How does transportation and How does transportation and network planning address network planning address

greenhouse gas emissions?greenhouse gas emissions?

How Does Land Use Affect How Does Land Use Affect Transport?Transport? The Five DThe Five D’’ss

►►DensityDensity –– population and employment ratiospopulation and employment ratios►►DiversityDiversity

Ratio of Housing to JobsRatio of Housing to JobsDemographics that tend to be dependant on transit Demographics that tend to be dependant on transit (age, income, available vehicles)(age, income, available vehicles)

►►DesignDesign –– completeness and connectivity of completeness and connectivity of local pedestrian network (local pedestrian network (walkablewalkable places)places)

►►DestinationsDestinations –– Accessibility to regional Accessibility to regional activity centers.activity centers.

►►DistanceDistance –– areas near transitareas near transit

How do you affect GHG with How do you affect GHG with Land Use?Land Use?

Theory:Theory:

►►Good Land Use reduces VMTGood Land Use reduces VMT►►With VMT you have lower fuel consumptionWith VMT you have lower fuel consumption►►Lower Fuel Consumption = Lower Fuel Consumption =

Lower Carbon EmissionsLower Carbon Emissions►►Not Necessarily!Not Necessarily!

Issues to ConsiderIssues to Consider

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

SB 375 Conceptual Land Use Scenario

CA Climate Change LegislationThe Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Assembly Bill 32

California AB 32 Adopted Green House Gas Reduction Estimates by Measures

Anticipating the Target

• Statewide reduction5 million metric tons through land use and transportation planning by 2020

• Estimated SCAG portion 2.5 million metric tons

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

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

-1.8MMT

-2.6MMT

-2.4MMT

Superstition Vistas Location

Apache Junction

Florence

Queen Creek

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

SF Det SF Att MF SF Det SF Att MF

Year 2000 Vision 2030

Owner Renter Year 2000

43%

57%

Modeling the ScenariosModeling the Scenarios

Transportation AnalysisRoadway Impact

Ridership

Market ConstraintsDevelopment ProgramCommercial Demand

Housing Needs

Land Use ScenarioDevelopment

Vision 2030

52%

48%

Sustainability Urban Design

Building Types

Building TypesPrototype buildings are created using the ROI Model.

Development TypesGroups of building types are combined to form Development Types. Example: The Main Street development type has mixed-use buildings, townhomes and apartments.

Scenario DevelopmentScenarios are created by applying the Development Types to the landscape using the Scenario Builder.

Evaluation

The Scenario Spreadsheet allows you to examine a whole host of indicators about your scenario.

Building Energy Use

Lincoln Institute For Land Policy

Superstition Vistas Scenario Report

September 2009

A Sustainable Community for the 21st

Century

Scenario AShown with the transportation network and existing surrounding plans

Scenario A

What Life Could Be Like in Scenario A

North

Scenario DShown with the transportation network and existing surrounding plans

Scenario D

What Life Could Be Like in Scenario D

North

Land Developed (Acres)

111,24695,014

63,964

45,000

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

A B C D

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)

Scenario

A

Scenario

B

Scenario

C

Scenario

D

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

16,000,000

18,000,000

Trip Counts –

Walk & Bike

Scenario

A

Scenario

B

Scenario

C

Scenario

D

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2,000,000

11%

17%

19%

19%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%Sce

nario A

Scenario

B

Scenario

C

Scenario

D

Percent of Trips

Daily Transit Ridership

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

Scenario

A

Scenario

B

Scenario

C

Scenario

D

Transportation Emissions (CO2) Tons of CO2 per Year

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

Scenar

io A

Scenar

io B

Scenar

io C

Scenar

io D

Fleet 1: 22.5 MPG, 0%Electric

Fleet 4: 60 MPG, 20%Electric or RenewableFuel

Building Emissions (CO2) Annual CO2 (ton/yr)

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

Scenario

A

Scenario

B

Scenario

C

Scenario

D

BaselineBest

Total Carbon Footprint (Building and Transportation Emissions)

01,000,0002,000,0003,000,0004,000,0005,000,0006,000,0007,000,0008,000,0009,000,000

10,000,000

Scenario

A

Scenario

B

Scenario

C

Scenario

D

BaselineBest

Homes for a Changing Region

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

Building Prototype Modeling

Carbon Footprint by Prototype

Carbon Footprint (in Tons of Annual CO2 Emissions Per Unit)

-

5

10

15

20

25

2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY 2-STORY TOWNHOUSE 3-STORY MULTIFAMILY 5-STORY MIXED-USE 8-STORY MULTIFAMILY

Tons

of C

O2

Standard Good Better

Plainfield Will County Governmental League

Plainfield – Carbon Footprint

Annual Carbon Footprint of Build-Out Alternatives (in tons of CO2)

211,322

130,695

106,457

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Trend w ith Standard Buildings Balanced w ith Standard Buildings Balanced w ith Better Buildings

38% reduction

50% reduction

Density Does Not Always Lead to Density Does Not Always Lead to Lower Carbon FootprintLower Carbon Footprint

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

Chicag

o, IL

Miami, F

L

Redon

do Bea

ch, C

A

Portlan

d, OR

Phoen

ix, AZ

Comparing trip to workComparing trip to work

Redondo BeachRedondo Beach PortlandPortland

Good Place to do DensityGood Place to do DensityExample: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

NOT a good place to do densityNOT a good place to do density

Transit has a Carbon FootprintTransit has a Carbon Footprint

►►Transit has a Carbon FootprintTransit has a Carbon Footprint

Fuel type, efficiency, and passenger load Fuel type, efficiency, and passenger load are critical in determining carbon benefitare critical in determining carbon benefit Transit must improve its carbon footprintTransit must improve its carbon footprint

5 miles per gallon

10 passengers

50 miles per gallon

1 passenger

Cultural differences account for Cultural differences account for some of the problemsome of the problem

Germany vs. USGermany vs. US

Germany vs. USGermany vs. US

ConclusionsConclusions►►

Land use helps reduce carbonLand use helps reduce carbon

But it is small contributionBut it is small contribution

Top concerns are vehicles, fuels, electricity generation, buildiTop concerns are vehicles, fuels, electricity generation, building ng technologytechnology

►►

Increasing density DOES NOT reduce carbon emissions!!!Increasing density DOES NOT reduce carbon emissions!!!

Design is more importantDesign is more important

►►

The better cars and buildings get, the less benefit from The better cars and buildings get, the less benefit from land use designland use design

►►

Land use had carbon benefits outside vehiclesLand use had carbon benefits outside vehicles

Better count it! We need all we can get! Better count it! We need all we can get!

Water consumption has a carbon effect tooWater consumption has a carbon effect too

Yes, it has a lower carbon footprint, Yes, it has a lower carbon footprint, but primarily, itbut primarily, it’’s more s more liveableliveable!!