Zero Emission Area Handbook Global New Mobility Coalition

May 2021

with knowledge support from McKinsey & Company and in collaboration with the World Economic Forum About us – Introducing the Global New Mobility Coalition

Global New Mobility Coalition 2 The Global New Mobility Coalition The Global New Mobility Coalition (GNMC), curated by the World Economic Forum with knowledge and analytical support from McKinsey & Company, is an active and diverse community of over 200 globally renowned experts, NGOs and companies for accelerating the shift to a synced Shared, Electric, Connected and Autonomous Mobility (SEAM) system that provides for healthier cities, reduces carbon emissions improves mobility efficiency, and decreases commuting costs, while tapping into a 600 billion-dollar business. This work is independent and has not been commissioned by any business, government, or other institution. The conclusions in this document do not necessarily reflect the views of individual coalition members.

Our Mission GNMC co-develops, pilots and scales awareness building and policy initiatives that enable sustainable mobility, and scale the benefits of SEAM for the environment, society and the economy.

Read more on GNMC

Global New Mobility Coalition 3 Urban-X Erasmus Tech Company Urban Radar Los Angeles Cleantech Incubator Gehl Future Mobility IL Waze We Mean Business Coalition VOI Technologies AmpUp University of Tongji University of Washington MTR Corporation Limited Luum WunderCar Mobility Solutions GmbH International Council on Clean Transportation Forth Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Lime Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Futher Strategies Israel Tech Policy FreeNow Ford Motor Company NavInfo Co. Ltd Institute RMI Runel LeasePlan Corporation N.V. Energy Foundation Beijing Office Shenzhen Urban Transport Center International Transport Forum Respire - Association nationale pour Deutsche Post DHL Group Via Transportation, Inc Fehr & Peers Fehr & Peers BMW (OECD) ViaVan Bolt l'amélioration de la qualité de l'air Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory National Renewable Energy Laboratory - NREL VMware Disruptive Mobility Tech Research Institute for Regional BMW Bayerische Sacramento AB Volvo Clean Energy Business Council Inc. and Urban Development Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Motoren Werke AG McKinsey & Company Sigma Epsilon LTD Siemens Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH Shell Foundation DHL Customer Solutions and Moia RideSVP Ford Mobility LLC Denver Metro Clean Cities Coalition FedEx Express Innovation Center ENGIE Group Bloomberg LP ZF The Children's Investment Fund Foundation European Commission ZF Friedrichshafen Regulatory Assistance Project Neckermann Strategic Advisors AG Italdesign MobilneMiasto RD Business Solutions AppyWay Beijing Transportation Institute LA Urban Bloomberg Associates Movement Labs Israel Innovation Authority Ministry of Infrastructure Mellowcabs Associations San Francisco County Transportation Authority Electric Avenue and Water Management of SoftBank Group International Xiaoju Science and Technology Eurocities Didi Dache the Netherlands (Hong Kong) Limited mobilityx Corp Ethics Daimler AG Cravath, Swaine & Allianz Reef Technologies Lyft SoftBank Investment Advisors Mobility MaaS Alliance Moore LLP Emerging Transport Advisons Scooty We are a Technion - Israel Institute of Technology ABB Ltd services MaaS Global ClimateWorks BYD Company Limited COP26 High SYSTEMIQ Autonomy Manyone A/S Foundation Level Climate Automotive Securing America's Softbank Share Now SHARE NOW GmbH network of Champions The Climate Tata Future Energy (SAFE) Vision Fund Group Motors Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Ceres McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd Ltd OEMs ERTICO C40 Cities Climate Modo Missions Populus.ai Proterra Inc Zoox The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Leadership Group 200+ globally Publiques China EV100 Hoag+Co Cruise Polis Network General Motors LLC World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) PEMconsult Pick Me Piaggio renowned China Automotive Technology Mobility and Research Center (CATARC) Lab UK Pedestrian ChargePoint Mobilieese Space Coord The International Tech players experts, NGOs The National Transport Forum Partnership on Sustainable Low Association of City & digital solution Carbon Transportation Sixt SE Honda Motor Cities Transportation Co. Ltd Energy Foundation Officials Antonym Academia providers City of Seattle and companies City Hovecon Connekt New York University Humanising World Autonomy Ola Mobility Institute Navya Resources BP Plc Circuit Institute Bird Rides, Inc. Citi Ventures, Inc Baker McKenzie Envoy Office of Interdisciplinary Design Government of Amsterdam Equipment & Uber Technologies Inc. Imperial College London Alliances Transport & The World Bank Indra infrastructure Groupe Renault Environment (T&E) Independent Artist NGOs players Nexus Institute Transdev Oak Foundation Arrival Ltd. BlaBlaCar BlaBlaCar City of Los Angeles EVgo Services LLC NUMO, a global alliance on Infrastructure Victoria Bestmile SA NVIDIA Corporation University of California, Davis New Urban Mobility NIO Nürtingen-Geislingen The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania Autogrid Systems Inc. Zeelo LTD University Alstom Argonne National Laboratory City of Calgary Union Internationale Association for Commuter Transportation des Transports Publics World Bank Group University of California, WM Motor Technology Co. Ltd Arup Group Ltd Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) Berkeley The William and Flora Heising-Simons Foundation Union of Concerned Scientists City of London Hewlett Foundation City of Oslo University of Cologne Agora Verkehrswende Harvard Kennedy School of Government Hella KG Hueck & Co. Innovation Center for Energy and Transportation Institute for Transportation and Development Policy University of Oxford China Urban Sustainable Transport Research Center University of Oregon Global New Mobility Coalition 4 Urbanization & Accessibility Congestion Emissions 60% 20-35% 1.5°C people living in cities increase globally since pathway requires com- in 2030 2010 mitment to decarbonization We address key challenges in urban sustainable mobility Shared rides E-mobility Autonomy 80% 2.5% ~2025 of rides with one occupant: global share of EVs in launch year of L4/5, requiring increasing shared rides can 2019, with over 20 long shared and electric infra- cut costs and emissions e-range models structure for positive impact

