This presentation summarizes work done by Stanford and Tec de Monterrey students on analyzing and defining sustainability problems in Distrito Tec, Monterrey, Mexico. The students used a project-based learning methodology involving problem definition, field visits, and developing analysis on land use, mobility, energy, and water systems. For each topic, the students outlined their methodology, key results, and next steps to further define the problems and pathways to solutions. The goal is to help Distrito Tec set sustainability goals and design infrastructure to meet those goals across health, ecological, social and economic dimensions.

1. Distrito Tec Final Presentation
Monterrey, MX - June 21, 2017

2. Presentation
Team
KELLY OLSON
MS CEE, SDC, Y1
kmolson@stanford.edu
MAX O’KREPKI
MS CEE, SDC, Y1
maxo@stanford.edu
DEREK OUYANG
LECTURER
douyang1@stanford.edu
IAN BICK
MS CEE, EES, Y1
ianbick@stanford.edu
RUBI RODRIGUEZ
MS MS&E, Y2
rubi1rdz@stanford.edu
JACOB WAGGONER
MA PUBL POL, Y1
jacobw1@stanford.edu
Other Students
● Caleb Smith (MA Public Policy)
● Alex Duvall (MS CEE, SDC)
● Kevin Keene (MS CEE, SDC)
● Xiaodong Lu (MS CEE, SDC)
● Jingping Bai (MS CEE, EES)
● Raul Cabrera (BS CEE)
● Brandon Sutter (BS CEE)
● Ana Sophia Mifsud (BS ENVS)
● Jake Glassman (BS ENVS)
● Andre Gaona (BS CHEM E)
Glenn Katz, Lecturer
Jack Lundquist, TA

3. Outline
● SUS Project-Based Learning Methodology
● Problem Definition Phase
● Problem Solution Phase
● Concluding Remarks

4. Problem Solving
Cost Benefit
Analysis
Open-
Ended
Inquiry
Model
Formulation
Knowledge
Acquisition
Problem Definition
Problem
Definition
Solution
3
Solution
4
Solution
2
Cost
Benefit
Analysis
Solution
Pathway
Design
Solution
5
Solution
1
SUS Project-Based Learning Methodology
Field
Visit

5. SUS Project-Based Learning Methodology
Well Being &
Equity
ResilienceSustainability
City Geopolitical Boundary
Governance System
Economic System
Mobility System
Energy System
Water System
Constituents
Land Use + Activities
Geospatial system
Virtual System
Actors
Data / Blueprint of Infrastructure Dashboard of Indicators
Roadmap of Goals
City Geopolitical Boundary

6. Problem Solving
Cost Benefit
Analysis
Open-
Ended
Inquiry
Model
Formulation
Knowledge
Acquisition
Problem Definition
Problem
Definition
Solution
3
Solution
4
Solution
2
Cost
Benefit
Analysis
Solution
Pathway
Design
Solution
5
Solution
1
SUS Project-Based Learning Methodology
Field
Visit

7. Meeting with Chemical Engineering faculty at Tec

8. Meeting with IMPLANC, local urban development
authority

9. DistritoTec leader Jose Antonio presenting to Stanford
and Tec students about the DistritoTec Master Plan

10. Stanford students viewing DistritoTec model on campus

11. Stanford students providing feedback to Tec students
during their class workshops

12. Stanford students providing feedback to Tec students
during their class workshops

13. Stanford and Tec students

14. Stanford and Tec students visiting other parts of
Monterrey

15. Stanford and Tec students visiting other parts of
Monterrey

16. Stanford and Tec students visiting other parts of
Monterrey

17. At the end of our field visit, our understanding of
DistritoTec’s roadmap: Four types of ‘Sustainability’
Our approach is to understand how DistritoTec performs in these different
measures, set aspirational goals, and design/engineer systems that meet these
sustainability goals.
HealthEcological Social Economic

18. Problem Solving
Cost Benefit
Analysis
Open-
Ended
Inquiry
Model
Formulation
Knowledge
Acquisition
Problem Definition
Problem
Definition
Solution
3
Solution
4
Solution
2
Cost
Benefit
Analysis
Solution
Pathway
Design
Solution
5
Solution
1
SUS Project-Based Learning Methodology
Field
Visit

19. Well Being &
Equity
ResilienceSustainability
City Geopolitical Boundary
Governance System
Economic System
Mobility System
Energy System
Water System
Constituents
Land Use + Activities
Geospatial system
Virtual System
Actors
Data / Blueprint of Infrastructure Dashboard of Indicators
Roadmap of Goals
City Geopolitical Boundary
Problem Definition Phase

