69659 The World Bank Asia Sustainable and Alternative Energy Program Transport Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries June 2011 Copyright © 2011 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank Group 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433, USA All rights reserved First printing: June 2011 Manufactured in the United States of America. Photo credits: Egis The World Bank Asia Sustainable and Alternative Energy Program Transport Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries June 2011 © 2011 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank Group 1818 H Street NW Washington, DC 20433 All rights reserved First printing: June 2011 Photo credits: Egis The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this report are entirely those of the authors and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank or its affiliated organizations, or to members of its board of execu- tive directors or the countries they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility whatsoever for any consequence of their use. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this volume do not imply on the part of the World Bank Group any judgment on the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................vii Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................viii 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................1 1.1. Context and Background ...................................................................................................................................1 1.1.1. Context ...................................................................................................................................................1 1.1.2. Purpose of the Toolkit .............................................................................................................................1 1.1.3. Approach Followed to Develop the ROADEO Calculator ........................................................................1 1.2. Purpose of this Background Report...................................................................................................................2 1.3. Structure of this Background Report .................................................................................................................2 2. General Analysis of Road Construction Emissions.............................................................3 2.1. GHG Emissions in Road Construction ...............................................................................................................3 2.1.1. Road Transport GHG Emissions Globally and by Region .........................................................................3 2.1.2. Rationale for Focusing on Road Construction Activities..........................................................................3 2.2. Main Issues .......................................................................................................................................................4 2.2.1. Global Emissions ....................................................................................................................................4 2.2.2. Emissions Per Work Item and Per Type of Road .....................................................................................4 2.2.3. Emissions Per Phase of Work and Per Type of Road ...............................................................................5 2.3. Current Road Design and Construction Practices in East Asia ..........................................................................6 2.3.1. Standards ................................................................................................................................................6 2.3.2. Geometric Designs .................................................................................................................................7 2.3.3. Pavement Design....................................................................................................................................7 2.3.4. Structural Design ....................................................................................................................................8 2.3.5. Project Management ..............................................................................................................................8 2.3.6. Contractors .............................................................................................................................................9 . 2.3.7 Quality Assurance and Quality Control ..................................................................................................10 2.3.8. Environmental Management .................................................................................................................10 2.3.9. Construction Practices .......................................................................................................................... 11 3. Development of a Calculation Tool ....................................................................................14 3.1. Need for Tools .................................................................................................................................................14 3.2. Assessment of Existing Tools ..........................................................................................................................15 3.2.1. Main Principles of Existing Tools ............................................................................................................17 3.2.2. Comparison of Calculations of Existing Tools ........................................................................................17 3.2.3. Characteristics and Limitations of Existing Tools ..................................................................................18 3.3. Functions of the Tool .......................................................................................................................................20 3.4. Assumptions, Modeling, and Calibration.........................................................................................................20 3.5. Emissions Factors ...........................................................................................................................................22 3.6. Tool Boundaries ...............................................................................................................................................23 iii iv Contents 4. Alternative Practices to Reduce GHG Emissions ..............................................................25 4.1. Overview .........................................................................................................................................................25 4.2. Identification of Alternative Practices ..............................................................................................................25 4.2.1. Transport ................................................................................................................................................26 4.2.2. Earthworks ............................................................................................................................................26 4.2.3. Pavement ..............................................................................................................................................26 4.2.4. Structures ..............................................................................................................................................28 4.2.5. Equipment and Road Furniture ..............................................................................................................29 4.3. Integration into the ROADEO Calculator .........................................................................................................29 4.4. Financial and Economic Analysis .....................................................................................................................29 4.4.1. Financial Analysis ...................................................................................................................................29 4.4.2. Economic Analysis ................................................................................................................................29 4.4.3. Analysis Conclusions ............................................................................................................................30 4.4.4. Policy Implications .................................................................................................................................30 5. Conclusions ..........................................................................................................................31 5.1. Main Outcomes ..............................................................................................................................................31 5.2. Challenges Ahead ...........................................................................................................................................31 Appendix A. Summary of Current Practices and Corresponding Alternatives ....................33 Appendix B. ROADEO User Manual.........................................................................................41 User Manual: Model Framework and Assumptions ...............................................................................................41 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................41 Purpose of this Document ..............................................................................................................................41 Structure of the Document .............................................................................................................................41 Notice ..............................................................................................................................................................42 Calculation Tool Architecture ...................................................................................................................................42 General Requirements ....................................................................................................................................42 Data Arrangements .........................................................................................................................................43 General Model Framework .....................................................................................................................................45 Architecture .....................................................................................................................................................45 Parameters/Background Data ..........................................................................................................................45 GHG Generators .....................................................................................................................................................50 Materials .........................................................................................................................................................50 Works Equipment............................................................................................................................................57 Transport .........................................................................................................................................................57 CD Contents: User Manual—Extended Version Annex 1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Road Construction and Rehabilitation Annex 2. Review of Current Road Construction Practices in East Asia Annex 3. Identification of Gaps Between Best Practices from Developed Countries and Practices in Pilot Developing Countries, with Proposals for Improving the Situation Annex 4. Assessment of Costs and Benefits of Each Alternative Practice ROADEO Calculator Contents v Figures 1 Road Transport Emissions as Part of Global and Transport GHG Emissions .........................................................3 2 Emissions per Item of Work, by Type of Road ......................................................................................................5 3 Emissions per GHG Generator, by Type of Road...................................................................................................5 4 Total CO2 Emissions over a 40-Year Period for a 1 Km Long and 13 m Wide Road During Construction, Maintenance, and Operation ..............................................................................................................................14 5 Some of the Emissions Calculations Tools Reviewed .........................................................................................15 6 Tools Comparison ...............................................................................................................................................17 7 Simplified Calculation Process for Materials .......................................................................................................18 8 CHANGER Data Input Screen .............................................................................................................................19 9 Emissions from a Ring Road Section in France—Egis Calculator .......................................................................19 10 Breakdown of Emissions from a Ring Road Section in France—Egis Calculator ................................................19 11 Proposed ROADEO Calculator Report Format ....................................................................................................20 12 ROADEO Calculator Boundaries .........................................................................................................................24 13 Cumulative GHG Emissions for Construction and Maintenance Activities, Depending on Pavement Construction/Maintenance Strategy .................................................................................................27 14 Comparison of Distributed Costs between Initial Construction and Maintenance Activities, Depending on Pavement Construction/Maintenance Strategy ...........................................................................28 B1 ROADEO Calculator Tool Organization ................................................................................................................44 B2 Quantities of Steel (kg/m²) for Bridges, Depending on Span ..............................................................................55 B3 Effective Thickness—thus Quantities of Concrete—for Bridges, Depending on Span .......................................55 Tables 1 Regional Breakdown of Road Transport Share in Transport GHG Emissions .........................................................4 2 Typical Unit GHG Emissions of Various Road Categories......................................................................................5 3 Typical Breakdown of GHG Emissions, by Work Item, for Various Road Categories ............................................6 4 Typical Breakdown of GHG Emissions, by Generator, for Various Road Categories .............................................6 5 Orders of Magnitude of GHG Emissions Related to the Road Construction Program in Three East Asian Countries, 2009–19 ...................................................................................................................7 6 Roles in Environmental Management .................................................................................................................10 7 Tools Comparisons Synthesis ............................................................................................................................16 8 Parameters Used for ROADEO’s Summarized Description of the Road .............................................................21 9 Case Studies Used to Calibrate the ROADEO Calculator Model ........................................................................21 10 Emissions Intensities within VicRoads, CHANGER, and Egis Calculators ..........................................................22 11 Emissions Intensities for Steel, According to Various Sources ...........................................................................23 12 GHG Emissions in kg eqCO2 for the Production of 1 Ton of Cement ................................................................23 13 GHG Emissions in kg eqCO2 for the Production of 1 m3 of Ready-Mix Concrete ...............................................23 14 Relative Importance of Explosives in GHG Emissions from Earthworks Techniques ..........................................26 15 Comparison of GHG Emissions from Construction of Embankments, Bridges, and Tunnels .............................28 A1 Summary of Current Practices and Corresponding Alternatives.........................................................................33 B1 Combination of GHG Generators and Works Components ................................................................................45 B2 List of Parameters Used in Calculations of Stage 1 of the Model ......................................................................46 B3 List of Parameters Used in Calculations of Stage 2 of the Model ......................................................................48 B4 List of Parameters to be Defined by the User ....................................................................................................49 B5 Soil Densities for Binder Mixing with Soil ...........................................................................................................50 B6 Emission Factors of Hydraulic Binders ...............................................................................................................50 B7 Typical Pavement Types and Designs ..................................................................................................................51 B8 Materials Considered in Typical Pavement Designs ............................................................................................51 B9 Traffic Classes for Concrete Pavement ...............................................................................................................51 B10 Subgrade Class for Concrete Pavement Structures ............................................................................................51 vi Contents B11 Traffic Classes for All Pavement Structures Except Concrete .............................................................................52 B12 Subgrade Class for All Pavement Structures Except Concrete ...........................................................................52 B13 Subgrade Strength Classes Used When California Bearing Ratio Data are Unavailable .....................................52 B14 Quantities of Materials for Typical Pavement Layers...........................................................................................53 B15 Composition of Pavement Layers .......................................................................................................................54 B16 Composition of Asphalt and Concrete ................................................................................................................54 B17 Quantities of Materials for Drainage Works ........................................................................................................54 B18 Quantities of Materials for Walls .........................................................................................................................55 B19 Quantities of Materials for Standard Bridges......................................................................................................55 B20 Quantities of Materials for Major Bridges ...........................................................................................................56 B23 Quantities of Materials for Directional Signs ......................................................................................................56 B21 Quantities of Materials for Tunnels .....................................................................................................................56 B22 Quantities of Materials for Barriers.....................................................................................................................56 B24 Quantities of Materials for Lighting Works .........................................................................................................57 B25 Quantities of Materials for Wayside Amenities ...................................................................................................57 B26 Characteristics of Construction Equipment ........................................................................................................58 B27 Emissions Due to Equipment for Various Works Types .......................................................................................61 B28 Default Transport Distances ................................................................................................................................64 B29 Default Transport Fleet Characteristics ...............................................................................................................65 B30 Above-Ground Biomass Depending on Land Cover Types in Continental Asia ...................................................65 Acronyms and Abbreviations AASHTO American Association of State Highway FUND Framework for Uncertainty, Negotiation, and Transportation Officials and Distribution AAU Assigned Amount Unit GHG Greenhouse Gas ADEME Agence de l’Environnement et de la HMA Hot Mix Asphalt Maîtrise de l’Energie HMAM High Modulus Asphalt Material AFD Agence Française de Développement IEA International Energy Association ASTAE Asia Sustainable and Alternative Energy IRF International Road Federation Program IPCC International Panel on Climate Change ATILH Association Technique de l’Industrie des Liants Hydrauliques IRR