Commuting from US Brownfield and Greenfield Residential Development Neighborhoods

1. 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

2. Introduction Data Methods Results Conclusions Future Work Overview • Project Overview • Brief Intro to Life Cycle Assessment • Research Data Sources • Commuting Analysis • Distance to City Center • Transportation Modes • Travel Time • Energy Impacts • Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions • Conclusions • Brownfield Commuting and LEED • Future Work

3. Introduction Data Methods Results Future Work Conclusions Assessing Brownfield Sustainability: Life Cycle Analysis and Carbon Footprinting EPA Funded Project consisting of: 1. Training - working with network of Main Street and Elm Street Managers across PA 2. 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

4. Introduction Data Methods Results Future Work Conclusions 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.” Source: http://www.eiolca.net/

5. Introduction Data Methods Results Future Work Conclusions 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 Presentation Focus Source: http://www.eiolca.net/

6. Introduction Data Methods Results Future Work Conclusions 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 production • Input-Output LCA- industry level, typically uses averages • Hybrid • Where to draw the project boundary? • Project objective • Available data…least or most important areas • Uncertainty • Time and Money constraints • How to allocate shared resources? • Energy, emissions, etc

7. Introduction Data Methods Results Future Work Conclusions Commuting Research Scope EIOLCA=Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment EIA= Energy Information Administration

8. Brownfield and Greenfield Locations Introduction Data Methods Results Future Work Conclusions Minneapolis, MN Milwaukee, WI Boston, MA Pittsburgh, PA Chicago, IL Baltimore, MD St. Louis, MO Los Angeles, CA Houston, TX Greenfield Brownfield 8

9. Introduction Data Methods Results Future Work Conclusions US Census Hierarchical Structure Source: Figure 2–3. Hierarchical Relationship of Census Geographic Entities http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf1.pdf

10. Introduction Data Methods Results Future Work Conclusions Census Tract Information Case 1: One Census Tract Case 2: Two Census Tracts Summerset, PA (Brownfield) Waterfront, PA (Brownfield) Source: http://www.novoco.com/new_markets/resources/ct/

11. Introduction Data Methods Results Future Work Conclusions Distance to City Center GF Average = 24 mi BF Average = 4 mi

12. Introduction Data Methods Results Future Work Conclusions US Census Transportation Mode Categories

13. Introduction Data Methods Results Future Work Conclusions Commuting Modal Shares 8 8 15 89 15 Individual Automobile 57 Individual Automobile Largest differences are in Individual Automobile, Public Transportation and Walking categories

14. Introduction Data Methods Results Future Work Conclusions Travel Time by Mode Categories • Two Travel Time Categories: • Public Transportation • Other

15. Introduction Data Methods Results Future Work Conclusions Average Travel Time to Work(One Way) GF and BF similar average travel time across all modes (28 min vs. 27 min)

16. Introduction Data Methods Results Future Work Conclusions Average Travel Time to Work(One Way) GF and BF similar average travel time across all modes (28 min vs. 27 min)

17. Introduction Data Methods Results Future Work Conclusions Commuting Environmental Impacts Analysis: Travel Time by Mode • Energy and Greenhouse gas emissions Impacts • Individual Automobile (“Other”) • Public Transportation (“Public Transportation”) • Use Phase • Upstream Supply Chain Energy Production • Combustion of Fuel

18. Introduction Data Methods Results Future Work Conclusions Individual Automobile Energy Impact EVTi = ti × vi× 181/20.3 • EVT = Energy per vehicle trip • ti =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

19. Introduction Data Methods Results Future Work Conclusions Public Transportation Fuel Intensity EPT= (Σfi x ei)/pi EPT=Energy Per passenger trip f= fuel type consumption for city i e = energy intensity of fuel for city i p = annual ridership

20. Introduction Data Methods Results Future Work Conclusions Annual Transit Agency Energy Type Consumption Distribution

21. Introduction Data Methods Results Future Work Conclusions Public Transportation Annual Ridership

22. Introduction Data Methods Results Future Work Conclusions Pubic Transit Authorities Annual Energy Impact Per Passenger

23. Introduction Data Methods Results Future Work Conclusions Total Energy Impacts from Commuting

24. Introduction Data Methods Results Future Work Conclusions Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Commuting

25. Introduction Introduction Data Data Methods Methods Results Results Future Work Conclusions Conclusions Future Work Conclusions • BF 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.

26. Introduction Data Methods Results Conclusions Future Work Results Uncertainty • Limited sample size (24 developments mostly in Midwest region) • Average metropolitan travel speeds • Average public transportation consumption impacts • National grid mix for public transportation electricity consumption calculation of GHG • Census tracts vs. actual development size • Carpooling could be greater than 2

27. Introduction Data Methods Results Conclusions Future 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 Source: http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1971

28. Introduction Data Methods Results Conclusions Future Work 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 transit • Design more spaces for fuel efficient vehicles or carpooling • Development Density & Community Connectivity c2 (Responsible for 19% (5/26) of available SS points) • Promote walking or biking to basic services Regional Priority Points

29. Introduction Data Methods Results Conclusions Conclusions Future Work Future Project Work • Possibly include additional cities with BF and GF developments to this commuting impact analysis • Conduct 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)

30. Acknowledgements Special Thank You to: • Business of Brownfields Conference organizers • Chris 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

31. 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

32. Questions or Comments? Thank you for your kind attention.