Health & safety Connectivity Deliveries ~1.35mn 95% 78% people die in road crashes penetration of in-vehicle growth in last-mile every year connectivity delivery

Global New Mobility Coalition 5 Zero emission urban mobility is a game changer in realizing the social and sustainable city of the future

Human-centred urban mobility design, liveable spaces, mobility hubs, 15-min city Tech enabled holistic solution for entire ecosystems

Equity and access

Multistakeholder Transformation of street as a common approach good, mobility as a service

Global New Mobility Coalition 6 Recently we have seen governments declare new ambitions for Potential new EU 2030 targets for automotive sales CO2 reductions, Scenario CO2 reductions CO2 targets Required 2030 sales driving the uptake of from new sales for 2030 sales powertrain mix (2021-2030) (g/km CO2) (% of new car sales) electric vehicles BEV PHEV

Sep '20 Proposal to increase the 1 Current bloc’s 2030 climate target regulation 37,5% 59 36% 11% 47% 55% to "at least 55 percent“ within the Green Deal

Sep '20 California to phase out 2 Conservative sales of new gas- new regulation 50% 48 48% 12% 60% 2035 powered cars and trucks by 2035

Sep '20 Xi Jinping made a EU climate 3 86% 6% 92% surprise commitment to target scenario 90% 10 2060 drastically reduce emissions and become carbon free by 2060

Quelle: McKinsey Center for Future Mobility; desk research Global New Mobility Coalition 7 16 OEMs with 65% market share have GNMC perspectives are technology agnostic – BEV, fuel cell and other already announced exit dates for ICE drivetrain options are in scope

Announced ICE sales bans X 2019 PC sales market share (in %) Examples

2020s 0.5% 0.3% 6.9%2 ~8% “VW will introduce last ICE platform in 2026 and manufacture only all electric cars 2030s by 2040” 6.1% 0.4% 7.7%

“Toyota will be phasing out gas engines from their line-up, […] 4.0%1 2.9% 1.1% ~35% ending production of ICE engines by 2040” 3.6% 1.4% “BAIC Motor looks to phase out conventional fuel cars by 2025” 2040s 13.7% 12.2% ~61% “All new Volvo cars to be electric or hybrid from 2019 onwards” 2050s 3.5% ~65%

1. Target only for EU

Source: McKinsey Electrification Model, MCFM, IHS, Press research Global New Mobility Coalition 8 Regional and national action may support city action – City alliances can be helpful in guiding local action

Countries with C40 cities

Oslo Stockholm Moscow Amsterdam 47 Rotterdam Copenhagen London Warsaw Vancouver Berlin Toronto Heidelberg Seattle Montreal Paris Yokohama C40 Cities Portland Milan Venice Qingdao Boston Barcelona Dalian Rome and Sacramento New York Madrid Wuhan Seoul San Francisco Chicago Philadelphia Los Angeles Phoenix Lisbon Shanghai Washington Tel Aviv- Yafo additional Delhi NCT Nanjing Austin New Orleans Amman Fuzhou Miami Karachi Hangzhou Houston Jaipur partner cities Kolkata Hanoi Guadalajara Hong Kong Mumbai Bangkok Quezon City are actively Mexico City Addis Ababa Chennai Dakar Bengaluru Ho Chi Minh City Medellín Abidjan Lagos pursuing Bogota Accra Kuala Lumpur Quito Singapore Nairobi mobility Dar es Salaam Lima Jakarta El Salvador related