Internal Rate of Return BAU Business As Usual ITL International Transaction Log CBR California Bearing Ratio JI Joint Implementation CDM Clean Development Mechanism LCPC Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées CER Certified Emission Reduction NPV Net Present Value CRRAP Cold Recycling of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement ODA Official Development Assistance DBST Double Bituminous Surface Treatment ORN Oversea Road Notes (road) PDD Project Design Document DNA Designated National Authority PPD Perpetual Pavement Design EAP East Asia and Pacific Region PPM Parts Per Million EIRR Economic Internal Rate of Return QA Quality Assurance EMP Environmental Management Plan QC Quality Control EPA Environmental Protection Agency RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative ERU Emission Reduction Unit SC Stage Construction ESA Equivalent Standard Axles SCC Social Cost of Carbon ETS Emission Trading Scheme SETRA Service D’Etudes Techniques des Routes EU European Union et Autoroutes FHWA Federal Highway Administration TRL Transport Research Laboratory FIDIC International Federation of Consulting UNFCC United Nations Framework Convention on Engineers Climate Change FIRR Financial Internal Rate of Return WMA Warm Mix Asphalt vii Acknowledgments This publication, which was funded by the Asia Sus- The teams would like to give special recognition to World tainable and Alternative Energy Program (ASTAE), was Bank staff for their help with the peer review process authored by the consultant Egis International and guided and for providing considerable feedback including: Cesar by the direction of Task Team Leader Fei Deng, Senior Queiroz (INTSC), Federico Querio (ENV), Sameer Akbar Transport Specialist, East Asia Sustainable Development (ENV), Nat Pinnoi (ENVCF), and Peter O’Neill (TWITR). Infrastructure Unit at the World Bank. The World Bank In addition, the teams would like to gratefully acknowl- team was supported by the efforts of Emily Dubin, Peng edge the valuable comments that were received during Wang, Jean-Marie Braun, and Geoffrey Kurgan. The Egis the software review process by Mauricio Ruiz from The International team, which was led by Grégoire Nicolle Transtec Group, Dr. Richard Jon Porter at the Univer- and Nicolas Morice, was supported by the efforts of Mat- sity of Utah, Milena Breisinger from the Inter American thew Addison, François-Marc Turpin, Marie-Claire Cao, Development Bank, Patrice Danzanvilliers at the French Benoit Ficheroulle, Michaël Nogues, Robert Lynch, Pierre Ministry of Transport, as well as Jonathan Slason and Sarrat, and Agnès Capron. In addition, Egis International Simon Bannock from Beca. was supported by the Egis Environment team, including Mireille Lattuati and Antonin Caen. The Bank team would also like to give thanks to Steve Meltzer for editing the document, Laura Johnson for pro- During the course of this study, the Egis team gained viding the graphic design work, Marti Betz for the work considerable knowledge through the support of a num- on the cover design, and Laurent Durix for his effective ber of different agencies and organizations in China, Indo- coordination in the publication and dissemination of this nesia, and Vietnam. In particular, the team would like to report. acknowledge Shandong Luquiao Group Co. Ltd., Hebei Provincial Communications Dept., and the Chinese Throughout this study, the Bank team enjoyed the Metallurgy Civil Engineering Corp. in China. In Indone- encouragement provided by many colleagues; in particu- sia, the team is indebted to the assistance of the Aus- lar the team would like to recognize the strong support tralian Agency for International Development (AusAID), and guidance from Vijay Jagannathan (EASIN) and Ede the Ministry of Public Works, and the Directorate Gen- Ijjasz (EASCS). Finally, the teams would like to acknowl- eral of Highways. Finally, in Vietnam, substantial support edge ASTAE for their vision in funding a multisectoral was provided by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the project such as this. The achievement of adopting renew- Vietnam Expressway Corporation, and Transport Engi- able energy sources, improving energy efficiency, and neering Design Inc. (TEDI). Both the Bank and the Egis increasing access to energy cannot be truly accom- teams gratefully recognize the time and insight provided plished without all sectors working together. This study is by these partners—for without them, this project could a significant step in proving that a multisectoral approach not have become a reality. to the ASTAE objectives can be realized. viii 1 Introduction 1.1 Context and Background This document has been prepared as part of a study aimed at identifying and quantifying the GHG emissions 1.1.1. Context from current practices, and at developing a strategy for better planning, design, and construction of roads. It is The goal of the transport sector of the World Bank’s East meant to give planners, designers, and contractors a tool Asia and Pacific Region (EAP) is to identify solutions with which they can explicitly compare emissions and that minimize greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused costs, as well as make more informed decisions—some by road construction and rehabilitation in the region. of which will result in lower-emission roads. The transport team was awarded a grant from the Asia Sustainable and Alternative Energy Program (ASTAE) to finance creation of a toolkit addressing GHG emis- 1.1.2. Purpose of the Toolkit sions resulting from such development and restoration The Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation Toolkit for activities. Highway Construction and Rehabilitation (ROADEO), together with the accompanying User Manual (see It is anticipated that over the next several years, devel- appendix B on the accompanying CD) will guide road oping countries in East Asia will substantially expand practitioners through the various stages and activities of and restore their extensive road networks. One result road construction and rehabilitation, help them identify of these activities will be increased GHG emissions. areas sensitive to GHG emissions, and present various Reducing these could significantly decrease the negative mitigation options that take cost and benefit implications impacts related to these infrastructure works. into account. With the ROADEO calculator, decision mak- ers, designers, and technicians in the highway sector There are several steps involved in road construction that can easily compare various construction alternatives and contribute to the production and release of GHG emis- optimize their practices to both minimize GHG emissions sions: site clearing, subgrade preparation, production of and maximize energy efficiency. It is envisioned that the construction materials (granular sub-base, base course, ROADEO calculator will be used on both new and exist- surfacing), site delivery, construction works, ongo- ing projects. The toolkit includes: ing supervision, maintenance activities, and so on. The aggregate GHG emissions for each project or sub-project • A set of reports providing background information on (phase, section, alignment) can be calculated based on GHG emissions from road construction activities equipment used, local conditions, and standard construc- • A calculator tool, ROADEO (ROADs Emissions tion and maintenance practices. Optimisation) • The ROADEO calculator user manual 1 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries 1.1.3. Approach Followed to Develop investigate all details, or to cover the very wide range the ROADEO Calculator of situations met on all road projects, efforts were made to identify orders of magnitude, extents and impacts, as The preparation of the ROADEO calculator involved nine well as converging and diverging practices in the road activities. community on some topics. • Task 1: Undertake a broad assessment of GHG It is hoped that the report will provide users with useful, emissions related to the transport sector detailed information gathered during the preparation of • Task 2: Complete a detailed literature review on the Toolkit. GHG emissions from road construction and rehabili- tation activities This document does not fully describe the functions of • Task 3: Review current road construction and reha- the ROADEO calculator; that is the purpose of the User bilitation practices in three East Asian developing Manual, which can be found in the CD that accompanies countries this report. Reference can be made to this background • Task 4: Select recent case studies, with detailed report. analysis of GHG emissions, in each country • Task 5: Perform GHG emissions calculations • Task 6: Identify gaps between best practices in 1.3. Structure of this developed countries and practices in pilot develop- ing countries and propose alternative practices that Background Report could represent improvements • Task 7: Assess costs and benefits of each alternative This background report includes: practice proposed in Task 6 • Task 8: Develop the Greenhouse Gas Emis- • Main body (this document) provides general infor- sion Mitigation Toolkit for Road Construction and mation and an executive summary of the docu- Rehabilitation ment’s content. • Task 9: Complete the User Manual to accompany • Annexes, each covering an aspect of GHG emis- the ROADEO calculator sions as they relate to road construction and reha- bilitation. Due to the extensive volume of material covered through this study, the annexes have been placed in the CD that accompanies this report. 1.2. Purpose of this • Annex 1—Introduction to GHG emissions from Background Report road construction • Annex 2—Review of current road construction The purpose of this background report is to present the practices in East Asia findings of the study that led to the development of the • Annex 3—Lower-emissions alternative practices Toolkit. It is intended to introduce nonspecialists to the for road construction main issues involved in road construction-related GHG • Annex 4—Economic and financial analysis of road emissions in East Asia. While it was not possible to construction GHG emissions 2 General Analysis of Road Construction Emissions 2.1. GHG Emissions in Road region of the world currently constructing the most new Construction roads, and represented 37 percent of man-made GHG emissions in 2005. 2.1.1. Road Transport GHG Emissions Globally and by Region 2.1.2. Rationale for Focusing on A 2005 International Energy Association (IEA) study Road Construction Activities revealed that the transport sector (road vehicles, trains, • While road construction GHG emissions represent ships, and aircraft) is the second largest producer of GHG only 5–10 percent of total GHG emissions in the sec- emissions. Road transport accounts for about 90 to 95 tor, they are growing rapidly, especially in Asia, the percent of the sector’s production (figure 1). result of the region’s major ongoing road programs in support of economic development. Table 1 (next page) shows that road transport in Asia is a • Road construction mitigation efforts are relatively major contributor to transport GHG emissions. This is the easy to manage, and can have higher-profile impact Figure 1 road TransporT emissions as parT oF global and TransporT gHg emissions Transport—14% Road—72% Rest of global GHGs—86% Domestic air—5% International air—6% International marine—8% Other—8% Source: EIA, 2004. 3 4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries Table 1 regional breakdown oF road TransporT sHare in TransporT gHg emissions gHg emissions in 2005 (mt eqCo2 and %) road transport contribution to Total Transport sector transport sector World 38,725.90 5,378.00 14% 72% Asia 14,236.90 1,098.80 8% 95 to 100% Europe 8,141.90 1,244.10 15% 93% North America 7,834.00 1,973.60 25% 85% Central America and Caribbean 773.60 161.1 21% n.a. Middle East and N. Africa 2,566.90 388.9 15% n.a. South Africa 2,124.90 286.9 14% more than 50% Sub-Saharan Africa 1,083.20 104.2 10% n.a. Oceania 647.20 93.7 14% 84% Sources: WRI, ADB, EEA, EPA and National Inventories. (of interest to international financial institutions [IFI] 2.2.1. Global Emissions like the World Bank) than actions on road traffic. The total GHG emissions for the construction of a 1 km • Most road agencies in Asia are not yet aware of the section of each type of road are shown in table 2. impact of their activities on GHG emissions, even though Asia is at the center of current road con- We see that the construction of 1 km of expressway struction efforts. It is important to raise stakehold- emits as many tons of CO2 as 4 km of national roads, 15 ers’ awareness to improve current practices and to km of provincial roads, and around 33 km of rural roads. facilitate more informed decision making. 2.2.2. Emissions Per Work Item and 2.2. Main Issues Per Type of Road An assessment of road construction GHG emissions Figure 2 shows emissions produced by (i) extraction/pro- was performed on “typical� road sections of various duction of construction materials, (ii) their transport, and types or categories. In the absence of order of magni- (iii) consumption by engines used for placing them. tude of various issues, this was expected to provide an indication of: Structures and road furniture represent almost 50 per- cent (46.4 percent) of the emissions from construction • the respective importance of various parts of the of an expressway. Choices that can limit these emissions road network in GHG emissions, through a compari- are thus of paramount importance. son of construction emissions of various categories of roads with different characteristics (geometry, For national roads, safety barriers alone represent one- pavement, structures, and so on) and ranging from quarter of the total emissions during construction. expressways to unpaved rural roads, and Changes in practices regarding these items would have • the emissions contributions of various components a very significant impact on the project’s final footprint. of the project, from pavement to structures, earth- works, road furniture (such as guardrails, lighting, For all the other roads, pavement is the major GHG pro- signs, barrier walls, and the like) and drainage. ducer. The main parameters to be considered, as pre- sented in table 4, relate to transport emissions (distance The calculations were made on simplified assumptions, to the concrete factory, distance to the quarry/borrow pit, and were performed with the “CHANGER� tool devel- and so on). oped by the International Road Federation (IRF). General Analysis of Road Construction Emissions 5 Table 2 TypiCal uniT gHg emissions oF various road CaTegories (t Co2 eq./km) rural road— rural road— expressway national road provincial road gravel dbsT Emission (t CO2 eq./km) 3,234 794 207 90 103 Factor equivalent to Expressway 100 24.5 6.4 2.8 3.2 Source: EIA, 2004. Note: Expressway: Divided highway used by high-speed traffic with controlled or partially controlled access; National road: Generally funded, con- structed, and operated under the auspices of the national government or, more specifically, the Ministry of Transport (usually these roads have lower traffic and weight demands compared to expressways); Provincial road: Generally funded, constructed, and operated under the auspices of the provincial government (usually have lower speeds, weight classes, and traffic demands compared to a national road); Rural gravel road: Constructed with only a gravel wearing course and operated under the auspices of a local government authority within the provincial government or a separate agency such as a department of feeder roads (usually these roads have unlimited access, are unmarked, and have low traffic demands); Rural DBST road: Double bituminous surface treatment road, generally a major feeder road found in rural areas that falls under the same auspices as the authority or department that oversees rural gravel roads (usually higher quality than rural gravel roads because of their higher traffic and weight requirements). 2.2.3. Emissions Per Phase of Work Figure 2 emissions per iTem oF work, and Per Type of Road by Type oF road For expressways and national roads, GHG emissions t-eq C02 from the fabrication and extraction of construction mate- 3,500 rials are the main contributor, at about 90 percent of total emissions; they are less important for provincial and rural Road furniture roads, at about 80 percent. Structures 3,000 Culverts Materials transport is also a significant GHG producer, at Pavement around 25 percent for expressways and national roads Earthworks and up to 20 percent for provincial and rural roads. 2,500 Figure 3 emissions per gHg generaTor, 2,000 by Type oF road Machines emissions Material emissions 1,500 Transport emissions 100 90 1,000 80 70 60 Percent 50 500 40 30 20 10 0 Expressway National Provincial Rural road— Rural road— 0 road road gravel DBST Expressway National Provincial Ruralroad— Rural road— road road gravel gravel Source: Egis, 2010. Source: Egis, 2010. 6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries Table 3 TypiCal breakdown oF gHg emissions, by work iTem, For various road CaTegories (t Co2 eq./km) rural road— rural road— emissions (t Co2eq./km) expressway national road provincial road gravel dbsT Earthworks 161 16 12 3 3 Pavement 1,334 425 157 72 86 Culverts 238 51 17 12 12 Structures 1,068 119 21 3 3 Road Furniture 432 182 0 0 0 Total 3,234 794 207 90 103 Source: Egis, 2010. Table 4 TypiCal breakdown oF gHg emissions, by generaTor, For various road CaTegories (t Co2 eq./km) emissions (t Co2eq.) Transport emissions material emissions machines emissions Total Expressway 1,004 2,122 109 3,234 National Road 235 523 36 794 Provincial Road 66 112 29 207 Rural Road—Gravel 20 56 14 90 Rural Road—DBST 26 62 14 103 Source: Egis, 2010. Extraction and material transport are therefore the main specifications in road construction or rehabilitation activities that must be considered to significantly improve contracts. the GHG impact of a road construction project. The analysis carried out on GHG emissions for typical road sections shows that the construction of express- 2.3. Current Road Design and ways would generate far more GHG per kilometer than Construction Practices in construction of other road categories. Pavement (only flexible pavement was considered in this analysis) would East Asia generally be the major GHG emissions source, but the share of GHG emissions from structures is quite signifi- Three East Asian countries were designated for data col- cant as well, as is the share of metallic rails for national lection by this study—China, Indonesia, and Vietnam. roads. These pilot countries were selected because of the size and potential of their highway sector development Applying this analysis to selected countries shows that activities. possibilities for reducing GHG emissions may signifi- Information was collected on: cantly vary depending on current road length, distribution of road networks by type, and their assumed extension • road development, particularly of current road net- in the coming years. works, highway master plans, ongoing road projects, and past and future expenditures for road construc- 2.3.1. Standards tion or rehabilitation, and • current practices, particularly contract packaging, In general, road authorities in East Asian countries have implementation techniques, design methodolo- heavily referenced American Association of State High- gies, capacity of national contractors, and technical way and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards General Analysis of Road Construction Emissions 7 Table 5 orders oF magniTude oF gHg emissions relaTed To THe road ConsTruCTion program in THree easT asian CounTries, 2009–19 indonesia vietnam China Co2 emissions (t eq Co2) 2009–19 2009–19 2008–20 2008–20 2008–20 2008–20 Expressway 6,054,048 20% 13,696,941 54% 79,873,000 25% National Road 11,706,139 39% 5,848,337 23% 115,683,000 37% Provincial Road 4,992,098 17% 2,208,218 9% 54,169,000 17% Rural Road—Paved 7,189,451 24% 3,708,669 15% 63,983,000 20% Total 29,941,737 25,462,165 313,708,000 Source: Egis, 2010. when developing their own standards. China and Viet- 2.3.3. Pavement Design nam have adapted them to fit the specific conditions of Asian countries tend to adopt a policy promoting short the country. Indonesia has developed a set of regulations design life (about 10 years) to save on construction costs and standards partly based on AASHTO. In some cases, and because of the uncertainty connected with predict- the AASHTO standards coexist with others (Vietnam also ing long-term traffic volumes. However, initial cost sav- uses some Russian standards). ings under this strategy are often offset by mid-term and overall life-cycle costs required for maintenance and reha- 2.3.2. Geometric Designs bilitation, which may result in increased GHG emissions. Asian countries face a number of obstacles regarding Though vehicle overloading is a major issue in Asia, it geometric design, which deals with the portioning of the has rarely been taken into account at the design stage. physical elements of the roadway according to standards This has commonly resulted in premature end of pave- and constraints. These are related to land acquisition, ment life. Overloaded vehicles adversely and significantly use or quality of traffic growth data, project funding, and affect GHG emissions, not only because they decrease development strategies of local or national governments. road serviceability life, but also because of resulting Individually or in combination, this may lead to inappropri- increases in maintenance costs, vehicle operating costs, ate road designs and ultimately to traffic congestion well and road safety. before the road has reached its design age, which is typi- cally understood to be the age that the road is expected Finally, the lack of appropriate maintenance planning to reach before major reconstruction is necessary due to and optimization keeps the level of service of highway an increase in traffic demands or natural deterioration. Four-lane expressway in yunnan province, China with emergency lane, Concrete shoulders, and Concrete/metallic guardrail pavement surface Fatigue on provincial road in indonesia 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries modern asphalt plant on baolong expressway in yunnan province, China High labor intensity in surface dressing on County road in Hubei province, China operation below the required standard, leading to an extensive increase in emissions by road users, and the need to reconstruct rather than maintain or rehabilitate Indonesian standards (other than the Indonesian Rein- pavements. forced Concrete Code) refer directly to AASHTO stan- dards. Australian practices also have heavily influenced structural design; since the 1980s, several Australian 2.3.4. Structural Design firms have built and erected pre-cast concrete bridges. Transfield metallic prefabricated bridges (either truss or A wide range of structural design methods and types of girder) are also very common. In addition, various inter- structure are currently under construction in East Asia. nationally funded programs have supported the use of In China, arch, cable-stayed, prestressed concrete, and truss and girder metallic bridges, which are now built by suspension bridges are being designed and constructed local firms. In recent projects, integral abutment bridges, in large numbers, and low-carbon and environmental which take into account seismic action in a relatively considerations are being practiced among bridge practi- sophisticated way, are being used. tioners, as well. In an attempt to reduce CO2 emissions, structure optimization in bridge design is usually pursued by reducing materials usage. 