Energy Use in the Transportation Sector of Malaysia

ENERGY USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR OF MALAYSIA

FINAL REPORT

FOR

A DANIDA-FUNDED PROJECT ON RENEWABLE ENERGY & ENERGY EFFICIENCY

BY

CONSULTANCY UNIT UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA LEVEL 2, BLOCK D, PERDANASISWA COMPLEX

UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA 50603 KUALA LUMPUR

MAY 2005

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Transportation is one of the key factors for the economy and society.

Therefore, transport policymakers have to create the policies frameworks that are

required transport sector to sustain energy with three-dimensional objective namely

ecology, economy and social acceptability. In chapter 2, the report discusses about

international experiences on reduction of energy use in transportation sector. There

are many methods and policies to reduce energy consumption in transport sector,

however only several of them that are suitable to be used in Malaysia are elaborated

in this chapter. Those include fuel economy standard for motor vehicle, fuel

economy labels, fuel switching, fuel taxation, emission abatement, further

improvements to vehicles which are have been implemented in other develop as well

as developing countries. The study found that many policies can be implemented

directly in Malaysia while some others must be modified to make it suitable for this

country. For example fuel economy label guide program can be directly implemented

in this country, however for fuel economy standard must me modified to make it

suitable because Malaysia has it local vehicle manufacturers that have to be

protected.

Emissions in the transportation sector produce adverse effects on the

environment that influent human health, organism growth, climatic changes and so

on. The Kyoto protocol by the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate

change (UNFCC) in December 1997, prescribed legally binding greenhouse gas

emission target about 5% below their 1990 level. About 160 countries including

Malaysia now adopt this protocol. The transportation sector is the main contributors

for emission in the country. In order to calculate the potential emission by this

activity, the type of fuel use should be identified. The study found that there are no

radical changes of fuel used for transportation sector in Malaysia. The data shown

that fuel type use are 53% of petrol, 34% of diesel, 13% of ATF 0.06% Natural Gas,

and 0.03% of electricity in year 2000 to 46% of petrol, 42% of diesel, 12% of ATF,

0.29% Natural Gas and only 0.07% of electricity in the year of 2020. The calculation

is based on emissions for unit fuel used and the type of fuel use and energy demand

iii

in transportation sector. The study found that, the transportation sector has

contributed huge emissions from their activities in this country and the change on

fuel type is necessary to change the pattern of emission production. These are discuss

intensively in chapter 3.

The main part of the transport and energy investigations and projections is

presented in Chapter 4. The first part of the chapter discusses a review of existing

data available from related authorities and transportation studies that were

undertaken to date. Consideration of population growth as well as socio-economic

data and energy use in transportation sector data has also been considered.

Forecasting future transportation growth based on population growth and socio-

economic data and needs up to 20 years is also presented. Consideration of

relationship between transportation trips production and energy consumption is

elaborated. Formulation of a model for forecasting energy consumption by

transportation sector and model validation that takes into consideration the

correlation coefficient is discussed in detail. Furthermore, the uses of the model to

analyze energy consumption based on the modal split scenarios are also presented.

This topic is discussed completely in Chapter 5.

Due to rapid economic growth, the usage of fuel especially petrol and diesel for

transportation sector has increased tremendously. This has caused Malaysian oil

reserve to decrease rapidly over the past decade. As a result, the government is

encouraging the use of alternative fuel in the transportation sector. One of the

proposals is the encouragement to use natural gas (NG) as an alternative fuel and

proposing a suitable policy for it. Study on natural gas vehicle (NGV) has been

undertaken to identify the deficiency and to improve the previous policies. This study

involved respondents (consumers) from public transports (taxi driver, taxi and bus

companies) and owners of pump station to identify their opinion about the policy.

Data collection to identify an overview of the current status of NGV development

including market activities and the future prospects of NGV in Malaysia are

conducted by interviewing respondents.

Malaysia has been experiencing a dramatic increase in the number of vehicles

used, and this is projected to be higher in the future due to increasing income per

iv

capita. Chapter 6 focuses on the potential implementation of fuel economy standards

for motor vehicles in Malaysia. The fuel economy standard is developed based on the

fuel consumption data that is obtained from manufacturers and other related sources.

With the increasing number of vehicles, fuel economy standards are one of the

highly effective policies for decreasing energy use in the transportation sector. Fuel

economy standards are also capable of reducing air pollution and contribute towards

a positive environmental impact. In this study, the potential efficiency improvements

of vehicles are analyzed by using the engineering-economic analysis. Meanwhile the

possible efficiency improvement of motor vehicle in reducing the fuel consumption

of Malaysia’s transportation sector in the future are examined by predicting the

energy, economical and environmental impacts due to its implementation.

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report is impossible to be completed without help and support from

several individuals and organization. We would like to thank and acknowledge all of

them. However, the following individuals and organizations have given very

important input to us to make this study a success, those are:

Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department who have given us the

opportunity to be involved in this project and provided us with latest secondary

data.

Officers from several government agencies and non-government agencies that

provided us with the latest data and information that have been used in this

report.

The respondents that allocated their busy time to fill the questionnaires. Without

their helps it is impossible to complete this report.

Our research assistants Husnawan Mutiara, Mahendra Varman and Yusria

Darma for their excellent work on data collection and data analysis. All individuals that provided input information for us and allocating their time

to make the study a success, we wish to thank them for their help.

We hope this document can be used by energy policymakers and practitioner

especially from Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department in taking

their decision related to energy for transport sector as well as anybody involved in

energy sector in Malaysia.

Masjuki Hj Hassan

Mohd Rehan Karim

T.M. Indra Mahlia

Consultancy Unit, University Of Malaya (UPUM)

Level 2, Block D, Perdanasiswa Complex

University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur December 2004

vi

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY …………………………………………………. ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ………………………………………………….. v

CONTENTS ………………………………………………………………... vi

LIST OF FIGURES ………………………………………………………… x

LIST OF TABLES …………………………………………………………. xiv

NOMENCLATURES ………………………………………………………. xxii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .……………………………….………… 1

1.1 Background .………………………………………………………….. 4

1.2 Objectives of the study … …………………………………………….. 9

1.3 Contributions of the study .……………………………………………. 10

1.4 Limitation of the study .....……………………………………………. 10

1.5 Organization of the report .……………………………………………. 11

CHAPTER 2: INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCES ON REDUCTION OF ENERGY USE IN TRANSPORT SECTOR ……………………………… 142.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………... 16

2.2 Program Review …………………………………………………….... 18

2.3 Transportation Policy in selected countries …………………................ 21

2.3.1 Thailand …………………......................................................... 21

2.3.2 Singapore …………………....................................................... 22

2.3.3 European Countries …………………........................................ 23

2.3.4 Japan …………………............................................................... 24

2.3.5 Australia …………………......................................................... 25

2.3.6 India …………………............................................................... 26

2.3.7 France …………………............................................................. 27

2.3.8 New Zealand ………………….................................................. 27

2.3.9 Netherlands ………………….................................................... 27

2.3.10 Philippines …………………...................................................... 28

2.4 Transportation Regulation …………………………………………….. 30

vii

2.5 Voluntary agreements program ……………………………………….. 30

2.6 Air quality policies ……………………………………………………. 32

2.7 Fuel economy …………………………………………………………. 34

2.8 Conclusions …………………………………………………………… 46

CHAPTER 3: HISTORICAL AND FUTURE TREND OF ENERGY DEMAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FROM THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR ……………………………………………. 503.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………... 51

3.2 Survey data …………………………………………………………..... 53

3.3 Methodology …………………...……………………………………... 57

3.4 Results and Discussion ………………………………………............... 58

3.5 Conclusions …………………………………….................................... 65

CHAPTER 4: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN MALAYSIA …………………………... 664.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………... 67

4.1.1 Modes of Transportation ……………………………………... 68

4.1.2 Transportation Demand Analysis …………………………….. 69

4.1.3 Study Objectives ……………………………………………... 70

4.1.4 Conceptual Framework ………………………………………. 71

4.2 Type of Data Collected ……………………………………….………. 72

4.2.1 Road Transport ……………………………………………….. 72

4.2.2 Rail Transport ………………………………………………... 79

4.2.3 Air Transport ………………………………………………..... 84

4.2.4 Maritime Transport …………………………………………... 91

4.2.5 Passenger Transport Mode Share …………………………….. 92

4.2.6 Number of Vehicle Registration by Type of Fuel ……………. 93

4.2.7 Population ………………………………………………......... 94

4.2.8 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ……………………………… 95

4.2.9 Employment ………………………………………………...... 96

4.3 Review of HNDP and SMURT – KL Study …………………………. 97

4.3.1 Trip Production ………………………………………………. 99

viii

4.3.2 Trip Generation and Attraction Model ……………………….. 100

4.3.3 Trip Production Rates ………………………………………... 103

4.3.4 Model for Forecasting Vehicles ……………………………… 104

4.3.5 Model Share ………………………………………………….. 104

4.4 Future Socioeconomic Framework …………………………………... 105

4.5 Analysis For Transportation Demand ………………………………... 107

4.5.1 Method 1 ……………………………………………………... 108

4.5.2 Method 2 ……………………………………………………... 112

4.5.3 Method 3 ……………………………………………………... 115

4.5.4 Summary of Method 1, Method 2 and Method 3 …………….. 122

4.5.5 Future Total Trip Generation ………………………………… 123

4.5.6 Model Split Scenarios ………………………………………... 125

4.5.7 Future Trip Generation Based on Scenario …………………... 126

4.5.8 Vehicle Kilometer ………………………………………......... 127

4.6 Fuel Consumption In Transportation Sector …………………………. 128

4.6.1 Do Nothing or Do Something Fuel Consumption …………… 131

4.7 Energy Consumption In Transportation Sector ………….…………… 135

4.7.1 Road Transport ……………………………………………….. 136

4.7.2 Rail Transport ………………………………………………... 137

4.7.3 Air Transport ………………………………………………..... 138

4.7.4 Total Energy Consumed by Road, Rail and Air Transport …... 138

4.8 Conclusions and Recommendations …………………….…................. 140

CHAPTER 5: FEASIBILITY AND POTENTIAL OF SWITCHING TO NGV FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN MALAYSIA ………………

144

5.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………... 145

5.2 Survey data …………………………………………………………..... 147

5.2.1 Natural Gas Reserves ………………………………………… 148

5.2.2 Natural Gas Reserve in Malaysia …………………………….. 151

5.2.3 Natural Gas Vehicle in Malaysia and Other Countries ……… 153

5.2.4 Number of Vehicles in Malaysia ……………………………. 156

5.2.5 Price of Oil and Natural Gas in Malaysia …………………… 160

ix

5.3 Methodology ………………………………………………………….. 160

5.3.1 Primary Data Collection …………………………………….... 161

5.3.2 Secondary Data Collection …………………………………… 164

5.3.3 Conducting Economic Analysis ……………………………… 166

5.4 Results and Discussions ………………………………………………. 167

5.4.1 Prediction for Number of Public Transport in Malaysia ……... 167

5.4.2 Public Transportation ……........................................................ 167

5.4.3 Companies and Managers of Pump Station ……...................... 174

5.4.4 Economic Analysis ……........................................................... 176

5.5 Conclusions and Suggestions …………………………………………. 179

5.5.1 Conclusions ……....................................................................... 179

5.5.2 Suggestions ……....................................................................... 181

CHAPTER 6: STUDY ON VEHICLE EFFICIENCY STANDARDS ......…. 188

6.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………... 189

6.1.1 Background ……....................................................................... 189

6.2 Survey data …………………………………………………………..... 191

6.3 Methodology ………………………………………………………….. 194

6.3.1 Fuel Consumption ……............................................................. 194

6.3.2 Engineering Economic Analysis ……....................................... 195

6.3.3 Potential Fuel Savings ……....................................................... 202

6.4 Results and Discussions ………………………………………………. 207

6.4.1 Introduction ……....................................................................... 207

6.4.2 Fuel Consumption ……............................................................. 207

6.4.3 Vehicle Growth ……................................................................. 208

6.4.4 Engineering/Economic Analysis ……....................................... 209

6.4.5 Potential Fuel Savings ……....................................................... 262

6.4.6 Economic Impact of the Standards ……................................... 271

6.5 Conclusions and Recommendations ……………………………….….. 273

6.5.1 Conclusion ……........................................................................ 273

6.5.2 Recommendations ……............................................................. 274

x

LIST OF FIGURES No. Description Page

1.1 Final energy use by sector in 2002 of 33290 ktoe ...……………... 3

1.2 Final consumption for petroleum product in 2002 of 20,635 ktoe .. 8

1.3 Percentage of transportation sector energy use based on fuel types

in 2002 of 13,441 ktoe ……………………………………………..

8

2.1 Austrian draft fuel economy label ………………………………… 36

2.2 Australian draft fuel consumption labels …………………………. 37

2.3 Canadian fuel economy label ………………………...................... 38

2.4 Danish draft fuel consumption label ……………………………... 39

2.5 Swedish fuel economy label ……………………………………… 40

2.6 Swiss draft fuel economy label …………………………………... 41

2.7 US fuel consumption label ……………………………………….. 42

2.8 UK fuel economy label …………………………………………… 43

2.9 Environmental information guide ………………………………... 44

3.1 Predicted energy demand based on percentage fuel mix for

transportation sector in Malaysia …………………………………

59

3.2 Pattern of CO2 and CO emissions production by transportation

sector in Malaysia …………………………………………………

61

3.3 Pattern of SO2 and NOx emissions production by transportation

sector in Malaysia …………………………………………………

61

4.1 Federal highway view towards Kuala Lumpur …………………… 73

4.2 Motorization rates in Malaysia from 1991 to 2002 ……………….. 74

4.3 Trends of private cars and public transport vehicles ……………… 78

4.4 Integrated rail services in Klang Valley …………………………... 82

4.5 LRT passengers per day …………………………………………... 83

4.6 Park ‘n ride at LRT station ………………………………………... 83

4.7 Proportion of passenger by modes ………………………………... 93

4.8 Scatter-plot of observed vs. modeled passenger car volumes

xi

(method 1) ………………………………………………………… 109

4.9 Scatter-plot of observed vs. modeled bus volumes (method 1) …... 110

4.10 Scatter-plot of observed vs. modeled commercial vehicle

(method 1) ........................................................................................

111

4.11 Scatter-plot of observed vs. modeled passenger car volumes

(method 2) …………………………………………………………

113

4.12 Scatter-plot of observed vs. modeled bus volumes (method 2) …... 114


(method 2) ........................................................................................

115

4.14 Scatter-plot of observed vs. modeled passenger car (method 3) 119

4.15 Scatter-plot of observed vs. modeled bus (method 3) ……………. 120


(method 3) ........................................................................................

121

4.17 Forecasted petrol consumption by road transport sector (liter/day) . 134

4.18 Forecasted diesel consumption by road transport sector (liter/day) . 134

4.19 Forecasted petrol consumption by road transport sector (ktoe/year) 136

4.20 Forecasted diesel consumption by road transport sector (ktoe/year) 137

4.21 Forecasted energy used in transportation sector (do nothing) …….. 139

4.22 Forecasted energy used in transportation sector (do something) …. 140

5.1 Percentage of vehicles by type ……………………………………. 158

5.2 Increasing number of vehicles in Malaysia (1987 – 2002) ……….. 159

5.3 Number of public transport (bus and taxi) from the year 1987 to

2002 ………………………………………………………………..

159

6.1 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for class I

(City) ………………………………………………………………

238

6.2 Payback period and life cycle cost for class I (city) ………………. 239

6.3 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for class I

(Highway) ………………………………………………………….

240

6.4 Payback period and life cycle cost for class I (highway) …………. 240

6.5 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for class II

(City) ………………………………………………………………

241

xii

6.6 Payback period and life cycle cost for class II (city) ……………... 242

6.7 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for class II

(Highway) ………………………………………………………….

243

6.8 Payback period and life cycle cost for class II (highway) ………… 243

6.9 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for class III

(City) ………………………………………………………………

244

6.10 Payback period and life cycle cost for class III (city) …………….. 245

6.11 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for class III

(Highway) ………………………………………………………….

246

6.12 Payback period and life cycle cost for class III (highway) ……….. 246

6.13 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for class IV

(City) ………………………………………………………………

247

6.14 Payback period and life cycle cost for class IV (city) …………….. 248

6.15 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for class IV

(Highway) ………………………………………………………….

249

6.16 Payback period and life cycle cost for class IV (highway) ……….. 249

6.17 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for 2 stroke

motorcycle (method 1) …………………………………………….

250

6.18 Payback period and life cycle cost for 2 stroke motorcycle

(method 1) …………………………………………………………

251


motorcycle (method 2) …………………………………………….

252

6.20 Payback period and life cycle cost for 2 stroke motorcycle

(method 2) …………………………………………………………

252


motorcycle …………………………………………………………

253

6.22 Payback period and life cycle cost for motorcycles 4 strokes …….. 254

6.23 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for medium

duty lorry (class 2 & 3) ……………………………………………

255

6.24 Payback period and life cycle cost for medium duty lorry

(class 2 & 3) ……………………………………………………….

255

xiii

6.25 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for medium

duty lorry (class 4 - 6) ……………………………………………..

257

6.26 Payback period and life cycle cost for medium duty lorry

(class 4 – 6) ………………………………………………………..

257

6.27 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for heavy duty

lorry (class 7 & 8) ………………………………………………….

259

6.28 Payback period and life cycle cost for heavy duty lorry

(class 7 & 8) ……………………………………………………….

259

6.29 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for busses …... 261

6.30 Payback period and life cycle cost for busses …………………….. 261

6.31 Projected fuel savings for cars …………………………………...... 263

6.32 Fuel consumption with and without standards (STD vs BAU) for

cars ………………………………………………………………...

264

6.33 Projected fuel savings for motorcycles …………………………… 265


motorcycles ………………………………………………………..

266

6.35 Projected fuel savings for medium duty lorry (class 2 & 3) ……… 267


medium duty lorry (class 2 & 3) …………………………………..

268

6.37 Projected fuel savings for busses …………………………………. 269


busses ……………………………………………………………...

270

6.A1 Car growth in Malaysia …………………………………………… 283

6.A2 Motorcycle growth in Malaysia …………………………………... 283

6.A3 Lorry growth in Malaysia …………………………………………. 284

6.A4 Bus growth in Malaysia …………………………………………… 284

xiv

LIST OF TABLES No. Description Page

2.1 Examples of transport regulations in selected countries ………..... 30

2.2 Examples of transport voluntary agreement program in selected

countries …………..........................................................................

31

2.3 Emission limits for new cars ……………………………………... 32

2.4 Fuel economy labelling schemes in selected countries ……….... 34

3.1 Final energy use by transportation sector …………........................ 51

3.2 Transportation sector energy use based on fuel types …………….. 53

3.3 CO2, SO2, NOx and CO emission from fossil fuel per GJ energy

use by transportation sector ………………………………………. 54

3.4 Predicted energy demand and fuel mix of transportation sector in

Malaysia …………………………………………………………... 58

3.5 Potential emissions production by transportation sector in

Malaysia …………………………………………………………..

62

4.1 Mode classification scheme ………………………………………. 69

4.2 Number of motocars and motorization rates in Malaysia from

1991 to 2002 ………………………………………………………. 73

4.3 Number of motorcycles and motorization rates from 1991 to 2002 75

4.4 Number of buses, commercial and other vehicles from 1991 to

2002 ……………………………………………………………….. 76

4.5 Proportion of private cars and public transport vehicles from 1991

to 2002 …………………………………………………………….. 77

4.6 Summary of road mileage in Malaysia …………………………… 79

4.7 KTMB passengers and freight traffic from year 1992 to 2002 …… 80

4.8 Rail passengers from 1998 to 2002 ……………………………….. 84

4.9 Air traffic at public-use airports in Malaysia from year 1991 to

2002 ……………………………………………………………….. 85

4.10 Air passengers traffic at public-use airports in Malaysia from year

xv

1990 to 2002 ………………………………………………………. 86

4.11 International air passenger-km data of KLIA …………………….. 87

4.12 Domestic air passenger-km data of KLIA ………………………… 88

4.13 Air passenger-km data of Kota Kinabalu airport …………………. 89

4.14 Air passenger-km data of Kuching airport ………………………... 90

4.15 Air passenger-km data of Penang airport …………………………. 90

4.16 Air passenger-km data of Langkawi airport ………………………. 91

4.17 Total cargo throughput by ports from year 1991 to 2002 ………… 92

4.18 Number of new vehicle registration based on fuel type …………... 94

4.19 Malaysia population from 1991 to 2002 ………………………….. 95

4.20 Gross domestic products (GDP) from 1991 to 2002 ……………… 96

4.21 Employment in all sectors from 1991 to 2002 ……………………. 97

4.22 Trip production regression model ………………………………… 101

4.23 General equation fro the trip generation/attraction model (macro

level) ………………………………………………………………. 102

4.24 General equation fro the trip generation/attraction model (micro

level) ………………………………………………………………. 102

4.25 Average vehicle occupancy and load factor ………………………. 103

4.26 Average daily trip production rates by vehicle type in Malaysia …. 103

4.27 Number of vehicles forecasting models in Malaysia ……………... 104

4.28 Modal share in the Kuala Lumpur metropolitan area …………….. 105

4.29 Projected populations, 2005 – 2020 ………………………………. 106

4.30 Projected employment from year 2005 to 2020 …………………... 106

4.31 Projected gross domestic product (GDP) from year 2005 to 2020 .. 107

4.32 Observed vs. modeled passenger car volumes (method 1) ……….. 109

4.33 Observed vs. modeled bus volumes (method 1) ………………….. 110

4.34 Observed vs. modeled commercial veh. (method 1) ……………… 111



4.37 Observed vs. modeled commercial vehicle (method 2) …………... 114

4.38 No. of cars, busses and commercial vehicle year 1991 to 2002 …... 116

xvi

4.39 No. of daily rail passenger year 1998 to 2002 …………………….. 116

4.40 No. of daily air passenger …………………………………………. 117

4.41 Method 3 regression model ……………………………………….. 118



4.44 Observed vs. modeled commercial vehicle (method 3) …………... 121

4.45 Trips generation models …………………………………………... 123

4.46 Forecasted no. of passengers by type of modes …………………... 124

4.47 Forecasted modal split by type of modes …………………….…… 125

4.48 Future modal split scenarios ………………………………………. 126

4.49 Forecasted no. of vehicles by type of modes (do nothing scenario) 127

4.50 Forecasted no. of vehicles by type of modes (do something

scenario) …………………………………………………………... 127

4.51 Forecasted trip generation rates by type of modes ………………... 127

4.52 Total vehicle-km of the traffic (do nothing scenario) …………….. 128

4.53 Total vehicle-km of the traffic (do something scenario) ………….. 128

4.54 Summary statistics for passenger cars, 1990 – 2000 ……………… 129

4.55 Summary statistics for two-axle trucks, 1990 – 2000 …………….. 129

4.56 No. of new vehicle registration based on fuel types ……………… 130

4.57 Proportion of new vehicle registration based on fuel types ………. 130

4.58 Forecasted no. of vehicles (do nothing scenario) …………………. 132

4.59 Forecasted no. of vehicles (do something scenario) ……………… 132

4.60 Forecasted fuel consumption (do nothing scenario) ……………… 133

4.61 Forecasted fuel consumption (do something scenario) …………… 133

4.62 Energy use by various types of vehicles ………………………….. 135

4.63 Forecasted energy consumption of rail transport …………………. 137

4.64 Forecasted energy consumption of air transport ………………….. 138

4.65 Forecasted energy used in transportation sector (do nothing) …….. 139

4.66 Forecasted energy used in transportation sector (do something) …. 139

5.1 World natural gas reserves by country as January 1, 2003

(EIA2004) ………………………………………………………… 150

xvii

5.2 World natural gas vehicles by country ……………………………. 156

5.3 Number of vehicles in Malaysia (JPJ,2002) ……………………… 157

5.4 Price of fuels in Malaysia …………………………………………. 160

5.5 Prediction of total public transport (bus and taxi) from year 2005

to 2020 …………………………………………………………….. 169

5.6 Feedback obtained based on the survey carried out on NGV user

(taxi driver) ………………………………………………………... 170

5.7 Feedback obtained based on the survey carried out on non - NGV

user (taxi driver) …………………………………………………...

171

5.8 Feedback obtained based on the survey carried out on managers of

bus companies …………………………………………………….. 173

5.9 Estimated annual consumption between petrol and natural gas …... 177

5.10 Estimated annual consumption between diesel and natural gas …... 177

5.11 Estimated annual maintenance cost (RM) for different fuels …….. 178

5.12 Comparison of total operation cost for public transport with

different fuel consumption ………………………………………... 179

6.1 Total number of vehicles in Malaysia …………………………….. 191

6.2 Fuel consumption data (CAR) ……………………………………. 192

6.3 List of motorcycle model and price ……………………………….. 193

6.4 Fuel cost over the vehicle’s 10 years lifetime …………………….. 208

6.5 Types/classes of cars ……………………………………………… 210

6.6 Types/classes of motorcycles …………………………………….. 210

6.7 Types/classes of lorry …………………………………………….. 211

6.8 Potential increase in fuel economy and related price increase for

cars ………………………………………………………………... 212

6.9 Potential increase in fuel economy and cost for motorcycles …….. 213


medium duty lorry (class 2 & 3) ………………………………….. 214


medium duty lorry (class 4 - 6) …………………………………… 215


xviii

heavy duty lorry (class 7 & 8) ……………………………………. 216

6.13 FES and incremental cost of design options for class I car ……….. 218

6.14 FES and incremental cost of design options for class II ………….. 219

6.15 FES and incremental cost of design options for class III …………. 219

6.16 FES and incremental cost of design options for class IV …………. 220

6.17 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for class I

(CITY) …………………………………………………………….. 220

6.18 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for class I

(HIGHWAY) ……………………………………………………… 221

6.19 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for class II

(CITY) …………………………………………………………….. 221

6.20 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for class II

(HIGHWAY) ……………………………………………………… 222

6.21 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for class III

(CITY) …………………………………………………………….. 222

6.22 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for class III

(HIGHWAY) ……………………………………………………… 223

6.23 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for class IV

(CITY) …………………………………………………………….. 223

6.24 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for class IV

(HIGHWAY) ……………………………………………………… 224

6.25 FES and incremental cost of design option for 2 stroke motorcycle

(METHOD I) ……………………………………………………… 224

6.26 FES and incremental cost of design option for 2 stroke motorcycle

(METHOD II) ……………………………………………………. 225

6.27 FES and incremental cost of design option for 4 stroke motorcycle 225

6.28 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for 2 stroke

motorcycle (METHOD I) …………………………………………

226


motorcycle (METHOD II) ………………………………………... 226


xix

motorcycle ………………………………………………………… 227

6.31 FES and incremental cost of design option for medium duty lorry

(class 2 & 3) ………………………………………………………. 228

6.32 FES and incremental cost of design option for medium duty lorry

(class 4 - 6) ……………………………………………………….. 229

6.33 FES and incremental cost of design option for heavy duty lorry

(class 7 & 8) ………………………………………………………. 230

6.34 FES and incremental cost of design option for busses ………......... 231

6.35 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for medium

duty lorry (class 2 & 3) …………………………………………… 232

6.36 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for medium

duty lorry (class 4 - 6) ……………………………………………. 233

6.37 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for heavy

duty lorry (class 7 & 8) …………………………………………… 234

6.38 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for bus …... 235

6.39 The input value of baseline models for each class of car

(city driving) ……………………………………………………… 236

6.40 The input value of baseline models for each class of car

(highway driving) ………………………………………………… 236

6.41 The input value of baseline models for each class of motorcycles .. 237

6.42 The input value of baseline models for each class of lorries and

busses ……………………………………………………………... 237

6.43 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for class I car

(CITY) …………………………………………………………….. 238

6.44 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for class I car

(HIGHWAY) ……………………………………………………… 239

6.45 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for class II car

(CITY) …………………………………………………………….. 241

6.46 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for class II car

(HIGHWAY) ……………………………………………………… 242

6.47 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for class III car

xx

(CITY) …………………………………………………………….. 244

6.48 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for class III car

(HIGHWAY) ……………………………………………………… 245

6.49 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for class IV car

(CITY) …………………………………………………………….. 247

6.50 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for class IV car

(HIGHWAY) ……………………………………………………… 248

6.51 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for 2 stroke

motorcycle (method 1) ……………………………………………. 250


motorcycle (method 2) ……………………………………………. 251


motorcycle ………………………………………………………… 253

6.54 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for medium duty

lorry (class 2 & 3) ………………………………………………… 254

6.55 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for medium duty

lorry (class 4 - 6) ………………………………………………… 256

6.56 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for heavy duty

lorry (class 7 & 8) ………………………………………………… 258

6.57 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for busses ……….. 260

6.58 Input data for potential fuel saving of cars ………………………... 262

6.59 The calculation of fuel savings for cars …………………………... 263

6.60 Input data for potential fuel saving of motorcycles ……………….. 264

6.61 The calculation of fuel savings for motorcycles ………………….. 265

6.62 Input data for potential fuel saving of medium duty lorry

(class 2 & 3) …………………………………………………….. 266

6.63 The calculation of fuel savings for medium duty lorry

(class 2 & 3) ………………………………………………………. 267

6.64 Input data for potential fuel saving of busses ……………………... 268

6.65 The calculation of fuel savings for busses ………………………... 269

6.66 The calculation result from the cost-benefit analysis for cars …….. 271

xxi

6.67 The calculation result from the cost-benefit analysis for

motorcycle ………………………………………………………… 272

6.68 The calculation result from the cost-benefit analysis for medium

duty lorry ………………………………………………………….. 272

6.69 The calculation result from the cost-benefit analysis for busses ….. 273

xxii

NOMENCLATURES

Symbols Description Unit viAEI Annual efficiency improvement

AFC Annual fuel cost (RM)

viANS Annualized net savings in year i of vehicle (RM)

viAS Applicable stock in year i of vehicle

viAS 1− Applicable stock in year i-1 of vehicle

vsBFC Baseline fuel consumption in the year of standards

enacted for vehicle

(RM)

viBS Bill savings in year i of vehicle (RM)

C Annual maintenance cost (RM)

C,k Constant value

Cd Drag coefficient

Cg Natural gas consumption (Liter/km)

Co The conventional fuel consumption before conversion (Liter/km)

CRF The capital recovery factor

D Annual distance travel (km)

d Discount rate (%) niES Energy use in year i of fuel type n (ktoe)

F Fuel consumption (Liter/100km)

npFE Emission per unit energy of fuel type n (kg/GJ)

viFS Fuel savings in year i of vehicle (liter)

vIC Incremental cost for the more efficient vehicle (RM) vsIIC Initial incremental cost for more efficient vehicle (RM)

rL

Life span of vehicles

(year)

xxiii

LCC Life Cycle Cost (RM)

Mg Maintenance cost of NGV (RM/year)

Mo Maintenance cost before conversion (RM/year)

MPG0 The base year fleet average fuel economy (1/km)

MPGTOT The potential new fleet average fuel economy (1/km)

N Life time of the appliance (year) viNa Number of vehicles in year i

viNa 1− Number of vehicles in year i-1

viNS Net savings in year i for vehicle (RM)

OC Annual operating expenses (RM)

P Fuel price (RM)

Po Price of the conventional fuel (diesel or petrol) (RM/liter)

Pg Price of natural gas (RM/liter)

PAY Payback period (year)

PC Investment cost (RM)

( )viANSPV Present value of annualized net saving in year i (RM)

PWF Present worth factor

R Fuel price (RM)

r Discount rate (%)

S saving (RM/year) vsSFC Standard fuel consumption of vehicle (liter/yr)

viSh Shipments in year i of vehicle

viSSF Shipment survival factor in year i of vehicle

vsTEI Total efficiency improvement of vehicle (%)

iTM Total emission in year i (kg, Ton)

Ui Utilization increase

xxiv

viUFS Initial unit energy savings in year i of vehicle (Liter/year)

vsUFS Initial unit fuel saving (Liter/year)

X Year predicted – year start

Y Predicted value

y Motor vehicles predicted data my The average data

viYse Year of standards enacted of vehicle (year)

viYsh Year i of shipment of vehicle (year)

vTYtc Year target calculation for vehicle (year)

Abbreviations

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations

ATF Aviation Turbine Fuel

CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy

CF Conversion factor

CNG Compressed Natural Gas

CO Carbon monoxide

CO2 Carbon dioxide

CSE Centre for Science and Environment

DAF Dutch vehicle Maker Association

EDI Electronic Data Interchange

Gg Gigagram

GHG Green House Gas

GJ Giga Joule

HC Hydrocarbon

IEA International Energy Agency

ktoe Kilo ton oil equivalent

LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas

xxv

LRT Light Rail Transit

I & M Inspection and Maintenance

Mbd Million Barrel per Day

MPG Mile per Gallon

Mt Metric ton

NG Natural gas

NGV Natural Gas Vehicle

OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

PJ Petajoule

SO2 Sulfur dioxide

SULEV Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle

SUV Sport Utility Vehicle


ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT, MAY 2005 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Transportation is one of the major human activities around the world. Unfortunately,

this activity is burning the limited nonrenewable energy that leads to some negative

impact to our living environment. Therefore, there is a necessity to adopt suitable

energy policy for transportation sector as one of the options to balance the demand

and supply for energy at the government, society and individual levels. This effort

would lead to the preservation of our limited nonrenewable energy resources and our

living environment. In addition, it is the responsibility and contribution of the present

people towards the future generations. Energy planning and policy has become very

important in the public agenda of most developed as well as some developing

countries today. The importance of energy planning and policy is linked to industrial

competitiveness, energy security and environmental advantage. Transportation in

Malaysia is still using traditional fossil fuel type such as gasoline, diesel and

electricity. These activities create millions of tons of greenhouse gases each year.

Pattern of emissions production by transportation sector in Malaysia is has not

analysed accurately yet. Suitable energy planning and policy in transportation sector

can reduce the demand for fossil fuel and hence reduce the production of greenhouse

gases and other emissions. Based on fossil fuel consumption, transportation sector

accounts for almost 49 percent of the national greenhouse gas emissions (MOSTE,

2000). Therefore, suitable policies can play an important role in helping Malaysia to

meet overall greenhouse gas and emissions reduction target and at the same time



reducing the energy consumption, economic benefit as well as improving the

competitiveness of our product in the international arena.

Energy conservation in the transport sectors helps to reduce the energy

consumption. In most countries, Transportation energy consumption ranges from

20% to 60% of the total electricity consumption. On average, the Transportation

sector in Malaysia uses about 40% of the total energy demand (National Energy

Balance, 2003). The final energy use by sector in Malaysia is presented in Figure 1.1.

This energy is used by a variety of type transport such as motor car, motorcycle, bus,

goods vehicle, train, LRT, airplane, marine and etc to provide transportation services

and other end-uses for society. Ideally, fuel consumption by various vehicles such as

motor car, motorcycle, bus and freight vehicle must be set to a certain level in order

to ensure that they use energy efficiently. For the benefit of the consumers, the

comparable energy consumption of the vehicle must be characterized. Based on type

of fuel used, the petrol (gasoline) and diesel has been the largest of energy share in

transportation sector, which are about 55% and 31% of total energy consumption in

transport sector (National Energy Balance, 2003). In order to reduce energy

consumption in this country, consumer should be educated to select the most

efficient vehicle from the market or to promote alternative fuel. This objective can be

achieved by introducing fuel economy program and implementing suitable policy

such as shifting to public transport and switching to NGV.

Using energy efficiently and caring about the environment are two important

conducive factors under the current global market conditions. Realizing that, energy

efficiency policy is becoming a strategic policy for many nations today. This is also



the main reason for the Malaysian government to focus extensively and allocate

adequate resources in the 9th Malaysia Plan to encourage the efficient use of energy

resources and to diversify fuel use in transportation sector. Parallel with the interest

shown by the government, this study is investigate energy use in the transportation

sector of Malaysia together with proposing policy recommendations with a view to

reduce energy intensity in the transportation sector.

Transport40%

Industrial 39%

Resid & Comm13%Non Energy

8%Agriculture

0%

Figure 1.1. Final energy use by sector in 2002 of 33290 ktoe (National Energy

Balance 2003)



1.1 Background

For more than two decades, in average Malaysia’s economy grew more than

6% per annum. The Gross Domestic Product increased from RM 79,330 million in

1990 to RM 244,555 million in 2004. At the same time, the per capita income has

increased from RM 6,230 to RM 15,376 (Economic Planning Unit, 2004). Economic

growth is the main driving factor for increased energy demand in transportation

sector in Malaysia. Transportation is a fundamental prerequisite for a society’s

development and improvement of people’s life. As the Malaysian economy grew

rapidly in recent years, the importance of transportation sector has been realized for

both continuous economic growth and improvement of standard of living. The

increasing number of passenger and vehicle time to time increasing trip lengths and

traffic densities, thereby increasing the energy used for propulsion of vehicles.

Moreover, with the increase of income levels as well as unconstrained expansion of

the cities, the private vehicle population has grown year by year in Malaysia.

However, this phenomenon affects to increase of energy consumption especially

from fossil fuels and consequently increase air pollution due to their combustion. In

addition, traffic speeds also lead to increased energy consumption. Other parameters

such as vehicle population, occupancy level, vehicle utilization pattern and fuel

efficiency of different vehicles as well as emissions factor should be taken into the

account in order to optimize energy use in this particular sector.

Since the transportation systems is dependent on petroleum oil, which is

limited in terms of availability, it is important for energy planners to plan for greater

efficiency of energy use in transport sector in this country which would reduce rapid



use of petroleum oils and also reduce growing air pollution especially on CO2

emission which is two-third comes from transport fuels combustion. Recently, India

as a low per capita income country but have greater CO2 emissions based

transportation sector is already begin to manage the energy use for transport sector

by conducting several studies and policies such as implementing fuels energy

efficiency policy as well as improved the fuels quality standard. Furthermore, some

studies on European and Japanese fuel economy initiatives: what they are, their

prospects for success, their usefulness is given by Plotkin (2002). In European

Countries which are mostly oils importer, the infrastructure improvement was done

by traffic controlled in the cities to avoid traffic jam as well as by implementing strict

rule on the vehicle speed at the highway was successfully reduce total fuel

consumption and maintain air quality (Danielis, 1995); (Liaskas, 2000). Besides that,

by implementing several efficiency policies such as fuel economy program as well as

introducing alternative fuel cars with lower fuel consumption can lower emissions.

Several developed countries such as Japan, England, USA and Sweden have also

implemented the policy to reduce energy intensity by population such as higher

taxation for petroleum fuels as well as for every gram of CO2 emits more than the

level of standard.

Malaysia with the rapid petroleum based fuel growth also tries to introduce

Natural gas to be primary fuel. However, more than 80% of vehicles are still running

with petrol fuels. It is a challenge for Malaysia government to implement energy

security or reducing energy intensity especially in terms of petroleum fuels used in

transport sector. Therefore, comprehensive study must initiate from this date to



overtake this problem while petroleum crisis and environmental impact being a great

issues recently. This study is necessary to develop energy used database for transport

sector and will be used for total energy used database in this country. The database

will be dedicated to Malaysia policy makers for further action in order to manage

energy consumption and economic growth simultaneously based on energy intensity.

As stated earlier, motor vehicle is one of the major energy consuming in the

transportation sector. According to National Energy Balance (2003), motor vehicle

accounts more than 80% of overall consumption of petroleum product share.

Therefore, it perhaps will save a significant amount of energy in transportation sector

if suitable efficiency policy for motor vehicle implemented in this country.

Since land transport is one of the major energy consumers in the transportation

sector in Malaysia, implementing suitable energy efficiency policy for this sector

may contribute a significant impact on energy consumption in the transportation

sectors and offer great benefits for the consumers, government as well as to the

environment. In agreement to this opinion DeCicco and Mark (1998) states that the

transition toward a more sustainable transportation system can emanate from a suite

of mutually reinforcing policies. Strong efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions

standards would provide the foundation of the technology innovation strategy that

includes pricing reforms, incentive, and voluntary programs. Combined with

enabling R&D, the policies can facilitate market transformation toward advance

technology highway vehicles, efficient air and intercity travel, and renewable fuels.

Improvement in regional planning such as in Klang Valley, Penang and Johor Bahru

and intermodal capacity would help by reducing travel needs and shifting travel to



more efficient modes. However, Dowlatabadi et al. (1996) claims that savings

gasoline (in transportation sector) is attractive, but is not only one of many goals

society seeks with respect to automobiles; the other include increased safety, lower

emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, and consumers attributes such as

low price, attractiveness, good ride, size and performance. These goals are inherently

contradictory (Lave, 1981), seeking to achieve one goal generally has unintended

consequences in terms of other goals, e.g. lowering emissions leads to increased cost.

Therefore, as a starting point, it is rather imperative to concentrate on land transport

in order to reduce the energy consumption in this sector in order to reduce the

complexity of the study. Final consumption for petroleum product in 2002 is shown

in Figure 1.2 and percentage of transportation sector energy use based on fuel types

is presented in Figure 1.3.



