## 4 Results and Discussion
### Analysis and Evaluation of PT Modal Shares, VKT, and VHT Reductions for Each Scenario
per capita in scenario 2 were lower than those in scenario 1. As indicated previously, the travel patterns and modal splits for both EMCs and EPCs were the same as those for MCs and PCs. Therefore, the magnitudes of the VKT and VHT per capita under Scenario 3 were constant, and their VKT and VHT reductions per capita were zero. Among the two integrated scenarios 4 and 5 in 2026, the performance of scenarios 4 and 5 in terms of the VKT and VHT reductions per capita was identical to scenarios 1 and 2, respectively. Similar trends for both the individual and integrated scenarios were observed in 2046. Notably, the growing reductions in both VKT and VHT per capita in scenarios 1, 2, 4, and 5 were affected by the growth in population, employment, and number of students from 2026 to 2046. Analysis and Evaluation of CO\({}_{2}\) Emission and Energy Consumption Performance for Each Scenario  
Based on the developed MTDM models and the bottom-up 2 approach, the CO\({}_{2}\) emissions and energy consumption reductions per capita for each scenario in each specific year were calculated and are presented in Table 6. Among the three individual scenarios (1, 2, and 3) in 2026, scenario 3 performed the best in terms of CO\({}_{2}\) emission reductions and energy savings per capita, followed by scenarios 1 and 2, respectively. The magnitudes of CO\({}_{2}\) emission and energy use reductions per capita in scenario 3 were much greater than those in scenarios 1 and 2. This indicates that EVs (scenario 3) offer greater benefits and effectiveness than scenarios 1 and 2. Similar reasons, as previously described, can be adopted to explain the inferiority of scenario 2 compared to scenario 1. Among the two integrated scenarios 4 and 5 in 2026, scenario 4 performed better than scenario 5. This is because scenarios 4 and 5 include the combined merits and effectiveness of integrated scenarios 1 and 3, and scenarios 2 and 3, respectively. Similar trends for both the individual and integrated scenarios were observed in 2046. It should also be noted that in 2026 and 2046, similar patterns of reductions in CO\({}_{2}\) emissions and energy consumption per capita in each scenario could be seen. However, the percentage of energy use reductions per capita for all (individual and integrated) scenarios was generally higher than that of CO\({}_{2}\) emission reductions per capita. This is because the CO\({}_{2}\) emission factors and energy consumption rates for each vehicle and engine type are uniquely different, as shown in Table 3. Consequently, the percentages of CO\({}_{2}\) emissions and energy consumption reduction per capita are distinct. Electricity consumption is calculated in scenario 1 by introducing five lines of the LRT system and in scenario 3, by replacing internal combustion engine (ICE) passenger cars and motorcycles with electric vehicles. Since the CO\({}_{2}\) emission factors of electricity generation and distribution are applied in this study, CO\({}_{2}\) emissions from electricity use in LRT systems and electric vehicles were calculated. Interestingly, the results show that the proportion of CO\({}_{2}\) emissions from electricity use is higher than that from energy use in all scenarios. This shows that the PDP2018 Revision 1 emission factors are not low enough to decarbonize transport systems. The integrated scenarios performed better than the individual scenarios because the integrated scenarios usually combined the potential benefits of each scenario in terms of the CO\({}_{2}\) emission and energy consumption reductions per capita.