The AOPII Cost-effectiveness Study Annex B.1 Finland Presented to Working 7 August 1999 by The European Commission, Standard & Poor s DRI and KULeuven
ii European Commission, Standard & Poor s DRI KULeuven, August 1999
Contents 1. INTRODUCTION... 3 2. GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS... 3 3. TRAFFIC... 4 4. COSTS AND PRICES... 8 5. MOTOR VEHICLE STOCK... 11 6. FUELS... 14 7. EMISSIONS FROM ROAD TRAFFIC... 16 8. SELECTED SOURCES... 25 APPENDIX 1: OTHER TRANSPORT INDICATORS... 27 APPENDIX 2: AVERAGE EMISSION FACTORS... 30 APPENDIX 3: EMISSION REDUCTION CONTRIBUTIONS... 31
Tables and Charts Table 1: Macroeconomic indicators, Finland... 3 Table 2: Total traffic demand by mode for Finland and Helsinki (Mvkm)... 4 Table 3: passenger traffic demand by mode for Finland and Helsinki (Mpkm). 5 Table 4: Freight traffic demand by mode for Finland (Mtkm)... 5 Table 5: Annual traffic demand growth for all modes... 5 Table 6: Annual traffic demand growth for all passenger modes... 5 Table 7: Annual Traffic demand growth for all freight modes... 6 Chart 1: Modal shares for Finish passenger transport (pkm based)... 6 Table 8: Modal shares in Finland for passenger traffic (based on pkm)... 6 Chart 2: Modal shares in Finland for freight transport (based on tkm)... 7 Table 9: Modal shares for finish freight traffic (based on tkm)... 7 Table 10: Average load factors, Finland... 8 Table 11: Average vehicle purchase cost components, 1996 (98 )... 9 Table 12: Average annual driving costs (excl. fuel), 1996 (98 )... 10 Table 13: Average fuel price components, 1996 (98 )... 10 Table 14: The lifetime driving costs by vehicle category (98 ECU/vkm)... 11 Table 15: Growth rate of the lifetime driving cost for Finland... 11 Table 16: Vehicle stocks in Finland... 12 Chart 3: Age structure of the car stock for Finland, 1995... 13 Chart 4: Age structure of the truck stock for Finland, 1995... 13 Table 17: Average vehicle age for Finland... 14 Chart 5: Fuel consumption profiles for Finland... 15 Table 18: Auto-Oil II base case fuel specifications --Finland... 16 Figure 1: Road transport emission indices for Finland (1995=100)... 17 Table 19: Road transport emission indices for Finland (part A)... 18 Table 20: Road transport emission indices for Finland (part B)... 18 Table 21: Road transport emissions indices for Finland (part C)... 19 Table 22: Total emission levels for Finland (tonnes)... 19 Table 23: Emissions by vehicle category for Finland (tonnes)... 20 Chart 6: Total CO emissions by vehicle category for Finland (tonnes)... 21 Chart 7: Total NOx emissions by vehicle category for Finland (tonnes)... 21 Chart 8: Total VOC emissions by vehicle category for Finland (tonnes)... 22 Chart 9: Total Benzene emissions by vehicle category for Finland (tonnes).. 22 Chart 10: Total PM 10 emissions by vehicle category for Finland (tonnes)... 23 Chart 11: Total CO2 emissions by vehicle category for Finland (tonnes)... 23 Chart 12: Total SO2 emissions by vehicle category for Finland (tonnes)... 24 Table 24: Emissions from passenger cars by fuel class category for Finland (tonnes)... 25 Chart 13: Traffic demand compared to GDP (1990 = 1), Finland... 27 Table 25: Other transport indicators for Finland --absolute levels... 27 Table 26: Other transport indicators for Finland -- growth rates... 28 Chart 14: Traffic demand (in vkm, pkm and tkm per capita), Finland... 28 Chart 15: Traffic demand (in vkm and pkm per capita), Helsinki... 28 Table 27: Vehicle stock per capita in Finland... 29 Chart 16: Average annual mileage per vehicle (thousand km), Finland... 29 Table 28: Average Emission factors across all modes, Finland (g/km)... 30 Chart 17: Emission reduction contributions for NOx... 31 Chart 18: Emission reduction contributions for PM 10... 31 Chart 19: Emission reduction contributions for VOC... 32 2 European Commission, Standard & Poor s DRI KULeuven, August 1999
Auto-Oil II Cost-Effectiveness Study 1. Introduction This annex presents the Auto Oil II transport base case for Finland as an addendum to Part III of the AOPII Cost-effectiveness study. The latter contains an executive summary and a cross-country overview of the AOPII transport base case as well as some background information and important comments related to the methodology and data collection process. It forms an integral part of this annex. This annex includes key assumptions and selected indicators related to traffic demand, costs and prices, vehicle stocks, fuel consumption and fuel quality specifications, and emissions from road transport. The complete data set is also available in a spreadsheet, which can be obtained on demand. All comments and questions should be addressed to Thomas Verheye (thomas.verheye@dg11.cec.be). 2. General assumptions The main macro-economic assumptions used to construct this base case are presented in Table 1. 1 Historical values up to 1995 of the main macroeconomic indicators have been obtained from Statistics Finland, the national statistical office. The values used from 1996 to 2020, are consistently taken from the Energy 2020 forecast prepared by DGXVII (i.e., the pre-kyoto reference scenario), throughout the AOPII transport base case. Throughout the study, a discount rate of 4% has been used, corresponding to the long-term real interest rate. TABLE 1: MACROECONOMIC INDICATORS, FINLAND Macroeconomic indicators Average annual compound growth rates Region Concept 1990-95 1995-00 2000-05 2005-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 Finland GDP, 98 ECU -0.5% 3.2% 2.4% 2.3% 1.8% 1.6% Finland Inflation 2.3% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% Annual average Region Concept 1990-95 1995-00 2000-05 2005-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 Finland Ecu per markka 0.17784 0.17288 0.16955 0.16955 0.16955 0.16955 Finland Population 5.0 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.5 Helsinki Population 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 Helsinki refers to the Helsinki Metropolitan Area (YTV), with about 1 million inhabitants. This area includes the cities of Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa and Kauniainen. The population figures for the other urban areas of Finland were estimated based on UN data, Compendium of Human Settlement Statistics. A number of other indicators were calculated ex-post to verify the overall consistency of the base case assumptions and data. These are presented in Appendix 1. 1 The Auto Oil II basecase has been constructed in 1998, based on data then available, such as the Pre-Kyoto scenario from DGXVII. No reference is made to the euro, which did not exist before December 31, 1998. Economic concepts such as GDP are thus defined in constant 1998 ECU. As a consequence, the exchange rate between the national currencies and the ECU differ slightly from the conversion rates to the euro. European Commission --Standard & Poor s DRI KULeuven, August 1999 3