20. Problem Definition Phase
Economic Prosperity
Walking/Biking Scores
Energy consumption/ use intensity
Flood vulnerability (“peak flow”)
Improve quality of life
Reduce SOV use and reliance
Mitigate environmental impact
Efficiency, cleanliness, capacity
Flood Mitigation
Data / Blueprint of Infrastructure Dashboard of Indicators
Roadmap of Goals

21. Problem Definition Phase
Economic Prosperity
Walking/Biking Scores
Energy consumption/ use intensity
Flood vulnerability (“peak flow”)
Improve quality of life
Reduce SOV use and reliance
Mitigate environmental impact
Efficiency, cleanliness, capacity
Flood Mitigation
Data / Blueprint of Infrastructure Dashboard of Indicators
Roadmap of Goals
Land Use

22. Methodology: Understand variation in economic productivity across DT, as measured by wages,
profits, and total gross product
MTY-wide Industry Indicators
Parcel AreaCurrent
Land Use
INEGI MTY
Economic
Indicators
INEGI
DENUE
Industry Profits (per emp)
Industry Wages (per emp)
Industry TGP (per emp)
Industry Emp. Ranges
Business Emp. Ranges
Business Profits
Business Wages
Business TGP
Parcel TGP (per m2
)
Parcel Wages (per m2
)
Parcel Profits (per m2
)
Productivity (per m2
)
Land Use: Methodology

23. Land Use: Results
> 0.15
0.022
< 0.001
● Smaller businesses tend to
be more productive
● Many of the lowest
productivity areas have a
lot of off-street parking
● Three areas stand out:
○ N. Sin Nombre 35
○ Av. Jesús Cantú Leal
○ Calle 2 de Abril

24. Land Use: Next Steps
1. Match industries to economic indicators at a finer scale
2. Estimate all land values, including residential
3. Estimate present and future demand (e.g., with survey, income data)
4. Verify and deepen analysis (e.g., with business survey)
Pathway Steps served Cost Benefit CBA Score Priority
Obtain Land Value Data 2 2 or 6/10 6/10 0 or 4/10 High
INEGI Income Data License 3 4/10 6/10 2/10 High
INEGI, NAICS Cross-reference 1 2/10 3/10 1/10 Med
Community Survey 2, 3 8/10 8/10 0/10 Low
Business Survey 4 7/10 5/10 -2/10 Low

25. Problem Definition Phase
Economic Prosperity
Walking/Biking Scores
Flood vulnerability (“peak flow”)
Energy consumption/ use intensity
Improve quality of life
Reduce SOV use and reliance
Mitigate environmental impact
Efficiency, cleanliness, capacity
Flood Mitigation
Data / Blueprint of Infrastructure Dashboard of Indicators
Roadmap of Goals
Mobility

26. Mobility: Methodology
Methodology: Understand the differences in access at the block level residents have to certain
facilities by either walking or biking.
Street Network
Network Configuration
File
Service Area Analysis
Accessibility metric
using network analyst
Geographic Location:
● Food stores
● Hospitals
● Parks
● Shopping
Centers
● Schools
Existing Facilities
DT Mobility Network
Walk / Bike Score
(Accessibility metric)

27. Mobility: Results, Walk Score
Average walk score of 5

28. Mobility: Results, Bike Score
Average bike score of 28

29. Mobility: Version 2
● Version 2 of the model would account for access thresholds
○ The current scores are always “chasing cars”
○ Only measure physical accessibility relative to driving
○ Next layer of the model could indicate areas that meet certain access thresholds
● Incorporate additional data to produce more holistic scores
○ More holistic scores would indicate the competitiveness of sustainable mobility
● The inclusion of this data could be used to model mobility patterns in the
district
○ Models could estimate the effects of policy on mobility patterns
○ Could be used to test different intervention scenarios

30. Mobility: Next Steps
Pathway Steps served Cost Benefit Priority
Mexican
Census
1 2/10 7/10 High
Community
Survey
1, 2 8/10 8/10 High
ITESM,
Monterrey
3 6/10 7/10 Med
1. Incorporate socio-economic factors (crime, health, cost)
2. Survey residents to determine which facilities are key
3. Physical Infrastructure Condition

31. Problem Definition Phase
Economic Prosperity
Walking/Biking Scores
Energy consumption/ use intensity
Flood vulnerability (“peak flow”)
Improve quality of life
Reduce SOV use and reliance
Mitigate environmental impact
Efficiency, cleanliness, capacity
Flood Mitigation
Data / Blueprint of Infrastructure Dashboard of Indicators
Roadmap of Goals
Energy