Fuel Oil7.7%

LPG7.5%Kerosene

0.4%

ATF & AV Gas8.6%

Non Energy3.1%

Motor Petrol33.7%

Diesel39.0%

Figure 1.2 Final consumption for petroleum product in 2002 of 20,635 ktoe (National

Energy Balance 2003)

Diesel34.8%

Petrol51.6%

Electricity0.0%

Fuel oil0.0%ATF & AV Gas

13.3%

NG0.2%

Figure 1.3 Percentage of transportation sector energy use based on fuel types in 2002

of 13,441 ktoe (National Energy Balance 2003)



Energy policies and energy technology is a pair and it works simultaneously

and mutually. The technologies continually remove the less efficient product from

the market and energy policies are creating transformations in the market. As the

consumers, become energy conscious, manufacturers use efficiency as a marketing

tool to win their competition in the market. To make this program a success, there

should be a good cooperation between the public and private sector. With an

appropriate policy, the manufacturers and companies will have time to retool and

invest in designing towards more efficient energy use. As a result, the transport

manufacturer will develop more efficient product, which will benefit them, through

increasing demand and competitiveness of the product in the international market.

By the combination of suitable policies and technologies, Malaysia will be able to

promote more efficient energy used product and will begin an important market

transformation for the product in the country. It is expected that energy efficiency

initiatives for transportation sector can indeed be tapped and expanded in Malaysia to

decelerate the growth of energy consumption in the transportation sector, monetary

savings as well as reducing the environmental impact.

1.2 Objectives of the study

The main objective of research is to make policy recommendations with

views to reduce the energy use and environmental emissions in the transportation

sector in Malaysia. In order to achieve this main aim several other objectives have

been identified, and these are:



To review energy consumption of the transportation sector in Peninsular

Malaysia (particularly in the Klang Valley), Sabah and Sarawak

To identify key energy-consuming sub-sectors within the transportation sector

To examine international experiences related to the reduction of energy use in

transport sector

To analyze historical trend and project future trend of energy demand and

environmental emissions from the transportation sector.

To examine the potential of modal shift to public transport

To examine the feasibility and potential of switching to NGV by commercial

vehicles

To study vehicle efficiency standards

1.3 Contributions of the study

To proposed recommendations with a view to reduce energy intensity in the

transportation sector in this country. The output will be a report entitled “Energy Use

in the Transportation Sector of Malaysia”. It will cover all the points mentioned in

the objectives.

1.4. Limitation of the study

It is noted that an important qualification of the results in this study due to

uncertainty in forecasting. Undoubtedly, pursuing the path outlined here would yield

large reductions in energy used and emissions compare to what will ensue in the

absence of policy change. Leaving aside upheaval in global oil supply or other



economic disruptions, unforeseen technology changes or other developments could

push demand significantly higher or lower than the baseline assumed in the study.

However, it is believed that the baseline and the data use in this study is more likely

to understate the growth in transportation energy demand than to overstate it.

Another limitation is, in this study is only involve about 452 respondents from

NGVs taxi driver who not yet used NG as fuel. It also interviewed only several

owner/manager of taxis and buses companies, president or chairman of association of

public transportation. We also interviewed limited number of manager/owner pump

station, both that have not been sell NGV and the one who did. However the study

did not discussed about social impact of the policies.

1.5 Organization of the report

The report is the study on energy use in transportation sector of Malaysia. The

study includes several policy recommendations that is suitable to be implemented in

this country. The report is divided into eight chapters and the organization of the

report is as follows:

Chapter 1 is an introduction, which introduces the background, objectives,

contributions and limitation of the study together with organization of the report.

Chapter 2 presents international experiences on reduction of energy use in

transport sector.

Chapter 3 is an analysis on historical and future trend of energy demand and

environmental emissions from the transportation sector.

.



Chapter 4 deals with the transportation system development and energy

consumption in Malaysia.

Chapter 5 examines the feasibility and potential of fuel switching to NGV by

commercial vehicles in Malaysia.

Chapter 6 presents a study on fuel economy standard for motor vehicle in

Malaysia.

References

Danielis, R. (1995). Energy use for transport in Italy : Past trends. Energy Policy 23

(9), 799–807.

DeCicco, J., Mark, J. (1998). Meeting the energy and climate challenge for

transportation in the United States. Energy Policy 26 (5), 395-412.

Dowlatabadi, H., Lave, L.B., Russell, A.G. (1996). A free lunch at higher CAFE? A

review of economic, environmental and social benefits. Energy Policy 24 (3), 253-

264.

Economic Planning Unit, (2004). The Malaysian Economic in Figures, Economic

Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department, Putrajaya, Malaysia.

Liaskas, K., Mavrotas G., Mandaraka, M., Diakoulaki, D. (2000). Decomposition of

industrial CO2 emissions:The case of European Union. Energy Economics 22 (4),

383–394.

MOSTE, J. (2000). Malaysia initial National Communication. Ministry of Science

and Technology and Environment, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.



National Energy Balance 2002, (2003). Ministry of Energy, Communications and

Multimedia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Plotkin, S. E. (2001). European and Japanese fuel economy initiatives: what they are,

their prospects for success, their usefulness as a guide for US action. Energy Policy

29 (13), 1073–1084.



CHAPTER 2

INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCES ON REDUCTION

OF ENERGY USE IN TRANSPORT SECTOR

SUMMARY

Transportation is one of the key factors for the economy and society. Therefore

transport policymakers have to create the policies frameworks that are required for

transport sector to sustain energy with three dimensional objective namely ecology,

economy and social acceptability. This chapter discusses international experiences

on reduction of energy use in transportation sector. There are many methods and

policies to reduce energy consumption in transport sector, however only several of

them that are suitable to be used in Malaysia will be elaborated in this chapter. Those

include fuel economy standard for motor vehicle, fuel economy labels, fuel

switching, fuel taxation, emission abatement, further improvements to vehicles

which are have been implemented in other develop as well as developing countries.

The study found that many policies can be implemented directly in Malaysia while

other must be modified to make it suitable in this country. For example fuel economy

label guide program can be directly implemented in this country, however for fuel

economy standard must me modified to make it suitable because Malaysia has it

local vehicle manufacturers that have to be protected.



2.1. Introduction

There are many methods and policies to reduce energy consumption in the

transportation sector. To provide an impression of the coverage, a number of these

measures are: relocation of enterprises to reduce transport requirements; increase in

density in zoning; elimination or decrease of fiscal deductibility of travel expenses;

introduction of a four day work week; improvement of car and truck engines;

restriction of energy-consuming options in cars; research and development of

alternative vehicle engines; production of smaller cars; reduction of taxation for car

pooling; creation of parking facilities and reservation of lanes for car pools;

subsidization of public transport; improvement of quality of service of public

transport; introduction of toll roads; taxes on peak hour travel; speed limit; limit on

highway construction; parking levies; parking limitation; introduction of gasoline

coupons; limiting number of gasoline stations; and measures to restrict the energy

consumption in the transport sector. However just several of them that is suitable to

be implemented in Malaysia will be discussed in this study.

2.2. Program review

In America it has been reported that Americans spend more than $500 million

per day to fuel their cars, SUVs, and other light trucks. Nationally, these vehicles

account for 45 percent of U.S. oil consumption which is 8.8 million barrels a day

(mbd). Fuel economy standards have improved the efficiency of America’s cars and

trucks and resulted in dramatic oil savings. Corporate Average Fuel Economy

(CAFE) standards passed by Congress in 1975 led to a 70 percent increase in



America’s gas mileage over the subsequent decade. The National Academy of

Science has estimated this saves about 2.8 mbd. However, CAFE standards have

remained static for almost two decades due to federal gridlock. The current standard

of 27.5 miles per gallon (mpg) for automobiles first applied in 1985, and the 20.7

mpg standard for light trucks is only 0.2 mpg above the 1987 standard (but is now set

to rise to 22.2 mpg by 2007). Besides that, in the city of Los Angeles, the state

government are allowing owners of environment friendly electric and “super ultra

low emission vehicle” (SULEV) to park in metered space for free. The concept is to

promote the use of “green” transportation alternative.

Meanwhile, it has been reported in Canada that between 1990 and 2002, the

amount of energy used by the transportation sector increased by 23 percent, from

1877.9 PJ to 2306.0 PJ. As a result, energy-related GHGs rose by 22 percent, or 29.9

Mt. Passenger transportation was the transportation sub-sector that consumed the

most energy in 2002 with 57 percent, while freight transportation accounted for 39

percent and off-road vehicles accounted for 4 percent. Improvements in the overall

energy efficiency of passenger transportation saved 49.8 PJ of energy and 3.5 Mt of

related GHGs. Despite the increasing popularity of larger and heavier light-duty

vehicles with greater horsepower, the light-duty vehicle (cars, light trucks and

motorcycles) segment of passenger transportation helped save 24.8 PJ, while air

transportation avoided 21.2 PJ. Besides that, improvements in the energy efficiency

of freight transportation led to savings of 127.8 PJ of energy and 9.3 Mt of GHGs.

Most of the improvements in freight energy efficiency occurred in heavy trucks and

rail.



Dhakal (2003) on the other hand analyzed the energy and environmental

implications of transportation policies in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal up to the year

2020. From this study, it could be summarized that increasing the average speed of

vehicles on the street to 40 km/h would reduce total energy demands by 27% and

reduce CO2 emissions by 25%. Besides that, the policy to increase the share of public

transportation is expected to bring 27% of savings in total energy demands and 20%

of CO2 reduction in the year 2015. The other policy that is reported to bring

substantial implication is the promotion of electric vehicle. It is reported that this

move would reduce the total energy demand and CO2 emission by 20% in the year

2015.

Meanwhile, in Curitiba, Brazil local authorities have developed an integrated

plan for transport, urban planning, infrastructure, business and local community

development. By planning and zoning residential and industrial development along

so-called arteries in the proximity of public transport, transportation needs have been

managed sustainably. The arteries are supplemented with a system of ring roads.

Separate bus lines operate in close connection with express buses which enter the

residential areas. The move made Curitiba’s gasoline use per capita lower than that

of comparable Brazilian cities. It also led to annual fuel savings of approximately 27

million liters.

In Indonesia on the other hand, “Blue Sky Programme” was launched in 1992,

for mobile sources, the major activities of the program are, among others, to

encourage the use of CNG and LPG as an alternative cleaner fuel for motor vehicle;

to phase-out leaded gasoline and introduce low-sulfur diesel fuel (Winyantoro,



2001). Additionally inspection and maintenance (I&M) program for vehicles have

been introduced as a first step towards improving ambient temperature in the

Metropolitan Jakarta. I & M program in gasoline fueled cars could result to a five

percent savings in fuel consumption and could reduce the emissions of HC (35%)

and CO (5%). In diesel-fueled car, I & M program could reduce emission of

particulate matter by 45%. At present, I & M program are voluntary but will become

compulsory for all vehicle registered in Metropolitan Jakarta in the near future.

In Western Australia, the state government has devised a plan to move freight

transportation more efficiently between the port and industrial areas. This will see the

use of rail into Fremantle Port increase from three per cent to 30 per cent and reduce

the number of trucks on their roads. The Planning and Infrastructure portfolio has

also reduced the number of six-cylinder vehicles by 15 per cent since 2003 and has

also increased the number of Toyota Prius hybrids in the fleet to 16. Meanwhile,

from February 2001 to June 2004, the State Government has spent more than

$50million on cycling infrastructure, with another $8million earmarked this year. As

a result, the number of people using the Perth Bicycle Network has doubled during

the last five years. Additionally the Government has embarked on the State's biggest-

ever public transport project-the $1.5billion New MetroRail Project. New MetroRail

will carry almost 35,000 people each weekday and take 25,000 cars off their

freeways. It is estimated that work-related patronage on the Southern Suburbs

Railway alone will save almost 15million litres of fuel each year (Mactiernan, 2004).

Meanwhile vehicle emissions in Myanmar are expected to contribute

significantly to air pollution problems which are increasing at a rate of 87.13 Gg CO2



equivalent per year. In Myanmar, motor vehicle inspection is pursued by the Road

Transport Administration Department of the Ministry of Rail Transportation.

Although Myanmar does not yet have any vehicle emission standards, the

department has adopted standard requirements and testing procedure for motor

vehicle inspection. The requirements include among others, brake minimum

efficiency, exhaust emission (smoke), noise, and depth of tyre groove, which are

based from the existing ASEAN standards (Myint, 2001).

In Korea, motor vehicle registration nationwide has increased 18.1 times, from

527,729 in 1980 to 9,553,062 in 1996. The passenger car ownership increased 27.7

times since 1980, from 249,102 to 6,893,633 in 1996. This figure reflects an

increase of an average 23.1% per year. The road system, which handles more than

90% of the country's transportation, has been intimately connected to Korea's rapid

economic growth and land development since 1960s when it began to expand

dramatically. In preparation for the 21st century, the government is eagerly pursuing

a New Road Policy, with the goal of building a safe, convenient and fast road

system. To achieve this goal, the government plans to reduce the travel time to just

half a day between any points in the country in the early 2000s. The government

also plans to reduce the access time to any road network system from anywhere in

the country to less than thirty minutes. There will be seven north-south trunk routes

and nine east-west trunk routes, totalling 6,160 km. Meanwhile, to meet the rapidly

increasing container traffic, two new terminals, Pusan's fourth phase and

Kwangyang's first phase, which house four berths each are opened in 1998. It is

predicted that Korea's container handling capacity will still lag behind the maritime



traffic demand of the 21st century. The Korean government has also decided to

develop a new container terminal located about 25 km west of the existing port. This

project will provide 24 modern berth terminals. The construction for the first phase

began in late 1997, and the first 10 berth terminals will commence operations before

2005. Additionally in order to facilitate the flow of cargoes and information in all

areas of trade, the Ministry of Maritime Affairs & Fishery has been operating the

EDI (Electronic Data Interchange) system on a commercial basis since July 1995.

The EDI network (PORT-MIS) provides EDI services by connecting government

agencies, shipping companies, stevedoring companies, trucking companies,

forwarders, and terminals.

In Malaysia, the government embarked on the construction of a integrated

public transport system, emphasizing the environment-friendly features. The

government has implemented two phases of Light Rail Transit (LRT) systems and

the fuel efficient electrified double track commuter service. The improved transport

services is viewed that it will change the pattern of the existing transportation usage,

reducing number of private vehicles on the road thus reducing fuel consumption

which lead to reduction of emission. Apart from that, the Ministry of Finance has

allocated tax exemption on kits and necessary components for converting vehicle to

utilize natural gas. Furthermore, the road tax of vehicles using only natural gas is

discounted by 50% of the prevailing rate while 25% was given to bi-fuel vehicles.

Moreover, special capital allowance was also given to companies operating mono-

gas buses and for NGV petrol station entrepreneur (Norhayati & Yuzlina, 2001).



2.3 Transportation policy in selected countries

Mobility is one of the key factors for the economy and society. Transport

policymakers have to create the statutory and policy frameworks that are required if

transport needs are to be met taking account of sustainability in its three dimensions

(ecology, economy and social acceptability). In the transport sector, land transport,

especially road transport, can make a significant contribution towards reducing

vehicle emissions if improved fuels and engines are introduced. This scope for

improvement is being exploited. However, if the CO2 emission reduction targets

agreed on in Kyoto protocol are to be met, even more has to be done for the transport

sector. The Government is thus supporting the search for a fuel of the future based on

renewable energy and having extremely low emissions. In conjunction with further

improvements to fuels and vehicles on the basis of fossil resources, the wide-scale

use of renewable energy in transport and in the production of fuel will make it

possible to take a big step towards more sustainable transport. Moreover, the need of

such policy which will be implemented on fossil fuels usage is becomes much

necessary. Among the countries which have been implemented the policy of fuels

usage on transport sector are some European countries, USA, Australia, Japan, etc.

2.3.1. Thailand

According to Thailand Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, Thailand will more

concern on energy policy on fossil fuel started at this year. As the subsidies on petrol

prices come to an end this year, Thailand government is also trying to set a suitable



policy for energy and fuel conservation, to keep the economy and the country's

coffers in good shape. Paradoxically, the government is letting petrol prices float and

will continue subsidizing diesel at least through to the end of the cool season. That is

the way Thailand can minimize the impact of higher fuel prices in the short term

(Diesel News, 2003)

2.3.2. Singapore

In Singapore the rapid economic development in the last three decades has led

to increased demand for land transportation which is presently heavily dependent on

oil. As a small city-state with no indigenous supply of conventional energy

resources, Singapore needs to constantly promote energy conservation and to explore

the use of alternative fuels. At the same time, the Singaporean government is also

concerned with the environmental problems associated with rapid industrialization.

Various measures and recommendations on promoting clean technology, protection

of the local and global environment, reduction of CO2 and SO2 emissions, etc., were

announced and documented in the Singapore Green Plan (Singapore Ministry of

Environment, 1993). Other policy which has been used in Singapore is to provide

financial incentives to promote the use alternative fuels and electric vehicles. This is

based on a reduction of imported vehicle tax and vehicle road tax (Poh and Ang,

1999).



2.3.3. European Countries

High oil prices and rising fuel taxes have lead an explosion of fury across the

European continent, resulting in protests and blockades of depots and refineries.

Following the recent oil price rise, the Europeans have finally realized what a

massive burden fuel taxes place on their budgets. In response to the people's outcry

for relief, most European leaders have arrogantly dismissed requests for reduced fuel

taxes, claiming that such an action would be "pandering." Indeed many have argued

that the continuation of massive fuel taxes is a tough but "principled" and virtuous

policy.

Nevertheless, the fact is fuel taxes in the U.K. and Europe is punitively high.

According to a Sept. 11th editorial in Investor's Business Daily, entitled "The French

are Onto Something", taxes comprise $2.82 of the $4.07 gallon in France, $2.56 of

the $3.91 gallon in Germany, and $2.53 of the $3.97 gallon of fuel in Italy. In the

U.S., fuel taxes comprise about 39 cents of the average $1.64 gallon of gas.

However, an acquaintance in England releases a shocking note: "Part of the tax is

pegged to price, so an increase in fuel prices raises the tax. Prices are now some 90

pence per liter, over $6.00 per gallon, with $5.00 of that tax. The average Britain

pays over $100 a week to run his car, and some $80 of it goes to the government."

(Capitalism Magazine, 2000). Of course, Blair and other European leaders have

numerous explanations for why high fuel taxes are so necessary and desirable. One

hired gun, a professor of economics named Andrew Oswald, in an editorial "The



Economic Case for High Fuel Taxes: published Sept. 12, 2000 by The Financial

Times listed no less than eight reasons, which have been summarized as follows:

(i) If government did not take consumers' money, OPEC would.

(ii) People need to be able to plan for high fuel taxes with certainty - lower taxes

might surprise them.

(iii) It is unfair to cut taxes now, because humans are too selfish to volunteer to pay

higher fuel taxes if the oil price fell.

(iv) Fuel is a good thing to tax because people will keep buying it anyway.

(v) A tax on fuel is a well-deserved punishment for oil's pollution.

(vi) A fuel tax is the next best thing to road-use taxation.

(vii) The fuel tax punishes the rich with cars while helping the poor without cars.

(viii) Our grandchildren might not have enough oil if we don't tax it highly.

2.3.4. Japan

Japan is considering stricter fuel efficiency standards for cars as part of

sweeping revisions of environmental policy to curb pollution and climate change.

Transport Ministry official Yuji Matsuzaki said the ministry's proposal would force

automakers to produce passenger cars and cargo trucks that spew less carbon dioxide

and other greenhouse gases, which are believed to cause global warming. Under the



ministry's current guidelines, automakers must make passenger cars 10 percent more

fuel efficient and less polluting by 2010, compared to 2000. Trucks are exempt from

such standards.

2.3.5. Australia

Due to its geographical nature Australia is a highly transport dependent

society. Despite significant efforts to promote the benefits of public transport, its use

has declined while the affordability of motor cars has continued to improve and car

ownership and use are rising. Consumers want affordable and safe cars, cheap fuels,

ample parking, congestion free roads and environmentally friendly vehicles as long

as they don’t have to pay for it. As a community they are hyper sensitive about

petrol prices and as we have seen a few cents a litre rise at the petrol pump can cause

politicians to become weak at the knees. Conversely Governments Federally to the

tune of $12.5billion/year through excise and States receipts of $2.7billionn/year are

keenly aware of the revenue generated from petroleum products (Environment News

Service, 2000).

According to Dr. Sharman Stone, Parliamentary Secretary to Environment

Minister Robert Hill "In European countries there are many smaller cars on the

roads, which have highly efficient motors driven by the cleaner, better quality fuel.

These smaller cars go further on a liter of fuel and they have less effect on the air

quality."



The transport sector is the largest single contributor to Australia's greenhouse

gas emissions, accounting for almost 16 percent of the 72.6 million tonnes of carbon

dioxide pumped into the environment every year. The new rules will mean higher

octane, lower sulphur content fuel. This should help reduce pollution as well as cut

greenhouse gas emissions. Australia is struggling to meet international commitments

to limit emissions of carbon dioxide and other climate warming gases to eight

percent of 1990 levels. Such emissions have actually grown by 16 percent. The Fuel

Quality Standards Bill forms part of the Australian government's A$1 billion

(US$540,000) greenhouse plan known as Measures for a Better Environment

package. The new law in Australia will introduce tougher penalties to protect

consumers and environment (Australian Greenhouse Office, 2004).

2.3.6. India

According to a Times of India report, India's government has been announced

its final conclusions regarding the "auto-fuel policy report" delivered by an expert

committee headed by India's top science advisor. This report recommended fuel

neutrality (with ultra-low sulfur diesel by 2010) rather than the CNG monopoly

scheme for major cities pushed by India's Supreme Court and anti-diesel "green"

group, Center for Science & Environment (CSE). Currently, the comprehensive

study or results still yet to publish regarding this policy. However, this policy was

aimed to reduce the incentive on diesel oil shared to other alternative fuels.



2.7.7. France

France policymakers so far have implicitly assumed that adequate supplies of

NG would be available for transport. Clearly, NG is one of the possible alternative

fuel that produce major reductions in transport oil use, NG as transport fuels is still

available in large quantities in the years 2020. This now seems unlikely. The IEA has

recently analyzed world energy prospects out to 2020 and beyond (IEA, 1998). For

NG, it was assumed that ultimate reserves, both already produced and still to be

produced, were 260 btoe, slightly less than the 310 btoe estimated for oil. World

demand for NG is growing faster than that for oil as gas increases its share of energy

in the developed countries and gas grids are introduced in an increasing number of

industrializing countries.

2.3.8. New Zealand

The New Zealand example is instructive. A major shift to NG-based transport

fuels occurred in the 1980s, based on CNG and synthetic petrol. At its peak, NG

supplied 30% of New Zealand’s transport fuels. Today, the figure is only about 10%,

and will decline to near zero by 2014, the expected date of gas field exhaustion,

assuming no imports (Statistics New Zealand, 2000).

2.3.9. Netherlands

Based on information provided by the Dutch Auto LPG association in 1999,

the Dutch vehicle maker (DAF) considers CNG (natural gas) to be very well suited

for use in a private vehicle but autogas (i.e. LPG) to be the best fuel for buses. Their



reasons for this choice are: no need for such a big tank, the composition is clearly

defined and there is no need to have the gas compressed in an expensive compression

station.

2.3.10. Philippines

The Philippines first attempted to commercialize liquid biofuels for motor

vehicles following the oil shocks of the 1970s; unfortunately, the ambitious program

was abandoned during the political crisis of the mid-1980s. Today biofuels are

receiving renewed interest in the Philippines due to a combination of economic and

environmental factors. The principal economic incentive is the reduction of

dependence on imported petroleum. This issue is particularly true for the transport

sector which is almost entirely dependent on oil. Reduction of CO2 emissions

resulting from fossil fuel use is one of the primary environmental considerations

(Philippine Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 2000). As with the

biofuels program of the early 1980s, a biodiesel program can help insulate the

Philippines from world oil price fluctuations, and simultaneously revitalize stagnant

sectors of the economy. These benefits may very well enough to compensate for the

relatively high production cost of biodiesel. Implementation of carbon trading

through the Clean Development Mechanism can also be employed to subsidize such

a program. However, this particular program has been introduced to the government

meeting for further considerations in the future (Philippine Department of Energy,

2002)



2.4. Transport Regulations

Table 2.1 lists various international regulations and or guidelines aimed at

improving new vehicle fuel efficiency for selected countries (OECD Ministry of

Transport, 2000). There are of course many other guidelines and regulations relating

to efforts to reduce emissions by the transport sector but only those directly related

the study that have been listed in this section.

2.5. Voluntary agreements or program

The costs (both financial and environmental) of regulatory measure can

outweigh the benefits of that program. In the case of fuel efficiency standards, the

cost of developing and implementing technological advances and the consumers’

tendency to use some of the savings from reduced fuel consumption to drive further

(the “rebound effect”) could outweigh the actual fuel savings achieved. Voluntary

agreements program can be an alternative means of achieving improved fuel

efficiency. Table 2.2 lists a number of examples of voluntary agreement program

(OECD Ministry of Transport, 2000).



Table 2.1. Examples of transport regulations in selected countries

Country Regulation description

Czech Republic

Specific fuel consumption targets agreed and implemented

Japan

Fuel efficiency targets for 2000 set, average 8.5% improvement over fiscal 1992 levels. 5% target for average improvement in fuel efficiency for petrol trucks.

Russian Federation Development of vehicle fuel efficiency standards proposed

Sweden

Target for private car average fuel consumption of 6.3 liters per 100 km by 2005 has been proposed. Since new car fuel economy was 8.4 litres/100km in 1993i, this implies an improvement of 25% over the period 1993 to 2005. Volvo has committed itself to a 25% reduction in average fuel consumption by 2005.

Switzerland

Federal Government Ordinance on reducing the specific fuel consumption of cars. Requirement is for a 15% reduction in average fuel consumption in the period 1996 to 2001 (3.2% per year)

United States

Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) standards. Implemented in 1975, came into effect for cars in 1978. Last revised in 1992 currently 27.5 mpg (8.55 litres/100 km).

European Union

Commission Communication COM (95) 689, 20 December 1995, Council Conclusion of 25 June 1996. Objective is to achieve an average of 120 gm/km CO2 emissions (approx. 5 l/100km) for new cars by 2005. Target is aimed at European made vehicles, but plans are to extend the targets to imports as well.



Table 2.2. Examples of transport voluntary agreement programs in selected countries

Country Country Voluntary agreement programs

Austria Agreement with motor vehicle manufacturers to improve fuel efficiency to 3 litres / 100 km. (envisaged measure)

Canada Voluntary agreement with each of the manufacturers on increasing fuel efficiency of new vehicles

France French car manufacturers have set a target of cutting average CO2 emissions to 150 gm/km by 2005

Germany Agreement with domestic vehicle manufacturers on fuel economy. Calls for a 25% reduction in average fuel consumption between 1990 and 2005 (a rate of 1.9% a year)

Sweden Volvo has committed itself to a 25% reduction in average fuel consumption of its cars sold in the EU by 2005.

United Kingdom UK manufacturers are committed to meeting the ACEA target of a 10% improvement in fuel efficiency by 2005.

European Union

Agreement reached between the European Commission and ACEA to cut CO2 emissions down to 140 gm/km approximately 5.7 litres/100 km) by 2008. There is also a commitment to review emissions targets in 2003 with a view towards achieving the Commission’s objective of 120 gm/km (approximately 5 litres/100 km) by 2012.

2.6. Air quality policies

In addition to carbon dioxide, vehicle usage results in other gas emissions,

many of which have implications for local air quality. Three of these are covered by

the Euro standards: carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, all

measured separately for petrol and diesel cars, and also particulate matter for diesel

cars only tabulated in Table 2.3.



Table 2.3. Emission limits for new cars

Limit value (g/km) Mass of

carbon monoxide

(CO)

Mass of hydrocarbons

(HCs)

Mass of oxides of nitrogen (Nox)

Combined mass of hydrocarbons

(HCs) and oxides of nitrogen

(HC + Nox)

Mass of particulate

matter (PM)

Stage I 1993* Directive 91/441/EEC Petrol Diesel

3.16 3.16

- -

- -

1.13 1.13

-

0.18

Stage II 1997* Directive 94/12/EC Petrol Diesel, indirect injection Diesel, direct injection

2.2 1.0 1.0

- - -

- - -

0.5 0.7 0.9

-

0.08 0.10

Stage III 2000 Directive 98/69/EC Petrol Diesel

1.0 0.5

0.1 -

0.08 0.25

-

0.3

-

0.025

Stage IV 2005 Directive 98/69/EC Petrol Diesel

1.0 0.5

0.1 -

0.08 0.25

-

0.3

-

0.025

Stage III came into force from 1 January 2000 (Directive 98/69) and stage IV

comes into force from1st January 2005. (These stages are often referred o as Euro 3

and Euro 4 respectively). These are maximum permitted mean emissions and as the

table indicates, they are being tightened up over the four legislated stages. Diesel

produces about 15% more CO2 per liter than petrol, but diesel engines on the whole

produce less CO2 per km because the diesel engine is inherently more efficient than

the petrol one. At the same time, diesel-engine vehicles emit around ten times the

mass of fine particles and up to twice the oxides of nitrogen of comparable petrol-



fuelled vehicles. Policy needs, therefore, to be a balanced one, to reflect the impacts

of both local air quality change and global climate change, recognizing that fuels

have different benefits and disadvantages. In Europe, the Directive is part of a trio of

policy approaches, concerned with climate change. These include the voluntary

agreement to reduce missions by technical improvements to new cars and fiscal

measures. In the UK, the fiscal measures include differentiated vehicle excise duty,

related on carbon dioxide emissions, and reduced company car allowances.

2.7. Fuel economy

This chapter compares existing and planned vehicle fuel economy labelling

schemes in several selected countries. Some of the planned schemes within European

countries are refer to earlier drafts of the EU Directive. This is an area of policy that

should considered for every countries around especially for developing countries

that have been rapidly increase in the number of vehicles. The simultaneously survey

in this section gives a dated snapshot of the current situation in the country. So some

of the data given in this study section might be have already change.

Vehicle labelling schemes have been in existence for several years in Sweden

and the United States (both since 1975) and in the UK (since 1983). The American

scheme was amended in 1990 and the Canadian scheme in 1998, in the light of

consumer feedback. There is little evidence of the way these schemes influenced

consumer purchases. Summary of fuel economy energy labels for motor vehicle in

several selected countries is given in Table 2.4 (Brenda et al, 2000). The fuel

economy label for several selected countries is given Figs. 2.1 – 2.9.



Table 2.4. Fuel economy labeling schemes in selected countries

Austria

Australia Belgium Canada Denmark Netherlands Sweden Switzerland USA EU Directive

Planned or Existing

Planned Planned Planned Existing Planned Planned for attachment to cars-existing on website

Existing Planned. Temporary label

in meantime

Existing Directive 1999/94/EC

adopted

Scope As directive

Passenger cars, maybe extension to light commercial

vehicles, 4x4

As directive

New cars, vans,

light duty trucks

As directive As directive All passenger

cars

As directive New cars, vans, light duty trucks

New passenger

cars

Introduction date

As directive

2000 As directive

1998 1 Jan 2000 As directive 1977 As directive but temporary label

prior to that

1975 To be implemented in EU MS by January 18th

2001

Mandatory? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No: Temporary Yes Yes

Units of consumption

L/100km L/100km L/100km L/100km;mpg

mpg L/100km L/100km Not shown;L/100km

in guide

mpg L/100km or km/l or

combination

Comparison by absolute measure or relative scale

Relative by size

and sales weighted

Absolute but perhaps label changed to

appliance star style (relative)

Relative by size and

sales weighted

Absolute Absolute comparing

all cars

Relative by size and sales

weighted

Absolute No scale shown but “efficient”

designation with sales weighted

comparison for all same weight

No scale but range of

consumption shown for

cars of same size

No requirement

for comparison



Table 2.4. Continue Austria Australia Belgium Canada Denmark Netherlands Sweden Switzerland USA EU Directive Comparison parameter

width X length

None width X length

None None width X length None weight size class N/A

Other measures of consumption

As directive

None As directive

Annual fuel cost (focus of

label)

Krona/yr Krona/20000

km Krona/60000

km

Cost/50000km Cost/litre

None None None Units can be in gallons

and miles if compatible

with Directive 80/181/EEC

CO2 Intention to include

values

No As directive

No Yes (g CO2/km)

Yes (g CO2/km)

Yes (g

CO2/km)

Not shown but

in guide (g /km)

No – intended for the guide

CO2 emissions in

g/km

Environment al Ranking

No No No No No No Yes, ranking 1

to 3

No In guide by ACEEE

No

Printed Guide

Intended Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Online Guide Intended Yes Yes Yes Intended Yes Yes Intended Yes Not required but

considered Fiscal integration

Yes - with fuel

consumpti on tax

(NoVA)

No Intended No Yes with fuel

consumption tax

(green owner)

Yes with relative

consumption

With enviro. rating

Intended – either to CO2

or fuel consumption

No

New cars sold to fleet buyers

15% maximum

10-15% - 10% - 10% - < 5% 10% N/A



Figure 2.1. Austrian draft fuel economy label



Figure 2.2. Australian draft fuel consumption labels



Figure 2.3. Canadian fuel economy label



Figure 2.4. Danish draft fuel consumption label



Figure 2.5. Swedish fuel economy label



Figure 2.6. Swiss draft fuel economy label



Figure 2.7. US fuel consumption label



Figure 2.8. UK fuel economy label



Figure 2.9. Environmental information guide



2.8. Conclusions

There are not many policies around the world have been implemented for

reducing transport sector energy use other than for motor vehicle. This may be

because the technology replacement for airplane and ship not so progressive such as

for motor vehicle. There was a replacement for railway especially in Japan and

France, however the replacement was not really related to energy but more to

increasing speed of mass railway transport. Therefore the study is more favored to

motor vehicle since they are the major energy consumer in the transportation sector

in this country. Several countries are using the opportunity to experiment with

innovative approaches that go considerably beyond this minimum level. This is in

order to reduce the contribution that new cars are making to environmental

degradation and climate change. The focus on fuel economy provides substantial

benefits to consumers, particularly at a time of rising real oil prices and concerns

about the cost of petrol.

As a result of the proposed fuel economy standard and fuel economy label,

consumers will be able to differentiate efficient vehicle with ease. This will create

healthy competition among vehicle manufactures to come up with a more efficient

vehicle gradually. Eventually if these measures are implemented, it will bring great

benefit to government, consumers as well as to the environment. Overall,

dependency on petrol fuel could be reduced and greenhouse gas emission could be

mitigated. Additionally, the fuel subsidy on petrol and diesel by government in the

future should be withdrawn; consumers will not pay more ton efficient vehicle unless



it proven will be using lesser amount of fuel and benefit them due to higher cost of

fuel.

References

Australian Greenhouse Office. (2004). Australia Green House Report-(2001).

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/

Brenda Boardman, Nick Banks, Howard R Kirby, Sarah Keay-Bright, Barry J

Hutton. Stephen G Stradling, (2000). Choosing Cleaner Cars: The Role Of Labels

And Guides. Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, UK.

Dhakal S. (2003). Implications of transportation policies on energy and environment

in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Energy Policy, Volume 31, Issue 14, Pages 1493-1507

Hill, NW and Larsen, RP (1990). Draft evaluation of the Federal fuel economy

information program. Interim Report. Argonne National Laboratory. USA

IEA. (1998). World Energy Prospects to 2020, OECD/IEA, Paris

Mactiernan, A. (2001). Western Australia moving to reduce oil dependence, Western

Australia Dept. Planning & Infrastructure.

Myint, S. (2001). Transport Energy Use and Vehicle Emissions in Myanmar,

ASEAN energy bulletin, ASEAN Centre for Energy, Jakarta. Vol. 5, No. 1.

Norhayati K., Yuslina M.Y. (2001). Vehicle Emissions, Measures and Challenges in

Malaysia Road Transporttion Sector, ASEAN energy bulletin, ASEAN Centre for

Energy, Jakarta. Vol. 5, No. 1.



OECD Ministers of Transport. (1997). CO2 Emissions from Transport, European

Conference of Ministers of Transport, OECD.

Philippine Department of Energy (2002). Philippine Energy Plan 2002–2011.

Manila.

Philippine Department of Environment and Natural Resources (2000). Implementing

Rules and Regulations of RA 8749—Clean Air Act of 1999, Manila.

Pirkey, D, McNutt, B, Hemphill, J and Dulla, R (1982), Consumer response to fuel

economy information – alternative sources, uses and formats. SAE Technical Paper

820792, Warrendale, Pa, USA.

Poh K.L and Ang B.W.. (1999). Transportation fuels and policy for Singapore: an

AHP planning approach, Journal. Computer & Industrial Engineering.

Singapore Ministry of Environment. (1993). Singapore Green Plan. Report on by

Ministry of Environment Singapore. Singapore.

Statistics New Zealand (2000) New Zealand Official Yearbook 2000, 102nd edition,

GP Publications, Wellington, NZ.

Widyantoro, T. (2001). Energy Efficiency Towards Sustainable Transport and Clean

Air in Indonesia, ASEAN energy bulletin, ASEAN Centre for Energy, Jakarta. Vol.

5, No. 1.



CHAPTER 3

HISTORICAL AND FUTURE TREND OF ENERGY

DEMAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FROM

THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR

SUMMARY

Emissions in the transportation sector produce adverse effects on the

environment that influent human health, organism growth, climatic changes and so

on. The Kyoto protocol by the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate

change (UNFCC) in December 1997, prescribed legally binding greenhouse gas

emission target about 5% below their 1990 level. About 160 countries including

Malaysia now adopt this protocol. The transportation sector is the main contributors

for emission in the country. In order to calculate the potential emission by this

activity, the type of fuel use should be identified. The study found that there are no

radical changes of fuel used for transportation sector in Malaysia. The data shown

that fuel type use are 53% of petrol, 34% of diesel, 13% of ATF 0.06% Natural Gas,

and 0.03% of electricity in year 2000 to 46% of petrol, 42% of diesel, 12% of ATF,

0.29% Natural Gas and only 0.07% of electricity in the year of 2020. The calculation

is based on emissions for unit fuel used and the type of fuel use and energy demand

in transportation sector. The study found that, the transportation sector has

contributed huge emissions from their activities in this country and the change on

fuel type is necessary to change the pattern of emission production.



3.1. Introduction

Over the past decades, it has been observed that there is an increasing

atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases such carbon dioxide (CO2) and other

emissions that give negative impact to the environment such as sulfur dioxide (SO2),

nitrogen oxide (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO). One of the main contributors of

these gases is generated by transportation sector because a conventional vehicle still

using fossil fuels as their main energy sources. Burning fossil fuels is releases the

emissions such as mentioned gasses which known can cause greenhouse gas

emission effect, acid rain and other negative impact to environmental and

humankind.

CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas and produced when any form of carbon is

burned in an excess of oxygen. Due to this reason, CO2 greenhouse effect in the

world has been enhanced. This means that the atmosphere is trapping more heat that

has to escape to space. This enhancement has linked the greenhouse effect is causing

global warming. CO2 is the largest contributor of greenhouse effect out of all the

gasses produce by human activities.

SO2 is a colorless gas, from the family of sulfur oxides (SOx). It reacts on the

surface of a variety of atmosphere solid particles and can be oxidized within

atmosphere water droplets. Fossil fuel combustion is the main sources of SO2

produce by human activities.

NOx are a collective term used of two types of oxides of nitrogen namely nitric

oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). NO is a colorless, flammable gas with a

slight odor. NO2 is a nonflammable gas with a detectable smell and in certain



concentration will highly toxic, which is in longtime can cause serious lung damage.

NO2 is plays a major role in the atmospheric reactions that produce ozone or smog.

In the atmosphere, NO2 will mix with water vapor producing nitric acid and

deposited as acid rain.

CO is a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas. Exposure to CO reduces the blood's

ability to carry oxygen. CO is a product of incomplete burning of hydrocarbon-based

fuels. CO consists of a carbon atom and an oxygen atom linked together. During

normal combustion, each atom of carbon in the burning fuel joins with two atoms of

oxygen forming a harmless gas. When there is a lack of oxygen to ensure complete

combustion of the fuel, each atom of carbon links up with only one atom of oxygen

forming CO gas.

Malaysia planning to reduce the production of CO2, SO2, NOx and CO in the

country but the data of production of these gasses is unavailable therefore the study

attempts to estimate potential production of these gases from transportation sector in

this country. With exact figure of these emissions, Malaysia can contribute to

undermine the disaster caused by these gases by maximizing of using renewable fuel.

Similar study on emissions from electricity generation in Malaysia has been

discussed by Mahlia (2002).

3.2. Survey Data

The data used for this study are the fuel consumption data, distribution of fuel

type for transportation sector data and emissions of CO2, SO2, NOx and CO from



fossil fuel for unit fuel consumption in (g/GJ). These data are collected from the

National Energy Balance (2002). All of the survey data are tabulated in Tables 3.1,

3.2 and 3.3.

Table 3.1. Final energy use by transportation sector

Year Total

(ktoe)

1980 2,398

1985 3,477

1990 5,387

1995 7,827

1996 8,951

1997 10,201

1998 9,793

1999 11,393

2000 12,071

2001 13,137

2002 13,442

Type of fossil fuel used in transportation sector in Malaysia are include, Natural

Gas, Aviation gasoline (Avgas), Motor gasoline (Mogas), Aviation Turbine Fuel

(ATF or Avtur), Diesel oil and fuel oil. Natural Gas fuel is a mixture of gaseous

hydrocarbons (mainly methane) which occurs either in gas fields or in association

with crude oil in oil fields. Aviation gasoline (Avgas) is a special blended grade of



gasoline for use in aircraft engines of the piston type. Distillation range normally

falls within 30oC and 200oC. Motor gasoline (Mogas) Petroleum distillate for used as

fuel in spark-ignition internal combustion engines. Distillation range is within 30oC

and 250oC. ATF or Avtur is fuel for use in aviation gas turbines mainly refined from

Kerosene. Distillation range within 150oC and 250oC. Diesel oil is Distillation falls

within 200oC to 340oC. Diesel fuel for high speed diesel engines (i.e. automotive) are

more critical on fuel quality than diesel for stationary and marine diesel engines.