Rio de Janeiro initiatives Sao Paulo Sydney Curitiba Cape Town Ekurhuleni Santiago Buenos Aires Durban (eThekwini) Melbourne Auckland

Source: https://www.c40.org/ Global New Mobility Coalition 9 Cities are emerging as drivers of global surge in launch or announcement of zero emission areas

Paris "15min city"; Investment of over 300 Mio. EUR into Seattle both modernization and Permanent closure of expansion of 650 km Stockholm 30 km residential road cycleways Imposing inner city tolls from 6:30h to network, all ride-hailing Montreal Planned addition of over 18:30h (up to ~6 EUR) trips emission-free by Amsterdam 2030, one third of 320 km new pedestrian and bicycle lanes And 13 other Dutch cities 150+ deliveries emission free Berlin will move to purely electric Repurposing of 18 roads into slow Portland delivery from 2025 streets during certain hours Cities Temporary reduction of fees for e-scooters and bike sharing London Brussels worldwide have Buying only zero-emission Transformation of 40 km Sacramento buses from 2025, traffic roads into bike lanes planned or Initiatives: Climate Action Plan expansion of ZEA to HDT and the Transportation Priorities initiated ideas Plan Madrid Milan Austin 4,5 km2 zone allowing only Increase of bike-sharing fleet to to reduce 40% of vehicle miles public transport and zero- 8.000 bikes and addition of 3.500 mobility related Santa Monica travelled electrified by 2030 emission vehicles new e-scooters; free access for Introduction of voluntary „zero- electric delivery vehicles into emissions emission" delivery zones for Barcelona congestion charge area commercial vehicles in 2021 Expanding low emission zones with restricted access and speed limits

Quelle: McKinsey Center for Future Mobility; Online-Recherche Global New Mobility Coalition 10 In response to the global movement towards sustainable mobility we have launched a digital Zero Emission Area Handbook

Laying the foundation Defining a winning ZEA concept Quantitative ZEA modeling

Quantify direct impact Establish work principles Define a winning pilot format (emissions, cost etc.)

Prioritize asset classes and Quantify and manage Set an ambitious vision measures externalities

Define performance metrics Close legal, financial & tech- Plan transition and timing to measure impact nological implementation gaps for each measure

Activating and connecting with the ecosystem

Ensure community dialogue Learn from city case studies Learn from GNMC businesses & buy-in

Global New Mobility Coalition 11 #1 Establish work principles

Global New Mobility Coalition 12 Establishing work principles for all stakeholders up front is critical

Engage external Align on language and Standard taxonomy stakeholders information sharing and definitions Greenfield Labs Including the public sector, businesses, by, for example, forming a clear terminology academia, residents and commuters glossary to facilitate smooth communications. Revisit the glossary periodically to account for new and evolving socio-technological configurations Ensure agile governance that minimizes regulatory patchwork, is Create an environment for World focused on a clear vision, and continuously Work open collective data usage Economic improves and adapts to changing context in order to allow for maximum innovation and Forum principles for synergies between different players in the public and ecosystem (eg, mobility innovators, tech firms) Keep track private sector by forming efficient, transparent, and Avoid or break down internal silos authoritative management; evaluation; stakeholders by engaging with all stakeholders and seeking cross- and enforcement capacities ministerial participation to enable action that builds on multiple perspectives and experiences. This should World Economic include but not be limited to, legal, financing, Forum’s Agile Cities Establish performance monitoring, and enforcing entities. World Economic Forum’s indices & risk guidelines Drones & Tomorrow’s in advance to efficiently solve technical, Air Space organizational, and operational issues, including prior alignment on how to address issues

Source: GNMC, Shared, Electric and Automated Mobility (SEAM) Governance Framework: Prototype for North America and Europe (World Economic Forum, 2019) Global New Mobility Coalition 13 #2 Set an ambitious vision

Global New Mobility Coalition 14 Mobility ecosystems are at a major inflection point – There is a window of opportunity now for cities to shape the "Next Normal"

Over a century, Paris’ Rue de Rivoli has transformed from…

1900s 1920s 1970s 2020

A dirt road full of horses… To a paved road full of cars To a 6-lane, one-way car- To a bike and pedestrian- and pedestrians… only arterial… only street…

…to?