32. Energy: Methodology
Methodology: Understand the difference in energy consumption across
Distrito Tec with regards to capacity and efficiency.
CUS
Parcel Area
Parcel ID
Disaggregated
Land Use
Baseline
Land Use
EUI
Baseline EUI
Current Land Use
Current Energy Consumption
(Kbtu)
Disaggregated
Energy Consumption

33. Current
Future
EUI (kBtu/m2)
EUI (kBtu/m2)Land Use
Land Use Energy Consumption
Energy Consumption

34. Energy: Next Steps
1) Reduce energy consumption
2) Increase energy efficiency in new and current buildings
3) Achieve national goals for renewable energy consumption
Pathway Steps served Cost Benefit CBA Score Priority
Renewable energy
data
3 6/10 8/10 2/10 Medium
Energy metering 2 6/10 9/10 3/10 High
Develop energy
efficiency standards
for buildings
1,2 4/10 9/10 5/10 High
Revise construction
regulations
1,2 4/10 5/10 1/10 Low

35. Problem Definition Phase
Economic Prosperity
Walking/Biking Scores
Energy consumption/ use intensity
Flood vulnerability (“peak flow”)
Improve quality of life
Reduce SOV use and reliance
Mitigate environmental impact
Efficiency, cleanliness, capacity
Flood Mitigation
Data / Blueprint of Infrastructure Dashboard of Indicators
Roadmap of Goals
Water

36. Illustrate regional relative flood risk by using fuzzy logic to overlay elevation,
flow accumulation, and surface runoff characteristics.
Flow Accumulation Surface Runoff Digital Elevation Map
Water: Methodology

37. Water: Fuzzy Logic Methodology
Fuzzy OverlayFuzzy Membership
• How does the parameter
relate to flood risk?
• linear, Gaussian, custom
function, etc
• How do we overlay these
memberships to find
relative flood risk?
• Sum, product, max, min,
gamma…

38. Distrito Tec
Relative Flood Hazard

39. Water: Next Steps
1. More parameters needed to increase flood risk accuracy and applicability
2. A modified fuzzy logic model could be applied to locate sites where green
infrastructure projects are most desirable.
3. Understanding economics of flood damages for project planning and financing
Parameters Steps Served Priority
Precipitation Data 1 High
Precise Impermeable Surface Area 1, 2 High
Historical Flood Locations 1, 2 High
Soil Properties (clay %, sand %, bulk density…) 1 Med
Income and Productivity 3 Med
Normalized Difference Water Index 1 Low
Normalized Difference Vegetation Index 1, 2 Low

40. Project Definition Phase Maps are online:
sus.stanford.edu/monterrey

41. Monterrey Visit to Stanford: 16-17 May 2017

42. Problem Solving
Cost Benefit
Analysis
Open-
Ended
Inquiry
Model
Formulation
Knowledge
Acquisition
Problem Definition
Goal
Setting
Solution
3
Solution
4
Solution
2
Cost
Benefit
Analysis
Solution
Pathway
Design
Solution
5
Solution
1
SUS Project-Based Learning Methodology
Field
Visit
Problem
Definition

43. Problem Definition: Goal Setting
By 2025, to improve Distrito Tec, achieve the following as feasibly and affordably as possible.
Increase economic
productivity/wealth
As measured by business
profit/wages/TGP
And reduce SOV use As measured by walk and bike
scores
And mitigate stormwater
vulnerability
As measured by peak flow
While maintaining energy capacity As measured by EUI

44. Problem Solving
Cost Benefit
Analysis
Open-
Ended
Inquiry
Model
Formulation
Knowledge
Acquisition
Problem Definition
Goal
Setting
Solution
3
Solution
4
Solution
2
Cost
Benefit
Analysis
Solution
Pathway
Design
Solution
5
Solution
1
SUS Project-Based Learning Methodology
Field
Visit
Problem
Definition

45. Stanford students brainstorming solutions to the design
problem

46. Stanford students brainstorming solutions to the design
problem

47. Students brainstormed 20+ interventions, picked 5

48. Problem Solving
Cost Benefit
Analysis
Open-
Ended
Inquiry
Model
Formulation
Knowledge
Acquisition
Problem Definition
Goal
Setting
Solution
3
Solution
4
Solution
2
Cost
Benefit
Analysis
Solution
Pathway
Design
Solution
5
Solution
1
SUS Project-Based Learning Methodology
Field
Visit
Problem
Definition

49. Solution Pathways Overview
Parking
Complete Streets
Bike Infrastructure
Community Centers
Stormwater Retention

50. Parking
Quantitative Cost-Benefit
> 0.15
0.022
< 0.001
Low
Productivity
High
Off-street
Parking
High
On-street
Parking
Redevelop 1 m2
+$77,000 MXN per year
(Assumes average profitability)
Qualitative Considerations
Current demand for parking
Increased on-street pressure
Less productive uses more
equitable?
Induced parking demand