Marine oil usually consists of a blend of diesel oil and some residual (asphalt)

material. Meanwhile, fuel oil is heavy distillates, residues or blends is used as fuel

for production of heat and power. Fuel oil production at the refinery is essentially a

matter of selective blending of available components rather than of special

processing. Fuel oil viscosities vary widely depending on the blend of distillates and

residues. Transportation sector energy use based on fuel types is given in Table 3.2

(National Energy Balance, 2002).



Table 3.2. Transportation sector energy use based on fuel types

Fuel Type (ktoe) Year

Petrol Diesel ATF Fuel oil NG Elect

1980 1296 847 250 - 0 0

1985 2057 1032 386 - 0 0

1990 2889 1826 628 41 0 0

1995 4477 2168 1158 17 5 0

1996 5161 2417 1333 32 4 1

1997 5574 3106 1437 75 5 1

1998 5849 2311 1618 9 4 1

1999 6778 3174 1423 13 0 4

2000 6378 4103 1574 4 7 4

2001 6820 4534 1762 5 14 5.17

2002 6940 4680 1785 4 28 4

The summation of total energy use in Table 3.2 is not very similar to the data

in Table 3.1 is because the are some other types of fuel are not included in the table

such as LPG and Avgas which have been used for transport fuel in a very little

quantity. Time series data for these types of fuels is also unavailable and difficult to

predict.

The type of equivalency in energy data in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 is given by

tones oil equivalent (toe) unit across different type of fuels. Toe generally refers to

energy content to one metric ton of crude oil. The international table standard defines



one toe as having a net calorific value of 10 Gcal. There are different definitions in

the literature for ton oil equivalent. The one used in this study is the conversion

factor that 1 toe = 10 Gcal = 41.868 GJ (EIA, 2004; IEA, 2002; UN, 1991).

Since the emission per unit energy conversion as well as the usage of

electricity and fuel oil in transportation sector in this country is very little compare to

other types of fuel that are 0.03% each, therefore emission from these fuel are can be

neglected. Even though Natural Gas also has very little percentage compare to other

fuel but this fuel will be considered in this calculation because from the data given in

Table 3.2, Natural Gas seem to be increased rapidly in the future. Emission from

fossil fuel per GJ energy used by transportation is presented in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3. CO2, SO2, NOx and CO emission from fossil fuel per GJ energy

use by transportation sector

Emission Fuels

CO2 (kg/GJ) SO2 (g/GJ) NOx (g/GJ) CO (g/GJ)

Petrol 73.00 2.28 1368.76 3490.86

Diesel 74.00 2.34 284.55 102.66

ATF 72.00 2.30 310.16 132.06

NG 53.90 0.00 488.00 214.00



3.3. Methodology

This study uses the scenario approach for the analysis. Schwartz (1996) states

that scenarios are tools for ordering perceptions about alternative future

environments and the end-result might not be an accurate picture of tomorrow,

however can give better decisions about the future. No matter how things might

actually turn out, both the analyst and the policy maker will have a scenario that

resembles a given future and that will help us think through both the opportunities

and the consequences of that future.

This analysis is generally based on modeling methodologies to figure out the

potential emissions from transportation sector in Malaysia in the future. For this

purpose, initially, the type of fuel use for transportation sector should be identified.

Some of the data are already available but others have to be calculated with respect

to the county fuel consumption trend. Several methods have been employed to

analyze and predict unavailable data. Those are linear, logarithmic, quadratic, power

growth and exponential curve fitting. From the calculation found that the best

method used to estimate the rest of the calculation data is polynomial curve fitting.

The best fit from these methods will be used for this study. The method is an attempt

to describe the relationship between variable X as the function of available data and a

response Y. Which seeks to find some smooth curve that best fit the data, but does

not necessarily pass through any data points. Mathematically, a polynomial of order

k in X is expressed in the following form (Klienbaum, 1998):

kk XC...XCXCCY ++++= 2

210 (3.1)



The pattern of emission due to the fuel changes is potential emissions released

by transportation sector in Malaysia. The common gasses are consisting CO2, SO2,

NOx and CO. Emission pattern of the transportation sector can be calculated by the

following equation:

)( 332211 np

nipipipii FEES...FEESFEESFEESCF TM ×++×+×+××= (3.2)

3.4. Results and Discussions

There are two types of data to be analyzed i.e. fuel consumption data based on

fuel type and emission data of transportation sector. These fuels are Petrol, Diesel,

ATF, Natural Gas and Electricity. The usage of the mentioned fuels is potentially to

be increased in the future. Based on the data shown in Table 3.2, using Eq. (3.1), the

petrol consumption by transportation sector in Malaysia from year 2003 to year 2020

can be predicted by the following equation:

9795.0632.1393.1204 221 =++= R ,X .2865 X Y (3.3)

Based on the data shown in Table 3.2, using Eq. (3.1), the diesel fuel

consumption in transportation sector in Malaysia from the year 2003 to 2020 can be

predicted. The total of diesel fuel use in transportation sector can be predicted by the

following equation:



9183.0 661.10732471.1015 222 =+−= R ,X X Y (3.4)

The total of ATF fuel used for transportation sector in Malaysia can be

predicted by the following equation:

9687.0 52.157 729.4046.194 223 =++= R ,X X Y (3.5)

The total of natural gas fuel uses in transportation sector in Malaysia can be

predicted by the following equation:

7406.0 1026.05059.12755.2 224 =+−= R ,X X Y (3.6)

The total of electricity uses in transportation sector in Malaysia can be predicted

by the following equation:

8214.0 0254.03592.04584.0 225 =+−= R ,X X Y (3.7)

The results of the predicted data based on Equations (3.3), (3.4), (3.5), (3.6) and

(3.7) from the year 2003 to 2020 are tabulated in Table 3.4.



Table 3.4. Predicted energy demand and fuel mix of transportation

sector in Malaysia

Fuel Type (ktoe) Year

Petrol Diesel ATF NG Elect Total

2003 7734 4970 1965 22 6 14 696

2004 8169 5398 2079 25 6 15 678

2005 8616 5847 2197 29 7 16 697

2006 9076 6318 2318 32 8 17 753

2007 9549 6809 2442 36 9 18 846

2008 10 034 7322 2570 41 10 19 977

2009 10 532 7857 2700 45 11 21 145

2010 11 042 8413 2834 49 13 22 350

2011 11 565 8990 2971 54 14 23 593

2012 12 100 9588 3111 59 15 24 873

2013 12 648 10 208 3254 64 16 26 190

2014 13 208 10 849 3400 70 18 27 545

2015 13 781 11 511 3550 75 19 28 936

2016 14 367 12 195 3702 81 20 30 366

2017 14 965 12 900 3858 87 22 31 832

2018 15 576 13 626 4017 93 23 33 336

2019 16 200 14 374 4179 100 25 34 877

2020 16 836 15 143 4344 106 27 36 455



The predicted fuel percentage trend based on fuel type of energy consumption in

transportation sector in Malaysia is presented in Fig. 3.1.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%20

00

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

ATFNGDieselElectPetrol

Figure 3.1. Predicted energy demand based on percentage fuel mix for

transportation sector in Malaysia

The small changes of energy sources for transportation sector have contributed

for emissions pattern in Malaysia. To replace petrol the authority has to increase the

use of diesel. This replacement can be avoided if Malaysian government plans early.

The authority should switch this replacement to another renewable energy sources

such as bio-diesel or hydrogen fuel. Gradual replacement of petrol and diesel with

natural gas is another alternative option since Malaysia has reserve a large amount of

this fuel and that is known that natural gas has lower emission than petrol and diesel.



This can help to reduce emission in the future and also helps to secure Malaysia’s

energy security. This is due to high cost of imported crude oil and higher cost of

conserving emissions in the future. Conducting life cycle cost analysis of conserved

emissions and investment is necessary. However, this analysis is not discussed in this

study. Detail explanation of cost of conserved emissions is discussed by Krause and

Koomey (1990).

The pattern of emissions is a function of the total energy consumption

multiplied by the percentage of fuel mix and the amount of emissions by the fossil

fuel from every unit of energy used. The pattern of emissions by transportation sector

in Malaysia is tabulated in Table 5 and illustrated in Fig. 3.2 – 3.3.



Figure 3.2. Pattern of CO2 and CO emissions production by transportation

sector in Malaysia

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

1980

1990

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

SO

2 E

mis

sion

(Ton

)

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

NO

x E

mis

sion

(Ton

)

SO2NOx

Figure 3.3.Pattern of SO2 and NOx emissions production by transportation

sector in Malaysia

0

12000000

24000000

36000000

48000000

60000000

72000000

84000000

96000000

108000000

120000000

1980

1990

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

CO

2 Em

issi

on (T

on)

0

300000

600000

900000

1200000

1500000

1800000

2100000

2400000

2700000

CO

Em

issi

on (T

on)

CO2

CO



Table 3.5. Potential emissions production by transportation sector in Malaysia

Emissions production by transportation (Ton) Year

CO2 SO2 NOX CO

2003 45 008 529 1414 528 397 1 162 818

2004 48 016 315 1509 559 968 1 228 867

2005 51 138 549 1607 592 559 1 296 865

2006 54 375 232 1709 626 169 1 366 811

2007 57 726 362 1814 660 799 1 438 706

2008 61 191 940 1923 696 449 1 512 549

2009 64 771 967 2035 733 119 1 588 341

2010 68 466 442 2151 770 808 1 666 082

2011 72 275 364 2271 809 517 1 745 771

2012 76 198 735 2394 849 245 1 827 408

2013 80 236 554 2521 889 993 1 910 994

2014 84 388 821 2651 931 761 1 996 528

2015 88 655 537 2785 974 548 2 084 011

2016 93 036 700 2923 1 018 355 2 173 443

2017 97 532 311 3064 1 063 182 2 264 823

2018 102 142 371 3209 1 109 028 2 358 151

2019 106 866 878 3357 1 155 894 2 453 428

2020 111 705 834 3509 1 203 780 2 550 654



The results from Table 3.5 show that the total emissions production from 2003

to 2020 are about 1,363,734,444 tons of CO2, 42,845 tons of SO2, 15,173,572 tons

of NOx and 32,626,252 tons of CO. These are huge amount of emission for small

developing country like Malaysia. The authorities and policymakers should find a

suitable policy to reduce this emission in order to contribute to Kyoto Protocol and to

leave a better environment for future generation.

3.5. Conclusions

The emissions from transportation sector contributed the largest emission for the

country. Government intervention to abate this emission is urgently needed at the

present. The emissions pattern from fossil fuel used in transportation sector can be

reduce by switching from fossil fuel to renewable fuel such as bio-diesel and

hydrogen fuel. This policy offers solution and multiple benefits to utility, society and

most important to protect the environment. Malaysian authority has to find ways to

reduce these emissions, such as by introducing emissions taxation which can be used

to subsidies renewable fuel or lower emission fuel or for replanting threes of the rain

forest in the country. The increase in emissions is suspected due the increase in

vehicle population in Malaysia. The greater the increase in vehicle population, the

higher would be the corresponding emissions. Thus, one would have to conclude that

in order to bring down the emissions to considerably low levels, the growth in

vehicle population, particularly the passenger cars, has to be controlled or as

mentioned early is to introduce low emission fuel or to initiate renewable fuel type.

The data from the study can be a basis for calculating cost benefit analysis for



implementation of new renewable energy sources for transportation sector and

emission abatement program in Malaysia.

References

Beer T, Grant T, Brown R, Edwards J, Nelson P, Watson H, Williams D. (2000).

Life-cycle Emissions Analysis of Alternative Fuels for Heavy Vehicles. CSIRO

Atmospheric Research Report C/0411/1.1/F2. Australian Greenhouse Office.

Energy Information Administration. (2004). DOE:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/contents.html

IEA. (2002). Oil Information 2002. IEA/OECD, Paris.

Klienbaum DG. (1998). Applied regression analysis and other multivariable

methods. ITP co., USA.

Krause F, Koomey J. (1990). Unit costs of carbon savings from urban trees, rural

trees, and electricity conservation: a utility cost perspective, Lawrence Berkeley

Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley.

Mahlia TMI. (2002). Emissions from electricity generation in Malaysia. Renewable

Energy 27(2):293-300.

National Energy Balance (2003). Ministry of Energy, Communications and

Multimedia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Schwartz P. (1996). The Art of the Long View: Planning in an uncertain world,

Doubleday, New York.



UN (United Nations). (1991). Energy Statistics: A Manual for Developing Countries,

Series F, No. 56, United Nations, New York.



CHAPTER 4

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND

ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN MALAYSIA

SUMMARY

This chapter discusses the main part of the transport and energy investigations

and projections. The first part of the chapter discusses a review of existing data

available from related authorities and transportation studies that were undertaken to

date. Consideration of population growth as well as socio-economic data and energy

use in transportation sector data has also been considered. Forecasting future

transportation growth based on population growth and socio-economic data and

needs up to 20 years is also presented. Consideration of relationship between

transportation trips production and energy consumption is elaborated. Formulation of

a model for forecasting energy consumption by transportation sector and model

validation that takes into consideration the correlation coefficient is discussed in

detail. Furthermore, the uses of the model to analyze energy consumption based on

the modal split scenarios are also presented.



4.1. Introduction

It has been extensively described in the literatures that transportation sector is

one of the most energy consuming sector in many countries for years. For example in

United States, the consumption of energy in transportation sector (year 1973–2001)

range from 24.5% to 27.9% of the total energy consumed (U.S Department of

Energy, 2002). In year 2001, transportation sector was positioned second after

industrial sector in consuming energy in United States. Japanese transportation sector

consumes about 20-25% of the total energy in recent years. In Malaysia, total amount

of energy consumed in transportation sector was about 40% of the total energy

consumed compared to 39% in industrial sector and only 13% for commercial and

residential sector. These figures show that energy is essential to transportation and on

the other hand could reasonably be judged as in dire need of energy.

Unfortunately, one of the greatest challenges to the transportation system is

that of dealing with its environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of

transportation include large-scale impacts due to the system as a whole as well as

smaller scale impacts due to specific transportation facilities and activities. Air

quality is one of the most important impacts of the transportation besides energy

consumption and land use. Noise pollution and reduced water quality due to the

construction and the operation of transportation facilities and modes are also issues

that have to be taken into consideration. The road transport, mainly automobiles is

the major source of CO2 emission as the major global warming gas.



Therefore, sustainability has become the key word in transportation policy goals in

both developed and developing countries. The planning for urban transportation

systems has to address one additional requirement than in the past. The goal of

achieving long term sustainability in urban transportation should be involved in any

transportation plan.

4.1.1 Modes of Transportation

The transportation system is often analyzed in terms of the various modes of

the transportation. Although very commonly used, the term mode does not have a

very clear definition. In general, it means a “kind” of transportation (Banks, 2002).

The modes are distinguished in terms of their physical characteristics as highway,

rail, air and water transportation. Sometimes the modes are classified as road, rail,

maritime, and air transport. Moreover, in other cases the organizational

characteristics are important: mass transit is almost universally referred to as a

“mode” of transportation, although physically, it is primarily a combination of

highway and rail transportation. Table 4.1 highlights the modes in transportation

system.



Table 4.1 Mode Classification Scheme

Descriptions Freight Passenger

Urban Truck (Highway) Private auto (Highway) Transit (Highway/rail)

Intercity Truck (Highway) Rail Ocean Shipping Inland water Air Pipeline

Private auto (Highway) Bus (Highway) Rail Air

Special purpose Conveyor belt Cable systems

Source: Banks, 2002

4.1.2 Transportation Demand Analysis

The need for transportation is derived from the interaction among social and

economic activities dispersed in space. The diversity of these activities and the

complexity of their pattern of interaction result in numerous determinants of

transportation needs. The reasons people need to travel are endless and range from

the indispensable quest for food and shelter to the voluntary exercise of mobility for

its own recreational value. Commodities are also transported from place to place for

a multitude of reasons, such as from the economic necessities of production and

consumption and from the pursuit of economic advantage and gain.

The initial step in understanding the relationship between socioeconomic

activities and transportation needs is to adopt a meaningful measure of these needs.

The need for transportation is manifested in the form of traffic volume, either in



terms of the flow of automobiles on road, passengers on a flight, or tons of cargo on

a train.

Transportation demand is defined in much the same way. To transport people

and goods consumes time and energy, for which a cost is incurred (Kanafani, 1983).

Transportation demand analysis is the process of relating the demand for

transportation to the socioeconomic activities that generate it. In this process, the

type, level, and location of human activities are related to the demand for movement

of people and goods between the different points in space where these activities take

place. The results of this analysis are the relationships, often in the form of models,

between measures of activity and measures of transport demand.

Since transportation demand is itself expressed by a relationship between

traffic volumes and transportation cost characteristics, the results of transportation

demand analysis, become, then, relationships between traffic volumes, on the one

hand, and transportation system characteristics and socioeconomic activity levels on

the other.

4.1.3 Study Objectives

The main purpose of this study is to recommend a transportation system policy

in achieving sustainable transport system in Malaysia by reviewing the energy

consumption of transportation sector and correlating the energy consumed with the

transportation characteristics. An analysis of the available historical and existing

transportation data would result in forecasted transportation demand in future.



Several scenarios based on transportation modal split are adopted for supporting the

recommendations.

4.1.4 Conceptual Framework

The study focuses on analysis of the historical and existing transportation

conditions and future transportation demand as well as the energy consumption of

transportation sector. Transportation impacts on the energy consumption based on

varying modal split was also conducted. The analysis has been carried out with

consideration of transportation demand for existing and future conditions. The

following tasks formed the main part of the transport and energy investigations and

projections:

A review of existing data available from related authorities were undertaken;

Consideration of population growth as well as socio-economic data and energy

use in transportation sector data;

Forecasting future transportation growth based on population growth and socio-

economic data and needs up to 20 years;

Consideration of relationship between transportation trips production and

energy consumption;

Formulation of a model for forecasting energy consumption by transportation

sector;

Model validation that takes into consideration the correlation coefficient;



Use of the model to analyze energy consumption based on the modal split

scenarios.

4.2. Type of Data Collected

A wide range of data is necessary for the successful completion of the study

and this has been identified. Some of the data were obtained from government

agencies while some others were obtained through visual appraisal.

4.2.1 Road Transport

The road transport classification in Malaysia involves several types of vehicles

such as motorcar, motorcycle, bus, commercial vehicle and other vehicles. For modal

split purposes, the vehicles are also classified into private and public services

vehicles. Figure 4.1 shows the types of vehicles on the Federal Highway which

connects Kuala Lumpur to Shah Alam in Selangor.

Motorcars and Motorization

As depicted in Table 4.2 the numbers of motorcars increase significantly every

year. The annual growth of motorcars population from year 1991 to 2002 is about

9.53% while for motorization level is 6.78%. Compared to the population annual

growth rate (2.57% in this case), the increase of motorcars ownership is relatively

higher (almost 10% per year). Figure 4.2 illustrates the motorization rates in

Malaysia from year 1991 to 2002 per 1,000 populations.



Figure 4.1 Federal Highway View towards Kuala Lumpur

Table 4.2 Number of Motorcars and Motorization Rates in Malaysia from 1991 to

2002

Number ('000) Motorization Level

1991 18,547 1863.2 1001992 19,043 1983.0 1041993 19,564 2132.3 1091994 20,112 2350.1 1171995 20,689 2608.6 1261996 21,169 2946.0 1391997 21,666 3333.4 1541998 22,180 3517.5 1591999 22,712 3852.7 1702000 23,275 4212.6 1812001 24,012 4624.6 1932002 24,527 5069.4 207

Annual Growth (%) 2.57 9.53 6.78

Population in '000YearMotorcars

Source: Road Transport Department and Department of Statistics, Malaysia (2002)



Referring to the figure, it is seen that the rate in 1998 appears relatively lower

compared to the other rates during 1991-2002. This may be due to the impact of

economic downturn during that period which has led to a general reduction in car

utilization.

50

70

90

110

130

150

170

190

210

230

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

YEAR

MO

TOR

IZAT

ION

RAT

ES

Figure 4.2 Motorization Rates in Malaysia from 1991 to 2002

Motorcycles and Motorization

Compared to the motorization rates of motorcars as illustrated above, the

motorization rates of motorcycles seem relatively higher. However, the annual rate of

increase of motorcycles is lower than motorcars (only 4.95% per year). On the other

hand, the population of motorcycles is higher than the population of motorcars.

Nevertheless, referring to Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 the disparity is not significant

between both types of motor vehicles.



Table 4.3 Number of Motorcycles and Motorization Rates from 1991 to 2002

Number ('000) Motorization Level

1991 18,547 2,595.7 1401992 19,043 2,762.7 1451993 19,564 2,970.8 1521994 20,112 3,297.5 1641995 20,689 3,608.5 1741996 21,169 3,951.9 1871997 21,666 4,329.0 2001998 22,180 4,692.2 2121999 22,712 5,082.5 2242000 23,275 5,356.6 2302001 24,012 5,609.4 2342002 24,527 5,842.6 238

Annual Growth (%) 2.57 7.65 4.95

Year Population in '000Motorcycles

Source: Road Transport Department and Department of Statistics, Malaysia (2002)

Bus, Commercial and Other Vehicles

The population of buses, commercial and other vehicles in Malaysia from year

1991 to 2002 is highlighted in Table 4.4. From the table it is seen that bus has the

lowest annual rates amongst the three types of vehicles. Moreover, after comparing

population of all types of vehicles for year 2002, motorcycles accounted the highest

population (48.60%) followed by motorcars (42.17%). Bus population is the lowest

with about 0.43% of the total road transport vehicles.



Table 4.4 Number of Buses, Commercial and Other Vehicles from 1991 to 2002

Year Bus Commercial Other Vehicles

1991 26,147 313,514 143,4721992 27,827 333,674 152,6981993 29,924 358,808 164,1991994 33,529 393,833 178,4391995 36,000 440,723 203,6601996 38,965 512,165 237,6311997 43,444 574,622 269,9831998 45,643 599,149 286,8981999 47,674 642,976 304,1352000 48,662 665,284 315,6872001 49,771 689,668 329,1982002 51,158 713,148 345,604

Annual Growth (%) 6.29 7.76 8.32

Source: Road Transport Department, Malaysia (2002)

Private and Public Transport Vehicles of Road Transport

Public transport is the key player in maintaining congestion at reasonable

levels on the roads. Almost without exception public transport modes makes use of

road space more efficiently than the private car. If some drivers could be persuaded

to use public transport instead of cars the rest of the car users would benefit from

improved levels of service (Ortuzar and Willumsen, 1990).

Table 2.4 detail the modal split between private and public transport modes in

Malaysia from year 1991 to 2002. It needs to be mentioned here that road public

transport modes may also include taxis although this mode is usually referred to as

para-transit.



Motorcars population mentioned earlier involve taxis and hired cars. Referring

to Table 4.5 and Figure 4.3, there is a big gap between the proportion of private cars

and public transport vehicles numbers. For example, in year 2002 the percent share

of private cars is around 97.7% of the total vehicles while the proportion of public

transport vehicles is only about 2.3%. Moreover, public transport share appears to

have a diminishing trend from year 1991 to 2002.

Table 4.5 Proportion of Private Cars and Public Transport Vehicles from 1991 to

2002

Number % Share Bus Taxi Hire Car % Share1991 1,824,679 96.58 26,147 33,444 5,033 3.421992 1,942,016 96.58 27,827 35,596 5,357 3.421993 2,088,300 96.58 29,924 38,278 5,762 3.421994 2,302,547 96.60 33,529 42,204 5,308 3.401995 2,553,574 96.56 36,000 46,807 8,195 3.441996 2,886,536 96.70 38,965 49,485 9,971 3.301997 3,271,304 96.87 43,444 51,293 10,826 3.131998 3,452,852 96.91 45,643 54,590 10,042 3.091999 3,787,047 97.09 47,674 55,626 10,020 2.912000 4,145,982 97.30 48,662 56,152 10,433 2.702001 4,557,992 97.51 49,771 56,579 9,986 2.492002 5,001,273 97.67 51,158 58,066 10,073 2.33

Annual Growth (%) 9.60 6.29 5.14 6.51

YearPrivate Cars Public Transport Vehicles




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

YEAR

% S

HAR

E

Public Transport

Private Cars

Figure 4.3 Trends of Private Cars and Public Transport Vehicles

Road Mileage

Table 4.6 depicts the distribution of road infrastructures for Federal Road and

State Road based on type of pavement. The proportion of paved roads in year 2002

accounts for 78.45% of the total road mileage.



Table 4.6 Summary of Road Mileage in Malaysia (KM)

YearPaved Unpaved Total Paved Unpaved Total Paved Unpaved Total

1991 12,623.10 1,639.70 14,262.80 27,448.20 14,026.60 41,474.80 40,071.30 15,666.30 55,737.60

1992 12,972.40 1,368.90 14,341.30 29,162.67 13,987.69 43,150.36 42,135.07 15,356.59 57,491.66

1993 13,589.95 960.19 14,550.14 30,710.20 14,497.26 45,207.46 44,300.15 15,457.45 59,757.60

1994 13,759.77 990.50 14,750.27 31,743.31 14,713.71 46,457.02 45,503.08 15,704.21 61,207.29

1995 13,846.57 990.50 14,837.07 31,743.31 14,713.71 46,457.02 45,589.88 15,704.21 61,294.09

1996 14,423.75 961.42 15,385.17 32,731.64 15,266.32 47,997.96 47,155.39 16,227.74 63,383.13

1997 14,749.16 961.42 15,710.58 33,920.85 15,349.20 49,270.05 48,670.01 16,310.62 64,980.63

1998 15,141.98 938.91 16,080.89 36,262.85 15,283.33 51,546.18 51,404.83 16,222.24 67,627.07

1999 14,782.00 1,299.00 16,081.00 36,263.00 13,846.00 50,109.00 51,045.00 15,145.00 66,190.00

2000 15,920.50 855.42 16,775.92 35,845.39 14,969.15 50,814.54 51,765.89 15,824.57 67,590.46

2001 16,001.08 855.42 16,856.50 41,135.32 15,025.76 56,161.07 57,136.40 15,881.18 73,017.57

2002 16,128.53 855.42 16,983.95 41,457.35 14,961.68 56,419.03 57,585.88 15,817.10 73,402.98

Annual Growth (%) 3.35 0.09 2.53

Federal Road State Road Total Mileage

Source: Highway Planning Unit, Ministry of Works Malaysia (2002)

4.2.2 Rail Transport

Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad (KTMB) enjoyed a long and eventful track

record dating back over a century to June 1885. Then the railway system has

progressed to a nationwide single track network of 1,700 km spanning the whole of

Peninsular Malaysia operated by the Government-owned enterprise, KTMB

(Abdullah, 2003).

From the 1990’s, new entrants into the railway industry took place.

Development of new rail routes was limited to urban centres within the Klang

Valley. The KTM Komuter service provided the Malaysian public of their first taste



of modern urban transport through the introduction of Malaysia’s first electrified

train service on 3rd August 1995. The KTM Komuter service consists of two routes

from Rawang to Seremban and Port Klang to Sentul covering a total distance of 150

km.

The KTM passengers and freight traffic from year 1992 to 2002 are shown in

Table 4.7. In terms of passenger number, it is seen in general that passengers of

KTM is on the decrease during 1992 to 2002 while number of container increase

significantly, with an annual growth of 10.91%. Nevertheless, in year 1996 the

passengers increase to 6.111 million passengers from 5.146 million passengers in

year 1995 before dropping back the following year.

Table 4.7 KTMB Passengers and Freight Traffic from year 1992 to 2002

NUMBER PASSENGER-KM TONNE TONNE-KM

( ' 000 ) ( ' 000,000 ) ( ' 000 ) ( ' 000,000 ) TEU

1992 7,614 1,859 3,550 1,081 93,192

1993 6,510 1,553 4,196 1,157 95,569

1994 5,426 1,348 5,164 1,463 121,450

1995 5,146 1,270 5,249 1,416 137,137

1996 6,111 1,370 5,405 1,417 124,588

1997 5,375 1,492 5,106 1,337 135,217

1998 4,924 1,397 3,695 992 112,133

1999 4,344 1,316 3,845 907 106,744

2000 3,825 1,220 5,481 916 255,312

2001 3,511 1,181 4,150 1,094 149,669

2002 3,437 1,123 3,741 1,107 262,478

Annual Growth (%) -7.65 -4.92 0.53 0.24 10.91

PASSENGER FREIGHT

YEARCONTAINER

Source: Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad (KTMB, 2002)



Apart from KTM Komuter, other Klang Valley rail operators such as PUTRA

and STAR Light Rail Transit (LRT), ERL and KL-Monorail converge at KL Sentral.

The STAR LRT was fully completed in September 1998 and covers a route length of

27 km from Ampang to Sentul Timur and Sri Petaling to Sentul Timur. Another

addition to Klang rail showcase was the PUTRA LRT. Running on both elevated and

underground tracks, PUTRA has been operating since full completion in June 1999

and covers a distance of 29 km.

In the meantime, the Express Rail Link (ERL) interface directly with the Kuala

Lumpur International Airport (KLIA) to offer airline passenger seamless rail to air

transfers. In addition to world-class comfort and convenience, the ERL service also

features an airline check-in service at the KL Sentral rail terminal itself.

In addition, the latest project of rail based system is the KL Monorail, which is

a service which connects passengers to the most popular shopping areas within Kuala

Lumpur. The KL Monorail service commenced operation in August 2003.

The Integrated Rail Services (KTM Komuter, PUTRA and STAR LRT, ERL

and KL Monorail) route is depicted in Figure 4.4 while Figure 4.5 depicts the

average daily passenger traffic of the LRT from year 1998 to 2003. Referring to the

figure it is seen that the number of passengers is increasing during the period. The

significant increase of passengers occurred during September 1998 to January 2001.

Since then, the ridership appears to stagnate at around 160,000 commuters/day.



LEGEND

Source: Syarikat Prasarana Negara Berhad (SPNB, 2004)

Figure 4.4 Integrated Rail Services in Klang Valley

The integrated rail services are complemented with supporting facilities such as

feeder bus and park and ride system as depicted in Figure 4.6.



Source: Yusoff, 2003

Figure 4.5 LRT Passengers per Day

Figure 4.6 Park n’ Ride at LRT Station



Based on the rail passengers data as mentioned earlier, the total rail passengers

from year 1998 to 2002 could be summarized as in Table 4.8. From the table, it is

observed that the total number of rail passengers in year 2002 is more than 56.3

million passengers and most of them are using LRT (93.9%). Moreover, there is a

significant increase of LRT passengers in year 2000 as compared to the previous

year. This may be due to the operation of PUTRA LRT since June 1999.

Table 4.8 Rail Passengers from Year 1998 to 2002

KTMB LRT TOTAL( ' 000 ) ( ' 000 ) ( ' 000 )

1998 4,924 7,300 12,2241999 4,344 10,950 15,2942000 3,825 40,150 43,9752001 3,511 51,100 54,6112002 3,437 52,925 56,362

YEARRAIL PASSENGERS BY YEAR

Source: Consultant’s Estimation

4.2.3 Air Transport

The main air transportation system includes commercial airlines and air freight

carriers. The major market is intercity passenger travel, particularly long-distance

travel. In addition, some intercity freight is shipped by air. The air transportation

system in Malaysia includes 22 public-use airports. Commercial aviation accounted

for more than 32.7 million passengers in year 2002.



Table 4.9 and Table 4.10 illustrate the air traffic (passenger and/or cargo) at

Malaysian airports during 1991 to 2002. Table 4.11 to Table 4.16 highlights the

passenger-kilometer data of Malaysian Airports.

Table 4.9 Air Traffic at Public-use Airports in Malaysia from year 1991 to 2002

Year Passenger Freight (Tonne)

Commercial Aircraft Movements

1991 19,951,836 284,689.9 304,9751992 21,745,245 291,384.5 365,7501993 22,880,336 312,045.1 372,6581994 24,192,387 381,410.0 383,7221995 26,340,287 482,031.4 406,3381996 28,873,231 541,416.5 441,5961997 31,275,494 617,027.6 425,8251998 27,007,630 524,765.7 389,4701999 28,322,902 640,980.5 365,8522000 31,663,342 762,378.0 362,0042001 31,386,848 777,625.6 372,8852002 32,680,018 782,992.9 388,831

Annual Growth (%) 4.59 9.63 2.23

Source: Malaysia Airports Berhad (2002)

Referring to Table 4.9 above, both passenger and cargo is on the increase.

Freight air carriers have the highest annual growth of 9.63% per year during 1991 –

2002. The detail of number of passengers served based on airports in Malaysia are

shown in Table 4.10 as follows.



Table 4.10 Air Passengers Traffic at Public-use Airports in Malaysia from year 1990 to 2002

AIRPORTS 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

KLIA 6,377,290 12,779,711 14,352,848 14,206,055 15,936,882

SUBANG 7,521,282 8,843,558 9,803,856 10,726,468 11,343,648 12,544,729 14,314,547 15,819,863 8,129,104 1,999,302 2,100,727 1,955,689 1,130,169

PULAU PINANG 1,889,564 2,175,706 2,508,718 2,671,395 2,654,485 2,735,604 2,849,399 2,907,033 2,392,823 2,451,352 2,681,718 2,502,777 2,479,946

KOTA KINABALU 1,749,551 1,819,236 1,898,569 1,796,153 2,096,241 2,410,807 2,478,558 2,732,146 2,259,438 2,629,788 2,969,639 2,912,802 3,137,935

KUCHING 1,456,035 1,683,617 1,696,163 1,783,553 1,890,855 2,067,252 2,163,562 2,257,214 1,940,737 2,174,348 2,482,601 2,624,502 2,860,933

PULAU LANGKAWI 165,730 254,820 479,046 719,549 873,144 888,131 867,541 839,064 735,823 793,353 947,293 820,625 712,912

JOHOR BHARU 514,340 688,883 823,574 807,726 708,310 864,561 916,729 1,081,681 810,743 847,500 983,843 966,529 865,136

KOTA BHARU 292,919 339,236 366,008 377,203 446,492 501,528 560,590 602,068 487,541 471,085 512,834 506,632 534,959

IPOH 281,642 342,440 421,224 448,150 261,119 219,228 221,761 196,625 146,211 132,154 147,381 131,387 132,314

KUALA TERENGGANU 110,208 134,848 151,093 156,732 189,930 236,597 282,357 313,384 272,618 297,933 343,186 355,063 309,202

ALOR SETAR 207,943 256,856 313,166 330,522 286,930 304,165 328,129 343,865 239,797 273,933 311,224 306,514 287,465

MELAKA 4,529 2,736 7,777 17,102 10,746 18,323 13,483 6,411 6,962 14,941 12,684 8,467 7,438

KUANTAN 174,687 247,481 300,912 300,483 353,552 374,493 452,684 512,549 403,489 387,375 419,441 433,270 388,746

PULAU TIOMAN 47,235 47,038 50,984 70,991 97,275 102,338 94,556 82,739 80,959 75,425 74,762 83,358 64,067

PULAU PANGKOR n.a n.a n.a 3,933 9,719 10,091 - - - 4,453 6,498 8,999 8,811

LABUAN 210,216 255,198 301,159 315,452 353,843 357,681 546,379 586,091 404,966 447,316 475,490 520,544 548,920

LAHAD DATU 103,120 106,952 85,124 55,531 63,089 73,377 84,467 92,094 79,881 88,632 102,492 104,270 108,151

SANDAKAN 460,488 456,833 393,968 291,549 345,751 380,702 413,740 424,781 374,654 401,517 448,500 444,066 444,601

TAWAU 458,118 454,623 482,541 390,582 406,448 441,256 452,679 461,234 391,164 436,389 461,026 472,301 495,379

BINTULU 226,589 287,605 309,555 291,615 266,593 269,368 289,024 335,698 255,064 263,718 288,449 326,676 363,176

MIRI 802,325 948,672 750,631 736,065 963,067 944,860 922,035 1,049,253 692,439 771,855 913,219 1,003,860 1,135,808

SIBU 532,597 605,498 601,177 589,582 571,150 595,196 621,011 631,701 525,927 580,822 627,487 692,462 727,068

JUMLAH 17,209,118 19,951,836 21,745,245 22,880,336 24,192,387 26,340,287 28,873,231 31,275,494 27,007,630 28,322,902 31,663,342 31,386,848 32,680,018

Source: Malaysia Airports Berhad, 2002



Table 4.11 International Air Passenger-Km Data of KLIA

Approx.Arrival Departure Total Arrival Departure Total Distance (km) 2002 2003

SINGAPORE 962,062 1,008,872 1,970,934 741,853 778,002 1,519,855 297 584,707,726 450,888,240BANGKOK 386,922 387,194 774,116 380,006 389,869 769,875 1,246 964,228,516 958,945,984MANILA 51,542 50,992 102,534 59,184 56,474 115,658 1,341 137,518,744 155,120,672MEDAN 39,592 58,093 97,685 36,601 50,299 86,900 351 34,301,453 30,514,370JAKARTA 266,068 277,993 544,061 310,774 264,208 574,982 1,129 614,363,583 649,280,139B.SERI BEGAWAN 53,905 63,313 117,218 50,836 55,650 106,486 1,484 173,894,286 157,973,238PHUKET 66,539 64,316 130,855 54,126 50,515 104,641 706 92,406,961 73,895,203DENPASAR 61,408 60,686 122,094 68,206 67,410 135,616 1,962 239,543,105 266,072,679HO CHI MINH CITY 81,758 68,123 149,881 86,878 67,094 153,972 1,048 157,056,028 161,342,871HANOI 23,786 24,955 48,741 46,528 33,667 80,195 2,100 102,374,402 168,439,613PHNOM PEHN 29,692 28,907 58,599 33,107 31,765 64,872 1,035 60,665,851 67,160,107SUBIC BAY 3,842 3,777 7,619 3,444 3,132 6,576 2,434 18,541,179 16,002,991SURABAYA 85,211 96,616 181,827 104,072 82,794 186,866 1,667 303,064,425 311,463,297CEBU 5,829 6,614 12,443 7,342 7,156 14,498 1,341 16,688,569 19,444,738YANGON 27,589 19,553 47,142 32,883 16,293 49,176 1,687 79,544,667 82,976,720MATARAM 0 9,824 9,824 0 10,756 10,756 2,028 19,927,779 21,818,321MANADO 0 0 0 754 785 1,539 2,581 0 3,972,226BALIKPAPAN 0 0 0 38 70 108 1,743 0 188,277PADANG 0 0 0 213 371 584 431 0 251,925HONGKONG 378,672 455,393 834,065 290,777 321,098 611,875 2,541 2,119,065,824 1,554,559,179TOKYO 167,475 168,827 336,302 158,326 161,325 319,651 5,405 1,817,842,223 1,727,837,136TAIPEH 165,902 169,426 335,328 124,163 124,016 248,179 3,243 1,087,322,736 804,736,465SEOUL 82,351 91,481 173,832 97,017 106,655 203,672 4,637 806,114,228 944,491,791GUANGZHOU 108,092 100,762 208,854 94,435 93,280 187,715 2,588 540,454,524 485,752,827FUKUOKA 16,704 17,443 34,147 4,014 4,531 8,545 4,543 155,129,824 38,819,936NAGOYA 26,793 26,371 53,164 22,723 21,844 44,567 5,118 272,082,756 228,085,024OSAKA 74,113 80,350 154,463 62,891 68,313 131,204 4,939 762,833,381 647,966,121KAOHSIUNG 14,184 13,608 27,792 6,543 6,306 12,849 2,983 82,902,408 38,328,045BEIJING 61,172 63,885 125,057 47,227 49,149 96,376 4,410 551,449,359 424,978,077XIAMEN 37,291 32,878 70,169 36,776 33,388 70,164 2,992 209,974,396 209,959,434SHANGHAI HANGQIAU 19,253 19,835 39,088 5,863 5,284 11,147 3,771 147,409,666 42,037,852SHANGHAI PUDONG 73,317 73,545 146,862 79,564 78,781 158,345 3,793 556,979,290 600,528,970HANGZHOU 380 181 561 390 390 780 3,633 2,038,004 2,833,589FUZHOU 7,706 7,627 15,333 13,388 13,718 27,106 3,210 49,212,510 86,998,911MACAU 1,424 2,005 3,429 3,495 5,009 8,504 2,507 8,598,148 21,323,607HAIKOU 0 0 0 644 653 1,297 2,132 0 2,765,044KUNMING 0 0 0 2,167 2,089 4,256 2,475 0 10,533,033MELBOURNE 122,638 90,154 212,792 123,637 125,008 248,645 6,313 1,343,392,283 1,569,738,403PERTH 87,068 88,263 175,331 90,864 97,669 188,533 4,151 727,879,844 782,687,434SYDNEY 154,808 164,475 319,283 143,606 153,414 297,020 6,566 2,096,564,189 1,950,374,731BRISBANE 52,279 51,494 103,773 48,163 51,093 99,256 6,438 668,058,674 638,979,617AUCKLAND 49,287 53,346 102,633 63,278 72,883 136,161 8,716 894,544,722 1,186,773,299ADELAINE 33,055 33,683 66,738 33,879 36,946 70,825 5,680 379,047,167 402,259,816MUMBAI 44,171 40,956 85,127 44,422 41,428 85,850 3,623 308,413,895 311,033,314KARACHI 10,662 9,886 20,548 16,770 12,900 29,670 4,446 91,350,605 131,904,441CHENNAI 132,376 129,706 262,082 147,917 115,149 263,066 2,630 689,363,064 691,951,313NEW DELHI 44,912 43,655 88,567 46,755 44,474 91,229 3,874 343,147,324 353,461,077DHAKA 87,005 89,914 176,919 90,893 61,885 152,778 2,640 467,126,259 403,385,819COLOMBO 38,785 34,449 73,234 52,823 36,214 89,037 2,468 180,755,866 219,760,767BANGALORE 24,112 25,169 49,281 24,393 25,183 49,576 2,879 141,871,168 142,720,420HYDERABAD 12,571 10,682 23,253 10,718 10,314 21,032 4,360 101,389,923 91,705,710KATHMANDU 0 0 0 28,039 14,013 42,052 3,272 0 137,595,296MALE 12,588 13,215 25,803 11,409 11,713 23,122 3,132 80,818,245 72,421,015TASHKENT 7,148 7,148 7,462 7,462 5,370 38,382,068 40,068,130JEDDAH 77,879 73,226 151,105 82,848 85,525 168,373 7,067 1,067,798,714 1,189,824,776DUBAI 36,561 61,394 97,955 43,417 66,845 110,262 5,547 543,333,875 611,597,976AMMAN 8,760 8,881 17,641 8,340 8,687 17,027 7,567 133,487,873 128,841,790TEHERAN 12,728 12,026 24,754 14,958 13,985 28,943 6,332 156,734,927 183,258,422RIYADH 25,176 15,709 40,885 8,784 4,931 13,715 6,376 260,697,409 87,451,754

