Measuring and Modeling Your Carbon - Haas CNU 17

GHG Reductions from Location Efficient Development CNU June 13, 2009 Peter Haas

Center for Neighborhood Technology ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Outline ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Household Transportation Model ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Household Auto Use ,[object Object],4 Environment Variables: Households/residential acre Avg. block size in acres Transit Connectivity Index Integrated Job Proximity 4 Household Variables Household income Household size Workers per Household Average time for Journey to work Auto Ownership + Auto Usage

Household Auto Use ,[object Object]

Household GHG Emissions ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Strategy ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

How Does this Add up? Based on Chicago Metropolitan Area Average Modeled Location Residential Density (Households per Residential Acre) Transit Access (Walkable Transit Options) Integrated Employment Proximity (Jobs/Sq Mile) Block Size (Acres) Annual HH VMT (Miles) CO 2 e Generated (Metric Tons) Average location 10.34 4.96 56,824 16.6 12,801 5.60 Average location near fixed rail 17.4 8.83 85,206 9.3 10,874 4.75 Average location NOT near fixed rail 5.4 2.24 36,920 21.7 15168 6.63 Average suburban location 4.3 2.24 32,315 21.8 15,925 6.96 Average Suburban location near fixed rail 5.1 3.82 40,215 13.7 14,898 6.51 Average Suburban location NOT near fixed rail 4.0 1.63 29,228 25.0 16,365 7.15 Average Chicago location 12.0 10.67 108,445 5.6 9,875 4.32 Average Chicago location near fixed rail 27.9 13.14 123,884 5.4 9,310 4.07 Average Chicago location NOT near fixed rail 12.2 5.22 74,317 5.8 11,766 5.14

Zonal Approach ,[object Object],[object Object],Based on Chicago Metropolitan Area Name Residential Density (Households per Residential Acre) Transit Access (Walkable Transit Options) Integrated Employment Proximity (Jobs/Sq Mile) Block Size (Acres) Current HHs CO2/HH Highest Location Efficient Transit Zones 61.7 97.7 671,546 3.4 1.86 High Location Efficient Transit Zones 30.4 25.6 171,750 4.1 3.57 High Medium Location Efficient Transit Zones 9.3 13.2 66,973 5.4 5.25 Medium Location Efficient Transit Zones 3.8 6.4 46,086 12.6 6.29 Low Location Efficient Transit Zones 4.5 1.7 41,088 9.2 6.65 Low Location Efficient Transit Zones 0.7 0.9 17,065 39.6 8.47

Zonal Approach Based on Chicago Metropolitan Area

GHG Accounting ,[object Object],Based on Chicago Metropolitan Area Name Residential Density Number of Households Current HHs CO2e /HH Current HHs Total CO2e Highest Location Efficient Transit Zones 61.7 17,668 1.86 32,862 High Location Efficient Transit Zones 30.4 9,938 3.57 35,478 High Medium Location Efficient Transit Zones 9.3 3,434 5.25 18,028 Medium Location Efficient Transit Zones 3.8 1,390 6.29 8,740 Low Location Efficient Transit Zones 4.5 1,840 6.65 12,234 Low Location Efficient Transit Zones 0.7 251 8.47 2,123

Regional Analysis ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Additional: Population Households Jobs Region 1,958,715 728,907 1,237,550 Chicago 364,881 159,235 246,640 Suburbs 1,593,834 569,672 990,910

Opportunity ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Current Situation ,[object Object],Total Chicago Suburbs Residential Density 8.1 hh/res acre 13.3 hh/res acre 4.3 hh/res acre Integrated Employment Proximity 63,366 J/m 2 98,300 J/m 2 38,224 J/m 2 Average Block Size 11.6 Acres 5.5 Acres 16.0 Acres Transit Connectivity Index 5.3 8.8 2.8 Median Household Income $54,031/Year $40,217/Year $63,973/Year Average Household Size 2.9 People 2.9 People 2.8 People Average Household Workers 1.3 Workers 1.1 Workers 1.4 Workers Average Time to Work 32.3 Min. 36.3 Min. 29.5 Min. CO 2 /HH Local 6.3 4.9 7.4 Households (Census 2000) 2,906,900 1,063,052 1,843,848 Aggregate CO 2 (CO 2 /HH Local * Households) 18,313,470 5,208,955 13,644,475

TOD with CMAP Suburban/Urban Growth Constraints

TOD with no Growth Constraints

Results of Different Growth Patterns 2000 2030 Business as Usual (BAU) TOD with Constraints TOD with no Constraints VMT Total Region 40,727,112,911 48,521,240,467 46,738,979,153 45,726,469,387 Increase of VMT from 2000 7,794,127,556 6,011,866,242 4,999,356,476 CO 2 e (Metric Tons) 18,457,608 21,989,922 21,182,197 20,723,326 Increase in CO 2 e from 2000 3,532,314 2,724,590 2,265,718 CO 2 e Reduction from BAU 807,724 (23%) 1,266,596 (36%)

Results of Different Growth Patterns Overall reduction of ~ 39% of 25% ~ 10% of all Regional GHGs! 2000 2030 Business as Usual (BAU) TOD with Constraints TOD with no Constraints VMT Total Region 40,727,112,911 48,521,240,467 46,738,979,153 45,726,469,387 Increase of VMT from 2000 7,794,127,556 6,011,866,242 4,999,356,476 CO 2 e (Metric Tons) 18,457,608 21,989,922 21,182,197 20,723,326 Increase in CO 2 e from 2000 3,532,314 2,724,590 2,265,718 CO 2 e Reduction from BAU 807,724 (23%) 1,266,596 (36%)

H+T sm Website and Two Views of Cities ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Conclusions ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

For More Information ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Measuring and Modeling Your Carbon - Haas CNU 17

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Measuring and Modeling Your Carbon - Haas CNU 17

Similar to Measuring and Modeling Your Carbon - Haas CNU 17 (20)

More from Congress for the New Urbanism

More from Congress for the New Urbanism (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Measuring and Modeling Your Carbon - Haas CNU 17