The document discusses how land use and transportation planning can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It analyzes four conceptual land use scenarios (A, B, C, D) for a new community in terms of factors like density, diversity of land uses, and proximity to transit. Scenario D, which focuses growth around transit corridors and stations, generates the fewest vehicle miles traveled and lowest transportation emissions while enabling the most walking, biking and transit use. However, land use alone may not be enough, and advanced vehicle technologies and building energy efficiency are also needed to fully achieve emissions reductions targets.

1. How does transportation and
network planning address
greenhouse gas emissions?

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. 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. Issues to Consider
► How much benefit can you get?
► Are there diminishing returns?
► Are there other positives?
► Are there some negatives?

5. SB 375
Conceptual Land Use Scenario

6. CA Climate Change Legislation
The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Assembly Bill 32

7. California AB 32 Adopted Green House Gas
Reduction Estimates by Measures

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. Adding local transit
quadrupled the top
priority areas from
123,000 acres to 534,000 acres
This lowered densities while
maintaining transit efficiency

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

12. Superstition Vistas
Location
Apache
Junction
Queen Creek
Florence

13. 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

14. 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.

15. Building Energy Use

16. Lincoln Institute For Land Policy

17. Superstition Vistas
Scenario Report
A Sustainable Community
for the 21st Century
September 2009

18. Scenario A
Shown with the
transportation network and
existing surrounding plans
Scenario A

19. What Life Could Be Like in Scenario A
Nort
h

20. Scenario D
Shown with the
transportation network and
existing surrounding plans
Scenario D

21. What Life Could Be Like in Scenario D
Nort
h

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. Homes for a Changing Region

30. 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

31. Building Prototype Modeling

32. 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

33. Plainfield
Will County Governmental League

34. 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

35. 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

36. Comparing trip to work
Redondo Beach Portland

37. 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

42. NOT a good place to do density

43. Transit has a Carbon Footprint
► Transit has a Carbon Footprint

44. 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

45. Cultural differences account for
some of the problem
Germany vs. US

46. Germany vs. US

47. 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

48. Yes, it has a lower carbon footprint,
but primarily, it’s more liveable!