3. Traffic In this section, we describe the traffic demand scenarios that were built based on historical data published by statistical organisations and on forecasts received from transport authorities. We discuss the key facts and the assumptions taken to complement existing data. Finish traffic demand data for the period 1990 to 1996, were mainly obtained from a Statistics Finland publication: Transport and Communications Statistical Yearbook for Finland, 1997. This yearbook contains detailed information on traffic demand, expressed in vehicle-kilometres and in passenger-kilometres or tonne-kilometres. Forecast information was mainly taken from a transport forecast made by the VTT, the Technical Research Centre of Finland. Data provided by statistical sources often needed further breakdown to obtain information at the required level of detail for policy simulation purposes (e.g., demand distribution between small and large cars). In such cases, we attributed to each sub-category a share of traffic proportional to the number of vehicles (obtain from the vehicle stock data, discussed next) times their average annual mileage (obtained taken from MEET deliverable 21). Non-motorised transport was assumed to amount to 2% of total road passenger transport (bus, cars and motorcycles). Key results for the traffic demand scenarios are presented in the tables below, including traffic demand levels, growth rates, modal shares, and load factors. Table 2 shows the trends in traffic demand for Finland and the Helsinki-region, expressed in vehicle-kilometres for all modes. Trends expressed in passengerkilometres are shown in Table 3. The data for freight transport, expressed in tonnes-kilometres are shown in Table 4. TABLE 2: TOTAL TRAFFIC DEMAND BY MODE FOR FINLAND AND HELSINKI (MVKM) Traffic demand in million vehicle-kilometre Region Mode 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Finland Total 41,804 44,293 50,881 55,045 58,492 61,153 62,950 Finland Buses & coaches 680 620 617 613 608 604 600 Finland Cars 33,430 35,760 40,809 43,643 45,855 47,439 48,595 Finland Train & metro 27 28 32 36 40 44 47 Finland Trucks 5,640 5,790 7,054 8,213 9,306 10,276 10,832 Finland Motorcycles 800 900 1,021 1,092 1,147 1,187 1,214 Finland Non-motorised 1,210 1,179 1,329 1,428 1,511 1,577 1,632 Region Mode 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Helsinki Total 4,329 4,572 4,966 5,384 5,795 6,200 6,606 Helsinki Buses & coaches 113 103 99 95 91 87 83 Helsinki Cars 3,322 3,554 3,868 4,202 4,532 4,855 5,183 Helsinki Train & metro 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Helsinki Trucks 417 439 481 523 565 606 645 Helsinki Motorcycles 70 78 85 92 99 106 114 Helsinki Non-motorised 401 391 425 461 498 533 569 4 European Commission, Standard & Poor s DRI KULeuven, August 1999
Auto-Oil II Cost-Effectiveness Study TABLE 3: PASSENGER TRAFFIC DEMAND BY MODE FOR FINLAND AND HELSINKI (MPKM) Traffic demand in million passenger-kilometre Region Mode 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Finland Total 65,484 63,804 71,680 76,271 80,007 82,769 84,893 Finland Buses & coaches 8,500 8,000 7,957 7,904 7,851 7,797 7,744 Finland Cars 51,295 50,153 57,234 61,210 64,316 66,541 68,169 Finland Train & metro 3,679 3,572 4,138 4,637 5,182 5,666 6,134 Finland Motorcycles 800 900 1,021 1,092 1,147 1,187 1,214 Finland Non-motorised 1,210 1,179 1,329 1,428 1,511 1,577 1,632 Region Mode 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Helsinki Total 7,832 7,646 8,255 8,849 9,447 10,021 10,597 Helsinki Buses & coaches 1,320 1,242 1,202 1,151 1,101 1,050 1,000 Helsinki Cars 5,183 5,068 5,516 5,993 6,463 6,925 7,392 Helsinki Train & metro 859 867 1,027 1,151 1,286 1,406 1,523 Helsinki Motorcycles 70 78 85 92 99 106 114 Helsinki Non-motorised 401 391 425 461 498 533 569 TABLE 4: FREIGHT TRAFFIC DEMAND BY MODE FOR FINLAND (MTKM) Traffic demand in million tonne-kilometre Region Mode 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Finland Total 38,688 35,769 42,289 48,036 54,905 60,918 66,180 Finland Trucks 26,300 23,200 27,656 31,285 36,018 39,662 42,199 Finland Train & metro 8,357 9,293 10,349 11,846 13,357 15,033 16,959 Finland Waterways 4,031 3,276 4,285 4,905 5,530 6,224 7,022 The average annual compound growth rates of traffic demand for all modes are presented in Table 5. The growth rates for passenger transport are shown in Table 6. The same data for freight transport are shown in Table 7. TABLE 5: ANNUAL TRAFFIC DEMAND GROWTH FOR ALL MODES Traffic demand in vehicle-kilometre, average annual compound growth Region Mode 1990-95 1995-00 2000-05 2005-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 Finland Total 1.2% 2.8% 1.6% 1.2% 0.9% 0.6% Finland Buses & coaches -1.8% -0.1% -0.1% -0.1% -0.1% -0.1% Finland Cars 1.4% 2.7% 1.4% 1.0% 0.7% 0.5% Finland Train & metro 0.2% 2.6% 2.5% 2.3% 2.0% 1.9% Finland Trucks 0.5% 4.0% 3.1% 2.5% 2.0% 1.1% Finland Motorcycles 2.4% 2.6% 1.4% 1.0% 0.7% 0.5% Finland Non-motorised -0.5% 2.4% 1.4% 1.1% 0.9% 0.7% Region Mode 1990-95 1995-00 2000-05 2005-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 Helsinki Total 1.1% 1.7% 1.6% 1.5% 1.4% 1.3% Helsinki Buses & coaches -1.8% -0.7% -0.8% -0.9% -0.9% -1.0% Helsinki Cars 1.4% 1.7% 1.7% 1.5% 1.4% 1.3% Helsinki Train & metro 1.7% 3.0% 2.3% 2.3% 1.8% 1.6% Helsinki Trucks 1.0% 1.8% 1.7% 1.5% 1.4% 1.3% Helsinki Motorcycles 2.4% 1.6% 1.7% 1.5% 1.4% 1.3% Helsinki Non-motorised -0.5% 1.7% 1.7% 1.5% 1.4% 1.3% TABLE 6: ANNUAL TRAFFIC DEMAND GROWTH FOR ALL PASSENGER MODES Traffic demand in passenger-kilometre, average annual compound growth Region Mode 1990-95 1995-00 2000-05 2005-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 Finland Total -0.5% 2.4% 1.2% 1.0% 0.7% 0.5% Finland Buses & coaches -1.2% -0.1% -0.1% -0.1% -0.1% -0.1% Finland Cars -0.4% 2.7% 1.4% 1.0% 0.7% 0.5% Finland Train & metro -0.6% 3.0% 2.3% 2.3% 1.8% 1.6% Finland Motorcycles 2.4% 2.6% 1.4% 1.0% 0.7% 0.5% Finland Non-motorised -0.5% 2.4% 1.4% 1.1% 0.9% 0.7% Region Mode 1990-95 1995-00 2000-05 2005-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 Helsinki Total -0.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1% Helsinki Buses & coaches -1.2% -0.7% -0.9% -0.9% -0.9% -1.0% Helsinki Cars -0.4% 1.7% 1.7% 1.5% 1.4% 1.3% Helsinki Train & metro 0.2% 3.4% 2.3% 2.3% 1.8% 1.6% Helsinki Motorcycles 2.4% 1.6% 1.7% 1.5% 1.4% 1.3% Helsinki Non-motorised -0.5% 1.7% 1.7% 1.5% 1.4% 1.3% European Commission --Standard & Poor s DRI KULeuven, August 1999 5