2.3.5. Project Management Vietnamese structural design standards are based on Management of road projects in Asia is generally com- American specifications. Until recently, most bridges plex, the result of inadequate control of implementation there were designed with limited span lengths (less activities by project owners. The most common problems than 40m), using basic reinforced concrete designs. Pre- and issues are (i) delays in decision making by public stressed concrete and metallic and composite structures authorities (often related to gaining approval or consen- have not been widely used thus far, but have been gradu- sus from various agencies), and (ii) insistence on deci- ally introduced. sions and solutions that are not always based solely on sound engineering considerations. In many cases, this is a result of the project owner’s representatives lacking adequate engineering training and experience. Delegation of main project implementation responsibili- ties to the engineer, as understood under International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC) designation, to the design-build or engineering, procurement, and con- struction contractors, or both, could greatly expedite the implementation process, while responsibility for major decisions (such as critical design, specification changes, and large variation and change order approvals) could still be retained by project owners. old paver in use on nH26 rehabilitation project in vietnam General Analysis of Road Construction Emissions 9 asphalt mixing plant producing in poor Conditions in vietnam modern asphalt plant near Hanoi, vietnam 2.3.6. Contractors For these smaller projects, the results obtained from laboratory tests are often inaccurate, because laboratory The capacity of contractors on road projects in East staff is insufficiently skilled and compliance with testing Asia varies widely, depending on the type of road, the standards and procedures is inconsistent. Contractors location and size of the project, and the level of inter- generally have little capacity for road design, testing, national contractors’ involvement. This section provides mixture designs, and construction operations. The result a brief synopsis of the capabilities and equipment used is low quality and unexpected delays in the construction by local contractors in East Asia, as well as a short over- stage of various projects. view of international contractor involvement in the pilot countries. Private contractors in Indonesia often suffer the same dif- ficulties as Vietnam in meeting good standards. Very few For large projects in Asia, most contractors and express- local contractors have the competencies necessary to way companies use the latest generation of equipment construct rigid pavements or concrete structures. These for activities such as asphalt production and implementa- types of contracts usually remain in the hands of inter- tion on site with graders, asphalt finishers, and compac- national contractors. Heavy equipment and other work tors. Contractor laboratories also benefit from modern requiring skilled operators are required to achieve results devices that can meet international best practices for expected by the international standards that often must mixture design of asphalt and other road-works materials. be met, but very few Indonesian contractors have or lease heavy equipment. In Vietnam, very few private contractors have their own equipment; many of them hire subcontractors with spe- Since China joined the World Trade Organization, more cialized equipment for major tasks such as supplying foreign contractors have attempted to enter the Chinese aggregates, production of hot mixtures, and construc- construction market. The strict legal framework regu- tion of small bridges and culverts. As subcontractors are lating their activities requires all foreign contractors to independent and often engaged in more than one job at associate with a local contractor to perform road work. a time, follow-up quality control becomes extremely dif- Though the Ministry of Construction’s Decree 32 relaxed ficult to provide. some restrictions, enough remain in place that the mar- ket share of foreign contractors has never exceeded 6 In all Asian countries, for smaller provincial and rural road percent. construction or rehabilitation projects, projects are often managed by the local government (county or village, for In Vietnam and Indonesia, foreign contractors (mainly example), so large work crews are common and motor- Japanese, Chinese, or Korean), participate in interna- ized equipment is not. Asphalt production in most cases tional packages, as they generally have adequate financial takes place under poor conditions, even in some modern resources, significant experience, and efficient manage- asphalt plants. ment practices. However, these advantages are at least 10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries partially offset by equipment costs, travel and housing • Incorrect marking and temporary storage of con- expenses, and manpower procurement. In view of this, crete samples on site; and simple tasks (excavation and drainage, for example) are • Failure to test materials throughout the day and commonly subcontracted to local contractors. This prac- near the end of a placement. tice is systemic in Indonesia. • Sample preparation: • Incorrect sample preparation; and • Inadequate mixing of samples. 2.3.7. Quality Assurance and Quality Control • Testing procedures: Road construction quality is based on: (i) Quality Assur- • Wrong procedure; ance (QA)—assurances that all aspects of the facilities, • Incorrect edition of testing procedure; and procedures (sampling, testing and storage), and person- • Lack of close technician supervision of the nel are appropriate, and (ii) Quality Control (QC)–—tests required testing procedure. carried out in accordance with the appropriate specifica- • Testing equipment: tions. For the purposes of this report, “Quality Assur- • Antiquated and damaged equipment; ance� is used to denote both QA and QC unless noted • Lack of spare parts; and otherwise. • Malfunctioning equipment. • Testing implementation: Some of the most common road construction Quality • Testing at the wrong (nonstandard) temperature Assurance problems and issues across all developing (difficult in hot countries to maintain 20 degrees Asian countries follow. Celsius); • Samples compacted on non-rigid floors or • Aggregate and soil sampling: benches; and • Failure to take all required samples; • Instruments or dial gauges read incorrectly. • Individual sample volumes too small for repeat tests (if required) and storage; In China, contractors are strictly controlled by the govern- • Sampling not adequately supervised by an ment. All bids require adequate qualification certificates engineer; for contractors, for design institutes, and for laborato- • Samples and/or sampling locations not properly ries. The preparation of an approved Quality Assurance identified or recorded; plan is mandatory. In Indonesia and Vietnam, the Quality • Failure to protect samples from moisture, sample Assurance approach is still in its early stages. Insufficient bag holes, and the like; and QA results in lower road-life duration and in some cases • Samples taken not representative because of requires more materials to be used. accidental or purposeful selection of atypical samples (at the base of aggregate stockpiles, for 2.3.8. Environmental Management example, rather than within the stockpile itself). • Asphaltic cement and concrete sampling: All countries studied in East Asia now require and include • Samples not taken or tested at the plant or (for an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) before begin- concrete) taken from the first rather than subse- ning any major construction project. Table 6 shows the quent output; agencies responsible for implementing and monitoring an EMP . Table 6 roles in environmenTal managemenT China vietnam indonesia Governing Institution Ministry of Vietnam Environment Authority, Ministry of Environment Environmental Protection MoNRE Implementation Unit Project-specific Environmental National Environment Agency Environmental Management Office (EMO) Management Agency General Analysis of Road Construction Emissions 11 There are a number of environment-related deficiencies 2.3.9.2. drainage in construction implementation in the pilot countries. The Road drainage problems dominate in the pilot countries, two below are commonly reported. the result of high rainfall, flooding and damage to road facilities, and governments’ insufficient awareness of • Generic or generalized mitigation measures, that is, the range of detrimental effects of inadequate or inap- mitigation measures that are too general (“minimize propriate measures. Drainage structures are expensive erosion/dust/runoff, for example). These make some � (a major consideration during the design stage), but the mitigation measures impossible for the contrac- resulting high maintenance costs (and the reduced traf- tor to implement and the engineer to control—and fic efficiency during maintenance operations) attribut- leads to disagreements among environmentalists, able to lack of adequate drainage is even more costly. engineers, owners, and contractors. At best, only The additional GHG emissions attributable to congestion extreme issues and inadequate compromises can and other side-effects of maintenance operations are be realistically achieved. This situation can be rem- significant. edied, at least in part, by (i) adopting criteria pres- ently in place in developed countries to ensure that 2.3.9.3. pavement mitigation measures or requirements are realistic Some of the more common pavement-related GHG and quantifiable; (ii) adding relevant, appropriately emissions problems in Asia follow. developed requirements in the Conditions of Con- tract; and (iii) adding, where possible and relevant, • Low pavement quality; unit prices for the mitigation activities to be carried • Inadequate pavement design, often the result of out. inadequate traffic background studies or projections • Priority sensitive issues not agreed at the highest level. In or of failure to consider the impact of overloaded one not atypical instance, a decision was made at a vehicles; high level (Ministry of Environment)—but not at the • Use of materials and quarries that contain relatively highest level (Governor)—to restrict the right-of-way soft (generally sedimentary) aggregate particles, lack in a forest reserve, resulting in inadequate width of adequate quality control, particularly in provision for road and drainage. The Governor of the affected of true crusher dust instead of clayey, silty fines and province subsequently gave a direct order to the fine sand (from lack of crusher pre-screening); and contractor to clear the width of trees to provide for • Failure to adjust laboratory asphaltic mixture designs minimum standards—with the outcome that addi- for actual hot bin materials and/or making subse- tional trees were unnecessarily cut down and the quent adjustments to the job mixture formula as the EMP was not followed as intended. materials undergo change; and • Premature pavement failure, requiring early and more frequent maintenance. 2.3.9. Construction Practices • Poor pavement maintenance: 2.3.9.1. earthworks • Frequent delays in pavement maintenance There are several general earthwork design and con- because of constraints on budget amounts and struction issues that adversely affect GHG emissions in availability; all Asian developing countries, including: • use of high fills in flood-prone areas, • adoption of steep side-slopes with inadequate slope protection, and • use of inappropriate equipment and construction techniques. These general issues are discussed in annex 2 on the CD; and specific issues (including identification of coun- tries in which the issues are acute) are detailed in the subsequent subsections of the annex for the individual countries studied. Concrete drainage ditch in urban area in vietnam 12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries • Delay of pavement maintenance until the end of the rainy seasons; and • Maintenance or repair of pavement failures often conducted by only replacing the asphaltic surface layers rather than the more often substandard subgrade and gravel layers below the asphaltic surface. The additional pavement work caused by these problems and the delays in traffic during as work is carried out have an adverse effect GHG emissions. 2.3.9.4. structures Structures for roadway projects in Asia are generally of a higher standard than the connecting road sections. Spe- paving of binder Course on national road in vietnam cific structure issues in the three selected countries are presented in annex 2 on the CD. of the conditions of their respective networks—essential In all Asian developing countries, one of the main oppor- in planning routine and corrective maintenance and cor- tunities for GHG emissions reductions is increased use responding funding. There is also a lack of experienced of precast prestressed concrete bridges rather than the input on optimum maintenance scenarios, and decisions typical composite construction bridges. This can effect do not take advantage of experience gained on imple- significant reductions in materials costs (concrete and mented projects. Perhaps the main problems with main- steel) and in construction (erection) time. It can also tenance are the result of inadequate or absent “soft� reduce delays in concrete placement during the wet skills rather than engineering skills such as lack of mana- season, and disruption of both public and construction gerial capacity, poor information and data management, traffic. institutional weaknesses. 2.3.9.5. road furniture Routine maintenance is generally under the control of There are several road furniture types and levels of effec- local authorities, although the budget may be provided by the central government. Any delay in the appropriation tiveness in the East Asian pilot countries. In China, slip of national funds to local authorities—and in subsequent forms are commonly used for concrete barriers. A mix planning and performing maintenance works—com- of metallic crash barriers and concrete crash barriers is monly results in routine maintenance issues becoming used on many expressways, in the median and/or on more acute and therefore more suitable for periodic the shoulders. Concrete crash barriers are very common maintenance. on bridges. Although these are intended to protect the motoring public, metallic or concrete crash barriers are often not properly installed. In Indonesia and Vietnam, there has been very limited use of slipform for concrete barriers. Their use may increase as future expressway projects (the first) are completed. On highways, safety barriers are not constructed to inter- national standards (concrete posts with metal guardrails), and often are poorly maintained, resulting in severe dam- age to vehicles in accidents, and adverse safety issues for users or local inhabitants behind the barriers. 2.3.9.6. maintenance Maintenance is typically not sufficiently integrated into planning scenarios in Asian countries. There is a signifi- cant lack of comprehensive, reliable, and updated road expressway with a mix of Concrete Crash barriers in the median data, which would give road authorities a clear picture reservation and metallic Crash barriers on the shoulders in China General Analysis of Road Construction Emissions 13 High-Capacity deflectometer for deflection measurements and pavement structural assessment in Hebei province, China routine maintenance work on a rural road in indonesia Attempts to use late-arriving routine maintenance funds to resolve these now acute defects result in substandard allows a number of small contractors to participate. This repair or proper repair of only some defects. In many means that there are delays for each package within cases, lack of experience results in maintenance not the project; fewer delay points are common when one being carried out on a priority basis. large contractor is used. The longer the implementa- tion period, the longer traffic is subject to road closures, Periodic maintenance programs are generally carried delays (section closures), and lower operating speeds. out by the central government, often using international Increasing the capacity of local contractors or utilizing funding. Delays similar to those noted above have the larger and more experienced local or foreign contractors same result: identified periodic maintenance works that could reduce implementation time. are delayed may require reconstruction by the time fund- ing is received and contractors are selected. The reduced actual road life typical in Asia means that traffic operation constraints (and therefore GHG emis- In some cases, slight delays can disrupt an entire pro- sions) over a particular period are greatly increased. gram, as works not completed before the onset of the The constraints for 20-year design roads that last only wet season may not receive maintenance under the pro- 10 years are double those for roads that achieve actual gram—and in many cases may be completely destroyed design life. during the wet season. Traffic operations delays in Asia are generally far less a 2.3.9.7. work zone traffic management matter of concern than in developed countries, resulting GHG emissions from vehicle operation are extremely in simplistic traffic management plans that are (gener- high; minimizing delays and other constraints to traffic ally) advantageous to the contractor. Improved traffic operation during construction and subsequent main- management planning, and the creation of government tenance therefore represents a significant emissions- guidelines establishing maximum delay points and delay reduction opportunity. periods, would together reduce delays— while motivat- ing contractors to be more proactive in minimizing delays. Road improvement projects in Asia typically do not begin This could be achieved in part by guidelines, for example, until the road is approaching capacity. This causes traf- requiring all significant road closures to be at night, dur- fic management problems and constraints—and associ- ing off-peak hours, or on days with the least traffic). ated GHG emissions— to be far greater than if work had begun before capacity became critical. This is also com- Generally, the relatively low quality of road works in Asia monly true for new road projects, as maintaining alter- (particularly pavement works) requires that there be nate roads is generally given a low priority; authorities more maintenance work and therefore more interrup- often prioritize completing the new road over maintaining tions to normal traffic operation. These can be minimized the current one. by (i) improved pavement construction quality, (ii) use of materials and construction procedures that minimize the Road project implementation time in some Asian coun- time required to perform works, and (iii) scheduling main- tries is relatively long because using small packages tenance works at off-peak periods as noted above. 3 Development of a Calculation Tool 3.1. Need for Tools road construction and maintenance, it is only recently that studies have looked at these contributions, and tools Concern about climate change and greenhouse gas emis- have just started to be developed. sions has prompted action in most sectors and spurred the development of decision tools that help make choices The choice of materials and techniques for road con- transparent and illuminate their contribution to GHGs. struction and maintenance has a wide variety of impacts, Transport is no exception. ranging from local pollution and environmental degrada- tion to generation of GHGs and contributions to climate Early development of tools focused on transport activi- change. Manufacturers and engineering companies have ties themselves and sprang from even earlier studies and studied the GHG contributions of their materials and tools to measure energy efficiency and consumption. alternate construction techniques. Findings include, for Given the lesser contribution to GHG emissions from example, that concrete and cement are responsible for Figure 4 ToTal Co2 emissions over a 40-year period For a 1 km long and 13 m wide road during ConsTruCTion, mainTenanCe, and operaTion (ligHTing, TraFFiC ligHTs, winTer TreaTmenT) Construction of a road Maintenance of a road Operation of a road 3.00E+09 2.50E+09 g/km, 40 years 2.00E+09 1.50E+09 1.00E+09 5.00E+09 0.00E+09 Asphalt road, Asphalt road, Concrete road, Asphalt road, Asphalt road, Concrete road, hot method, cold method, low-emission hot method, cold method, normal- (1993) low-emission low-emission vehicles normal- (1993) normal- (1993) emission vehicles vehicles vehicles emission vehicles emission vehicles Source: IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, 2001, Life Cycle Assessment of Road. A Pilot Study for Inventory Analysis, second revised edition. 