The Water, Energy, & Infrastructure Co-benefits of Smart Growth Planning in Phoenix

The Water, Energy, and Infrastructure Co-benefits of Smart Growth in PhoenixUrban Infrastructure Anatomy & Sustainable Development | Slide 2 Arizona State University | 29 April 2014

Maricopa Association of Government’s (MAG) Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Integration Study (ST LUIS).

Projected market demand in 2040 around future transit corridors.

◦ 485,000 households

(≈ 1.4 million people)

◦ 127 million ft2 of commercial space

If this development occurs, how will water and energy consumption change through 2070 compared to typical Phoenix development?

INTRODUCTION


Transit-oriented development (TOD)• Projected future demand for housing and

commercial space around high-capacity transit (HCT) in the core of Phoenix.• 485,000 households

• 127 million ft2 of commercial space

• Assessing potential long-term benefits which result from extra effort up front to change current practices.

Business as usual (BAU)• Current Phoenix-area development patterns

in the urban core and mostly on the fringe.

• Assessing the outcome of not changing current development habits.

INTRODUCTION





Automobile Travel due

to Commercial and

Residential Space

Commercial and

Residential Electricity

Consumption

Commercial, Residential,

and Energy Production

Water Usage

Mobility Assessment Energy Assessment Water Assessment

SYSTEM OUTPUTS: Greenhouse Gases

(metric tonne CO2 equivalents: mt CO2e)

Energy Consumption (TeraJoules: TJ)

Costs

(2012 US dollars: $2012 USD)

CONSUMPTION:

INFRASTRUCTURE: Pavement for Roadways

and Parking Lots

Electricity Generation

Plants and Transmission

Infrastructure

Waste Water Treatment

Facilities and

Distribution Network

INPUT:

INTRODUCTION


Automobile Travel due

to Commercial and

Residential Space

Commercial and

Residential Electricity

Consumption

Commercial, Residential,

and Energy Production

Water Usage

Mobility Assessment Energy Assessment Water Assessment

SYSTEM OUTPUTS:

Energy Consumption (TeraJoules: TJ)

CONSUMPTION:

INFRASTRUCTURE: Pavement for Roadways

and Parking Lots

Electricity Generation

Plants and Transmission

Infrastructure

Waste Water Treatment

Facilities and

Distribution Network

INPUT:

Greenhouse Gases

(metric tonne CO2 equivalents: mt CO2e)

Costs

(2012 US dollars: $2012 USD)

Transitions Assessment

Potential Solutions and

Strategies to Enable TOD

in the Future

Political and Socio-

Economic Barriers to

TOD in Phoenix

INTRODUCTION


Project Assistant: Matt Nahlik

Transportation:

Melissa Archer

Luis Bonilla

Jessica Loeber

Shawn Monk

Alex Cano

Chelsea Mann

Abbie Woodruff

Water:

Stephanie Bubenheim

Nicholas Stafford

Scott Unger

Tate Jensen

Babu Kannappan

Matthew Watson

Tom Volo

Energy:

Maria Beguelin

John Heck

Jaime Paniagua

Daniel Burillo

Nick LaGrou

Saransh Noel Prasad

Transitions:

Luis Andrade

Keith Guiley

Parker Helble

Kelley Kirtley

Elizabeth Barnes

Moayyad Hamad

William Hsu

Professor: Dr. Mikhail Chester

INTRODUCTION


URBANINFRASTRUCTURE

ANATOMYCEE 486SENIORDESIGN

CONSTRUCTIONMATERIALS &

METHODS

Developing a neighborhood-

scale infrastructure assessment

Will develop cost estimations of infrastructure changes This effort is sponsored by the

National Science Foundation.

INTRODUCTION


• Introduction (Matt Nahlik)

• Changes in Transportation, Energy, & Water Systems• Transportation and Infrastructure Analysis (Melissa Archer)

• Energy Use and Infrastructure Analysis (Daniel Burillo)

• Water Use and Infrastructure Analysis (Tom Volo)

• Summary of Quantitative Findings (Matt Nahlik)

• Exploring Transition Strategies (Keith Guiley)

TRANSPORTATION | ENERGY | WATER

Roadways and Parking Lots

Shorter Trip Distances

Shifting Trips to Alternate Modes of Transport


• Evaluate transportation infrastructure and use changes caused by shifting residents & commercial activity to TOD configurations