TABLE 7: ANNUAL TRAFFIC DEMAND GROWTH FOR ALL FREIGHT MODES Traffic demand in tonne-kilometre, average annual compound growth Region Mode 1990-95 1995-00 2000-05 2005-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 Finland Total -1.6% 3.4% 2.6% 2.7% 2.1% 1.7% Finland Trucks -2.5% 3.6% 2.5% 2.9% 1.9% 1.2% Finland Train & metro 2.1% 2.2% 2.7% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% Finland Waterways -4.1% 5.5% 2.7% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% Modal shares for passenger transport demand in Finland and Helsinki are shown in Chart1 and in Table 8. The chart clearly shows the predominance of road transport demand, at about 80% of all passenger kilometres in Finland. In large cities, and in particular in Helsinki, public transport represents a more important share of passenger traffic demand than in the country on average. In 1995, only 66% of traffic demand was generated by car traffic in Helsinki, compared to an average 79% for the country as a whole (see Table 8). CHART 1: MODAL SHARES FOR FINISH PASSENGER TRANSPORT (PKM BASED) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Finland 1995 Finland 2010 Helsinki 1995 Helsinki 2010 Buses & coaches Cars Train & metro Other TABLE 8: MODAL SHARES IN FINLAND FOR PASSENGER TRAFFIC (BASED ON PKM) Modal shares in Finland and Helsinki - passenger traffic Region Mode 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Finland Buses & coaches 13% 13% 11% 10% 10% 9% 9% Finland Cars 78% 79% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% Finland Train & metro 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 7% 7% Finland Other 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Helsinki Buses & coaches 17% 16% 15% 13% 12% 10% 9% Helsinki Cars 66% 66% 67% 68% 68% 69% 70% Helsinki Train & metro 11% 11% 12% 13% 14% 14% 14% Helsinki Other 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% Modal shares for freight transport demand in Finland are shown in Chart 2 and in Table 9, based on figures in tkm. Waterways have a relatively important share of freight transport, at about 10%, as the country has good waterways infrastructure. This is however less than in the UK (about 25%) or the Netherlands (about 40%). 6 European Commission, Standard & Poor s DRI KULeuven, August 1999
Auto-Oil II Cost-Effectiveness Study CHART 2: MODAL SHARES IN FINLAND FOR FREIGHT TRANSPORT (BASED ON TKM) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Trucks Trains Waterways TABLE 9: MODAL SHARES FOR FINISH FREIGHT TRAFFIC (BASED ON TKM) Modal shares in Finland - freight traffic Region Mode 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Finland Trucks 68% 65% 65% 65% 66% 65% 64% Finland Trains 22% 26% 24% 25% 24% 25% 26% Finland Waterways 10% 9% 10% 10% 10% 10% 11% We further distributed traffic demand for each transport mode over peak and off-peak periods. In order to make meaningful comparisons we had to take approximately the same peak period in Finland as in other countries (e.g., 7am- 10am and 4pm-7pm) although there is only a limited difference between peak and off-peak traffic in Finland, with almost no congestion. Hence, we used UK figures rather than those supplied by VTT, for which peak traffic was only about 5% of the total. Traffic demand is also distributed across inhabitants and commuters for Helsinki and the other urban areas. We generally assumed that commuters account for 12% of urban traffic, based on a TRENEN case study for London. Considering the Finish case and the results of other TRENEN case studies, however, we have chosen a value of 20% for the Finish base case, which is a value closer to the European average. For the non-urban areas, no such split is considered. Selected average load factors used in the Finish base case are presented in Table 10. Load factors have usually been computed for each transport mode as the ratio of traffic in passenger kilometre or tonne-kilometre to traffic in vehicle-kilometre. In the case of trucks, thus, load factors represent an average over all sizes of trucks, from 3.5T to over 40T, which corresponds to an average capacity use of 40% to 50% in each category. European Commission --Standard & Poor s DRI KULeuven, August 1999 7
TABLE 10: AVERAGE LOAD FACTORS, FINLAND Average load factors (in passenger or tonne per vehicle) Region Mode 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Finland Buses & coaches 12.50 12.90 12.90 12.90 12.90 12.90 12.90 Finland Cars 1.53 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 Finland Train & metro 137.43 127.49 130.04 130.04 130.04 130.04 130.04 Finland Trucks (T/veh.) 4.66 4.01 3.92 3.81 3.87 3.86 3.90 Finland Trains, freight (T/veh.) 497.80 580.85 564.60 564.60 564.60 564.60 564.60 Finland Waterways (T/veh.) 350.00 350.00 350.00 350.00 350.00 350.00 350.00 Helsinki Buses & coaches 11.72 12.10 12.09 12.09 12.08 12.07 12.07 Helsinki Cars 1.56 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 Helsinki Train & metro 124.19 115.40 117.81 117.81 117.81 117.81 117.81 Load factors for passenger cars and public transport are also differentiated between peak and off-peak. As no information was available on this split, we assumed that the ratio of the peak load factor to the total load factor was the same in Finland than in the UK. Off-peak load factors were then computed as a residual. Figures on rail freight transport point to an average load factor of about 580 tonnes per freight train in Finland based on historical data contained in the Transport and Communications Statistical Yearbook for Finland, 1997. Load factors for trains were assumed to be constant after 1996. For barges, we used a constant load factor of 350 tonnes per vehicle, based on a figure for Belgium contained in Binnenscheepvaart 1990, published by the Belgian national statistical institute (NIS). When no information was available related to future load factors they were assumed constant from 1996 onwards. The latter assumption implies that, over the forecast period, traffic will have the same growth rate when measured in passenger-kilometre and vehicle-kilometre. 