Global New Mobility Coalition 15 Cities and businesses are starting to rethink urban space and mobility costs – Defining an ambitious vision is the basis for success

From… Transport Accessibility focused on equity and fairness … to Traffic focus, motorized with emphasis on automobile Human-centred urban design incl. bike, foot and rolling Large in scale Local in scale based on a multistakeholder approach Street as a road, physical dimensions Street as a space with social and environmental dimensions Reactive and static traffic management Real-time, tech enabled holistic solution for entire ecosystems Economic evaluation Multi-criteria evaluation (including social, environmental) Travel as derived demand Travel as a valued activity and derived demand Demand based (speeding up traffic) Management based (slowing movement down) Minimizing travel time Reasonable travel time, travel time reliability Separating people and traffic Transformation of street as a common good, clean mobility as a service

Global New Mobility Coalition 16 Societal, economic and environmental considerations are crucial

Health impacts Mobility underserved

Human centered design An ambitious vision for zero- Intergenerational emission areas recognizes and Equity and social justice (race, income, gender, integrates economic, societal Community livability Societal age etc.) and environmental needs. When defining a vision, it is important to include not only direct effects (e.g., reduced emissions within the area), but Cost for businesses Depletion of non- also indirect effects (e.g., Sustainability renewable resources additional congestion in the Cost for residents ambition surrounding areas, impact on and commuters stakeholders like residents and Economic Environmental Climate impacts local retail). Vehicle crash damages Some of these impacts can be Habitat & quantified (e.g., traffic volume), biodiversity loss some will be more qualitative Traffic congestion and will only emerge over time Air, water and (e.g., perceived quality of living). Cost for cities and soil pollution national governments

Global New Mobility Coalition 17 #3 Define performance metrics to measure impact

Global New Mobility Coalition 18 Performance metrics should cover not only emissions, but also Illustrative measure across societal, economic and environmental considerations

Environmental The best 'impact dashboard' Societal Economic is simple and measures impact across societal, Equity, accessibility Cost/revenues for all Emissions economic and & convenience ecosystem stakeholders environmental areas. § Multi-modal ticketing § Cost per commute/trip § CO2/NOx emissions per km travelled § Share of direct trips / point-to-point § Cost and revenues for cities and § Noise emissions Some of these metrics will § Share of residents within 1 mile of governments, businesses, residents § PM emissions be directly linked to the public transit § New jobs created implementation of ZEAs (like § Access to affordable, efficient modes Health and safety Efficiency / congestion emissions), some of them will be more qualitative and § Number of crashes § Congestion / hours lost in traffic look at externalities as well § Indirect health related impact based § Average trip time or commute time as macro-level effects (e.g., on surveys (quality of living, perceived stress etc.) DP gains) of ZEAs.

Taking into consideration Political feasibility & Time to implementation Scalability resident needs, political acceptance feasibility, required time for impact as well as scalability § Acceptance by all stakeholders § Year of implementation § Ability to scale solutions from a (e.g., from street-level ZEA § Likelihood of implementation § Year in which impact can be single street to a larger district or considering local context (culture, measured even to the state/country level to more holistic district-level current state etc.) ZEA) is critical.

Global New Mobility Coalition 19 #4 Define a winning pilot format

Global New Mobility Coalition 20 Zero Emission Area Not comprehensive

Service and crafts Private investors Ambulance Firefighting Parcel Logistics Groceries Investors Plumbing Special purpose Commercial traffic Funds Police traffic Local Restaurants 1 Public transit businesses Local retailers A wide variety Bus Taxi Train MaaS Microtransit Subway Tech players of stakeholders Rickshaws Motorcycle taxi Mobility Private SaaS BaaS platforms has to be taken Regulator Sector City Local/national Public into consider- regulators governments Sector Automotive OEMs and shared/ ation in the Infrastructure micromobility players Associations Academia players Public and not-for- Logistics Automotive Shared/ design of a ZEA NGOs players OEMs micromobility profit institutions players Interest groups Private Households Ride-sharing users Private car reliant residents Commuters1 Residents Private car users Transit users Different Underserved Active mobility users generations neighborhoods

1. Including informal mobility networks Global New Mobility Coalition 21 Different formats for zero-emission areas exist, ranging from street- focused ZEAs to more holistic concepts covering entire districts

Level of complexity Lower Higher

Managed street Managed corridor Managed network Managed cordon Managed district plus mobility Single or several inner- Multiple coordinated Multiple coordinated Comprehensive ZEA enhancement city streets; either managed lanes along managed lanes as an concept for large areas complete access Single tolled commuter the same congestion integrated program – which includes not only restriction or allow-ance lane or EV/high- corridor stricter policies in the traffic but also urban for certain vehicles with occupancy lanes center redesign toll

Barcelona Los Angeles Santiago de Amsterdam Oslo Chile Oxford London

Additional city examples: Urbanaccessregulation.eu Global New Mobility Coalition 22 #5 Prioritize asset classes and measures

