning 5 trucks or less and now 86% of total fleet is still under unorganized operators.

With no coordination this leads to high deadheading. In fact in many Asian countries deadheading amounts to nearly 30-40% of total truck VKT. There are ripple effects of such deadheading. In order to maximize the loaded movements, the operators have to resort to overloading which not only aggravates the injury to the road pavement but also consumes high energy. More often due to overloading, in order to silence the authorities, the truck drivers pay a huge bribe.

Having small operators’ to dominate the field mean that the vehicles being used to transport freight are not only old but also are size in-efficient. In fact the ratios in China and India are approximately 1:1 of truck trailers to truck tractors. This ratio is often 2-3 : 1 in developed countries. The impact of such inefficient vehicle fleet does not only pinch the pockets of operator but also the tax payers as higher axle loading of 2-3 axle trucks damages the road thus requiring frequent strengthening.

The pavement damages by overloaded trucks not only pinches the taxpayers’ pockets but also chokes the lungs and damages the environment as more often it disturbs the balance in speeds – first effect being reduction in average speeds to less than 20 kmph to tackle poor roads, the authorities starts slowly rebuilding the roads thus draining the resources and environment further and as soon as the roads are finished it increases the speeds beyond normal or beyond the limit where one can save energy thus increasing the fuel consumption.

It’s no surprise that authorities are changing the codes fast. Over the past decades many countries have increased the legal axle limits to accommodate such higher axle loads. India’s legal single axle load limit is now 10.2 tons, which used to be 8.16 tons decade earlier. Thailand’s maximum axle load limit is 8.2 tonnes while the truck-load limit is 25 tonnes, which was increased from 21 tonnes in 2006.

The impact of thicker pavement and overloading on environment is so complex that it is a detailed study topic inUC Berkeley Center for Future Urban Transport where many people are researching on it.

In the urban environment, the impact needs to be understood from the perspectives of traffic management and air pollution. Cities build bypasses after bypasses to push the trucks out of city limits which boomerangs with disastrous consequences because of sprawl and city freight distribution. In a city like Tianjin (China), trucks contribute 44% of PM and 54% of NOx emissions.

Consider the case of Delhi, experts here used the traffic management option commonly adopted in Asia i.e. to ban truck movement in daytime. Though this initially reduced the PM levels during the daytime, however, due to the rapid growth in truck numbers during the night time, the contribution of trucks to day-time PM levels is increasing as night time emissions linger into the daytime.

The problem is further compounded when there are multiple agencies having stakes in freight movement. One of the studies from Philippines listed down 41 agencies/organizations/institutions which needs to be brought together to discuss solutions.

Clearly, the magnitude of issues dictate urgent actions.

Wait for the next blog for solutions...

“HYBRIDS” RULE PHILIPPINES STREETS – PART 1

By, Sudhir Gota

‘Josephine Guittu ‘drives a Hybrid for living in Manila.

In case if you are wondering if he has cracked the “technology” barrier to own a cheap non polluting vehicle then you are mistaken. Instead, few weeks earlier he used to be a part of problem which makes millions sick in Philippines i.e. air pollution. He used to drive what can be described as a modified re- engineered two wheeler with a sidecar, powered by a polluting non-efficient two stroke engine. He used to drive across the local streets in Manila, ferrying 2-6 people at one time, creating a visible “wave of smoke” from the tailpipe across the city. When the distance travelled is as high as 100 km/day, the problem is definitely injurious.

But past few weeks have transformed his life as he proudly displays a new four stroke tricycle which “pollutes” less and he saves valuable imported fuel while providing transport solution to poor-middle class people. He was extremely lucky to be a part of 20 drivers who got help from the government and other stakeholders like “Partnership for Clean Air” in becoming less polluting. They designed a revolving-fund scheme to grave his two stroke out of the system.

But, there are thousands of “Josephine Guittu” still waiting for help while people breath polluted air in Manila.


My colleague ‘Bert Fabian’ considers tricycles to be a tri-dimensional problem: “it’s a political, social and transport issue”. He is correct when he says that it’s beyond “cradle to grave” issue for the policymakers. It’s a “political” and “social” problem which needs equal attention. A typical tricycle driver earns daily 100-150 pesos on an average which forces him to have insufficient food and worse quality of life. Research has shown that driving in polluted environment and having insufficient food results in many health issues including very low blood vitamin C levels. But theyare helpless!

More and more people venture into the tricycle market due to ballooning unemployment, raising congestion and demand for more mobility. With limited number of old tricycles getting out of system and huge number of tricycles getting inside the system, even tricycle operators can see the reduction in the size of the “pie” of commuters. With increasing competition, comes increased fatality. Already 54% of all injuries occurring in Philippines are street-induced. Thus, high number of problems associated with its unique role in providing cheap (approx 10 pesos for 5 km is a bargain considering its accessibility) mobility, the issue needs immediate solutions.


Government and other agencies have been trying to use different strategies based on “convenience” to reduce the environmental impact thus facing limited success. Many strategies have been tested under different areas with different support system namely -

1. Tricycle capping by Coding scheme, Volume reduction program, Phase-out etc.
2. Identifying illogical operators (anti-colorum drive)
3. Tricycle lanes
4. Regularization with common color per zone
5. Integrated terminals
6. Restricted accessibility with speed controls
7. Promotion of four-strokes and alternative fuels etc.
8. Promotion of human powered transport
But, the problem is “magnitude”.

There are over 73,000 Two-Stroke tricycles in Metro manila alone. Research suggests that delaying action is expensive and unhealthy as it generates 22% more emissions and fuel use if tricycles in manila would be replaced in 10 years instead of 5 years. By acting within 5 years and replacing all two strokes we can save over 26 million liters of gasoline and 13000 tons of PM over next 20 years. This is a highly conservative estimate assuming that in no action scenario there would be only normal scrappage with slow replacement.

In fact, new replacement costs are 110 million$ for replacing all two strokes, with 20 million$ average savings/year for 20 years. In simple terms – we have to act fast as it makes a perfect economic-health sense. Designing a revolving fund with aggressive replacements can reduce the chunk of money involved but maximize the environmental benefits.


Dr. Manuel M. Biona who specializes in treating “tricycles” believes that “retrofits” can solve environmental problems of two strokes as many solutions are being designed which would further reduce the costs and maximize the social benefits. When I quiz him for the technological solutions being developed he suggests some phrases which sends my imagination for a toss - Gasoline Direct Injection Retrofitting, Four Stroke Engine Repowering, LPG Direct Injection Retrofitting and LPG Four Stroke Engine Repowering. Many solutions being developed needs governmental support in piloting in order to select the best performer in the group.

Also, considering the filipino ingenuity in keeping “alive” their tricycles we have to ensure that technology and non-technology solutions are cemented by political will to transform cities. We have to think of “sticks” with “carrots” like micro-financing schemes. When I describe the term stick – I mean regulation which is often lacking. Many drivers themselves know that by regulating we can increase the efficiency and income per driver but we often fail to react on time or take decision. The key to the solution is to design “micro finance scheme” with low interest rates for low income owners and drivers who can use the monthly money to pay back the funds. History has shown limited success if we don’t rely on low initial cost and low interest rates. Designing innovative “insurance” and “marketing” schemes is another option for the policy makers. This coupled with aggressive management strategies for limiting the numbers of tricycles and increasing the human transport facilities we can transform cities in Philippines.

Carrots with Stick can make “immortal” two stroke tricycles “mortal”. We just need the will to transform our cities. Thousands of “Josephine Guittu” are waiting for our help while millions are breathing polluted air, there is no time to lose.