14 Development of a Calculation Tool 15 50–160 percent more emissions than asphalt, and that scores for the “dissemination� or “transparency� recycling at the end of the life cycle may also provide criteria of the specific road tools; substantial economic gains, for example, from sale of • Considering the road activities score, six tools have recycled materials. higher than the average score (more than 2): the Australian Victoria State tool (VicRoads), the High- ways Agency carbon tool, the Technical University 3.2. Assessment of Existing Tools of Denmark tool (Road-Res), the IRF GHG calculator (CHANGER), the Egis infrastructure carbon tool, and To assess the existing situation, several available emis- the LCPC tool (Ecorce). sions calculation tools have been assessed. Figure 5 summarizes those that have been explored in this study. One could point out that the five leading tools on the basis of total score will not necessarily perform well To facilitate tool comparisons and identification of the when used in the context of road activities. The IRF GHG relative pros and cons of each model, table 7 and fig- calculator, the Highways Agency carbon tool, and the ure 6 present a synthesis of all the tools related to road Australian Victoria state tool are the only tools in both construction. selections; they therefore are considered good reference tools. This review points out that currently: The AFD tool and, to a lesser extent, the ADEME tool do • No tool has been used to calculate GHG emissions not score well on specific road activities, and therefore from road projects in the Asian region; could not be selected. The Australian Victoria State and • Considering the global score, only five tools reach the Highways Agency carbon tools are ready to use, focus the average score of 5.5, mainly because of poor on the main GHG emissions related to a road project, Figure 5 some oF THe emissions CalCulaTions Tools reviewed • French Environmental Agency’s tool General tools related to GHG emissions (Bilan Carbon method, from projects and entities • AFD’s toolkit, or • BAM group’s Project Carbon Calculator Specific tools related to one or two, but • Egis’s calculator ImpRoad, not all, specific activities of road • VINCI’s calculators GAIA and CO2CRETE.IMPACT construction and/or maintenance • Victoria State Government’s (Australia) tool (VicRoads), Specific tools related to GHG emissions • Egis infrastructure carbon tool, from transport infrastructure projects • International Road Federation’s calculator or the research ECORCE model GHG emissions tools related to • Argonne National Laboratories’ GREET model, mobile sources • US EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVE), • French Environmental Agency’s model (IMPACT/ARTEMIS) Source: Egis, 2010. 16 Table 7 Tools Comparisons synTHesis Tool potential road specific road transparency dissemination construction construction (support, user data sources provider (availability in “road activities activities guide…) transparency reference 2009) global score activities� score ADEME methodology (Bilan carbone) 1 0 2 2 1 2 8 1 AFD tool 1 -1 2 2 1 2 7 0 BAM tool (project carbon calculator) 2 0 1 -1 0 0 2 2 Highways Agency carbon tool 2 1 1 1 1 2 8 3 Technical University of Denmark tool (Road-Res) 2 2 0 0 1 0 5 4 IRF GHG calculator (Changer) 2 2 0 0 2 2 8 4 Victoria State Government tool (VicRoads) 2 1 1 1 1 2 8 3 Egis infrastructure Carbon tool 2 1 1 1 0 0 5 3 LCPC tool (Ecorce) 2 2 0 0 1 0 5 4 Highways Agency geotechnical tool 0 2 0 0 1 0 3 2 Egis pavement tool (ImpRoad) 0 2 1 1 0 1 5 2 EUROVIA tool (GAIA.BE) 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 Notes: For each criterion, the notation ranges from -2 to +2 (unfavorable, rather unfavorable, neutral, rather favorable, and favorable. These evaluations are very subjective and are the average opinions of the existing tool review team. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries Development of a Calculation Tool 17 Figure 6 Tools Comparison Road construction activities 2 Potential dissemnination 1 (availability in 2009) Specific road construction activities 0 -1 -2 Provider reference Tool transparency (support, user guide…) Data sources transparency ADEME methodology (Bilan carbone) AFD tool BAM tool (project carbon calculator) Highways Agency carbon tool Technical University of Denmark tool (Road-Res) IRF GHG calculator (Changer) Victoria State Government tool (VicRoads) Egis infrastructure Carbon tool LCPC tool (Ecorce) Highways Agency geotechnical tool Egis pavement tool (ImpRoad) EUROVIA tool (GAIA.BE) and provide total GHG emissions. They most likely could • Others, to a lesser extent, such as personnel trans- be applied to project specificities (for example, material port, management expenses, and so on. transport by rail, specific data on pavement, and the like). All tools are simple calculation tools that consider these The IRF GHG calculator, the Technical University of Den- generators and sum the emissions from the various mark tool, and the LCPC tool appear to be the most flex- stages of the construction process and from various ible, as they are modules-based. Currently, among these components of the works. three, the IRF GHG calculator tool is the only one avail- able for public use. 3.2.2. Comparison of Calculations of This assessment was done by using the selected exist- Existing Tools ing tools in three case studies selected in the three pilot The results of the comparisons made among various countries (China, Indonesia, and Vietnam). existing tools underscore the following points: • Total GHG emissions from a 1km road construction 3.2.1. Main Principles of Existing Tools project (China and Indonesia case studies) range All existing tools share the same principles, considering: from 700 to 1,700 t-eq. CO2. Total GHG emissions from a 1 km road maintenance/rehabilitation project • Materials that are elaborated from basic materials (Vietnam case study) comprise between 300 to 500 through a process that generates emissions, includ- t-eq. CO2. This is consistent with the simplified cal- ing, by extension, clearing activities; culation made on “typical roads. � • Transport (mostly of materials) at various stages of • Depending on the calculator (and therefore on data the construction process (supply to the plants, sup- sources for emissions factors), total GHG emis- ply to the site, and transport on-site) that has emis- sions for the same case study can vary over a large sion factors; range of values; the relative difference is consistent • Construction processes with emission factors in the (around 15 percent) in the Indonesia case study, form of equipment emissions; and and more mixed in the Vietnam (15–30 percent) and 18 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries Figure 7 simpliFied CalCulaTion proCess For maTerials 1. Materials 2. Emissions standards 3. GHG emissions Materials CO2 Production Emissions CH4 Carbon Materials Quantities X + equivalent N20 Materials Transportation ...... Emissions Source: International Road Federation (IRF), 2008, Seminar on sustainable construction, Sustainable mobility, Solutions from road infrastructure. China (0–30 percent) case studies. The relative differ- site and their production rates. Detailed information ences in the value of the findings are rather limited, is also required regarding the type of transport and especially when one considers that emission factors sometimes materials composition (for example, the within the various calculators vary. quantities of aggregates and binder in concrete, so • Materials-embodied energy and transport activities that transport emissions can be calculated for aggre- represent the most important part of total GHG gates from quarry to batching plant, and cement emission—more than 80 percent—and on-site from cement plant to batching plant). This is very impacts represent less than 5 percent; and cumbersome for the user and such details are often • Regarding the calculators, the GHG emissions eval- not available at upstream stages, restricting the util- uation performed with the Egis calculator appears ity of the tool to informed specialists and to down- between the two others, and the evaluation per- stream stages. formed with VicRoads (CHANGER) appears as the • Sometimes the level of detail varies (diameter and greater (smaller) evaluation, except for the Vietnam age of trees cut are requested) while major approxi- case study evaluation. mations are made on other topics such as overall fuel consumption. 3.2.3. Characteristics and Limitations of • The quality of reports also varies. However, and in Existing Tools general: the breakdowns of emissions are not given according to types of works, which makes using the The following observations are noted: results difficult—one cannot know on which aspects of construction to focus to reduce emissions. The • Although interfaces vary from summary (Excel- use of results is made additionally difficult absent based) to more sophisticated, the architectures a way to export them in practical and editable soft of the assessed calculation tools are essentially format. the same: emissions related to “on-site� activities • The emissions factors vary from one tool to another. (mainly construction equipment), transport of mate- This does not create major problems, provided the rials, and production of materials, are assessed user can modify these factors to suit the specific through the multiplication of quantities by unit emis- conditions of the project. In some cases though, sion factors. (CHANGER) this is not possible; even extracting • The quantities used require detailed information the emissions factors used for a calculation (using regarding project construction, such as how many screen captures) is difficult (figure 8). pieces of which types of equipment are present on Development of a Calculation Tool 19 Figure 8 CHanger daTa inpuT sCreen Figure 9 emissions From a ring road seCTion in FranCe—egis CalCulaTor Breakdown of Embodied GHG Emissions in Construction Materials for Indonesia Case Study Aggregate/base—33% Steel reinforcement—23% Source: IRF. • The ease with which new materials, transport modes, vehicles, or construction equipment can be Concrete—36% added also varies; in some cases, it is impossible. Hot mix asphalt—8% This may prevent users from comparing alternative construction methods that contractors would pres- ent during implementation (material alternatives, for Source: Egis Infrastructure Carbon Calculator, 2010. example). • The coverage of construction activities is not always clear and complete. Earthworks, road furniture, outputs). The information provided cannot be directly structures, and others are difficult to account for. used. For example: Transport is simplified, and sometimes limited to road transport, while water and rail, which may play • in the VicRoads tool, if there are concrete barriers a significant role, are not available. whose contribution cannot be identified; and • in the Egis tool, the contributions of various concrete The figures following show typical graphic outputs from components are not identified, and there might be VicRoads and Egis (CHANGER does not provide similar pavement and structural concrete. Figure 10 breakdown oF emissions From a ring road seCTion in FranCe—egis CalCulaTor Structures and equipment Earthwork Concrete PVC Extraction and evacuation Steel Input material process Input material transport Source: Egis Infrastructure Carbon Calculator, 2010. 20 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries 3.3. Functions of the Tool • The tool should be easy to use, even at upstream stages, helping users (including non-engineers) The above reasons led to a proposal to develop a calcula- assess quantities of GHG generators from project tion tool: The Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation Toolkit macro-quantities. for Highway Construction and Rehabilitation—ROADEO. • The tool should be useful to planners and designers. It The tool is intended to perform the following tasks: might be used at downstream stages for assessing or comparing bids or construction method statements. • Evaluate GHG emissions Evaluate GHG emissions from • The reporting should be useful in the decision-mak- a road project. Such evaluation may take place at any ing (engineering, planning) process to optimize the of the following stages of a road project: project, so should identify impacts of decisions. • Planning/feasibility studies; • The tool should be used to identify, propose, and • Detailed design; assess the impact of alternative construction or • Works/implementation; and management practices • Completion of works/operation. • Assess alternative construction practices to limit GHG emissions: 3.4. Assumptions, Modeling, and • Identify technically relevant options based on the Calibration project’s characteristics; • Evaluate GHG emissions of these options; and For cases when the user at the upstream stage does not • Generate reports that provide useful information have the required details to perform the emissions calcu- to the designer, planner, or construction man- lation, a two-stage model has been designed. ager (breakdown by type of work) to optimize the design and the implementation of the project. • A first stage calculates quantities of items of road works, based on general characteristics of the proj- The following principles were followed when the ect. The output of this stage is a theoretical “bill of ROADEO calculator was developed: quantities� at feasibility study stage, and the work items are broken down into “work series� reflecting • The tool should be open and transparent, allowing the types of works. • addition of new equipment, new materials, new • A second stage calculates the number of GHG emis- transport resources, and sions generators, based on the number of road works • easy access to and modification of GHG genera- items and on general characteristics of the project. tors’ characteristics, including emission factors; These generators are broken down into materials, this makes sense where surveys are performed transport, equipment, and others. and their results used to update the calculator database. Table 8 summarizes ROADEO’s 25 model parameters (16 for Stage 1, 9 for Stage 2) to be defined by the user. Figure 11 proposed roadeo CalCulaTor This model is highly simplified. It is not based on engi- reporT FormaT neering, but rather on empirical data, and does not intend to reflect real project values. Its intent is to provide rough Structures—51.2% Drainage—14.9% estimates of a tentative nature for projects at the very initial stage. It has been used on several projects to check its accuracy, as shown in table 9. While there are significant differences between the Earthworks—19.9% model and the project bill of quantities, the model has approached real quantities with an accuracy of less than 40 percent item by item, and with an overall accuracy that can be considered reasonable at upstream stages. Furniture—9.2% Note that the impact of these differences on GHG emis- Pavement—4.9% sions remains to be assessed. Source: Egis ROADEO calculator, 2010. Development of a Calculation Tool 21 Table 8 parameTers used For roadeo’s summarized desCripTion oF THe road parameter description unit stage %ECD Length of existing cross drainage as a percentage of requirement % 1 %ELD Length of existing longitudinal drainage as a percentage of length of road % 1 %EWB Parameter reflecting the balance between cut and fill % 1 %GLP General longitudinal profile % 1 %MNT Length of road in mountainous terrain as a percentage of road length % 1 %RCK Volume of rocky soil as a percentage of volume of soil % 1 %URB Length of the road project crossing urban areas as a percentage of road length % 1 %WDB Number of bridges to be widened as a percentage of number of bridges % 1 CBR California Bearing Ratio % 2 EAL Equivalent standard axle (8.2t) loading—ESAL u 2 ECS Existing cross section m 1 L Road project length m 1 LW Lane width m 1 MW Median width m 1 NBL Number of lanes u 1 OST Overlay structure type list 2 PST Pavement structure type list 2 RTP Road type list 1 STH Area where subgrade has to be treated with hydraulic binders % 2 SW Shoulder width m 1 TBM Type of barrier material list 2 TSB Type of structure (standard bridges) list 2 TSM Type of structure (major bridges) list 2 TSW Type of structure (wall) list 2 TUN Length of tunnel (not used pending further development) m 1 WTP Works type list 1 Source: Egis. Table 9 Case sTudies used To CalibraTe THe roadeo CalCulaTor model project Country Type Comment EINRIP Indonesia National roads rehabilitation Including bridges PRIP Cambodia Rural roads rehabilitation NPP Vietnam National road rehabilitation Asphalt overlay no bridge STDP Sri Lanka Expresswaynew alignment RPPF Sri Lanka Provincial roads widening TIIP Sri Lanka National road widening Surface treatment Rui-Gan Expressway China Expressway new alignment Source: Egis. 22 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries 3.5. Emissions Factors table are closer to the actual figures. This should be the subject of further research. Significant issues regarding emissions factors include: Electricity is related to power production—coal, petrol, • the different units used by different tools (tons, gas, hydraulic, nuclear. Depending on the country, the cubic meters, and so on)—an inconsistency that is region, and even the plant and local power production not user friendly and could be a source of errors, as strategies, electricity-related GHG emissions are subject different densities, for example, are used to convert to variations in the medium term. volumes into weights, • the various compositions of composite materials, Cement is widely used in road construction and rehabili- and tation, mostly for reinforced and prestressed concrete • the assumptions made on some materials, mostly in structures (bridges, culverts). the case of cement, as shown in the table 10. The cement alone accounts for 85 to 90 percent of The emissions factors with high impact, and that vary the total GHG emissions of a cubic meter of ready-mix significantly from tool to tool, include cement, steel, concrete for the most used cements (Classes CEM I & lime, and electricity. The three are somewhat related, as CEM II, according to European standard EN 206-1). A slag can be used in concrete, and electricity is the source study performed by CEMEX, a major supplier of ready- of energy for the recycled steel used for steel bars. mix concrete, for a building site in Paris shows a rate of 89 percent with a binary mixture of CEM I and fly ash. To evaluate the impact of the uncertainty inherent in Aggregates, transport of all the raw materials to the the steel emissions factor, a specific study was done on batch-plant, mixing, and delivery to site (5 km) account those emissions, based on the ratios in table 11. Indica- for only 11 percent of the total. GHG emissions from con- tions are that the data provided by SETRA in the above crete placement so are not provided. Table 10 emissions inTensiTies wiTHin viCroads, CHanger, and egis CalCulaTors emission intensity (kg eq Co2/unit) material and product unit vicroads CHanger egis calculator Steel t 2,650 2,346 3,190 Cement t 670 825 (25%) 776 Concrete (15% cement) m 3 258 Concrete (30% cement) m 3 496 Concrete (% cement, sand, aggregate) t 163–269 249–351 Hot mix asphalt (5% bitumen) t 10 29.40 54 Aggregate t 8 10.32 11 Transport Medium truck (diesel) veh.km 0.83 0.71 Heavy truck (diesel) veh.km 1.58 1.36 PTAC 6.1–10.9 t ton.km 0.60 0.53 PTAC 11–21 t ton.km 0.30 0.27 energy Diesel liter 2.90 3.93 2.94 Electricity kw.k 1.31 0.80 0.08 Source: Egis review of various calculators. Note: PTAC—Poids Total Autorisé en Charge (total allowed weight when loaded). Development of a Calculation Tool 23 Table 11 emissions inTensiTies For sTeel, For 1 m3 of ready-mix concrete, overall GHG emissions aCCording To various sourCes depending on cement type are shown in table 13. Users must exert great care in selecting values or con- source year kg Co2/kg steel firming default values that the ROADEO calculator proposes. ADEME 2006 3,190 US EPA 1998 4,162 US EPA 2002 4,081 3.6. Tool Boundaries US EPA 2006 4,081 ROADEO’s boundaries are set for a practical reason: data OFEFP 1998 3,241 readily available to users, under the best circumstances— AEA Technologie 2001 2,970 upon completion of works, when all details should be MIES 1999–2003 1,599 known— usually comes from contractors’ bills of quanti- ties and internal information. SETRA 2009 1,027–1,503 Source: Egis compilation of multiple agencies. Such data generally identify the source of materials and equipment, up to their immediate origin or provider (quar- ries, manufacturers, importers, and so on) and indicate Table 12 compares GHG emissions for the production of the means used to transport them to the site. 1 ton of cement for various types of cement. The classes are defined by the European Standard EN206-1: Getting information beyond these limits (initial location, production process and shipment of raw materials, spare • CEM I: cement (95–100 percent of clinker and up to parts for equipment, and the like) would require signifi- 5- percent additions) cant efforts that typical participants may not be willing • CEM II: Composite cement (clinker + up to 35 per- to provide. cent additions) • CEM II/A (80–94 percent of clinker) Figure 12 shows the boundaries set for ROADEO. • CEM II/B (65–79 percent of clinker) • CEM III: Blast furnace slag Within these boundaries, the ROADEO calculator consid- • CEM III/A (35–64 percent of clinker) ers the following: • CEM III/B (20–34 percent of clinker) • CEM III/C (5–19 percent of clinker) • Materials and equipment tables • CEM IV: pozzolan cement Emission factors must take into account upstream • CEM V: composite GHG emissions resulting from the initial production of raw materials; fabrication and transport of equip- Table 12 gHg emissions in kg eqCo2 For THe ment; and downstream GHG emissions (materials produCTion oF 1 Ton oF CemenT recycling, equipment maintenance, and end-of-life), beyond the boundaries. • Transport table Cem i Cem ii Cem iii/a Cem iii/b Cem v Within boundaries, a relevant set of origin and des- tination types is predefined, including at least the 866 629 to 759 461 247 502 following: Source: Info Ciment. • Material plant (cement, refinery, steel, and so on); • Material source (quarry, forest, and so forth); • Mixing plant/workshop; and Table 13 gHg emissions in kg eqCo2 For THe • Site produCTion oF 1 m3 oF ready-mix ConCreTe Combinations of transport modes (main mode plus terminal mode, for example) are allowed for each Cem i Cem ii/a Cem ii/b Cem v/a origin-destination couple. 