Global New Mobility Coalition 23 Measures to move to zero emission are manifold and can be Not comprehensive – described along different criteria for design and scope additional modes exist

Covered by model

Intervention type Regulatory & information Economic Ecosystem

Vehicle ownership Private Commercial Public

Stakeholder groups Private Households Private Sector Players Public Sector Institutions Motorcycle Passenger Pickup/ Van Bus LDT MDT HDT Vehicle class (taxi) car Effect duration One time Continuous

Impact timeframe 2022 Until 2025 Until 2030

Implementation start Immediately 2025 - 2030 > 2030

Incentivistion Enabler Prohibition

Impact type Emissions Congestion Health & Safety Other

Cost CapEx (investments) OpEx (running cost)

Global New Mobility Coalition 24 Collection of potential actions facilitating reduction in emissions, congestion and other targets, thereby leading to more livable cities Long list Pass. Com. Pass. of initiatives Taxis Shared Bus car Residents & commuters Veh. Private sector car Public sector

Regulatory Phase out of all non-EVs measures Phase out of all non-EV passenger cars Phase out of all non-EV commercial vehicles Speed reduction in inner-city areas Order to install charging stations in all (new) buildings

Incentivisation Highway/inner-city tolls for all non-EVs measures Subsidies for EV charging, parking, lanes and loading areas City invest: replace all non-EVs Subsidies for car/ride sharing, micromobility Subsidies for & financing of EV fleets Subsidies for public transport Reward system to use mobility alternatives

Infrastructure Prominent visuals to encourage ZEA (voluntary) High-frequency public EV shuttles measures More public charging stations Subsidized parcel lockers for delivery Emissions-optimized route planning as SaaS

Urban Replacement of parking spaces with public areas/bike lanes redesign Dedicated lanes for high-occupancy mobility Dedicated EV loading zones measures Extension of bike and micromobility lanes Goods tram for delivery Closure and repurposing of roads and curb space (temporary/ permanent) (e.g. pedestrian zone, shopping area, park) Create limited traffic zones (e.g. only for public transport, shared mobility)

1. For each intervention a city-specific implementation timeline must be determined Global New Mobility Coalition 25 Example: London has 18+ years of experience with congestion charges

Congestion pricing Factors contributing to success or failure

Program overview + Political support: Mayor’s (Livingstone) election platform included congestion pricing 2 • Flat charge on entering 21 km cordoned + Enabling legislation: Greater London Authority Act (‘99) enabled London Mayors to introduce road user zone containing 200K residents/1M jobs charging. Previous legislation (’97) required local authorities to study and reduce traffic volumes • Residents within zone receive 90% discount on daily charge. + Bundling: Political support gained by bundling congestion charge with other initiatives, including mass transit improvements (e.g. increased bus service, lengthened bus lanes, smart cards, introducing out-of-bus ticket • Charge applies to vehicles parked or sales and banning driver ticket sales) driving within the zone (except for residents’ off-street parking) + Strong policy communications: London widely conveyed the program’s benefits • Flat charge (originally £5 weekdays 7a- + Public support: 90% of residents believed there was too much traffic and were concerned about travel times 6:30p – increased to £8 in 2005 and £10 and air pollution in 2013) + Reinvestment: Revenues in excess of expenses were dedicated to improving transportation • Enforcement by camera at zone entry/exit • Online billing/payment - Consensus-building: Westminster council, ruled by opposition and responsible for governing the borough restricted by the system, challenged the legality and environmental impact of the policy. British High Court • Electric/low-emission vehicles exempt rejected the claim • Initial investment of $214M • Capita Group won £230M, 5 yr contract - Risk transfer, performance levels, & contract negotiations: After several initial hiccups (incl. 100K+ unpaid to manage the system. IBM & Siemens notices) Capita was criticized for cost-effectiveness & service levels, leading to renegotiations. Capita took on operating the scheme since ‘09 greater revenue risk & customer service KPIs and in return was awarded additional revenue (up to £31M) 30% 50% 20% -2% 14% Impact decrease in peak decline in bus decline in auto auto mode share increase in bus period congestion congestion traffic shift ridership; Global New Mobility Coalition 26 Tri-State Transportation Campaign, “Road Pricing in London, Stockholm, & Singapore” (2018); Auckland Council & MoT, “The Congestion Question” (2019) #6 Close legal, financial & technological implementation gaps

Global New Mobility Coalition 27 Addressing legal, financial and technological challenges can only be done through a multistakeholder systems approach

