Commuting from US Brownfield and Greenfield Residential Development Neighborhoods

Business of Brownfields ConferenceWednesday, April 21, 2010

Amy Nagengast, M.S., E.I.T., LEED APCarnegie Mellon University

Commuting from US Brownfield and Greenfield Residential Development

Neighborhoods

OverviewProject OverviewBrief Intro to Life Cycle AssessmentResearch Data SourcesCommuting Analysis

Distance to City CenterTransportation ModesTravel TimeEnergy ImpactsGreenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

ConclusionsBrownfield Commuting and LEEDFuture Work

Introduction

Data Methods ResultsConclusion

sFuture Work

2

Assessing Brownfield Sustainability: Life Cycle Analysis and Carbon

FootprintingEPA Funded Project consisting of:1. Training - working with network of Main Street

and Elm Street Managers across PA2. Technical Assistance - developing a multi-

attribute decision-making tool to assist in prioritizing sites

3. Research- quantifying Brownfield and Greenfield Development life cycle environmental impacts>This study: Focus on Commuting Impacts (use phase)> Also conducting broader case studies

Introduction

Data Methods ResultsFuture Work

Conclusions

3

The “Elevator Pitch” to Life Cycle Assessment

“A way to investigate, estimate, and evaluate the environmental burdens caused by a material, product,

process, or service throughout its life span.”

4

Introduction

Data Methods ResultsFuture Work

Conclusions

Source: http://www.eiolca.net/

The “Elevator Pitch” to Life Cycle Assessment

“A way to investigate, estimate, and evaluate the environmental burdens caused by a material, product,

process, or service throughout its life span.”

Thinking Holistically...Cradle to Cradle

5

Introduction

Data Methods ResultsFuture Work

Conclusions

Presentation Focus

Source: http://www.eiolca.net/

The “Elevator Pitch” to Life Cycle Assessment Cont.

What are the different types of LCA?Process based- itemizes inputs and outputs for a single

step in product productionInput-Output LCA- industry level, typically uses averagesHybrid

Where to draw the project boundary?Project objectiveAvailable data…least or most important areasUncertaintyTime and Money constraints

How to allocate shared resources?Energy, emissions, etc

6

Introduction

Data Methods ResultsFuture Work

Conclusions

Commuting Research ScopeMetric Unit Source

1Distance to City Center

Miles and Kilometers

Google Maps

2 Travel ModeNo. of Travelers

US Census

3 Travel Time Minutes

US Census, Texas Transportation Institute

4 Energy Impacts MJ and MBTU EIOLCA, EIA

5Greenhouse Gas Emission

C02e EIOLCA, EIA

Introduction

Data Methods ResultsFuture Work

Conclusions

7

EIOLCA=Economic Input-Output Life Cycle AssessmentEIA= Energy Information Administration

8

Brownfield and Greenfield Locations

GreenfieldBrownfield

St. Louis, MO

Minneapolis, MN

Houston, TX

Los Angeles, CA

Pittsburgh, PA

Chicago, IL

Milwaukee, WI

Baltimore, MD

Boston, MA

Introduction

Data Methods ResultsFuture Work

Conclusions

8

US Census Hierarchical Structure

Introduction

Data Methods ResultsFuture Work

Conclusions

9 Source: Figure 2–3. Hierarchical Relationship of Census Geographic Entities http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf1.pdf

Census Tract Information

Summerset, PA (Brownfield)

Waterfront, PA (Brownfield)

Source: http://www.novoco.com/new_markets/resources/ct/

Case 1: One Census Tract

Case 2: Two Census Tracts

Introduction

Data Methods ResultsFuture Work

Conclusions

10

Distance to City Center

Introduction

Data Methods ResultsFuture Work

Conclusions

11

US Census Transportation Mode Categories

Introduction

Data Methods ResultsFuture Work

Conclusions

12

Commuting Modal Shares

Largest differences are in Individual Automobile, Public Transportation and

Walking categories

Introduction

Data Methods ResultsFuture Work

Conclusions

13

89

57

15

8

15

8

Indi

vidu

al A

utom

obile

Indi

vidu

al A

utom

obile

Travel Time by Mode Categories

Two Travel Time Categories: • Public Transportation• Other

Introduction

Data Methods ResultsFuture Work

Conclusions

14

Average Travel Time to Work(One Way)

GF and BF similar average travel time across all modes

(28 min vs. 27 min)

Introduction

Data Methods ResultsFuture Work

Conclusions

15

Average Travel Time to Work(One Way)

GF and BF similar average travel time across all modes

(28 min vs. 27 min)

Introduction

Data Methods ResultsFuture Work

Conclusions

16

Commuting Environmental Impacts Analysis: Travel Time by ModeEnergy and Greenhouse gas emissions

ImpactsIndividual Automobile (“Other”)Public Transportation (“Public

Transportation”)Use Phase

Upstream Supply Chain Energy Production

Combustion of Fuel

Introduction

Data Methods ResultsFuture Work

Conclusions

17

Individual Automobile Energy Impact

EVTi = ti × vi × 181/20.3 EVT = Energy per vehicle tripti = Average Travel Time One Way (min) for