AIRPORT NAME: KUALA LUMPUR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT2002 Passengers - Km2003

DESTINATIONS



Table 4.11 International Air Passenger-Km Data of KLIA (cont…)

MEDINAH 5,193 26,803 31,996 6,641 20,188 26,829 7,059 225,853,947 189,381,033ABU DHABI 15,933 15,932 31,865 9,370 10,711 20,081 5,586 177,999,604 112,173,546BEIRUT 9,070 9,658 18,728 12,818 11,445 24,263 7,652 143,299,032 185,650,599CAIRO 6,443 6,628 13,071 10,773 11,476 22,249 7,962 104,073,337 177,150,002MUSCAT 0 5 5 282 315 597 5,210 26,050 3,110,418DOHA 18,324 17,387 35,711 16,981 16,567 33,548 5,911 211,090,221 198,304,576SANAA 3,121 2,884 6,005 3,253 2,874 6,127 6,447 38,712,868 39,499,374LONDON 264,962 270,125 535,087 263,662 253,117 516,779 10,605 5,674,447,276 5,480,296,080AMSTERDAM 110,213 118,074 228,287 125,447 126,403 251,850 10,234 2,336,231,721 2,577,369,535FRANKFURT 63,634 68,468 132,102 59,837 62,947 122,784 9,998 1,320,737,500 1,227,577,426PARIS 42,523 42,304 84,827 48,577 46,859 95,436 10,440 885,577,084 996,332,944ROME 18,506 18,269 36,775 23,892 23,668 47,560 9,728 357,763,208 462,684,383MANCHESTER 36,729 38,343 75,072 49,701 50,097 99,798 10,681 801,820,910 1,065,911,700VIENNA 24,988 33,518 58,506 23,396 28,085 51,481 9,416 550,893,637 484,746,100ZURICH 27,955 27,097 55,052 27,710 28,744 56,454 10,017 551,473,391 565,517,670ISTANBUL 14,445 15,225 29,670 7,806 7,798 15,604 8,375 248,497,367 130,689,347LOS ANGELES 62,375 63,208 125,583 47,206 50,025 97,231 14,157 1,777,915,025 1,376,527,522NEW YORK 12,342 11,665 24,007 15,649 16,864 32,513 15,167 364,105,039 493,112,306BUENOS AIRES 4,117 3,868 7,985 7,468 8,130 15,598 15,900 126,963,276 248,011,669CAPE TOWN 10,481 12,720 23,201 12,832 13,618 26,450 9,543 221,397,385 252,401,225JOHANNESBURG 19,733 19,977 39,710 21,167 20,236 41,403 8,502 337,626,539 352,020,942MAURITIUS 8,511 10,100 18,611 6,956 6,887 13,843 5,445 101,341,097 75,378,261TOTAL 10,670,727 9,981,499 40,040,240,164 39,489,928,630

Source: Consultant’s estimation based on Malaysia Airports Berhad data, 2004

Table 4.12 Domestic Air Passenger-Km Data of KLIA

Approx.Arrival Departure Total Arrival Departure Total Distance (km) 2003 2004

ALOR SETAR 172,382 176,526 348,908 162,770 161,483 324,253 410 142,947,014 132,845,903KOTA KINABALU 566,997 556,864 1,123,861 573,067 544,727 1,117,794 1,625 1,826,573,409 1,816,712,919BINTULU 26,308 24,284 50,592 44,602 39,302 83,904 1,257 63,607,323 105,489,185IPOH 40,397 35,056 75,453 26,486 24,953 51,439 214 16,120,601 10,989,989JOHOR BHARU 192,955 184,187 377,142 239,290 228,524 467,814 250 94,343,957 117,026,011KOTA BHARU 279,643 285,682 565,325 275,469 279,183 554,652 385 217,680,313 213,570,638KUCHING 572,158 579,573 1,151,731 575,501 578,583 1,154,084 966 1,112,963,159 1,115,236,956KUANTAN 176,706 172,265 348,971 158,005 157,165 315,170 200 69,643,479 62,897,878LABUAN 81,222 82,079 163,301 79,802 79,283 159,085 1,526 249,218,686 242,784,518LANGKAWI 286,265 270,888 557,153 311,664 282,598 594,262 455 253,248,826 270,116,384MIRI 141,979 145,487 287,466 149,246 154,724 303,970 1,371 394,019,326 416,640,766PENANG 607,158 590,229 1,197,387 657,345 636,700 1,294,045 325 389,392,048 420,825,375SIBU 76,382 74,487 150,869 90,547 86,134 176,681 1,141 172,069,338 201,508,479SANDAKAN 33,674 31,908 65,582 42,660 43,804 86,464 1,842 120,818,610 159,288,529TERENGGANU 191,615 191,223 382,838 197,812 198,214 396,026 329 126,060,169 130,402,689TAWAU 49,507 49,333 98,840 60,674 61,416 122,090 1,827 180,549,783 223,020,265

TOTAL 6,945,419 7,201,733 5,429,256,043 5,639,356,484

Passengers - Km

AIRPORT NAME: KUALA LUMPUR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

DESTINATIONS2004 (until November)2003




Table 4.13 Air Passenger-Km Data of Kota Kinabalu Airport

Approx.

Arrival Departure Total Arrival Departure Total Distance (km) 2002 2003BALIK PAPAN - - - 1,956 1,885 3,841 805 0 3,093,922CEBU 1,610 2,253 3,863 1,818 2,166 3,984 1,004 3,878,977 4,000,502BANDAR SERI BEGAWAN 48,380 47,027 95,408 47,324 45,404 92,728 166 15,822,742 15,378,338SINGAPORE 20,775 23,979 44,754 6,430 11,872 18,302 1,431 64,037,616 26,187,904MANILA 5,434 5,564 10,998 5,832 6,391 12,223 1,097 12,062,597 13,406,616POCHENTONG 0 0 0 0 22 22 1,379 0 30,338TARAKAN, INDON 38 2 40 869 938 1,807 335 13,393 604,996DENPASAR, BALI - - 0 138 101 239 1,634 0 390,564PALAWAN - - 0 0 39 39 1,097 0 42,775MANADO - - 0 734 753 1,487 1,100 0 1,635,336BANGKOK - - 0 7 162 169 1,907 0 322,364JAKARTA - - 0 - - 0 1,694 0 0HO CHI MINH - - 0 - - 0 1,168 0 0NARITA 5,378 3,237 8,615 11,377 9,134 20,511 4,143 35,694,218 84,984,099TOKYO / NARITA / OSAKA 9,093 6,592 15,685 - - 0 4,143 64,987,786 0TAIPEH 41,770 40,974 82,743 32,857 31,841 64,699 2,199 181,949,084 142,269,558HONG KONG 40,775 42,106 82,881 42,072 41,559 83,631 1,836 152,165,750 153,542,537SEOUL 11,155 8,591 19,746 16,671 15,104 31,775 3,681 72,678,123 116,950,056KANSAI, OSAKA - - 0 - - 0 3,775 0 0SHENZHEN 524 506 1,030 - - 0 1,872 1,927,867 0GUANGZHOU 274 274 549 - - 0 1,940 1,064,425 0KAOHSHIUNG 21,302 19,145 40,448 10,843 11,031 21,874 1,908 77,190,993 41,743,752SHANGHAI,PUDONG - - 0 397 396 793 2,862 0 2,269,239MACAU - - 0 362 345 707 1,821 0 1,287,407CANTON - - 0 2,318 2,342 4,660 3,795 0 17,682,712XIAMEN - - 0 547 528 1,075 2,081 0 2,236,590PUSAN - - 0 1,391 1,395 2,786 3,509 0 9,775,630SAPPORO, JAPAN - - 0 355 0 355 4,823 0 1,712,227PERTH 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,211 0 0SYDNEY 0 0 0 5,001 4,654 9,655 5,770 0 55,713,476JEDDAH - - 0 1,406 1,572 2,978 8,411 0 25,044,344ARLANDA, SWEDEN 362 2,150 2,512 - - 0 9,890 24,843,722 0BAHRAIN 718 353 1,071 - - 0 7,264 7,779,487 0SHARJAH DUBAI 1,408 358 1,766 - - 0 6,780 11,974,032 0TOTAL 412,109 380,339 728,070,813 720,305,283

Pasenger - KmDESTINATIONS

AIRPORT NAME: KOTA KINABALU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

2002 2003




Table 4.14 Air Passenger-Km Data of Kuching Airport

Approx.

Arrival Departure Total Arrival Departure Total Distance (km) 2002 2003SINGAPORE 52,641 65,359 118,000 34,696 34,977 69,673 705 83,197,679 49,124,098BRUNEI 9,518 8,722 18,241 4,315 4,784 9,099 638 11,630,712 5,801,680PONTIANAK 9,676 8,859 18,535 13,009 15,253 28,262 209 3,877,588 5,912,515MANILA 2,133 2,114 4,247 549 512 1,061 1,862 7,908,527 1,975,863BALIK PAPAN 0 3 3 1,092 1,089 2,181 790 2,371 1,724,058SUBIC BAY 0 0 0 226 875 1,101 1,838 0 2,023,424YANGON 0 216 216 0 0 0 2,313 499,590 0BANDUNG 0 0 0 0 7 7 981 0 6,864SELETAR 0 0 0 0 120 120 705 0 84,608NATUNA 0 0 0 0 26 26 209 0 5,439KOTA KINABALU 0 0 0 0 92 92 803 0 73,867MANADO 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,622 0 0JAKARTA 0 0 0 0 0 0 943 0 0HONGKONG 4,264 3,456 7,720 2,480 1,993 4,473 2,347 18,122,560 10,499,833HIROSHIMA 0 12 12 0 0 0 4,348 51,627 0FUZHOU 352 318 670 0 0 0 4,348 2,912,955 0XIAMEN 0 0 0 174 361 535 2,696 0 1,442,124CANTON 0 0 0 548 492 1,040 4,335 0 4,507,919TAIPEH 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,871 0 0PERTH 8,608 4,273 12,880 4,658 9,241 13,899 3,764 48,486,527 52,320,972JEDDAH 2,191 1,924 4,115 943 973 1,916 8,003 32,933,548 15,334,308MADRAS 0 0 0 0 4 4 4,096 0 16,385FRANKFURT 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,716 0 0TOTAL 184,639 133,489 209,623,683 150,853,957

AIRPORT NAME: KUCHING INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

2002 2003 Passenger-KmDESTINATIONS


Table 4.15 Air Passenger-Km Data of Penang Airport

Approx.

Arrival Departure Total Arrival Departure Total Distance (km) 2002 2003PHUKET 0 0 0 80 79 159 382 0 60,664MEDAN 176,241 147,065 323,306 172,979 151,772 324,751 262 84,770,632 85,149,550SINGAPORE 283,366 298,680 582,046 186,936 197,088 384,024 603 351,062,001 231,624,652MANILA 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,488 0 0BANGKOK 70,525 74,974 145,500 0 0 0 958 139,388,729 0SUBIC BAY 0 2 2 59,124 55,259 114,383 2,428 4,855 277,677,921HO CHI MINH CITY 0 114 115 229 932 0 213,526B.S.BEGAWAN 0 63 11 74 1,623 0 120,091NARITA 1,295 0 1,295 2,457 4 2,461 5,313 6,882,871 13,075,556GUANGZHOU 13,399 13,167 26,565 554 0 554 2,428 64,489,996 1,344,899ZHENGHOU 274 252 527 112 108 220 3,537 1,862,762 778,182TAIPEH 28,698 24,257 52,954 34,933 34,923 69,856 3,135 165,987,547 218,966,063KUNMING, CHINA 116 0 116 1,993 1,998 3,991 2,206 255,917 8,804,872CHENGDU, CHINA 0 133 133 478 143 621 2,836 377,239 1,761,396HONG KONG 12,818 33,215 46,033 29,589 20,285 49,874 2,393 110,172,602 119,365,180SHANGHAI 0 4 4 598 322 920 3,622 14,500 3,332,294CANTON 0 0 0 7,609 8,517 16,126 4,196 0 67,672,583PUDONG, CHINA 0 0 0 0 334 334 3,647 0 1,217,937KANSAI 0 0 0 83 0 83 4,837 0 401,462WUHAN 0 0 0 164 164 328 3,186 0 1,044,902XIAMEN 0 0 0 586 546 1,132 2,865 0 3,243,513JEDDAH 7,432 7,029 14,460 6,121 5,137 11,258 6,810 98,469,885 76,662,361SAN PEDRO HULA, HONDURAS 290 0 290 0 254 254 17,544 5,087,873 4,456,275LONDON 0 0 0 2,990 0 2,990 10,273 0 30,717,474TOTAL 1,193,232 984,622 1,028,827,410 1,147,691,353

Passenger-Km

AIRPORT NAME: PENANG INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

DESTINATIONS2002 2003




Table 4.16 Air Passenger-Km Data of Langkawi Airport

Approx.

Arrival Departure Total Arrival Departure Total Distance (km) 2002 2003PHUKET 45 42 87 0 0 0 253 22,054 0SINGAPORE 36,166 39,112 75,279 31,654 32,228 63,882 729 54,847,922 46,544,400SELETAR 0 0 0 17 9 26 729 0 18,944KANSAI 290 0 290 0 0 0 4,796 1,390,821 0HONG KONG 5,735 5,086 10,821 2,722 2,692 5,414 2,339 25,314,601 12,665,579INCHON, SEOUL 0 0 0 798 353 1,151 4,421 0 5,088,015DENMARK 0 33,202 33,202 0 0 0 9,243 306,884,403 0FINLAND 909 1,129 2,038 0 0 0 8,554 17,432,682 0RUSSIA 297 0 297 0 0 0 7,687 2,280,826 0YEKATERINBURG, RUSSIA 90 89 179 90 89 179 7,687 1,375,904 1,375,904LONDON 2,435 0 2,435 2,435 0 2,435 10,155 24,728,317 24,728,317MILAN 376 0 376 376 0 376 9,580 3,602,223 3,602,223AUCKLAND 607 0 607 0 0 0 9,119 5,538,533 0TOTAL 125,611 73,463 443,418,287 94,023,382

AIRPORT NAME: LANGKAWI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

2002 2003 Passenger-KmDESTINATIONS


4.2.4 Maritime Transport

The market for maritime transportation system is intercity freight. Usually

coastwise shipping specializes in bulk goods while foreign going shipping carries all

types of cargo. This system provides low speed and relatively low accessibility, but

extremely high capacities.

The maritime transport in Malaysia consists of foreign going and coastal

shipping. The types of ship that operated in Malaysian ports includes oil tanker,

liquefied gas carriers, oil carriers, cargo carriers, passenger carriers, container ships

and vehicle carriers. There are fourteen (14) ports throughput cargo carriers with

total cargo as shown in Table 4.17. It is seen also that cargo carriers have annual

growth rates of 6.33% per year.



Table 4.17 Total Cargo Throughput by Ports from year 1991 to 2002

PORT 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

KELANG 26,296 28,403 30,788 33,857 40,034 49,025 55,767 47,342 60,970 65,277 70,150 82,271

PULAU PINANG 12,062 13,219 14,362 15,135 16,675 17,501 19,693 16,476 18,760 20,473 20,453 21,800

JOHOR 10,711 10,741 11,798 13,223 16,504 19,017 20,805 19,322 21,512 24,536 27,306 29,019

KUANTAN 2,842 2,877 3,401 4,159 4,208 5,052 5,855 5,500 5,510 6,027 7,532 8,999

BINTULU 12,931 13,590 14,698 15,284 18,639 21,816 24,586 23,342 23,641 24,897 25,210 25,592

TG.BRUAS 534 531 538 461 389 510 579 710 746 818 679 708

KUCHING 2,939 3,138 3,396 3,726 4,282 5,658 6,055 4,051 4,743 5,301 5,368 5,983

MIRI 9,774 8,966 7,109 6,722 7,123 6,536 4,403 4,270 6,867 6,033 5,813 5,692

RAJANG 5,424 5,890 5,543 5,789 5,946 5,971 5,576 4,534 5,107 5,582 5,052 4,691

PEL-PEL SABAH 13,679 14,159 13,168 14,579 16,257 17,455 19,608 16,595 16,789 18,074 17,831 19,018

PORT DICKSON 12,195 11,310 13,081 12,984 12,215 13,677 13,853 12,395 10,122 7,829 12,842 12,595

KEMAMAN 1,700 1,019 2,542 1,960 2,568 2,538 3,631 1,798 2,001 2,155 2,054 1,480

TELUK EWA 1,544 1,560 1,713 2,053 2,538 4,758 3,234 2,964 2,586 3,167 3,589 3,487

TANJUNG PELEPAS 248 n.a n.a

TOTAL 112,631 115,403 122,137 129,932 147,378 169,514 183,645 159,299 179,354 190,417 203,879 221,335

Annual Growth Rate (% ) = 6.33

Source: All the Ports and Marine Department, 2002

4.2.5 Passenger Transport Mode Share

In terms of number of passenger carried, road transport is still leading amongst

the transportation modes in Malaysia. In year 2002, more than 85% of passengers

were carried by road transport and about 14% by rail services. The air transport mode

only serves about 0.24% of the total daily passengers. The transport mode share for

daily passengers is illustrated in Figure 4.7.



Transport Mode Share in 2002

Road85.71%

Rail 14.05%

Air0.24%

Figure 4.7 Proportion of Passenger by Modes

2.4.6 Number of Vehicle Registration by Type of Fuel

According to Road Transport Department for year 1999, 2000 and 2002, about

57% of the total new vehicles registered is passenger car which 99.6% uses petrol

and only 0.4% passenger car uses diesel. On the other hand, for bus registration, the

proportion of bus is only 0.03% of the total vehicles and 90.5% of the bus using

diesel. The number of new vehicle registration in year 1999, 2000 and 2002 based on

fuel type is represented in Table 4.18.



Table 4.18 Number of New Vehicle Registration Based on Fuel Type

Petrol Diesel Petrol Diesel Petrol DieselP. Car 294,928 1,548 338,866 1,061 409,224 1,290Bus 22 223 24 205 10 102Lorry 3,923 4,998 5,257 10,472 4,271 3,250Motorcycle 236,759 12 238,672 15 222,661 14Others 2,274 6,348 2,699 9,431 5,014 10,790

Types of Traffic Mode

No. of Vehicle Registration Based on Fuel Type 1999 2000 2002


4.2.7 Population

Malaysia with approximately 330,000 square km of land consist about 24.5

million populations in 2002. The annual population growth rate during the period

1991 to 2002 is around 2.57%. As seen in Table 4.19, population of Malaysia has

been growing from 18.5 million in 1991 to 24.5 million in 2002. It means the

population has grown 1.3 times in these 12 years.



Table 4.19 Malaysia Population from 1991 to 2002

1 1991 18,5472 1992 19,0433 1993 19,5644 1994 20,1125 1995 20,6896 1996 21,1697 1997 21,6668 1998 22,1809 1999 22,712

10 2000 23,27511 2001 24,01212 2002 24,527

2.57

Year Population in '000No

Annual Growth (%)

Source: Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2002

4.2.8 Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

The Gross Domestic Products (GDP) and the Gross Domestic Products (GDP)

per Capita of Malaysia during year 1991 to 2002 periods are shown in Table 4.20.

The GDP annual rate is 5.95% while GDP per Capita is 3.30%.



Table 4.20 Gross Domestic Products (GDP) from 1991 to 2002

1 1991 116,093 6,2592 1992 126,408 6,6383 1993 138,916 7,1014 1994 151,714 7,5435 1995 166,625 8,0546 1996 183,292 8,6597 1997 196,714 9,0798 1998 182,237 8,2169 1999 193,422 8,516

10 2000 209,959 8,93611 2001 210,640 8,77212 2002 219,309 8,942

5.95 3.30

Gross Domestic Product Per Capita (GDP/P) (RM)No Year Gross Domestic Product

(GDP) (Million)

Annual Growth (%)


4.2.9 Employment

Referring to Table 4.21 it can be seen that in Malaysia, the unemployment rates

decrease 0.55% per year as the result of 3.08% annual growth rate of employment.

Number of employment in 2002 achieved 9.5 million from only 7.0 million in 1992.

Compared to the population annual growth rate of 2.57%, the employment rate is

relatively higher.



Table 4.21 Employment in All Sectors from 1991 to 2002

1 1992 7,047.8 3.72 1993 7,383.4 4.13 1995 7,645.0 3.14 1996 8,399.3 2.55 1997 8,569.2 2.56 1998 8,599.6 3.27 1999 8,837.8 3.48 2000 9,321.7 3.19 2001 9,535.0 3.6

10 2002 9,542.6 3.5

3.08 -0.55Annual Growth (%)

No Year Employment ('000) Unemployment Rates (%)


4.3 Review of HNDP and SMURT – KL Study

The HNDP (Highway Network Development Plan) Study was conducted from

May 1991 to February 1993 with the technical cooperation from the Government of

Japan (JICA – Japan International Cooperation Agency). The HNDP Study targeted

the following two objectives covering the whole of Malaysia (Peninsular Malaysia,

Sabah and Sarawak).

To formulate a development plan of the national highway network up to the year

2010;



To prioritize new and improved linkages in the planned network with respect to

technical and economic consideration, and to formulate a road development

program.

The highway network development plan was approved by the cabinet

and incorporated as the basic guidelines for the future development of highways in

the Mid-Term Review of the Sixth Malaysian Plan. Subsequently, the Government of

Malaysia and the Government of Japan through JICA had conducted another

transportation study called A Study on Integrated Urban Transportation Strategies for

Environmental Improvement in Kuala Lumpur. The study started in March 1997 and

ended in February 1999. The study is also called as “Strategies for Managing Urban

Transport in Kuala Lumpur,” and the abbreviation of the study is known as

“SMURT-KL”.

The objectives of SMURT-KL study are:

To formulate urban transportation policies and strategies to alleviate traffic

congestion and to improve the quality of the urban environment by promoting

the usage of public transportation; and

To formulate an Urban Transportation Master Plan in Kuala Lumpur

Metropolitan Area for the period up to the year 2020.

The target year of the Master Plan was defined as the year 2020, with and

intermediate target year of 2010.



4.3.1 Trip Production

The trip production is defined as the process of estimating the total trip

generated within the study area. Trips are usually thought of as being two-way

excursions originating at the trip-maker’s home. In general, trips to be produced by

residential development and attracted by economic or other activity. Trips are

normally stratified by purpose: for each trip type, the number produced in a

particular zone is assumed to depend on the size and characteristics of the zone’s

resident population. Where there is more than one predictive factor (x), this is

accomplished through multiple regression. In this technique, a function of the form is

fitted to data. αj is coefficient to be determined through regression analysis.

kk xxxy αααα ++++= ...22110 (3.1)

In the HNDP Study, the multiple linear regression is selected over other

method (such as grow factor method, trip production rate method, or the vehicle

based method) to model trip production. This is due to the high correlation and no

major difference among the results from the total passenger and the freight demand

and the low reliability as the growth factor and the trip production method. The

multiple regression utilize the population, employment, GDP, and GDP per capita.

The trip production model as well as the correlation coefficient from the HNDP

Study is illustrated in Table 4.22.



4.3.2 Trip Generation and Attraction Model

The trip generation is defined as the number of trips generated by each traffic

zones per unit of time and the trip attraction is defined as those attracted be each

traffic zone per unit of time in the study area. The total trip generation and attraction

by zone is controlled by trip production whereby passenger and the freight are

converted into vehicle trips.

The trip generation step is to estimate the number of vehicle-trips, which will

begin or end in each traffic analysis zone within a study area for a typical day of the

target year. Each trip has two ends, which are described in terms of trip purposes

such as work trips, school trips, shopping trips, and social or recreational trips. Trip

ends at residential zones are referred to as productions, and trip ends at

nonresidential zones are referred to as attractions.

According to land use, trips can also be classified as home-based or as non

home-based. A home-based trip consists of trips that either begin or end at a resident

zone. For example, a home-based work trip would be considered to have a trip end

produced in the resident zone and attracted to the work zone. A non-home-based trip

consists of trips that neither begin nor end at a resident zone. Commonly used

methods for trip generation include regression models, trip-rate analysis models, and

cross-classification models.

The equations for the tip Generation and Attraction Model for the Macro and

the Micro Level is shown in Table 4.23 and Table 4.24 respectively. Table 4.25

shows the average vehicle occupancy and average load factor.



Table 4.22 Trip Production Regression Model

Types of

Transport Mode

Formula Coefficient

Passenger

Passenger Car

Bus

Rail

Air

All Modes

-165,938 + 69.39 POP + 33.293 GDP

-275,744 + 89.970 POP + 2.903 GDP

-1,872 + 0.987 GDP/P

-3,644 + 1.365 GDP/P

-102,335 + 158.671 POP + 36.371 GDP

0.989

0.953

0.764

0.987

0.991

Freight

Lorry

Rail

Air

Water

All Modes

-31,265 + 8.961 GDP – 7.742 EMP

-1,042 + 0.0449 GDP

-19 + 0.00013 GDP + 0.00447 EMP

-4,928 + 0.0569 GDP + 1034 EMP

-31,895 + 9.150 GDP – 8.601 EMP

0.842

0.808

0.987

0.989

0.845

Source: HDNP Study, 1991

Note: EMP = Employment GDP = Gross Domestic Product

POP = Population GDP/P = Gross Domestic Product per Capita



Table 4.23 General Equation for the Trip Generation/Attraction Model (Macro

Level)

Vehicle Type Generation /

Attraction

Formula Coefficient

Car Generation

Attraction

-112170 + 1216.71 ZEMP

-112133 + 1216.63 ZEMP

0.945

0.945

Bus Generation

Attraction

253.73 ZEMP

254.1 ZEMP

0.838

0.838

Lorry Generation

Attraction

20720 + 17.31 GDP

20766 + 17.31 GDP

0.803

0.803


Note: ZEMP = Employment by Zone ZGDP = GDP by Zone

Table 4.24 General Equation for the Trip Generation/Attraction Model (Micro Level)


Note: EMP = Employment GDP = Gross Domestic Product

POP = Population

Vehicle Type Generation/

Attraction

Formula Coefficient

Car Generation

Attraction

75.84 POP + 962.18 EMP

73.895 POP + 967.514 EMP 0.945

0.945

Bus Generation

Attraction

4.216 POP + 1.485 GDP

4.156 POP + 1.500 GDP 0.838

0.838

Lorry Generation

Attraction

48.814 POP + 164.706 EMP

47.374 POP + 168.298 EMP 0.803

0.803



Table 4.25 Average Vehicle Occupancy and Load Factor

Vehicle Type Average Vehicle Occupancy

Average Load Factor

Car 1.8 -

Bus 28 -

Lorry - 1.9


4.3.3 Trip Production Rates

Besides providing the trip production and as well as the trip generation and trip

attraction, the HNDP Study also highlighted the average daily trip production rates as

shown in Table 4.26.

Table 4.26 Average Daily Trip Production Rates by Vehicle Type in Malaysia

State P.Car Goods Veh Bus Taxi All Vehicle

Perlis 3.9 4.5 7.8 7.4 4.2 Kedah 3.5 3.6 7.2 6.9 3.7 P. Pinang 3.5 3.7 6.8 9.2 3.6 Perak 3.8 4.6 5.7 8.2 4.0 Kuala Lumpur 2.8 3.0 6.9 6.8 2.9 Selangor 3.1 3.5 8.4 5.1 3.3 N. Sembilan 3.6 3.2 9.2 5.8 3.6 Melaka 3.0 2.9 5.6 4.1 3.0 Johor 3.7 3.8 7.1 5.8 3.8 Pahang 3.7 3.7 6.5 4.4 3.8 Terengganu 3.6 3.3 5.3 4.5 3.5 Kelantan 3.7 3.9 4.6 5.7 3.8

Malaysia 3.4 3.6 7.1 6.1 3.5




4.3.4 Model for Forecasting Vehicles

HNDP study provides linear regression model for forecasting number of

vehicles by areas that is obtained from the analysis of number of vehicles by states.

The areas stated here is for Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak. The linear

regression models are illustrated in Table 4.27.

Table 4.27 Number of Vehicles Forecasting Models in Malaysia

Vehicle Type Formula Coefficient

P. Car -10,981+ 24.9448 GDP 0.944

Bus -166 + 1.6175 POP 0.730

Lorry -1,805 + 7.2319 GDP 0.909


4.3.5 Modal Share

Referring to SMURT-KL study, the share of the public mode of transport in the

Kuala Lumpur metropolitan area was estimated at 24.0 percent in 2000, 23.6 percent

in 2010, and 25.6 percent in 2020 under the Base case (as shown in Table 4.28). In

Base case, both highway and public transportation network was assumed to have

been completed according to the schedule.



Table 4.28 Modal Share in the Kuala Lumpur Metropolitan Area

Motor- Conventional Trunk Bus Private Mode Public Modecycle Bus and Rail of Transport of Transport1162 2876 943 28 4038 971 5009

(23.2%) (57.4%) (18.8%) (0.6%) (80.6%) (19.4%) (100.0%)1464 3520 1075 486 4984 1561 6545

(22.4%) (53.8%) (16.4%) (7.4%) (76.1%) (23.9%) (100.0%)1461 3514 1084 487 4975 1570 6545

(22.3%) (53.7%) (16.6%) (7.4%) (76.0%) (24.0%) (100.0%)1467 3490 1094 494 4957 1587 6545

(22.4%) (53.3%) (16.7%) (7.5%) (75.7%) (24.2%) (100.0%)1391 4722 1346 622 6113 1968 8084

(17.2%) (58.4%) (16.7%) (7.7%) (75.7%) (24.4%) (100.0%)1411 4770 1312 592 6181 1904 8084

(17.5%) (59.0%) (16.2%) (7.3%) (76.5%) (23.6%) (100.0%)1411 4622 1408 643 6033 2052 8084

(17.5%) (57.2%) (17.4%) (8.0%) (74.6%) (25.4%) (100.0%)1307 5986 1674 883 7292 2556 9852

(13.3%) (60.8%) (17.0%) (9.0%) (74.0%) (26.0%) (100.0%)1316 6013 1632 891 7329 2523 9852

(13.4%) (61.0%) (16.6%) (9.0%) (74.4%) (25.6%) (100.0%)1316 5686 1837 1013 7002 2850 9852

(13.4%) (57.7%) (18.6%) (10.3%) (71.1%) (28.9%) (100.0%)Source: SMURT-KL EstimateWO: Without area pricing, trunk bus system, and new highwaysBASE: With trunk bus system and highway development but without area pricing schemeMP: SMURT-KL Master Plan Case (including area pricing scheme, highway development, trunk bus system

Damansara-Cheras LRT development in 2020).Kuala Lumpur metropolitan area; the city of Kuala Lumpur and its conurbation area.

HIS

WHO

BASE

MP

BASE

MP

1997

2000

2010

2020

WO

BASE

MP

WO

Year Case Car Total

4.4 Future Socioeconomic Framework

The likely future changes in the travel demand for each traffic zone in the study

area are assessed by the examination of the control totals for the study area. The

control total is established by making the appraisal of the changes in the following

socio-economic framework and indicators.

Existing and Future Population;

Existing and Future GDP ;

Existing and Future Employment; and

Historical Traffic Growth.



Table 4.29 shows the forecasted population in Malaysia. The average annual

population growth for the period 1991 – 2002 was approximately 2.57%. The

population of the country is expected to reach 38.748 million by the year 2020.

Meanwhile, Table 4.30 provides the forecasted employment within the study area.

The employment is expected to reach 16.465 million people by the year 2020 with an

average annual growth rate of 3.08%. For the Gross Domestic Product, the forecasted

data is illustrated in Table 4.31.

Table 4.29 Projected Populations, 2005 - 2020

1 2005 26,4692 2010 30,0553 2015 34,1264 2020 38,748

No Year Population in '000

Source: Consultant’s estimation, 2004

Table 4.30 Projected Employment from year 2005 to 2020

1 2005 10,451 3.42 2010 12,161 3.33 2015 14,150 3.34 2020 16,465 3.2

No Year Employment ('000) Unemployment Rates (%)




Table 4.31 Projected Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from year 2005 to 2020

1 2005 260,854 9,8562 2010 348,310 11,5913 2015 465,087 13,6314 2020 621,016 16,031

Gross Domestic Product Per Capita (GDP/P) (RM)No Year Gross Domestic Product

(GDP) (Million)


4.5 Analysis for Transportation Demand

Referring to the HNDP Study as mentioned above, there are several models for

estimating the trip generation within the study area. Trip generation could be

estimated in the unit of person trips (for people movement) and tonnage (for goods

movement) and sometimes in vehicular units depending on the purposes of the study.

In this study, it will concentrate on the number of vehicles particularly for

passenger car, bus and commercial vehicles. Three types of techniques are used in

determining the number of vehicles, namely Method 1, Method 2 and Method 3. In

the first method, the regression model as depicted in Table 4.22 was utilized. From

these regression models, the number of passengers is obtained and then using the

vehicle occupancy of each mode, the number of vehicles was determined.

In the second method, the model for forecasting number of vehicles as shown

in Table 4.27 was utilized. In this method the number of vehicles was determined

faster. Method 3 was obtained by developing models to forecast number of vehicles

and/or passengers based on the existing data. However, the incorporated parameters



in the models still using the parameters of the models from the HNDP study. This is

because the parameters that significantly affected the number of vehicles and/or

passengers had been determined and validated in the study.

Nevertheless, in order to obtain the optimum results, three types of techniques

for determining the number of vehicles were compared. Moreover, the method used

to judge whether one technique is better than the other is based on the disparity of the

numbers from modeled versus observed and also the linear correlation of the model.

4.5.1 Method 1

Table 4.32, Table 4.33, and Table 4.34 show the number of observed and

modeled vehicles from year 1991 to 2002 by utilizing Method 1. The table also

provides the annual growth rates between the observed and modeled data. Figure 4.8,

Figure 4.9, and Figure 4.10 depict the scatter-plot and R-square of observed and

modeled number of vehicles.



Table 4.32 Observed Vs. Modeled Passenger Car Volumes (Method 1)

Observed Modelled1991 1,863.2 2,770.11992 1,983.0 2,980.01993 2,132.3 3,231.41994 2,350.1 3,489.21995 2,608.6 3,787.31996 2,946.0 4,114.11997 3,333.4 4,381.51998 3,517.5 4,133.51999 3,852.7 4,360.92000 4,212.6 4,688.52001 4,624.6 4,729.52002 5,069.4 4,909.7

Annual Growth (%) 9.53 5.34

YearP.Car ('000)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Observed Numbers

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Mod

elle

d Nu

mbe

r

Method 1

Passenger Car

R Sq Linear = 0.913

Figure 4.8 Scatter-plot of Observed vs. Modeled Passenger Car Volumes (Method 1)



Table 4.33 Observed Vs. Modeled Bus Volumes (Method 1)

Observed Modelled1991 26,147 61,7841992 27,827 64,4471993 29,924 67,4181994 33,529 70,5061995 36,000 73,9061996 38,965 77,1761997 43,444 80,1651998 45,643 80,3151999 47,674 83,1842000 48,662 86,7082001 49,771 89,1472002 51,158 91,700


YearBus

010000

2000030000

4000050000

6000070000

8000090000

100000

Observed Numbers

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

Mod

elle

d Nu

mbe

rs

Method 1

Bus

R Sq Linear = 0.968

Figure 4.9 Scatter-plot of Observed vs. Modeled Bus Volumes (Method 1)



Table 4.34 Observed Vs. Modeled Commercial Veh. (Method 1)

Observed Modelled1992 333,674 551,0071993 358,808 608,6311995 440,723 738,2491996 512,165 813,7831997 574,622 876,3931998 599,149 807,9911999 642,976 859,7722000 665,284 935,7942001 689,668 938,1372002 713,148 978,992


YearCommercial

0100000

200000300000

400000500000

600000700000

800000900000

10000001100000

12000001300000

14000001500000

1600000

Observed Number

0100000200000300000400000500000600000700000800000900000

1000000110000012000001300000140000015000001600000

Mod

elle

d Nu

mbe

r

Method 1

Commercial

R Sq Linear = 0.936

Figure 4.10 Scatter-plot of Observed vs. Modeled Commercial Vehicle (Method 1)



4.5.2 Method 2

Similar to the analysis in Method 1, in this method the observed and modeled

volumes were analyzed. Table 4.35, Table 4.36, and Table 4.37 show the number of

observed and modeled vehicles form year 1991 to 2002. While Figure 4.11, Figure

4.12, and Figure 4.13 depict the scatter-plot and R-square of observed and modeled

number of vehicles.

Table 4.35 Observed vs. Modeled Passenger Car Volumes (Method 2)



YearP.Car ('000)



0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Observed Numbers

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Mode

lled

Num

bers

Method 2

Passenger Car

R Sq Linear = 0.895

Figure 4.11 Scatter-plot of Observed vs Modeled Passenger Car Volumes (Method 2)

Table 4.36 Observed vs. Modeled Bus Volumes (Method 2)



YearBus



010000

2000030000

4000050000

6000070000

8000090000

100000

Observed Numbers

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

Mode

lled

Num

bers

Method 2

Bus

R Sq Linear = 0.955

Figure 4.12 Scatter-plot of Observed vs. Modeled Bus Volumes (Method 2)

Table 4.37 Observed vs. Modeled Commercial Vehicle (Method 2)

Observed Modelled1991 313,514 837,7681992 333,674 912,3651993 358,808 1,002,8221994 393,833 1,095,3751995 440,723 1,203,2101996 512,165 1,323,7441997 574,622 1,420,8111998 599,149 1,316,1151999 642,976 1,397,0042000 665,284 1,516,5972001 689,668 1,521,5222002 713,148 1,584,216


YearCommercial



0100000

200000300000

400000500000

600000700000

800000900000

10000001100000

12000001300000

14000001500000

1600000

Observed Number

0100000200000300000400000500000600000700000800000900000

1000000110000012000001300000140000015000001600000

Mode

lled N

umbe

rMethod 2

Commercial

R Sq Linear = 0.946


4.5.3 Method 3

As mentioned earlier, Method 3 was obtained by developing models to forecast

number of vehicles and/or passengers based on the existing data. Nevertheless, the

parameters in the models are the same as that used in the HNDP study. The

parameters involve population, GDP and GDP per capita. The multiple linear

regression type was adopted for the model.

The available historical number of vehicles and passengers from year 1991 to

2002 had been analyzed to develop the model. The number of vehicles consists of

number of passenger cars, buses, and commercial vehicles. As for passenger data, the

numbers of rail and air transport passengers were analyzed.



The following tables illustrate number of passenger cars, buses, commercial

vehicles, and also numbers of rail and air transport passengers till year 2002.

Table 4.38 No. of Cars, Buses and Commercial Vehicle Year 1991 to 2002

P.Car Bus Commercial1991 1,863.2 26,147 313,5141992 1,983.0 27,827 333,6741993 2,132.3 29,924 358,8081994 2,350.1 33,529 393,8331995 2,608.6 36,000 440,7231996 2,946.0 38,965 512,1651997 3,333.4 43,444 574,6221998 3,517.5 45,643 599,1491999 3,852.7 47,674 642,9762000 4,212.6 48,662 665,2842001 4,624.6 49,771 689,6682002 5,069.4 51,158 713,148

Annual Growth (%) 9.53 6.29 7.76

YearTypes of Traffic Mode


Table 4.39 No. of Daily Rail Passenger Year 1998 to 2002

KTMB LRT TOTAL1998 13,490 20,000 33,4901999 11,901 30,000 41,9012000 10,479 110,000 120,4792001 9,619 140,000 149,6192002 9,416 145,000 154,416

YEARRAIL PASSENGER PER DAY

Source: Consultant’s estimation from KTMB (2002) and Yusoff (2003)



Table 4.40 No. of Daily Air Passenger

1991 54,6631992 59,5761993 62,6861994 66,2811995 72,1651996 79,1051997 85,6861998 73,9941999 77,5972000 86,7492001 85,9912002 89,534

Year Average Daily Air Passenger

Source: Consultant’s estimation from MAB data (2002)

The trip generation models for Method 3 are summarized in Table 4.41. These

regression models are used to obtain the numbers of passenger car, bus and lorry as

well as the number of rail and air transport passengers per day.