51. Complete Streets: The Micro Scale
▪ Encourage alternative transportation ▪ Ensure pedestrian safety
▪ Energize neglected or empty areas
with economic activity
▪ Enhance connectivity and quality of green
spaces (include rainwater harvesting)

52. Economic opportunity—
complete streets:
● Stimulate the local
economy
● Spur private investment
● Raise property values
Other opportunities:
● Protect bikers with
continuity of bike lanes
● Incorporate rainwater
retention and reuse Bike Score
Profit per Area
Wages
Locating
intervention
based on
goals/metrics:
Complete Streets: The Macro Scale Opportunity

53. Proposal for Expansion
Original Proposal New Proposal

54. Bike Infrastructure

55. Bike Infrastructure
● Enable residents to reach more of the existing facilities by bike
● Bikeway improvements vary widely
○ Range from sharrows to painted lanes to separated lanes (plastic posts, cement blocks)
● Bikeway improvements tie into the larger city network
● Preliminary analysis suggests substantial benefits can be realized from
bikeway improvements
○ Average bike score improvement of 13%

56. Community Centers
Roma
Alta Vista
Narvarte
○ Centers would:
■ Provide essential services
within walking and biking
distance.
■ Be placed in areas with low
walk and bike scores.
■ Make a better use of
underutilized parking lots.

57. Community Center Proposal
○ Demographic Data
■ Age density
■ Educational level
■ Unemployment
○ Potential Services
■ Fitness centers
■ Conference rooms
■ Cafe
■ Educational rooms
■ Computer rooms

60. Stormwater Retention
● Case study on peak flow and
applicability of several stormwater
retention technologies
● Objectives are to:
○ Determine causes of floods
○ Establish which technologies
are applicable to study area
and Monterrey as a whole
○ Show quantitative benefits
these technologies
○ Encourage investment in
green infrastructure

61. Peak Flow Calculations:
Rational Method: Q = kCiA
• Rainfall intensity determined via
state-level isohyetal map
• Runoff determined via land usage and
increases with storm intensity
Stormwater Retention

62. Peak Stormwater Flow (East & West drains):
Return Period 2 year Storm 5 year Storm 10 year Storm
Peak Flow (m3
/s) 2.0 2.8 3.4
Sewer Capacity
(1% slope and 36” pipe)
● 1.9 m3
/s → Sewers cannot
accommodate a 2-year
storm
Stormwater Retention

63. Stormwater Retention
● Detention Basin
○ Park elevation is 0.7m - 1.0m
above storm drain
○ Pumping water to basin is
prohibitively expensive
● Underground Storage Tank
○ Storm flow outside the sewer
main capacity diverted to
water tank
○ 240 m3
tank recommended to
prevent sewer overflow for a
20 year, 18 minute storm
○ Estimated cost: $94,800 MXN

64. Conclusions
1. Trash mitigation could help to restore design sewer capacity
2. Sewer capacity in Parque Tecnologico insufficient to handle 2 year storm
3. Low infiltration in high-clay Monterrey soils reduces applicability of permeable
pavement and suggests storage and flow diversion are more effective.
• Detention basins and underground water tanks are particularly applicable
stormwater control technologies
4. Using regional flood risk maps and historical flood data could aid in identifying
the most effective sites for stormwater controls.
Stormwater Retention

65. Summary of Recommendations

66. Problem Solving: Satisficing Solution Pathway
By 2025, to improve Distrito Tec, achieve the following as feasibly and affordably as possible.
Parking Complete
Streets
Bike
Infrastructure
Community
Centers
Stormwater
Retention
Increase
economic
productivity.
As measured
by business
profit/wages
And reduce SOV
use.
As measured
by walk and
bike scores
And mitigate
stormwater
vulnerability.
As measured
by peak flow
While
maintaining
energy capacity.
As measured
by EUI

67. Next Steps for Research
● Further data from the GIS lab and engagement with IMPLANC
● Community engagement through community surveys
○ Attitude towards biking and public transit
○ Perceived safety of biking and public transit
○ Most important or most frequented destinations that require access via transit
○ Extent to which one considers cost when selecting transit mode and energy consumption
○ Facility types that residents would like to have closer to their homes
○ Facilities and services for which residents are willing to pay
○ Resident awareness of flood and standing water risk
○ Resident knowledge of alternative energy
● Incorporate digital and geospatial feedback
(where appropriate)
○ Example: Map.Social

68. Thank you!