4. Costs and prices The cost and price data included in the road-transport base case are used to calculate generalised prices (and changes thereof) for each transport mode. The generalised price is calculated per transport mode as the sum of three elements, i.e. resource costs (including vehicle purchase, maintenance, insurance and fuel cost, excluding taxes), taxes or subsidies, and travel time costs (including waiting and walking time for public transport). The latter is discussed in Part II of the AOPII cost-effectiveness study report. Cost and price data used in the base case scenario are expressed in constant 1998 ECU 2. Prices are stable over the forecast horizon following the assumption that most prices would grow at the same pace as inflation after 1996. Selected data and assumptions are presented below. A number of cost components are used to compute the life time driving cost which is an important parameter used in the integrated policy simulation model. Lifetime driving costs are computed as the sum of all costs incurred annually in the exercise of driving, plus an annuity of the purchase cost. The 2 See footnote on the euro at the beginning of this chapter. 8 European Commission, Standard & Poor s DRI KULeuven, August 1999
Auto-Oil II Cost-Effectiveness Study annual driving cost per vehicle consists of the fuel cost, the car insurance, the circulation tax and the repair and maintenance costs. Table 11 provides an illustration of the vehicle purchase cost components contained in the base case for the year 1996. Vehicle prices were computed for a reference year on a sample of vehicles in each category, and then converted in constant 1998 ECU. Vehicle prices are catalogue prices, and exclude any discount. As we have assumed that vehicle prices change at the same pace as inflation, the real price of vehicles is constant (except in the early nineties, following a change in VAT and in registration tax). The purchase price of a medium diesel car is lower than the price of a gasoline medium car. Although this seems to be counter-intuitive, this is explained by the fact that we consider car categories based on a fixed engine capacity (for example between 1.4 and 2.0 litres) following the COPERT II methodology. Indeed, for equal cylinder capacities, diesel cars are less expensive than gasoline cars (contrary to the results you would obtain when comparing diesel cars to gasoline cars with a lower cylinder capacity in order to have similar functionality, for example a gasoline engine of 1400cc compared to a 1600 or 1700cc diesel engine). TABLE 11: AVERAGE VEHICLE PURCHASE COST COMPONENTS, 1996 (98 ) Vehicle Categories Average purchase price, excl. taxes Average sales Average tax (VAT) registration tax Average purchase price, incl. taxes Small gasoline car, <1400cc 11.256 4.606 9.682 25.544 Medium gasoline car, 1400cc-2000cc 18.978 8.004 17.405 44.386 Large gasoline car, >2000cc 25.521 10.883 23.947 60.351 Medium diesel car, <2000cc 15.592 6.685 14.796 37.073 Large diesel car, >2000cc 28.851 12.520 28.056 69.427 LPG car 20.665 4.546 17.405 42.616 LDV gasoline 37.539 0 11.262 48.801 LDV diesel 52.755 0 15.826 68.581 HDV gasoline 93.311 0 0 93.311 HDV diesel, 3.5T-7.5T 93.311 0 0 93.311 HDV diesel, 7.5T -16T 118.343 0 0 118.343 HDV diesel, 16T-32T 175.346 0 0 175.346 HDV diesel, >32T 242.096 0 0 242.096 Moto, two strokes, <50cc 1.351 446 675 2.472 Moto, two strokes, <50cc 3.782 1.490 2.992 8.265 Moto, four strokes, 50cc-250cc 3.866 1.527 3.076 8.468 Moto, four strokes, 250cc -750cc 6.351 2.621 5.561 14.534 Moto, four strokes, >750cc 11.098 4.709 10.308 26.116 Tax data and forecast assumptions were obtained from the AOPII Working Group on Fiscal Instruments (WG6) chaired by DGXXI and from the DRI Automotive group. Following advice from WG6, we have generally assumed that the tax rate (expressed in ECU) grows at the same pace as inflation in the base case. When expressed in constant 1998 ECU, effective tax rates are thus constant over the forecast period. Table 12 provides an illustration for the year of 1996 of other annual driving costs contained in the base case. As discussed, these include the fuel cost, the car insurance, the circulation tax and the repair and maintenance costs. The fuel cost is not shown here. It is calculated as a function of the fuel price (discussed European Commission --Standard & Poor s DRI KULeuven, August 1999 9
below) and the fuel consumption (discussed in detail in Part II of the Costeffectiveness study report). TABLE 12: AVERAGE ANNUAL DRIVING COSTS (EXCL. FUEL), 1996 (98 ) Vehicle Categories Average annual insurance costs Average annual circulation tax Average annual maintenance cost Small gasoline car, <1400cc 664 105 1.066 Medium gasoline car, 1400cc-2000cc 801 105 1.852 Large gasoline car, >2000cc 934 105 2.518 Medium diesel car, <2000cc 801 423 1.547 Large diesel car, >2000cc 934 423 2.896 LPG car 801 105 1.778 LDV gasoline 1.126 104 2.036 LDV diesel 1.583 209 2.861 HDV gasoline 1.400 425 3.893 HDV diesel, 3.5T-7.5T 1.400 425 4.937 HDV diesel, 7.5T -16T 1.775 941 4.937 HDV diesel, 16T-32T 2.630 2.206 7.315 HDV diesel, >32T 3.631 3.529 10.100 Moto, two strokes, <50cc 81 0 103 Moto, two strokes, <50cc 227 0 345 Moto, four strokes, 50cc-250cc 232 0 353 Moto, four strokes, 250cc -750cc 381 0 606 Moto, four strokes, >750cc 666 0 1.090 Insurance costs for cars were estimated from surveys published by BEUC (1997). On average, they represent 4.4% of the purchase value of the car. For motorcycles, we have assumed that insurance costs represent 6% of the purchase value in real terms, and for trucks 1.5%. Maintenance costs are a function of the vehicle age (Table 11 shows average values by way of illustration). Table 13 provides an illustration of the fuel price components for the year 1996. Fuel prices from 1990 through 1997 were obtained from the Commission s Energy Directorate. We assumed that future fuel prices increase at the same pace as inflation. LPG prices were estimated on the basis of European fuel price & tax survey, from ENGVA. TABLE 13: AVERAGE FUEL PRICE COMPONENTS, 1996 (98 ) Average purchase price per litre, excl. Average Fuel Type taxes tax per litre Average purchase price per litre, incl. taxes Gasoline, Euro-super 98 0,240 0,732 0,972 Diesel 0,253 0,416 0,670 LPG 0,200 0,245 0,445 10 European Commission, Standard & Poor s DRI KULeuven, August 1999