Table 4.41 Method 3 Regression Model

Types of

Transport Mode

Formula R-sq

Passenger Car -9829378 + 662.701 POP – 7.1 GDP 0.989

Bus -38218 + 2.813 POP + 0.102 GDP 0.975

Lorry -201949 + 4.133 GDP 0.946

Rail -1353404 + 167.51 GDP/P 0.791

Air -21093.4 + 11.861 GDP/P 0.955

Source: Consultant’s Estimation

Note: GDP = Gross Domestic Product POP = Population

GDP/P = Gross Domestic Product per Capita

The following Table 4.42, Table 4.43, and Table 4.44 show the number of

observed and modeled vehicles or passengers by utilizing Method 3. Figure 4.14,

Figure 4.15, and Figure 4.16 depict the scatter-plot and R-square of observed and

modeled number of vehicles or passengers.



Table 4.42 Observed vs. Modeled Passenger Car Volumes (Method 3)



YearP.Car ('000)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Observed Number

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Mode

lled N

umbe

r

Method 3

Passenger Car

R Sq Linear = 0.989

Figure 4.14 Scatter-plot of Observed vs. Modeled Passenger Car (Method 3)



Table 4.43 Observed vs. Modeled Bus Volumes (Method 3)



YearBus

010000

2000030000

4000050000

6000070000

8000090000

100000

Observed Number

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

Mode

lled N

umbe

r

Method 3

Bus

R Sq Linear = 0.975

Figure 4.15 Scatter-plot of Observed vs. Modeled Bus (Method 3)



Table 4.44 Observed vs. Modeled Commercial Vehicle (Method 3)



YearCommercial

0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1400000 1600000

Observed Number

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

1600000

Mode

lled N

umbe

r

Method 3

Commercial

R Sq Linear = 0.946




4.5.4 Summary of Method 1, Method 2 and Method 3

According to the simple linear regression of the three methods that had been

employed as shown in Table 4.45, it could be concluded that all methods have good

fitness with the observed volumes (in this case, the observed data was obtained from

the official statistic report). This is based on the R square values.

However, as can be observed from the scatter-plots of the observed and the

predicted volumes for Method 1 and Method 2, there is a correction factor that needs

to be applied in order to bring the predicted volumes to be close to the actual

observed volumes. Although the R-square values are showing good correlation

between the respective sets of data, however, the models do not give good prediction

of the forecasted volumes. Methods 1 and 2 based on models derived from the

HNDP study appear not to be able to give a good prediction of the forecasted

volumes.

Results obtained by using the models developed based on more recent data as

shown in Method 3 indicate less disparity between the modeled and the observed

trips and a better coefficient of correlation. Therefore, Method 3 was chosen to be

employed in this study.



Table 4.45 Trips Generation Models

Types of Transport

Mode Method Formula Coeffi-

cient

Method 1 -165,938 + 69.39 POP + 33.293 GDP 0.913

Method 2 -10,981+ 24.9448 GDP 0.895 Passenger Car

Method 3 -9,829,378 + 662.701 POP – 7.1 GDP 0.989

Method 1 -275,744 + 89.970 POP + 2.903 GDP 0.968

Method 2 -166 + 1.6175 POP 0.955 Bus

Method 3 -38,218 + 2.813 POP + 0.102 GDP 0.975

Method 1 -31,265 + 8.961 GDP – 7.742 EMP 0.912

Method 2 -1,805 + 7.2319 GDP 0.940 Lorry

Method 3 -201,949 + 4.133 GDP 0.946

4.5.5 Future Total Trip Generation

The traffic projections shall take into account present and potential traffic

generating sources based on existing and future economic development plans, land

use development plans as well as committed and future road schemes, population and

historical traffic growth and other socioeconomic factors.

As mentioned earlier, the model was developed based on the HNDP Study in

year 1991 and the validation process utilized the data from year 1991 to 2002.

However, in order to acquire an optimum result in forecasting the future trip

generation as well as taking into consideration the model validation using the

existing data, the HNDP 1991 regression model was revised. The new regression



models for forecasting the future trip generation was formulated in Method 3 of this

study. After employing the model and the forecasted population and socioeconomic

data in future, the future trip generation was obtained. Numbers of passengers by

type of modes are shown in Table 4.46.

The number of trips obtained as shown in Table 4.46 is referred to as “Do

Nothing Scenario”. In this scenario the proportion of passengers using private and

public modes was based on the trends in year 1991 to 2002. As seen in Table 5.16,

the proportion of passengers using passenger car is about 80% of the total passengers

generated. The proportion of passenger car is decreased from year to year. It is

estimated that passenger using private car only at 79.66% of the total passengers by

year 2020.

Table 4.46 Forecasted No. of Passengers by Type of Modes

2005 2010 2015 2020

P. Car 10,547,847 13,706,961 17,070,648 20,591,743

Bus 1,759,738 2,291,907 2,946,068 3,755,477

Rail 297,527 588,159 929,955 1,331,920

Air 95,805 116,384 140,586 169,048

TOTAL 12,700,917 16,703,411 21,087,256 25,848,189


No. of Passenger per day by year



Table 4.47 Forecasted modal split by type of modes

2005 2010 2015 2020P. Car 83.05 82.06 80.95 79.66Bus 13.86 13.72 13.97 14.53Rail 2.34 3.52 4.41 5.15Air 0.75 0.70 0.67 0.65

TOTAL 100 100 100 100


Modal Split by Year (%)

According to Table 4.47, it could be seen that passenger car has the highest

proportion in transport modal split in future. However, this would occur if there is no

adjustment from the transport authority in terms of the share of modal usage.

4.5.6 Modal Split Scenarios

The transport authorities had set up a target for modal split amongst the land

transport modes, particularly for private and public transport (bus and rail). For

example, as mentioned earlier, in SMURT-KL study, it was targeted around 70

(P.Car) : 30 (Public) by year 2020 under MP Case option.

The Malaysian Government plans to set up a modal split target of 40 (P.Car) :

60 (Public). However, according to experience in developed countries and the

transportation demand analysis as mentioned above it is not easy to achieve the

target. Therefore, some scenarios of transport modal split between passenger car and

public transport need to be set up in order to illustrate the impact of modal share on

number of vehicles (referred as “Do Something Scenario”). Afterwards, based on the



scenarios of modal split as well as the number of vehicles the future transport

infrastructures could be determined.

The adopted future modal split scenarios for this study is shown in Table 4.48.

The scenarios based on the future modal split scenarios estimated in SMURT-KL

study under Base Case option. The modal split target of 40 (P.Car) : 60 (Public) by

Malaysian Government is also taken into consideration.

Table 4.48 Future Modal Split Scenarios

Bus Rail Total2005 76.0 16.6 7.4 24.0 100.02010 76.3 16.4 7.4 23.8 100.02015 76.5 16.2 7.3 23.5 100.02020 75.5 16.4 8.2 24.6 100.0

Target 40.0 40.0 20.0 60.0 100.0

Total (%)Year P. Car (%)Public Transport (%)

Source: Consultant’s estimation based on SMURT-KL study (1999)

4.5.7 Future Trip Generation Based on Scenarios

The following tables show the forecasted no. of passengers as well as the

forecasted no. of vehicles and the total vehicle trips.



Table 4.49 Forecasted No. of Vehicles by Type of Modes (Do Nothing Scenario)

2005 2010 2015 2020

P. Car 5,859,915 7,614,978 9,483,693 11,439,857

Bus 62,848 81,854 105,217 134,124

Lorry 876,161 1,237,616 1,720,256 2,364,709


No. of Vehicle by Year

Table 4.50 Forecasted No. of Vehicles by Type of Modes (Do Something Scenario)

Target (40 : 60)

2005 2010 2015 2020 2020

P. Car 5,322,158 7,026,449 8,902,335 10,763,840 5,706,476

Bus 74,730 97,153 121,191 150,406 366,845

Lorry 876,161 1,237,616 1,720,256 2,364,709 2,364,709


No. of Vehicle by Year

Table 4.51 Forecasted Trip Generation Rates by Type of Modes

2005 2010 2015 2020P. Car 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.8Bus 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.5Lorry 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2


Future Trip Generation Rates

Source: Consultant’s estimation based HNDP study (1991)

4.5.8 Vehicle-Kilometer

According to HNDP Study, the mean trip length for the total vehicle

population is 17.2 km. The trip length distribution for passenger car and taxi display

a similar pattern to the total. For goods vehicle, the average trip length is found to be



about 21.5 km. Table 4.52 illustrates the forecasted Vehicle-km for “Do Nothing

Scenario” while Table 5.22 for “Do Something Scenario” respectively.

Table 4.52 Total Vehicle-km of the Traffic (Do Nothing Scenario)

2005 2010 2015 2020

P. Car 312,450,674 392,932,873 473,046,626 550,943,528

Bus 12,820,947 16,452,616 20,832,906 26,154,217

Lorry 73,466,060 106,434,970 151,640,538 213,533,222


Total Vehicle-kilometer

Table 4.53 Total Vehicle-km of the Traffic (Do Something Scenario)

Target (40 : 60)

2005 2010 2015 2020 2020

P. Car 283,777,489 362,564,759 444,048,467 518,386,527 274,823,871

Bus 15,244,983 19,527,670 23,995,907 29,329,247 71,534,749

Lorry 73,466,060 106,434,970 151,640,538 213,533,222 213,533,222


Total Vehicle-kilometer

4.6 Fuel Consumption In Transportation Sector

In general, the fuel consumption by transportation modes are calculated by

multiplying the trip length of vehicle traveling with the fuel consumed per vehicle-

km. The fuel consumption of passenger car, bus and lorry adopted in this study is

based on the average fuel consumption per vehicle-km analyzed from the U.S.

Highway Statistics, 2000. Table 4.54 and Table 4.55 provide details on the data.



Table 4.54 Summary Statistics for Passenger Cars, 1990 - 2000

Registration Veh-Travel Fuel Use Fuel Use per Fuel Use per

(thousands) (million miles) (million gallons) Veh-mile (gallon) Veh-km (liter)

1990 133,700 1,408,266 69,568 0.04940 0.11620

1991 128,300 1,358,185 64,318 0.04736 0.11139

1992 126,581 1,371,569 65,436 0.04771 0.11222

1993 127,327 1,374,709 67,047 0.04877 0.11472

1994 127,883 1,406,089 67,874 0.04827 0.11354

1995 128,387 1,438,294 68,072 0.04733 0.11133

1996 129,728 1,469,854 69,221 0.04709 0.11077

1997 129,749 1,502,556 69,892 0.04652 0.10941

1998 131,839 1,549,577 71,695 0.04627 0.10883

1999 132,432 1,569,100 73,283 0.04670 0.10986

2000 133,621 1,601,914 72,916 0.04552 0.10707

Annual Growth (%) -0.01 1.30 0.47 -0.82 -0.82

YEAR

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, 2000

Table 4.55 Summary Statistics for Two-Axle Trucks, 1990 - 2000

Registration Veh-Travel Fuel Use Fuel Use per Fuel Use per

(thousands) (million miles) (million gallons) Veh-mile (gallon) Veh-km (liter)

1990 48,275 574,571 35,611 0.06198 0.14579

1991 53,033 649,394 38,217 0.05885 0.13843

1992 57,091 706,863 40,929 0.05790 0.13620

1993 59,994 745,750 42,851 0.05746 0.13516

1994 62,904 764,634 44,112 0.05769 0.13570

1995 65,738 790,029 45,605 0.05773 0.13578

1996 69,134 816,540 47,354 0.05799 0.13641

1997 70,224 850,739 49,389 0.05805 0.13656

1998 71,330 868,175 50,462 0.05812 0.13672

1999 75,356 901,022 52,859 0.05867 0.13799

2000 79,085 924,018 52,832 0.05718 0.13449

Annual Growth (%) 5.06 4.87 4.02 -0.80 -0.80

YEAR

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, 2000



Referring to the data from the Road Transport Department 1999 – 2002, for the

new vehicle registration, 57.23% of the total vehicles are passenger car using petrol

while 0.22% is passenger car using diesel. Bus is only 0.03% of the total vehicle

registered with more then 90% of the bus using diesel. Table 4.56 and 4.57 depicts

the new vehicle registration based on fuel type in year 1999, 2000 and 2002

respectively.

Table 4.56 No. of New Vehicle Registration Based on Fuel Types

Petrol Diesel Petrol Diesel Petrol DieselP. Car 294,928 1,548 338,866 1,061 409,224 1,290Bus 22 223 24 205 10 102Lorry 3,923 4,998 5,257 10,472 4,271 3,250Motorcycle 236,759 12 238,672 15 222,661 14Others 2,274 6,348 2,699 9,431 5,014 10,790


No. of Vehicle Registration Based on Fuel Type 1999 2000 2002

Source: Consultant’s estimation from Transport Statistics Malaysia

Table 4.57 Proportion of new vehicle registration based on fuel types

Petrol Diesel Petrol Diesel Petrol Diesel Petrol DieselP. Car 53.523 0.281 55.854 0.175 62.322 0.196 57.233 0.217Bus 0.004 0.040 0.004 0.034 0.002 0.016 0.003 0.030Lorry 0.712 0.907 0.866 1.726 0.650 0.495 0.743 1.043Motorcycle 42.966 0.002 39.339 0.002 33.910 0.002 38.738 0.002Others 0.413 1.152 0.445 1.554 0.764 1.643 0.540 1.450

AverageTypes of Traffic Mode

Proportion of Vehicle based on Fuel Type (%)1999 2000 2002

Source: Consultant’s estimation from Transport Statistics Malaysia



4.6.1 Do Nothing and Do Something Fuel Consumption

The forecasted number of vehicles by types of fuel is shown as in Table 4.58

and Table 4.59. While the total fuel consumption by passenger car, bus and lorry is

determined as in Table 4.60 and Table 4.61. The fuel consumption is also based on

Do Nothing and Do Something scenarios.

Figure 4.17 and Figure 4.18 present the forecasted total petrol and diesel

consumed by the vehicles in year 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020 respectively. From the

figures, it is seen that if the modal split set up is achieved (by year 2020), the petrol

consumption may be reduced by about 4.7%. However, the decrease of diesel

consumption is not quite significant although the modal split scenario is achieved.

The reduction of diesel consumption may be only around 1.9%. The significant

decrease of petrol consumption would occur if the set up modal split target of 40

(P.Car) : 60 (Public) by Government of Malaysia is achieved. Under the 40:60 modal

split, the petrol consumption may be reduced by about 40% and although it is a

significant decrease in petrol consumption the increase of diesel, however, is not

relatively high (only 27%).



Table 4.58 Forecasted No. of Vehicles (Do Nothing Scenario)

P.Car Bus Lorry

Petrol 5,837,738 5,997 237,885

Diesel 22,177 56,851 638,276

Petrol 7,586,159 7,810 336,023

Diesel 28,819 74,044 901,593

Petrol 9,447,802 10,039 467,064

Diesel 35,891 95,177 1,253,192

Petrol 11,396,563 12,797 642,038

Diesel 43,294 121,327 1,722,671

Type of Fuel

Forecasted No. of Vehicle Based on Fuel Type

2005

Year

2010

2015

2020

Table 4.59 Forecasted No. of Vehicles (Do Something Scenario)

P.Car Bus Lorry

Petrol 5,302,017 7,130 237,885

Diesel 20,142 67,600 638,276

Petrol 6,999,857 9,270 336,023

Diesel 26,592 87,883 901,593

Petrol 8,868,644 11,563 467,064

Diesel 33,691 109,628 1,253,192

Petrol 10,723,104 14,351 642,038

Diesel 40,736 136,055 1,722,671

Petrol 5,684,879 35,002 642,038

Diesel 21,596 331,842 1,722,671Target

Type of FuelYear

Forecasted No. of Vehicle Based on Fuel Type

2005

2010

2015

2020



Table 4.60 Forecasted Fuel Consumption (Do Nothing Scenario)

P.Car Bus Lorry

Petrol 31,126,820 183,496 4,585,103

Diesel 118,247 1,739,646 6,434,807

Petrol 39,144,581 235,474 6,642,731

Diesel 148,706 2,232,419 9,322,515

Petrol 47,125,637 298,165 9,464,063

Diesel 179,025 2,826,771 13,282,018

Petrol 54,885,847 374,325 13,326,857

Diesel 208,506 3,548,807 18,703,126

Type of Fuel

Forecasted Fuel Consumption by Type of Mode (Liters)

2010

2015

2020

Year

2005

Table 4.61 Forecasted Fuel Consumption (Do Something Scenario)

P.Car Bus Lorry

Petrol 28,270,353 218,190 4,585,103

Diesel 107,396 2,068,558 6,434,807

Petrol 36,119,263 279,485 6,642,731

Diesel 137,213 2,649,666 9,322,515

Petrol 44,236,796 343,435 9,464,063

Diesel 168,051 3,255,951 13,282,018

Petrol 51,642,468 419,767 13,326,857

Diesel 196,184 3,979,620 18,703,126

Petrol 27,378,380 1,023,822 13,326,857

Diesel 104,008 9,706,390 18,703,126

Year Type of Fuel

Forecasted Fuel Consumption by Type of Mode (Liters)

2005

2010

2015

2020

Target



33,073,645

43,041,478

54,044,294

65,389,093

35,895,419

46,022,786

56,887,866

41,729,05968,587,030

2005

2010

2015

2020

YEAR

PETROL (LITER/DAY)

DO NOTHING

DO SOMETHING

TARGET 40:60

Figure 4.17 Forecasted Petrol Consumption by Road Transport Sector (liter/day)

8,610,760

12,109,394

16,706,020

22,878,930

8,292,700

11,703,640

16,287,814

22,460,43928,513,524

2005

2010

2015

2020

YEAR

DIESEL (LITER/DAY)

DO NOTHING

DO SOMETHING

TARGET 40:60

Figure 4.18 Forecasted Diesel Consumption by Road Transport Sector (liter/day)



4.7 Energy Consumption in Transportation Sector

In this study, the future trip generation (both person trips and vehicle trips) was

obtained by employing the trip generation model that was formulated in the previous

studies. By utilizing the models, besides having the number of trips, several trips

characteristics of the study area was also established. This involves the average travel

distance of trip maker’s (vehicles or passengers). The vehicle-kilometer or

passenger-kilometer is the key point in estimating the energy consumed in

transportation sector. Table 4.62 below shows the energy use by various types of

vehicles based on passenger travel distance.

Table 4.62 Energy Use by Various Types of Vehicles

No. Vehicle Type Energy Use

(btu/passenger-mile)

1 Single-occupancy automobile 8,360

2 New heavy rail 3,080

3 Carpool 2,390

4 Old heavy rail (existing) 2,320

5 Light rail transit 2,590

6 Bus 1,420

7 Aircraft* 3,666

Source: Grava (2003), * Davis et al (2002)



4.7.1 Road Transport

In Section 4.6.1 of this report, the forecasted total fuel consumption by road

transport modes till year 2020 has been highlighted. The fuel consumption consists

of petrol and diesel. Referring to Davis et al (2002) there is about 125,000 btu in one

gallon gasoline and 138,700 btu in one gallon diesel. On the other hand, the National

Energy Balance (2000) states that 1000 toe = 43.3 TJ petrol and 1000 toe = 42.496

TJ diesel. After adopting that 1 btu = 1,055 joule, the total energy consumed in road

transport sector based on both scenarios could be illustrated as in Figure 7.1 and 7.2.

Referring to Figure 4.19 and 4.20, it is seen that in “Do Nothing” scenario the

consumption of petrol would achieve 20,142 ktoe/year and diesel about 7,457

ktoe/year by 2020. While the consumption of petrol would only about 19,203

ktoe/year and diesel at 7,596 ktoe/year in “Do Something” scenario.

9,713

12,640

15,871

19,203

10,541

13,515

16,706

12,25420,142

2005

2010

2015

2020

YEAR

PETROL (ktoe/year)

DO NOTHING

DO SOMETHING

TARGET 40:60

Figure 4.19 Forecasted Petrol Consumption by Road Transport Sector (ktoe/year)



2,859

4,021

5,547

7,596

2,753

3,886

5,408

7,4579,467

2005

2010

2015

2020

YEAR

DIESEL (ktoe/year)

DO NOTHING

DO SOMETHING

TARGET 40:60

Figure 4.20 Forecasted Diesel Consumption by Road Transport Sector (ktoe/year)

4.7.2 Rail Transport

Figure 4.20 shows the forecasted energy consumed by rail transport until year

2020. The rail transport mode involves the intercity, commuter and transit. Most of

the rail transport passengers choose transit as their transport mode. Referring to

KTMB data, it was estimated that the intercity passenger travel distance is about

300km. While the travel distance for transit passengers was estimated only 10km in

average.

Table 4.63 Forecasted Energy Consumption of Rail Transport

2005 2010 2015 2020

Rail 55 110 173 248


Energy Consumption (ktoe/year)



4.7.3 Air Transport

According to the data from Malaysia Airports Berhad, it was estimated that the

average travel distance for domestic flights is 780km. While for international flights

the average travel distance achieve 3,350km. It needs to be emphasised here that the

calculation of the forecasted fuel consumption of air transport involve departure and

arrival passengers. The forecasted energy consumed by the air transport till year

2020 as shown in Table 4.64

Table 4.64 Forecasted Energy Consumption of Air Transport

2005 2010 2015 2020

Air 3,629 4,409 5,326 6,404


Energy Consumption (ktoe/year)

4.7.4 Total Energy Consumed by Road, Rail and Air Transport

This section summarizes the forecasted total energy use by road, rail and air

transport mode in Malaysia up to the next twenty years. Table 4.65 and Table 4.66

tabulated the total energy use based on the Do Nothing and Do Something scenarios.

While Figures 4.21 and 4.22 shows the energy use in graph format.



Table 4.65 Forecasted Energy Use in Transportation Sector (Do Nothing)

2005 2010 2015 2020

Road 13,295 17,401 22,114 27,599

Rail 55 110 173 248

Air 3,629 4,409 5,326 6,404

TOTAL 16,979 21,920 27,613 34,251

Types of Transport Mode

Energy Use (ktoe/year)

Table 4.66 Forecasted Energy Use in Transportation Sector (Do Something)

2005 2010 2015 2020

Road 12,572 16,660 21,418 26,799

Rail 55 110 173 248

Air 3,629 4,409 5,326 6,404

TOTAL 16,256 21,179 26,917 33,451

Types of Transport Mode

Energy Use (ktoe/year)

Forecasted Energy Use by Road, Rail & Air Transport in Malaysia under Do Nothing Scenario (ktoe per year)

55 110 173 248

3,629 4,409 5,326 6,404

13,295

17,401

22,114

27,599

2005 2010 2015 2020YEAR

Total (year 2020) =34,251 ktoe Rail RoadAir

Figure 4.21 Forecasted Energy Use in Transportation Sector (Do Nothing)



Forecasted Energy Use by Road, Rail & Air Transport in Malaysia under Do Something Scenario (ktoe per year)

55 110 173 248

3,629 4,409 5,3266,404

12,572

16,660

21,418

26,799

2005 2010 2015 2020YEAR

Total (year 2020) =33,451 ktoe Rail RoadAir

Figure 4.22 Forecasted Energy Use in Transportation Sector (Do Something)

4.8 Conclusions and Recommendations

Several points could be concluded from the energy use in the transportation

sector study that has been successfully completed. The conclusions are highlighted as

follows:

In recent times, the transportation sector accounts for about 40% of the total

energy consumed in Malaysia. This phenomenon indicates transportation is the

highest sector consuming energy;

The motorization levels of motorcars in the past ten years increase with 6.78%

annual rate while the population growth is only 2.57%;

In terms of number of vehicles, even though the number of public transport

vehicles has been increasing, the proportion of the public transport vehicles to



all vehicles is decreasing. The proportion of public vehicles is only 2.33% of the

total road transport vehicles in year 2002;

It is only 0.4% of the total new registered passenger car (1999-2002) using

diesel while the rest (99.6%) are petrol cars;

The transport modal share in 2002 shows that 85.71% of passengers is served by

road transport. The rail passengers is about 14.05% while air transport carries

0.24% of the total passengers;

Based on the trip generation model developed in this study which is based on

the model from the HNDP Study in 1991, it is forecasted that more than 25.8

million person trips per day may use the transportation modes by year 2020 and

around 80% would use the passenger car.

The total fuel consumption (petrol + diesel) under Do Nothing scenario is

around 91 million liters per day while for Do Something scenario is more than

88.3 million liters per day (decrease up to 3%);

If a 40 : 60 modal split between Passenger Car and Public transport (Bus + Rail)

is achieved in year 2020, the petrol consumption will reduce significantly (up to

40%) while the increase of diesel consumption would only 27%;

Although there is a reduction in petrol and diesel consumption due to the 40 : 60

modal split (if this is achieved), the rail services system would have to cope with

more than 3.8 million passengers per day by year 2020;



It was forecasted that the total energy use by road, rail and air transport modes

would achieve 33,451 ktoe by year 2020 (Do Something Scenario) with the

proportion of road transport 80.1%, rail 0.7%, and air transport 19.2%.

Based on the study findings as mentioned, some recommendation regarding to the

energy use in transportation sector could be put forward:

The study has shown that a shift in the number of passengers from passenger car

to public transport would reduce the fuel consumption and as well as the

emission levels. Therefore, all the factors that may increase the demand for

public transport modes should be taken into consideration. It is essential to stress

here that improvement to the public transport system has to be embarked upon

on a significant level and comprehensive scale.

Besides the socioeconomic variables, there are supply variables that could

persuade the people to choose their transport modes. The transport authorities

and particularly the rail services operator need to consider these variables in

their policy during the planning and operation of rail system. The supply

variables involves amongst others:

in-vehicle travel time;

access, waiting and transfer times;

travel cost;

qualitative and attitudinal variables such as comfort, reliability, and

safety and the wish to have a different mode choice.



References Abdullah, M. S., (2003), Development in Malaysia’s Rail Transport Sector, Paper Material in Railtech 2003 International Conference and Exhibition, 27-29 May 2003. Banks, J. H., (2002), Introduction to Transportation Engineering, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York. Davis et al, (2002), Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 22, for U.S. Department of Energy. Dept. of Statistics Malaysia, (2002), Malaysian Economic Statistics-Time Series, Putrajaya. Economic Planning Unit-JICA, (1996), The Feasibility Study on Kuala Lumpur Outer Ring Road Project in Malaysia, Final Report. Grava, S. (2003), Urban Transportation System: Choices for Communities, McGraw-Hill, New York. JICA, (1992), Highway Network Development Plan (HNDP) Study in Malaysia, Interim Report (1), Kuala Lumpur. Kanafani, A. K., (1983), Transportation Demand Analysis, McGraw-Hill, New York. Klang Valley Planning Division-JICA, (1999), A Study on Integrated Transportation Strategies for Environmental Improvement in Kuala Lumpur (SMURT-KL), Final Report. Ministry of Transport Malaysia, (2002), Transport Statistics Malaysia 2002, Putrajaya. Montgomery, D. C. and Runger G. C., (2003), Applied Statistics and Probability for Engineers, 3rd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York. National Energy Balance 2002, (2003), Ministry of Energy, Communications and Multimedia, Kuala Lumpur Malaysia. Ortuzar, J. D. and Willumsen, L. G., (1990), Modelling Transport, John Wiley & Sons, New York.



Udomsri R. and Kongboontiam P., (2003), Fuel Consumption Models of Household Vehicles in Chiangmai Urban Area, Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 5, 2003, Fukuoka Japan. Yusoff, Z. M., (2003), Mobility of People: LRT Experience, Paper Presented in Best Practices Engineering Conference, 8-9 September 2003, Kuala Lumpur.



CHAPTER 5

FEASIBILITY AND POTENTIAL OF

SWITCHING TO NGV FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES

IN MALAYSIA

SUMMARY

Due to rapid economic growth, the usage of fuel especially petrol and diesel for

transportation sector has increased tremendously. This has caused Malaysian oil

reserve to decrease rapidly over the past decade. As a result, the government is

encouraging the use of alternative fuel in the transportation sector. One of the

proposals is the encouragement to use natural gas (NG) as an alternative fuel and

proposing a suitable policy for it. Study on natural gas vehicle (NGV) has been

undertaken to identify the deficiency and to improve the previous policies. This study

involved respondents (consumers) from public transports (taxi driver, taxi and bus

companies) and owners of pump station to identify their opinion about the policy.

Data collection to identify an overview of the current status of NGV development

including market activities and the future prospects of NGV in Malaysia are

conducted by interviewing respondents.



5.1. Introduction

Natural gas is categorized as a fossil fuel because it was formed from the

remains of tiny sea animals and plants from 200-400 million year ago. The pressure

combined with the heat of earth transforms this organic mixture into petroleum and

natural gas. Its main ingredient is methane, therefore its can be used as an alternative

fuel for transport. There are many advantages of natural gas compared to petrol and

diesel as a fuel. The primary advantages are the fact that natural gas can improve

thermal efficiency and reduce emissions of the engine. It also helps to curb the

growing air pollution and the greenhouse effect because it is cleaner and also cheaper

than petrol and diesel.

Modes of transportation in the USA, United Kingdom, Canada, China, India,

Argentina, and Brazil and also in Pakistan are already using natural gas as a fuel.

Natural gas used in developed nations is mainly because of the environmental

benefits. Meanwhile in developing countries, it is mainly because of the economic

factors. Natural gas has been used as a fuel for transport since 1920’s. To date, Italy

has about 240 compressed natural gas (CNG) refuelling station and about 300,000

NGVs on the road. New Zealand has about 250,000 vehicles converted to natural gas

and refuelling network of about 250 stations. Argentina being at the fore front of the

NGV league has 700,000 NGVs and has over 800 refuelling stations. Other country

like Thailand, Indonesia, Bangladesh, India, USA, Canada, France, United Kingdom,

Holland and Australia has only few NGVs (IANGV, 2004).

Natural gas in Malaysia can be as considered economically beneficial in future

because it will reduce operation cost and reduces foreign exchange of oil import. The



economic advantage of using natural gas as a vehicular fuel is more apparent in fleet

operations, where a vehicle travels the same or similar route everyday, and returns to

the same location for refuelling. Beside that natural gas is also capable of making the

environment cleaner because it’s unleaded and reduces a discharge of emissions than

petrol and diesel.

The vehicles that have been converted to NGV can also use petrol or diesel as

fuel, so it’s easier for consumer to use this fuel. Usually consumers use any type of

fuel that can be obtained easily and priced reasonably. The idea that using natural gas

is dangerous is totally unproven as they are safer than petrol at ambient temperature.

Over 40 years worldwide experience with NGV has prove that the inherent safety

and integrity of compressed natural gas storage tanks and refueling system is save

enough if not saver than any other conventional fuel.

As Malaysian government attempt to encourage a new environmental friendly

fuel, natural gas has been recognized as an alternative fuel for transport instead petrol

and diesel. Referred to Kyoto Protocol, this is one of the progressive programs in

order to decrease the emissions of greenhouse gas about 5% over the amount in 1999

periodic for the year 2008 to 2012. The transportation is the sector that produces the

highest greenhouse gas emission in Malaysia. Therefore, that’s one of the main

factors why the government encouraging this sector to use natural gas as an

alternative fuel. The other reason is Malaysia has large amount of natural gas reserve

than oil.

Research in Australia shows that vehicles which use compressed natural gas

(CNG) could reduce about 1152 kg greenhouse gas for 12,000 km traveled (AGO,



2001). However the actual results depend on the size and transport fuel consumption,

and distance traveled. Therefore a comprehensive study must be conducted to

identify suitable policies to public and private vehicle everyone in Malaysia to use

natural gas as fuel. A similar study has been done in other country such as in USA

and Europe (e-mail).

In Malaysia, natural gas has been used as an alternative fuel for commercial

vehicles especially for taxis. Petronas had introduced the NGV Commercial

Program (NGVP) in 1991 to encourage the usage of natural gas with the target to

convert about 1100 petrol vehicles by the year 1993. However, today there are about

10 000 NGVs many of them taxi and about 40 gas refuelling stations in Malaysia

(Petronas NGV, 2004).

5.2. Survey Data

This section discusses about the collected data in this study. The collected data

include current policies, world natural gas reserves, number of vehicles in Malaysia

and other related data will be discussed extensively in this section. First part of this

section is started with a review about the current situation and policies that involve

both natural gas and NGV. Meanwhile the second part discusses about the natural

gas reserves. World reserve and the importance of natural gas in Malaysia are also

elaborated in this section. Furthermore, NGV in Malaysia and other countries will

also be presented.

Due to many advantages of NGV especially because of energy security of a

country, the government of Malaysia encourages the usage of natural gas as an



alternative fuel for public transportation in Klang Valley where natural gas refueling

stations are easier to find compared to other states. Natural gas is not only cheaper,

but it also reduces air pollution in city like Kuala Lumpur, Johor Bahru and Penang.

The incentives programs introduced by government to encourage consumers to use

natural gas are (Department of Environment, 2002):

Exception of import duty and tax for conversion kit.

Keeping the price of natural gas is 50% lower than gasoline.

Road tax reduction scheme,

i. 50% for mono - gas vehicles (only use natural gas).

ii. 25% for bi-fuel vehicles (use petrol and natural gas).

Until October 2004, there were more than 11,500 vehicles mostly taxis already

converted to NGVs. This data include 1000 mono gas taxis that have been introduced

in Klang Valley area and 40 natural gas refuelling station for all these vehicles

(Petronas NGV, 2004)1. However, this is still below the expected target from the

government policy which is 50% of taxis in Klang Valley use natural gas as fuel in

2004.

5.2.1. Natural Gas Reserves

Before the policies are implemented for natural gas, the most important thing

to know is the reserve of natural gas in Malaysia as well as throughout the world.

World natural gas demand continues to grow and increase its market share inline

with the total world primary energy consumption. According to the International

1 Data until October 2004 obtained from Petronas NGV Sdn. Bhd.



Energy Outlook (2000), natural gas remains the fastest growing fuel component of

world energy consumption. From the forecast period from 1997 to 2020, natural gas

usage is projected to be more than double which will reach 167 trillion cubic feet

(Tcf) in 2020 compared to only 82 Tcf in 1997 in Malaysia.

Over the 1997 to 2020 period, the natural gas usage increase tremendously

around the world except in Middle East and Africa. Developing countries especially

in Asia and South and Central America will set the highest growth of natural gas

usage. Large percentage of increment is also projected in industrialized countries,

including the United State, European Union and Russia.

The world natural gas reserves were estimated at 5,504 Tcf. The former Soviet

Union has only about 6% of world oil reserves but they have about 40% of world

natural gas reserves. This is mostly (about 30.5%) located in the Russian Federation

(Energy Information Administration, 2004). This makes Russia as the largest reserve

of natural gas in the world, more than double of the second largest reserve, Iran.

Geographically, natural gas reserves are more than oil reserves. In the Middle East,

Qatar, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and UAE also have a very large reserve of natural gas.

Reserve to production ratio is exceeding 100 years in Middle East and Africa, and

83.4 years in the former Soviet Union. Meanwhile, South and Central America have

another 71.5 years but in North America and Europe the ratio are relative low, at

11.4 years and 18.3 years respectively. The reserve to production ratios average for

natural gas for the world is 63.4 years compared with only 41 years for oil. Table 5.1

shows world natural gas reserves by countries.



Table 5.1. World natural gas reserves by country as January 1, 2003 (EIA2004)

Country Reserves (Tcf) Percentage (%)

World 5,504 100.0

Top 20 Countries 4,778 86.8

Russian 1,680 30.5

Iran 812 14.8

Qatar 509 9.2

Saudi Arabia 225 4.1

United Arab Emirates 212 3.9

United States 187 3.4

Algeria 160 2.9

Venezuela 148 2.7

Nigeria 124 2.3

Iraq 110 2.0

Indonesia 93 1.7

Malaysia 72 1.3

Turkmenistan 71 1.3

Uzbekistan 66 1.2

Kazakhstan 65 1.2

Netherlands 62 1.1

Canada 60 1.1

Kuwait 53 1.0

China 53 1.0

Mexico 9 0.2

Rest of the world 733 13.3



5.2.2. Natural Gas Reserve in Malaysia

Malaysia has 72 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas reserves. Natural gas

production has been rising steadily in recent years, reaching 1.9 Tcf in 2001, up

sharply from 1.5 Tcf in 2000. Natural gas consumption in 2001 was estimated at 1.1

Tcf, with LNG exports of around 0.8 Tcf (mostly to Japan, South Korea, and

Taiwan)2.

One of the most active locations in Malaysia for gas exploration and

development is the Malaysia-Thailand Joint Development Area (JDA), located in the

lower part of the Gulf of Thailand and governed by the Malaysia-Thailand Joint

Authority (MTJA). The MTJA was established by the two governments for joint

exploration of the once-disputed JDA.

A fifty – fifty partnerships between Petronas and Amerada Hess is being

developed in the location, while the Petroleum Authority of Thailand (PTT) and

Petronas also share equal interests in the remaining locations. PTT and Petronas

announced an agreement in November 1999 to proceed with the development of a

gas pipeline from the JDA to a processing plant in Songkla, Thailand, and a pipeline

linking the Thai and Malaysian gas grids as well. Malaysia and Thailand will

eventually take half of the gas produced. The rest of initial production will remain to

Malaysia.

The project had been controversial in Thailand because they are opposed by

local residents in Songkla along the pipeline route. In May 2002, the Thai

government announced the final decision to commence construction on the project

2 Data on September 2003



later in 2002, through the pipeline route was altered slightly to avoid some populated

areas. Construction has begun, and the delivery of natural gas to Malaysia is

scheduled to begin by mid-2005.

Exxon Mobil announced in March 2002 that they would move forward with the

development of the offshore Bintang natural gas field in the South China Sea. The

field contains about 1 Tcf of reserves, and it is expected to reach peak output of 335

Mmcf/d. The commercial production at Bintang gas field began in February 2003.

Malaysia accounted for approximately 14% of total world LNG exports in

2002. After long delay, Malaysia preceded a long-planned expansion of Bintulu LNG

complex in Sarawak. In February 2000, Petronas signed a contract with a consortium

headed by Kellogg Brown and Root for construction of the MLNG Tiga facility. This

consist two LNG liquefaction trains and a total capacity of 7.6 million metric tons

(370 Bcf) per year, which was completed in April 2003. The Bintulu facility is

among the largest LNG liquefaction in the world, with the total capacity of 23

million metric tons (1.1 Tcf) per year.

Most of the production from the new LNG trains will be sold contracts to

Japan. Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO), Tokyo Gas, and Chubu Electric have signed

contracts for LNG from the project. A fire at the MLNG Tiga plant in August 2003,

has forced a temporary shutdown for reparation and the facility back to normal

operation in April 2004.

In addition, Malaysia exports 150 million cubic feet of LNG per day (Mmcf/d)

to Singapore via pipeline. Surprisingly, Malaysia also is an importer of gas from

Indonesia. Petronas signed an agreement in April 2001 with Indonesian oil and gas



company Pertamina for the import of gas from Conoco's West Natuna offshore field

in Indonesian waters.

The move is being seen as part of Malaysia’s strategy to become a hub for

natural gas integration in Southeast Asia. Natural gas delivery from the pipeline

commenced in mid-2003. Additionally there also have been preliminary discussions

of a project to link gas deposits from Sarawak to the Philippine.

As the frontrunner in Malaysian NGV industry development, Petronas’s

primary focus is to convert commercial vehicles, particularly the petrol taxi to NGV

taxi. Today there are about 35 NGV refueling station and more than 8,300 vehicles

running on natural gas3 (email). In addition, approximately 1,000 mono gas vehicles

have been introduced in Malaysia from joint venture between Petronas and Marta

Automobile. Furthermore the NGV transit bus program is expected to be

implemented soon be in Putrajaya.

5.2.3. Natural Gas Vehicle in Malaysia and Other Countries

NGV usage throughout the world has increased rapidly in recent years. This

situation is mainly due to the following factors:

Natural gas is relatively cheap (compared to other fossil fuel like petrol and

diesel).

The availability of natural gas

Growing awareness regarding environmental pollution

3 Data until January 2004 (International Association for NGV)



Today about 0.18% of world transport uses natural gas as fuel. There are

approximately 3.5 million NGV (IANGV, 2004) throughout the world out of 650

million vehicles. Subsequently some international markets have made drastic

changes to encourage consumers to use natural gas vehicles.

Countries like USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Sweden and

Italy have a long established record on the usage of natural gas as an alternative fuel

for vehicle. In these countries, natural gas vehicles are increasing rapidly. In other

countries although there are move towards this scenario but the development is not

so impressive. The reasons are because the NGV markets in these countries are

mainly based on economic consideration. Besides that, the high investment cost for

converting to NGV is also a problem. Another problem is the huge management cost

involved in setting up the infrastructure such as natural gas refuelling station and

pipeline.