261 231 200 159 Source: Lafarge. 24 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries Figure 12 roadeo CalCulaTor boundaries Source: Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées. 4 Alternative Practices to Reduce GHG Emissions 4.1. Overview greatest impact on GHG mitigation—and that are easily transferable to the pilot countries—are discussed. This chapter provides a synopsis of alternative practices, including: For further information, appendix A summarizes all current road construction and rehabilitation practices • technical description of alternative practices, against alternative international best practices explored. • identification of inputs required for their implemen- In addition, the reader is directed to annex 3 on the CD tation, that accompanies this publication—“Identifying gaps • assessment of corresponding GHG emissions, and between best practices from developed countries and • estimates of variations in GHG emissions and con- practices in pilot developing countries and propos- struction costs compared with current/standard als for improving the situation�—for a more detailed practices investigation. The above information has been gathered into consistent Alternatives discussed here include: categories of works components: • modal shift and use of more efficient road vehicles • Transport; for transport of materials, • Earthworks; • methods for excavation of hard soil, • Pavement; • reduction in the use of lime as a means to stabilize • Structures; and soil, • Equipment/road furniture. • optimizing pavement structures for increased ser- vice life and reduced maintenance demands, Alternative practices are compared with current practices. • implementation of combined semi-empirical and analytical pavement design standards, which can affect pavement thickness and material usage, 4.1 Identification of • asset overloading and operational management, Alternative Practices • impact on pavement roughness of reducing short- wavelength unevenness, For the purposes of this publication, indications of orders • selection of structure type as well as type and vol- of magnitude of potential impacts of alternative practices ume of steel used in structures, and on various components of road works are provided. While • significance of barrier types. many alternative construction and rehabilitation practices have been identified that could potentially replace vari- The following sections provide a description of the main ous current practices, only those believed to promise the findings on alternative practices. 25 26 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries 4.2.1. Transport 4.2.2.2. soil treatment Except in cases where materials are not available locally Transport of materials represents about 30 percent of the (within less than around 150 km), soil treatment is not GHG emissions of a road project. Of that amount, about very effective in reducing GHG emissions, the result of 50 percent is related to local (less than 25 km) transport. emissions from and transport of lime. Reduction of emissions can be the result of: It should be noted that studies are underway to assess interest in soil treatment in the context of sustainable • use of more efficient road vehicle fleets with a lower development with respect to indicators other than GHG unit emissions ratio, which can be significant, as emissions. efficiency improves with the use of higher-payload trucks (an approximately 50 percent decrease in unit emissions and savings of more than 20 percent in 4.2.3. Pavement total transport emissions), and • modal shift from road to more efficient modes (rail A number of alternative techniques have been identified or water have unit emissions 17 times lower) over and their potential impact assessed, based on the use of long distances; further improvement can be up to 8 different materials (recycled, high modulus asphalt and percent of total emissions after road transport has others), design (combined bituminous-concrete struc- been optimized. tures, investment schedule and budget (which might affect pavement design) or construction technique (warm and half-warm asphalt mixture methods). 4.2.2. Earthworks 4.2.3.1. pavement structure types 4.2.2.1. rock excavation • For initial construction, concrete pavements produce • Excavation in hard soil generates two to 3 times higher emissions. This may range from a factor of more GHG than in ordinary soil. 1.6 (for thinner concrete sections) to 3 (for thick con- • The use of drilling rigs rather than light drillers is crete sections) compared to the thin bituminous lay- twice as productive, but produces 35 percent more ers. However, depending on the maintenance and GHG per cubic meter of rock excavated. rehabilitation strategy, the life-cycle GHG emissions • Productivity of labor-intensive methods is 250 times may be more comparable or may even favor con- lower, while involving 3 times more labor. If labor crete pavement. emissions are considered neutral, this is a signifi- • Optimized pavement structures (high-performance cant reduction in GHG emissions. bituminous mixtures and Continuously Reinforced • Explosives represent only 5–7 percent of the emis- Concrete Pavement [CRCP] on bituminous base, sions of the excavation process. which, according to recent studies, make optimal • The use of explosives for excavation seems to pro- use of materials for concrete pavement structures) duce fewer GHG emissions, as shown in table 14. have lower emissions than nonoptimized structures. • Excavation and loading and transport to fill sites • Orders of magnitude for the construction, mainte- are of the same order of magnitude, at around 2kg nance, and end of life of pavement structures range CO2eq./m3 of excavated rock. from 65 to 175 kg/m². • Putting aside less than satisfactory health and safety • Cold mixtures as well as recycling technologies considerations, the local lightly mechanized technique and materials have lower emissions (by a factor of is the most efficient in terms of GHG emissions. three when compared to hot mixture bituminous structures). Table 14 relaTive imporTanCe oF explosives in gHg emissions From earTHworks TeCHniques excavation method output (m3/day) Fuel consumption (l) explosives (kg) gHg (kg Co2eq.) gHg (kg Co2eq./m3) Hammer 1,000 864 2,160 2.2 Mining (light driller) 1,250 480 500 1,469 1.2 Mining (drilling rig) 2,500 1,725 1,000 4,851 1.9 Source: Egis field data. Alternative Practices to Reduce GHG Emissions 27 4.2.3.2. investment and maintenance strategies • It should be noted, however, that the damage factor • Maintenance represents 20–40 percent of overall after 40 years is significantly lower (that is, better emissions from pavement over 30 years, indicat- structural condition of the asset) in the case of per- ing that there are tradeoffs between construction petual pavement. and maintenance with regard to both cost and • The impact of maintenance operations on traffic has emissions. not been taken into account, which may significantly • For the given life duration, taking into account the life affect the results for a T7 traffic class in TRL ORN31. cycle and standard maintenance scenarios for both • The cost of user delays associated with traffic due structure types, concrete structures in general emit to maintenance operations has not been taken into double the GHGs of composite structures, while account in figure 13. In particular, this may affect the bituminous structures emit the fewest GHGs. results for the T7 traffic class on a TRL ORN31 pave- • The relationship between maintenance and traffic ment. The traffic and pavement class refer to British depends on the investment strategy (initial con- standards. struction and maintenance). Decision-makers and • The above results do not take any discount rate into planners in developing countries are often hindered account. by budgetary constraints; thus the initial construc- tion of a road and the maintenance strategy that 4.2.3.3. overloading and impact of standards is applied to the road may be afffected. Generally, Significant discrepancies in GHG emissions can result greater initial investment is avoided, often at the cost from the use of different pavement design standards of long-term cost or reduced maintenance practices. (from 0 to 17 percent, depending on traffic loads con- Maintenance strategies and a design catalogue sidered for this specific case study, and up to 45 per- biased toward increased initial investment and the cent in the latter comparison). For example, Vietnamese above studies may not fully reflect the whole range standards are based on empirical methods that attempt of situations. to model pavement structures as 2-layer or 3-layer equiv- • Staged construction seems to lead to significantly alents. Alternative standards are based on combining higher total emissions. The perpetual pavement semi-empirical (AASHTO 1193, TRL ORN 31) and ana- strategy seems to lead to slightly lower emissions lytical (AASHTO 2004, Austroads) methods that take into than standard pavement structure after 40 years. account the fatigue performances of road materials. Figure 13 CumulaTive gHg emissions For ConsTruCTion and mainTenanCe aCTiviTies, depending on pavemenT ConsTruCTion/mainTenanCe sTraTegy 70 ORN31 Chart 5—T7/S3 Stage construction 60 Perpetual pavement 50 CO2 emissions (kg/m2) 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Years Source: Egis. 28 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries be concurrently considered: if rolling resistance or road Figure 14 Comparison oF disTribuTed CosTs friction is reduced too greatly, vehicles will have braking beTween iniTial ConsTruCTion and stopping problems, especially on wet surfaces. and mainTenanCe aCTiviTies, depending on pavemenT The impact of pavement roughness on GHG emissions is ConsTruCTion/mainTenanCe sTraTegy far more significant than the impact of texture. Improve- ments in roughness, especially by reducing short-wave- 90 Maintenance length unevenness, could decrease fuel consumption by Construction up to 4 liters/100 km, as assessed using a mathematical 80 “suspension model. � 70 Actions to ensure low roughness (such as proper con- 60 struction techniques) are therefore important, although 50 their impacts are difficult to estimate in advance. Unit costs (USD / m²) 40 4.2.4. Structures 30 • Bridge construction emits about 3 tons of CO2 eq./ 20 m² of bridge deck. 10 • The structure’s material has an impact; however, for a given structural type, this impact is typically less 0 than 15 percent of the GHG emissions. ORN31 Chart Staged Perpetual • The structure type has greater impact for a given 5 - T7/S3 construction pavement material. Table 15 summarizes this impact; the more complicated the structure type, the higher the rela- Source: Egis. tive emissions. • Steel is a major component of structures. Uncer- tainty about its emission factor, which relates to The impact of overloading on the thickness of pavement its origin and the technology used to produce it structures and on corresponding GHG emissions is sig- (whether recycled or not, origin of electricity, and nificant. It has been assessed at 23–49 percent of pave- so on) can have an impact of up to 30 percent for ment emissions, depending on standards considered. structure types making extensive use of steel and composite. 4.2.3.4. roughness • Emissions from maintenance works could be con- For a given speed, the maximum range in fuel consump- sidered as of the same magnitude as emissions dur- tion for different surface textures appears to be about 2 ing construction. liters/100 km. Limiting rolling resistance caused by pave- ment texture could lead to significant reductions in GHG The relative emissions of typical roads on embankment, emissions in the long term—over the life-cycle of a given viaduct, and in tunnel are summarized in table 15. road section—although road safety requirements must Table 15 Comparison oF gHg emissions From ConsTruCTion oF embankmenTs, bridges, and Tunnels gHg emissions embankment bridge bridge/ Tunnel (tCo2eq/km) Tunnel/ from construction (tCo2eq./km) (tCo2eq./km) embankment @420tCo2eq./(m²xkm) embankment Expressway 2,971 74,397 25 75,547 25 National Highway 739 35,649 48 37,773 51 Provincial Road 191 27,899 146 30,219 158 Rural Road 100 20,127 201 23,608 236 Source: Egis field data. Alternative Practices to Reduce GHG Emissions 29 4.2.5. Equipment and Road Furniture 4.4. Financial and Economic Analysis • Over a life cycle, the relative importance of emis- sions due to barriers ranges In this study, two lines of analysis were followed—finan- cial and economic. • from 4 to 23 percent of GHG emissions caused by pavement, in the case of steel or concrete bar- riers, and 4.4.1. Financial Analysis • from 2 to 12 percent in the case of wooden barriers. The financial analysis presents the costs that would be • There may be significant interest in limiting the incurred for road construction and maintenance, and any use of steel and concrete barriers, where possible, revenues from carbon credits that could be sold in car- through adequate and safe design (safety zones bon markets. The main assumptions were: cleared of obstacles, removal of aggressive spots, and the like), or replacing them with wooden barriers • A base-year price of US $15 per ton of carbon, where traffic volumes and loads are sufficiently low. increasing at 5 percent per year; The potential impact could be up to 50 percent of • A crediting period for emission reduction revenues the length of barriers, or from 2–12 percent of pave- that does not exceed 20 years; though this may ment emissions. This requires foresight in geometric exclude the benefits of reduction technologies over design, and more effort during the design phase to longer periods (50 or 100 years) it is the longest minimize GHG emissions. period permitted by the Clean Development Mecha- nism; if it could be extended, the economics would Lighting makes a significant contribution to GHG emis- be more favorable; sions when the operations phase is taken into account. It • A discount rate of 6 percent; and is outside of the scope of this publication to investigate • An inflation rate of 3 percent. this contribution in detail. Under these assumptions, the carbon market price (in constant price without inflation) reaches US$19 US/t after ten years and US$27 US/t after twenty years. 4.3. Integration into the ROADEO Calculator 4.4.2. Economic Analysis Identified alternative practices have been included in the ROADEO calculator. The relevance of some to a particular The economic analysis compares the costs and benefits situation can be summarily assessed through the values to society of alternative methods of road construction and of parameters—high traffic, presence/absence of materi- maintenance. For example, the analysis might include the als, relative importance of emissions attributable to a part cost of foreign exchange used to import materials or the of the works, and so on. value to the environment of improved contouring tech- niques. It would also compare the benefit(s) of reducing carbon emissions as against their potential market price. Datasheets describing the main issues, potential impacts, The main assumptions were: and reference materials (sources, for example) can be activated to give the user a first level of guidance to opti- mize the project. Additional guidance may be found in the • A base-year value for carbon emission reductions of technical annexes of this report. US $85/ton, increasing at 3 percent per year; • A period over which carbon emission reduction ben- efits accrue that is much longer than the financial Again, the ROADEO calculator cannot replace the sound case, and is based on the life of the project rather engineering study that should always be undertaken in than the carbon market crediting period; designing any alternative practice. However, it provides • Discount rate of 2 percent; and information to assess (i) where major opportunities for • An inflation rate of 3 percent. optimization lie, and (ii) the extent of such optimization. It also provides guidance on the engineering efforts to be deployed to achieve these optimizations. 30 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries 4.4.3. Analysis Conclusions criterion of the CDM and would not be eligible to ben- efit from carbon credits. It has been verified that neither The analysis concluded: a dramatic increase in the carbon market price from US$15/ton to US$100/ton nor changes in other param- • In many cases, the alternative (or best) practices eters (market price growth rate, discount rate, and the resulted in lower costs on a life-cycle basis than like) would substantially change these conclusions (the traditional practices. They should be adopted regard- less of GHG benefits. accompanying CD provides details). One reason why is • Based on the financial analysis, the revenues from the limitation of the evaluation period to 21 years, which carbon emissions reductions are minor compared is the maximum duration of the crediting period during to total costs; thus, no alternative practice would be which GHG-friendly project promoters can benefit from justified purely on the basis of carbon revenues. carbon credits generated by their emissions reductions. • Based on the economic analysis, using the social value of carbon (not its market value), the GHG On the contrary, the economic benefits of GHG emission benefits are significant, comprising, and in many reductions significantly enhance the economic return of cases even exceeding, up to 10 percent of total net projects aimed at developing the GHG-friendly alterna- benefits. tive practices that have been identified. This is particularly true for alternative practices affecting a 4.4.4. Policy Implications road’s life duration, maintenance operations, or both: the Based on the current carbon market price, and on the present value of economic benefits from GHG emission discount rates for financial analysis, and also consider- reductions, including those occurring over the long term, ing the conditionality to be met for benefiting from car- are significant, reaching around 10 percent or more of bon credits likely to be generated through the CDM, the total net benefits of applying such alternative prac- carbon pricing can probably not be considered a realis- tices. Nevertheless, most alternative practices studied in tic incentive for developing the GHG-friendly alternative the present report are “intrinsically� economically viable; practices that have been identified in the Task 6 findings considering GHG emission reduction benefits would not for road construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance. transform an economically nonviable case into a viable Indeed, the carbon credit revenues likely to be gener- one. A key reason for the economic benefits of GHG ated by emissions reductions have very limited impact emission reductions is that the longer evaluation period on the financial viability of the practices that have been adopted for the economic analysis, together with the low analyzed. Accordingly, projects aimed at developing such discount rate, allows taking into account those reduc- practices would most probably not meet the additionality tions’ very long-term intergenerational benefits. 