Auto-Oil II Cost-Effectiveness Study Table 14 shows the lifetime driving costs per vehicle which are computed as the sum of all costs incurred annually in the exercise of driving, plus an annuity of the purchase cost. Table 15 shows the average annual compound growth rate of the lifetime driving costs computed in the base case. The annual driving cost per vehicle consists of the fuel cost, the car insurance, the circulation tax and the repair and maintenance costs. The purchase cost is converted to annualised values by computing the equivalent annuities over the lifetime of the vehicle. In 1995, for example, the average lifetime of cars was about 12 years in Finland. TABLE 14: THE LIFETIME DRIVING COSTS BY VEHICLE CATEGORY (98 ECU/VKM) Lifetime annual driving cost, 98 ECU / vkm Region Mode 1991 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Finland Small gasoline car 0.279 0.250 0.250 0.256 0.262 0.250 0.239 Finland Medium gasoline car 0.341 0.354 0.383 0.384 0.380 0.363 0.348 Finland Large gasoline car 0.345 0.365 0.402 0.405 0.399 0.380 0.364 Finland Medium diesel car 0.287 0.281 0.282 0.268 0.255 0.244 0.234 Finland Large diesel car 0.422 0.416 0.425 0.405 0.385 0.370 0.355 Finland LPG cars 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Finland LCV, gasoline 0.811 0.717 0.733 0.724 0.699 0.678 0.644 Finland LCV, diesel D 0.664 0.588 0.586 0.562 0.533 0.507 0.481 Finland HDV, gasoline 0.209 0.192 0.194 0.189 0.185 0.180 0.176 Finland HDV, 3.5-7.5T 0.269 0.248 0.259 0.253 0.247 0.240 0.234 Finland HDV, 7.5-16T 0.532 0.490 0.511 0.500 0.487 0.473 0.459 Finland HDV, 16-32T 0.686 0.632 0.664 0.650 0.633 0.615 0.596 Finland HDV, >32T 0.964 0.889 0.932 0.911 0.888 0.862 0.836 Finland Mopeds & motos, <50cc 0.171 0.150 0.159 0.160 0.158 0.153 0.148 Finland Motos, 2 str., > 50cc 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Finland Motos, 4 str., 50-250cc 0.149 0.130 0.138 0.139 0.137 0.133 0.129 Finland Motos, 4 str., 250-750cc 0.323 0.282 0.299 0.302 0.298 0.289 0.280 Finland Motos, 4 str., >750cc 0.611 0.535 0.566 0.572 0.564 0.548 0.530 TABLE 15: GROWTH RATE OF THE LIFETIME DRIVING COST FOR FINLAND Lifetime annual driving cost, annual compound growth rate Region Mode 1991-95 1995-00 2000-05 2005-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 Finland Small gasoline car -2.7% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5% -0.9% -0.9% Finland Medium gasoline car 0.9% 1.6% 0.1% -0.2% -0.9% -0.8% Finland Large gasoline car 1.4% 1.9% 0.1% -0.3% -1.0% -0.9% Finland Medium diesel car -0.5% 0.1% -1.0% -1.0% -0.9% -0.8% Finland Large diesel car -0.4% 0.4% -1.0% -1.0% -0.8% -0.8% Finland LPG cars - - - - - - Finland LCV, gasoline -3.0% 0.4% -0.2% -0.7% -0.6% -1.0% Finland LCV, diesel D -3.0% -0.1% -0.8% -1.1% -1.0% -1.0% Finland HDV, gasoline - - - - - - Finland HDV, 3.5-7.5T -2.0% 0.9% -0.5% -0.5% -0.6% -0.5% Finland HDV, 7.5-16T -2.0% 0.8% -0.4% -0.5% -0.6% -0.6% Finland HDV, 16-32T -2.0% 1.0% -0.4% -0.5% -0.6% -0.6% Finland HDV, >32T -2.0% 0.9% -0.5% -0.5% -0.6% -0.6% Finland Mopeds & motos, <50cc -3.2% 1.2% 0.1% -0.3% -0.6% -0.7% Finland Motos, 2 str., > 50cc - - - - - - Finland Motos, 4 str., 50-250cc -3.4% 1.2% 0.1% -0.3% -0.6% -0.6% Finland Motos, 4 str., 250-750cc -3.3% 1.2% 0.2% -0.3% -0.6% -0.6% Finland Motos, 4 str., >750cc -3.3% 1.1% 0.2% -0.3% -0.6% -0.7% 5. Motor vehicle stock Historical stock data for motor vehicles were obtained from Standard & Poor s DRI Automotive Group which regularly collects stock data from national sources across Europe, as well as from other sources, such as industry associations. The forecast of vehicle stocks described here were computed European Commission --Standard & Poor s DRI KULeuven, August 1999 11
using the transport model TREMOVE. 3 The major assumption is that future market shares of the various sub-categories only depend on changes in the relative driving cost (thus including the cost of fuel). Details on the methodology and assumptions used in TREMOVE are provided in Part II of the AOPII Cost-effectiveness study. Total vehicle stocks for Finland are shown in Table 16. Compared to other countries, diesel vehicles have a low penetration in Finland, amounting to approximately 10% of the car stock. There are no LPG cars in the Finish base case. TABLE 16: VEHICLE STOCKS IN FINLAND Vehicle stock (thousands) Region Mode 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Finland Buses & coaches 9 8 8 8 7 7 7 Finland Cars, gasoline 1,657 1,739 1,966 2,050 2,086 2,088 2,067 Finland Cars, diesel 187 151 136 115 105 95 88 Finland Cars, LPG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Finland LGV 210 203 248 281 299 315 313 Finland HGV 55 49 57 63 71 76 79 Finland Motorcycles 168 159 179 184 186 186 183 The average age structure of the 1995 passenger car stock is shown in Chart 4. The age structure for commercial vehicles is shown in Chart 5. These charts clearly show the cyclical nature of vehicle sales. For example, the sales peak during the economic boom of the late eighties is clearly shown as vehicles of 6 and 7 years old represent the most numerous vintages. Also visible is the economic slow-down of the early nineties which led to much lower passenger car sales. This is reflected in the relatively small number of 3 and 4 years old vehicles. The large number of cars in the category of fifteen year old cars is due to the fact that this category accounts for all vehicles of that age and older. 3 The forecast presented here has been prepared by Standard & Poor s DRI and KU Leuven with assumptions (such as the macroeconomic scenario, ) and models specific to the Auto-Oil II programme, with the aim of preparing a reference scenario (thus excluding developments likely to occur after 2000) for the programme. Therefore, they differ from the forecasts published by the Standard & Poor s DRI Automotive Group. 12 European Commission, Standard & Poor s DRI KULeuven, August 1999