• Mode shifts

• Shortens trip distance

• Estimated reductions in roadway and parking lot expansion and vehicle miles traveled (VMT)• Residential

• Commercial



Residential

• Determined typical lot size

• Scaled up to 485,000 households

• Number of developments needed to satisfy those households

Commercial

• Commercial demand obtained from MAG Study

• Determined number of parking spaces needed to satisfy demand

• Standard parking space sizes

• Found square footage of parking lots and associated asphalt



Commercial (Parking)• BAU: 170 Million ft2

• TOD: 84 Million ft2

• Difference equivalent to 430,000 parking spaces or 3,000 football fields

Residential (Roadways)

• 609 residential developments

• BAU: 540 Million ft2 of asphalt avoided for roadways

Overall

Over 4,200 miles of pavement avoided using TOD

10x the distance of Phoenix to Los Angeles



Asphalt Needed for BAU Residential + Commercial (710 million ft2, 25 mi2)


Glendale Ave

Interstate 17

Inte

rsta

te 1

7

Inte

rsta

te 1

0 /

Hig

hw

ay 5

1


Commercial Trip PurposesOfficeRetail

• Measured through VMT changes

• National Household Travel Survey (NHTS)

• BAU/TOD cutoff of 4,000 hh/mi2

• Defined residential and commercial trips by trip purposes

• Avg. VMT/Trip

• Avg. Trips/Day

• Shift 20% of trips from personal vehicles to other modes

• Nelson-Nygaard (2005)

Residential Trip Purposes

Home

Social/Recreational

Personal Obligations



Commercial• Reduction of 2.5 Billion

• TOD 52% less than BAU

Residential

• Reduction of 3.7 BillionVMT/Year

• TOD 42% less than BAU 8.9 B

5.0 B5.2 B

2.4 B

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Residential Commercial

VEH

ICLE

MIL

ES T

RA

VEL

ED (

BIL

LIO

NS)

Residential Vs. Commercial Annual VMT Reduction

BAU

TOD

When combined, this represents a potential reduction to forecasted Maricopa County 2030 annual VMT of 14% (6.2 out of 45 billion VMT).



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

BAU TOD

Energy

Commercial Use Residential UseCommercial Infrastructure Residential Infrastructure

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

BAU TOD

Cost

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

BAU TOD

GHG Emissions


(mmt CO2e) (Billion USD) (Thousand TJ)5

2% 47

%

52

%

Travel energy reduction equal to 168 million gallons of fuel.

Travel Travel

Distribution Lines and Power SystemsLight Rail

Residential and Commercial Energy UseLight Rail


0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

�BAU �TOD

Mill

ion

s o

f D

olla

rs

Energy Infrastructure Costs

Wires Substations Transformers Light Rail

�BAU �TOD

Use Costs (Annual for Ratepayers)

Commercial Residential Light Rail

A $400 million marginal investment in TOD infrastructure cuts the price of energy by the same amount per year for residential households.



6.4

3.1

Energy Use (TWh)

BAU dwelling are 2.4x larger than TOD dwelling units, and consume an additional 3.3 billion kWh per year -- $400 million per year.

760

360

Ratepayer Costs ($ million)

BAU

TOD

Average Annual Residential Energy Use for 485,000 Households

American Housing Survey 2011

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ


2,153

879

Dwelling unit size (ft )

APS Rate Schedule E12

Residential Average

2 Energy Use (Billion kWh)


MAG 2013 Sustainable Land Use

and Transportation Market Study

Same amount of commercial space in BAU and TOD. No evidence to support building energy use changes in 127 Million ft2 of commercial space.

Commercial Electricity Consumption

Energy Use (Billion kWh / year) 2.6

Ratepayer costs ($ Million / year) 260

GHG Emissions (mmt CO2e / year) 1.2

EIA 2003 Commercial Buildings

Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS)



ValleyMetro.org• Guideway

• Bridges

• Passenger Stations and Facilities

• Park and Ride Facilities

• Electric Power Substations

• Signal and Communication

Systems

• Revenue Vehicles

• Equipment

National Transit Database

APS’s Large General Service Tariff Rate

Scenario BAU TOD Track Length (miles) 20 41Energy Use (Million kWh/year) 18 36 Electricity use costs ($Million/year) 1 2 Total Capital Assets ($ Billion) 1 2

TOD investment projected at $1 Billion, with $1 Million per year increase in energy usage.