5 Conclusions 5.1. Main Outcomes the user select applicable alternatives that reduce GHG emissions. The main contributions of the study under which • Carbon finance explored as a potential support for this report has been prepared can be summarized as the implementation of alternatives. It has been follows: found that the potential market-based financial ben- efits of alternative implementation are far less than • Progress in understanding the main contributions the potential cost savings. The market price of car- to GHG emissions from road construction activities. bon should be more than 10 times higher for such This has been realized for various types of projects a mechanism to have an impact (except for optimi- (covering a broad scope, from access-controlled zation of materials transport). However, economic divided highways to unpaved rural roads) and various analysis based on the social cost of carbon, and on work components (earthworks, pavement, drainage, a longer assessment period, supports the greater structures, and road furniture). impact of implementing alternative practices. • Development of an open, transparent, flexible emis- sions calculation tool that can be used at any stage of a project and provide information for decision 5.2. Challenges Ahead making. ROADEO calculator inputs can be entered at the planning level (16 parameters to describe the While progress has been made, significant challenges road); the design level (based on a bill of quantities); remain: or at implementation (as with other available tools, using quantities of materials and detailed descrip- • The lack of a unified source of information in East tions of logistics and construction equipment used). Asian countries (and in general) on GHG emissions; This involves a model that is being calibrated based • The uncertainty over (or lack of general agreement on data collection from several projects in Asia. on) the values of emissions of some major contribu- • Functionality previously unavailable—a major tors to road activities emissions (cement, steel, and improvement for road planners and designers. so on) in the context of a life-cycle assessment. • Identification and documentation of alternative prac- This is due in part to the lack of clarity on the role tices to reduce GHG emissions from construction of by-products, and the role of end-of-life treatment and maintenance activities. While the identified alter- (including recycling); native actions cover all work items, as well as institu- • The difficulties in assessing the changes in emis- tional and planning issues, it is expected that others sions contributions that GHG generators exhibit dur- will be identified that can be integrated in updates of ing the life cycle, and in adapting plans and design ROADEO, which will accept these actions and help accordingly. GHG emissions vary highly depending 31 32 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries on the precise locations of materials sources (quar- • Insufficient awareness among stakeholders (road ries, soil treatment, origin of cement, bitumen, and agencies, consultants, contractors, and concession- steel), on the choice of construction technology (for aires) that their actions at all stages of a project can example, the type of asphalt mixing plant), or even contribute to reducing the CO2 burden; and on the construction schedule (for example, the need • The need for a user community that helps improve to work during the rainy season). The comparison the ROADEO calculator, based on experience gained of orders of magnitude between the variations due while using it. To start with, it is hoped that this tool- to the above factors, and the gains due to optimiza- kit will be used to assess road projects’ impacts and tions, make it difficult to define an optimized design then optimize applicable aspects of the project. at early stages; Table a1 summary oF CurrenT praCTiCes and Corresponding alTernaTives Transferability major/ general east asian identified alternative measures to be to east asian minor quantifiable gap assessment area current practice practice explored countries stake gap method Comments General Procurement Limited consideration Environmental criteria Include constraints Difficult Major No Need for an evaluation of impacts on included in the on GHG emissions tool—the ROADEO GHG emissions in procurement process in technical calculator might be used procurement of works specifications for in this respect contractors' bids to comply with Packaging Packaging adapted Build up the Easy Major No to the context: major capacity of the road contracts, design/ construction industry build, local contracts, through efficient framework contracts, packaging allowing performance/outputs- use of efficient based contracts technology Project Size Difference between Highly mechanized Difficult Minor Yes Compare GHG The share of emissions 33 large-sized/smaller- construction methods emissions resulting from road sized projects: implemented with up- resulting from construction equipment – latest technology/ to-date technology labor-intensive in overall GHG emissions high-efficiency practices/ for major highways equipment and mechanized is limited. However, plant used on major practices for mechanized works may projects 1km of typical induce the construction – use of labor-intensive highway of temporary facilities approach on smaller- (for example, access sized projects roads) which can (including rural roads) significantly increase GHG emissions Quality Quality Assurance Quality Assurance Implement QA Difficult Minor No Assurance approach not widespread in the approach systematically industry, including implemented among employers, contractors, and consultants (continued) APPENDIx A 34 Transferability major/ general east asian identified alternative measures to be to east asian minor quantifiable gap assessment area current practice practice explored countries stake gap method Comments Geometry Geometry sometimes Lane width adjusted Design standards Easy Major No US standards (and overdesigned with to safety and traffic to be fit for purpose western in general) are respect to real traffic requirements and suited to local generous and space- needs (over capacity) conditions consuming resulting in high GHG emissions Overloading Widespread Improve overloading Difficult Major Yes Evaluate management overloading, limited enforcement additional enforcement costs and emissions due to overloading Carbon Use products that Difficult Minor Yes Collect/assess storage store carbon during emission factors materials their processing for carbon store (wood, bamboo, materials (for plants, or other example, wood, composite materials) bamboo, jute) Earthworks Embankment Use borrow pits for Use cuts treated with Easy Minor Yes – Compare GHG Main parameters: techniques embankments and put lime or cement for emissions from – Distance to borrow pit bad excavated material embankments embankments – Quality� (CBR) of local in waste deposits made of treated material soil vs. from – Type of transport borrow pits – Emission of cement/ – Compare GHG lime emissions – Distance of lime/ between two cement plant alternative borrow pit/ Main parameters: waste deposit – Distance to borrow pit locations – Quality of local material (CBR) – Type of transport Labor intensity Widespread excavation Use of mechanized Easy Minor Yes Compare GHG Main parameters: in excavation by hand using small excavators emissions from – Output of hydraulic handheld equipment hand excavation/ hammer (big/small)/of mechanized blasting Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries excavation – Fuel/power consumption of hydraulic hammer (big/ small)/of blasting (continued) Transferability major/ general east asian identified alternative measures to be to east asian minor quantifiable gap assessment area current practice practice explored countries stake gap method Comments Labor intensity Fragment rocky Blast rocky materials Easy Minor Yes Compare GHG in rock materials manually emissions from crushing with a small machine blasting/hand crushing Slope Slope protection with Standard slope Slope treatment Easy Minor Yes Compare GHG protection steeper slopes without protection criteria: high emissions quantities of cut/fill of various techniques for slope stabilization Earthworks Use of excavator in Widespread use of Encourage the use Easy Minor Yes Compare GHG equipment general loaders/scrapers of scraper depending efficiency on quantities of cut/ of scraper/ fill and percent of excavator/loader rock soil Truck size Use of small trucks (6 Widespread use of Optimize truck Easy Minor Yes Compare GHG wheels) trailers size depending on efficiency of actual transport small and large requirements trucks Drainage Drainage Rain harvesting is not Efficient drainage Include appropriate Difficult Major No May involve additional systems included in projects; design is an drainage system in all GHG emissions it may be a saving environmental road projects in terms of GHG requirement, emissions especially on higher- grade network/ expressways and in urban areas Lined drains Lined drains cast in Precast or slipform Easy Minor No place cast lined drains Culverts Culverts cast in place Precast culverts Encourage the use Easy Minor Yes Collect/assess of precast drainage emission factors items (longitudinal for precast and drains, pipes) to cast in place limit the amount of concrete concrete involved in drainage (continued) Summary of Current Practices and Corresponding Alternatives 35 36 Transferability major/ general east asian identified alternative measures to be to east asian minor quantifiable gap assessment area current practice practice explored countries stake gap method Comments Ditches Yes Compare GHG emissions from ditches built manually or cast with a machine as for New Jersey barriers Pavement Pavement Hot mix asphalt High modulus asphalt Replace hot mix Easy Major Yes Compare hot materials concrete materials asphalt with mix asphalt with half-warm asphalt half-warm asphalt mixtures depending mixes and on traffic volumes, standard asphalt type of roads, and concrete climate Pavement Hot mix asphalt Warm and half-warm Replace hot mix Easy Major Yes Compare warm materials concrete asphalt mixtures asphalt with warm and half-warm and half-warm asphalt mixtures asphalt mixes and standard depending on traffic asphalt concrete volumes, type of roads, and climate Pavement Short duration design Perpetual pavement Use perpetual Easy Major Yes Compare Applicability depends on management life (i.e., thicker pavement pavement design and perpetual traffic volumes and type strategy at construction stage limit maintenance pavement of roads. with less maintenance approach and afterwards) standard design Pavement Very first beginning of Recycling is Promote relevant Easy Major Yes Existing studies There is potential for re- materials recycling developing techniques already available cycling in China because depending on type of in the literature of large amounts of works (rehabilitation, homogenous materials existing road, remaining from the exist- widening), project ing network that is cur- size, and presence of rently being upgraded. an asphalt plant However, the technology used to recycle is not widely available and it re- Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries mains unclear who owns the recycled material; issues remain regarding cost assignment and payment policy (continued) Transferability major/ general east asian identified alternative measures to be to east asian minor quantifiable gap assessment area current practice practice explored countries stake gap method Comments Pavement Concrete pavement Use of long life Concrete pavement Easy Major Yes Compare GHG Development of the use materials duration (30 years) design and emissions of cement with pozzolan concrete pavements construction to be from flexible fillers (addition of lime- (JPCP or CRCP) for documented pavement/ filler and fly-ash) rather major highways and concrete than of ordinary cement motorways pavement Pavement Use of local materials Standards applicable Establish/update Easy Minor No materials to selection of standards for materials, including selection of local and local materials recycled materials Pavement Wide preference for Optimized techniques Prefer gravel roads Easy Major Yes Compare with a materials paved rural roads for gravel roads or surface treatment rural road with construction, to asphalt concrete intermediate level maintenance, and whenever possible of traffic, and management (low traffic, minor perform life-cycle roads) analysis on it Roughness Roughness Roughness criteria Implement Difficult Major Yes Existing studies Major impact of set as a performance roughness already available roughness on GHG target control with high in the literature emissions during performance operation equipment Pavement Soil stabilization Subgrade stabilization Various techniques Easy Major Yes Existing studies Stabilization seems materials are available already available to be very emission- in the literature prone and may not be recommended for GHG emissions mitigation Pavement Use of agricultural Easy Minor Yes Compare GHG materials products (binders) in emissions pavement resulting from the use of agricultural/ industrial products in pavement Pavement Use of absorbing Spread this Easy Medium Yes Assess GHG Effectiveness of the materials materials technique emissions technique to be further captured by assessed. the improved pavement Summary of Current Practices and Corresponding Alternatives materials (continued) 37 38 Transferability major/ general east asian identified alternative measures to be to east asian minor quantifiable gap assessment area current practice practice explored countries stake gap method Comments Structures Bridge design Easy Major Yes Compare GHG emissions for different types of bridges Bridge design Limited use of steel/ Use of composite Use composite Easy Minor Yes Compare mixed structures for (concrete/steel) bridges (steel/ emissions of lack of steel on the bridges as efficient concrete) composite market resulting in structures structures high price with standard structures Interchanges Compact design of Optimize geometric Easy Minor Yes Compare GHG interchanges design to minimize emissions from quantities of overdesigned structural concrete and standard interchanges Structural Low characteristics of Long-life design – Implement long-life Difficult Minor Yes Compare GHG design concrete structural design efficiency depending on traffic depending on and type of road concrete quality – Adjust standards and specifications; improvement of design criteria in order to improve life-cycle duration Alignment Optimized alignment Optimize geometric Easy Major Yes – Compare GHG Main parameters: selection to avoid tunnel/ design to minimize emissions for – Width of road (2 bridges sections quantities of 1 km of tunnel lanes/2X2 lanes) structural concrete or bridge with 1 – Height of embankment km of cut/fill – Type of bridge – Compare tortuous vertical Main parameters: alignments – Traffic volume forecast involving cuts (impact on operations) and fills with – Design speed a smoother – Design life Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries one involving viaducts and Operation period to be tunnels also considered (continued) Transferability major/ general east asian identified alternative measures to be to east asian minor quantifiable gap assessment area current practice practice explored countries stake gap method Comments Tunnels and Difficult Major Yes Compare GHG Main parameters: cuts emissions from – Cross-section width a tunnel and a – Cut depth cut of the same – Type of tunnel depth Bridges and Difficult Major Yes Compare GHG Main parameters: embankments emissions from – Cross-section width a bridge and an – Height of embankment embankment of – Type of bridge the same height Structural High-performance Promote the use of Easy Minor Yes Compare GHG materials concrete high-performance emissions from concrete through 1m3 of high specific requirements performance included in technical concrete with specifications 1m3 of standard concrete Structural Use of cement Difficult Minor No Document Modernization of cement materials derived from dry cement unit plants production, concrete emission factor made with cement substitutes such as pulverized fuel ash, and so on Structural Recycling (concrete, Develop guidelines Easy Major Yes Compare materials steel) for recycling of emission factors structural materials for recycled and promote their and natural usage aggregates Structural Retaining wall made of Reinforced earth Easy Minor Yes Compare GHG materials reinforced concrete wall with gabions efficiency of outerface reinforced concrete and reinforced earth (continued) Summary of Current Practices and Corresponding Alternatives 39 40 Transferability major/ general east asian identified alternative measures to be to east asian minor quantifiable gap assessment area current practice practice explored countries stake gap method Comments Road Furniture Concrete Cast in place/precast Use of slipform for Promote the use Easy Minor No Might not be better in barriers concrete barriers of slipforms for terms of GHG emissions concrete barriers Barriers Difficult Major Yes Compare GHG Safety considerations materials emissions need to be taken into from steel account and concrete guardrails with those made of wood or bamboo Maintenance Asset General absence of Optimized design – Improve Easy Major Yes Compare GHG Institutional issue: management asset-management and construction maintenance emissions of prioritization of works, strategy strategy to provide the best planning an optimized data collection, and possible level of – Take into account strategy and a management service within the maintenance nonoptimized available budget in design and strategy construction Work Zone Traffic Management Traffic – Organize and study Suggest work zone Easy Major Yes Assess GHG Need for another tool; management work zone traffic traffic management emission outside of scope of the management planning, possibly savings from ROADEO calculator – Mitigate congestion with tools such as efficient traffic as well as ensure Quickzone (FHWA) management safety and comfort and indicate how and congestion – Plan works to to use these tools avoidance decrease impact on to evaluate GHG users emissions Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries APPENDIx B APPENDIx B ROADEO User Manual Model Framework and Assumptions Introduction The modelling of GHG emissions is not covered by this document. The user may refer to annex 1�Introduction to Purpose of this Document GHG Emissions in Road Construction and Rehabilitation� for information and guidance on this aspect. This informa- This appendix has been developed as part of an effort to tion is found on the CD that accompanies this document. prepare a toolkit for the evaluation and reduction of GHG emissions in the road construction industry. This is an These assumptions, as will be evident from further abridged version of the User Manual. For a complete ver- reading, are not expected to provide accurate results. sion that includes a more detailed overview of assump- However, in the absence of information, and especially tions made an in-depth explanation of the development at early stages of projects (planning and early feasibility of equations used to estimate the various parameters for study stages, for example) the model can provide orders quantities of road works items within the algorithm, and of magnitude. alternative practice data sheets, the user is referred to the complete User Manual on the CD that accompanies The model is highly empirical; it has very little interface this document. with engineering considerations, apart from some con- siderations of pavement. Therefore, it should be used The User Manual is intended to provide guidance to the with great care. user of the GHG emissions evaluation and reduction tool “Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation Toolkit for It is expected that feedback from experience will allow Highway Construction and Rehabilitation� (ROADEO, major improvements. ROADEO calculator, the Toolkit), which takes the form of software. Structure of the Document The purpose of this document is to This document first presents the structure of the ROADEO calculator, then describes the overall model • describe the structure of the software and explain principles, and finally, details estimation of GHG genera- the logic behind its development, so that users may tors, in terms of materials, equipment, and transport. successfully implement it, and Practical guidance is also given in a specific section on • detail the assumptions made to assist ROADEO cal- best practices. culator users who may not have the comprehensive information required to assess GHG generators. 41 42 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries A report on the calibration of the model used in the Calculation Tool Architecture ROADEO calculator appears in an appendix. General Requirements Notice objective The following facts should be noted by the reader and ROADEO, along with its User Manual and a manual on ROADEO calculator users: GHG emissions and best practices, comprises a toolkit for the evaluation and reduction of road construction • The tool is the result of a somewhat contradictory GHG emissions. effort to • make it as open as possible, so users can adjust The ROADEO calculator is intended to perform the fol- most of the parameters affecting GHG emissions lowing tasks: calculations and integrate their specific project conditions into the considerations and calcula- • Evaluate GHG emissions Evaluate GHG emissions from tions, and a road project. Such evaluation may take place at any • make it easy to use and accessible to a wide of the following stages of a road project: • Planning/feasibility studies; range of users who are not GHG or road construc- • Detailed design; tion specialists; • Works/implementation; and • The decisions made by users in selecting values • Completion of works/operation. for the calculation parameters may have a major impact on the results. The ROADEO calculator pro- • Assess alternative construction practices to limit GHG vides guidance and orders of magnitude to assist emissions: • Identify technically relevant options based on the in this difficult task. However, the current status of calculation parameters selection and available infor- project’s characteristics; • Evaluate GHG emissions of these options; and mation still leave space for major uncertainties. As • Generate reports that provide useful information discussed in the review of GHG provided with the Toolkit, sources sometimes disagree significantly on to the designer and planner (breakdown by type values to be considered. of work) to optimize the GHG-relevant design and • Some parameters cannot be precisely assessed at implementation of the project. upstream stages; any calculation should be accom- panied by a short note summarizing the assump- The ROADEO calculator does not perform road engineer- tions made and the limits or risks of the calculation. ing designs, nor does it compute quantities. However, it • Engineering or empirical results available from the enables identification of relevant alternatives to be fur- ROADEO calculator may not represent the specific ther explored by users, with the support of the manual of condition of the user’s project, and careful consider- best practices and through additional engineering studies ation should be given before using the default val- as required. ues. These are provided to help users identify main issues and their orders of magnitude. Though the ROADEO calculator can be used at all stages of a project, it is most useful at upstream stages (plan- ning and design) where other tools—those available and those under development—do not offer comparable functionality. User Manual 43 programming environment database structure The ROADEO calculator was developed as a standalone The database structure cannot be modified by users, but spreadsheet. It does not include any macro and it is its contents may be adjusted—users can add or remove compatible with most versions of Microsoft Excel and rows in each table, and change the value of any cell. Open Office, regardless of the OS platform. All param- eters, default values and formulas can be accessed with- The database structure consists of one predefined table out password protection through a familiar, flexible, and for each GHG generator: transparent user interface. • Materials used; user interface language • Equipment used; and Users may switch from one interface language to another • Transport variables. in real time through a dedicated menu. Each GHG Generator has multiple associated variables Tool organization falling into four groups: Figure B1 shows the general organization of the tool, including main user steps, data inputs/outputs and cal- 1. Works Components: These are predefined tables. Each culation protocols. works component has multiple associated variables, allowing users to specify their project’s characteris- tics and quantities. Users can duplicate works com- Data Arrangements ponents tables and create new ones (by duplicating data Transparency and Flexibility a specific component with generic contents (herein- The ROADEO calculator is based on transparent assump- after “others�) depending on actual project require- tions. Each variable is accessible to users and its value ments— for example, multiple types of bituminous can be customized. pavement, tunnels, ITS, and so on. 2. Characteristics: Variables providing basic informa- Data used for calculations comes from either tion on each GHG generator (designation, material’s physical composition, type, transport mode, origin- • built-in values initially proposed within the tool for stops-destination, and the like). selected tables and variables, 3. Quantifying Data: Measurement variables used for • suggested values proposed by the tool based on emissions calculations for each GHG generator (vol- built-in values and calculations, or ume, weight, capacity, distance, fuel/electricity con- • user-defined values imported by users or directly sumption, and so on), each one to be filled in with a set by users (through user forms or table editing) to predefined measurement unit. replace built-in or suggested values, either tempo- 4. GHG Emission Factors: kg CO2 equivalent/selected rarily (project specific data) or permanently (calibra- measurement unit. tion data). Table B1 shows a simplified view of GHG generators dis- tributed by works components. Each column and each row has multiple associated vari- ables. GHG emissions are calculated by combining (fac- toring and aggregating) these variables together. 