2. How Does Land Use Affect Transport?
The Five D’s
► Density – population and employment ratios
► Diversity
Ratio of Housing to Jobs
Demographics that tend to be dependant on transit
(age, income, available vehicles)
► Design – completeness and connectivity of
local pedestrian network (walkable places)
► Destinations – Accessibility to regional
activity centers.
► Distance – areas near transit
3. How do you affect GHG with
Land Use?
Theory:
► Good Land Use reduces VMT
► With VMT you have lower fuel consumption
► Lower Fuel Consumption =
Lower Carbon Emissions
► Not Necessarily!
4. Issues to Consider
► How much benefit can you get?
► Are there diminishing returns?
► Are there other positives?
► Are there some negatives?
6. CA Climate Change Legislation
The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Assembly Bill 32
7. California AB 32 Adopted Green House Gas
Reduction Estimates by Measures
8. Anticipating the Target
• Statewide reduction
5 million metric tons through
land use and transportation
planning by 2020
• Estimated SCAG portion
2.5 million metric tons
9. Adding local transit
quadrupled the top
priority areas from
123,000 acres to 534,000 acres
This lowered densities while
maintaining transit efficiency
10. Conceptual Land Use Scenario
• Maintains city and county forecasts for housing and jobs
• Focuses growth around transit corridors and stations
• Focuses new development in areas with planned capacity
-1.8
MMT
-2.4
MMT -2.6
MMT
13. Modeling the Scenarios
Owner Renter Year 2000
350,000
300,000 43%
250,000 57%
200,000
150,000
Vision 2030
100,000
50,000
48%
- 52%
SF Det SF Att MF SF Det SF Att MF
Year 2000 Vision 2030
Market Constraints Sustainability
Development Program Urban Design
Commercial Demand
Housing Needs
Land Use Scenario
Development
Transportation Analysis
Roadway Impact
Ridership
14. Building Types
Building Development Scenario Evaluation
Types Types Development
Prototype Groups of building Scenarios are created The Scenario
buildings are types are combined to by applying the Spreadsheet allows
created using the form Development Development Types you to examine a
ROI Model. Types. to the landscape whole host of
using the Scenario indicators about your
Example: The Main
Street development type Builder. scenario.
has mixed-use buildings,
townhomes and
apartments.
23. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
18,000,000
16,000,000
14,000,000
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
A
io B
r o C
na
a ri io D
e r o
Sc en na ar
i
Sc ce en
S
Sc
24. Trip Counts – Walk & Bike
2,000,000
1,800,000
1,600,000
1,400,000
1,200,000
Percent of Trips 1,000,000
800,000
19%
600,000
D
na
ri
o 400,000
e
Sc 19%
C 200,000
io
ar
Sc
en
17%
0
B
ar
io
A
B
rio
en
Sc
C
rio
11%
a
en a rio D
A
rio
io
en
ar
en 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Sc na a
Sc
Sc
e
Sc en
Sc
26. Transportation Emissions (CO2)
Tons of CO2 per Year
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
Fleet 1: 22.5 MPG, 0%
1,500,000 Electric
1,000,000 Fleet 4: 60 MPG, 20%
Electric or Renewable
Fuel
500,000
0
A B C D
io io i o i o
n ar n ar n ar ar
n
Sce Sce Sce Sce
27. Building Emissions (CO2)
Annual CO2 (ton/yr)
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000 Baseline
2,000,000 Best
1,000,000
0
A B C D
rio rio rio rio
na na na na
Sce Sce Sce Sce
28. Total Carbon Footprint
(Building and Transportation Emissions)
10,000,000
9,000,000
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000 Baseline
3,000,000 Best
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
A B C D
rio rio rio rio
na na na na
Sce Sce Sce Sce
30. The Original Homes for a
Changing Region Report
• Presented regional housing
forecast for 2030
• Forecast a mismatch
between supply and demand
• Provided specific
recommendations for
creating more housing
options
32. Carbon Footprint by Prototype
Carbon Footprint (in Tons of Annual CO2 Emissions Per Unit)
25
20
Tons of CO2
15
10
5
-
2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY 2-STORY TOWNHOUSE 3-STORY MULTIFAMILY 5-STORY MIXED-USE 8-STORY MULTIFAMILY
Standard Good Better
34. Plainfield – Carbon Footprint
Annual Carbon Footprint of Build-Out Alternatives (in tons of CO2)
250,000
211,322
200,000
38% reduction
150,000
130,695
50% reduction
106,457
100,000
50,000
-
Trend w ith Standard Buildings Balanced w ith Standard Buildings Balanced w ith Better Buildings
35. Density Does Not Always Lead to
Lower Carbon Footprint
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
R
FL
IL
A
AZ
O
C
,
i,
go
x,
d,
h,
m
ni
ca
an
ac
ia
oe
M
hi
Be
rtl
C
Ph
Po
o
d
on
ed
R
37. Good Place to do Density
Example:
Zupans Grocery store in
Portland, Oregon
Was the original
redevelopment project
in an up-and-coming
neighborhood
It served as an anchor
and catalyst for
additional housing
projects
43. Transit has a Carbon Footprint
► Transit has a Carbon Footprint
44. Fuel type, efficiency, and passenger load
are critical in determining carbon benefit
Transit must improve its carbon footprint
5 miles per gallon 50 miles per gallon
10 passengers 1 passenger
47. Conclusions
► Land use helps reduce carbon
But it is small contribution
Top concerns are vehicles, fuels, electricity generation, building
technology
► Increasing density DOES NOT reduce carbon emissions!!!
Design is more important
► The better cars and buildings get, the less benefit from
land use design
► Land use had carbon benefits outside vehicles
Better count it! We need all we can get!
Water consumption has a carbon effect too
48. Yes, it has a lower carbon footprint,
but primarily, it’s more liveable!