Legal & political challenges Financial challenges Technological challenges Other challenges Political acceptance can vary Comprehensive business case, Sensors and street cameras at Scaling of innovative formats, significantly depending on the cost quantifying costs and benefits for a scale (e.g., standard solutions) to e.g., urban consolidation and benefits to different stakeholders wide range of stakeholders (incl. ensure critical mass for occupancy centers, multi-modal hubs residents, local retail etc.) control, congestion charging and Political willingness for bold real-time curb management decision making is often limited Community buy-in, e.g., local regarding regulatory interventions Transition financing, e.g., large- and regional public acceptance and street-redesign due to fears of scale investments in EV Open-source data and data and support public reactions and future electability infrastructure to accelerate transition platforms, e.g., detailed data on to emission-free transport traffic flow, volume for effective Time and funds required for Bureaucratic approach and slow traffic modeling and simulation implementation and sustaining decision making – often ambitious the change projects get struck in "business as Cross-subsidizing success cases, Convenient apps and platforms usual" political processes/mindsets, e.g., revenues from roach charging for users – currently there are particularly when adapting legal re-invested in EV infrastructure many different multi-model and framework is required micromobility apps and offerings each with its own ticketing system Regulation addressing data City budget for comprehensive standards and privacy concerns ZEA implementation, e.g., trade-off for sensors and cameras, enabling between significant investments in occupancy control and street street/ZEA re-design in the short- Technological advancement – term versus incremental some technological solutions Source: Workshop series with charging GNMC members improvements in infrastructure over might not yet be available or the years financially viable

Global New Mobility Coalition 28 #7 Quantify direct impact

Global New Mobility Coalition 29 The partnership between the Goals of the partnership Data sources utilized World Economic The World Economic Forum’s GNMC, the The data for the quantitative modelling Forum’s GNMC, city of Sacramento and McKinsey aim to was provided by the city of Sacramento inform policy makers and private including traffic flow, parking, EV charging the city of stakeholders on future mobility infrastructure data, etc. Sacramento and challenges. McKinsey complemented this by The findings are supposed to guide providing detailed figures on investment McKinsey helps decisions on strategies regarding the cost, utilization projections, emissions, etc. solve mobility decarbonization of mobility in urban areas Further data was provided by existing to be utilized in initiatives such as the GMNC partners including mobility cost 1 related climate Mayors’ Commission on Climate Change data and existing case studies of new change in the city of Sacramento. mobility approaches. challenges Results of this partnership are not ready- Expert interviews completed the to-implement mobility policies but qualitative findings presented. rather food for thought in developing these policies.

1. https://www.lgc.org/climatecommission/ Global New Mobility Coalition 30 The results do not constitute policies to be implemented in the city of Sacramento

What this report IS What this report IS NOT

Real-world simulation Commitment of any GNMC partner

Long list of potential interventions Single approach that fits all municipalities

Insights from Sacramento modeling as enabler General plan for the city of Sacramento or to inform other city's ZEA considerations the residential area shown

Case study to guide expectations Lobbying paper to encourage certain policies

Neutral perspective of quantified impact Concrete recommendation for implementation

Global New Mobility Coalition 31 Public charging stations Parked shared bikes/scooters1 The World Zipcar car sharing locations Mainly residential area Economic Business focused area Forum’s GNMC Bike lanes and McKinsey are partnering with the City of Proximity to downtown Sacramento to Main public model a digital transit line GIG free float car ZEA share zone 9.3 square miles 121.000 daily commuters 9.400 residents 260 businesses

2 bordering freeways 1. snapshot of point in time McKinsey & Company 32 Heterogenous, urban area – Areal with combination of residential and commercial buildings and traffic, located near the city center

Broad set of mobility modes – Opportunity to analyze data from public transit, individual/commercial vehicle traffic, Considerations infrastructure, micro-mobility etc. for selecting area to model a Diverse types of routes – Area which includes residential housing, urban retail as well as 2 bordering highways digital ZEA Data availability – Area for which both the city of Sacramento as well as GNMC businesses could contribute with real-world data

Existing ZEA / seamless mobility efforts – Location is already used for future mobility pilots by the city of Sacramento (e.g., charging, sharing etc.)