NGV have been introduced in Europe, Canada, New Zealand, Australia,

Argentina and USA for a long time. Argentina, who is the frontrunner of NGV, has

1,243,024 of NGV and records an average of 3000 vehicles per month converted to

NGV. Moreover they have setup about 1,105 natural gas refuelling stations4.

Meanwhile, Italy has been using NGV since 1930’s and to date they have about

400,800 NGV on the road with 463 natural gas refuelling station5. Venezuela also

currently introduced National Program for NGV and constructed 140 natural gas

refuelling station all over the country.

4 Data on March 2004. 5 Data on July 2003.



Canada has more than 20,505 vehicles converted to NGV. Canadian

government also introduced many incentives such as the incentive for installing

conversion kit to encourage Canadians to use NGV. Meanwhile USA has about

130,000 natural gas vehicles where natural gas has been used as a fuel for transport

since 1960’s.

The development and the use of NGV in Asia are still lower compared to

European Union, South and North America. Asian countries like India, China, Japan,

Indonesia and Pakistan have recently started using natural gas as a fuel for

transportation. For example India already has 159,159 vehicles using natural gas

followed by China, where more than 69,300 vehicles use this fuel. While Pakistan

has about 540,000 vehicles, Japan has more than 18,463 vehicles and Indonesia

about 4,660 NGV.

In Malaysia, the consumption of natural gas has also been increasing rapidly in

the recent years; the major consumer is oil and gas industry. Small amount of natural

gas are also used in transportation sector, following the launch of government

campaign to promote its use. Meanwhile in Terengganu, Petronas had introduced a

pilot program to promote natural gas involving 21 converted vehicles and one natural

gas refuelling station in 1986. Table 5.2 show top countries with number of NGV

and refuelling station (IANGV, 2004).



Table 5.2. World natural gas vehicles by country

Country Vehicles Refuelling Station

Argentina 1,243,024 1,105

Brazil 600,000 600

Pakistan 540,000 574

Italy 400,800 463

India 159,159 166

USA 130,000 1,300

China 69,300 270

Egypt 52,000 79

Venezuela 50,000 140

Ukraine 45,000 130

5.2.4. Number of Vehicles in Malaysia

As a result of rapid income growth per capita in Malaysia, the number of

vehicles has increased tremendously. With the increase of oil price, (petrol and

diesel) and the decreasing oil reserve in this country, NGV seems to be a better

alternative for Malaysia. As the biggest national car manufacturer, Proton and

Perodua could play an important role to manufacture vehicles and conversion kit for

NGV in the future. The increasing number of vehicles in Malaysia from 1987 till

2002 is inspected in Table 5.3 (JPJ, 2004).



Table 5.3. Number of Vehicles in Malaysia (JPJ, 2002)

Type of Vehicle

Private Public Vehicle Year

Motorcycle Car Bus Taxi Hire& Drive Cargo Other Total

1987 1,929,978 1,356,678 19,439 24,868 3,741 233,103 106,677 3,674,484

1988 2,030,418 1,427,283 20,452 26,161 3,937 245,232 112,226 3,865,709

1989 2,182,468 1,534,166 21,984 28,120 4,232 263,597 120,629 4,155,196

1990 2,388,477 1,678,980 24,057 30,774 4,631 288,479 132,016 4,547,414

1991 2,595,749 1,824,679 26,147 33,444 5,033 313,514 143,472 4,942,038

1992 2,762,666 1,942,016 27,827 35,596 5,357 333,674 152,698 5,259,834

1993 2,970,769 2,088,300 29,924 38,278 5,762 358,808 164,199 5,656,040

1994 3,297,474 2,302,547 33,529 42,204 5,308 393,833 178,439 6,253,334

1995 3,608,475 2,553,574 36,000 46,807 8,195 440,723 203,660 6,897,434

1996 3,951,931 2,886,536 38,965 49,485 9,971 512,165 237,631 7,686,684

1997 4,328,997 3,271,304 43,444 51,293 10,826 574,622 269,983 8,550,469

1998 4,692,183 3,452,852 45,643 54,590 10,042 599,149 286,898 9,141,357

1999 5,082,473 3,787,047 47,674 55,626 10,020 642,976 304,135 9,929,951

2000 5,356,604 4,145,982 48,662 56,152 10,433 665,284 315,687 10,598,804

2001 5,609,351 4,557,992 49,771 56,579 9,986 689,668 329,198 11,302,545

2002 5,842,617 5,001,273 51,158 58,066 10,073 713,148 345,604 12,021,939

The current number of vehicles data have not been published yet by the

Department of Road and Transport (JPJ) and Department of Statistic. Table 5.3



shows that the total number of vehicles till 2002 in Malaysia are 12,021,939. The

percentage of vehicles by type are presented in Figure 5.1.

Motorcycle 48,60%Car 41,60%

Taxi 0,48%

Other 2,87%

Hire & Drive 0,08%

Cargo 5,93% Bus 0,43%

Figure 5.1. Percentage of Vehicles by Type.

Figure 5.1 shows that 41.60% of vehicles are car and 48.60% are motorcycle

that contributed to a larger number of vehicles in Malaysia. Bus and taxi only

represents 0.43 % and 0.48 % each respectively, while hire and drive, cargo, other

modes of transportation contributes about 8.88 % of Malaysia’s vehicles.

Figure 5.2 below shows the rate of increased number of vehicles in this country

starting from 1987 to 2002.



3674484

3865709

4155196

4547414

4942038

5259834

5656040

6253334

6897434

7686684

8550469

9141357

9929951

10598804

11302545

12021939

0

2000000

4000000

6000000

8000000

10000000

12000000

14000000

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Year

Num

ber o

f veh

icle

Figure 5.2. Increasing Number of Vehicles in Malaysia (1987 – 2002)

The increasing number of vehicles (bus and taxi) that is involved in the study is

shown in Figure 5.3.

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

Year

Num

ber o

f Pub

lic T

rans

port

BusTaxi

Figure 5.3. Number of Public Transport (Bus and Taxi) from the year 1987 to

2002.



5.2.5 Price of Oil and Natural Gas in Malaysia

The price of natural gas at pump station had been steady since 1992 at RM

0.565 per liter, while as 2002, petrol and diesel cost are RM 1.30 and RM 0.701 per

liter each respectively. Therefore, there is more advantage for consumers to use NGV

especially in long term. However due to the increase in world fuel price, the price of

fossil fuel increased again this year. The new price for a liter of petrol, diesel and

NGV is presented in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4.Price of Fuels in Malaysia.

Fuel Price6

Petrol RM 1.42

Diesel RM 0.831

Natural Gas RM 0.585

5.3. Methodology

Suitable methods had been adapted in order to obtain more information

regarding this topic. The reference used for data collection are books, journals,

internet, observations, questionnaires, interviews and visiting workshops that

installed the spare part for NGV. The secondary data are mostly collected from

government body such as Department of Statistic, Department of Road and

Transportation and other government agencies that are related to this study.

6 Prices on October 2004.



Site visits have also been done to identify the actual situation on the site and to

obtain some technical data. This is necessary to obtain more information and

suggestions regarding the usage of natural gas directly from the mechanic and user.

Respondents have been picked randomly to gather their suggestion. Generally, there

are two types of data collected namely primary data and secondary data that will be

discussed in detail in the following sub section.

5.3.1 Primary Data Collection

Two methods are used to get the primary data i.e. by interviews and

questionnaires. Interviews are conducted to collect qualitative data from users and

suppliers who are involved directly or indirectly with natural gas vehicles.

Questionnaires are used to collect the responds especially from those who are already

using natural gas vehicles regarding their opinion about natural gas and NGV. There

are also other methods used to collect the data, which is discussed below.

Literature Review

Literature review is an important step to start the study. In this stage, a lot of

information are collected especially from the internet, journals and reference books

about scenario of natural gas vehicles in others country that have already introduced

this policy. References from journals provide information about the current

development of natural gas around the world. All the information are necessary

especially to compare the current scenarios and achievements from the usage of

natural gas vehicles in Malaysia.



Interviews

Interviews are conducted on respondents that have experience with natural gas

vehicles to obtain their views and opinions about natural gas as an alternative fuel.

The actual information and other related data can only be collected from these

interviews. For example the problems related to natural gas vehicles either from the

user or from supplier of natural gas could only be easily collected from interview. It

is important to forecast all the data the estimate the situation and problems that will

be faced by the user and supplier as well as the policy in the future.

Site Visit

Throughout the whole process of data collection, site visits have played a

major role in order to get a clear view regarding the related problems of NGV

policies in this country. The information obtained from site visits are used as the

supporting data for other presented information.

Questionnaire

Questionnaires are substantial for collecting quantitative data from a large

number of respondents. It is compulsory to obtain their opinions and comments to

identify the problems faced by the NGV users, determine the prospect of potential

users in the future and to propose an appropriate policy for them.

As mentioned earlier, there are three types of respondents involved in this

process. They are:



Public Transports

i. Taxis (NGV user).

ii. Taxis (non NGV user).

iii. Taxi Companies.

iv. Bus Companies.

Public Transports

Companies and Owners of Pump Station

i. Natural gas refueling stations.

ii. Other pump stations.

For obtaining the necessary information from companies and owners of pump

stations, conducting interviews seems to be a better way because there are only a

small number of them. For taxi drivers, all their comments and suggestions are

collected from questionnaires. Therefore two sets of questionnaires and four sets of

interview questions that have been prepared for this study. Some explanation about

these questionnaires and interview questions are discussed below:

(i) Questionnaire for taxi drivers.

Questionnaire for taxi drivers have been divided into two sections. First section is for

natural gas vehicle users and the other section for non natural gas vehicle users. It is

necessary to have the opinion and comments from both sides because they will

become the pioneer NGV user in Malaysia.

(ii) Questionnaire for taxi and bus company managers.



Different from the questionnaire for taxi drivers, this part focuses on the problems

faced for using NGV. Hopefully the public transportation companies (taxi or bus

company) can give their opinion or input in order to find the solution for the

problems faced natural gas user or non-user.

(iii) Interview with the owners of pump station.

The interview form is also divided into two divisions; first part is the questions for

the companies or owners of pump station that sell natural gas. Another set of

question is set up for the owners of conventional pump station. The questions allow

us to collect a qualitative data on the problems faced at supply and demand as well as

the safety of NGV refueling station.

5.3.2 Secondary Data Collection

Unlike primary data collection, the secondary data collection is conducted to

collect some information about the current situation and condition related to natural

gas policy in the country. These data are necessary for this study because:

To recognize the current policies.

To identify the agencies that is related to this study.

To identify similar policies in other countries.

To identify the actual transport data in Malaysia.

To analyze the economic aspect from using NGV.

The methods to collect the secondary data and defining the entire process

above are discussed in the following sub section.



Identification of the Current Policy

In identifying all related policies regarding natural gas vehicles and natural gas

storage, information from individuals and related government bodies are useful as

references. Beside that, to ensure all the information obtained are correct, these

information are compared with the data collected from Department of Road and

Transport, Department of Statistics and other private agencies like Petronas NGV

etc.

Identification of the Related Agencies

Information from Petronas NGV and Gas Malaysia are obtained in order to

identify all related agencies and individuals involved in natural gas vehicle programs

and natural gas storage. Other related information is referred to individuals that are

considered expert in this field and other agencies that are willing to contribute to this

study.

Identification of Policies in Other Countries

In order to get some information about similar policies in other countries and

the problems faced by these countries from natural gas usage and natural gas vehicle

programs, references such as books, journals and magazines are referred. There are

also some secondary data collected from the homepage of agencies that have already

implemented similar programs on natural gas vehicles.



Identification of Quantity of Vehicles

To identify the number of vehicles in this country, relevant data are collected

from the Department of Road and Transport and from the annual report published by

Department of Statistics. These data are used to estimate the total number of

registered vehicles that may be converted to natural gas vehicle in the future. These

data are also used to predict the total number of vehicles in Malaysia in the future.

5.3.3 Conducting Economic Analysis

Economic analysis or Cost-Benefit Analysis is used to calculate the economic

impact from the usage of natural gas. There are number of factors that will influence

the economic analysis for this study. The factors are types of engine used (petrol or

diesel), size of vehicles (light, medium or heavy duty) and annual traveled distance.

To analyze the economic benefit from using natural gas as an alternative fuel in

Malaysia, the life cycle cost formulae have been adapted for this study. The

economic analysis for NGV will justify the possibility of using natural gas as an

alternative fuel in this country. The cost-benefit analysis conducted in this study is

only for taxis, private transports, buses and trucks.

The computation of potential savings from NGV is calculated by the following

equation.

S = D [Co Po – Cg Pg] + [Mo – Mg] (5.1)



Potential savings result from conversion of commercial vehicles to NGV will

be discussed in following section.

5.4. Results and discussions

This section will discuss the results on NGV based on references and the data

collected. This data will be used to predict natural gas and NGV usage in the future.

Then, the study analyses the economic aspect and the differences between

conventional fuel vehicles and NGV.

5.4.1 Prediction for Number of Public Transport in Malaysia

Forecast for the future can be predicted by referring to the increasing rate of

vehicles in the recent year. The total number of public transport that is expected to

use NGV until 2020 is presented in Table 5.5.

5.4.2 Public Transportation

As discussed earlier, public transportation involved in this study are only buses

and taxis. For taxis, the questionnaires are divided into two section; first section for

NGV users and the other is for non – NGV users. For buses, the managers or owners

of the bus companies are interviewed to obtain qualitative data because commercial

bus companies have never used natural gas as a fuel.



Public Transport (NGV user)

There are two types of NGV in this country, firstly mono – gas and second is

bi-fuel vehicle. Table 5.6 below summarizes the results obtained from questionnaire

for NGV users in Malaysia.



Table 5.5. Prediction of Total Public Transport (bus and taxi) from

year 2005 until 2020

Year Bus Taxi

2005 60,108 69,100

2006 62,472 71,586

2007 64,835 74,071

2008 67,198 76,557

2009 69,562 79,042

2010 71,925 81,528

2011 74,289 84,013

2012 76,652 86,499

2013 79,015 88,984

2014 81,379 91,470

2015 83,742 93,955

2016 86,106 96,441

2017 88,469 98,926

2018 90,832 101,412

2019 93,196 103,897

2020 95,559 106,383



Table 5.6.Feedback obtained based on the survey carried out

on NGV user (taxi driver).

Survey Choice & Answers Results (%)

Type of fuel Natural gas only

Bi fuel

47.12

52.88

Government policies for NGV Agree

Disagree

Not Sure

Others

63.28

29.42

6.86

0.44

Pricing control by government Need

No need

Not sure

97.12

1.33

1.55

Promotion by government Good

Poor

Not sure

5.75

86.28

7.97

Problem faced by NGV users Refueling station

Expensive kit

Time to refuelling

Not sure

84.30

10.61

4.65

0.44

Reduce air pollution Yes

No

Not sure

88.72

2.65

8.63

Safety aspect

Satisfied

Dissatisfied

Not sure

Other

46.68

23.01

29.42

0.89



Non NGV user

About 216 respondents (non NGV taxi driver) have been interviewed for this

study. Results from this questionnaire are summarized in Table 5.7.

Table 5.7. Feedback obtained based on the survey carried out

on non - NGV user (taxi driver).

Survey Choice & Answers Results (%)

Type of fuel Petrol

Diesel

78.24

21.75

Ready to used NGV in the future Yes

No

Not sure

Other

76.85

8.80

13.43

0.92

Pricing of natural gas Cheap

Expensive

Not sure

Other

85.19

4.17

9.26

1.38

Promotion by government Good

Poor

Not sure

12.96

79.17

7.41

Problem faced to used NGV Refueling station

Expensive kit

Time to refueling

Not sure

60.65

31.02

4.63

3.70

Reduce air pollution Yes

No

Not sure

83.80

2.31

13.89



Bus Companies

Unlike managers of taxi companies, managers of bus companies did not give

much cooperation for this study. This is maybe because they are not involved

directly as a natural gas user. Only three companies gave their cooperation in the

study. The companies are Transnasional Ekspress Sdn. Bhd. (Respondent 1), Airport

Coach Sdn. Bhd. (Respondent 2) and Triton Sdn. Bhd. (Respondent 3). All these

companies are agree with the policies introduced by government for public transport.

Results from the interview are summarized in Table 5.8



Table 5.8. Feedback obtained based on the survey carried out on

managers of bus companies.

Survey Results & Opinions

Natural Gas Consumption

Suitable to use natural gas as a fuel because it is environmental friendly. Need subsidy from government and are convinced that operation cost will decrease after converting to NG. Not ready to use natural gas because high capital and do not have enough infrastructures.

Government Policies

Policy necessary for bus companies are price subsidy for price of bus and natural gas. Government must control the price of natural gas so it becomes stable. Subsidies are necessary for conversion kit, exemption of tax when purchasing spare parts and importing NGV bus. Improve the entire infrastructure

Problems that will be faced by Natural Gas users

Spare part costs for NGV bus are more expensive. No conscientious study especially on maintenance and capital cost per kilometer. Not enough infrastructures like pipe line and refuelling station. Technical problems i.e. about the efficiency when bus is running natural gas. Price subsidies problems either for conversion kit or natural gas supply. No professional staff, less spare parts in the market and could not afford to construct private refuelling station.

Promotion Bus companies did not get any information about natural gas either from the government or private bodies. Promotion must be more aggressive i.e. by road shows, campaign and interaction program between government and bus companies.

Environment Natural gas vehicles can reduce environmental pollution and greenhouse effect.



5.4.3. Companies and Managers of Pump Station

Seven managers of Petronas natural gas refuelling station and six non natural

gas pump station managers have been interviewed in order to get the necessary

information. The important parts of the interview are discussed below.

Managers of Natural Gas Refuelling Station

Out of seven surveys, from which two are from Johor Bahru Petronas

refuelling stations, it is found that they have been providing natural gas service from

two to four years. This was accomplished from Petronas’s initiative to prepare this

fuel. On average these stations sell about 12,000 to 80,000 litres per month.

Sometimes the number totals to 270,000 litres per month. However in terms of

economical revenues, these are not a very stimulating amount. Although more taxi

drivers use natural gas, which translates to less taxi drivers who buy petrol, thus

dropping the sales, however less profit is coming from natural gas retail if compared

to the retail of conservative fuels. The NGV station owners also question ‘Mother-

Daughter’ system which is used in NGV retailing. Problems arise when natural gas

arrives sometimes too late due to the long distance of the mother station. Moreover,

sometimes the pumps pressures are too weak which is caused by the compressors.

They suggested direct gas system as a solution to these problems. According to them,

this system will save time, journey costs and the gas pressure will be sufficient all the

time.

At the same time there are also benefits gained from NGV retailing, such as

owners need not to worry about maintenance and infrastructures. All these are taken



care by Petronas. However, there are stations that claimed safety for daughter

stations are less strict than mother stations. This was based on past occurrence from

few stations that had experienced leakages on nozzles and problems with

compressors. It is hoped that the government and Petronas would give more exposure

and training to operators and gas station owners before opening new NGV stations.

The training should stress on safety because the lack of it will cause problems and

disrupt station operation. In addition to that, the devices in use are fairly sensitive

and can easily be out of order if handled without proper training. In order to wait for

experts from Petronas-NGV for repairs will consume a lot of time.

In general, the respondents (station owners of NGV) are satisfied with

government’s policy to help both the station and consumers. However they believe

that the government should reconsider the costly NGV vehicle conversion when

drafting the policy. The government should also promote more about the benefits of

NGV usage to the public. The national automobile industry should also take the

opportunity in joining the government to design a car that is NGV-ready.

Managers of Pump Station (Non – Natural Gas)

Six interviews had been conducted on owners of gas stations who did not have

NGV service in their premises. There was a lot of information obtained that supports

this study. All of the interviewed respondents said that they were interested in selling

this fuel. However, a few problems made them suspend their decisions. Among them

are lack of infrastructure and the delay waiting for Petronas’s instructions. This is

because the building of an NGV pump station is fully funded by the company. Some



of the respondents had already applied and are waiting for the construction process.

Another owner was waiting for the final word from Petronas Dagangan Berhad

(PDB) whether he could start NGV service.

Another problem that prevented them from not getting involved in the NGV

distributions is the lack of information from the government and Petronas concerning

the profits and losses in fuel preparation. Other problems that should be the concern

are the lack of NGV consumers in Malaysia. It seemed that almost all the NGV

consumers are exclusively. They hope for more efforts from the government to

introduce more consumer-friendly policies that will increase the fuel usage in

general. When number of consumers reaches the peak point, there will be no more

doubt for station owners to start serving the needs of NGV-modified cars.

Economically their profits will rise according to the increase of products they have to

offer. Meanwhile, respondents propose to Petronas to avoid disruptions in the supply

and instalments when delivering natural gas.

In a nutshell, it can be summarised that the station owners are highly interested

to be involved in distributing NGV, provided that the problems discussed above can

be overcomed by the government and Petronas in effort to increase infrastructure

readiness for NGV usage.

5.4.4. Economic Analysis

To conduct economic analysis the first thing that must be known is fuel

consumption costs, maintenance costs, engine type and fuel type (petrol or diesel).

Thus, it is important to identify the difference between fuel consumption and



maintenance requirement before and after converting to NGV. Tables 5.9, 5.10 and

5.11 show the information that have been gathered from various source based on the

annual fuel consumption and annual maintenance cost for commercial Proton taxis7.

However this information will be changing with respect to location and time.

Table 5.9. Estimated annual consumption between petrol and natural gas8

Fuel Type Petrol NG

Distance traveled per year 48,000 km 48,000 km

Car model Proton Iswara Proton Iswara

Engine capacity (liter) 1.5 1.5

Fuel consumption 0.071 liters/km 0.078 liters/km

Current fuel price per liter RM 1.420 RM 0.585

Table 5.10. Estimated annual consumption between diesel and natural gas

Fuel Type Diesel NG

Distance traveled per year 48,000 km 48,000 km

Car model Proton Wira Proton Wira

Engine capacity (liter) 2.0 2.0

Fuel consumption 0.078 liters/km 0.078 liters/km

Current fuel price per liter RM 0.831 RM 0.585

7 Majority taxis in Malaysia using Proton. 8 Qualitative data in table obtained from various sources like references, interviews and prediction.



Table 5.11. Estimated annual maintenance cost (RM) for different fuels

Components Petrol Bi - fuel Diesel Dual - fuel

Engine oil (15W to 45W) 152 114 152 114

Engine oil filter 56 42 56 42

Spark plug 72 90 - -

Air filter 60 60 60 60

Battery water 8 8 8 8

Labour charges 100 100 100 100

Estimated Total Cost 448 414 376 324

By using equation (5.1) the estimated annual saving per year based upon the data

presented in table 5.9, 5.10 and table 5.11 above is as follows:

For conversion of petrol to NGV (bi – fuel), the estimated annual saving is:

S = 48,000 x ([0.071 x 1.42] – [0.078 x 0.585]) + (448 – 414)

S = RM 2023

For conversion of diesel to NGV (dual – fuel), the estimated annual saving is:

S = 48,000 x ([0.078 x 0.831] – [0.078 x 0.585]) + (376 – 324)

S = RM 973



Economic analysis is required to estimate the direct saving achieved by using

natural gas as an alternative fuel. The result clearly indicated that there is a

significant annual savings and if this program is implemented at national scale for

both types of petrol or diesel engine. Comparison of total running cost for different

types of vehicles is presented in Table 5.12.

Table 5.12. Comparison of total operation cost for public transport

with different fuel consumption.

Components Petrol

(RM)

Bi – fuel

(RM)

Diesel

(RM)

Dual – fuel

(RM)

Fuel consumption cost per year 4,839 2,190 3,111 2,190

Maintenance cost per year 448 414 376 324

Total cost 5,287 2,604 3,617 2,514

From Table 5.12, the annual expenditure from using natural gas as fuel is

approximately 51% less compared to petrol and approximately 28 % less compared

to diesel. Further savings can be achieved if the usage of natural gas could prolong

the life span of the engine due to the clean combustion process in the engine.

5.5. Conclusions and Suggestions

5.5.1. Conclusions

There are two parts of this section. In the first part, summary of the research

will be discussed. This covers the conclusions gained from the study conducted.



Meanwhile, the second part consists of suggestions for future implementations.

These suggestions are presented according to results of the study to promote the

usage of NGV in this country. Some of the suggestions and conclusions are based on

following:

Survey of NGV usage was conducted in some parts of Peninsular Malaysia,

such as Johor Bahru, Penang, Kuala Lumpur and Selangor.

This survey involved selected taxi drivers, both NGV users and non-users, gas

station owners, and both taxi and public bus companies owners as respondents.

This study discusses the respondent’s views about NGV. Interviews with

managers of both taxi and public bus are also included.

Many conclusions can be drawn from this research, however only the most

important aspect will be taken into consideration and discussed in detail in this

section. The conclusions are:

A survey for taxi drivers, conducted on 452 respondents, shows that the usage of

NGV was very helpful, because of the fact that NGV is relatively cheap. It is

more economical than petrol or diesel and produces less environmental impact.

The government’s policy to introduce NGV in Malaysia has not been very

successful so far, which was to control the price of NGV to remain 50% cheaper

than petrol. Other policies include road tax exemptions. Such policies will

stimulate more users and periodically more gas stations to provide to NG.

The problems for the taxi drivers who use NGV are the lack of NGV refuelling

stations. The drivers have to queue up, sometimes over an hour in order to refill

in the certain places. The distance between two gas stations that provide NGV



pumps is also quite far, where 84% respondents who claimed that the lack of

NGV pumps in gas stations is their main problem of using NGV.

NGV users agree with government policy to control the fuel price, but they are

happy that the government will continue promoting the benefits and the safety

of NGV to a broader audience via premier mass media.

A survey on taxi drivers that did not use NGV was conducted on 216

respondents. Two main problems that caused them not to change to NGV are the

fact that the price of conversion kit (31%) which is required to modify their cars

is quite expensive and the lack of gas stations (61%) that provide NGV pumps is

another problem.

Air pollution has become a global problem today and Malaysia, as one of Asia’s

unwitting contributor to the environmental woe. However using NGV will

reduce and ultimately solve this dilemma. In addition, natural gas as fuel for the

transportation sector in the future will help the country’s economy by using our

very own fuel, since Malaysia ranks twelfth for natural gas reserves.

Calculations show that a huge savings can be gained by NGV users, which is

51.75% and 40.67% for switching from diesel and petrol by taxi drivers. This

fact should motivate consumers to use natural gas as fuel.

5.5.2 Suggestions

Only the important suggestions that have higher possibility than others will be

discussed in depth in this section. Those are:



To increase NGV usage in Malaysia, the advantages of using this fuel should be

further promoted in prime mass media. Campaigns and seminars are also

necessary to achieve this goal. Additional incentives provided by the

government to NGV users will also encourage more users and suppliers. For

example, tax cuts for both users and gas station owners and other benefits. This

should also be applied to oil companies who market natural gas as their main

product.

The cost for converting a car to NGV is approximately RM 2800. Although this

is considered reasonable, there are not many users converting to NGV because

the lack of NGV refuelling station around the country. Therefore the number of

NGV refuelling station must be increased to adapt with future demands. Failure

to do so will a slow down or even will contribute to no growth of NGV users.

Further R&D on NGV must be conducted by providing grants for researcher to

conduct studies in new areas, such as natural gas usage for motorcycles.

Both the government and the private sectors should increase their investments in

adding infrastructures, and also to conduct more awareness campaigns regarding

NGV benefits.

Public Transport

This part is an action plan for every category of public transports, such as taxi

drivers who use natural gas, non-users, taxi and bus companies.

The government expectantly will provide more facilities or a more effective

policy in order to attract more people to use natural gas as the main fuel in the



future. Infrastructure such as refuelling stations that provide NGV should be

built more especially in the urban and the surrounding areas. These parts are

known as the focus point of public transport operations.

The price to modify a conventional car to NGV should be reduced. This policy

will surely do well to the public and taxi drivers who have not converted their

cars yet. This can raise the total NGV users to a desired level.

Government through related bodies can organise workshops and trainings for

technicians and mechanics so they can understand how an NGV engine works

and how to repair it. This will also enable them to open workshops for fixing

NGV.

Another important aspect is to cut the price tag of conversion kit and to have

sufficient stocks of the kits. It can be done by attracting several national and

multinational companies to work together with local companies to produce this

kit. Argentina did it in the 90s; they invited 20 multinational companies to

produce and assemble these components according to the country’s

specifications.

Set up a target plan that predicts the number of cars to be converted and the

number of related infrastructures has to be added for the convenience of the

growing natural gas users.

For NGV cars, the obvious problem is the tank size. It takes up the boot space,

and also increases the weight of the car. This surely creates problems for certain

vehicles that have a weight limit such as buses, lorries or vans. These tanks can



be installed underneath the vehicle. This will also allow the tank’s capacity to be

increased.

Subsidy is needed by bus companies, some countries offer up to 50% subsidy for

companies who want to buy NGV buses and provide loan rates up to 50%.

Another option to promote natural gas usage is to raise the price margin between

conventional fuel and natural gas. This can be done in two ways: either to

withdraw the subsidy for diesel or to offer subsidy for the natural gas in such a

way that the difference will become apparent. This is caused by the fact that

natural gas and diesel are tagged at almost the same price, and for major

companies that have their own depot, diesel might be cheaper than natural gas.

Exemptions or reductions of any sort of taxes for buses might motivate bus

companies to buy NGV buses. This will also cause prices of NGV buses to drop

lower than conventional buses.

Pilot projects are necessary for promotion of natural gas.

Oil Companies and Gas Station Managers

As the supplier, oil companies are the final stop before natural gas becomes

available to the public. Thus, it is important to convince them regarding the profits

available from natural gas distribution. That is why an action plan for suppliers

should be included. These are elaborated below:

The most important issue that leads the list is the need for more NGV pumps in

every gas station. This issue is most prevalent especially in the urban areas

where NGV stations are inadequate and is situated far causing difficulty for



NGV users to refill conveniently. Long queues seen in the NGV pumps create

an impression that natural gas is an uncommon fuel and difficult to find. It is

hoped that Gas Malaysia Sdn. Bhd will develop a network of pipes that will

meet demands and Petronas as the nation’s oil company can provide NGV

services in each refuelling station throughout the nation.

By hook or by crook, the government has to force all the oil companies in

Malaysia to be involved in providing NGV in their gas stations, especially

which located close to the natural gas pipe line network.

It is vital to focus on the refuelling station system at first. Soft loan and

incentives from the government is really important as a starting point. NGV

stations are more expensive than the conventional ones in terms of construction,

operation and maintenance because it requires more advanced technology.

When it is developed for consumer use, the cost will be more expensive because

consumers require a technology that is quick and easy to use. Initiatives from

the natural gas suppliers are needed to manage the logistic networking of natural

gas. Financial assistants may be needed by Petronas to solve this problem due to

the huge investment cost involved.

NGV acceptance in the future is dependant on market transformation, which is

through tax results, interests from motor and car industries and supplier’s

involvement. Therefore, a taxation policy is necessary for conventional fuel so

that NGV price will be more competitive and will draw the interest of new

users.



Throughout this research, the lack of refilling infrastructure (NGV pumps) has

been recognised as the critical issue. If this is not solved soon, it will become the

major obstacle to attract more users in the future. This will also affect the long

term policy to encourage the use of natural gas as fuel in Malaysia. This classic

problem is often referred as ‘Chicken and Egg Syndrome’ and must be rectified

as soon as possible by installing more NGV pumps in gas stations by any

possible. Consumers will not use NGV if there are insufficient natural gas

stations. This suggestion has been considered alongside the fact that building

natural gas pumps stations is very expensive (1.5 million for daughter and 5

million for mother). Lack of these stations will retard the growth of NGV and

natural gas users. If the problem can be solved, it will bring the desired results

because of the benefits from using this fuel.

References

IANGV, (2004). International Association for Natural Gas Vehicles.

http://www.iangv.org/

Petronas NGV, (2004). Personal Communication with Operation and Services

Department of Pertonas NGV.

Department of Environment, (2002). Urban Air Quality Management: Motor Vehicle

Emission Control in Malaysia. Department of Environment, Kuala Lumpur,

Malaysia.



Energy Information Administration, (2004). International Energy Outlook. Office of

Integrated Analysis and Forecasting U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC

USA.



CHAPTER 6

STUDY ON VEHICLE EFFICIENCY

STANDARDS

SUMMARY

Malaysia has been experiencing a dramatic increase in the number of vehicles

used, and this is projected to be higher in the future due to increasing income per

capita. This study focuses on the potential implementation of fuel economy standards

for motor vehicles in Malaysia. The fuel economy standard is developed based on the

fuel consumption data that is obtained from manufacturers and other related sources.

With the increasing number of vehicles, fuel economy standards are one of the

highly effective policies for decreasing energy use in the transportation sector. Fuel

economy standards are also capable of reducing air pollution and contribute towards

a positive environmental impact. In this study, the potential efficiency improvements

of vehicles are analyzed by using the engineering-economic analysis. Meanwhile the

possible efficiency improvement of motor vehicle in reducing the fuel consumption

of Malaysia’s transportation sector in the future are examined by predicting the

energy, economical and environmental impacts due to its implementation.



6.1. Introduction

Air pollution is one of the environmental concerns in Malaysia. The major

contributor to air pollution in this country is road vehicles. As a result, the adoption

of fuel economy standards for vehicles is one of the options to reduce the emission.

The fuel economy standard could also play an important role in helping Malaysia to

meet overall greenhouse gas and emissions reduction target and at the same time

improve the competitiveness of the vehicle in the international arena.

Buying a fuel efficient vehicle enables thousands of ringgit to be saved on

fuel bills and reduces up to tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions over its life-time.

Choosing an efficient vehicle is a good start to fuel-efficient driving and riding.

However, the driving and riding habits and the type of vehicles driven will determine

the fuel consumption of the vehicle. In order to reduce fuel consumption of vehicles,

consumers should be educated to select the most fuel-efficient vehicle from the

market. This objective could only be achieved by setting a fuel economy standard.

6.1.1. Background

The tremendous growth of private vehicles is caused by an increase in

standards of living as well as lack of efficient public transportation system. As a

result, the Department of Environment (DOE) have undertaken several measures to

regulate and control emission from vehicles in Malaysia. These are:

The Environmental Quality (Clean Air) Regulations 1978

The Environmental Quality (Control of lead concentration in automobile

gasoline) Regulations 1985



The Environmental Quality (Control of emission from petrol engines)

Regulations 1996

The Environmental Quality (Control of emission from diesel engines)

Regulations 1996

The Environmental Quality (Control of Emission from Petrol Engines)

Regulations of 1996 Part II stated that petrol engine vehicles having a specified

capacity shall comply with the prescribed emission standards. In addition, emission

test for a petrol engine shall be conducted in accordance with the methods as

specified in the regulation and in an approved facility.

Due to the low awareness among policy makers in implementing fuel

economy standards and lack of enforcement for certification of standards, vehicle

manufacturers are ignoring fuel economy as one of the main criteria during

production. If high efficiency vehicles are not required, it probably does not pay to

invest in the development. However with an appropriate policy, the manufacturers

will have time to retool and invest in designing the vehicles that are more economic

and efficient. As a result, the manufacturers will develop more efficient vehicle,

which will benefit them as well as the consumers through the increase in demand and

competitiveness of the product in the international market. From the implementation

of both fuel economy standards and labels, Malaysia will be able to promote more

efficient vehicle and will begin an important market transformation for efficient

vehicle in this country. The fuel economy standards and labels could also contribute

towards monetary savings as well as reducing the environmental impact such as

greenhouse gasses.



6.2. Survey data

The data necessary for this study is the total number of vehicles in the

country year by year which is presented in Table 6.1(JPJ, 2004). Fuel consumption

data for vehicle is also necessary in order to calculate the fuel economy. These data

is presented in Table 6.2 (Australian Greenhouse Office, 2003) and 6.3 (Berjaya

Motor, 2004).

Table 6.1. Total number of vehicles in Malaysia

Type of transport

Personal transport Public transport Year

Motorcycle Car Bus Taxi Hire& DriveFreight Other Total

1987 1,929,978 1,356,678 19,439 24,868 3,741 233,103 106,677 3,674,484

1988 2,030,418 1,427,283 20,452 26,161 3,937 245,232 112,226 3,865,709

1989 2,182,468 1,534,166 21,984 28,120 4,232 263,597 120,629 4,155,196

1990 2,388,477 1,678,980 24,057 30,774 4,631 288,479 132,016 4,547,414

1991 2,595,749 1,824,679 26,147 33,444 5,033 313,514 143,472 4,942,038

1992 2,762,666 1,942,016 27,827 35,596 5,357 333,674 152,698 5,259,834

1993 2,970,769 2,088,300 29,924 38,278 5,762 358,808 164,199 5,656,040

1994 3,297,474 2,302,547 33,529 42,204 5,308 393,833 178,439 6,253,334

1995 3,608,475 2,553,574 36,000 46,807 8,195 440,723 203,660 6,897,434

1996 3,951,931 2,886,536 38,965 49,485 9,971 512,165 237,631 7,686,684

1997 4,328,997 3,271,304 43,444 51,293 10,826 574,622 269,983 8,550,469

1998 4,692,183 3,452,852 45,643 54,590 10,042 599,149 286,898 9,141,357

1999 5,082,473 3,787,047 47,674 55,626 10,020 642,976 304,135 9,929,951

2000 5,356,604 4,145,982 48,662 56,152 10,433 665,284 315,687 10,598,804

2001 5,609,351 4,557,992 49,771 56,579 9,986 689,668 329,198 11,302,545

2002 5,842,617 5,001,273 51,158 58,066 10,073 713,148 345,604 12,021,939



Table.6.2. Fuel consumption data (CAR)

Engine Displacement (liter) City (liter/100km) (average)

Highway (liter/100km) (average)

1 7.1 5.8 1.3 7.4 5.8 1.4 7.6 5.4 1.5 7.7 5.6 1.6 8.3 5.9 1.7 7.9 6.4 1.8 8.9 6.1 1.9 9.3 6.2

2.0(medium) 9.8 6.7 2.0(large) 10.7 7.8

2.2(medium) 9.6 6.5 2.2(large) 10.4 6.6

2.3(medium) 10.8 6.8 2.3(large) 10.3 7.6

2.4(medium) 10.7 6.6 2.4(large) 10.1 6.3

2.5(medium) 10.1 7.8 2.5(large) 11.1 7.0

2.6 10.5 6.8 2.7 11.4 7.2 2.8 10.8 6.6 3.0 11.1 7.1 3.2 11.7 7.6 3.3 13.3 8.3 3.8 11.6 7.1 4.0 12.3 7.6 4.2 14.5 8.3 4.3 11.7 7.8 4.4 12.5 7.9 5.0 14.0 8.6 5.6 15.6 9.3 5.7 13.3 8.1 6.75 19.6 12.0



Table 6.3 List of motorcycle model and price

Manufacturer Model Price

Honda DREAM C1003-MA 4247.65

DREAM C100M3-MA 4550.52

WAVE NF1004-MA 4194.03

WAVE NF100M4-MA 4530.53

Suzuki FD110KS 4927.09

FD110MS 5267.43

RU110 5921.31

RU110U 6165.09

RGV120 6417.24

FXR150 8412.95

AG100 5718.93

AN125 7629.40

UE125TAM VR125 6677.28

Yamaha RXZ CATALYZER 7528.33

NOUVO AT115 6017.63

LAGENDA 110(K) 5044.63

LAGENDA 110(E) 5452.50

Y110 SS2 6228.76

Y125 6830.89

Y125 ZR 7161.82

YAMAHA EGO 115cc 4872.00

SR-V 4403.00



6.3. Methodology

In order to evaluate the performance and improvement for the vehicles fuel

economy standard in the study, there are several methods that have been considered

and the most important approach is to include the fuel consumption effect,

engineering economy analysis and motorcycle emission (GHG). These methods have

been also used by many countries around the world.

6.3.1. Fuel consumption

Basic Calculation

As there is a rapid vehicle penetration in most Asian countries, the situation

in Malaysia is no exception. Rapid industrialization, high economic and population

growth has accelerated the use of vehicle tremendously. This can be shown through

the increase in the number of road vehicle ownership. In our study, to calculate the

average of each and every data that is collected, the arithmetic mean method is used.

If each of the data is assigned as yi and the quantity of the data is n, therefore,

arithmetic mean is as follow:

∑=

=n

iim y

ny

1

1 (6.1)

The driving habits, the type of vehicle and the conditions which it is driven

under determines the vehicle’s fuel consumption and fuel cost. The annual fuel cost

can be estimated using the following equation:



AFC (RM) = [ ]100

DFR ×× (6.2)

Vehicle Growth

The polynomial method can be used to predict the total number and the

growth of vehicles in the future. The method is attempted to describe the relationship

between variable x as the function of available data and response y. It seeks to find a

smooth curve that the best fits the data, but does not necessarily pass through all data

points. Mathematically, a polynomial of order k in x is an expression in the following

form:

kk xcxcxccy ++++= ...2

210 (6.3)

Fuel consumption units

There are 2 types of units that represent the fuel consumption or the fuel

economy standards. Miles per gallon is the unit that is in use in the United States of

America. Most of the European countries use liter per 100 kilometer as the unit for

fuel consumption and FES indication. In order to convert from one unit to the other,

it is calculated with the following equation:

( ) ( )gallonmilesa

kmLa /614.15192.4100/

100⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛= (6.4)

6.3.2 Engineering Economy Analysis

In order to conduct the engineering economic analysis, the data on types and

specification of vehicles are collected. Besides that, the fuel consumption data from

other countries are also collected for reference. In this study, the



engineering/economic approach is adopted for proposing the standards. Engineering

economy analysis is a method used for estimating the potential vehicle fuel economy

improvement by enumerating specific technologies as well as estimating its

cumulative impact on fuel economy and its cost. Substituting more efficient but more

expensive technology or technological innovation is not the only way to improve fuel

economy. Higher miles per gallon (mpg) could also be achieved by reducing vehicles

size and performance as well as by cutting back on accessories and luxury features.

