GHG Reductions from Location Efficient Development

CNUJune 13, 2009

Peter Haas

Center for Neighborhood Technology

• CNT is an “Urban Think & Do Tank” in Chicago– Been around over 30 years– Work in Transportation, Energy, Natural Resources

and Climate– Geographic Research and Information Department

has 10 people– CNT is the recipient of the 2009 MacArthur Award for

Creative & Effective Institutions

• We work closely with Reconnecting America and Strategic Economics in a partnership – Center for Transit Oriented Design, or CTOD

Outline

• GHG and Regional Growth Paper – CTOD Project for the FTA– How does a household save GHG emissions by

location choice?– How does this aggregate up to a specific transit

zone?– How can a region’s GHGs be reduced by encouraging

compact/infill development?

• Show off New Web Based Tool - Can every metropolitan region benefit from efficient development?

Household Transportation Model

• From the work with CTOD on the H+Tsm affordability index we have developed a model for that estimated household vmt, and how it is driven by different types of households in different locations.

• Major findings:• Location matters as much or more than

household make up• Higher density, more walkable, more access

to transit, and higher employment proximity results in lower auto use…

Household Auto Use

• Location Efficiency, a major driver:

4 Environment Variables:Households/residential acreAvg. block size in acresTransit Connectivity IndexIntegrated Job Proximity

4 Household Variables

Household income

Household sizeWorkers per Household Average time for Journey to work

Auto Ownership+

Auto Usage

Household Auto Use

• Auto ownership…

Autos per HH

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Residential Density

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

Au

tos

per

HH

�

��

��

�

��

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

���

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

�

�

�

��

��

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

� �

��

�

�

��

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

� �� �

��

��

� �

�

�

��

� �

��

�

��

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

0 50000 100000 150000 200000

Employment Density - Jobs/Square Mile

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

Au

tos

per

HH

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A AA

A A

AA

A A

A

AA

A

A

AAA A

A

AA

A

A AAA

A

Household Auto Use

• VMT

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Autos per HH

6000.00

8000.00

10000.00

12000.00

14000.00

16000.00

Mil

es D

riv

en/A

uto

M

M

M

M

MM M

M

M

M

MM

M

M

M

MM

M

M

0.0 2.0 4.0 6 .0 8 .0 10.0

Residential Density

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Mil

es D

riv

en/A

uto

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

MM

M

M

M

MM

MM

MM

M

M

M

MM M

M

M

MM

MM

MM

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

MM

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000

Employment Density

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Mil

es D

riv

en/A

uto

M

M

M

M

M

M

MM

M

MMM

M

MM

M

MMM

M MM

M MM

M

MM

Household GHG Emissions

• Looking at only CO2 from household transportation use• This represents approximately:

– Transport ~ 33% of all CO2

– HH Transportation is approximately 75% of all transport emissions– Therefore, 75%*33% = 25% of the total

• From the modeled VMT per household we estimate the GHG production:

• Where we assume 20.3 mpg and about 9 lbs/gallon for Ef

EfGas=CO

mpgvmt=Gas

*2

/

Strategy

• Look at how households in the various areas within the Chicago Metro vary their behavior

• Evaluate the value of that in terms of household transportation GHG emission

• See if different growth scenarios impact the regional total...

How Does this Add up?

Average Modeled

LocationResidential Density (Households per Residential Acre)

Transit Access (Walkable Transit Options)

Integrated Employment Proximity(Jobs/Sq Mile)

Block Size (Acres)

Annual HH VMT (Miles)

CO2e

Generated (Metric Tons)

Average location 10.34 4.96 56,824 16.6 12,801 5.60

Average location near fixed rail

17.4 8.83 85,206 9.3 10,874 4.75

Average location NOT near fixed rail 5.4 2.24 36,920 21.7 15168 6.63

Average suburban location 4.3 2.24 32,315 21.8 15,925 6.96

Average Suburban location near fixed rail 5.1 3.82 40,215 13.7 14,898 6.51

Average Suburban location NOT near fixed rail 4.0 1.63 29,228 25.0 16,365 7.15

Average Chicago location 12.0 10.67 108,445 5.6 9,875 4.32

Average Chicago location near fixed rail 27.9 13.14 123,884 5.4 9,310 4.07

Average Chicago locationNOT near fixed rail 12.2 5.22 74,317 5.8 11,766 5.14

Based on Chicago Metropolitan Area

Zonal Approach

• Look at transit zones and show that they tend to be location efficient but not always!

• Per Household Emissions

NameResidential Density (Households per Residential Acre)

Transit Access (Walkable Transit Options)

Integrated Employment Proximity(Jobs/Sq Mile)

Block Size (Acres)

Current HHsCO2/HH

Highest Location Efficient Transit Zones 61.7 97.7 671,546 3.4 1.86

High Location Efficient Transit Zones 30.4 25.6 171,750 4.1 3.57

High Medium Location Efficient Transit Zones 9.3 13.2 66,973 5.4 5.25

Medium Location Efficient Transit Zones 3.8 6.4 46,086 12.6 6.29

Low Location Efficient Transit Zones 4.5 1.7 41,088 9.2 6.65

Low Location Efficient Transit Zones 0.7 0.9 17,065 39.6 8.47

Based on Chicago Metropolitan Area

Zonal Approach

Based on Chicago Metropolitan Area

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Highest LocationEfficient Transit

Zones

High LocationEfficient Transit

Zones

High MediumLocation Efficient

Transit Zones

Medium LocationEfficient Transit

Zones

Low LocationEfficient Transit

Zones

Low LocationEfficient Transit

Zones

Household Transportation CO2

GHG Accounting

• So for transit zones that get developed into TODs the potential is there for the GHG emissions from that zone to actually go up!