44 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries Figure b1 roadeo CalCulaTor Tool organizaTion User Manual 45 Table b1 CombinaTion oF gHg generaTors and works ComponenTs gHg generators works components materials equipment Transport Earthworks Drainage Utilities Pavement Structures Furniture Landscaping Management Others General Model Framework Parameters/Background Data The purpose of the model is to provide outputs as close Architecture as possible to reality, while keeping the need for user The model included in ROADEO to assist users at inputs minimal, as a high level of need for inputs may upstream stages of projects (when all detailed informa- lead to: tion is not available) works in two stages. • lack of interest among nontechnical users, and In Stage 1, the user is able to calculate quantities of road • high costs or an overly long period for data collec- works items based on general characteristics of the proj- tion. ect. The output of this stage is a “bill of quantities� at the feasibility study stage, and the works items are broken The background data that the user is required to enter in down into “works series� reflecting the types of works. ROADEO are as follows. In Stage 2, the user can calculate the number of GHG Table B2 shows the parameters used in calculations emissions generators, based on the quantities of items during Stage 1. The assumptions made and equations of road works and on general characteristics of the proj- used to estimate quantities for each item of works are ect. These generators have been broken down into mate- elaborated in chapter 4 of the full-length User Manual. rials, transport, equipment, and others. The user is invited to refer to it for a detailed overview of the Stage 1 inputs. Parameters used in calculations of Stage 1 are presented in table B3. Table B4 summarizes the 25 model parameters (16 for Stage 1, 9 for Stage 2) to be defined by the user. 46 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries Table b2 lisT oF parameTers used in CalCulaTions oF sTage 1 oF THe model parameter description unit Comment and explanation %ECD Length of existing cross drainage as a percentage of % User input: requirement • 0%: no existing cross drain • 100%: all required drains exist %ELD Length of existing longitudinal drainage as a percentage of % User input: length of road • 0%: no existing longitudinal drain (also value for new project) • 100%: all required drains exist %EWB Parameter reflecting the balance between cut and fill % User input: • 100%: cut is wholly reused in fill • 0%:cut is wholly evacuated %GLP General longitudinal profile % User input: • –100%: cut only • +100%: fill only %MNT Length of road in mountainous terrain as a percentage of % User input road length %RCK Volume of rocky soil as a percentage of volume of soil % User input %URB Length of the road project crossing urban areas as a % User input percentage of road length (in%) %VET Volume of embankment to be treated as a percentage of the % User input volume of cut reused %WDB Number of bridges to be widened as a percentage of % User input number of bridges A1 Parameter A2 Parameter A3 Parameter A4 Parameter A5 Parameter A6 Parameter A7 Parameter A8 Parameter A9 Parameter A10 Parameter CGA Area of clearing and grubbing m² CUE Volume of cut evacuated m3 CUR Volume of cut reused as fill m3 CUT Volume of cut m3 DSA Directional sign area m² ECS Existing cross section m User input: • Width of existing road including shoulders • 0 for new projects FBP Volume of fill from borrow pit m3 FIL Volume of fill m3 (continued) User Manual 47 b2 ConTinued Table 1 CombinaTion oF gHg generaTors and works ComponenTs gHg generators parameter description unit Comment and explanation works Components materials equipment Transport HCF Average height of cut and fill m Earthworks HRE Volume of hard rock evacuated m3 Drainage HRRP Volume of hard rock reused for pavement m3 Utilities HRRF Volume of hard rock reused for fill m3 Pavement IBA Interchanges bridge deck area m² Structures ILCT Dry metric tons/ha for selected initial land cover types ton/ha Source: 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Furniture Greenhouse Gas Inventories (Values for Landscaping Continental Asia) L Road project length Management m User input LBC Others Length of box culverts m LBR Length of barriers m LED Length of earth longitudinal drain m LLD Length of lined longitudinal drain m LPC Length of pipe culverts m LW Lane width m User input MBA Deck area of major bridges on main section m² MW Median width m User input NBL Number of lanes u User input NCS New cross section m NPA New pavement area m² NPS Number of vertical signs (police) u NSL Number of streetlights u OPR Area of other paved roads m² POA Pavement overlay area m² RTP Road type list User input: • Expressway • Provincial road • National road • Rural road SBA Deck area of standard bridges on main section m² SGP Area of subgrade preparation m² SW Shoulder width m User input TEA Tunnel excavation volume m 3 TLV Tunnel lining volume m2/m Area of wall lined per length of tunnel TUN Length of tunnel m User input VET Volume of embankment treatment m 3 WAL Area of walls m² WBA Wayside amenities area m² WPA Wayside amenities pavement area m² WTP Works type list User input: • New alignment • Rehabilitation • Widening 48 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries Table b3 lisT oF parameTers used in CalCulaTions oF sTage 2 oF THe model parameter description unit Comment and explanation ASO Area of surface dressing for overlay m² CBR California Bearing Ratio % User input •to be homogeneous for the whole road DAS Distance asphalt plant—site km DBS Distance batching plant—site km DCB Distance cement plant—batching plant km DCF Distance cut on site—fill on site km DCS Distance cement plant—site km DQA Distance quarry—asphalt plant km DQB Distance quarry—batching plant km DRA Distance refinery—asphalt plant km DRS Distance refinery—site km DSB Distance site—borrow pit km DSD Distance site—disposal site km DSS Distance steel plant—site km EAL Equivalent standard axle (8.2t) User input: loading—ESAL • Basic traffic • Trafficgrowth • Truck rate • Design life MHB Mass of hydraulic binder t OST Overlay structure type list User input: • Bituminous • Surface dressing • Gravel PST Pavement structure type list User input: • Concrete pavement • Bituminous pavement on granular materials • Bituminous pavement on hydraulic bound materials • Bituminous pavement on bituminous bound materials • Surface dressing • gravel STH Area where subgrade has to be treated % User input with hydraulic binders (as a % of subgrade preparation area) TBM Type of barrier material list User input: • Concrete • Timber • Steel Ti Thickness of pavement layer No i mm Thickness of pavement layers calculated by the model on the basis of EAL, CBR, and PST TSB Type of structure (standard bridges) list User input: • Composite (steel/concrete) • Concrete (reinforced/prestressed) TSM Type of structure (major bridges) list User input: • Composite (steel/concrete) • Concrete (reinforced/prestressed) • Steel (continued) User Manual 49 Table b3 ConTinued parameter description unit Comment and explanation TSW Type of structure (wall) list User input: • Steel (sheet pile) • Reinforced earth • Reinforced concrete VBO Volume of bituminous concrete for overlay m3 VGO Volume of gravel for re-gravelling m3 Table b4 lisT oF parameTers To be deFined by THe user parameter description unit %ECD Length of existing cross drainage as a percentage of requirement % %ELD Length of existing longitudinal drainage as a percentage of length of road % %EWB Parameter reflecting the balance between cut and fill % %GLP General longitudinal profile % %MNT Length of road in mountainous terrain as a percentage of road length % %RCK Volume of rocky soil as a percentage of volume of soil % %URB Length of the road project crossing urban areas as a percentage of road length % %VET Volume of embankment treatment % %WDB Number of bridges to be widened as a percentage of number of bridges % CBR California Bearing Ratio % EAL Equivalent standard axle (8.2t) loading—ESAL u ECS Existing cross section m ILCT1 Initial land cover type I list ILCT1% % of project alignment covered with initial land cover type I % ILCT2 Initial land cover type II list ILCT2% % of project alignment covered with initial land cover type II % L Road project length m LW Lane width m MW Median width m MT Median type list NBL Number of lanes u OST Overlay structure type list PST Pavement structure type list RTP Road type list STH Area where subgrade has to be treated with hydraulic binders % SW Shoulder width m TBM Type of barrier material list TSB Type of structure (standard bridges) list TSM Type of structure (major bridges) list TSW Type of structure (wall) list TUN Length of tunnel m WTP Works type list 50 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries GHG Generators Table b5 soil densiTies For binder mixing wiTH soil This chapter focuses on ROADEO’s Stage 2 output— identification of GHG generators, based on the quantities of works for various components of the road project as materials dry density (t/m3) min max defined in Stage 1. Silt 1.6 1.8 Clay 1.7 1.8 Materials Sand The ROADEO calculator focuses on the following main Homometric sand 1.4 1.6 materials (currently) including: Graduated sand 1.6 1.9 • granular materials, Granular soil 1.8 2.2 • hydraulic binder treated materials (currently includ- ing cement and lime), • bitumen-treated materials, Other binders can be considered (either as an alternative • metals (copper, steel), or as a combined solution, for example, treatment with • rammed soil, and 3 percent lime and 2 percent cement), with the emis- • timber. sions factors in table B6. earthworks pavement For earthworks, materials do not represent a significant New Pavement input, except for hydraulic binders (which can be a major The model considers six types of pavement structures contributor). (table B7). For each of these, a pavement catalogue has been used. MHB = STH x SGP x 0.3 x 0.05 + VET x 0.02 The materials in table B8 have been considered. Where MHB: Mass of hydraulic binder (in t) STH: Area where subgrade has to be Table b6 emission FaCTors oF HydrauliC binders treated with hydraulic binders (as a % of subgrade preparation area) Co2 impact SGP: Area of subgrade preparation (in m²) binder (kg Co2 eq./t) source VET: Volume of embankment to be treated (in m3) Cement CEM I 868 ATILH Cement CEM II 650 ATILH This assumes treatment of: Hydraulic road binder 294 ATILH HRB 70% slag • the required area over a thickness of 30 cm, for a soil density of 2t/m3 and for a hydraulic binder proportion Hydraulic road a HRB 459 ATILH of 2.5 percent, and 50% slag • the required volume of embankment, for a soil den- Hydraulic road binder 625 ATILH sity of 2t/m3 and for a hydraulic binder (lime) propor- HRB 30% slag tion of 1 percent. Hydraulic road binder 614 ATILH HRB 30% limestone The quantity and binder type can be adjusted manually Hydraulic road binder 613 ATILH by the user to reflect other conditions (treatment thick- HRB 30% fly ash ness, proportion of binder). Quicklime 1,059 Union of Lime Producers (France) Soil densities can be considered as shown in table B5. Notes: ATILH—Association Technique de l’Industrie des Liants Hydrauliques (Technical Association of Hydraulic Binders Industry. Percentage of binder in volume. User Manual 51 Table b7 TypiCal pavemenT Types and designs pavement type (psT) Catalogue used Concrete pavement California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual, Tables 623 F and 623G Bituminous pavement on granular materials Transport Research Laboratory Road Note 31, Charts 3 and 5 Bituminous pavement on hydraulic bound materials Transport Research Laboratory Road Note 31, Chart 4 Bituminous pavement on bituminous bound materials Transport Research Laboratory Road Note 31, Chart 7 Surface dressing Transport Research Laboratory Road Note 31, Chart 1 Gravel Transport Research Laboratory Road Note 31, Chart 1 The ROADEO calculator requires the following input from For concrete pavement, see tables B9 and B10. For all the user: other structures, see tables B11 and B12. • Traffic data, in ESAL (106 equivalent standard axles If CBR Values are not available, the Overseas Road Note to 8.16t); and provides table B13 (p. 52). • Surface strength, as a CBR result. Quantities of material are then calculated according to Data are then converted according to the following the following table, depending on the type of works (in tables, to find the corresponding pavement layer types the formulas, Ti is the thickness of type i resulting from and thicknesses in the above catalogues. the above catalogue consideration). Table b8 maTerials Considered in TypiCal Table b9 TraFFiC Classes For ConCreTe pavemenT pavemenT designs Ti=9x(esa 8t/106)0.119 Traffic indexes material reference 0.0 TI1 Double surface dressing Transport Research 9.5 TI2 Laboratory Road Note 31 Flexible bituminous surface 10.5 TI3 Bituminous surface (usually a 11.5 TI4 wearing course WC and a base course BC) 12.5 TI5 Bituminous road base, RB 13.5 TI6 Granular road base, GB1–GB6 14.5 TI7 Granular subbase, GS 15.5 TI8 Granular capping layer or 16.5 TI9 selected subgrade fill, GC 17.0 TI10 Cement- or lime-stabilized road base 1, CB4 Cement- or lime-stabilized road Table b10 subgrade Class For ConCreTe base 2, CB5 pavemenT sTruCTures Cement- or lime-stabilized subbase, CS Concrete with dowels, JPCP California Department of Cbr (%) subgrade classes Transportation Highway 40 Type 1 Concrete (lean concrete), Design Manual, Tables LCB 10 Type 2 623 F and 623G 52 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries Table b11 TraFFiC Classes For all pavemenT existing pavement (see section 1.2.2 Overlay). Hence, sTruCTures exCepT ConCreTe quantities of new pavement are nil. Similarly, for a widen- ing, an overlay is applied on the existing cross-section, and the calculated pavement structure is applied only on esa (8.16) (x106) Traffic classes (orn 31) the new pavement area. That is why the factor (1-POA) is applied to all of the formulas in the aforementioned 0.3 T1 table B14. 0.7 T2 1.5 T3 For both types of work (rehabilitation and widening), the quantities of overlay are calculated as follows. 3 T4 6 T5 Overlay 10 T6 Three types of overlay have been considered: bitumi- nous, surface dressing, and gravel. These are addressed 17 T7 by the parameter OST, overlay structure type. 30 T8 VBO = POA x 0.12 if OST = bituminous Quantities of each layer are then converted into quanti- ties of basic materials as per table B14. Where VBO: Volume of bituminous concrete For both asphalt and concrete, quantities of basic materi- for overlay (in m3) als are then calculated on the basis of the percentages POA: Area of pavement overlay (in m²) in table B15: Assumed thickness is 12 cm for material type 2 of new In rehabilitations, it is considered that the only works pavement catalogue. conducted consist of the application of an overlay on the Table b12 subgrade Class For all pavemenT sTruCTures exCepT ConCreTe subgrade classes Cbr (%) (orn 31) Comments 2 S1 Poor soil: Contains appreciable amounts of clay and fine silt. (50 percent or more passing -200) 5 S2 .I. P over .20 8 S3 Normal soil: Retains a moderate degree of firmness under adverse moisture conditions. 15 S4 .I. Loams, salty sands, sand gravels with moderate amounts of clay, and fine silt. P 15–20 30 S5 Good soil: Retains a substantial amount of load bearing capacity when wet. Sands, sand >30 S6 .I. gravels, materials free of detrimental amounts of plastic material. P less than 15 Table b13 subgrade sTrengTH Classes used wHen CaliFornia bearing raTio daTa are unavailable subgrade strength class depth of water table from sandy clay sandy clay silty clay Heavy clay formation level (meters) non-plastic pi*=10 pi*=20 pi*=30 pi*>40 0.5 S4 S4 S2 S2 S1 1 S5 S4 S3 S2 S1 2 S5 S5 S4 S3 S2 3 S6 S5 S4 S3 S2 *PI=Plasticity Index Note: Overseas Road Notes are prepared principally for road and transport authorities in countries receiving technical assistance from the British government. Table b14 quanTiTies oF maTerials For TypiCal pavemenT layers Calculation layer definitions unit new alignment widening 1 Double surface dressing m2 (NBL*LW)*L* T1 (1) ((NBL*LW)-POA)*L* T1 3 2 Flexible bituminous surface m (NBL*LW+2*0.8*A8+A9+0.30)*L*T2/1000 ((NBL*LW+2*0.8*A8+A9+0.30) - POA)*L*T2/1000 3 3 Bituminous surface (usually a wearing course WC m (NBL*LW+2*0.8*A8+A9+0.30)*L*T3/1000 ((NBL*LW+2*0.8*A8+A9+0.30) - POA)*L*T3/1000 and a base course BC) 4 Bituminous road base, RB m3 (NBL*LW+SW*2+MW+0.50)*L*T4/1000 ((NBL*LW+SW*2+MW+0.50)–POA)*L*T4/1000 5 Granular road base, GB1 - GB6 m3 (NBL*LW+SW*2+MW+0.50)*L*T5/1000 ((NBL*LW+SW*2+MW+0.50)–POA)*L*T5/1000 6 Granular subbase, GS m3 (NBL*LW+SW*2+MW+0.50)*L*T6/1000 ((NBL*LW+SW*2+MW+0.50)–POA)*L*T6/1000 7 Granular capping layer or selected subgrade fill, GC m3 (NBL*LW+SW*2+MW+0.50)*L*T7/1000 ((NBL*LW+SW*2+MW+0.50–POA)*L*T7/1000 8 Cement- or lime-stabilized road base 1, CB4 m3 (NBL*LW+SW*2+MW+0.50)*L*T8/1000 ((NBL*LW+SW*2+MW+0.50)–POA)*L*T8/1000 9 Cement- or lime-stabilized road base 2, CB5 m3 (NBL*LW+SW*2+MW+0.50)*L*T9/1000 ((NBL*LW+SW*2+MW+0.50)–POA)*L*T9/1000 10 Cement- or lime-stabilized subbase, CS m3 (NBL*LW+SW*2+MW+0.50)*L*T10/1000 ((NBL*LW+SW*2+MW+0.50)–POA)*L*T10/1000 11 Concrete with dowels, JPCP m3 (NBL*LW+2*0.8*A8+A9+0.30)*L*T11/1000 ((NBL*LW+2*0.8*A8+A9+0.30)–POA)*L*T11/1000 3 12 Concrete (lean concrete), LCB m (NBL*LW+SW*2*+MW+0.50)*L*T12/1000 ((NBL*LW+SW*2*+MW+0.50)–POA)*L*T12/1000 Notes: (1): The double surface-dressing value from the catalogue has no thickness and is just equal to 1 when it is present, and 0 otherwise. (2): Thicknesses are expressed in mm in the catalogue Where: A8=Shoulder width if shoulders are paved, and 0 otherwise; A9=Median width if the median lane is paved, and 0 otherwise; and POA=Pavement Overlay Area (m²). User Manual 53 54 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries Table b15 ComposiTion oF pavemenT layers (percent in volume) bituminous quarried asphalt soil general Cement general Concrete road layer emulsion aggregate general (rammed soil) (typical) & pavement steel Layer 1 9 91 0 0 0 0 0 Layer 2 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 Layer 3 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 Layer 4 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 Layer 5 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 Layer 6 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 Layer 7 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 Layer 8 0 94 0 0 6 0 0 Layer 9 0 96 0 0 4 0 0 Layer 10 0 0 0 98 2 0 0 Layer 11 0 0 0 0 0 92 8 Layer 12 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 Table b16 ComposiTion oF aspHalT and ConCreTe (percent) layer bitumen Cement general (typical) quarried aggregate sand Concrete 7.10 31.75 45.70 Asphalt concrete 5 0 95.00 0 ASO = POA if OST = surface dressing The quantities of materials can be calculated by multiply- ing by the values of OPR resulting from Stage 1. Where AST: Area of surface dressing for overlay (in m²) drainage For drainage, the main GHG contribution results from the POA: Area of pavement overlay (in m²) use of reinforced concrete or masonry for the construc- tion of drains and culverts. for material type 1 of new pavement catalogue. The quantities of materials (represented in tons of steel VGO = POA x 0.2 if OST = gravel or m3 of concrete per linear meter of drainage type) can be directly calculated by multiplying the above ratios by Where LPC, LBC, and LLD resulting from Stage 1. VGO: Volume of gravel for re-gravelling (in m3) POA: Area of pavement overlay (in m²) Table b17 quanTiTies oF maTerials For drainage works for material type 5 of new pavement catalogue. Other Roads material For other roads, the calculation for new pavement is structure steel Concrete used, based on 30 percent of the ESAL of the main road, Lined drains 0.019 t/m 0.27 m3/m the same pavement structure type, and the same CBR. Pipe culverts 0.018 t/m 0.22 m3/m Box culverts 0.145 t/m 1.4 m3/m User Manual 55 Figure b2 quanTiTies oF sTeel (kg/m²) For bridges, Figure b3 eFFeCTive THiCkness—THus quanTiTies depending on span oF ConCreTe—For bridges, depending on span 700 SC composite 1.00 600 Concrete SC composite 500 Concrete .75 Effective thickness: m Steel: kg/m2 400 300 .50 200 .25 100 0 0 0 50 100 150 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Span: m Span: m Source: D. Collings, Bridge Engineering, Vol. 159, December 2006, Source: D. Collings, Bridge Engineering, Vol. 159, December 2006, Issue BE4, pp. 163–168. Issue BE4, pp. 163–168. Table b18 quanTiTies oF maTerials For walls quantity of material Type of wall steel Concrete rammed soil Steel 0.108 t/m² Reinforced concrete 0.045 t/m² 0.40 m3/m² Reinforced earth 0.012 kg/m² 0.07 m3/m² 1.5 m3/m² Note: Quantities provided in mass of steel or volume of concrete or rammed soil per area of wall. Structures It has been assumed that tunnels are constructed with a The main materials considered for structures are steel concrete lining. and concrete. Walls The following charts have been used for bridges, The quantities of materials can be directly calculated by extracted from “An environmental comparison of bridge multiplying the above ratios by WAL after the selection � forms. D. Collings, Bridge Engineering, Vol.159, Decem- of TSW. ber 2006, Issue BE4, Pg 163–168. Quantity of concrete is then divided into basic material as Three parameters are required for this stage. indicated in table B17. 