However these strategies sometimes require trading off attributes that consumer’s

value. Attributes such as acceleration, can be translated into dollar values only with a

great uncertainty. Thus, if many attributes are significantly changed to increase mpg,

the proof of minimal adverse consequences is lost. For this reason, most studies

estimate the costs of increased fuel economy while attempting to hold all other

vehicle attributes at least approximately constant. The following seven steps are the

basis for conducting an engineering economic analysis:

1. Select vehicle classes

2. Select baseline values

3. Select design options for each classes

4. Calculate fuel consumption improvement for each design option

5. Combine design options and calculate the fuel consumption improvement

6. Develop cost estimates for each design option

7. Generate cost-fuel consumption curve

Once these steps are completed, it is possible to analyze the economic impact

of the potential fuel consumption improvement on the consumers by carrying out a



life cycle cost and payback period analysis. As the standard is in place, the fuel

consumption levels are able to develop because the standard is a minimum value

target. The baseline level for the fuel consumption is selected based on the average

fuel consumption in each class of the vehicle.

Selection of vehicle classes.

All vehicles are classified according to their classes. For this purpose, the

vehicle classification is obtained from the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries

VFACTS Report. The classes are differentiated according to the engine displacement

and are adopted in the analysis. The broad classes are light, small, medium, large,

people movers, sports, prestige and luxury vehicles. Only 4 main classes will be

considered in this study.

These are:

(i) Light (Class I)

3 or 4 cylinder passenger cars, hatch or sedan, up to 1.5 liters.

(ii) Small (Class II)

4 cylinder passenger cars, hatch, sedan or wagon, 1.6-1.9 liters.

(iii) Medium (Class III)

4 cylinder passenger cars, hatch, sedan or wagon, over 1.9 liters.

(iv) Large (Class IV)

6 or 8 cylinder passenger cars, hatch, sedan or wagon.



For motorcycle, the classes are:

(i) 2-stroke

The engine displacement ranging from 80 cc to 150 cc.

Examples: Suzuki RGV 120, Yamaha RX-Z 135, Yamaha 125z.

(ii) 4-stroke

The engine displacement ranging from 80 cc to 150 cc.

Examples: Honda EX-5, Suzuki FX-R 150, Yamaha E-Go 115.

For lorry the classes are:

(i) Class 2 and 3: Light duty lorries.

(ii) Class 4 – 6: Medium duty lorries.

(iii) Class 7 and 8: Heavy duty lorries.

Selection of baseline unit.

The baseline unit is selected to provide basic design features during the

analysis. For products without any additional design option for improvement, the

baseline models are the one that has fuel consumption value equal to the minimum or

the average of the existing models. Selecting the least efficient model as the baseline

model is recommended since this permits analysis of trial at all possible levels of

efficiency starting from the least efficient models. Therefore, the least efficient

model from the market of each class is selected as the baseline model for

engineering/economic analysis.



Selection of design option for each class.

Design options are changes to the design of a baseline model that improve its

fuel consumption value. The potential design options are selected based on the

substitution of more efficient component to the baseline product. The data for the

potential design improvement is collected from the database developed in other

countries.

Fuel consumption improvement for each design option

Fuel consumption improvement of each design option is determined by

calculating potential improvement from component substitutions to the baseline

models. For the entire vehicle, the fuel consumption improvement is calculated based

on the potential design options (component substitution) for improving the fuel

economy standard (FES).

Fuel consumption improvement of combination design options.

Fuel consumption calculations are performed for the various components

substitution for the baseline product in accordance to the input from manufacturers of

the baseline models. For combination design options, fuel economy standard (FES) is

determined through cumulative improvement of each design option.

Cost estimates for each design option

The cost estimates for each design option is the cost of producing the vehicle

with the improved design options. The expected cost of manufacturing each design



option is obtained from vehicle manufacturers. However, when manufacturing costs

are unavailable, the expected costs is estimated based on retail price, or from the

design options that already exists in the market place. If the data is still unavailable

from these sources, the necessary data will be collected from published reference

materials.

Cost efficiency curves

The cost efficiency curve is determined by calculating life cycle cost (LCC)

for the vehicle due to the fuel consumption or fuel economy standard improvement

based on each design option, and combination design options. The LCC is the sum of

investment cost and the annual operating cost discounted over the lifetime of the

appliance. LCC is calculated by the following equation:

( )∑ −+=

N

tt

rOCPCLCC

1 1 (6.5)

If operating expenses are constant over time, the LCC is simplified to the

following equation:

LCC = PC + (PWF)(OC) (6.6)

To calculate the life cycle cost, the annual operating cost for the baseline unit

should be identified. The annual operating cost (OC) of vehicle is the sum of annual

fuel cost (A) and annual maintenance cost (C). It can be calculated as follows:

OC = A + C (6.7)

The annual fuel cost of a vehicle is given in Eq. (6.2), meanwhile the annual

maintenance cost is the total cost of the components being replaced and the labor



cost when the vehicle is being serviced. The components are lubricant, oil filter,

spark plug and gasket.

Meanwhile, to determine the present worth factor, it is calculated by the

following equation:

( ) ( ) ⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡

+−=

+= ∑ N

N

t rrrPWF

1111

11

1 (6.8)

The payback period (PAY) measures the amount of time needed to recover

the additional investment (increment cost) as a result of increased fuel consumption

through lower operating cost. PAY is calculated by solving the following equation:

01

=∆+∆ ∑PAY

tOCPC (6.9)

In general, PAY is found by interpolating the results between two years when

the above expression changes sign. If OC is constant, the equation has the solution as

given below:

OCPCPAY

∆∆

−= (6.10)

The PAY is the ratio of incremental cost (from the baseline to the more

efficient vehicle) to the decrease in annual operating expenses. If PAY is greater than

the lifetime of the vehicle, it means that the increment in purchase price is not

recovered by the reduced operating expenses.



6.3.3 Potential fuel savings

Baseline fuel consumption

The baseline fuel consumption is usually based on the test data. To obtain the

baseline fuel consumption in the future, predictions are made using the annual fuel

efficiency improvement. The baseline fuel consumption in a particular year can be

calculated by the following equation:

( )( )YscYpdvi

vYsc

vs AEIBFCBFC −

+×= 1 (6.11)

Initial unit fuel savings

The initial unit fuel savings is the difference between the annual unit fuel

consumption of a unit meeting the standard and the unit fuel consumption of the

average unit that would have been shipped in the absence of standard. Initial unit fuel

savings can be calculated by the following equation:

vs

vs

vs SFCBFCUFS −= (6.12)

Shipment

Shipment data comprise the number of registered vehicle in predicting year

minus the number of registered vehicle in the previous year. The shipment for

vehicle can be expressed by the following equation:

vi

vi

vi NaNaSh 1−−= (6.13)



Total efficiency improvement

Total efficiency improvement is a percentage ratio of initial unit fuel savings

and baseline fuel consumption of vehicle while the standards are enacted. Thus, total

efficiency improvement can be calculated using the following equation:

%100×= vs

vsv

s BFCUFS

TEI (6.14)

Scaling Factor

The scaling factor would linearly scale down the unit fuel savings of vehicle

and the incremental cost to zero over the effective lifetime of the fuel economy

standards. The scaling factor can be expressed by the following equation:

( ) vs

vsv

ivi

vi TEI

AEIYseYshSF ×−−= 1 (6.15)

Unit fuel savings

The unit fuel savings were adjusted downward in the years after the standards

are implemented using the efficiency trend scaling factor. This factor accounts for

the natural progress in efficiency that is expected in the baseline case. The unit fuel

savings for vehicle can be calculated by the following equation:

vs

vi

vi UFSSFUFS ×= (6.16)



Shipment survival factor

The shipment survival factor is a function of the annual retirement rate and

the retirement function. The shipment survival factor for motorcycles can be

calculated using the following equation:

( )( ) ⎥

⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡×−−−

−= v

vvi

vTv

i LLYshYtc

SSF3/23/4

3/21 (6.17)

Applicable stock

The applicable stock is the shipments in a particular year plus the number of

vehicles affected by standards in previous year multiplied by shipment survival

factor. The applicable stock can be calculated using the following equation:

( ) vi

vi

vi

vi ASSSFShAS 1−+×= (6.18)

Fuel savings

To determine the unit fuel savings in a particular year, the fuel savings for

vehicle associated with the standard is multiplied by the scaling factor and the

number of vehicles purchased in that year. The fuel savings can be calculated by the

following equation:

∑=

××=T

si

vi

vi

vi

vi SFUESASFS (6.19)

Economic impact of the standards

The economic impact consists of potential bill savings, net savings and

cumulative present value. The economic impact is actually a function of fuel savings



and the investment for more efficient vehicle due to the fuel economy standards. The

description of each variable is explained in the following section.

Initial incremental cost

Initial incremental cost per unit of motor vehicle is a function of unit fuel

savings and incremental cost which can be calculated using the following equation:

vvs

vs ICUESIIC ×= (6.20)

Capital recovery factor.

Capital recovery factor is the correlation between the real discount rate and

the lifespan of the motor vehicle. This correlation can be expressed by the following

mathematical equation :

( )( )rLddCRF

−+−=

11 (6.21)

Bill savings

The bill savings is the fuel savings multiplied by the average fuel price and

can be expressed as follows:

ni

vi

vi PFFSBS ×= (6.22)

Net savings

There are two ways to estimate economic impact; annualized costs and cash

flow. In the first method, the incremental cost is spread over the lifetime of the



vehicle so that the pattern of expenditures matches the flow of bill savings. This

method smoothes the net saving over time. The annualized net RM savings in a

particular year, which is the main economic indicator used in this analysis, is

calculated using the following equation:

vvi

T

si

vi

ni

vi

vi IICSFCRFASPFFSANS ×××−×= ∑

=

(6.23)

The second method considers the cash flow over the lifetime of the

investment assuming that the vehicle is paid for in full when it is purchased.

Purchasers incur the incremental cost when the appliance is purchased, but benefits

of higher energy efficiency are spread over the lifetime of the vehicle. To calculate

the net savings in a certain year in terms of actual cash flows, the following equation

is used:

vvi

vi

ni

vi

vi IICSFShPFESNS ××−×= (6.24)

Cumulative present value

The cumulative present value can be calculated using the percentage of real

discount rate. The cumulative present value of annualized net savings can be

expressed in the mathematical form as follows:

( )( )( )∑

=−+

=T

siYdri

viv

i dANS

ANSPV1

(6.25)



6.4. Results and discussions

6.4.1 Introduction

This chapter contains results on fuel economy standards for motor vehicles

and their impact at national level. The engineering/economic approach is applied to

examine potential fuel economy improvement of the least efficient model of motor

vehicles in Malaysia. Fuel consumption calculation is modified based on the theory

that is in use in several countries. Predicted economic and energy impact due to the

implementation of fuel economy standards is also discussed. Finally, the potential

recommendations related to fuel economy standards are presented.

6.4.2 Fuel Consumption

In order to calculate the annual fuel cost, the petrol cost is considered at

RM1.42 per liter. For a vehicle achieving 8 liter/100 km and traveling 15000 km per

year, the annual fuel cost is estimated to be:

km 15000RM1.42km 100

liter 8××=FC

RM1704=

Based on this simple calculation, the lifetime vehicle traveling cost can be estimated

consequently and the effect of even small differences in fuel consumption can be

predicted.

For example, if a vehicle achieving 8 liter/100 km is compared with the one

achieving 10 liter/100 km, the annual fuel cost will be RM1704 and RM2130 each



respectively. Over the lifetime of the vehicle which is 10 years, the estimated cost of

fuel is presented in Table 6.4.

Table 6.4 Fuel cost over the vehicle’s 10 years lifetime

Fuel consumption Fuel cost

2 liter / 100 km RM 4260

3 liter / 100 km RM 6390

4 liter / 100km RM 8520

5 liter / 100 km RM10650

6 liter / 100 km RM 12780

8 liter / 100 km RM 17040

10 liter / 100km RM 21300

12 liter / 100 km RM25560

6.4.3 Vehicle growth

The total vehicles are predicted based on the data collected from Jabatan

Pengangkutan Jalan (JPJ) Malaysia and using Eq. (3.3). The results are presented in

Appendix A. Meanwhile, the potential vehicle growth in Malaysia in the future is

predicted using the following equation:

• Car

9986.0R , 06E14943512826 22 =+++= xxy (6.26)

• Motorcycle



9951.0R , 06E21631926.7761 22 =+++= xxy (6.27)

• Lorry

9824.0R , 2124002452613.747 22 =++= xxy (6.28)

• Bus

9855.0R , 177234.22964618.4 22 =++= xxy (6.29)

6.4.4 Engineering/economic analysis

Engineering/economic analysis is conducted to evaluate the fuel economy

standards for vehicles in Malaysia. The first step for this analysis is the selection of

vehicles classes. The baseline unit selected for analysis is the average or the least

efficient models obtained from the market through data collection. The design

options for baseline units in each class are selected and the potential fuel economy

improvement is determined through this analysis. In order to analyze the life cycle

cost and payback period the incremental cost for each design option is identified.

Each step of the procedure is discussed in the following section.

Selection of vehicle classes

The first step in the engineering/economic analysis is the grouping of vehicles

types into separate classes. The classes are selected according to the engine

displacement whereby different fuel economy standards are applicable. The classes

are shown in Table 6.5, 6.6 and 6.7.



Table 6.5 Types/Classes of cars.

Class Type Engine

Displacement

Light (Class I) 3 or 4 cylinder passenger cars, hatch

or sedan.

above 1.5 liters

Small (Class II) 4 cylinder passenger cars, hatch, sedan

or wagon.

1.5-1.9 liters

Medium (Class III) 4 cylinder passenger cars, hatch, sedan

or wagon.

over 1.9 liters

Large (Class IV) 6 or 8 cylinder cars, hatch, sedan or

wagon.

over 1.9 liters

Table 6.6 Types/Classes of motorcycles

Types of motorcycles Model

2 Stroke

- engine displacement from 80cc to

150cc

Yamaha RX-Z 135, Yamaha110SS2,

Yamaha 125Z, Suzuki RGV120,

Suzuki RU110

4 Stroke

- engine displacement from 80cc to

150cc

Suzuki FXR150, Suzuki FD110MS,

Yamaha Lagenda 110, Honda Dream

C100, Honda Wave NF100



Table 6.7 Types/Classes of lorry

Class Type GVW

2 and 3 Minivan, Utility van, Step van, Conventional

van, Full-size pickup, Walk-in truck, City

delivery truck

6001Ib to 14000Ib

4 - 6 Conventional van, City delivery truck, Large

walk-in truck, Bucket, Beverage truck, Single-

axle truck, Rack truck, School bus

14001Ib to 26000Ib

7 - 8 Refuse truck, Furniture truck, Medium

conventional truck, Dump truck, Cement

truck, Heavy conventional truck, COE sleeper

truck, City transit bus

26001Ib and above

Selection of baseline unit

The design options are changes made to the design of the baseline model that

will improve fuel economy of the vehicle. Selection of design options are made

based on substitution of the present components used by vehicle to a more efficient

one. Some of the options are already adopted by existing vehicle and others are being

developed in Malaysia or in other countries such as Japan, United States, Europe and

other car manufacturers. The potential improvement for design options from each

class are determined based on input and suggestion from manufacturers and

references for the least efficient model. The lists of potential design options proposed

in this study for the least efficient model are tabulated in table 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 6.11 and

6.12.



Table 6.8 Potential increase in fuel economy and related price increase for cars

No. Technology Potential fuel efficiency

improvement (%)

Potential average retail price

increase (RM) A Engine technologies production-

intent engine technologies

A.1 Engine friction and other

mechanical/hydrodynamic loss

reduction

1- 5 133-532

A.2 Application of advanced low

friction lubricants

1 30-42

A.3 Multi-valve, overhead camshaft

valve trains

2-5 399-532

A.4 Variable valve timing 2-3 133-532

A.5 Variable valve lift and timing 1-2 266-798

A.6 Cylinder deactivation 5-7 426-958

A.7 Engine accessory improvement 5-10 319-426

A.8 Engine downsizing and

supercharging

2-6 1330-2128

B Transmission technologies production-intent transmission technologies

B.1 Continuous variable transmission

(CVT)

4-8 532-1330

B.2 Five speed automatic

transmission

2-3 266-585

C Vehicle technologies production-intent vehicle technologies

C.1 Aerodynamic drag reduction on

vehicle designs

1-2 0-532

C.2 Improved rolling resistance 1-1 21 53-213

C.3 Vehicle weight reduction (5%) 3-4 798-1330



Table 6.9 Potential increase in fuel economy and cost for motorcycles

No Technology Potential fuel efficiency

improvement (%)

Potential average retail price increase

(RM) A Fuel Injection

Direct – injection (2

stroke)

Port – injection (4 stroke)

30 – 35

12 - 15

1005

1005

B Petrol saver 5 - 10 201

C Motorcycle weight reduction (5%) 4 350

D Aerodynamic drag reduction on

motorcycle’s design

1 250

E Application of advanced low

friction lubricant

1 20



Table 6.10 Potential increase in fuel economy and related price increase for Medium

Duty Lorry (class 2 & 3)

No Technology Potential fuel efficiency

improvement (%)

Potential average retail price increase

(RM) A A1 B B1 C C1 D D1 D2 E E1 E2 F F1

AERODYNAMICS Lower coefficient of drag through hood and cab configuration, bumper and underside baffles ROLLING RESISTANCE Low rolling resistance tires TRANSMISSION Advance transmission with lock-up, electronic controls and reduced friction. DIESEL ENGINE Turbocharged, direct injection engine with better thermal management Integrated starter/alternator with idle off and limited regenerative braking GASOLINE ENGINE Electronic fuel injection, DOHC and multiple valves Integrated starter/alternator with idle off and limited regenerative braking VEHICLE MASS Mass reduction through high strength, lightweight material

2.5

2.5

2.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

2280

684

2750

2660

4560

2660

3800

4600



Table 6.11 Potential increase in fuel economy and related price increase for Medium

Duty Lorry (class 4-6)

No Technology Potential fuel

efficiency

improvement

(%)

Potential

average retail

price increase

(RM)

A A1 A2 A3 B B1 C C1 D D1 D2 E E1 E2

AERODYNAMICS Cab top deflector, sloping hood, cab side flares Closing/covering of gap between tractor and trailer, aerodynamic bumper, underside air baffles, wheel well covers Van leading and trailing edge curvatures ROLLING RESISTANCE Low rolling resistance tires TRANSMISSION Advance transmission with lock-up, electronic controls and reduced friction. DIESEL ENGINE Turbocharged, direct injection engine with better thermal management Integrated starter/alternator with idle off and limited regenerative braking GASOLINE ENGINE Electronic fuel injection, DOHC and multiple valves Integrated starter/alternator with idle off and limited regenerative braking

2.5

4.0

1.0

2.5

2.0

8.0

5.0

5.0

8.0

2850

3040

1520

1064

3420

3800

4560

3800

4560



Table 6.12 Potential increase in fuel economy and related price increase for Heavy

Duty Lorry (class 7 & 8)

No Technology Potential fuel

efficiency

improvement (%)

Potential average

retail price

increase (RM)

A A1 A2 A3 B B1 C C1 D D1 E E1 E2 F F1

AERODYNAMICS Cab top deflector, sloping hood, cab side flares Closing/covering of gap between tractor and trailer, aerodynamic bumper, underside air baffles, wheel well covers Trailer leading and trailing edge curvatures ROLLING RESISTANCE Low rolling resistance tires TRANSMISSION Advance transmission with lock-up, electronic controls and reduced friction. AUXILIARIES Electrical auxiliaries (air compressor, hydraulic pump, radiator fan) DIESEL ENGINE Internal friction reduction through better lubricants and improved bearings Increased peak cylinder pressure VEHICLE MASS (TARE) Mass reduction through high-strength, lightweight material

2.0

2.5

1.3

3.0

2.0

1.5

2.0

4.0

10.0

2850

5700

1900

2090

7600

1900

1900

3800

7600



Fuel consumption improvement for each design option

Fuel consumption improvement is calculated based on the selection of design

options for each class. This analysis takes into account the potential fuel

consumption improvement for each design options independently. The incremental

cost estimates for using these options were obtained from manufacturers and other

references. The incremental costs are the investment cost to produce vehicle with the

new design option. The results of design options improvement for baseline design

(no design change) for class I, II, III and IV motor vehicles are presented in Table

6.13, 6.14, 6.15 and 6.16. For the 2 stroke and 4 stroke motorcycles, the results are

presented in Table 6.25, 6.26 and 6.27. Table 6.31, 6.32, 6.33 and 6.34 shows the

results of the design option improvements for lorries and busses.

Fuel consumption improvement for combination design options

The fuel consumption improvement for combined design options are started

from the baseline design. The design changes are then accumulated together with

fuel economy standard improvements. The incremental cost for design options are

calculated cumulatively and based on priority of the highest fuel economy standard

improvement and the lowest incremental cost. The calculation results of are tabulated

in Table 6.17 - Table 6.25. For the 2 stroke and 4 stroke motorcycles, the results are

presented in Table 6.28, 6.29 and 6.30. Meanwhile, Table 6.35, 6.36 and 6.38 shows

the results for the improvement of combination design option for lorries and busses.



Baseline - 6.9 (city) & 5.4 (highway)

Least efficient - 7.6 (city) & 5.8 (highway)

Table 6.13 FES and incremental cost of design options for class I car

Design

Options

Technological

Improvements

FES

City Highway

FES

-( % )

Cost

( RM )

%Price

( % )

0 Least efficient design 7.60 5.80 0 0 0

A.2 Application of

advanced low friction

lubricant

7.52 5.74 1 42 0.10

A.3 Multi-valve, overhead

camshaft valve trains

7.22 5.51 5 532 1.24

B.2 Five speed automatic

transmission

7.37 5.63 3 585 1.36

C.2 Improved rolling

resistance

7.49 5.71 1.5 213 0.50





Table 6.14 FES and incremental cost of design options for class II

Design

Options

Technological

Improvements

FES

City Highway

FES

-( % )

Cost

( RM )

% Price

( % )



losses reduction

9.21 6.34 1 133 0.19

A.2 Application of advanced

low friction lubricant

9.21 6.34 1 42 0.06

A.4 Variable valve timing 9.02 6.21 3 532 0.76

A.7 Engine accessory

improvement

8.84 6.08 5 319 0.46


resistance

9.16 6.30 1 53 0.08



Table 6.15 FES and incremental cost of design options for class III

Design

Options

Technological

Improvements

FES

City

Highway

FES

-( % )

Cost

( RM )

% Price

( % )


A.2 Applications of advanced,

low friction lubricants

11.0 7.72 1 42 0.04


improvement

10.55 7.41 5 319 0.34

B.1 Continuously variable

transmission (CVT)

10.66 7.49 4 532 0.56


resistance

11.0 7.72 1 53 0.06





Table 6.16 FES and incremental cost of design options for class IV

Design

Options

Technological

Improvements

FES

City Highway

FES

-( % )

Cost

( RM )

Price

( % )



mechanical/

hydrodynamic losses

12.64 7.89 5 532 0.48

A.2 Application of advanced


13.17 8.22 1 42 0.04

A.4 Variable valve timing 12.90 8.05 3 532 0.48


improvement

12.64 7.89 5 319 0.29


resistance

13.17 8.22 1 53 0.05

Table 6.17 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for class I (CITY)

No Design options FES

Imp.

Cum. FES

imp (%)

Price

(RM)

Cum.

Price imp.(%)

0 Least efficient design 7.60 0 43000 0.00

1

0+Application of advanced low

friction lubricant

7.52

1.0

43042

0.10

2

1+Multi-valve,overhead camshaft

valve trains

7.15

5.9

43532

1.33

3 2+Improved rolling resistance 7.04 7.4 43213 1.83

4 3+Five speed automatic transmission 6.83 10.1 43585 3.19



Table 6.18 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for class I

(HIGHWAY)


Imp.

Cum. FES

imp (%)

Price

(RM)

Cum. Price

imp.(%)


1


friction lubricant

5.74

1.0

43042

0.10

2

1+Multi-valve, overhead camshaft

valve trains

5.45

5.9

43532

1.33


4 3+Five speed automatic transmission 5.21 10.1 43585 3.19

Table 6.19 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for class II (CITY)

No Design options FES Imp. Cum. FES

imp (%)

Price (RM) Cum. Price

imp.(%)

0 Least efficient design 9.30 0.0 70000 0.00

1

0+Applications of advanced , low

friction lubricants

9.21

1.0

70042

0.06


3 2+Engine accessory improvement 8.66 6.9 70414 0.59

4

3+Engine friction and other loss

reduction

8.57

7.8

70547

0.78

5 4+Variable valve timing 8.32 10.6 71079 1.54



Table 6.20 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for class II

(HIGHWAY)


imp (%)

Price

(RM)

Cum.

Price

imp.(%)


1


friction lubricant

6.24

1.0

70042

0.06


3

2+Engine accessory improvement 5.87

6.9

70414

0.59

4

3+Engine friction and other losses

reduction

5.81

7.8

70547

0.78


Table 6.21 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for class III (CITY)


imp (%)

Price

(RM)

Cum.

Price

imp.(%)


1


friction lubricant

10.99

1.0

95042

0.04



4 3+Continuous variable transmission

(CVT)

9.92 10.6 95946 1.00



Table 6.22 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for class III

(HIGHWAY)

No Design options FES Imp. Cum.

FES imp

(%)

Price

(RM)

Cum.

Price

imp.(%)


1

0+Application of advanced low friction

lubricant

7.72

1.0

95042

0.04



4 3+Continuous variable transmission

(CVT)

6.97 10.6 95946 1.00

Table 6.23 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for class IV

(CITY)


Imp.

Cum. FES

imp (%)

Price

(RM)

Cum. Price

imp.(%)


1


friction lubricant

13.17

1.0

110042

0.04


3

2+Engine accessory improvement 12.38 6.9 110414 0.38

4


reduction

11.76

11.5

110946

0.86




Table 6.24 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for class IV

(HIGHWAY)


imp (%)

Price (RM) Cum. Price

imp.(%)


1


friction lubricant

8.22

1.0

110042

0.04


3

2+Engine accessory improvement 7.73

6.9

110414

0.38

4


reduction

7.34

11.5

110946

0.86


2 STROKE MOTORCYCLE

Baseline = 2.9 liter/100km

Least efficient = 3.65 liter/100km

Table 6.25 FES and incremental cost of design option for 2 stroke motorcycle

(METHOD I)

Design

Options

Technological Improvements FES

(liter/100k

m)

FES

–(%)

Cost

(RM)

% Price

(RM)

0 Least efficient design 3.65 0 0 0

A.1 Fuel Injection

Direct -injection (2 stroke)

2.56 30 1005 16



Table 6.26 FES and incremental cost of design options for 2 stroke motorcycle

(METHOD II)

Design

Options

Technological

Improvements

FES

(liter/100k

m)

FES

–(%)

Cost

(RM)

% Price

(RM)


E Application of advanced


3.61 1 20 0.3

B Petrol saver 3.29 10 201 3

C Motorcycle weight

reduction (5%)

3.5 4 350 5.3

D Aerodynamic drag reduction

on design

3.61 1 250 3.8

4 STROKE MOTORCYCLE


Least efficient = 2.92 liter/100km

Table 6.27 FES and incremental cost of design options for 4 stroke motorcycle

Design

Options

Technological

Improvements

FES

(liter/100km)

FES

–(%)

Cost

(RM)

% Price

(RM)


E Application of advanced


2.89 1 20 0.4

B Petrol saver 2.63 10 201 3.9

A.2 Fuel injection

Port –injection

2.57 12 1005 19.5



2 STROKE MOTORCYCLE

Table 6.28 FES and incremental cost of combined design option for 2 stroke

motorcycle (METHOD I)


Imp.

Cum. FES

imp (%)

Price

(RM)

Cum.

Price imp.(%)

0 Least efficient design 3.65 0 6634.06 0.00

1

0+Fuel Injection

Direct -injection (2 stroke)

2.56 30 7639.06 15.0

Table 6.29 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for 2 stroke

motorcycle (METHOD II)


Imp.

Cum. FES

imp (%)

Price

(RM)

Cum.

Price imp.(%)


1

0+ Application of advanced low

friction lubricant

3.61

1

6654.06 0.3

2 1+ Petrol saver 3.25 11 6855.06 3.0

3

2+ Motorcycle weight reduction

(5%)

3.12

14

7205.06 9.0

4

Aerodynamic drag reduction on

design

3.09 15 7455.06 12.0



Table 6.30 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for 4 stroke

motorcycle


imp (%)

Price (RM) Cum.

Price

imp.(%)


1

0+ Application of advanced


2.89

1

5183.72

0.4

2 1+ Petrol saver 2.63 11 5384.72 4

3 2+ Fuel injection

Port –injection

2.29 22

6389.72 24

LORRIES

Medium Duty lorry (class 2 and 3)

Least efficient design = 20.59 liter/100km




Table 6.31 FES and incremental cost of combined design for Medium Duty lorry

(class 2 and 3)

Design

Options

Technological

Improvements

FES

(liter/100k

m)

FES

–(%)

Cost

(RM)

% Price

(RM)


B1 Low rolling resistance tires 20.08 2.5 684 0.53

D1 Turbocharged, direct

injection engine with better

thermal management

19.56 5.0 2660 2.05

A1 Lower coefficient of drag

through hood and cab

configuration

20.08 2.5 2280 1.75

D2 Integrated starter/alternator

with idle off and limited

regenerative braking

19.56 5.0 4560 3.51

F1 Mass reduction through

high strength, lightweight

material

19.56 5.0 4600 3.54

C1 Advance transmission with

lock-up, electronic controls

20.18 2.0 2750 2.12

Medium Duty lorry (class 4-6)

Least efficient design = 28 liter/100km

Baseline = 22 liter/100km



Table 6.32 FES and incremental cost of combined design for Medium Duty lorry

(class 4 - 6)

Design

Options

Technological

Improvements

FES

(liter/100k

m)

FES

–(%)

Cost

(RM)

% Price

(RM)

0 Least efficient design

28.00 0 0 0

B1 Low rolling resistance tires

27.3 2.5 1064 0.38

D1 Turbocharged, direct

injection engine with better

thermal management

25.76 8.0 3800 1.36

A2 Closing/covering of gap

between tractor and trailer

26.88 4.0 3040 1.09

D2 Integrated starter/alternator

with idle off and limited


26.60 5.0 4560 1.63

A1 Cab top deflector, sloping

hood, cab side flares

27.30 2.5 2850 1.02

A3 Van leading and trailing

edge curvatures

27.72 1.0 1520 0.54

C1 Advance transmission with

lock-up, electronic controls

and reduced friction.

27.44 2.0 3420 1.22

Heavy Duty lorry (class 7 & 8)





Table 6.33 FES and incremental cost of combined design for Heavy Duty lorry (class

7 & 8)

Design

Options

Technological

Improvements

FES

(liter/100k

m)

FES

–(%)

Cost

(RM)

% Price

(RM)

0 Least efficient design

42.42 0 0 0

B1 Low rolling resistance tires

41.15 3.0 2090 0.42


high-strength, lightweight

material

38.18 10.0 7600 1.54

E1 Internal friction reduction

through better lubricant and

improved bearings

41.57 2.0 1900 0.39

E2 Increased peak cylinder

pressure

40.72 4.0 3800 0.77

D1 Electrical auxiliaries 41.78 1.5 1900 0.39



41.57 2.0 2850 0.58


between tractor and trailer,

aerodynamic bumper

41.36 2.5 5700 1.16

Bus





Table 6.34 FES and incremental cost of combined design for busses

Design

Options

Technological

Improvements

FES

(liter/100km)

FES

–(%)

Cost

(RM)

% Price

(RM)


B1

Low rolling resistance tires 39.36 3.0 2090 0.43



material

36.52 10.0 7600 1.58

E1 Internal friction reduction


improved bearings

39.77 2.0 1900 0.40

E2 Increased peak cylinder

pressure

38.96 4.0 3800 0.79

D1 Electrical auxiliaries 39.97 1.5 1900 0.40



39.77 2.0 2850 0.59



aerodynamic bumper

39.57 2.5 5700 1.19



Table 6.35 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for

Medium Duty lorry (class 2 and 3)


Imp.

Cum. FES

imp (%)

Price

(RM)

Cum.

Price imp.(%)


1 0+ Low rolling resistance tires 20.08 2.5 130684 0.50

2

1+ Turbocharged, direct injection

engine with better thermal

management

19.07 7.4

133344 2.60

3

2+ Lower coefficient of drag

through hood and cab configuration

18.59

9.7

135624

4.30

4

3+ Integrated starter/alternator with

idle off and limited regenerative

braking

17.66

14.2

140184

7.80

5

4+ Mass reduction through high

strength, lightweight material

16.78

18.5

144784

11.40

6 5+ Advance transmission with lock-

up, electronic control

16.45 20.1 147534 13.50




Medium Duty lorry (class 4-6)


Imp.

Cum. FES

imp (%)

Price

(RM)

Cum.

Price imp.(%)



2

1+ Turbocharged, direct injection

engine with better thermal

management

25.12

10.3

284864 1.70

3

2+ Closing/covering of gap between

tractor and trailer

24.11

13.9

287904 2.80

4 3+ Integrated starter/alternator with

idle off and limited regenerative

braking

22.91 18.2 292464 4.50

5

4+ Cab top deflector, sloping hood,

cab side flares

22.33

20.2

295314 5.50

6 5+ Van leading and trailing edge

curvatures

22.11 21.0 296834 6.00

7 6+ Advance transmission with lock-

up, electronic controls and reduced

friction.

21.67 22.6 300254 7.20




Heavy Duty lorry (class 7 and 8)


Imp.

Cum. FES

imp (%)

Price

(RM)

Cum.

Price imp.(%)



2

1+ Mass reduction through high-


37.03

12.7

501690

2.00

3

2+ Internal friction reduction


improved bearings

36.29

14.4

503590

2.40

4

3+ Increased peak cylinder pressure 34.84

17.9

507390

3.10

5 4+ Electrical auxiliaries 34.32 19.1 509290 3.50

6

5+ Cab top deflector, sloping hood,

cab side flares

33.63

20.7

512140

4.10

7 6+ Closing/covering of gap between

tractor and trailer, aerodynamic

bumper

32.79

22.7

517840

5.30



Table 6.38 FES and incremental cost of combined design options for Bus


Imp.

Cum. FES

imp (%)

Price

(RM)

Cum.

Price imp.(%)



2

1+ Mass reduction through high-


35.43

12.7

490390

2.00

3

2+ Internal friction reduction


improved bearings

34.72 14.4

492290

2.40

4

3+ Increased peak cylinder pressure 33.33

17.9

496090 3.20

5 4+ Electrical auxiliaries 32.83 19.1 497990 3.60

6 5+ Cab top deflector, sloping hood,

cab side flares

32.17 20.7

500840

4.20

7 6+ Closing/covering of gap between

tractor and trailer, aerodynamic

bumper

31.37

22.7

506540

5.40

Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation

The life cycle cost and payback period are calculated using equations 6.5 to

6.11 and input data discussed in the previous section. At the same time, some input

values such as discount rate, fuel price, vehicle lifespan, average mileage, baseline

data and least efficient model for each class are required. The input data are tabulated

in Table 6.39 and Table 6.40 for motor vehicles. Table 6.41 displays input data for

the motorcycle and Table 6.42 for lorries and busses.



Table 6.39 The input value of baseline models for each class of car

(City Driving).

Variable Class I Class II Class III Class IV

Engine Displacement (liters) 1.0-1.4 1.5-1.9 2.0-2.5 2.0-6.75

Baseline FES (litres/100km) 6.9 8.4 10.4 11.5

Least efficient FES (litres/100km) 7.6 9.3 11.1 13.3

Fuel price (RM/liter) 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42

Discount rate (%) 7 7 7 7

Vehicle lifespan (years) 10 10 10 10

Average mileage use (km/year) 15000 15000 15000 15000

Table 6.40 The input value of baseline models for each class of car

(Highway Driving).

Variable Class I Class II Class III Class IV

Engine Displacement (liters) 1.0-1.4 1.5-1.9 2.0-2.5 2.6-6.75

Baseline FES (litres/100km) 5.4 6.04 7.0 7.3

Least efficient FES (litres/100km) 5.8 6.4 7.8 8.3




Average mileage use (km/year) 15000 15000 15000 15000



Table 6.41 The input value of baseline models for each class of motorcycles

Variable 2 Strokes

(Method I)

2 Strokes

(Method 2)

4 Strokes

Engine Displacement (cc) 80-150 80-150 80-150

Baseline FES (litres/100km) 2.90 2.90 2.30

Least efficient FES (litres/100km) 3.65 3.65 2.92

Fuel price (RM/liter) 1.42 1.37 1.37

Discount rate (%) 7 7 7

Vehicle lifespan (years) 10 10 10

Average mileage use (km/year) 15000 15000 15000

Table 6.42 The input value of baseline models for each class of lorries and busses

Variable Class 2 & 3 Class 4-6 Class 7 & 8 Bus

GVW 6001Ib to

14000Ib

14001Ib to

26000Ib

26001 and

over

26001 and

over

Baseline FES

(litres/100km)

16.45 22.00 32.85 32.00

Least efficient FES

(litres/100km)

20.59 28.00 42.42 40.58




Average mileage use

(km/year)

20000 20000 20000 25000

The cumulative impact due to design changes on all type of vehicles for FES

and prices are presented in Figures 6.1, 6.3, 6.5, 6.7, 4.9, 6.11, 6.13, 6.15, 6.17, 6.19,



6.21, 6.23, 6.25, 6.27 and 6.29. Meanwhile, the cumulative payback period and life

cycle cost due to motor vehicle usage are shown in Table 6.44 - 6.58. It is also shown

in Figures 6.2, 6.4, 6.6, 6.8, 6.10, 6.12, 6.14, 6.16, 6.18, 6.20, 6.22, 6.24, 6.26, 6.28

and 6.30.

Table 6.43 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for Class I car (CITY)

No Design options FES Imp. Price

(RM)

OC

(RM)

LCC

(RM)

PAY

(Year)

0 Least efficient design 7.60 43000 1,805 55,676 0.00

1

0+Application of advanced


7.52 43042 1,789 55,604 2.59

2

1+Multi-valve,overhead


7.15 43532 1,708 55,574 5.96

3

2+Improved rolling

resistance

7.04 43213 1,686 55,626 6.60

4 3+Five speed automatic

transmission

6.83 43585 1,641 55,895 8.36

3+

Five

spe

ed a

utom

atic

tra

nsm

issi

on

2+Im

prov

ed ro

lling

re

sist

ance

Leas

t effi

cien

t des

ign

0+A

pplic

atio

ns o

f ad

vanc

ed, l

ow fr

ictio

n lu

bric

ants

1+M

ulti-

valv

e, o

verh

ead

cam

shaf

t val

ve tr

ains

42,000

42,500

43,000

43,500

44,000

44,500

7.6 7.52 7.15 7.04 6.83

FES (liter/100km)

Vehi

cle

Pric

es(R

M)

Figure 6.1 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for Class I (City)



55,67655,604 55,574

55,626

55,895

2.59

5.96 6.

60

8.36

0.00

55,400

55,500

55,600

55,700

55,800

55,900

56,000

7.60 7.52 7.15 7.04 6.83

FES (liter/100km)

LCC

(RM

)

0.001.002.003.004.005.006.007.008.009.00

PAY

(Yrs

)

LCC PAY

Figure 6.2 Payback period and life cycle cost for Class I (City)

Table 6.44 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for Class I car (Highway)


(RM)

OC

(RM)

LCC

(RM)

PAY

(Year)

0 Least efficient design 5.80 43000 1421 52983 0.00

1 0+Application of


lubricant

5.74 43042 1409 52939 3.40

2 1+Multi-valve, overhead


5.45 43532 1348 53041 7.81

3 2+Improved rolling

resistance

5.37 43213 1330 53132 8.65

4 3+Five speed automatic

transmission

5.21 43585 1296 53475 10.95



Leas

t effi

cien

t des

ign

0+A

pplic

atio

ns o

f ad

vanc

ed, l

ow fr

ictio

n lu

bric

ants

1+M

ulti-

valv

e, o

verh

ead

cam

shaf

t val

ve tr

ains

2+Im

prov

e ro

lling

re

sist

ance

3+Fi

ve s

peed

aut

omat

ic

trans

mis

sion

42,000

42,500

43,000

43,500

44,000

44,500

5.80 5.74 5.45 5.37 5.21

FES (liter/100km)

Vehi

cle

Pric

es (R

M)

Figure 6.3 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for Class I (Highway)

52,983 52,93953,041

53,132

53,475

0.00

3.40

7.81 8.

