Business of Brownfields Conference Wednesday, April 21, 2010 Amy Nagengast, M.S., E.I.T., LEED AP...
-
Upload
dustin-casey -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
2
Transcript of Business of Brownfields Conference Wednesday, April 21, 2010 Amy Nagengast, M.S., E.I.T., LEED AP...
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