How Does Transportation and Network Planning Address Network Planning Address Greenhouse Gas Emissions?

1,591 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Real Estate
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,591
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
72
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
30
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

How Does Transportation and Network Planning Address Network Planning Address Greenhouse Gas Emissions?

  1. 1. How does transportation and network planning address greenhouse gas emissions?
  2. 2. How Does Land Use Affect Transport? The Five D’s ► Density – population and employment ratios ► Diversity Ratio of Housing to Jobs Demographics that tend to be dependant on transit (age, income, available vehicles) ► Design – completeness and connectivity of local pedestrian network (walkable places) ► Destinations – Accessibility to regional activity centers. ► Distance – areas near transit
  3. 3. How do you affect GHG with Land Use? Theory: ► Good Land Use reduces VMT ► With VMT you have lower fuel consumption ► Lower Fuel Consumption = Lower Carbon Emissions ► Not Necessarily!
  4. 4. Issues to Consider ► How much benefit can you get? ► Are there diminishing returns? ► Are there other positives? ► Are there some negatives?
  5. 5. SB 375 Conceptual Land Use Scenario
  6. 6. CA Climate Change Legislation The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Assembly Bill 32
  7. 7. California AB 32 Adopted Green House Gas Reduction Estimates by Measures
  8. 8. Anticipating the Target • Statewide reduction 5 million metric tons through land use and transportation planning by 2020 • Estimated SCAG portion 2.5 million metric tons
  9. 9. Adding local transit quadrupled the top priority areas from 123,000 acres to 534,000 acres This lowered densities while maintaining transit efficiency
  10. 10. Conceptual Land Use Scenario • Maintains city and county forecasts for housing and jobs • Focuses growth around transit corridors and stations • Focuses new development in areas with planned capacity -1.8 MMT -2.4 MMT -2.6 MMT
  11. 11. Superstition Vistas Location Apache Junction Queen Creek Florence
  12. 12. Modeling the Scenarios Owner Renter Year 2000 350,000 300,000 43% 250,000 57% 200,000 150,000 Vision 2030 100,000 50,000 48% - 52% SF Det SF Att MF SF Det SF Att MF Year 2000 Vision 2030 Market Constraints Sustainability Development Program Urban Design Commercial Demand Housing Needs Land Use Scenario Development Transportation Analysis Roadway Impact Ridership
  13. 13. Building Types Building Development Scenario Evaluation Types Types Development Prototype Groups of building Scenarios are created The Scenario buildings are types are combined to by applying the Spreadsheet allows created using the form Development Development Types you to examine a ROI Model. Types. to the landscape whole host of using the Scenario indicators about your Example: The Main Street development type Builder. scenario. has mixed-use buildings, townhomes and apartments.
  14. 14. Building Energy Use
  15. 15. Lincoln Institute For Land Policy
  16. 16. Superstition Vistas Scenario Report A Sustainable Community for the 21st Century September 2009
  17. 17. Scenario A Shown with the transportation network and existing surrounding plans Scenario A
  18. 18. What Life Could Be Like in Scenario A Nort h
  19. 19. Scenario D Shown with the transportation network and existing surrounding plans Scenario D
  20. 20. What Life Could Be Like in Scenario D Nort h
  21. 21. Land Developed (Acres) 120,000 111,246 95,014 100,000 80,000 63,964 60,000 45,000 40,000 20,000 0 A B C D
  22. 22. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) 18,000,000 16,000,000 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 A io B r o C na a ri io D e r o Sc en na ar i Sc ce en S Sc
  23. 23. Trip Counts – Walk & Bike 2,000,000 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 Percent of Trips 1,000,000 800,000 19% 600,000 D na ri o 400,000 e Sc 19% C 200,000 io ar Sc en 17% 0 B ar io A B rio en Sc C rio 11% a en a rio D A rio io en ar en 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Sc na a Sc Sc e Sc en Sc
  24. 24. Daily Transit Ridership 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 A B C D a rio a rio a rio rio en en en e na Sc Sc Sc Sc
  25. 25. Transportation Emissions (CO2) Tons of CO2 per Year 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 Fleet 1: 22.5 MPG, 0% 1,500,000 Electric 1,000,000 Fleet 4: 60 MPG, 20% Electric or Renewable Fuel 500,000 0 A B C D io io i o i o n ar n ar n ar ar n Sce Sce Sce Sce
  26. 26. Building Emissions (CO2) Annual CO2 (ton/yr) 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 Baseline 2,000,000 Best 1,000,000 0 A B C D rio rio rio rio na na na na Sce Sce Sce Sce
  27. 27. Total Carbon Footprint (Building and Transportation Emissions) 10,000,000 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 Baseline 3,000,000 Best 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 A B C D rio rio rio rio na na na na Sce Sce Sce Sce
  28. 28. Homes for a Changing Region
  29. 29. The Original Homes for a Changing Region Report • Presented regional housing forecast for 2030 • Forecast a mismatch between supply and demand • Provided specific recommendations for creating more housing options
  30. 30. Building Prototype Modeling
  31. 31. Carbon Footprint by Prototype Carbon Footprint (in Tons of Annual CO2 Emissions Per Unit) 25 20 Tons of CO2 15 10 5 - 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY 2-STORY TOWNHOUSE 3-STORY MULTIFAMILY 5-STORY MIXED-USE 8-STORY MULTIFAMILY Standard Good Better
  32. 32. Plainfield Will County Governmental League
  33. 33. Plainfield – Carbon Footprint Annual Carbon Footprint of Build-Out Alternatives (in tons of CO2) 250,000 211,322 200,000 38% reduction 150,000 130,695 50% reduction 106,457 100,000 50,000 - Trend w ith Standard Buildings Balanced w ith Standard Buildings Balanced w ith Better Buildings
  34. 34. Density Does Not Always Lead to Lower Carbon Footprint 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 R FL IL A AZ O C , i, go x, d, h, m ni ca an ac ia oe M hi Be rtl C Ph Po o d on ed R
  35. 35. Comparing trip to work Redondo Beach Portland
  36. 36. Good Place to do Density Example: Zupans Grocery store in Portland, Oregon Was the original redevelopment project in an up-and-coming neighborhood It served as an anchor and catalyst for additional housing projects
  37. 37. NOT a good place to do density
  38. 38. Transit has a Carbon Footprint ► Transit has a Carbon Footprint
  39. 39. Fuel type, efficiency, and passenger load are critical in determining carbon benefit Transit must improve its carbon footprint 5 miles per gallon 50 miles per gallon 10 passengers 1 passenger
  40. 40. Cultural differences account for some of the problem Germany vs. US
  41. 41. Germany vs. US
  42. 42. Conclusions ► Land use helps reduce carbon But it is small contribution Top concerns are vehicles, fuels, electricity generation, building technology ► Increasing density DOES NOT reduce carbon emissions!!! Design is more important ► The better cars and buildings get, the less benefit from land use design ► Land use had carbon benefits outside vehicles Better count it! We need all we can get! Water consumption has a carbon effect too
  43. 43. Yes, it has a lower carbon footprint, but primarily, it’s more liveable!

×