Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Stanford SUS Project: Distrito Tec

370 views

Published on

Presented to DistritoTec on June 21, 2017
Additional information at sus.stanford.edu/monterrey

Published in: Engineering
  • Be the first to comment

Stanford SUS Project: Distrito Tec

  1. 1. Distrito Tec Final Presentation Monterrey, MX - June 21, 2017
  2. 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. 3. Outline ● SUS Project-Based Learning Methodology ● Problem Definition Phase ● Problem Solution Phase ● Concluding Remarks
  4. 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. 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. 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. 7. Meeting with Chemical Engineering faculty at Tec
  8. 8. Meeting with IMPLANC, local urban development authority
  9. 9. DistritoTec leader Jose Antonio presenting to Stanford and Tec students about the DistritoTec Master Plan
  10. 10. Stanford students viewing DistritoTec model on campus
  11. 11. Stanford students providing feedback to Tec students during their class workshops
  12. 12. Stanford students providing feedback to Tec students during their class workshops
  13. 13. Stanford and Tec students
  14. 14. Stanford and Tec students visiting other parts of Monterrey
  15. 15. Stanford and Tec students visiting other parts of Monterrey
  16. 16. Stanford and Tec students visiting other parts of Monterrey
  17. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 27. Mobility: Results, Walk Score Average walk score of 5
  28. 28. Mobility: Results, Bike Score Average bike score of 28
  29. 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. 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. 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. 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. 33. Current Future EUI (kBtu/m2) EUI (kBtu/m2)Land Use Land Use Energy Consumption Energy Consumption
  34. 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. 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. 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. 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. 38. Distrito Tec Relative Flood Hazard
  39. 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. 40. Project Definition Phase Maps are online: sus.stanford.edu/monterrey
  41. 41. Monterrey Visit to Stanford: 16-17 May 2017
  42. 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. 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. 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. 45. Stanford students brainstorming solutions to the design problem
  46. 46. Stanford students brainstorming solutions to the design problem
  47. 47. Students brainstormed 20+ interventions, picked 5
  48. 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. 49. Solution Pathways Overview Parking Complete Streets Bike Infrastructure Community Centers Stormwater Retention
  50. 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. 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. 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. 53. Proposal for Expansion Original Proposal New Proposal
  54. 54. Bike Infrastructure
  55. 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. 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. 57. Community Center Proposal ○ Demographic Data ■ Age density ■ Educational level ■ Unemployment ○ Potential Services ■ Fitness centers ■ Conference rooms ■ Cafe ■ Educational rooms ■ Computer rooms
  58. 58. 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
  59. 59. 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
  60. 60. 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
  61. 61. 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
  62. 62. 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
  63. 63. Summary of Recommendations
  64. 64. 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
  65. 65. 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
  66. 66. Thank you!

×