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
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




2
Conclusions
Future Work
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
3
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.”
Raw Material
Extraction
Disposal
Production/
Manufacturing
Use/Reuse/
Maintenance
4
Source: http://www.eiolca.net/
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.”
Raw Material
Extraction
Thinking Holistically...Cradle to Cradle
Disposal
Presentation
Focus
5
Source: http://www.eiolca.net/
Production/
Manufacturing
Use/Reuse/
Maintenance
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?
6
 Energy, emissions, etc
Introduction
Data
Methods
Results
Future Work
Conclusions
Commuting Research Scope
Metric
2 Travel Mode
Unit
Miles and
Kilometers
No. of Travelers
3 Travel Time
Minutes
4 Energy Impacts
MJ and MBTU
1 Distance to City Center
5 Greenhouse Gas Emission C02e
EIOLCA=Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment
EIA= Energy Information Administration
7
Source
Google Maps
US Census
US Census, Texas
Transportation
Institute
EIOLCA, EIA
EIOLCA, EIA
Introduction
Data
Methods
Results
Future Work
Conclusions
Brownfield and Greenfield Locations
Minneapolis, MN
Milwaukee, WI
Boston, MA
Pittsburgh, PA
Chicago, IL
Los Angeles, CA
Baltimore,
MD
St. Louis, MO
Houston, TX
88
Greenfield
Brownfield
Introduction
Data
Methods
Results
Future Work
Conclusions
US Census Hierarchical Structure
9
Source: Figure 2–3. Hierarchical Relationship of Census Geographic Entities http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf1.pdf
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)
10
Source: http://www.novoco.com/new_markets/resources/ct/
Introduction
Data
Methods
Results
Future Work
Conclusions
Distance to City Center
Distance to City Center (Miles)
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
PA 1 PA 2
11
IL 1
IL 2 MO 1 MO2 WI 1 WI 2 MD 1 MD 2 MN 1 MN 2
BF and GF Developments
Introduction
Data
Methods
Results
Future Work
Conclusions
US Census Transportation Mode Categories
Modes of
Transportation
Individual
Automobile
Drove
Alone
Carpooled
Public
Transportation
Bus/Trolley
Street car
/Trolley car
Subway
Railroad
Ferryboat
12
Taxicab
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Walked
Other
Introduction
Data
Methods
Results
Future Work
Conclusions
13
8
8
89
15
Individual Automobile
Individual Automobile
Commuting Modal Shares
15
57
Largest differences are in Individual Automobile, Public
Transportation and Walking categories
Introduction
Data
Methods
Results
Future Work
Conclusions
Travel Time by Mode Categories
Modes of
Transportation
Individual
Automobile
Public
Transportation
Drove
Alone
Bus/Trolley
Carpooled
Street car
/Trolley car
Subway
Railroad
Ferryboat
Taxicab
14
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Walked
Other
Two Travel Time Categories:
• Public Transportation
• Other
Introduction
Data
Methods
Results
Future Work
Conclusions
Average Travel Time to Work(One Way)
15
GF and BF similar average travel time across all modes
(28 min vs. 27 min)
Introduction
Data
Methods
Results
Future Work
Conclusions
Average Travel Time to Work(One Way)
16
GF and BF similar average travel time across all modes
(28 min vs. 27 min)
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
17
Introduction
Data
Methods
Results
Future Work
Conclusions
Individual Automobile Energy Impact





18
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
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
19
Introduction
Data
Methods
Results
Future Work
Annual Transit Agency Energy Type
Consumption Distribution
20
Conclusions
Introduction
Data
Methods
Results
Future Work
Conclusions
Public Transportation Annual Ridership
21
Introduction
Data
Methods
Results
Future Work
Conclusions
Pubic Transit Authorities Annual Energy
Impact Per Passenger
22
Introduction
Data
Methods
Results
Future Work
Conclusions
Total Energy Impacts from Commuting
23
Introduction
Data
Methods
Results
Future Work
Conclusions
Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Commuting
24
Introduction
Data
Methods
Results
Future
Conclusions
Work
Future
Conclusions
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.
25
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
26
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
27
Source: http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1971
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
28
Introduction
Data
Methods
Results
Conclusions
Future
Conclusions
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)
29
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
30
References
 (Census 2009) United States Census Bureau, 2000 Decennial Census,





31
http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en (Accessed August, 2009)
(GDI 2010) Carnegie Mellon University Green Design Institute. (2008) Economic InputOutput 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
Questions or Comments?
Thank you for your kind attention.
32