65

10.9

5

52,600

52,800

53,000

53,200

53,400

53,600

5.80 5.74 5.45 5.37 5.21

FES (liter/100km)

LCC

(RM

)

0.002.00

4.006.00

8.0010.00

12.00

PAY

(Yrs

)

LCC PAY

Figure 6.4 Payback period and life cycle cost for Class I (Highway)



Table 6.45 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for Class II car (City)


(RM)

OC

(RM)

LCC

(RM)

PAY

(Year)


1 0+Application of


lubricant

9.21 70042

2147 85122 2.12


resistance

9.11 70095 2127 85038 2.41

3 2+Engine accessory

improvement

8.66 70414 2030 84675 3.03

4 3+Engine friction and

other losses reduction

8.57

70547

2012 84671

3.53

5 4+Variable valve timing 8.32 71079 1957 84825 5.15

Leas

t effi

cien

t des

ign

0+A

pplic

atio

n of

adv

ance

d, lo

w

lubr

ican

ts

1+Im

prov

ed ro

lling

resi

stan

ce

2+En

gine

acc

esso

ry

impr

ovem

ent

3+E

ngin

e fri

ctio

n an

d ot

her

redu

ctio

n lo

sses

4+V

aria

ble

valv

e tim

ing

69,400

69,600

69,800

70,000

70,200

70,400

70,600

70,800

71,000

71,200

9.30 9.21 9.11 8.66 8.57 8.32

FES (liter/100km)

Vehi

cle

pric

es (R

M)

Figure 6.5 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for Class II (City)



85,0

38

84,8

25

84,6

71

84,6

75

85,1

2285,2

190.00

2.122.41

3.033.53

5.15

84,30084,40084,50084,60084,70084,80084,90085,00085,10085,20085,300

9.30 9.21 9.11 8.66 8.57 8.32

FES (liter/100km)

LCC

(RM

)

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

PAY

(Yrs

)

LCC PAY

Figure 6.6 Payback period and life cycle cost for Class II (City)

Table 6.46 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for Class II car (Highway)


(RM)

OC

(RM)

LCC

(RM)

PAY

(Year)


1 0+Application of


lubricant

6.34

70042

1536 80827 3.08


resistance

6.27 70095 1522 80785 3.50


improvement

5.96 70414 1455 80635 4.41


other loss reduction

5.90

70547

1443

80674

5.13




1+Im

prov

ed ro

lling

re

sist

ance

0+A

pplic

atio

ns o

f ad

vanc

ed, l

ow lu

bric

ants

Leas

t effi

cien

t des

ign

2+En

gine

acc

esso

ry

impr

ovem

ent

3+E

ngin

e fri

ctio

n an

d ot

her

loss

redu

ctio

n

4+V

aria

ble

valv

e tim

ing

69,40069,60069,80070,00070,20070,40070,60070,80071,00071,200

6.40 6.34 6.27 5.96 5.90 5.72

FES (liter/100km)

Vehi

cle

Pric

es (R

M)

Figure 6.7 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for Class II (Highway)

80,8

81

80,8

27

80,7

85

80,9

46

80,6

35

80,6

74

0.00

3.083.50

4.415.13

7.48

80,400

80,500

80,600

80,700

80,800

80,900

81,000

6.40 6.34 6.27 5.96 5.90 5.72

FES (liter/100km)

LCC

(RM

)

0.001.002.003.004.005.006.007.008.00

PAY

(RM

)

LCC PAY

Figure 6.8 Payback period and life cycle cost for Class II (Highway)



Table 6.47 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for Class III car (City)


(RM)

OC

(RM)

LCC

(RM)

PAY

(Year)


1 0+Application of


lubricant

10.99 95042

2527 112788 1.78


resistance

10.88 95095 2503 112677 2.02


improvement

10.34 95414 2387 112182 2.54

4 3+Continuous variable

transmission (CVT)

9.92 95946

2299 112096 3.77

Leas

t effi

cien

t des

ign

0+Ap

plic

atio

ns o

f adv

ance

d,

low

fric

tion

lubr

ican

ts

1+Im

prov

ed ro

lling

resi

stan

ce

2+E

ngin

e ac

cess

orie

s im

prov

emen

t

3+C

ontin

uous

ly v

aria

ble

trans

mis

sion

(CV

T)

94,400

94,600

94,800

95,000

95,200

95,400

95,600

95,800

96,000

96,200

11.1 10.99 10.88 10.34 9.92

FES (liter/100km)

Vehi

cle

pric

e (R

M)

Figure 6.9 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for Class III (City)



112,

912

112,

788

112,

677

112,

182

112,

096

0.00

1.782.02

2.54

3.77

111,600

111,800

112,000

112,200

112,400

112,600

112,800

113,000

11.10 10.99 10.88 10.34 9.92

FES (liter/100km)

LCC

(RM

)

0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.00

PAY

(RM

)

LCC PAY

Figure 6.10 Payback period and life cycle cost for Class III (City)

Table 6.48 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for Class III car

(Highway)


(RM)

OC

(RM)

LCC

(RM)

PAY

(Year)


1 0+Application of


lubricant

7.72

95042

1831 107901 2.53


resistance

7.64 95095 1814 107838 2.87


improvement

7.26 95414 1733 107585 3.62

4 3+Continuous variable

transmission (CVT)

6.97 95946

1671 107683 5.36



Leas

t effi

cien

t des

ign

0+Ap

plic

atio

ns o

f ad

vanc

ed, l

ow fr

ictio

n lu

bric

ants

1+Im

prov

ed ro

lling

re

sist

ance

2+En

gine

acc

esso

ry

impr

ovem

ent

3+C

ontin

uous

ly v

aria

ble

trans

mis

sion

(CVT

)

94,40094,60094,80095,00095,20095,40095,60095,80096,00096,200

7.80 7.72 7.64 7.26 6.97

FES (liter/100km)

Vehi

cle

Pric

es (R

M)

Figure 6.11 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for Class III (Highway)

107,

683

107,

585

107,

838

107,

901

107,

975

0.00

2.532.87

3.62

5.36

107,300

107,400107,500

107,600

107,700

107,800107,900

108,000

108,100

7.80 7.72 7.64 7.26 6.97

FES (liter/100km)

LCC

(RM

)

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

PA

Y (R

M)

LCC PAY

Figure 6.12 Payback period and life cycle cost for Class III (Highway)



Table 6.49 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for Class IV car (City)


(RM)

OC

(RM)

LCC

(RM)

PAY

(Year)

0 Least efficient design 13.30

110000 3019 131203 0.00

1 0+Application of


lubricant

13.17

110042

2991 131047 1.48


resistance

13.04 110095 2963 130903 1.69


improvement

12.38 110414 2824 130246 2.12



11.76

110946

2692 129843

2.89


Leas

t effi

cien

t des

ign

0+A

pplic

atio

ns o

f adv

ance

d,

low

fric

tion

lubr

ican

ts

1+Im

prov

ed ro

lling

resi

stan

ce

2+E

ngin

e ac

cess

ory

impr

ovem

ent

3+E

ngin

e fri

ctio

n an

d ot

her

loss

redu

ctio

n

4+V

aria

ble

valv

e tim

ing

109000

109500

110000

110500

111000

111500

112000

13.3 13.17 13.04 12.38 11.76 11.41

FES (liter/100km)

Vehi

cle

pric

e (R

M)

Figure 6.13 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for Class IV (City)



131,

203

131,

047

130,

246 12

9,85

6

129,

843

130,

903

0.00

1.481.69

2.12

2.89

3.67

129,000

129,500

130,000

130,500

131,000

131,500

13.30 13.17 13.04 12.38 11.76 11.41

FES (liter/100km)

Life

Cyc

le C

ost (

RM

)

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

Payb

ack

Per

iod

(Yrs

)

LCC PAY

Figure 6.14 Payback period and life cycle cost for Class IV (City)

Table 6.50 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for Class IV car

(Highway)


(RM)

OC

(RM)

LCC

(RM)

PAY

(Year)


110000 1954 123723 0.00

1 0+Application of


lubricant

8.22 110042

1936 123941 2.38


resistance

8.13 110095 1919 123571 2.70


improvement

7.73 110414 1832 123282 3.40



7.34

110946

1750 123229

4.63




Leas

t effi

cien

t des

ign

0+A

pplic

atio

ns o

f adv

ance

d,

low

fric

tion

lubr

ican

ts

1+Im

prov

ed ro

lling

resi

stan

ce

2+E

ngin

e ac

cess

ory

impr

ovem

ent

3+En

gine

fric

tion

and

othe

r lo

ss re

duct

ion

4+Va

riabl

e va

lve

timin

g

109000

109500

110000

110500

111000

111500

112000

8.30 8.22 8.13 7.73 7.34 7.12

FES (liter/100km)

Vehi

cle

Pric

es (R

M)

Figure 6.15 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for Class IV

(Highway)

123,

438

123,

229

123,

282

123,

571

123,

641

123,

723

0.00

2.382.70

3.40

4.63

5.89

122,900

123,000

123,100

123,200

123,300

123,400

123,500

123,600

123,700

123,800

8.30 8.22 8.13 7.73 7.34 7.12

FES (liter/100km)

LCC

(RM

)

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

PA

Y (Y

rs)

LCC PAY

Figure 6.16 Payback period and life cycle cost for Class IV (Highway)



Table 6.51 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for 2 stroke motorcycle

(method 1)


(RM)

OC

(RM)

LCC

(RM)

PAY

(Year)

0 Least efficient design 3.65 6634.06 894.5 12916 0

1 0+Direct – injection 2.56 7639.06 661.2 12283 4.31

Leas

t effi

cien

t des

ign

0+D

irect

inje

cted

6000

6200

6400

6600

6800

7000

7200

7400

7600

7800

3.65 2.56

FES (liter/100km)

Mot

orcy

cle

pric

es(R

M)

Figure 6.17 Impact of design option changes on price and FES for 2 stroke

motorcycle (method 1)



1291

6

1228

3

0

4.31

11800

12000

12200

12400

12600

12800

13000

3.65 2.56

Fuel consumption(liter/100km)

Life

cyc

le c

ost (

RM

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

Payb

ack

perio

d (y

ears

)

LCCPAY

Figure 6.18 Payback period and life cycle cost for 2 stroke motorcycle (method 1)


(method 2)


(RM)

OC

(RM)

LCC

(RM)

PAY

(Year)


1 0+Application of advanced


3.61 6654.06 886.7 12882 2.57

2 1+Petrol saver 3.25 6855.06 809.7 12542 2.61

3 2+Motorcycle weight

reduction (5%) 3.12 7205.06 782.0 12697 5.08

4 3+Aerodynamic drag

reduction on design 3.09 7455.06 775.3 12901 6.89



Leas

t effi

cien

t des

ign

0+A

pplic

atio

n of

adv

ance

d,

low

fric

tion

lubr

ican

ts

1+Pe

trol s

aver

2+M

otor

cycl

es w

eigh

t re

duct

ion

3+A

erod

ynam

ic d

rag

redu

ctio

n on

des

igns

6200

6400

6600

6800

7000

7200

7400

7600

3.65 3.61 3.25 3.12 3.09

FES (liter/100km)

Mot

orcy

cle

pric

es (R

M)

Figure 6.19 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for 2 stroke

motorcycle (method 2)

1291612882

12542

12697

12901

0

2.57

2.61

5.08

6.89

12300

12400

12500

12600

12700

12800

12900

13000

3.65 3.61 3.25 3.12 3.09

Fuel consumption (liter/100km)

Life

cyc

le c

ost (

RM

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

PAyb

ack

perio

d (y

ears

)

LCC (RM)PAY (years)

Figure 6.20 Payback period and life cycle cost for 2 stroke motorcycle (method 2)





(RM)

OC

(RM)

LCC

(RM)

PAY

(Year)


1 0+Applications of


lubricant

2.89 5183.72 744.7 10412 3.22

2 1+Petrol saver 2.60 5384.72 683.2 10181 3.26

3 2+Port-injection 2.29 6389.72 616.7 10719 9.13

Leas

t effi

cien

t des

ign

0+Ap

plic

atio

ns o

f ad

vanc

ed, l

ow fr

ictio

n lu

bric

ants

1+Pe

trol s

aver

2+Po

rt-in

ject

ed

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

2.92 2.89 2.6 2.29

FES (liter/100km)

Mot

orcy

cle

pric

es (R

M)

Figure 6.21 Impact of design options changes on prices and FES for 4 stroke

motorcycle



1043

5

1018

1

1071

9

1041

2

0

3.22

3.26

9.13

9900100001010010200103001040010500106001070010800

2.92 2.89 2.60 2.29

Fuel consumption (liter/100km)

Life

cyc

le c

ost (

RM

)

012345678910

Pay

back

per

iod

(yea

rs)

LCC PAY

Figure 6.22 Payback period and life cycle cost for motorcycles 4 strokes

Table 6.54 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for Medium Duty Lorry

(class 2 & 3)


(RM)

OC

(RM)

LCC

(RM)

PAY

(Year)

0 Least efficient design 20.59 130000 6197.56 186460 0.00

1 0+ Low rolling resistance tires

20.08 130684 6051.37 185812 4.7

2 1+ Turbocharged, direct injection engine with better thermal management

19.07 133344

5766.30 185875 7.8

3 2+ Lower coefficient of drag through hood and cab configuration

18.59 135624 5630.89 186921 9.9

4 3+ Integrated starter/alternator with idle off and limited regenerative braking

17.66

140184 5366.85 189076

12.3

5 4+ Mass reduction through high strength, lightweight material

7.12 144784

5116.01 191391 13.7

6 5+ Advance transmission with lock-up, electronic controls

16.45 147534 5020.69 193272 14.9



Leas

t effi

cien

t des

ign

0+Lo

w ro

lling

resi

stan

ce ti

res

1+Tu

rboc

harg

ed, d

irect

in

ject

ion

engi

ne w

ith b

ette

r th

erm

al m

anag

emen

t

2+Lo

wer

coe

ffici

ent o

f dra

g th

roug

h ho

od a

nd c

ab

conf

igur

atio

n

3+In

tegr

ated

sta

rter w

ith id

le

off a

nd li

mite

d re

gena

rativ

e br

akin

g

4+M

ass

redu

ctio

n th

roug

h hi

gh s

treng

th, l

ight

wei

ght

mat

eria

l

5+A

dvan

ce tr

ansm

issi

on w

ith

lock

-up,

ele

ctro

nic

cont

rols

120000

125000

130000

135000

140000

145000

150000

20.59 20.08 19.07 18.59 17.66 16.78 16.45

FES (liter/100km)

Lorr

y pr

ice

(RM

)

Figure 6.23 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for

medium duty lorry (class 2 & 3)

1864

60

1858

12

1858

75

1869

21 1890

76 1913

91 1932

72

4.7

7.8

9.9

12.3 13

.7 14.9

0.0

182000

184000

186000

188000

190000

192000

194000

20.59 20.08 19.07 18.59 17.66 16.78 16.45

FES (liter/100km)

Life

cyc

le c

ost

0.02.04.06.08.010.012.014.016.0

Payb

ack

perio

ds

LCC PAY

Figure 6.24 Payback period and life cycle cost for medium duty lorry (class 2&3)



Table 6.55 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for Medium Duty Lorry

(class 4 - 6)


(RM)

OC

(RM)

LCC

(RM)

PAY

(Year)


280000 8452.0 356998 0.00

1 0+ Low rolling resistance

tires

27.30 281064 8253.2

356251 5.35

2 1+ Turbocharged, direct

injection engine with

better thermal

management

25.12 284864

7632.9 354400 5.94

3 2+ Closing/covering of

gap between tractor and

trailer

24.11

287904 7347.6 354841 5.94

4 3+ Integrated

starter/alternator with idle

off and limited


22.91 292464 7005.2 356282

9.9

5 4+ Cab top deflector,

sloping hood, cab side

flares

22.33 295314

6842.6 357650 12.3

6 5+ Van leading and

trailing edge curvatures

22.11 296834 6779.2

358592 13.7

7 6+ Advance transmission

with lock-up, electronic

controls and reduced

friction

21.67 300254 6653.6 360868 11.26



Leas

t effi

cien

t des

ign

0+Lo

w ro

lling

resi

stan

ce ti

res

1+Tu

rboc

harg

ed, d

irect

in

ject

ion

engi

ne w

ith b

ette

r th

erm

al m

anag

emen

t

2+C

losi

ng g

ap b

etw

een

tract

or a

nd tr

aile

r

3+In

tegr

ated

sta

rter w

ith id

le

off a

nd li

mite

d re

gena

rativ

e br

akin

g

4+C

ab to

p de

flect

or, s

lopi

ng

hood

, cab

sid

e fla

res

5+V

an le

adin

g an

d tra

iling

ed

ge c

urva

ture

s

6+A

dvan

ce tr

ansm

issi

on w

ith

lock

-up,

ele

ctro

nic

cont

rols

, re

duce

d fri

ctio

n

265000

270000

275000

280000

285000

290000

295000

300000

305000

28.00 27.30 25.12 24.11 22.91 22.33 22.11 21.67

FES (liter/100km)

Lorr

y pr

ices

(RM

)


medium duty lorry (class 4-6)

3569

98

3562

51

3544

00

3548

41 3562

82 3576

50

3585

92 3608

68

0

5.94 7.

16

8.62 9.

52 10.0

6 11.2

6

5.35

350000

352000

354000

356000

358000

360000

362000

28.00 27.30 25.12 24.11 22.91 22.33 22.11 21.67

FES (liter/100km)

Life

cyc

le c

ost (

RM

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12Pa

ybac

k pe

riod

(yea

rs)

LCC PAY

Figure 6.26 Payback period and life cycle cost for medium duty lorry (class 4-6)



Table 6.56 Life-cycle costs and payback period calculation for Heavy Duty Lorry (class 7 & 8)


(RM)

OC

(RM)

LCC

(RM)

PAY

(Year)

0 Least efficient design 42.42 492000 12797.3 608556.5 0.00


tires

41.15 494090 12435.9

607354.8 5.78

2 1+ Mass reduction

through high-strength,

lightweight material

37.03 501690

11267.3 604311.4 6.33

3 2+ Internal friction

reduction through better

lubricant and improved

bearings

36.29

503590 11056.9 604295.6 6.66

4 3+ Increased peak

cylinder pressure

34.84 507390 10644.7 604340.6 7.15

5 4+ Electrical auxiliaries 34.32 509290

10496.2 604888.8 7.51

6 5+ Cab top deflector,

sloping hood, cab side

flares

33.63 512140 10301.3

605963.4 8.07

7 6+ Closing/covering of

gap between tractor and

trailer, aerodynamic

bumper

32.79 517840 10062.5 609488.6 9.45



Leas

t effi

cien

t des

ign

0+Lo

w ro

lling

resi

stan

ce ti

res

1+M

ass

redu

ctio

n th

roug

h hi

gh-s

treng

th, l

ight

wei

ght

mat

eria

l

2+In

tern

al fr

ictio

n re

duct

ion

thro

ugh

bette

r lub

rican

ts a

nd

impr

oved

bea

rings

3+In

crea

sed

peak

cyl

inde

r pr

essu

re

4+E

lect

rical

aux

iliarie

s

5+C

ab to

p de

flect

or, s

lopi

ng

hood

, cab

sid

e fla

res

6+C

losi

ng o

f gap

bet

wee

n tra

ctor

and

tra

iler,a

erod

ynam

ic b

umpe

r

475000

480000

485000

490000

495000

500000

505000

510000

515000

520000

42.42 41.15 37.03 36.29 34.84 34.32 33.63 32.79

FES (liter/100km)

Lorr

y pr

ice

(RM

)


heavy duty lorry (class 7 & 8)

6085

56.5

6073

54.8

6043

11.4

6042

95.6

6043

40.6

6048

88.8

6059

63.4

6094

88.6

0

5.786.33 6.66

7.157.51

8.07

9.45

601000.0

602000.0

603000.0

604000.0

605000.0

606000.0

607000.0

608000.0

609000.0

610000.0

42.42 41.15 37.03 36.29 34.84 34.32 33.63 32.79

FES (liter/100km)

Pay

back

per

iods

(RM

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Life

Cyc

le C

ost (

year

s)

LCC PAY

Figure 6.28 Payback period and life cycle cost for medium duty lorry (class 7-8)



Table 6.57 Life-cycle cost and payback period calculation for Busses


(RM)

OC

(RM)

LCC

(RM)

PAY

(Year)

0 Least efficient design 40.58 480700 14805.9 615581.7 0.00


tires

39.36 482790 14373.7

613734.6 4.84

2 1+ Mass reduction through


material

35.43 490390

12976.4 608604.6 5.30

3 2+ Internal friction reduction


improved bearings

34.72

492290 12724.8 608213.1 5.57

4 3+ Increased peak cylinder

pressure

33.33 496090 12231.8 607522.0 7.15

5 4+ Electrical auxiliaries 32.83 497990 12054.4 607805.2 7.51

6 5+ Cab top deflector, sloping


32.17 500840 11821.3

608531.7 8.07

7 6+ Closing/covering of gap


aerodynamic bumper

31.37 506540 11535.7 611630.5 9.45



Leas

t effi

cien

t des

ign

0+Lo

w ro

lling

resi

stan

ce ti

res

1+M

ass

redu

ctio

n th

roug

h hi

gh-s

treng

th, l

ight

wei

ght

mat

eria

l

2+In

tern

al fr

ictio

n re

duct

ion

thro

ugh

bette

r lub

rican

ts a

nd

impr

oved

bea

rings

3+In

crea

sed

peak

cyl

inde

r pr

essu

re

4+E

lect

rical

aux

iliar

ies

5+C

ab to

p de

flect

or, s

lopi

ng

hood

, cab

sid

e fla

res

6+C

losi

ng g

ap b

etw

een

tract

or a

nd tr

aile

r, ae

rody

nam

ic b

umpe

r

465000

470000

475000

480000

485000

490000

495000

500000

505000

510000

40.58 39.36 35.43 34.72 33.33 32.83 32.17 31.37

FES (liter/100km)

Bus

pric

e (R

M)

Figure 6.29 Impact of design option changes on prices and FES for busses

6155

81.7

6137

34.6

6086

04.6

6082

13.1

6075

22.0

6078

05.2

6085

31.7 61

1630

.5

0

4.84

5.30 5.57 5.

98 6.28 6.

75

7.90

602000.0

604000.0

606000.0

608000.0

610000.0

612000.0

614000.0

616000.0

618000.0

40.58 39.36 35.43 34.72 33.33 32.83 32.17 31.37

FES (liter/100km)

Life

cyc

le c

ost (

RM

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Payb

ack

perio

ds (y

ears

)

LCC PAY

Figure 6.30 Payback period and life cycle cost for busses



6.4.5 Potential Fuel Saving

Like any other developing countries, it is difficult to get a complete data in

this country because lack of planning. The calculation for potential saving is

conducted only for class I car, 2 stroke and 4 stroke motorcycles with engine

displacement range between 80cc-150cc, medium duty lorry (class 2 & 3) and for

busses. It is because these types of vehicles are the most popular in Malaysia and is

assumed as an average case study. The calculation results from implementing

potential fuel savings for motor vehicles and motorcycles in Malaysia are tabulated

in Tables 6.59, 6.61, 6.63 and 6.65. To derive the results, some of input data are

necessary. The input data are shown in Tables 6.58, 6.60, 6.62 and 6.64.

Table 6.58 Input data for potential fuel saving of cars

Description Values

Year standard enacted 2006

Discount rate 7%

Incremental cost RM1372

Life span 10 year

Baseline Fuel Consumption 1035 liter/year

Current average fuel price RM 1.42 per liter

Standards fuel consumption 780 liter/year

Annual efficiency improvement 3%



Table 6.59 The calculation of fuel savings for cars

Year Shipment Applicable

stock

Scaling

factor

Unit fuel

savings

Fuel savings

(liter)

2006 3410533 3410533 1.00 154.09 525520504

2007 3820953 7231486 0.818 126.07 911684945

2008 4028153 11259639 0.636 98.06 1104071579

2009 4388000 15647639 0.455 70.04 1095957079

2010 4772587 20420226 0.273 42.02 858136793

2011 5210249 25630475 0.091 14.01 359030529

0

200000000

400000000

600000000

800000000

1000000000

1200000000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Year

Fuel

sav

ing

(lite

r)

Figure 6.31 Projected fuel savings for cars



0

5000000000

10000000000

15000000000

20000000000

25000000000

30000000000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

BAU STD

Figure 6.32 Fuel consumption with and without standards (STD vs BAU) for cars

Table 6.60 Input data for potential fuel saving of motorcycles

Description Values


Discount rate 7%


Life span 10 year



Standards fuel consumption 330 liter/year




Table 6.61 The calculation of fuel savings for motorcycles


stock

Scaling

factor

Unit fuel

savings

Fuel

savings

(liter)

2006 4402302

4402302 1.000

53.89

237227739

2007 4794891 9197194 0.712

38.34

352646296

2008 5173601 14370794

0.423

22.80

327631557

2009 5579414 19950208 0.135

7.25

144719730

0

50000000

100000000

150000000

200000000

250000000

300000000

350000000

400000000

2006 2007 2008 2009

Year

Fuel

sav

ing

(lite

r)

Figure 6.33 Projected fuel savings for motorcycles



Figure 6.34 Fuel consumption with and without standards (STD vs BAU) for

motorcycles

Table 6.62 Input data for potential fuel saving of medium duty lorry

(class 2 & 3)

Description Values


Discount rate 7%


Life span 15 year



Standards energy consumption 2600 liter/year


0

1000000000

2000000000

3000000000

4000000000

5000000000

6000000000

7000000000

8000000000

9000000000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

BAU STD



Table 6.63 The calculation of fuel savings for medium duty lorry (class2 & 3)


stock

Scaling

factor

Unit fuel

savings

Fuel savings

(liter)

2006 564335

564335 1.00

495.56 279662323

2007 628286 1192621 0.81

402.70

480270038

2008 654307 1846928

0.63

309.84

572255376

2009 699629 2546557 0.44

216.98

552557113

2010

723431 3269988 0.25 124.12 405878712

2011

749309 4019297 0.06 31.26 125654265

0

100000000

200000000

300000000

400000000

500000000

600000000

700000000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Year

Fuel

sav

ing

(lite

r)

Figure 6.35 Projected fuel savings for medium duty lorry (class 2 & 3)



0

2000000000

4000000000

6000000000

8000000000

10000000000

12000000000

14000000000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

BAU STD

Figure 6.36 Fuel consumption with and without standards (STD vs BAU) for

medium duty lorry (class 2 & 3)

Table 6.64 Input data for potential fuel saving of busses

Description Values


Discount rate 7%


Life span 15 year



Standards energy consumption 7500 liter/year




Table 6.65 The calculation of fuel savings for busses


stock

Scaling

factor

Unit fuel

savings

Fuel

savings

(liter)

2006 41426

41426 1.000

1027.20

42553287

2007 45914 87341 0.779

800.61

69926150

2008 48122 135463

0.559

574.02

77759082

2009 50162 185625 0.338

347.44

64492846

2010 51159 236785 0118 120.85 28614731

Figure 6.37 Projected fuel savings for busses

0

10000000

20000000

30000000

40000000

50000000

60000000

70000000

80000000

90000000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

Fuel

sav

ing

(lite

r)



Figure 6.38 Fuel consumption with and without standards (STD vs BAU) for busses

It has been noted that the fuel economy standards for vehicles are only

effective for a certain period because annual efficiency of the vehicles are still

improving 3% per year even without the standard. Figure 6.31, 6.33, 6.35, 6.37

shows that the annual savings for the fuel consumption increase sharply in the

beginning of the analysis period. Over time, the projected technological

improvement in the baseline begins to catch up with the standard. Referring to Table

6.59, 6.61, 6.63 and 6.65, the standard for cars is only effective for about 6 years

from 2006 to 2011, for motorcycles it is effective for 4 years from 2006 to 2009.

Meanwhile for lorry, the standard is effective for about 6 years from 2006 to 2009

and for busses it is effective for 5 years from 2006 to 2010. Table 6.59, 6.61, 6.63

and 6.65 also shows that minimum fuel economy standards or fuel consumption

program starting in 2006 will save approximately 359 GL (Giga-Liter) of fuel at the

0

500000000

1000000000

1500000000

2000000000

2500000000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

BAU STD



end of 2011 for cars, 145 GL of fuel at the end of 2009 for motorcycles, 126 GL of

fuel at the end of 2011 for medium duty lorry (class 2 & 3) and 286 GL of fuel at the

end of 2010 for busses

6.4.6 Economic impact of the standards

The calculation result from cost-benefit analysis is tabulated in Table 6.66 to

6.69. This study has proved that the introduction of fuel economy standard for motor

vehicle offer great benefits in some aspect for consumers, governments as well as the

environment, which is not considered in this study.

Table 6.66 The calculation result from the cost-benefit analysis for cars

Year Bill savings

(Mil. RM)

Annualized net

savings

(Mil. RM)

Net savings

(Mil. RM)

Present value of

ANS

(Mil. RM)

2006 938.7 -128196 -906048 -97800

2007 1628.5 -222397 -829752 -158566

2008 1972.2 -269328 -679722 -179464

2009 1957.7 -267348 -528465 -166491

2010 1532.9 -209334 -344614 -121834

2011 641.3 -87582 -125322 -47639



Table 6.67 The calculation result from the cost-benefit analysis for motorcycle

Year Bill savings (Mil. RM)

Annualized net savings

(Mil. RM)

Net savings (Mil. RM)

Present value of ANS

(Mil. RM) 2006 336 -34249

-242584

-26129

2007 501 -50913

-187761

-36300

2008 465 -47302

-120316

-31519

2009 206 -20894

-41239

-13011

Table 6.68 The calculation result from the cost-benefit analysis for medium duty

lorry

Year Bill savings

(Mil. RM)

Annualized net

savings

(Mil. RM)

Net savings

(Mil. RM)

Present value of

ANS

(Mil. RM)

2006 397.1 -537992 -4903200 -410431

2007 681.9 -923905 -4435620 -658731

2008 812.6 -1100860 -3553880 -733549

2009 784.6 -1062960 -2661000 -661961

2010 576.3 -780797 -1573870 -454431

2011 178.4 -241723 -410564 -131482



Table 6.69 The calculation result from the cost-benefit analysis for busses

Year Bill savings

(Mil. RM)

Annualized net

savings

(Mil. RM)

Net savings

(Mil. RM)

Present value of

ANS

(Mil. RM)

2006 60.4 -120667 -1099520 -92056

2007 99.3 -198288 -949769 -141376

2008 110.4 -220499 -713677 -146928

2009 91.6 -182881 -450252 -113889

2010 40.6 -81142 -159714 -47225

6.5. Conclusions and recommendations

6.5.1 Conclusion

Due to the increasing number of vehicles in Malaysia, the fuel consumption

will grow rapidly in the future if there is no government intervention. In order to

reduce the growth, fuel economy standards should be implemented in Malaysia.

Apart from reducing fuel consumption, the program also indirectly reduces

emissions. The present study has demonstrated that implementation of fuel economy

standards for motor vehicle will lead to the following conclusions:

The result of the study has proven that the consumer, manufacturers,

government and the environment will receive tremendous benefit from

implementing the fuel economy standards. It is possible to save fuel

approximately 115.5 liter for cars, 84 liter for 2 stroke motorcycle, 94.5 liter for

4 stroke motorcycle, 828 liter for medium duty lorry (class 2 & 3) and 2302.5

liter for busses. Although now the consumers have to pay a higher price for



purchasing vehicle, they will save from the lower annual fuel cost; which is

RM164.01 for cars, RM119.28 for 2 stroke motorcycle, RM134.19 for 4 stroke

motorcycle, RM1175.76 for medium duty lorry (class 2 & 3) and RM3269.55

for busses.

By calculating the impact of the fuel economy standards, approximately 916 GL

of fuel could be saved at the end of 2011.

In brief, this study presents the importance to propose the fuel economy

standards in Malaysia and shows that the fuel consumption improvement is an

effective method to reduce fuel energy consumption growth in the transportation

sector.

6.5.2 Recommendation

The study proposes several recommendations to gain an optimum impact

from possible fuel economy standards implementation for vehicles in Malaysia. The

recommendations are:

The government needs to establish a framework to continually collect data from

the dealers who sell their vehicles in the Malaysian market. From these data,

fuel economy label should be developed that meets the fuel economy standards

in order to enable the consumers to select and purchase the best fuel efficient

vehicle.

Implementation of the fuel economy standard is the responsibility of the

government. However cooperation between relevant institutions such as SIRIM,

PTM and also the manufacturers should be reinforced to increase the synergy in



order to produce a successful test procedure, fuel economy standards and label

program.

An independent laboratory for testing purposes owned by the Malaysian

government or an independent body should be developed as one of the main step

to implement the fuel economy standards. This includes the facility to predict

traffic behavior, vehicle maintenance and the type of road.

Malaysian government should conduct awareness campaign on how to drive

efficiently. In order to drive more efficiently, these are the recommended

guidelines:

Driving Habits

There are infinite variations of possibilities that can affect driving style. Some factors

that influence the driving techniques of the driver are

Types of road

Weather condition

Traffic flow

The type of roads and weather conditions are the two things beyond the control of the

driver. However, traffic flow can be improved and streamlined by proper road

management and improved driving skills. Meanwhile, fuel can also be saved by

strictly avoiding unnecessary of these following driving habits:

• Throttling



Frequent acceleration and braking consumes up to 50% extra fuel required to reach a

particular destination if diving at a cruising speed of 45 km/hr. It causes excessive

tire wear and also reduces life of brake pads. Always accelerate gently and anticipate

stops to avoid sudden braking.

• Idling

Switch off vehicles engine when not in use and avoid excessive throttling when

waiting at the traffic light. Do not leave vehicles unattended with engine idling, as

this wastes fuel.

• Use of clutch

Using the clutch unnecessarily reduces a lot of useful power generated by engine and

results in wasted fuel. Always use the clutch smoothly and only when necessary.

Maintenance Schedule

By following the manufacturer's instructions on maintenance will not only reduce the

fuel bill but also increase the life of the engine. An energy conscious motorist can

save as much as 10% of fuel bill and help the nation to save valuable amount of fuel.

In the following section information is provided on checks of various components

that need to be thoroughly monitored at the time of tune-up.

Tune Up

Regular tuning can save up to 10% fuel. Black smoke from exhaust is due to

incomplete combustion of fuel. A proper fuel consumption record needs to be



maintained. If it drops more than 10%, the motorcycle needs to be tuned by a

competent mechanic.

Tyre Pressure

Under inflated tires not only reduce the tire life by as much as 25%, but due to

increased rolling resistance, it also increases the fuel consumption. Tests have shown

that a 25% under inflation increases fuel consumption by 5%.

Spark Plugs

The spark plug is ensured to be properly inspected and cleaned. The following are

also checked:

- Spark plug gap

- Wear or erosion of electrode

- Fouling

- Carbon deposits

- Cracks Deformation

It is advisable that the spark plug is cleaned in a spark plug cleaner for these

following engines:

- 2 stroke motorcycle engine: spark plugs needs to be cleaned every 300km and

replaced after every 5,000 km.



- 4 stroke motorcycle engine: spark plugs needs to be cleaned every 3,000 km

and replaced after every 15,000 km

Air Cleaner

Filter needs to be cleaned using compressed air every 1,000 km and replaced after

every 3,000 km

Battery

Proper maintenance of battery will ensure easy starts. To maintain the battery is in

top condition, battery electrolyte needs to be checked with a hydrometer and ensured

that the specific gravity of battery electrolyte is between 1.260 -1.280 (at

20°C/68°F). The battery is recharged if the hydrometer shows specific gravity less

than 1.220. Battery electrolyte level also needs to be checked. This should be

between the upper and lower limits indicated on the battery. If required, distilled

water is added to raise the level to the upper mark.

Exhaust System

The performance of a two stroke engine is dependent upon the condition of the

diffuser pipe in the exhaust muffler. Over a short period of time it gets choked due to

carbon deposits. The diffuser pipe requires monthly cleaning to remove the deposited

carbon. This should be done by using a wire brush. Note:

Engine Lubricants

The usage of a multiviscosity engine oil is encouraged.



New modified or slippery oils are designed to improve fuel efficiency by 3 to

8%.

Dirty engine oil causes added friction and engine wear.

Engine oil should be changed after the engine has properly warmed up.

Always drain oil thoroughly by removing the drain bolt.

Remember to reinstall the drain bolt before filling up the recommended oil up to

the proper level.

To check the engine oil level, support the motorcycle on the main stand with the

engine stopped. Wait for 2-3 minutes after shutting off the engine and then

check the oil level.

Engine lubricant when added in right proportion on two stroke engine reduces

engine wear and increases engine life. It also reduces formation of deposits in

the combustion chamber and minimizes spark plug fouling.

References

Aprilia DiTech Information. [2004].www.speed-sports.com

Bleviss D. 1988. The new Oil Crisis and Fuel Economy Technologies: Preparing the

Light Transportation Industry for the 1990s. New York.

Australian Greenhouse Office, Fuel Consumption label [2003]

Fuel Consumption Guide, 22nd Edition [2001-2002]; Australian Greenhouse Office



Fuel Economy Guide [2004], U.S Department of Energy, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency. www.fueleconomy.gov

Berjaya Motor Sdn. Bhd. Klang, Selangor.

C.Difiglio, L.Fulton [1999]; How to reduce US automobile greenhouse gas

emissions; Paris, France.

Energy and Environ. Anal., Inc. 1979. Technological/Cost Relations to Update.

DOE.

Energy and Environ. Anal., Inc. 1990. An assessement of Potential Passenger Car

Fuel Economy Objectives for 2010, Arlington.

Energy and Environ. Anal., Inc.1990. Analysis of The Fuel Economy Boundry for

2010 and Compirason to Prototypes. U.S

Ford A, Sutherland RJ. 1982. The Outlook for Improved Automobile Fuel Efficiency.

Los Alamos

Fuel Catalyst Technical Buletin.www.protecusa.com

Gray CL, von Hippel F. 1981. The Fuel Economy of Light Vehicles. Sci. Am.

Greene D.L and DeCicco,J [2000]; Engineering-Economic Analyses of Automotive

Fuel Economy Potential in the United States.

Heavenrich RM and Hellman KH. 1999. Light Duty Automotive Technology and

Fuel Economy Trends Through 1999. EPA.



Hittman Assoc., Inc. 1976. Fuel Economy Cost Relationship for Future Automobiles.

Federal Energy Administration, Columbia

Honda Worlwide Technology Close-up.www.world.honda.com

John M. DeCicco [1995]; Projected Fuel Savings and Emissions reductions from

light Vehicles Fuel Economy Standards

Mahlia, T.M.I., Masjuki, H.H. & Choudhury, I.A. [2002a]. Theory of energy

efficiency standards and labels, Energy Conversion and Management.

Mahlia, T.M.I., Masjuki, H.H. & Choudhury, I.A. [2002b]. Development of energy

labels for room air conditioner in Malaysia: methodology and results, Energy

Conversion and Management.

Mahlia, T.M.I., Masjuki, H.H. , Choudhury, I.A. & Amalina, M.A. [2003]. Cost-

Benefit Analysis of Implementing Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards for

Household Refrigerator-Freeezers in Malaysia.

Mahlia, T.M.I., Masjuki, H.H., Choudhury, I.A. & Norleha, A.R. [2002]. Projected

Electricity Savings from Implementing Minimum Energy Efficiency Standard for

Household Refrigerators in Malaysia

Malaysia Motor Trader.[2004]. The Car Listed Prices in Ringgit Malaysia.

www.motortrader.com.my

Mark Archer, Greg Bell. [2001]. Advanced Electronic Fuel Injection System – An

Emissions Solution for Both 2- and 4-stroke Small Vehicle Engines. Synerjet System

Integration, Balcatta, Australia.



Pakistan Energy and Management Centre. Improve Fuel Efficiency of Motorcycle.

www.peemac.sdnpk.org

Petrol saver.[2003] Advance Magnetic Device.www.petrolsaver.org.uk

Sam Leighton, Steven Ahern [2003]. Fuel Economy Advantages on Indian 2 Strokes

and 4 Strokes Motorcycles Fitted With Direct Fuel Injection. SAE Paper. Orbital

Engine Company, Australia.

Stephane Barbusse [2001]. Motorcycles, Mopeds :Polluting Emissions and Energy

Consumption. Initial Observations. ADEME, Transport Technology Department,

France.

Stacy C. Davis, Susan W. Diegel [2003].Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition

23. Center for Transportation Analysis Engineering Science and Technology

Division.

Technology Roadmap for The 21st Century Truck

Program.[2000].www.gov.doe/bridge



APPENDIX A

0

20000004000000

60000008000000

1000000012000000

1400000016000000

18000000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Year

Car

s

Figure 6.A1 Car growth in Malaysia

0

2000000

4000000

6000000

8000000

10000000

12000000

14000000

16000000

18000000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Year

Mot

orcy

cles

Figure 6.A2 Motorcycle growth in Malaysia



0200,000400,000600,000800,000

1,000,0001,200,0001,400,0001,600,0001,800,0002,000,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Year

Lorr

ies

Figure 6.A3 Lorry growth in Malaysia

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Year

Bus

ses

Figure 6.A4 Bus growth in Malaysia

Documents

Energy Use in the Transportation Sector of Malaysia