Promoting Clean Urban Public Transportation and Green Investment in Moldova

Annex E. Example of a project appraisal form

The best-suited project receives the highest score (max. 10 points) in each sub-category (A1-F5) the worst the lowest score (min. 0 points); other projects receive number points proportional to their ranking. The sum of received points in each category (A-F) is multiplied by a coefficient (0.1-0.2) to receive a weighted sum which is the final appraisal score for the respective project.

 

	Criteria	Weight	Max no. of points	Points
A	Project preparation	0.1
1	Prepared business plan or strategic for project implementation in the city		0-1
B	Project location	0.2
1	Buses that will be replaced are used only in polluted districts of the eligible city		5
2	Buses that will be replaced are used only in the centre of the eligible city		5
3	Buses that will be replaced are used in the city centre and on the outskirts/suburbs of the eligible city		3
4	Buses that will be replaced are used in the city and connecting the rural area outside the eligible city		0
C	Project type	0.2
1	CNG-powered buses		10
2	Trolleybuses		5
3	LPG-powered buses		1
4	Modern diesel buses		1
D	Project size	0.2
1	More than 20 buses to be replaced		10
2	Between 10 and 20 buses to be replaced		5
3	Fewer than 10 buses to be replaced		1
E	Proposed system of improvements of urban public transport in the city:	0.1
1	Length of the new bus lanes (0 points < 2km, 1 p.– up to 2km, 2p. > 2km)		2
2	Number of traffic lights with priority for public transport (0 points < 2, 1 p.– up to 4, 2p. > 5)		2
3	Number of bus stops newly equipped with online information for passengers (0 points < 2, 1 p.– up to 4, 2p. > 5)		2
4	Number of new bus stops (0 points < 2, 1 p.– up to 4, 2p. > 5)		2
5	Other measures (points according to expert opinion)		2
F	Environmental efficiency	0.2
1	Unit efficiency	(F2-F3)/F4
2	Calculated annual PM2.5 emissions from old buses [PM2.5 kg]*
3	Calculated annual PM2.5 emissions from new buses [PM2.5 kg]
4	Project costs
5	Points for environmental efficiency – the best project with unit efficiency Ubest receives 10, the worst with unit efficiency Uworst receives 0, others with unit efficiency U receive 10*(U-Uworst)/ (Ubest-Uworst)		10
G	Total: (weights x points)

Note: *Measuring the environmental efficiency of an investment involves calculating the unit cost of decreasing emissions – in this example, PM2.5 emissions. The unit cost should be calculated as the difference between PM2.5 emissions from old diesel buses and from new buses. The calculation should use real emission factors from the OPTIC Model.

References

[12] Defra and the Devolved Administrations (2017), The Emissions Factors Toolkit (EFT), UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, https://laqm.defra.gov.uk/review-and-assessment/tools/emissions-factors-toolkit.html (accessed on 15 February 2017).

[4] DieselNet (2016), “EU: Heavy-Duty Truck and Bus Engines: Regulatory Framework and Emission Standards”, DieselNet website,, http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/eu/hd.php (accessed on 30 March 2017).

[13] EC (2017), Transport Emissions: Air Pollutant from Road Transport, European Commission, Brussels, http://ec.Europa.eu/environment/air/transport/road.htm (accessed on 16 February 2017).

[1] EC (2016), Alternative Fuels and Infrastructure in Seven Non-EU Markets – Final Report, European Commission, Brussels, http://ec.Europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/studies/doc/2016-01-21-alternative-fuels-and-infrastructure-in-seven-non-eu-markets.pdf.

[2] EC (2016), Clean Transport – Support to the Member States for the Implementation of the Directive on the Deployment of Alternative Fuels Infrastructure: Good Practice Examples, European Commission, Brussels, http://ec.Europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/studies/doc/201.

[10] EEA (2016), EMEP/EEA Air Pollution Emission Inventory Guidebook 2016. Technical Guidance to Prepare National Emission Inventories, EEA Report No. 21/2016, EMEP European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-guidebook-2016/at_download.

[14] EEA (2016), EMEP/EEA Air Pollution Emission Inventory Guidebook 2016. Technical Guidance to Prepare National Emission Inventories. Part B: Sectoral Guidance Chapters – Road Transport 2018, EMEP European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-guidebook-2016/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/1-energy/1-a-combustion/1-a-3-b-i/view.

[16] EU (2014), “Directive 2014/94/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure” Official Journal of the European Union, L 307/1 of 28 October 2014, pp. 1-20, http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/94/oj.

[8] European Expert Group on Future Transport Fuels (2011), Infrastructure for Alternative Fuels, European Expert Group on Future Transport Fuels, Brussels, http://ec.Europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/cts/doc/2011-12-2nd-future-transport-fuels-report.pdf.

[15] Franco, V. et al. (2014), Real-World Exhaust Emissions from Modern Diesel Cars. A Meta-Analysis of Pems Emissions Data from EU (Euro 6) and US (Tier 2 Bin 5/Ulev II) Diesel Passenger Cars, International Council on Clean Transportation, Berlin, http:///www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_PEMS-study_diesel-cars_20141010.pdf.

[6] ICCT (2012), Cost and Benefits of Clean Technologies for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). Summary of Results for Kampala, International Council on Clean Transportation, Kampala, http://mirror.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=3484.

[11] IPCC (1996), Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 3: The Reference Manual, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Mexico City, http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gl/invs6.html.

[7] MJB&A (2013), Comparison of Modern CNG, Diesel and Diesel Hybrid-Electric Transit Buses: Efficiency and Environmental Performance, M.J. Bradley and Associates, Concord, Massachusetts and Washington, D.C, http://mjbradley.com/sites/default/files/CNG%20Diesel%20Hybrid%20.

[9] Nath R. et al (2014), “A Realistic View of CNG Vehicles in the US”, BCG Perspectives, Vol. 16 June, https://www.bcg.com/de-de/publications/2014/energy-environment-automotive-realistic-view-cng-vehicles-us.aspx (accessed on 24 June 2019).

[3] T&E (2018), CNG and LNG for vehicles and ships – the facts, European Federation for Transport and Environment, Brussels, http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2018_10_TE_CNG_and_LNG_for_vehicles_and_ships_the_facts_EN.pdf.

[5] UITP (2015), “Bus Systems in Europe. Towards a Higher Quality of Urban Life and Reduction of Pollutants and CO2 Emissions” UITP Position Paper, International Association of Public Transport, Brussels, https://www.uitp.org/sites/default/files/cck-focus-papers-files/UITP_PositionPaper_Bus%20Systems%202015.pdf.pdf.