Auto-Oil II Cost-Effectiveness Study CHART 3: AGE STRUCTURE OF THE CAR STOCK FOR FINLAND, 1995 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Age of the vehicle, in years Note: The number of vehicles in the rightmost column represents all vehicles registered 16 years ago and before. CHART 4: AGE STRUCTURE OF THE TRUCK STOCK FOR FINLAND, 1995 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Age of the vehicle, in years Note: The number of vehicles in the rightmost column represents all vehicles registered 15 years ago and before. Finally, Table 17 shows the evolution of the average age of the vehicle stock in each category. For the purpose of constructing these data, all vehicles older European Commission --Standard & Poor s DRI KULeuven, August 1999 13
than 15 years have been included in the 15 years old category as only 16 generations are included in the TREMOVE data base. This assumption introduces a small underestimation of the average age of the vehicle stock. TABLE 17: AVERAGE VEHICLE AGE FOR FINLAND Average age of vehicles, Finland Vehicle category 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Small gasoline car 7.3 10.4 10.5 9.9 10.1 10.6 10.5 Medium gasoline car 6.9 8.7 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.5 9.4 Large gasoline car 6.8 8.5 8.3 8.5 9.0 9.3 9.3 Medium diesel car 8.5 11.1 10.3 9.4 9.8 9.8 9.5 Large diesel car 7.3 10.1 10.4 9.9 9.8 9.7 9.5 LPG car - - - - - - - LCV, gasoline 5.0 8.8 9.5 9.2 9.6 10.0 10.4 LCV, diesel D 5.0 8.8 9.5 9.3 9.6 10.1 10.4 HDV, gasoline - - - - - - - HDV, 3.5-7.5T 6.6 9.2 8.8 8.6 9.0 9.4 9.7 HDV, 7.5-16T 6.6 9.3 8.9 8.6 8.7 9.0 9.3 HDV, 16-32T 6.6 9.3 8.9 8.5 8.7 9.0 9.2 HDV, >32T 6.6 9.3 8.9 8.5 8.6 8.9 9.1 Buses & coaches 7.5 10.4 10.9 10.7 10.8 10.7 10.6 Mopeds & motos, <50cc 5.8 9.0 9.3 9.3 9.4 9.3 9.3 Motos, 2 str., > 50cc - - - - - - - Motos, 4 str., 50-250cc 6.5 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.5 9.4 Motos, 4 str., 250-750cc 6.7 7.4 6.5 7.7 8.7 8.9 8.9 Motos, 4 str., >750cc 6.1 6.8 6.3 7.6 8.6 8.8 8.8 6. Fuels Fuel consumption is calculated as a function of the vehicle stock and usage following a bottom-up approach as explained in the next Chapter and in Part II of the AOPII cost-effectiveness analysis. Chart 5 shows the general trend in the average fuel consumption profiles for Finland as computed in the base case. 4 4 Fuel consumption data computed in the base case have been subject to limited validation against reported fuel sales by category. Depending on the source and the level of detail available, historical figures showed differences sometimes up to 20%. Following discussions with experts, these differences remained within an acceptable range of uncertainties. Given that the purpose of the exercise is to simulate differences against a predefined base case, further improvements would increase the overall robustness of the base case but not significantly affect the conclusions drawn from scenarios. 14 European Commission, Standard & Poor s DRI KULeuven, August 1999
Auto-Oil II Cost-Effectiveness Study CHART 5: FUEL CONSUMPTION PROFILES FOR FINLAND 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Diesel Gasoline Table 18 shows the assumptions related to fuel specifications used to construct the AOPII base case scenario for Finland. Following guidance from the AOPII Fuel Quality Working Group (WG3), fuel quality parameters have been assumed equal across all countries considered, except for Finland (i.e. the sample country for Scandinavia), which has a longer tradition with clean fuels. The starting point is the average fuel quality assumed during the first Auto-Oil Programme. Next, estimated market averages rather than minimum specifications were used as proposed by the Fuels Quality Working Group. European Commission --Standard & Poor s DRI KULeuven, August 1999 15
TABLE 18: AUTO-OIL II BASE CASE FUEL SPECIFICATIONS --FINLAND Parameter Unit 1996 market AOP 1 Base average (1996-2000 regulatory (1990-1995) 1999) specification 2000 average market quality (2000-2004) 2005 regulatory specification 2005 average market quality (2005-2020) Gasoline RVP w Kpa 81 81 70 70 RVP s Kpa 68 68 60 60 60 60 Trace Lead g/l 0,005 0,005 0,005 0,003 0,005 0,003 E100 % 53 57 46 57 46 57 E150 % 84 87 75 86 75 86 Aromatics %vol 40 35 42 30 35 30 Sulphur ppm 300 35 150 30 50 30 Oxigenates %O2 0,6 0,4 2,7 1 2,7 1,5 Olefins %vol 11 10 18 10 18 10 Benzene %vol 2,3 0,6 1 0,6 1 0,6 Diesel - Light Duty Density at 15 kg/m3 825 825 845 825 845 825 Sulphur ppm 450 35 350 30 50 30 PCA %vol 5 5 11 5 11 5 Distillation range (T95) C 300 300 360 300 360 300 Cetane number -- 52 52 51 52 51 52 Diesel - Heavy Duty Density at 15 kg/m3 825 825 845 825 845 825 Sulphur ppm 450 35 350 30 50 30 PCA %vol 5 5 11 5 11 5 Distillation range (T95) C 300 300 360 300 360 300 Cetane number -- 52 52 51 52 51 52 Source: Gasoline 1996 data from CONCAWE report 5/98, Diesel Data from Paramins winter survey 1998. Future data from DG XVII. 7. Emissions from road traffic The computations of emissions are based on the FOREMOVE and COPERT II methodology, as modified, to account for changes in regulated emission limit values and trends in technology. The modifications were discussed and implemented in close co-operation with experts from the AOPII Vehicle Technology and Fuel Quality Working Groups. They include: modified vehicle hot emission factors for Euro II, III and IV vehicles; modified parameters for computing cold start and evaporative emissions; the incorporation of the so-called EPEFE equations to account for changes in fuel specifications. Hence, the AOPII transport base case includes emission factors for current and near future technologies up to 2005/Euro IV (2008/Euro V for trucks). While no further improvements of emission factors for new vehicles are assumed beyond 2005/2008, total emissions will still reduce beyond that date older, more polluting vehicles will be replaced by new cleaner vehicles. The correspondence between technology standards and the vehicle stock, i.e. the first registration year of a new technology vintage, is determined by a vehicle technology matrix. This matrix has been prepared based on information 16 European Commission, Standard & Poor s DRI KULeuven, August 1999