1. TSW: Type of structure (wall), which can be Standard bridges • steel (sheetpile), The quantities of materials can be directly calculated by • reinforced concrete, or multiplying the above ratios by the sum of SBA and IBA • reinforced earth. after the selection of TSB. 2. TSB: type of structure (standard bridges), which can be • composite (steel/concrete), or Table b19 quanTiTies oF maTerials For sTandard • concrete (reinforced/prestressed). bridges 3. TSM: type of structure (major bridges), which can be • composite (steel/concrete), quantity of material • concrete (reinforced/prestressed), or Type of structure steel Concrete • steel. Composite 0.220 t/m² 0.30 m3/m² Concrete 0.115 t/m² 0.5 m3/m² 56 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries Table b20 quanTiTies oF maTerials For Table b21 quanTiTies oF maTerials For Tunnels major bridges material quantity quantity of material Steel 0.14 t/m3 Type of structure steel Concrete Concrete 1 m3/m3 Steel 0.650 t/m² 0.15 m3/m² Note: Quantities provided in tons of steel or cubic meters of concrete Composite 0.518 t/m² 0.35 m3/m² per volume of tunnel. Concrete 0.225 t/m² 0.85 m3/m² Note: Quantities provided in tons of steel or cubic meters of concrete Table b22 quanTiTies oF maTerials For barriers per area of bridge deck. quantity of material Quantity of concrete is then divided into basic material as Type of structure Timber steel Concrete indicated in table B17. Steel 0.012 t/m Major bridges Concrete 0.002 t/m 0.25 m3/m An average span of 125 m has been considered. Timber 0.019 t/m 0.008 t/m Note: Quantities provided in tons of timber or steel or cubic meters The quantities of materials can be directly calculated by of concrete per linear metre of barrier. multiplying the above ratios by MBA after the selection of TSM. The quantities of materials can be directly calculated by Quantity of concrete is then divided into basic material as multiplying the above ratios by LBR once TBM has been indicated in table B17. selected. Tunnel Quantity of concrete (if any) is then divided into basic The temporary and permanent lining of the tunnel have material as indicated in table B17. been assumed to be of concrete, with reinforcement or steel arches. Signs Police signs and their supports are assumed to be in gal- The quantities of materials can be directly calculated by vanized steel. Signs are supposed to be 0.8 m², 3mm multiplying the above ratios by TLV. thick, with a 2.5m high support of 6 kg/m. Quantity of concrete is then divided into basic material as The quantity of galvanized steel for police signs is there- indicated in table B17. fore assumed as 35 kg/unit, and can be directly calcu- lated from the value of NPS resulting from Stage 1. equipment and road Furniture Barriers Directional signs are supposed to be supported by steel For barriers, the parameter TBM (type of barrier material) (steel pole, except for expressways, where they are gan- is considered, which can be steel or timber (except on tries). The quantities in table B23 are given for 1 m² of national roads and expressways). directional sign. Table b23 quanTiTies oF maTerials For direCTional signs quantity of steel Type of road for support quantity of steel for sign Total quantity of steel quantity of concrete Expressway 0.070 t/m² 0.025 t/m² 0.095 t/m² 0.3 m3/m² National/provincial/rural 0.018 t/m² 0.043 t/m² 0.2 m3/m² Note: Quantities provided in tons of timber or steel or cubic meters of concrete per square metre of sign. User Manual 57 Concrete for foundation is not taken into account. Alumi- by multiplying the above ratios by WBA resulting from num has not been taken into account, although it is used Stage 1. in several countries for supports and sign panels. Quantity of concrete is then divided into basic material as The quantities of materials can be calculated directly by indicated in table B17. multiplying the above ratios by DSA resulting from Stage 1, based on road type (RTP). Works Equipment Quantity of concrete is then divided into basic material as The following characteristics have been considered for indicated in table B17. works equipment. lighting The information in table B27 (pp. 61–64) has been used Materials are calculated for 15m-high steel supports and to derive the following ratios/default values. for the power cable (50m for one pole). The quantities of materials can be calculated directly Transport by multiplying the above ratios by NSL resulting from distances Stage 1. The distances in table B27 (p. 61) have been considered. Quantity of concrete is then divided into basic material as Fleet vehicles indicated in table B17. Road transport has been assumed by default. wayside amenities A suboptimal use of transport fleet has also been Materials are concrete (for pavement and buildings), steel assumed, involving the use of some medium trucks (15 (for buildings) and bituminous materials (for pavement). percent) for long distance transport (over 25 km). For pavement, the calculation is made for the same struc- Although they are believed to reflect general actual con- ture as for the pavement of the main section for the WPA ditions, these are important assumptions. They are not area. optimal and may trigger suggestions to use alternatives. Therefore, the user may have to check and adjust them. For buildings, materials have been assumed to be steel and concrete (reinforced concrete). In the 25–50 km range, only 11–19 ton diesel trucks were considered. The quantities of materials can be calculated directly Table b24 quanTiTies oF maTerials For ligHTing Table b25 quanTiTies oF maTerials For wayside works ameniTies quantity of quantity of quantity of steel quantity of concrete steel for support concrete Copper 0.08 t/m² 0.55 m3/m² 0.420 t/u 0.6 m3/u 0.0225 t/u Note: Quantities provided in tons of steel or cubic meters of concrete Note: Quantities provided in cubic meters of concrete or tons of per square meter of wayside amenity. copper per number of lights. 58 Table b26 CHaraCTerisTiCs oF ConsTruCTion equipmenT works Capacity data source Consumption/ Consumption data source for emission factor equipment components Type of road Capacity unit for capacity hour unit consumption (kg Co2 eq./Hr) Aggregate crushing Pavement; Expressway 115 m3/hr Shanghai 145 Liters/hr IVL Report 426.89 plant Structures; 3 Zenith National road 70 m /hr 87 Liters/hr IVL Report 256.07 Drainage Company 3 Provincial road 46 m /hr 58 Liters/hr IVL Report 170.52 3 Rural road 23 m /hr 29 Liters/hr IVL Report 85.26 3 Aggregate crushing Pavement; Expressway 115 m /hr Shanghai 11,454 KW IVL Report depending on plant (electricity) Structures; 3 Zenith country National road 70 m /hr 6,872 KW IVL Report Drainage Company 3 Provincial road 46 m /hr 4,582 KW IVL Report 3 Rural road 23 m /hr 2,291 KW IVL Report 3 Asphalt mixing plant Pavement Expressway 50 m /hr 10,480 KW IVL Report depending on 3 country National road 35 m /hr 7,336 KW IVL Report Provincial road 20 m3/hr 4,192 KW IVL Report Asphalt paver Pavement Expressway; National road 1,300 m2/hr IVL Report 22 Liters/hr IVL Report 64.68 Provincial road 1,200 m2/hr IVL Report 20 Liters/hr IVL Report 58.80 Backhoe loader Pavement All roads 520 m3/hr IVL Report 16 Liters/hr IVL Report 47.04 Bitumen sprayer Pavement Expressway; National road 22,800 m2/hr IVL Report 3 Liters/hr IVL Report 8.82 Pavement Provincial road; Rural road 19,125 m2/hr IVL Report 3 Liters/hr IVL Report 8.82 Bulldozer Earthworks Expressway; National road, 500 m3/hr Caterpillar 25 Liters/hr Caterpillar 73.50 Provincial road Soil compactor Earthworks; Expressway; National road 1,006 m2/hr IVL Report 18 Liters/hr IVL Report 52.92 Pavement 2 Provincial road; Rural road 791 m /hr IVL Report 12 Liters/hr IVL Report 35.28 2 Asphalt compactor Pavement Expressway; National road 791 m /hr IVL Report 18 Liters/hr IVL Report 52.92 Provincial road; Rural road 460 m2/hr IVL Report 7 Liters/hr IVL Report 19.70 Tower Crane (small) Structures Expressway; National road N/A m2/hr IVL Report 9 Liters/m² IVL Report 30.61 kg CO2 eq./m² (continued) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries Table b26 ConTinued Tower Crane (big) Structures Provincial road; Rural road N/A m2/hr IVL Report 16 Liters/m² IVL Report 55.66 kg CO2 eq./m² Tower Crane (small) Structures Expressway; National road N/A m2/hr IVL Report 4 Liters/m² IVL Report 15.30 kg CO2 eq./m² Tower Crane (big) Structures Provincial road; Rural road N/A m2/hr IVL Report 8 Liters/m² IVL Report .83 27 kg CO2 eq./m² Drilling machine Structures Expressway; National road N/A m3 IVL Report 1,339 Liters/m3 IVL Report 4.59 kg CO2 eq./m3 Drilling machine Structures Provincial road; Rural road N/A m3 IVL Report 2,434 Liters/m3 IVL Report 8.35 kg CO2 eq./m3 Dumper Earthworks; All roads flat 140 m3/h*km IVL Report 20 Liters/hr IVL Report 58.80 Pavement Dumper Earthworks; All roads broken 140 m3/h*km IVL Report 28 Liters/hr IVL Report 80.85 Pavement Dumper Earthworks; All roads hilly 140 m3/h*km IVL Report 35 Liters/hr IVL Report 102.90 Pavement Excavator Earthworks All roads 450 m3/hr IVL Report 34 Liters/hr IVL Report 99.96 (< 5% stones) Excavator Earthworks All roads 430 m3/hr IVL Report 34 Liters/hr IVL Report 99.96 (< 25% stones) Excavator Earthworks All roads 360 m3/hr IVL Report 34 Liters/hr IVL Report 99.96 (< 50% stones) Excavator Earthworks All roads 300 m3/hr IVL Report 34 Liters/hr IVL Report 99.96 (> 50% stones) Excavator (hydraulic) Pavement; All roads 360 m3/hr IVL Report 45 Liters/hr IVL Report 132.30 Structures; Drainage Motor grader Earthworks; Expressway; National road 15,385 m2/hr Caterpillar 42 Liters/hr Caterpillar 123.48 Pavement 2 Provincial road; Rural road 14,240 m /hr Caterpillar 35 Liters/hr Caterpillar 102.90 3 Hydraulic hammer Earthworks All roads 40 m /hr IVL Report 18 Liters/hr IVL Report 52.92 (continued) User Manual 59 60 Table b26 ConTinued Wheeled loader Earthworks All roads 520 m3/hr IVL Report 23 Liters/hr IVL Report 67.62 (< 5% stones) Wheeled loader Earthworks All roads 470 m3/hr IVL Report 23 Liters/hr IVL Report 67.62 (< 25% stones) Wheeled loader Earthworks All roads 410 m3/hr IVL Report 35 Liters/hr IVL Report 102.90 (< 50% stones) Wheeled loader Earthworks All roads 370 m3/hr IVL Report 35 Liters/hr IVL Report 102.90 (> 50% stones) Pile driver Structures Expressway; National road N/A m2/hr IVL Report 1.339 Liters/m² IVL Report 4.59 kg CO2 eq./m² Pile driver Structures Provincial road; Rural road N/A m2/hr IVL Report 1.607 Liters/m² IVL Report 5.51 kg CO2 eq./m² Pulvimixer Earthworks Expressway; National road 9,173 m2 /hr Caterpillar 46 Liters/hr Caterpillar 135.24 2 Aggregate spreader Pavement Rural road (Surface 19,125 m /hr IVL Report 20 Liters/hr IVL Report 58.80 treatment) Slipform paver Pavement; Expressway; National road; N/A m3/hr IVL Report 0.025 Liters/m3 IVL Report 0.086 kg Structures; Provincial road CO2 eq./m3 Drainage Slipform for Barrier Equipment Expressway; National road N/A m/hr IVL Report 0.009 Liters/m IVL Report 0.031 kg (barriers) CO2 eq./m Water sprayer Earthworks; All roads 40,000 m2/hr IVL Report 27 Liters/hr IVL Report 79.38 Pavement Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries User Manual 61 Table b27 emissions due To equipmenT For various works Types unit consumption (l/qty) works item unit equipment exp/nat prov/rural Earthworks Clearing and grubbing m2 Bulldozer 0.083 0.083 Cut m3 Excavator (< 5% stones) 0.076 0.076 m 3 Excavator (< 25% stones) 0.079 0.079 m 3 Excavator (< 50% stones) 0.094 0.094 m 3 Excavator (> 50% stones) 0.113 0.113 Reuse of hard rock as pavement layer m 3 Aggregate crushing plant 0.652 0.652 Reuse of hard rock as fill m 3 Aggregate crushing plant 0.652 0.652 Reuse of soil as fill m 3 Dumper 0.143 0.071 m 3 Backhoe loader (*2) 0.062 0.062 Fill from borrow pit m 3 Excavator (< 5% stones) 0.076 0.076 m 3 Backhoe loader 0.031 0.031 Evacuation of soil m 3 Backhoe loader 0.031 0.031 Preparation of subgrade m 2 Motor grader 0.003 0.002 m 2 Water sprayer 0.001 0.001 m 2 Soil compactor 0.030 0.030 Embankment treatment m 3 Pulvimixer 0.005 0.005 m 3 Water sprayer 0.001 0.001 m 3 Binder spreader 0.000 0.000 Subgrade treatment m 3 Pulvimixer 0.005 0.005 m3 Water sprayer 0.001 0.001 m3 Binder spreader 0.000 0.000 Pavement Double surface dressing m3 Bitumen sprayer 0.030 0.030 m3 Aggregate spreader 0.030 0.030 m3 Soil compactor 2.865 2.865 Flexible bituminous surface m3 Asphalt mixing plant 5.989 5.989 m3 Asphalt paver 0.340 0.340 m 3 Asphalt compactor 0.460 0.300 Bituminous surface m 3 Asphalt mixing plant 5.989 5.989 m 3 Asphalt paver 0.142 0.142 m 3 Asphalt compactor 0.192 0.125 Bituminous road base, RB m 3 Asphalt mixing plant 5.989 5.989 m 3 Motor grader 0.020 0.013 m 3 Asphalt compactor 0.153 0.100 (continued) 62 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries Table b27 ConTinued unit consumption (l/qty) works item unit equipment exp/nat prov/rural Granular road base, GB1–GB6 m3 Motor grader 0.017 0.011 m 3 Water sprayer 0.004 0.004 m 3 Soil compactor 0.171 0.171 Granular subbase, GS m 3 Motor grader 0.013 0.009 m 3 Water sprayer 0.003 0.003 m 3 Soil compactor 0.133 0.133 Granular capping layer or selected m 3 Motor grader 0.015 0.010 subgrade fill, GC m 3 Soil compactor 0.150 0.150 Cement- or lime-stabilized road base 1, m 3 Pulvimixer 0.040 0.040 CB4 m 3 Water sprayer 0.006 0.006 m 3 Motor grader 0.024 0.016 m 3 Soil compactor 0.240 0.240 Cement- or lime-stabilized road base 2, m 3 Pulvimixer 0.033 0.033 CB5 m 3 Water sprayer 0.005 0.005 m 3 Motor grader 0.020 0.013 m 3 Soil compactor 0.200 0.200 Cement- or lime-stabilized subbase, CS m 3 Pulvimixer 0.000 0.000 m 3 Water sprayer 0.000 0.000 m3 Motor grader 0.000 0.000 m3 Soil compactor 0.000 0.000 Concrete with dowels, JPCP m3 Concrete batching plant 1.682 1.682 m3 Slipform paver 0.101 0.101 Concrete (lean concrete), LCB m3 Concrete batching plant 1.682 1.682 m3 Slipform paver 0.153 0.153 Excavation of soil general m3 Excavator (< 5% stones) 0.030 0.030 (rammed soil) for subbase layers m3 Backhoe loader 0.030 0.030 Surface dressing overlay m 3 Bitumen sprayer 0.030 0.030 m 3 Aggregate spreader 0.030 0.030 m 3 Soil compactor 2.865 2.865 Asphalt concrete overlay m 3 Asphalt mixing plant 5.989 5.989 m 3 Asphalt paver 0.142 0.142 m 3 Asphalt compactor 0.192 0.125 Re-gravelling m 3 Motor grader 0.015 0.010 m 3 Soil compactor 0.150 0.150 Bituminous coating m 2 Emulsion applier 0.000 0.000 (continued) User Manual 63 Table b27 ConTinued unit consumption (l/qty) works item unit equipment exp/nat prov/rural Drainage Lined/earth/pipe longitudinal drain m Excavator 0.045 0.011 Box culverts m Excavator 2.267 1.133 Concrete for lined drains/box culverts m 3 Concrete batching plant 1.682 1.682 Structures Walls m2 Pile driver 1.339 1.607 Concrete for walls (reinforced concrete) m 3 Concrete batching plant 1.682 1.682 m 3 Concrete pump—small 0.800 0.800 Excavation of rammed soil for wall m 3 Excavator (< 5% stones) 0.030 0.030 (reinforced earth) m 3 Backhoe loader 0.030 0.030 Standard/interchange bridges on main m 2 Tower crane—small 8.925 16.227 section Concrete for standard/interchanges bridges m3 Concrete batching plant 1.682 1.682 m 3 Concrete pump—small 0.800 0.800 Major bridges on main section m 2 Tower crane—big 4.463 8.114 m 2 Drilling machine 1.339 2.434 Concrete for major bridges m 3 Concrete batching plant 1.682 1.682 m 3 Concrete pump—big 0.400 0.400 Excavation of tunnels m 3 Hydraulic hammer 0.450 0.450 m 3 Excavator 0.045 0.011 Concrete for tunnels m 3 Concrete pump—big 0.400 0.400 m 3 Concrete batching plant 1.682 1.682 m 3 Tower crane—big 0.400 0.400 Road furniture Barriers m Concrete barrier slipform 0.009 0.009 Directional sign area m 2 Crane (mobile) 4.460 4.460 Streetlights u Crane (mobile) 11.156 11.156 Wayside amenities m 2 Tower crane—small 4.463 0.000 Concrete for all road furniture m 3 Concrete batching plant 1.682 1.682 64 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation: A Toolkit for Developing Countries Table b28 deFaulT TransporT disTanCes From To value Comment/material transported Cut on site Fill on site Expressway: 2.5 km Used for earthworks and tunnel National road: 2 km Provincial road: 15 km Rural road: 1 km Borrow Pit Site Expressway: 25 km Used for earthworks (fill from borrow pit) National road: 20 km Provincial road: 15 km Rural road: 10 km Site Disposal site Expressway: 25 km Used for earthworks (evacuated cut) National road: 20 km Provincial road: 15 km Rural road: 10 km Quarry Batching plant Expressway: 30 km Aggregates National road: 20 km Provincial road: 10 km Rural road: 7 km Quarry Site Expressway: 30 km Aggregates National road: 20 km Provincial road: 10 km Rural road: 7 km Quarry Asphalt plant Expressway: 30 km Aggregates National road: 20 km Provincial road: 10 km Rural road: 7 km Asphalt plant Site Expressway: 20 km Bituminous bound materials National road: 10 km Provincial road: 7 km Rural road: 3 km Batching plant Site Expressway: 20 km Cement bound materials National road: 10 km Provincial road: 7 km Rural road: 3 km Cement plant Batching plant 250 km Cement Borrow Pit Batching plant Expressway: 25 km Sand for concrete National road: 20 km Provincial road: 15 km Rural road: 10 km Refinery Asphalt plant 250 km Bitumen Cement plant Site 250 km To be used for soil treatment Cement Lime Refinery Site 250 km To be used for surface treatment Bitumen Steel plant Site 250 km Steel No workshop assumed Prefabrication Plant Site 150 km Concrete prefabricated elements Sawmill Site 150 km Barriers in timber Copper plant Site 500 km Electric cables for lighting and other road facilities User Manual 65 Table b29 deFaulT TransporT FleeT CHaraCTerisTiCs distance <25 km 25–50 km >50 km Transport 30%: Truck 6.1–10.9 t—diesel Truck 11–19 t—diesel Truck 21.1—32.6 t—diesel 70%: Truck 11–19 t—diesel Land-Use Changes • Above-ground biomass quantities (in dry metric tons/hectare) depending on land cover types found ROADEO takes into account GHG emissions due to land- in Continental Asia (these values, shown in table use changes and subsequent removal of above-ground B30, are based on data from the 2006 IPCC Guide- biomass resulting from the implementation of road con- lines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories); and struction and rehabilitation projects. • Average density of CO2 per dry metric ton of above- ground biomass (set to a commonly used value of The assessment of these emissions is made on the basis 1.72 tons of CO2 per dry metric ton). of the following data: The resulting values of GHG emissions, which may be • Initial land cover type reflecting the typical land- significant—especially for greenfield projects in tropical use observed along the project alignment before and/or mountainous areas—are reported in the results its implementation (two types of vegetation can be tab of ROADEO and on the graph showing the distribu- selected by users from a pre-defined list); tion of project emissions according to the type of work • Area affected by land-use change (to be entered by component (in tCO2). users as a percentage of the project alignment for each initial land cover type); Table b30 above-ground biomass depending on land Cover Types in ConTinenTal asia dry metric tons/ha land cover type low average High Tropical rainforest 120 280 680 Tropical moist deciduous forest 10 180 560 Tropical dry forest 100 130 160 Tropical shrubland 60 60 60 Tropical mountain system 50 135 220 Subtropical humid forest 10 180 560 Subtropical dry forest 100 130 160 Subtropical steppe 60 60 60 Subtropical mountain system 50 135 220 Temperate continental forest (<20 years) 20 20 20 Temperate continental forest (>20 years) 20 120 320 Temperate mountain system (<20 years) 20 100 180 Temperate mountain system (>20 years) 20 130 600 Boreal coniferous forest 10 50 90 Boreal tundra woodland (< 20 years) 3 3.5 4 Boreal tundra woodland (> 20 years) 15 17.5 20 Boreal mountain systems (< 20 years) 12 13.5 15 Boreal mountain systems (> 20 years) 40 45 50 Source: 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. The World Bank The World Bank Group Asia Sustainable and Alternative Energy Program 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA www.worldbank.org/astae