• 5 dwelling units per acre

• All new wires and substations

• Connection at each building

BAU TOD

• 40 dwelling units per acre

• Higher capacity grid components

• Connection at each multi-unit building

BAU infrastructure costs 12 times more per household than TOD; $600 Million more total.

$100,000 per linear mile of underground wire.

$6 Million per 120MW capacity substation for 4 mi2.

Midwest ISO

Salt River Project (SRP)



0

1

2

3

4

5

�BAU �TOD

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Commercial Use Residential Use

Light Rail Infrastructure Construction

BAU costs residential ratepayers twice as much as TOD. The Greenhouse Gas footprint of residential households in BAU is roughly two times larger than in a TOD configuration.

APS Projected Electricity Mix, 2025(mmt CO2e)


Residential

Commercial & Industrial

Water Embedded in Energy Production

Water Treatment Facilities

Water Distribution Networks


Two different types of residential development:• BAU: mostly single-family homes, ~340 gpd (gallons per day) per household

• TOD: predominantly multi-family structures, ~220 gpd per household

• Values determined from American Housing Survey and 2011 Phoenix Water Resource Plan; slightly lower than Phoenix design standards (360, 240).

Adjusted to reflect 25% reduction in per capita water consumption over the next 30 years, multiplied by 485,000 households:• BAU: 124 MGD (million gallons per day)

• TOD: 79 MGD (savings of 37%)

Assume commercial and industrial usage rates (per household) are the same regardless of location (i.e. TOD vs. BAU).• Commercial: 26 MGD; Industrial: 5.0 MGD

• Determined by current percentages of residential water use.



Water consumed in power plants to generate electricity• Nuclear: 785 gal/MWh

• Natural Gas: 415 gal/MWh

• Coal: 510 gal/MWh

• Average among APS and SRP plants (weighted by plant capacity): 500 gal/MWh

Estimated 2040 Electricity Demand (Residential + Commercial)• BAU: 9.1 million MWh = 12 MGD

• TOD: 5.7 million MWh = 7.8 MGD (savings of 38%)



45,400

28,700

9300

9300

1800

1800

4500

2800

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

BAU TOD

Wat

er

Usa

ge (

MG

/yr)

Energy

Industrial

Commercial

ResidentialEnough water to irrigate every golf course in the Valley for 35 years.

427

270

88

88

17

17

43

27

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

BAU TOD

Ener

gy R

eq

uir

em

en

ts (

TJ/y

r)

Energy

Industrial

Commercial

Residential

53000

33500

10900

10900

2100

2100

5300

3300

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

BAU TOD

GH

G E

mis

sio

ns

(mt

CO

2e

/yr)

Energy

Industrial

Commercial

Residential

34.1

21.5

7.0

7.0

1.4

1.4

3.4

2.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

BAU TOD

Co

sts

($m

illio

n/y

r)Energy

Industrial

Commercial

Residential


45,400

28,700

9300

9300

1800

1800

4500

2800

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

BAU TOD

Wat

er

Usa

ge (

MG

/yr)

Energy

Industrial

Commercial

Residential


Non-TOD cities combine for a total deficit of 127 MGD.• BAU scenario would require additional

infrastructure for wastewater treatment to meet this 127 MGD deficit.• Cost: $21.0M (~$165,000/MGD plant

capacity; MAG, 2003)

TOD cities have enough surpluscapacity to accommodate an additional 485,000 households.• TOD scenario therefore would not

require additional infrastructure for wastewater treatment

2040 Projected Wastewater Treatment (MGD)

City Generation Capacity Surplus/(Deficit)

Buckeye 58.68 10.95 (47.73)

Cave Creek 1.33 0.23 (1.10)

El Mirage 4.52 3.60 (0.92)

Gila Bend 5.87 0.70 (5.17)

Maricopa County 61.61 24.41 (37.20)

Queen Creek 9.36 4.00 (5.36)

Surprise 64.44 36.00 (28.44)

Wickenburg 2.19 1.20 (0.99)

Youngtown 0.66 0.30 (0.36)

Totals: 208.66 81.39 (127.27)

Analyze projected (2040) wastewater treatment demand for Valley cities, compared to anticipated treatment capacity, as published by MAG.