Auto-Oil II Cost-Effectiveness Study from COPERT II and MEET deliverable 21. In addition, a number of other parameters required to implement the emission calculation methodology, were taken directly from FOREMOVE scenarios carried-out in the context of AOP I. Examples include, average trip length, monthly minimum and maximum temperatures, and Reid vapour pressure. These parameters are constant over the years and are listed in the detailed base case data spreadsheet. Also, the COPERT II methodology did not account for improvements in the fuel efficiency of the vehicles beyond the EURO I vintage, entering the market in the mid-nineties. On the other hand, the pre-kyoto scenario, for example, assumes that fuel efficiency will improve at an annual rate of about 0.9% per year, due to changes in the vehicle stock, in the transport system, (both taken into account in this scenario), and due to technological improvement (not accounted for here). In this base case scenario, following discussions with ACEA and WG7 members, we have assumed that new cars would see improvements of fuel efficiency of 1.3% per year until 2003, 3.5% per year between 2003 and 2008, and 1% per year thereafter. For LDV s, we have assumed that annual gains in fuel efficiency would reach half of those for the passenger cars. For HDV s and trucks, we have assumed that gains in fuel efficiency would amount to 1% per year until 2008, and 0.5% per year thereafter. A detailed discussion of these improvements is provided in Part II of the AOPII Cost-effectiveness study report describing the TREMOVE model. Figure 1 shows the estimated average trends from 1990 through 2020 for selected emissions included in the transport base case as compared to their levels in 1995. Related details are shown in the tables and charts that follow. FIGURE 1: ROAD TRANSPORT EMISSION INDICES FOR FINLAND (1995=100) 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 CO NOX VOC Benzene PM-diesel CO2 SO2 European Commission --Standard & Poor s DRI KULeuven, August 1999 17
The prime focus of the Auto-Oil II Programme is on emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), diesel particulates (PM10), and volatile organic compounds (VOC). As can be seen from Figure 1, most of these emissions are expected to fall below 20 percent of the 1995 levels by 2020 reflecting anticipated emission improvements for new vehicles by as much as 80% between the mid-nineties and 2005. This is reflected in the progressive decline of average emission factors shown in Appendix 2 (computed ex-post as total emission divided by total mileage). As a result, and despite the continuing growth of traffic demand, the relative contribution of emissions from road transport will decline significantly between now and 2020. As illustrated in Appendix 3, these improvements can be mainly attributed to the significant tightening of environmental limit values for vehicles and fuels during the last decade, including the impact of the so-called AOP I Directives adopted in the fall of 1998 following the outcome of the first European Auto-Oil Programme. Tables 19 shows the data for main pollutants discussed above and shown in Figure 1. These tables allow us to link the transport base case emission results, described in this report, with the emission totals and trends for road-transport included in the overall base case for all sectors and described in a separate volume released by WG1. TABLE 19: ROAD TRANSPORT EMISSION INDICES FOR FINLAND (PART A) Finland '000 T Index, 1995 = 100% 1995 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 CO 445 100% 69% 51% 38% 25% 17% NOX 96 100% 77% 53% 32% 21% 16% VOC 78 100% 66% 40% 19% 12% 9% NMVOC 75 100% 65% 39% 18% 11% 8% Benzene 3 100% 41% 26% 13% 8% 6% PM-diesel 4 100% 64% 48% 30% 18% 14% In addition to the emissions at the core of the AOP II described above, Table 20 describes future trends of other road transport emissions. Although not at the core of the analysis, it was agreed to calculate emissions of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), and sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ) to ensure consistency with related environmental programmes (e.g. climate and ozone and acidification strategies) whenever abatement measures affecting several pollutants (in opposite directions) are assessed. TABLE 20: ROAD TRANSPORT EMISSION INDICES FOR FINLAND (PART B) Finland '000 T Index, 1995 = 100% 1995 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 CO2 9.637 100% 115% 122% 121% 120% 117% FC 3.044 100% 115% 122% 121% 120% 117% SO2 2 100% 10% 11% 11% 10% 10% Contrary to the emission profiles of the core pollutants analysed in AOP II, average CO 2 emissions from road transport are expected to continue to increase 18 European Commission, Standard & Poor s DRI KULeuven, August 1999
Auto-Oil II Cost-Effectiveness Study to about 120 percent compared to their 1995 levels (ca. 125 percent compared to 1990 levels) by 2020. This trend closely follows expected average fuel consumption (FC). Because the transport base case also account for the voluntary agreement to reduce CO 2 emissions from cars agreed by the European automobile manufacturers (ACEA), estimates of trends in CO 2 emissions are often lower then what is concluded from similar studies to date. Finally, towards the end of the base case preparation, additional emission estimates for other greenhouse gas and PM emissions were computed to provide additional linking with other analytical programmes. Table 21 shows estimates for methane (CH 4 ) and PM emissions from gasoline vehicles and non-exhaust emissions (e.g. tyre wear and brakes). These estimates are purely indicative and need to be treated with extreme care at this stage as very little is known about their formation, characteristics, and about the impact of recent and near future technology on these emission levels. Indeed, emission factors used for these estimates have received only very limited attention, both the cost-effectiveness analysis and the vehicle and fuel experts, participating in AOP II. TABLE 21: ROAD TRANSPORT EMISSIONS INDICES FOR FINLAND (PART C) Finland '000 T Index, 1995 = 100% 1995 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 CH4 3 100% 85% 63% 42% 39% 37% PM-gasoline 1 100% 53% 51% 50% 52% 53% PM -non-exhaust 1 100% 118% 134% 146% 157% 163% Total emission levels at five-year intervals are summarised per pollutant in Table 22. Again, the levels for the pollutants indicated in italics are more uncertain then the others as explained above. Table 23 and Charts 6 through 12 show the contribution of the main vehicle categories for each pollutant. Finally, Table 24 provides a further breakdown of passenger car emissions by fuel class. TABLE 22: TOTAL EMISSION LEVELS FOR FINLAND (TONNES) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 CO 466.622 444.742 308.088 227.293 167.802 113.242 77.366 NOX 107.677 95.919 73.468 51.266 30.645 20.199 15.737 VOC 85.182 78.053 51.568 31.126 14.513 9.610 7.231 NMVOC 81.643 74.921 48.932 29.169 13.233 8.422 6.096 Benzene 3.073 2.839 1.169 727 363 225 160 PM-diesel 4.179 3.685 2.366 1.769 1.098 649 525 CO2 ('000 T) 9.251 9.637 11.059 11.724 11.687 11.555 11.298 SO2 1.967 2.024 200 213 213 212 207 CH4 3.540 3.131 2.655 1.981 1.316 1.217 1.145 PM-gasoline 1.432 1.143 611 578 567 589 605 PM -non-exhaust 592 623 738 832 910 980 1.019 European Commission --Standard & Poor s DRI KULeuven, August 1999 19