Development i (Census 2009)vi = Average Metropolitan Commuting Speed (mph)

for Development i (Schrank 2009)181 MJ/gallon = embodied energy in gasoline (GDI

2010; EIA 2009)20.3 mpg = Industry wide car and light truck fuel

efficiency in 2001 (US EPA 2005)

Greenfield=Avg.150 MJ/vehicle trip

Brownfield =Avg. 130 MJ/vehicle trip

Introduction

Data Methods ResultsFuture Work

Conclusions

18

Public Transportation Fuel Intensity

EPT= (Σfi x ei)/pi

EPT=Energy Per passenger trip f = fuel type consumption for city ie = energy intensity of fuel for city ip = annual ridership

Introduction

Data Methods ResultsFuture Work

Conclusions

19

Annual Transit Agency Energy Type Consumption Distribution

Introduction

Data Methods ResultsFuture Work

Conclusions

20

Public Transportation Annual Ridership

Introduction

Data Methods ResultsFuture Work

Conclusions

21

Pubic Transit Authorities Annual Energy Impact Per Passenger

Introduction

Data Methods ResultsFuture Work

Conclusions

22

Total Energy Impacts from Commuting

Introduction

Data Methods ResultsFuture Work

Conclusions

23

Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Commuting

Introduction

Data Methods ResultsFuture Work

Conclusions

24

ConclusionsBF commuters had 37% lower

energy and 36% lower greenhouse gas emissions than GF.

BF neighborhoods are: closer to center cities, have higher public transportation use for commuting, and

comparable average travel times to work.

Introduction

Data Methods ResultsFuture Work

Conclusions

25

Introduction

Data Methods ResultsConclusion

sFuture Work

Results UncertaintyLimited sample size (24 developments

mostly in Midwest region)Average metropolitan travel speedsAverage public transportation

consumption impactsNational grid mix for public transportation

electricity consumption calculation of GHGCensus tracts vs. actual development sizeCarpooling could be greater than 2

26

Introduction

Data Methods ResultsConclusion

sFuture Work

Integrating LEED concepts into Brownfields via Commuting

Key differences in LEED v.3 compared to LEED v.2.2:

1. Harmonization - consolidation of rating systems

2. Credit Weightings - 100 point scale vs. 69 points (LEED v. 2.2)

3. Regionalization- 4 points available

27

Introduction

Data Methods ResultsConclusion

sFuture Work

Source: http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1971

Integrating LEED concepts into Brownfields via Commuting

Sustainable Sites (SS)Alternative Transportation Credits 4.1-4.4

(Responsible for 45% (12/26) of available SS points)Provide safe and secure bike racks and showers, Encourage walking and use of public transitDesign more spaces for fuel efficient vehicles or

carpoolingDevelopment Density & Community Connectivity

c2(Responsible for 19% (5/26) of available SS points)Promote walking or biking to basic services

Regional Priority Points

28

Introduction

Data Methods ResultsConclusion

sFuture Work

Future Project WorkPossibly include additional cities with BF and GF

developments to this commuting impact analysisConduct additional detailed BF and GF pair case

studies- Summerset and Cranberry Heights

Compare other impacts between developments such as buildings, utilities, site prep, water usage

Develop a Brownfields Life Cycle Assessment Tool (EIOLCA + process models of neighborhood impacts)

Conclusions

29

Introduction

Data Methods ResultsConclusion

sFuture Work

AcknowledgementsSpecial Thank You to:Business of Brownfields Conference organizersChris Hendrickson, Professor, Dept. of Civil and

Environmental Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University

Deb Lange, Executive Director, Steinbrenner Institute for Environmental Education and Research (SEER), Carnegie Mellon University

US EPA Training, Research and Technology Assistance Grant EPA-560-F-08-290

Carnegie Mellon University- Green Design Institute and Western Pennsylvania Brownfields Center

30

References (Census 2009) United States Census Bureau, 2000 Decennial

Census, http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en (Accessed August, 2009)

(GDI 2010) Carnegie Mellon University Green Design Institute. (2008) Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIOLCA),- US 2002 Purchaser Price Model Available from: www.eiolca.net. Accessed October, 2009

(EPA 2009) Environmental Protection Agency, ‘Brownfields and Land Revitalization,’ http://epa.gov/brownfields/ (accessed September 3, 2009).

(NTD 2001) National Transit Database 2001-Table 17 http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/data.htm (accessed September 3, 2009)

(Schrank 2009) Schrank, D., Lomax, T., Texas Transportation Institute. “2009 Annual Urban Mobility Report” July 2009, Appendix A-Exhibit A-7

(US EPA 2005) United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Emission Facts: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle” February 2005. Accessed December, 2009. http://www.epa.gov/OMS/climate/420f05004.htm#step2

31

Questions or Comments?

Thank you for your kind attention.

32