Chandler 27.83 82.60 54.77

Gilbert 23.02 30.00 6.98

Glendale 30.40 33.75 3.35

Goodyear 36.62 53.10 16.48

Mesa 73.01 99.22 26.21

Paradise Valley 2.04 1.80 (0.24)

Peoria 38.35 53.16 14.81

Phoenix 238.55 343.00 104.45

Scottsdale 36.26 45.95 9.69

Tempe 34.44 42.50 8.06

Totals: 540.52 785.08 244.56



Assume distribution network already mostly in place for TOD scenario.

Additional infrastructure for BAU scenario computed using same “model” community as calculations of energy in BAU scenario.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Pla

stic

12

"

Pla

stic

30

"

Co

ncr

ete

12

"

Co

ncr

ete

30

"

$ B

illio

n

Cost of FireHydrants

Cost ofValves

Cost ofManholes

Cost ofPipe• Requires manholes at 400 ft spacing,

valves at 800 ft, and (for potable water) fire hydrants at 300 ft.



TOD: Since decreasing water usage rates in recent decades has resulted in excess system capacity in established areas within the urban core, we see no additional infrastructure for the TOD scenario that would not also be necessary in the BAU scenario.

BAU: Expansion on the suburban fringe requires additional distribution networks, as well as additional wastewater treatment capacity in cities whose anticipated capacity in 2040 is below estimated demand.

Additional expenses of BAU scenario:

Size Energy (TJ) GHG (mt CO2e) Cost ($M)

Treatment Plant 127 MGD Small Small 21

Pipe Network 42,000,000 ft 190 14,000 5600

Total 190 14,000 5700


Energy Consumption

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Infrastructure and Use Costs

Water Use


Potential 1.6 million TJ reduction over 60 years.◦ Equal to each household saving about 420 gallons of gasoline per year; nearly $1,500.

42% Reduction

(Million TJ)

COMBINED RESULTS

Residential Travel Residential Building Energy

Commercial Travel Commercial Building Energy

All Infrastructure and Water Components


Potential 140 million metric tonne reduction over 60 years.◦ Equivalent to each household reducing their footprint by 5 metric tonnes each year.




(mmt CO2e)

41% Reduction

COMBINED RESULTS


Potential 100 billion dollar savings over 60 years.◦ Approximately $3,500 per household per year.




(Billions of Dollars)

45% Reduction

COMBINED RESULTS


Potential $4.7 billion reduction to infrastructure construction cost.◦ $160 million public savings per year over the proposed 30 year construction time.

Transportation Infrastructure

Energy Infrastructure

Water Infrastructure

(Billions of Dollars)

69% Reduction

COMBINED RESULTS


Potential 900 billion reduction to water use.◦ Equal to 25,000 gallons avoided water use per household per year.

(Trillions of Gallons)

30% Reduction

Residential Water Commercial Water

Industrial Water Water Embedded in Energy

COMBINED RESULTS


How did we tackle this problem?

Political Barriers

Socio-economic Barriers

TRANSITIONS


Political Barriers

Institutions against TOD

Lack of funding

Continuing development

Photo: Google

TRANSITIONS



Lack of funding


Photo: Google

Political Barriers

TRANSITIONS



Lack of funding


Photo: Google

Political Barriers

TRANSITIONS


Barrier Solutions

Institutions against TOD Individualize transit plans; Cities with existing transit continue to work together for improvements.

Lack of funding Marketing and public education campaigns;Coalition building in favor of funding TOD.

Continuing development Valley Metro creates bigger TOD program; developer incentives for infill development to overcome cost stigma.

TRANSITIONS



Dependence on construction

industry

Lack of affordable housing

TRANSITIONS


Dependence on construction

industry

Lack of affordable housing


TRANSITIONS


Barriers Solutions

Dependence on construction industry

Enhance economic diversity through policy incentives and economic development initiatives.

Lack of affordablehousing

Set-asides; Tax breaks for current owners.

TRANSITIONS


• TOD creates less water, energy, and transportation infrastructure for municipalities to maintain.

• Avoided tax increases, together with lower infrastructure costs make TOD surprisingly attractive.

• Focus on education to change perceptions:• Voters and taxpayers• Cities and communities• Residential and commercial developers

• Policy changes will enhance the quality of life for all Maricopa County residents!

TRANSITIONS

Matt - Introduction ● Melissa – Mobility ● Daniel - EnergyTom - Water ● Keith - Transitions

The Water, Energy, & Infrastructure Co-benefits of Smart Growth Planning in Phoenix

Presentations & Public Speaking

distribution

economic barriers

construction

economic barriers

residential

require additional

economic barriers

matt nahlik