Global New Mobility Coalition 33 Illustrative example – Traffic Overview of trips in area in analyzed area

Private vehicles Fleet vehicles Public vehicles

Real-life traffic share of trips 0,4% 0,1% 0% Motorcycles share of emissions data shows that 0,2% 0,2% 0% High impact 69,6% 7,3% area for 0,1% private trans- Passenger cars 44,6% 17,5% overall 0,1% port comprises emissions 14,9% 4,2% 0,1% Pickups, vans ~85% of urban 13,2% 14,2% 0,1% traffic, while 0% 0,1% 0,2% Buses light vehicles 0% 0,3% 1,2% 0,1% 1,8% High impact 0,1% cause ~90% of LDT 0,1% 5,9% area for 0,1% CO2 emissions relative 0% 0,8% 0% MDT emissions 0% 1,5% 0,1%

0% 0,3% 0% HDT 0% 0,7% 0%

Share of trips vs. share of emissions ∑85% /58% ∑14% / 40% ∑1% / 2%

Source: Sacramento, afdc.energy.gov, www.epa.gov Global New Mobility Coalition 34 Prioritized interventions modeled for Sacramento Illustrative example

Pass Com. Pass Taxis Shared Bus car Residents & commuters Veh. Private sector car Public sector

Regulatory 1 Phase out of all non-EVs measures 2 Phase out of all non-EV passenger cars 3 Phase out of all non-EV commercial vehicles

Incentivisation 4 Highway/inner-city tolls for all non-EVs measures 5 Subsidies for EV charging, parking, lanes and loading areas

6 Subsidies for car/ride sharing, micromobility 9 Subsidies for & financing of EV fleets

7 Subsidies for (zero-emission) public transport 10 City invest: replace all non-EVs

8 Reward system to use mobility alternatives

Infrastructure 11 Prominent street signs and road markings to encourage ZEA (voluntary) 13 High-frequency public EV shuttles measures 12 Subsidized parcel lockers for delivery

Urban 14 Replacement of parking spaces with public areas/bike lanes redesign 15 Dedicated lanes for high-occupancy mobility 16 Goods tram for urban delivery measures

1. For each measure a city-specific implementation timeline must be determined Global New Mobility Coalition 35 Sacramento specific ZEA interventions grid based on real-world data

Annual values for Sacramento ZEA with 2,6km, High Medium Low Cost Savings Cost of EV are based on TCO for travel distance1

CO2 abatement potential, Ecosystem financial Cost efficiency, Feasibility & % (kt CO2e)2 implication, mn USD mn USD, %-points acceptance3

Regulatory 1 Phase out of all non-EV 100% (21,9) 21.2 0.21 measures 2 Phase out of all non-EV passenger cars 85% (18,7) 17.5 0.21

3 Phase out of all non-EV commercial vehicles 15% (3,2) 3.7 0.25

Incentivation 4 Highway/inner-city tolls for all non-EVs 13% (2,9) 0.4 0.03 measures 5 Subsidies for EV charg., parking, lanes & loading areas 18% (3,9) 15.7 0.88

6 Subsidies for car/ride sharing, micro-mobility 4% (0,9) -1.6 -0.38

7 Subsidies for (zero-emission) public transport 12% (2,6) 23.7 1.96

8 Reward system to use mobility alternatives 0% (0,1) -2.2 -7.64

9 Subsidies for & financing of EV fleets 16% (3,4) 0.5 0.03

10 City invest: replace all non-EVs 2% (0,3) 0.1 0.04

Infrastructure 11 Prominent visuals to encourage ZEA (voluntary) 2% (0,4) -0.8 -0.43 measures 12 Subsidized parcel lockers for delivery 0% (0) 0 0.03

13 High-frequency public EV shuttles 4% (0,8) -1.6 -0.43

Urban redesign 14 Replacement of parking spaces with public areas/bike lanes 4% (0,9) 2.5 0.63 measures 15 Dedicated lanes for high-occupancy mobility 1% (0,2) -1.1 -1.11

16 Goods tram for delivery 0% (0,1) 1.3 5.45

1. Total cost of ownership (TCO) compared to current internal combustion alternatives for average travel distances within the fictive Sacramento ZEO Global New Mobility Coalition 36 2. Tonnes of CO2 equivalent 3. Based on general political climate in Europe and North America Sacramento specific ZEA interventions grid based on real-world data

Annual values for Sacramento ZEA with 2,6km, Cost CO2 savings >15% CO2 savings <15% Cost of EV are based on TCO for travel distance1 Residents & commuters Private sector Public sector Cost of measure, Emissions Cost of measure, Emissions Cost of measure, Emissions Mn USD reduction, % Mn USD reduction, % Mn USD reduction, %

Regulatory 1 Phase out of all non-EV 16.93 78.1% 4.07 20.2% 0.18 1.7% measures 2 Phase out of all non-EV passenger cars 16.84 77.8% 0.64 6.4% 0.03 1.1%

3 Phase out of all non-EV commercial vehicles 0.09 0.3% 3.43 13.8% 0.15 0.5%

Incentivisation 4 Highway/inner-city tolls for all non-EVs2 52.32 11.4% 9.05 2.5% -60.94 -0.8% measures 5 Subsidies for EV charg., parking, lanes & loading areas 3.88 16.0% 0.45 1.9% 11.41 0.0%