TABLE 23: EMISSIONS BY VEHICLE CATEGORY FOR FINLAND (TONNES) Emissions by vehicle category, tonnes Region Mode 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 CO emissions Finland Cars 429.397 405.792 277.460 202.966 148.557 99.032 64.204 Finland LCV 11.093 12.361 9.543 7.176 5.670 2.976 2.196 Finland HDV 9.156 7.872 7.807 6.532 5.102 4.598 4.256 Finland Buses 2.137 1.811 1.649 1.331 839 697 580 Finland Motos 14.839 16.907 11.630 9.288 7.635 5.939 6.131 Finland Total 466.622 444.742 308.088 227.293 167.802 113.242 77.366 NOx emissions Finland Cars 71.813 64.521 46.578 28.871 14.543 8.402 6.203 Finland LCV 3.495 3.851 3.331 2.684 2.102 1.122 979 Finland HDV 24.493 20.723 18.138 15.300 11.169 8.669 7.040 Finland Buses 7.782 6.713 5.282 4.251 2.658 1.824 1.330 Finland Motos 94 110 139 159 173 183 186 Finland Total 107.677 95.919 73.468 51.266 30.645 20.199 15.737 PM emissions Finland Cars 1.137 824 348 185 74 57 51 Finland LCV 982 1.080 642 517 425 256 250 Finland HDV 1.709 1.478 1.153 894 511 291 195 Finland Buses 350 303 223 173 89 44 29 Finland Motos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Finland Total 4.179 3.685 2.366 1.769 1.098 649 525 Benzene emissions Finland Cars 2.776 2.540 981 572 238 126 65 Finland LCV 63 70 41 33 28 17 16 Finland HDV 75 67 66 60 50 47 44 Finland Buses 16 14 12 11 7 6 5 Finland Motos 144 149 68 51 40 29 30 Finland Total 3.073 2.839 1.169 727 363 225 160 VOC emissions Finland Cars 75.266 68.282 42.559 23.542 8.305 4.424 2.313 Finland LCV 2.037 2.260 1.801 1.436 1.206 769 689 Finland HDV 3.592 3.185 3.908 3.530 2.991 2.819 2.651 Finland Buses 779 684 751 638 395 339 280 Finland Motos 3.508 3.642 2.548 1.980 1.616 1.258 1.297 Finland Total 85.182 78.053 51.568 31.126 14.513 9.610 7.231 NMVOC emissions Finland Cars 73.196 66.468 41.642 23.119 8.297 4.432 2.305 Finland LCV 1.981 2.198 1.764 1.411 1.188 763 685 Finland HDV 2.546 2.294 2.642 2.421 2.078 1.966 1.852 Finland Buses 572 505 523 449 281 240 199 Finland Motos 3.349 3.458 2.361 1.770 1.389 1.019 1.055 Finland Total 81.643 74.921 48.932 29.169 13.233 8.422 6.096 SO2 emissions Finland Cars 1.201 1.276 137 142 137 131 126 Finland LCV 180 199 19 22 23 25 24 Finland HDV 573 534 42 47 52 55 56 Finland Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Finland Motos 12 14 2 1 1 1 1 Finland Total 1.967 2.024 200 213 213 212 207 CO2 emissions (thousand tonnes) Finland Cars 5.973 6.462 7.286 7.550 7.245 6.933 6.678 Finland LCV 665 733 988 1.178 1.223 1.286 1.263 Finland HDV 2.003 1.868 2.209 2.437 2.719 2.874 2.928 Finland Buses 545 499 497 479 426 393 362 Finland Motos 66 75 80 79 74 69 67 Finland Total 9.251 9.637 11.059 11.724 11.687 11.555 11.298 20 European Commission, Standard & Poor s DRI KULeuven, August 1999
Auto-Oil II Cost-Effectiveness Study CHART 6: TOTAL CO EMISSIONS BY VEHICLE CATEGORY FOR FINLAND (TONNES) 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 Motos Buses HDV LCV Cars 100,000 50,000 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Motos 14,839 16,907 11,630 9,288 7,635 5,939 6,131 Buses 2,137 1,811 1,649 1,331 839 697 580 HDV 9,156 7,872 7,807 6,532 5,102 4,598 4,256 LCV 11,093 12,361 9,543 7,176 5,670 2,976 2,196 Cars 429,397 405,792 277,460 202,966 148,557 99,032 64,204 CHART 7: TOTAL NOX EMISSIONS BY VEHICLE CATEGORY FOR FINLAND (TONNES) 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 Motos Buses HDV LCV Cars 20,000 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Motos 94 110 139 159 173 183 186 Buses 7,782 6,713 5,282 4,251 2,658 1,824 1,330 HDV 24,493 20,723 18,138 15,300 11,169 8,669 7,040 LCV 3,495 3,851 3,331 2,684 2,102 1,122 979 Cars 71,813 64,521 46,578 28,871 14,543 8,402 6,203 European Commission --Standard & Poor s DRI KULeuven, August 1999 21
CHART 8: TOTAL VOC EMISSIONS BY VEHICLE CATEGORY FOR FINLAND (TONNES) 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 Motos Buses HDV LCV Cars 20,000 10,000 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Motos 3,508 3,642 2,548 1,980 1,616 1,258 1,297 Buses 779 684 751 638 395 339 280 HDV 3,592 3,185 3,908 3,530 2,991 2,819 2,651 LCV 2,037 2,260 1,801 1,436 1,206 769 689 Cars 75,266 68,282 42,559 23,542 8,305 4,424 2,313 CHART 9: TOTAL BENZENE EMISSIONS BY VEHICLE CATEGORY FOR FINLAND (TONNES) 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 Motos Buses HDV LCV Cars 500 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Motos 144 149 68 51 40 29 30 Buses 16 14 12 11 7 6 5 HDV 75 67 66 60 50 47 44 LCV 63 70 41 33 28 17 16 Cars 2,776 2,540 981 572 238 126 65 22 European Commission, Standard & Poor s DRI KULeuven, August 1999
Auto-Oil II Cost-Effectiveness Study CHART 10: TOTAL PM 10 EMISSIONS BY VEHICLE CATEGORY FOR FINLAND (TONNES) 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 Motos Buses HDV LCV Cars 1,000 500 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Motos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Buses 350 303 223 173 89 44 29 HDV 1,709 1,478 1,153 894 511 291 195 LCV 982 1,080 642 517 425 256 250 Cars 1,137 824 348 185 74 57 51 CHART 11: TOTAL CO2 EMISSIONS BY VEHICLE CATEGORY FOR FINLAND (TONNES) 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 Motos Buses HDV LCV Cars 4,000 2,000 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Motos 66 75 80 79 74 69 67 Buses 545 499 497 479 426 393 362 HDV 2,003 1,868 2,209 2,437 2,719 2,874 2,928 LCV 665 733 988 1,178 1,223 1,286 1,263 Cars 5,973 6,462 7,286 7,550 7,245 6,933 6,678 European Commission --Standard & Poor s DRI KULeuven, August 1999 23
CHART 12: TOTAL SO2 EMISSIONS BY VEHICLE CATEGORY FOR FINLAND (TONNES) 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 Motos Buses HDV LCV Cars 500 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Motos 12 14 2 1 1 1 1 Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HDV 573 534 42 47 52 55 56 LCV 180 199 19 22 23 25 24 Cars 1,201 1,276 137 142 137 131 126 24 European Commission, Standard & Poor s DRI KULeuven, August 1999