Top Banner

Click here to load reader

Commuting from US Brownfield and Greenfield Residential Development Neighborhoods

Jan 15, 2016




Commuting from US Brownfield and Greenfield Residential Development Neighborhoods. Business of Brownfields Conference Wednesday, April 21, 2010 Amy Nagengast, M.S., E.I.T., LEED AP Carnegie Mellon University. Introduction. Data. Methods. Results. Conclusions. Future Work. Overview. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • 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 AnalysisDistance to City CenterTransportation ModesTravel TimeEnergy ImpactsGreenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions ConclusionsBrownfield Commuting and LEEDFuture Work

    IntroductionDataMethodsResultsConclusionsFuture Work*

  • 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 sites3. Research- quantifying Brownfield and Greenfield Development life cycle environmental impacts>This study: Focus on Commuting Impacts (use phase)> Also conducting broader case studies

    IntroductionDataMethodsResultsFuture WorkConclusions*

  • 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.

    *IntroductionDataMethodsResultsFuture WorkConclusionsSource:

  • 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*IntroductionDataMethodsResultsFuture WorkConclusionsPresentation FocusSource:

  • 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 averagesHybridWhere to draw the project boundary?Project objectiveAvailable dataleast or most important areasUncertaintyTime and Money constraintsHow to allocate shared resources?Energy, emissions, etc

    *IntroductionDataMethodsResultsFuture WorkConclusions

  • Commuting Research ScopeIntroductionDataMethodsResultsFuture WorkConclusions*EIOLCA=Economic Input-Output Life Cycle AssessmentEIA= Energy Information Administration

    MetricUnitSource1Distance to City CenterMiles and KilometersGoogle Maps2Travel ModeNo. of TravelersUS Census3Travel TimeMinutesUS Census, Texas Transportation Institute4Energy ImpactsMJ and MBTUEIOLCA, EIA5Greenhouse Gas EmissionC02eEIOLCA, EIA

  • *Brownfield and Greenfield LocationsGreenfieldBrownfieldSt. Louis, MOMinneapolis, MNHouston, TXLos Angeles, CAPittsburgh, PAChicago, ILMilwaukee, WIBaltimore, MDBoston, MAIntroductionDataMethodsResultsFuture WorkConclusions*

  • US Census Hierarchical StructureIntroductionDataMethodsResultsFuture WorkConclusions*Source: Figure 23. Hierarchical Relationship of Census Geographic Entities

  • Census Tract InformationSummerset, PA (Brownfield)Waterfront, PA (Brownfield)Source: Case 1: One Census TractCase 2: Two Census TractsIntroductionDataMethodsResultsFuture WorkConclusions*

  • Distance to City CenterIntroductionDataMethodsResultsFuture WorkConclusions*

  • US Census Transportation Mode CategoriesIntroductionDataMethodsResultsFuture WorkConclusions*

  • Commuting Modal SharesLargest differences are in Individual Automobile, Public Transportation and Walking categoriesIntroductionDataMethodsResultsFuture WorkConclusions*89 57158158Individual AutomobileIndividual Automobile

  • Travel Time by Mode CategoriesTwo Travel Time Categories: Public Transportation OtherIntroductionDataMethodsResultsFuture WorkConclusions*

  • Average Travel Time to Work(One Way)GF and BF similar average travel time across all modes (28 min vs. 27 min)IntroductionDataMethodsResultsFuture WorkConclusions*

  • Average Travel Time to Work(One Way)GF and BF similar average travel time across all modes (28 min vs. 27 min)IntroductionDataMethodsResultsFuture WorkConclusions*

  • Commuting Environmental Impacts Analysis: Travel Time by ModeEnergy and Greenhouse gas emissions ImpactsIndividual Automobile (Other)Public Transportation (Public Transportation)Use PhaseUpstream Supply Chain Energy Production Combustion of Fuel

    IntroductionDataMethodsResultsFuture WorkConclusions*

  • Individual Automobile Energy ImpactEVTi = 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

    IntroductionDataMethodsResultsFuture WorkConclusions*

  • Public Transportation Fuel IntensityEPT= (fi x ei)/piEPT=Energy Per passenger trip f = fuel type consumption for city ie = energy intensity of fuel for city ip = annual ridership

    IntroductionDataMethodsResultsFuture WorkConclusions*

  • Annual Transit Agency Energy Type Consumption DistributionIntroductionDataMethodsResultsFuture WorkConclusions*

  • Public Transportation Annual Ridership

    IntroductionDataMethodsResultsFuture WorkConclusions*

  • Pubic Transit Authorities Annual Energy Impact Per PassengerIntroductionDataMethodsResultsFuture WorkConclusions*

  • Total Energy Impacts from Commuting

    IntroductionDataMethodsResultsFuture WorkConclusions*

  • Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions from CommutingIntroductionDataMethodsResultsFuture WorkConclusions*

  • 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, andcomparable average travel times to work.

    IntroductionDataMethodsResultsFuture WorkConclusions*IntroductionDataMethodsResultsConclusionsFuture 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*IntroductionDataMethodsResultsConclusionsFuture Work

  • Integrating LEED concepts into Brownfields via CommutingKey differences in LEED v.3 compared to LEED v.2.2:1. Harmonization - consolidation of rating systems2. Credit Weightings - 100 point scale vs. 69 points (LEED v. 2.2)3. Regionalization- 4 points available*IntroductionDataMethodsResultsConclusionsFuture WorkSource:

  • Integrating LEED concepts into Brownfields via CommutingSustainable 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 servicesRegional Priority Points

    *IntroductionDataMethodsResultsConclusionsFuture 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 HeightsCompare other impacts between developments such as buildings, utilities, site prep, water usageDevelop a Brownfields Life Cycle Assessment Tool (EIOLCA + process models of neighborhood impacts)Conclusions*IntroductionDataMethodsResultsConclusionsFuture Work

  • AcknowledgementsSpecial Thank You to:Business of Brownfields Conference organizersChris Hendrickson, Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carnegie Mellon UniversityDeb Lange, Executive Director, Steinbrenner Institute for Environmental Education and Research (SEER), Carnegie Mellon UniversityUS EPA Training, Research and Technology Assistance Grant EPA-560-F-08-290Carnegie Mellon University- Green Design Institute and Western Pennsylvania Brownfields Center


  • References(Census 2009) United States Census Bureau, 2000 Decennial Census, (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: Accessed October, 2009(EPA 2009) Environmental Protection Agency, Brownfields and Land Revitalization, (accessed September 3, 2009). (NTD 2001) National Transit Database 2001-Table 17 (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.*

  • Questions or Comments?Thank you for your kind attention.*

    **Motivation: little research conducted on BF. Unattended public health risks, LEED impacts, property values

    Methodology a

Welcome message from author
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.