6 Subsidies for car/ride sharing, micro-mobility -1.85 4.1% -0.03 0.0% 0.33 0.0%

7 Subsidies for (zero-emission) public transport -18.71 34.1% 0 0.0% 42.38 -22.0%

8 Reward system to use mobility alternatives -2.98 6.6% -0.78 0.0% 1.56 -6.3%

9 Subsidies for & financing of EV fleets 0 0.0% 0 14.3% 0.50 1.2%

10 City invest: replace all non-EVs 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.06 1.6%

Infrastructure 11 Prominent visuals to encourage ZEA (voluntary) -0.54 4.3% -0.27 0.0% 0 -2.4% measures 12 Subsidized parcel lockers for delivery 0.20 1.3% -0.11 0.0% -0.09 0.0%

13 High-frequency public EV shuttles -1.54 3.1% 0 0.0% -0.02 0.6%

Urban redesign 14 Replacement of parking spaces with public areas/bike lanes -4.70 3.5% -1.16 0.5% 8.39 0.0% measures 15 Dedicated lanes for high-occupancy mobility -1.04 1.0% -0.14 0.0% 0.11 0.0%

16 Goods tram for delivery 0 0.0% 0.17 0.2% 1.09 0.0%

1. Total cost of ownership (TCO) compared to current internal combustion alternatives for average travel distances within the fictive Sacramento ZEO 2. Best practice would be to use public sector profits to fund other environmental efforts such as the subsidy measure outline here Global New Mobility Coalition 37 We identified three archetypes of city transition roadmaps, based on regulatory, political c0ntext and ambition level Transition scenarios Emissions impact per dollar spent

A Top-down Mostly city/government-led top-down approach via regulatory interventions, leveraging increasing TCO regulatory push A advantage of BEV vs. ICE. C

B Pick-and-choose Incremental improvements with a selection of single incremental interventions, focusing on cost positive, no-regret moves. Trying to maximize acceptance by all ecosystem improvement B stakeholders as perceived cost and behavioral change are limited. Political feasibility and ecosystem acceptance C Pragmatic, impact Combination of various measures that have a high driven cluster probability of implementation and provide significant approach emission reduction in their combination.

Global New Mobility Coalition 38 Sacramento specific ZEA interventions grid based on real-world data

Measures Regulatory Infrastructure Incentivisation Urban redesign

A Top-down regulatory push CO2 abatement Pragmatic, impact C potential (%) driven cluster approach Phase out of all non-EV passenger cars 100 Phase out of all non-EV

Subsidies for & financing of EV fleets Subsidies for EV charging, 16 parking, lanes and loading areas Highway/ inner-city tolls 14 for all non-EVs Phase out of all non-EV 12 commercial vehicles Subsidies for public transport 10

8 High-frequency Subsidies for car/ride public EV shuttles Replacement of parking spaces 6 sharing, micromobility with public areas/bike lanes

4 Prominent visuals to encourage ZEA (voluntary) City invest: replacement B Pick-and-choose 2 of all non-EVs incremental improvement 0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Reward system to use Subsidized parcel lockers CO2 abatement costs mobility alternatives for delivery (mn USD) Dedicated lanes for Goods tram for delivery high-occupancy mobility Global New Mobility Coalition 39 A pragmatic, impact driven strategy will focus on high overall CO2 reduction potential at a high probability for implementation

Probability for implementation Cost for CO2 abatement potential

Regulatory measures Highway & inner city tolls Subsidies Show the highest overall CO2 Still significant CO2 abatement The subsidy-based initiatives abatement potential at low cost potential at low overall cost for the have a CO2 abatement impact per unit of CO2 avoided ecosystem only slightly lower than tolls

Likely meet the strongest Might meet resistance due to high In combination with the tolls, all resistance from political, reallocation of funds from residents/ subsidies could be financed and residential and private sector commuters and the private sector to provide an appropriate measure stakeholders the public sector, especially if these to relieve travellers willing so funds are not used appropriately adopt low/zero emissions travelling

Global New Mobility Coalition 40 Description The city to determine a fixed deadline/year for when all emitting vehicles traveling in the selected area have to be replaced by zero-emission transport modes. Post deadline non- EVs will be prohibited from accessing the area (excluding crucial public service vehicles, such as ambulance, fire trucks etc.). Responsibility for transition and cost coverage lies with all stakeholders and vehicle owners, supported by funding schemes to provide for an equitable transition. City to 1 ensure adequate charging infrastructure and regulatory framework. Traffic and radar controls to secure adherence. Phase out of all non-EVs Type of measure Regulatory Incentivization Infrastructure Urban redesign

Duration of implementation <1 year 1-2 years 2-5 years >5 years