Image source: Los Angeles Metro. American Planning Association April 15, 2012 Mikhail Chester, Assistant Professor Civil, Environmental, & Sustainability Engineering Affiliate Faculty, School of Sustainability Arizona State University A project between UCLA, ASU, and UC Berkeley
53
Embed
American Planning Association April 15, 2012media2.planning.org/APA2012/Presentations/S428_Life Cycle...Image source: Los Angeles Metro. American Planning Association April 15, 2012
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Image source: Los Angeles Metro.
American Planning Association April 15, 2012
Mikhail Chester, Assistant Professor Civil, Environmental, & Sustainability Engineering Affiliate Faculty, School of Sustainability Arizona State University
A project between UCLA, ASU, and UC Berkeley
Transportation decision making often occurs with indicators determined from a subset of system processes: “tailpipe” emissions are the majority of emissions
the majority of impacts result from “tailpipe” emissions.
More and more we are recognizing the shortfalls of this limited view
Life-cycle assessment affords us an opportunity to evaluate the larger footprint
Vehicle
Infrastructure
Energy Production
Background image source: American Institute of Architects, 1997 Environmental Resource Guides
Extraction of Raw Materials
Manufacturing
Operation / Maintenance End-of-life
Raw Fuel Extraction Transport Processing / Refining
Distribution Electricity Generation
Extraction of Raw Materials Construction
Operation / Maintenance Decommissioning
Meta
Onroad Rail Air
Average US modes Sedan, pickup, SUV
Peak and off-peak buses
Light rail, metro rail, commuter rail
Short-haul, mid-haul, and international aircraft
Cities San Francisco, Chicago,
New York City Infrastructure
Parking Regions
California Corridor & High-speed Rail
Encino Station Canoga Park Station
OR
AN
GE
G
OL
D
SE
DA
N
Pa
sad
en
a
San Fernando Valley
Life Cycle Grouping Sedan Orange Line Gold Line
Vehicle
Manufacturing Sedan Transport to Point of Sale
Bus Transport to Point of Sale
Train Transport to Point of Sale
Operation Propulsion Idling
Propulsion Idling
Propulsion Idling
Maintenance Typical Sedan Maintenance Tire Replacement Battery Replacement
Typical Bus Maintenance Tire Replacement Battery Replacement
American Planning Association National Conference April 15, 2012
Juan Matute Mikhail Chester Paul Bunje Bill Eisenstein Stephanie Pincetl
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Stephanie Pincetl, Ph.D. Director of the California Center for Sustainable Communities Research Institute of the Environment & Sustainability University of California, Los Angeles
Mikhail Chester, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Civil, Environmental, and Sustainability Engineering Affiliate Faculty, School of Sustainability Arizona State University
William Eisenstein, Ph.D. Executive Director of the
Center for Resource Efficient Communities College of Environmental Design University of California, Berkeley
Zoe Elizabeth Program Manager of the
California Center for Sustainable Communities Research
Institute of the Environment & Sustainability University of California, Los Angeles
Paul Bunje, Ph.D. Executive Director of the
Center for Climate Change Solutions Institute of the Environment & Sustainability University of California, Los Angeles
Juan Matute Program Director of the UCLA Program on
Local Government Climate Action Policies Luskin School of Public Affairs University of California, Los Angeles
The impacts of the transportation system extend beyond the tailpipe, to include: Manufacturing Roads, parking and other infrastructure Maintenance Fuel production
To meet the State’s aggressive environmental goals we must
understand and transform all phases of the life cycle Could changing fuel standards have unintended consequences? Could manufacturing new buses increase net emissions? How does reducing GHGs effect air quality?
4
What are the life cycle effects of 3 different transportation options in Los Angeles?
How could LCA be integrated into transportation decision-making across the state? An analysis of policy options A survey of transportation professionals Creation of a user-friendly LCA tool for transit agencies
Tailpipe emissions create 40% of statewide GHGs. Including the LCA effects of the transportation systems shows the real impact is much higher.
5
BRINGING LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT INTO
TRANSPORTATION POLICY
American Planning Association Conference APR 15 2012
Dr. William Eisenstein
Executive Director
Basic issues
1. Fragmentation of
transportation policy
2. Spatial and temporal
scope of LCA
3. Mismatch of incentives
4. GHGs vs. criteria air
pollutants
Features of good policy
1. Affect wide swath of policy process
2. Allow comparison across modes
3. Spatial scale similar to scale of impacts
4. Realistic analytical burden
5. Realistic for agency/political capacity
6. Avoids unnecessary social costs
Possible policy structure #1
1. Legislation requiring lowest-life-cycle-
impact projects
Pros: explicit requirement; wide coverage of major
projects; even playing field across jurisdictions
Cons: analytical burden; impact on other selection
criteria
Possible policy structure #2
2. Preferential funding program (a la CMAQ)
Pros: financial incentives; opt-in structure
Cons: may not affect enough projects; difficult to
obtain sufficient funding
Possible policy structure #3
3. Planning standard for Regional
Transportation Plans
Pros: allows comparison across modes
Cons: not fully comprehensive; RTPs still rely on
local general plans for land use
Possible policy structure #4
4. California Environmental Quality Act
criterion
Pros: natural home for analytical work; EIRs not
geographically constrained; mitigation potential
Cons: project-by-project analysis; limited
opportunities to modify projects significantly
Possible policy structure #5
5. Transportation Control Measure selection
under Clean Air Act
Pros: natural fit for analyzing criteria pollutants;
strong regulatory incentive for qualifying projects
Cons: does not affect projects not identified as
TCMs
Possible policy structure #6
6. LCA “cap-and-trade” for regional and local
transportation agencies
Pros: allows comprehensive analysis of whole
region; allows planning flexibility; could allow for