Name Residential DensityNumber of HouseholdsCurrent HHs CO2e /HHCurrent HHsTotal CO2e

Highest Location Efficient Transit Zones 61.7 17,668 1.86 32,862

High Location Efficient Transit Zones 30.4 9,938 3.57 35,478

High Medium Location Efficient Transit Zones 9.3 3,434 5.25 18,028

Medium Location Efficient Transit Zones 3.8 1,390 6.29 8,740

Low Location Efficient Transit Zones 4.5 1,840 6.65 12,234

Low Location Efficient Transit Zones 0.7 251 8.47 2,123

Based on Chicago Metropolitan Area

Zonal Approach

Based on Chicago Metropolitan Area

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

Highest LocationEfficient Transit

Zones

High LocationEfficient Transit

Zones

High MediumLocation Efficient

Transit Zones

Medium LocationEfficient Transit

Zones

Low LocationEfficient Transit

Zones

Low LocationEfficient Transit

Zones

Zone Total Hh Tsp CO2

Regional Analysis

• However, as a region grows more efficiently the potential is for the entire region the GHG emissions will be less

• Since the per household emissions are being reduced, for the new households

• Case study – the Chicago metro region

Additional: Population Households Jobs

Region 1,958,715 728,907 1,237,550

Chicago 364,881 159,235 246,640

Suburbs 1,593,834 569,672 990,910

Opportunity

• How will these people and jobs distribute themselves in the next 30 year

• CMAP has modeled how that will happen

• But what if we could develop differently

• With TOD as a central goal we can develop different ways of developing

Current Situation

• Estimate of total GHG emissions from household auto use

Total Chicago Suburbs

Residential Density 8.1 hh/res acre 13.3 hh/res acre 4.3 hh/res acre

Integrated Employment Proximity 63,366 J/m2 98,300 J/m2 38,224 J/m2

Average Block Size 11.6 Acres 5.5 Acres 16.0 Acres

Transit Connectivity Index 5.3 8.8 2.8

Median Household Income $54,031/Year $40,217/Year $63,973/Year

Average Household Size 2.9 People 2.9 People 2.8 People

Average Household Workers 1.3 Workers 1.1 Workers 1.4 Workers

Average Time to Work 32.3 Min. 36.3 Min. 29.5 Min.

CO2/HH Local 6.3 4.9 7.4

Households (Census 2000) 2,906,900 1,063,052 1,843,848

Aggregate CO2

(CO2/HH Local * Households)18,313,470 5,208,955 13,644,475

Current Situation

Business as Usual

TOD with CMAP Suburban/Urban Growth Constraints

TOD with no Growth Constraints

Results of Different Growth Patterns

2000

2030

Business as Usual (BAU) TOD with Constraints TOD with no Constraints

VMT Total Region 40,727,112,911 48,521,240,467 46,738,979,153 45,726,469,387

Increase of VMT from 2000 7,794,127,556 6,011,866,242 4,999,356,476

CO2e (Metric Tons) 18,457,608 21,989,922 21,182,197 20,723,326

Increase in CO2e from 2000 3,532,314 2,724,590 2,265,718

CO2e Reduction from BAU807,724

(23%)1,266,596

(36%)

Results of Different Growth Patterns

2000

2030

Business as Usual (BAU) TOD with Constraints TOD with no Constraints

VMT Total Region 40,727,112,911 48,521,240,467 46,738,979,153 45,726,469,387

Increase of VMT from 2000 7,794,127,556 6,011,866,242 4,999,356,476

CO2e (Metric Tons) 18,457,608 21,989,922 21,182,197 20,723,326

Increase in CO2e from 2000 3,532,314 2,724,590 2,265,718

CO2e Reduction from BAU807,724

(23%)1,266,596

(36%)

Overall reduction of ~ 39% of 25% ~ 10% of all Regional GHGs!

H+Tsm Website and Two Views of Cities

• http://htaindex.cnt.org/ • Website initially developed as a

result of our work with the Brookings Institution’s Urban Markets Initiative.

• Looks at 55 metropolitan regions, from Ft. Wayne to New York City

• Striking how similar regions are…

Conclusions

• Location Efficient Development is a very important piece of GHG reductions

• Paper– Final Document in Peer Review at FTA– Currently developing this work with 3-5 more

regional case studies– Long term – build a web tool demonstrates these

reductions

• Improve H+T website to include all 337 metropolitan areas in US

For More Information

Dr. Peter HaasChief Research Scientist

Email – pmh@cnt.orgTwitter – pmh_cnt

Become a fan of Center for Neighborhood Technology on Facebook

Phone 773-269-4034

http://www.cnt.orghttp://htaindex.cnt.org